2020-08-04 City Council - Full Agenda-2632o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
V,j Hv REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
AUGUST 4, 2020, 7:00 PM
CITIZENS WHO WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AUDIENCE COMMENT PORTION OF THE
MEETING MAY CONNECT VIA ZOOM AT ANY POINT BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE AUDIENCE
COMMENT PERIOD. CITIZENS WILL SIT IN A VIRTUAL WAITING ROOM UNTIL THEIR TURN TO
SPEAK. WHEN THE CITIZEN ENTERS THE LIVE COUNCIL MEETING, THEIR TIME WILL BEGIN. THE
CLERK WILL BE THE TIME KEEPER AND PROVIDE A 30-SECOND WARNING AND A FINAL WARNING
WHEN THEIR TIME IS UP. THE CITIZEN WILL BE REMOVED AND THE NEXT SPEAKER WILL BE
ALLOWED IN.
CITIZENS MAY CONNECT WITH A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE AT:
HTTPS://ZOOM. US/S/4257752525
OR JOIN THE MEETING BY PHONE AT:
888 475 4499 (TOLL FREE) OR 877 853 5257 (TOLL FREE) MEETING ID 425 775 2525
CITIZENS NOT WISHING TO PARTICIPATE IN AUDIENCE COMMENTS MAY CONTINUE TO MONITOR
THE LIVESTREAM ON THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, CABLE TV, OR TELEPHONE BY
CALLING (712) 775-7270, ACCESS CODE 583224.
"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
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
5. PRESENTATION
1. John Reed Proclamation (5 min)
2. Second Quarter Finance Report (10 min)
Edmonds City Council Agenda
August 4, 2020
Page 1
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (HTTPS://ZOOM.US/S/4257752525)
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2020
2. Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport Contract Extension (10 min)
2. Approval of Sound Transit Funding Agreement for Citywide Bicycle Improvement Project (30
min)
3. Proposed Amendment to ECC 2.10.010 for Council review of appointive positions (20 min)
9. STUDY ITEMS
1. Update on Climate Goals Project (30 min)
2. Review of Council Code of Conduct (45 min)
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURN
12. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Agenda
August 4, 2020
Page 2
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/4/2020
John Reed Proclamation
Staff Lead: Mayor Nelson
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
John Reed, long-time ACE President and Edmonds' volunteer, passed away in March due to COVID-19.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
Mayor Nelson will read a proclamation honoring John for his many years of service to the Edmonds
Community.
Attachments:
John Reed Proclamation
Packet Pg. 3
O
��il C1�YYt �C�AQW
t II1�
City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor
Honoring John Reed
r_
O
WHEREAS: John Reed dedicated a couple of decades to the City of Edmonds volunteering
in various roles, and providing opinions about retaining citizens' voices to
E
promote a livable and community -oriented City; and
o
L
a -
WHEREAS: John Reed was an advocate for retaining Edmonds small-town, lower building
height atmosphere, and promoted that ideal through his position as President
of the Alliance for Citizen of Edmonds (ACE), a position he held for 13 years and
which he received recognition for earlier this year; and
WHEREAS: John Reed served for close to a decade on the City of Edmonds Planning Board
r
and dedicated his time to helping shape many policies regarding height
E
restrictions in the downtown area and was adamant about keeping the quasi-
o
judicial process which kept the voice of citizens local to their government; and
a
WHEREAS: John Reed helped people unfamiliar with City codes and ordinances understand
complex City issues; and
WHEREAS: John Reed also was instrumental in shaping the City of Edmonds Housing
Commission; and
WHEREAS: John Reed succumbed to COVID- 19 on March 29, 2020 and will be greatly missed
by many;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Michael Nelson, Mayor of Edmonds, along with the Edmonds City Council, do
hereby thank the Family of John Reed for his help and hard work in shaping Edmonds and proclaim
August 4t" as John Reed Day in Edmonds
and ask all Edmonds citizens to show their appreciation for John's endeavors on behalf of the
Edmonds community with a moment of silence.
000�04_
00OLO
ichael Nelson, Mayor I August 4, 2020
Packet Pg. 4
5.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/4/2020
Second Quarter Finance Report
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Sarah Mager
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
No action needed; informational only.
Narrative
Second Quarter Finance Report
Attachments:
August 4 Financial Report
Complete June Quarterly Financial Report
Packet Pg. 5
5.2.a
Finance Presentation
6 months ended June 30, 2020
Presented August 4, 2020
Packet Pg. 6
5.2.a
2020 Sales Tax Revenues
Sales Tax: receipted in
For Sales made in
January 2020
November 2019
February 2020
December 2019
March 2020
January 2020
April 2020
February 2020
May 2020
March 2020
June 2020
April 2020
July 2020
May 2020
August 2020
June 2020
September 2020
July 2020
October 2020
August 2020
November 2020
September 2020
December 2020
October 2020
0
U
Actual or
Estimate, as a
LL
Actual or
(Over) Under
Percentage of
Budgeted Revenue Estimated Receipts
Budget
Budget
$ 635,000
$ 692,248 $
(57,248)
109%
(Actual)
3
CY
800,000
847,349
(47,349)
106%
(Actual)
c
595,000
648,279
(53,279)
109%
(Actual)
m
r-
565,000
503,725
61,275
89%
(Actual)
a
730,000
500,196
229,804
69%
(Actual)
m
�a
666,000
570,127
95,873
86%
(Actual)
c
707,000
565,600
141,400
80%
(Estimate)
ii
785,000
588,750
196,250
75%
(Estimate)
730,000
511,000
219,000
70%
(Estimate)
a
748,000
523,600
224,400
70%
(Estimate)
c
m
789,000
552,300
236,700
70%
(Estimate)
700,000 490,000 210,000 70% (Estimate) Q
$ 8,450,000 $ 6,993,174 $ 1,456,826 83%
Packet Pg. 7
Amended Current Updated
Budget Forecast
Revenue
Property Taxes 14,850,148 14,850,000 100%
Retail Sales Taxes 8,450,000 7,000,000 83%
Other Sales Taxes 760,500 720,000 95% L
Utility Taxes 6,776,200 6,720,000 99% °Q
Other Taxes 343,740 320,000 93%
UpdatedLicenses/Permits/Franchise 1,585,130 1,485,000 94%
1 Construction Permits 675,600 676,000 100%
Grants 36,650 36,650 100%
State Revenues 910,410 960,000 105%GeneraFu nd Charges for Goods & Services 3,127,662 2,600,000 83% 3
Interfund Service Charges 3,290,838 3,040,000 92% CY
Fines & Forfeitures 542,940 320,000 59% 0
Forecast o r Miscellaneous Revenues 918,240 800,000 87°/0 �
Transfers 1,535,800 1,035,000 67%
Total Revenues 1 43,803,858 40,562,650 0
0) n 0) n Change in Revenues -7.4 °/a w
Expenditures
Labor
17,820,288
17,107,476
96%
Benefits
6,599,678
6,335,691
96%
ii
Supplies
519,786
524,984
101 %
y
Services
18,996,956
18,427,047
97%
a,
Capital
1,048,120
298,120
28%
Q
Debt Service
306,600
306,600
100%
Transfers
3,266,993
1,266,993
39%
48,558,421
44,266,912
Total Expenses
-8.8%
Change in Expenses
r
Q
Revenues minus Expenses (4,754,563) (3,704,262)
Beginning Fund Balance 19,050,690 19,050,690
Projected Ending Fund Balance $ 14,296,127 15,346,428 1 Packet Pg. 8
5.2.a
Sales Tax Revenues last 4 Quarters
Sales Tax Revenues
$900,000
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti pti oti oti 1 L L L L L t L cJ rt \L L eL \JL y�L etL etL etL e�L tJL �L rL \t A eL
>J�J ��5��pet�oQet�oet�oet��acJjJaatc P�i\�aJ,moo �o tJa at P�� �a ,Jo
Sales Tax Budget Sales Tax Actual
$5,000,000
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
Sales Tax Revenues
Jul -Dec 2018 Jan -Jun 2019 July- Dec 2019
■ Sales Tax Budget ■ Sales Tax Actual
Jan -Jun 2020
E
L
O
Q
NN�
m
:.i
LL
L
O
3
CY
C
O
L)
d
O
rL
d
d'
R
C
O
C
LL
r
a
C
d
E
t
v
O
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 9
5.2.a
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
REET Revenues last 4 Quarters
REET Revenues
w w
c i r-I
w
ci
w
r-I
w
r-I
w
-1
m
-q
m m m m
-1 -1 -1 c-I
m
ci
m m
ci r-I
m
ci
m
r-I
m
r-I
m
-i
o
N
0
N
0
N
0 0 0
N N N
O O
N N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O O O O
N N N N
O
N
O O
N N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O O O
N N N
O1
N
Ul
N
7
i L = cT
7 Q c
O1
T N
—'
N
N
UJ
w
i
i
7
L
_ cT N
j
E
E
f6
UD
a
8
a
f6
Q G
Q
a;
Q
o
v
o
v
v
U_
y
Q
o
v
o
v
v
g
U_
N
Z
O
N
Z
O
REET Budget
REET Actual
$2,000,000
$1,800,000
$1, 600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
REET Revenues
Jul -Dec 2018 Jan -Jun 2019 July - Dec 2019
■ REET Budget ■ REET Actual
II
Jan -Jun 2020
E
L
O
Q
N�
m
LL
L
3
CY
c
O
L)
d
r
L
O
rL
d
d'
R
c
c
LL
N
3
Q1
3
a
d
E
t
v
O
r
r
Q
Packet P9. 10
5.2.a
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
Parks Operating Expense Budget
last 4 Quarters
Parks Operating Expenses
w w w w w w m m m m m m m m m m m m O 0 0 0 0 0
, i r-I ci r-I r-I c I c I c I ci ci r-I c I ci r-I ci r1 i--1 c-I N N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
T N U1 dl N i i = cT N T N N N UJ N i L _ cT d!
0=0 E O 7 (6 Q c 110 E 7 7 (6 Q c
Q +0+ v N N Q r; u N N
O- O N LL O- O N L.L
N Z N Z 0
Parks Operating Budget Parks Operating Actual
Parks Operating Expenses
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
s-
Jul-Dec 2018 Jan - Jun 2019 July - Dec 2019
■ Parks Operating Budget ■ Parks Operating Actual
Jan - Jun 2020
L
O
Q
N�
m
:.i
LL
L
O
3
CY
C
O
L)
d
O
rL
d
R
C
O
C
LL
N
Q1
3
a
C
d
E
t
v
O
r
r
Q
Packet P9. 11
5.2.a
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
Police Expense Budget
last 4 quarters
Police Operating Expenses
w w w w w w m m m m m m m m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0
c i r-I ci r-I r-I c I c I c I c I ci r-I .--I .--I r1 c I "I "I i-i N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
T N N UJ O1 i L = T N T N N UJ UJ i i L _ T O1
°'° E 2 E E = � M Q 2- '10 E 2 E E � , M Q �
Q W U v v a U v
O- O N LL O- O N LL
N Z 0 N Z 0
Police Operating Budget Police Operating Actual
$6,300,000
$6,200,000
$6,100,000
$6,000,000
$5,900,000
$5,800,000
$5,700,000
$5,600,000
$5,500,000
$5,400,000
$5,300,000
Police Operating Expenses
Jul -Dec 2018 Jan -Jun 2019 July- Dec 2019
■ Police Operating Budget ■ Police Operating Actual
Jan -Jun 2020
0
LL
L
3
CY
C
O
L)
d
r
O
rL
d
R
C
C
LL
N
a
C
d
E
t
v
O
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 12
5.2.a
Fund Balance in the General Fund
Reserved and Unreserved
General Fund Operating Reserve = 16% of GF Operating Adopted Expenditure Budget
21
18
General Fund
15
& Subfunds
7.97
12
General Fund
Operating Reserve
- 9
Civic Field
6 $7.72
3
2.00
June 2020
E
L
0
0
o:
0
LL
L
L
V
0
0
0
cm
0
LL
2
0
a
0
E
0
r
r
a
Packet Pg. 13
5.2.a
Questions
r
Q
Packet Pg. 14
5.2.b
INSIDE THIS
ISSUE:
Revenues By Fund
Summary
Expenditures By
Fund Summary
General Fund
Revenues
Expenditures By
Fund Detail
Gen. Fund Depart-
ment Expenditures
Investment Portfolio
Fund Balance
Overview
Below: During the
first quarter of 2020 a
pandemic emerged,
threating the health
and economic vitality
of people around the
world.
1
Summary of Operating Funds: Revenues
2
6
32
9
The Financial Management Report is a summary of the City's
preliminary operating results for the six months ended June 30,2020.
Revenue Highlights:
• As we know, the coronavirus pan-
demic has had devastating effects
on the local and national economy,
with many area governments ex-
periencing revenue declines of
15% or more. Fortunately, Ed-
monds is faring better than most of
our neighbors. While overall City-
wide revenues are behind last
year's pace by $1.4 million, this
represents only a 3% decrease
compared to the same period last
year. (page 1).
• Collections of Retail Sales Taxes,
the City revenue most affected by
the pandemic, are only behind last
year at this time by $310,089, and
with collections of $3.8 million
y are only 5.7% behind the 2020
budget (page 3).
Above: The Edmonds City Council begins to meet
"virtually" to transact City business, in recognition
of a "Stay Home, Stay Healthy" order by Governor
Inslee. This allowed Councilmembers to attend
meetings from their home, office, or other place
away from Council Chambers.
General Fund revenues are lower than last
year at this time in the categories of Tax-
es; Intergovernmental revenues; Charges
for Goods and Services, Fines and Penal-
ties; and Other Miscellaneous revenues.
Revenues by Category: Real Estate sales remain strong. 2020
General Fund revenues for Q 1-2 REET Revenues for the first six months
2020 are higher than Q 1-2 2019 in are $20,990 (2%) ahead of budget.
the category of Licenses and Permits.
Considering the devastating effect the
Coronavirus has had on the regional and
national economies, Edmonds' revenue
situation is very favorable by comparison.
j ■ A more detailed breakdown of infor-
mation for City revenues can be found be-
ginning on page 3.
Preliminary Financial Management Report as of June 3Q- 2020
Packet Pg. 15
Summary of Operating Funds: Expenditures
• General Fund expenditures for the
six months ended June 30 are
I $3.7 million, or a full 15% under
Right:
the budgeted amount, a good sign
People wearing
I that the city will be able to live
masks when out in
public is becoming a
within its means during the cur -
common sight.
rent recession. By comparison, for
I the same period last year General
Fund expenditures were $1.5 mil-
lion, or 5% under budget.
IGeneral Fund expenses by sub -
fund and line item categories are
I on page 6 and expenses by depart-
ment are on pages 13-16. Every
department in the General Fund is
I reasonably at or near budget at
June 30, and the General Fund as
a whole has spent only 43% of
their annual budget. This same
Below: Angie Feser
information can be found in
was confirmed as
graphical form on pages 23-31.
the new Edmonds
Parks, Recreation
I
and Cultural Ser-
Special Revenue Funds during
vices Director in
the first half of the year have
February. Ms. Feser
I only spent 28% of their annual
had previously held
a similar position at
expense budget. This is partly
the City of
because most of our construc-
Sammamish. Her
tion work does not begin until
first day at Edmonds
late Spring or early Summer,
was April 1.
I but it is also a result of a major
capital project —Civic Field —
being put on hold until next year.
Congratulations
Additional Special Revenue Fund
Angie!
I expenditure information can be
found on pages 6-8.
Total fund balances for
the General Fund and Sub -
Washington Cities "Well City Award"
for the third year in a row at the
Healthy Worksite Summit in
Lynnwood.
• Enjoy virtual summer concerts, courte-
sy of the Hazel Miller Foundation and
the Edmonds Arts Commission:
HAZEL MILLER
VIRTUAL SUMMER
rn NIcFeron Band / Folk/Pop Reid gamieson Band 'AcousticJuly 19,10:30am & 4pm Aug 9,10:30am & 4July 21, 4pm Aug 11, 4pmJuly 23,4pm Aug 13,4pm
Ode / Children's Singer & Songwriter jasper Lepak / Folk SJuly 26,10:30am & 4pm Aug 16,10:30am & 4
July 28, 4pm Aug 18, 4pm
July 30, 4pm Aug 20, 4pm
i
I• Work is progressing on the Edmonds
Waterfront Center; Edmonds Parks
Department is looking forward to host- I
ing classes again:
funds at June 30, 2020 is
EDMOND RECREATION&CULTURAL SERVICES '
$17.7 million, or approxi-
mately 36% of the 2020 ex-
I
penditure budget for those
funds.
�TR�1
Other City Highlights
~�
• On March 20, Edmonds
received the Association of
WANTED
Edmonds Waterfront Center
220 Railroad Ave, Edmonds
Preliminary Financial Management Report as of June 3Q- 2020
Packet Pg. 16
I 5.2.b I
Page 1 of 1
C TTY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
2020 Amended
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
Amount
No.
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
%Receive,
001
GENERAL FUND
$ 43,803,858
$ 21,254,387
$ 19,628,003
$ 24,175,855
45
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
437,980
212,500
212,500
225,480
49
O l l
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND
-
-
-
-
0
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
56,140
-
-
56,140
0
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
5,230
2,500
2,500
2,730
48
017
MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND
-
280,187
-
-
0
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
165,390
6,565
63,538
101,852
38
Q
Ill
STREET FUND
1,912,768
915,431
918,085
994,683
48
(Y
112
COMBINED STREET CONSTAMPROVE 1
2,747,881
1,029,949
1,337,928
1,409,953
49
d
t�
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
263,576
33,549
25,592
237,984
10
C
C
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
750
321
227
523
30
LL
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
98,630
41,318
32,526
66,104
33
L
d
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
27,270
11,899
10,143
17,127
37
7
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
1,790
248
153
1,637
9
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
34,450
13,327
10,926
23,524
32
0
O
c�
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
1,436,090
684,983
650,150
785,940
45
N
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND
1,453,520
692,113
647,413
806,107
45
127
GIFTS CATALOG FUND
145,050
89,086
44,582
100,468
31
O
0.
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
184,610
106,412
71,936
112,674
39
W
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
6,390
2,688
1,871
4,519
29
c0
.5
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD
54,210
26,026
17,567
36,643
32
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
10,380
6,146
2,616
7,764
25
LL
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
79,209
55,330
41,616
37,593
53
>+
L
141
AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND
-
-
32,334
(32,334)
0
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
12,400
18,882
-
12,400
0
7
�y
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
738,400
53,388
47,291
691,109
6
332
PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND
9,638,306
571,231
576,652
9,061,654
6
C
3
411
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION
-
71,548
30,710
(30,710)
0
421
WATER UTILITY FUND 2
11,116,270
4,424,375
4,537,881
6,578,389
41
Q.
422
STORM UTILITY FUND 2
6,720,466
2,733,283
2,975,121
3,745,345
44
C
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 3
25,261,935
6,601,109
6,682,837
18,579,098
26
V
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,988,100
625,599
616,549
1,371,551
31
d
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
1,746,160
926,862
835,498
910,662
48
s
512
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND
1,202,963
552,522
600,752
602,211
50
w
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
72,620
51,708
53,140
19,480
73
Q
$ 111,422,792 $ 42,095,471 $ 40,708,636 $ 70,714,156 37
1 Differences primarily due to a large traffice impact fee in 2020.
2 Differences primarily due to a 4.5%increase in water rate, and a 9.5%increase in storm rate.
3 Differences due to contributed capital billings to WWTP partnersin 2020, as well as 5%increase in sewer rate.
1
Packet Pg. 17
I 5.2.b I
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
2020 Amended
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
Amount
No. Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
001 GENERAL FUND
$ 49,044,056
$ 21,172,989
$ 21,049,664
$ 27,994,392
430/
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
467,140
223,053
152,182
314,958
330i
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
5,900
5,533
- 5,900 00/
018
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
100,000
1,862
- 100,000 00/
019
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND
21,555
100,000
- 21,555 00/
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
45,800
-
25,966
19,834
570i
.-.
111
STREET FUND
2,199,717
1,015,201
1,128,111
1,071,606
5101
O
Q.
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
2,717,463
483,345
562,208
2,155,255
210r
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
243,880
12,502
12,359
231,521
501
V
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
128,250
36,521
29,348
98,902
230i
O
R
C
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
26,880
-
-
26,880
00/
jy
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
3,000
1,752
450
2,550
1501
L
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
33,900
7,659
2,223
31,677
70i
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
3,610,520
510,795
768,193
2,842,327
210i
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND
3,401,093
505,942
955,798
2,445,295
280/
Co
127
GIFT S CATALOG FUND
113,782
39,882
38,848
74,934
340/
c�
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
195,787
95,383
77,496
118,291
40°r
v
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
-
4,935
-
00/
0
CL
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
11,900
3,318
11
11,889
00/
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
80,510
34,040
33,697
46,813
420i
c0
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
12,400
-
12,400
00/
a
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
738,400
53,388
47,291
691,109
6°i
E
332
PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND
13,013,343
29,543
657,180
12,356,163
501
>+
L
421
WATER UTILITY FUND
12,809,352
4,613,073
4,878,748
7,930,604
380/
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
10,831,951
2,062,033
4,060,143
6,771,808
370i
7
CYy
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
32,767,560
4,636,355
5,674,797
27,092,763
170/
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,988,130
625,592
616,542
1,371,588
310i
C
7
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
3,170,398
851,714
439,356
2,731,042
140i
512
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND
1,454,784
468,592
540,328
914,456
370i
d
O.
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
78,700
97,548
45,056
33,644
570i
C
$ 139,316,151
$ 37,692,549
$ 419795,994
$ 97,520,157
300i
V
2
Packet Pg. 18
5.2.b
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2020 Amended 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received
TAXES:
1 REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 4
2 EMSPROPERTY TAX 4
3 VOTED PROPERTY TAX
4 LOCAL RETAIL SALESfUSE TAX 5
5 NATURAL GAS USE TAX
6 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST
7 ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
8 GASUTILITY TAX
9 SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX
10 WATERUTILITY TAX
11 SEWERUTILITYTAX
12 STORMWATER UTILITY TAX
13 T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX
14 TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
15 PULLTABSTAX
16 AMUSEMENT GAMES
17 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX
LIC INS ES AND PERMITS:
18 FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE
19 POLICE -FINGERPRINTING
20 AMUSEMENTS
21 VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION
22 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST
23 FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT
24 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER
25 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE
26 GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE
27 DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE
28 NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE
29 RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE
30 BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS
31 ANIMAL LICENSES
32 STREET AND CURB PERMIT
33 OTRNON-BUSLIC/PERMITS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
34 DOI 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST
35 WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT
36 TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT
37 DOCKSIE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE
38 HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT
39 ST AT E GRANT S - BUDGET ONLY
40 PUT) PRIVILEDGE TAX
41 ARCHIVES AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT
42 SCHOOL ZONE
43 MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION
44 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DOE
45 TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT
46 CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS
47 MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT
48 MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION
49 DUI - CITIES
50 LIQUOR EXCISE TAX
51 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS
52 VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS
53 FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND
54 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS TECHNOLOGY ACQ.
$ 10,737,617
$ 5,634,666
$ 5,253,558
$ 5,484,059
490%
4,112,031
2,178,500
2,051,232
2,060,799
500/(
500
119
13
487
30/(
8,450,000
4,072,013
3,761,924
4,688,076
450/(
7,600
6,468
4,048
3,552
530/c
760,500
385,060
372,180
388,321
490/(
1,684,800
983,768
970,402
714,398
580/(
579,600
383,777
430,775
148,825
740/(
348,800
175,304
183,318
165,482
530/(
1,148,400
516,780
415,329
733,071
360/( O
896,600
416,459
366,461
530,139
410/( d
471,900
220,604
210,737
261,163
450/(
822,200
397,588
403,384
418,816
490/, v
823,900
424,559
361,422
462,478
440/( C
55,200
30,413
33,660
21,540
610/( _
40
-
367
(327)
9170/( jL
280,900
139,010
147,475
133,425
530/(
31,180,588
15,965,086
14,966,286
16,214,302
485%
250
60
315
(65)
7
1260/( (+j
700
310
80
620
110/(
6,000
4,675
-
6,000
00/( C
50,000
12,478
915
49,085
20/( t�
682,200
336,861
343,270
338,930
5001( N
41,000
20,798
20,271
20,729
490/( "
100,600
49,632
39,115
61,485
390/( C
358,200
77,912
174,817
183,384
490/( M
116,300
69,030
115,594
706
99%
63,700
34,640
33,265
30,435
520/(
64,800
38,100
-
64,800
00/( v
13,500
13,460
-
13,500
00/( C
675,600
270,359
409,046
266,554
610/(
24,380
7,770
8,089
16,291
330/( jL
45,000
23,830
70,922
(25,922)
1580/( >,
18,500
10,965
8,468
10,032
460/( d
2,260,730
970,879
1,224,166
1,036,564
540% C
O
6,000
3,470
2,052
3,949
3
340/( (+J
-
2,285
-
-
0°/ d
4,000
1,852
-
4,000
00/( 3
-
2,805
559
(559)
00/(
7,100
-
-
7,100
00/, +;
18,000
-
-
18,000
00/(
210,500
-
-
210,500
00/( C
-
-
3,829
(3,829)
00/( O
-
-
825
(825)
00/( V
13,070
6,100
6,393
6,677
490/(
6,453
-
-
00/c N
16,740
8,594
8,076
8,664
48% E
45,600
22,004
22,946
22,654
5001( v
500
-
-
500
00/(
48,300
30,096
32,974
15,327
680/( Q
6,000
3,041
2,766
3,234
460/(
231,500
114,594
120,972
110,528
520/(
338,200
170,475
169,254
168,946
5001(
2,000
-
-
00/c
1,000
705
3,057
(2,057)
3060/(
550
-
-
550
00/(
947,060
374,473
373,701
573,359
390%
4 2020 Real Personal/Property Taxesare $(381,108) lower and EMS property taxesare $(127,268) lower than 2019 revenues.
5 2020 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $(310,089) lower than 2019 revenues. Please also seepages pages 18 & 19.
3
Packet Pg. 19
5.2.b
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL
FUND
2020 Amended
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
Amount
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
% Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
1 RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS
$ 3,000
$ 1,452
$ 2,218
$ 782
740/(
2 ATM SURCHARGE FEES
600
218
37
563
60/(
3 CREDIT CARD FEES
11,000
7,246
3,973
7,027
360/(
4 COURT RECORD SERVICES
300
74
7
293
20/(
5 D/M COURT REC SER
300
37
47
253
160/(
6 DRE REIMBURSEABLE
-
-
235
(235)
00/(
7 WARRANT PREPARATION FEE
11,000
5,936
2,161
8,839
200/(
8 IT TIME PAY FEE
1,000
733
382
618
380/(
9 MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN
100
158
13
87
130/(
10 SALE MAPS & BOOKS
100
32
9
91
90/(
11 CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKINGPERMITS
25,100
-
-
25,100
00/( O
12 BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT
600
-
-
600
00/c y
13 PHOTOCOPIES
1,000
471
373
627
370/(
14 POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS
500
-
-
500
00/, v
15 ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES
125,000
86,372
156,560
(31,560)
1250/( C
16 ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES
1,400
-
-
1,400
00/(
17 SNO-ISLE
85,000
47,079
47,873
37,127
560/( li
18 P ASSP ORT S AND NAT URALIZAT ION FEES
21,000
13,120
5,795
15,205
280/(
19 POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS
30,000
5,444
-
30,000
00/,
20 CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.
126,800
39,524
36,753
90,047
290/( 3
21 WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION
195,000
115,333
99,430
95,571
51% (�J
22 MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES
-
2
21
(21)
00/(
23 FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI
-
117
-
-
0% C
24 FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS
52,500
30,727
34,273
18,227
650/(
25 LEGAL SERVICES
1,050
1,049
325
725
310/( N
26 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE
45,000
22,585
19,272
25,728
43% v
27 BOOKINGFEES
3,000
1,722
1,448
1,552
48% C
28 FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES
10,000
9,100
12,579
(2,579)
1260/( O.
29 EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES
3,500
3,525
1,870
1,630
530/(
30 EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE
1,007,500
534,096
504,820
502,680
5001(
31 FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS
2,500
629
1,551
949
620/( c�
32 ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER
50
100
-
50
0°/ C
33 ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE
72,600
54,685
44,400
28,200
610/c
34 PLAN CHECKING FEES
375,900
311,975
147,519
228,381
39% jL
35 FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES
4,000
5,295
12,126
(8,126)
3030/, >,
36 PLANNING 1%INSPECTION FEE
500
-
-
500
00/c L_
37 S.E.P.A. REVIEW
5,000
3,850
1,480
3,520
300/(
38 CRITICAL AREA STUDY
14,000
8,975
9,212
4,788
660/,
39 DV COORDINATOR SERVICES
-
4,707
-
-
00/( (Y
40 GYM AND WEIGHT ROOM FEES
15,500
6,143
3,083
12,417
200/(
41 PROGRAM FEES 6
869,162
503,818
93,767
775,395
110/(
42 TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES
1,300
552
-
1,300
00/( d
43 WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES
5,000
1,100
1,110
3,890
220/( d
44 BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES
800
-
-
800
00/( C.
45 INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS
3,290,838
1,442,329
1,402,370
1,888,468
43% E
6,418,500
3,270,311
2,647,090
3,771,410
41% U
C
N
E
t
cv
r
Q
G 2020 Parks & Recreation Program Revenues are $(410,051) lower than 2019 revenues.
4
Packet Pg. 20 1
5.2.b
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2020 Amended 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received
FINES AND PENALTIES:
1 PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY
2 TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
3 NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION
4 CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)
5 NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
6 OTHERINFRACTIONS'04
7 PARKINGINFRACTION PENALTIES
8 PARK/INDDISZONE
9 DWI PENALTIES
10 DUI - DP ACCT
11 CRIM CNV FEE DUI
12 DUI - DP FEE
13 OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN
14 CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03
15 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT
16 CRIM CONV FEE CT
17 OTHER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN
18 OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03
19 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT
20 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN
21 CRIM CONV FEE CN
22 PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT
23 BANK CHARGE FOR CONY. DEFENDANT
24 COURT COST RECOUPMENT
25 BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY
26 MISC FINES AND PENALTIES
MISCELLANEOUS:
27 INVESTMENT INTEREST
28 INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES
29 INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS
30 SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS
31 BRACKET ROOM RENTAL
32 LEASESLONG-TERM
33 DONATION/CONTRIBUTION
34 PARKSDONATIONS
35 BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS
36 POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES
37 SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE
38 SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY
39 CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY
40 OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT
41 POLICE JUDGMENT SiRESTITUTION
42 CASHIERS OVERAGES/SHORTAGES
43 OTHER MISC REVENUES
44 SMALL OVERPAYMENT
45 NSF FEES - PARKS & REC
46 NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT
47 NSF FEE - DEVEL SERV DEPT
48 US BANK REBATE
TRANSFERS -IN:
49 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 511
50 TRANSFER FROM FUND 127
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE
$ 4,000 $
1,941 $
536 $
3,464
130/(
241,000
120,697
57,355
183,645
240/(
19,000
9,992
6,589
12,411
350/(
20,000
9,132
4,861
15,139
240/(
1,000
1,371
200
800
200/(
2,000
1,022
503
1,497
250/(
147,000
73,334
39,103
107,897
270/(
2,500
1,358
405
2,095
160/(
7,000
4,439
4,812
2,188
690/(
700
266
125
575
180/(
200
45
33
167
160/(
1,500
1,063
1,160
340
770/(
140
-
-
140
00/(
30,000
17,524
10,751
19,249
360/(
3,600
1,516
1,102
2,498
310/(
1,000
384
265
735
270/(
100
(2,792)
37
63
370/(
13,100
6,699
5,120
7,980
390/(
600
140
473
127
790/(
1,600
573
457
1,143
290/(
500
219
82
418
160/(
16,000
7,197
4,102
11,898
260/(
14,000
7,284
4,441
9,559
320/(
6,000
2,486
1,069
4,931
180/(
10,100
5,150
-
10,100
00/(
300
1,208
-
300
00/(
542,940
272,250
143,579
399,361
260%
399,400
180,170
130,726
268,674
330/(
53,440
15,918
8,925
44,515
170/(
50,950
4,661
4,246
46,704
80/(
153,000
58,641
19,641
133,359
130/(
2,100
1,210
380
1,720
180/(
205,000
100,882
75,559
129,441
370/(
22,500
3,473
160
22,340
10/(
3,500
350
920
2,580
260/(
2,000
820
535
1,465
270/(
5,000
7,618
100
4,900
20/(
300
68
-
300
00/(
3,000
1,392
-
3,000
00/(
2,000
-
-
2,000
00/(
2,000
3
1,344
656
670/(
200
389
208
(8)
1040/(
-
(162)
16
(16)
0°/
5,000
7,310
6,611
(1,611)
1320/(
100
40
18
82
180/(
100
-
-
100
00/(
150
108
107
43
720/(
-
30
(30)
00/(
8,500
5,348
5,754
2,746
680
918,240
388,238
255,281
662,959
289%
1,500,000 - - 1,500,000 00
35,800 13,150 17,900 17,900 5001(
1,535,800 13,150 17,900 1,517,900 ION
$ 43,803,858 $ 21,254,387 $ 199628,003 $ 24,175,855 450%
5
Packet Pg. 21
I 5.2.b I
Page 1 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2020 Amended
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 17,066,688
$ 7,789,352
$ 8,216,712
$ 8,849,976
48
2 OVERTIME
491,580
412,940
271,204
220,376
55
3 HOLIDAY BUY BACK
262,020
7,053
1,450
260,570
1
4 BENEFITS
6,599,678
3,060,818
3,142,267
3,457,411
48
5 UNIFORMS
90,975
56,064
58,130
32,845
64
6 SUPPLIES
428,811
246,679
239,376
189,435
56
7 SMALL EQUIPMENT
161,262
95,121
57,597
103,665
36
8 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
15,407,641
6,573,386
6,290,476
9,117,165
41
9 COMMUNICATIONS
169,795
65,693
72,064
97,731
42
10 TRAVEL
78,580
41,570
5,065
73,515
6
11 EXCISE TAXES
6,500
1,481
5,244
1,256
81
12 RENTAL/LEASE
1,825,110
926,590
901,636
923,474
49
13 INSURANCE
394,124
436,448
393,746
378
100
14 UTILITIES
531,525
235,466
231,236
300,289
44
15 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
297,010
282,324
339,062
(42,052)
114
16 MISCELLANEOUS
526,991
234,402
222,030
304,961
42
17 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS
75,000
75,000
75,000
-
100
18 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
3,266,993
625,579
449,033
2,817,960
14
19 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
57,173
-
9,053
48,120
16
20 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
1,000,000
-
1,000,000
0
21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
168,850
-
168,850
0
22 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
500
-
-
500
0
23 INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT
137,250
7,023
69,285
67,965
50
49,044,056
S 21,172,989
S 21,049,664
S 27,994,392
43
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE(009)
24 BENEFITS
$
206,650
$
83,875
$
94,966
$
111,684
46
25 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
252,990
138,543
51,424
201,566
20
26 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
7,000
180
5,793
1,207
83
27 MISCELLANEOUS
500
455
-
500
0
467,140
S
223,053
S
152,182
314,958
33
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUT FUND (0 14)
28 SUPPLIES
$
100
$
-
$
$
100
0
29 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200
-
200
0
30 MISCELLANEOUS
5,600
5,533
5,600
0
5,900
5,533
S
5,900
0
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSEFUND (018)
31 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
100,000
$
1,862
$
$
100,000
0
100,000
1,862
100,000
0
EDMO NDS O PIO ID RES PO NS E FUND (019)
32 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
$
21,555
$
100,000
$
-
$
21,555
0
21,555
100,000
s
21,555
0
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND (104)
33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
45,000
$
-
$
-
$
45,000
0
34 REPAIR/MAINT
800
800
0
35 MISCELLANEOUS
-
25,966
(25,966)
0
45,800
25,966
19,834
57
6
Packet Pg. 22
5.2.b
Page 2 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Title
2020 Amended
Budget
6/30/2019
Expenditures
6/30/2020
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
STREETFUND (111)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$
723,081
$
274,983
$
334,182
$ 388,899
46
2 OVERTIME
18,400
31,514
22,058
(3,658)
120
3 BENEFITS
309,539
129,336
161,035
148,504
52
4 UNIFORMS
6,000
3,278
3,781
2,219
63
5 SUPPLIES
263,000
136,340
97,720
165,280
37
6 SMALL EQUIPMENT
20,000
1,008
684
19,316
3
7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
27,930
6,101
1,246
26,684
4
8 COMMUNICATIONS
4,500
3,161
4,237
263
94
9 TRAVEL
1,000
-
-
1,000
0
10 RENTAL/LEASE
230,450
133,324
114,398
116,052
50
11 INSURANCE
145,219
156,514
156,937
(11,718)
108
12 UTILITIES
280,918
122,419
130,919
149,999
47
13 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
52,000
15,272
22,160
29,840
43
14 MISCELLANEOUS
13,000
1,662
2,841
10,159
22
15 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
100,000
-
75,658
24,342
76
16 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL
4,170
-
-
4,170
0
17 INTEREST
510
289
255
255
50
$
2,199,717
$
1,015,201
$
1,128,111
$ 1,071,606
51
COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112)
18 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
586,130
$
189,340
$
97,132
$ 488,998
17
19 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
163,028
6,405
170,234
(7,206)
104
20 MISCELLANEOUS
-
-
8
(8)
0
21 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
40,140
40,318
40,121
19
100
22 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
1,853,975
172,767
180,559
1,673,416
10
23 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
72,220
72,201
72,201
19
100
24 INTEREST
1,970
2,313
1,952
18
99
$
2,717,463
$
483,345
$
562,208
$ 2,155,255
21
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117)
25 SUPPLIES
$
4,700
$
521
$
102
$ 4,598
2
26 SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,700
-
(199)
1,899
-12
27 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
228,500
9,284
10,995
217,506
5
28 TRAVEL
80
6
-
80
0
29 RENTAL/LEASE
2,000
-
2,000
0
30 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
300
-
-
300
0
31 MISCELLANEOUS
6,600
2,691
1,461
5,139
22
$
243,880
$
12,502
$
12,359
$ 231,521
5
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND (12 0)
32 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
92,487
$
33,938
$
26,848
$ 65,639
29
33 MISCELLANEOUS
6,763
583
500
6,263
7
34 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
4,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
50
35 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
25,000
-
-
25,000
0
$
128,250
$
36,521
$
29,348
$ 98,902
23
EMPLO YEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121)
36 SUPPLIES
$
1,790
$
-
$
-
$ 1,790
0
37 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
25,090
25,090
0
$
26,880
$
-
$
-
$ 26,880
0
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122)
38 MISCELLANEOUS
$
3,000
$
1,752
$
450
$ 2,550
15
$
3,000
$
1,752
$
450
$ 2,550
15
TO URISM PRO MO TIO NAL FUND/ARTS (123)
39 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
33,900
$
5,915
$
2,223
$ 31,677
7
40 MISCELLANEOUS
-
1,744
-
-
0
$
33,900
$
7,659
$
2,223
$ 31,677
7
7
Packet Pg. 23
I 5.2.b I
Page 3 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2020 Amended 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 Amount
Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125)
1 SUPPLIES
$ 21,000 $
37,843 $
13,815
$ 7,185
66
2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
479,831
100,082
153,982
325,849
32
3 RENTAL/LEASE
-
381
-
-
0
4 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
176,176
38,843
202,361
(26,185)
115
5 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
620
-
-
620
0
6 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
2,932,893
333,646
398,035
2,534,858
14
$ 3,610,520 $
510,795 $
768,193
$ 2,842,327
21
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS AC Q (126)
7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
9 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
10 LAND
11 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
12 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
13 INTEREST
GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127)
14 SUPPLIES
15 SMALL EQUIPMENT
16 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
17 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
18 MISCELLANEOUS
19 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
C EMEIERY MAINTENANC ETW RO VEMENT (130)
20 SALARIES AND WAGES
21 OVERTIME
22 BENEFIT S
23 UNIFORMS
24 SUPPLIES
25 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
26 SMALL EQUIPMENT
27 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
28 COMMUNICATIONS
29 TRAVEL
30 RENTAL/LEASE
31 UTILITIES
32 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
33 MISCELLANEOUS
PARKS TRUSTFUND (136)
34 SMALL EQUIPMENT
SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138)
35 SUPPLIES
36 TRAVEL
37 MISCELLANEOUS
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140)
38 SUPPLIES
39 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
40 MISCELLANEOUS
LID FUND CONTROL (211)
41 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231)
42 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
43 INTEREST
$ 883,267 $
63,679 $
482,771
400,496
55
95,963
23,409
171,880
(75,917)
179
142,736
14,013
12,963
129,774
9
300,000
-
-
300,000
0
1,951,937
403,161
286,700
1,665,237
15
24,220
-
-
24,220
0
2,970
1,680
1,484
1,486
50
$ 3,401,093 $
505,942 $
955,798
$ 2,445,295
28
$ 48,882 $
24,301 $
20,780 $
28,102
43
-
574
-
-
0
6,500
-
6,500
0
22,000
1,858
-
22,000
0
600
-
168
432
28
35,800
13,150
17,900
17,900
50
$ 113,782 $
39,882 $
38,848 $
74,934
34
$ 97,476 $
45,255 $
40,909 $
56,567
42
3,500
2,816
176
3,324
5
42,029
20,855
18,274
23,755
43
1,000
225
-
1,000
0
7,000
697
405
6,595
6
20,000
8,771
8,306
11,694
42
-
1,246
-
-
0
4,200
866
-
4,200
0
1,700
929
840
860
49
500
-
-
500
0
8,230
3,130
4,115
4,115
50
5,652
1,815
2,146
3,506
38
500
-
-
500
0
4,000
8,777
2,325
1,675
58
$ 195,787 $
95,383 $
77,496 $
118,291
40
$ - $ 4,935 $ - $ - 0
$ $ 4,935 $ - $ 0
$ 1,500 $ 68 $ 11 $ 1,489 1
4,500 2,705 - 4,500 0
5,900 544 5,900 0
$ 11,900 $ 3,318 $ 11 $ 11,889 0
$ 11,850 $
4,760 $
9,439 $
2,411 80
66,035
28,331
24,169
41,866 37
2,625
950
90
2,535 3
80,510 S
34,040
33,697
46,813 42
$ 12,400 $ $ - $ 12,400 0
$ 12,400 $ $ $ 12,400 0
$ 643,810 $ - $ - $ 643,810 0
94,590 53,388 47,291 47,299 50
$ 738,400 $ 53,388 $ 47,291 $ 691,109 6
Packet Pg. 24
I 5.2.b I
Page 4 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2020 Amended 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332)
1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$ 323,349
$ 12,915
$ 196,504
$ 126,845
61
2 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
112,920
-
-
112,920
0
3 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
12,577,074
16,627
460,676
12,116,398
4
$ 13,013,343
$ 29,543
$ 657,180
$ 12,356,163
5
WATER FUND (421)
4 SALARIES AND WAGES
5 OVERTIME
6 BENEFIT S
7 UNIFORMS
8 SUPPLIES
9 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE
10 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
11 SMALL EQUIPMENT
12 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
13 COMMUNICATIONS
14 TRAVEL
15 EXCISE TAXES
16 RENTAL/LEASE
17INSURANCE
18 UTILITIES
19 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
20 MISCELLANEOUS
21 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
22 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
23 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
24 REVENUE BONDS
25 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
26 INTEREST
STORM FUND (422)
27 SALARIES AND WAGES
28 OVERTIME
29 BENEFIT S
30 UNIFORMS
31 SUPPLIES
32 SMALL EQUIPMENT
33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
34 COMMUNICATIONS
35 TRAVEL
36 EXCISE TAXES
37 RENTAL/LEASE
38 INSURANCE
39 UTILITES
40 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
41 MISCELLANEOUS
42 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
43 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
44 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
45 REVENUE BONDS
46 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
47 INTEREST
$ 845,871 $
390,865
$ 402,240
$ 443,631
48
24,000
11,987
9,575
14,425
40
363,882
181,401
161,964
201,918
45
4,000
2,029
2,343
1,657
59
150,000
32,658
51,533
98,467
34
2,170,000
770,160
817,594
1,352,406
38
170,000
32,277
89,435
80,565
53
11,000
4,856
4,940
6,060
45
1,753,804
424,355
611,538
1,142,266
35
30,000
12,628
14,942
15,058
50
200
-
-
200
0
1,649,700
728,049
626,900
1,022,800
38
133,158
76,514
65,271
67,887
49
52,865
55,096
52,541
324
99
35,775
14,170
14,686
21,089
41
75,830
15,511
19,039
56,791
25
131,400
62,471
74,573
56,827
57
650,870
206,313
204,067
446,803
31
3,946,207
1,452,719
1,523,822
2,422,385
39
2,800
-
-
2,800
0
370,960
-
-
370,960
0
25,840
25,839
25,839
1
100
211,190
113,174
105,907
105,283
50
$ 12,809,352 $
4,613,073
$ 4,878,748
$ 7,930,604
38
$ 728,080 $
344,031
$ 304,908
$ 423,172
42
6,000
27,971
7,892
(1,892)
132
334,154
178,099
143,019
191,135
43
6,500
4,872
5,369
1,131
83
46,000
17,193
14,419
31,581
31
4,000
3,653
684
3,316
17
3,047,970
560,718
865,877
2,182,093
28
3,200
2,347
3,230
(30)
101
4,300
-
-
4,300
0
470,100
256,430
249,247
220,853
53
270,830
122,014
136,841
133,989
51
118,263
127,548
116,576
1,687
99
11,025
5,698
6,061
4,964
55
116,183
10,053
13,181
103,002
11
158,100
82,141
84,291
73,809
53
282,550
80,083
78,897
203,653
28
4,758,296
145,156
1,915,305
2,842,991
40
102,030
-
-
102,030
0
181,210
-
-
181,210
0
60,760
32,063
53,576
7,184
88
122,400
61,964
60,769
61,631
50
$ 10,831,951 $
2,062,033
$ 4,060,143
$ 6,771,808
37
9
Packet Pg. 25
I 5.2.b I
Page 5 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2020 Amended
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
SEWER FUND (423)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 1,953,719
$ 881,373
$ 973,322
$ 980,397
50
2 OVERTIME
95,000
48,806
49,928
45,072
53
3 BENEFITS
854,294
379,540
417,447
436,847
49
4 UNIFORMS
9,500
5,085
6,645
2,855
70
5 SUPPLIES
421,000
129,464
175,318
245,682
42
6 FUEL CONSUMED
60,000
16,382
10,335
49,665
17
7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE
4,000
-
-
4,000
0
8 SMALL EQUIPMENT
35,000
8,005
20,089
14,911
57
9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,286,406
579,843
1,314,151
972,255
57
10 COMMUNICATIONS
43,000
18,492
21,087
21,913
49
11 TRAVEL
5,000
32
-
5,000
0
12 EXCISE TAXES
978,000
532,529
459,832
518,168
47
13 RENTAL/LEASE
311,966
181,606
167,514
144,452
54
14 INSURANCE
182,121
184,604
174,140
7,981
96
15 UTILITIES
1,540,685
609,856
420,944
1,119,741
27
16 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
745,630
183,319
123,903
621,727
17
17 MISCELLANEOUS
127,650
48,500
48,123
79,527
38
18 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
7,197,114
339,196
445,070
6,752,044
6
19 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
-
-
76,610
(76,610)
0
20 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
15,438,495
291,951
576,192
14,862,303
4
21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
154,660
-
-
154,660
0
22 REVENUE BONDS
82,840
-
-
82,840
0
23 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
173,210
157,991
158,325
14,885
91
24 INTEREST
68,270
37,239
33,421
34,849
49
25 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
-
2 543
2 399
(2 399)
0
$ 32,767,560 $ 4,636,355 $ 5,674,797 $ 27,092,763 17
BOND RESERVE FUND (424)
26 REVENUE BONDS $ 755,020 $ - $ - $ 755,020 0
27 INTEREST 1,233,110 625,592 616,542 616,568 50
$ 1,988,130 $ 625,592 $ 616,542 $ 1,371,588 31
ly
10
Packet Pg. 26
5.2.b
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF EDMO
NDS
EXPENDITURES
BY FUND - DETAIL
2020 Amended
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
1 SALARIES AND WAGES
$
266,952
$
130,303
$ 137,363
$
129,589
51
2 OVERTIME
2,000
8,081
824
1,176
41
3 BENEFITS
112,598
56,904
57,102
55,496
51
4 UNIFORMS
1,000
1,060
797
203
80
5 SUPPLIES
130,000
61,065
38,053
91,947
29
6 FUEL CONSUMED
1,000
-
-
1,000
0
7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
243,000
71,135
73,955
169,045
30
8 SMALL EQUIPMENT
58,000
1,689
279
57,721
0
9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
46,750
701
1,750
45,000
4
10 COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
1,098
1,182
1,818
39
11 TRAVEL
1,000
255
-
1,000
0
O
12 RENTAL/LEASE
12,750
6,862
6,115
6,635
48
d
13 INSURANCE
27,848
30,167
40,270
(12,422)
145
14 UTILITIES
14,500
7,920
8,231
6,269
57
v
15 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
60,000
10,471
24,237
35,763
40
16 MISCELLANEOUS
12,000
7,902
7,225
4,775
60
O
C
17 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
1,500,000
-
-
1,500,000
0
jL
18 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
678,000
456,103
41,970
636,030
6
$
3,170,398
$
851,714
$ 439,356
$
2,731,042
14
TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND (512)
19 SALARIES AND WAGES
$
369,264
$
141,592
$ 139,912
$
229,352
38
(+J
20 OVERTIME
2,000
60
-
2,000
0
21 BENEFITS
124,590
48,438
47,519
77,071
38
O
22 SUPPLIES
5,000
1,738
1,443
3,557
29
v
O
23 SMALL EQUIPMENT
137,700
28,851
38,941
98,759
28
N
24 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
309,810
6,551
47,998
261,812
15
25 COMMUNICATIONS
58,770
31,450
35,795
22,975
61
O
26 TRAVEL
1,500
353
207
1,293
14
Q'
O
27 RENTAL/LEASE
7,490
2,419
2,245
5,245
30
28 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
367,660
148,442
216,004
151,656
59
29 MISCELLANEOUS
5,000
1,124
10,264
(5,264)
205
w
30 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
66,000
57,571
-
66,000
0
c=C
$
1,454,784
$
468,592
$ 540,328
$
914,456
37
FIRIMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
LL
31 BENEFITS
$
23,000
$
9,933
$ 12,834
$
10,166
56
L
32 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
54,500
87,615
31,215
23,285
57
33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,200
-
1,007
193
84
c6
$
78,700
$
97,548
$ 45,056
$
33,644
57
cy
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS
$
139,316,151
$
37,692,549
$ 41,795,994
$
97,520,157
30
4)
C
11
Packet Pg. 27
5.2.b
Page 1 of 1
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDPTURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
2020 Amended 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 Amount
Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining
CITY COUNCIL
OFFICE OF MAYOR
HUMAN RESOURCES
MUNICIPAL COURT
CITY CLERK
FINANCE
CITY ATTORNEY
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
POLICE SERVICES
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PARKS& RECREATION
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
% Spent
$ 418,912 $
206,635 $
160,080 $
258,832
38%
306,685
146,522
169,276
137,409
55%
740,691
289,770
335,262
405,429
45%
1,138,771
481,931
507,527
631,244
45%
726,962
343,911
378,904
348,058
52%
1,289,583
612,381
795,796
493,787
62%
Q.
912,540
415,167
431,895
480,645
47%
N
W
15,322,110
6,729,909
6,488,886
8,833,224
42%
N
M
11,951,730
5,802,457
5,628,905
6,322,825
47%
LL
761,493
270,544
258,279
503,214
34%
3,582,847
1,357,577
1,370,746
2,212,101
38%
two
4,594,969
1,882,379
1,756,039
2,838,930
38%
3,538,610
1,547,622
1,592,543
1,946,067
45%
p
3,758,153
1,086,185
1,175,527
2,582,626
31%
c�
N
$ 49,044,056 $
21,172,989 $
21,049,664 $
27,994,392
43%
t+
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
Title
2020 Amended
Budget
6/30/2019
Expenditures
6/30/2020
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND
$ 12,809,352
$ 4,613,073
$ 4,878,748
$ 7,930,604
38%
STORM UTILITY FUND
10,831,951
2,062,033
4,060,143
6,771,808
37%
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
32,767,560
4,636,355
5,674,797
27,092,763
17%
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,988,130
625,592
616,542
1,371,588
31%
$ 58,396,993
$ 11,937,053
$ 15,230,229
$ 43,166,764
26%
12
Packet Pg. 28
Page 1 of 4
C ITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Title
2020 Amended
Budget
6/30/2019
Expenditures
6/30/2020
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES
$
191,224
$
88,782
$
94,397
$
96,827
49%
OVERTIME
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
BENEFITS
95,736
48,514
49,012
46,724
51%
SUPPLIES
2,500
760
1,484
1,016
59%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
342
-
1,000
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
62,160
52,576
3,377
58,783
5%
COMMUNICATIONS
5,000
2,764
4,372
628
87%
TRAVEL
17,500
1,918
587
16,913
3%
RENTAL/LEASE
12,292
6,096
6,160
6,133
50%
REPAIRS✓MAINTENANCE
500
121
645
(145)
129%
MISCELLANEOUS
30,000
4,762
48
29,952
0%
$
418,912
$
206,635
$
160,080
$
258,832
38%
OFFICEOFMAYOR
SALARIES
$
222,432
$
107,883
$
112,214
S
110,218
50%
BENEFITS
54,043
26,742
43,096
10,947
80%
SUPPLIES
1,500
367
539
961
36%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
-
-
4,199
(4,199)
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,000
1,600
420
2,580
14%
COMMUNICATION
1,400
491
614
786
44%
TRAVEL
3,000
1,964
153
2,847
5%
RENTAL/LEASE
16,860
6,278
7,929
8,931
47%
MISCELLANEOUS
4,450
1,197
113
4,337
3%
$
306,685
$
146,522
$
169,276
$
137,409
55%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES
$
356,658
$
176,956
$
184,123
$
172,535
52%
OVERTIME
-
118
1,012
(1,012)
0%
BENEFITS
142,458
50,064
72,443
70,015
51%
SUPPLIES
18,556
2,136
3,334
15,222
18%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
300
-
893
(593)
298%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
136,471
30,023
28,951
107,520
21%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,550
507
737
813
48%
TRAVEL
1,000
309
500
500
50%
RENTAL/LEASE
31,921
12,399
15,318
16,603
48%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
8,380
7,571
7,832
548
93%
MISCELLANEOUS
43,397
9,686
20,120
23,277
46%
$
740,691
$
289,770
$
335,262
$
405,429
45%
MUNIC IPAL C O URT
SALARIES
$
647,030
$
291,352
$
315,034
$
331,996
49%
OVERTIME
800
367
70
730
9%
BENEFITS
223,319
98,805
117,462
105,857
53%
SUPPLIES
10,600
1,471
2,545
8,055
24%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
5,155
-
1,000
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
124,925
36,792
27,342
97,583
22%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,550
1,195
1,100
2,450
31%
TRAVEL
6,500
1,432
37
6,463
1%
RENTAL/LEASE
67,947
32,027
34,323
33,624
51%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
4,880
277
645
4,235
13%
MISCELLANEOUS
25,100
13,057
8,970
16,130
36%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
23,120
23,120
0%
$
1,138,771
$
481,931
$
507,527
$
631,244
45%
13
Packet Pg. 29 1
I 5.2.b I
Page 2 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2020 Amended
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 376,214
$ 175,343
$ 204,825
$ 171,389
54%
BENEFITS
156,718
77,214
82,450
74,268
53%
SUPPLIES
10,240
1,106
2,412
7,828
24%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
-
-
1,003
(1,003)
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
37,410
10,931
12,548
24,862
34%
COMMUNICATIONS
40,000
15,824
4,100
35,900
10%
TRAVEL
2,000
465
6
1,994
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
63,850
24,414
26,396
37,454
41%
REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
32,530
33,184
41,791
(9,261)
128%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,000
5,430
3,372
4,628
42%
$ 726,962
$ 343,911
$ 378,904
$ 348,058
52%
FINANCE
SALARIES
$
870,882
$
400,451
$
571,613
$
299,269
66%
OVERTIME
4,500
-
-
4,500
0%
BENEFITS
289,923
135,482
145,316
144,607
50%
SUPPLIES
7,350
2,912
2,371
4,979
32%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
2,650
579
-
2,650
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
9,300
349
56
9,244
1%
COMMUNICATIONS
2,000
557
422
1,578
21%
TRAVEL
3,100
2,055
-
3,100
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
50,048
24,727
29,485
20,563
59%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
41,480
42,499
43,963
(2,483)
106%
MISCELLANEOUS
8,350
2,770
2,571
5,779
31%
$
1,289,583
$
612,381
$
795,796
$
493,787
62%
CITY ATPO RNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$
912,540
$
415,167
$
431,895
$
480,645
47%
$
912,540
$
415,167
$
431,895
$
480,645
47%
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES
$
101,750
$
-
$
-
$
101,750
0%
BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT
50,000
22,812
335
49,665
1%
SUPPLIES
5,000
2,371
3,818
1,182
76%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11,009,120
5,503,208
5,402,245
5,606,875
49%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
1,481
5,244
1,256
81%
RENTAL/LEASE
15,249
6,393
8,048
7,201
53%
INSURANCE
394,124
436,448
393,746
378
100%
MISCELLANEOUS
91,774
49,596
82,133
9,641
89%
CONTRIBUTION TO ECA
75,000
75,000
75,000
-
100%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
3,266,993
625,579
449,033
2,817,960
14%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
168,850
-
-
168,850
0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT
137,250
7,023
69,285
67,965
50%
FISCAL AGENT FEES
500
-
-
500
0%
$
15,322,110
$
6,729,909
$
6,488,886
$
8,833,224
42%
14
Packet Pg. 30
I 5.2.b I
Page 3 of 4
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2020 Amended
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PO LIC E S ERVIC ES
SALARIES
$ 6,968,887
$ 3,295,695
$ 3,363,209
$ 3,605,678
48%
OVERTIME
461,280
387,284
250,881
210,399
54%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK
262,020
7,053
1,450
260,570
1%
BENEFITS
2,769,042
1,309,612
1,340,247
1,428,795
48%
UNIFORMS
80,750
47,774
42,547
38,203
53%
SUPPLIES
90,500
61,406
54,286
36,214
60%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
127,739
82,267
42,668
85,071
33%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
224,548
81,328
85,088
139,460
38%
COMMUNICATIONS
36,000
18,782
21,541
14,459
60%
TRAVEL
29,310
20,206
2,393
26,917
8%
RENTAL/LEASE
826,124
458,318
409,476
416,648
50%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
15,180
3,828
2,123
13,058
14%
MISCELLANEOUS
60,350
28,905
12,995
47,355
22%
$ 11,951,730
$ 5,802,457
$ 5,628,905
$ 6,322,825
47%
C O MMUNITY S ERVIC ES /EC O N DEV.
SALARIES
$
357,423
$
125,715
$
153,842
$
203,581
43%
BENEFITS
114,637
39,392
45,035
69,602
39%
SUPPLIES
7,475
5,886
6,706
769
90%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
4,173
-
3,321
852
80%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
214,400
89,416
37,935
176,465
18%
COMMUNICATIONS
2,975
655
918
2,057
31%
TRAVEL
2,000
-
1,020
980
51%
RENTAL/LEASE
13,410
5,715
5,900
7,510
44%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
10,500
-
-
10,500
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
9,500
3,763
3,603
5,897
38%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
25,000
25,000
0%
$
761,493
$
270,544
$
258,279
$
503,214
34%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES
$
1,760,943
$
782,900
$
857,244
$
903,699
49%
OVERTIME
1,300
5,457
12,231
(10,931)
941%
BENEFITS
658,292
302,131
312,785
345,507
48%
UNIFORMS
500
-
-
500
0%
SUPPLIES
17,100
5,039
4,601
12,499
27%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
7,300
624
1,374
5,926
19%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
886,518
158,197
70,230
816,288
8%
COMMUNICATIONS
9,000
3,888
5,426
3,574
60%
TRAVEL
6,800
7,834
228
6,572
3%
RENTAL/LEASE
170,234
71,397
85,133
85,101
50%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
6,800
596
-
6,800
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
58,060
19,513
21,493
36,567
37%
$
3,582,847
$
1,357,577
$
1,370,746
$
2,212,101
38%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES
$
1,772,804
$
836,096
$
870,683
$
902,121
49%
OVERTIME
5,000
2,550
2,081
2,919
42%
BENEFITS
701,327
347,879
351,025
350,302
50%
UNIFORMS
450
-
-
450
0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
2,200
-
868
1,332
39%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
188,840
1,104
1,530
187,310
1%
COMMUNICATIONS
19,600
6,850
8,285
11,315
42%
TRAVEL
600
585
92
508
15%
RENTAL/LEASE
134,995
60,838
66,051
68,944
49%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
2,600
-
458
2,142
18%
MISCELLANEOUS
80,000
43,770
34,538
45,462
43%
$
2,908,416
$
1,299,672
$
1,335,611
$
1,572,805
46%
15
Packet Pg. 31
I 5.2.b I
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2020 Amended
6/30/2019
6/30/2020
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
% Spent
PARKS & REC REATIO N
SALARIES
$ 2,272,394
$ 982,976
$ 946,122
$ 1,326,272
42%
OVERTIME
10,000
12,158
2,006
7,994
20%
BENEFITS
864,290
380,954
360,897
503,393
42%
UNIFORMS
6,275
4,468
2,406
3,869
38%
SUPPLIES
137,390
68,975
82,784
54,606
60%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
10,900
2,639
2,190
8,710
20%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
620,765
130,205
87,652
533,113
14%
COMMUNICATIONS
31,370
3,971
12,342
19,028
39%
TRAVEL
5,270
3,410
50
5,220
1%
RENTAL/LEASE
268,945
145,638
133,929
135,016
50%
PUBLIC UTILITY
230,507
80,714
70,436
160,071
31%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
29,700
17,525
16,593
13,107
56%
MISCELLANEOUS
98,110
48,747
29,579
68,531
30%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
9,053
9,053
0
100%
$ 4,594,969
$ 1,882,379
$ 1,756,039
$ 2,838,930
38%
PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
RENT AL/LEASE
PUBLIC UTILITY
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
RENT AL/LEASE
PUBLIC UTILITY
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
$ 380,790 $
143,484 $
150,156 $
230,634
39%
200
144
-
200
0%
131,041
51,511
53,137
77,904
41%
8,600
3,203
2,579
6,021
30%
1,000
857
264
736
26%
200
42
92
108
46%
1,350
341
397
953
29%
500
1,383
-
500
0%
97,295
44,985
48,018
49,277
49%
3,318
1,500
1,595
1,723
48%
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
4,900
500
693
4,207
14%
$ 630,194 $
247,950 $
256,932 $
373,262
41%
787,257
381,720
393,251
394,006
50%
7,500
4,862
2,922
4,578
39%
348,852
169,707
169,027
179,825
48%
3,000
3,823
13,177
(10,177)
439%
112,000
91,048
71,917
40,083
64%
3,000
2,658
818
2,182
27%
977,444
62,447
101,114
876,330
10%
16,000
9,868
11,811
4,189
74%
1,000
6
-
1,000
0%
55,940
27,365
25,470
30,470
46%
297,700
153,253
159,205
138,495
53%
143,460
176,723
225,013
(81,553)
157%
5,000
2,706
1,802
3,198
36%
1,000,000
-
-
1,000,000
0%
$ 3,758,153 $
1,086,185 $
1,175,527 $
2,582,626
31%
$ 49,044,056 $ 21,172,989 $ 21,049,664 $ 27,994,392 43%
16
Packet Pg. 32
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund
2020
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 2,268,581 $
2,268,581
$ 2,376,947
4.78%
February
4,691,156
2,422,575
4,730,574
0.84%
March
7,266,925
2,575,769
7,100,593
-2.29%
April
10,693,016
3,426,091
9,435,773
-11.76%
May
19,106,833
8,413,817
17,528,670
-8.26%
June
21,647,958
2,541,125
19,628,003
-9.33%
July
23,877,416
2,229,458
August
26,676,562
2,799,147
September
28,994,637
2,318,075
October
32,807,785
3,813,148
November
41,358,293
8,550,508
December
43,803,858
2,445,565
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax
2020
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
193,769 $
193,769
$ 323,203
66.80%
February
345,606
151,837
496,485
43.66%
March
547,140
201,534
685,999
25.38%
April
740,550
193,410
857,110
15.74%
May
973,673
233,123
998,087
2.51%
June
1,219,609
245,935
1,240,599
1.72%
July
1,532,815
313,206
August
1,804,669
271,854
September
2,081,138
276,470
October
2,301,037
219,898
November
2,520,239
219,202
December
2,700,000
179,761
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
17
Packet Pg. 33
I 5.2.b I
SALES TAX SUMMARY
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: June 2020
Year -to -Date
Total $3,761,924
Automotive Repair,
Health &Personal Care, $93,985
$126,512 Amusement &
Construction Trade, Recreation, $33,284
Accommodation, $579,074 Business Services,
$15,169 $385,109
Clothing and Gasoline, $16,305
Accessories,$119,449 Retail Food Stores,
Communications, $160,747
$117,309
Wholesale Trade,
$142,245
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000, 000
0
Misc Retail, $685,717
Others, $57,047
L Retail Automotive,
$778,316
70
Manufacturing, $43,504
Eating & Drinking,
$408,151
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
$8,406,296 $8,452,715
S7.395.114
$6,905,122
$5,840,764 T
■
2014L. 2015 2016 2017 2018 L. 2019 YTD 2020
18
Packet Pg. 34
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax
2020
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 634,902 $
634,902
$ 692,248
9.03%
February
1,436,667
801,765
1,539,597
7.16%
March
2,031,860
595,193
2,187,876
7.68%
April
2,597,573
565,713
2,691,601
3.62%
May
3,324,621
727,048
3,191,797
-4.00%
June
3,990,697
666,076
3,761,924
-5.73%
July
4,697,452
706,756
August
5,482,731
785,279
September
6,213,489
730,757
October
6,961,050
747,562
November
7,750,015
788,965
December
8,450,000
699,985
Gas Utility Tax
Sales and Use Tax
12,000,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--b Current Year Budget Prior Year
City of'Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax
2020
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 81,408 $
81,408
$ 82,496
1.34%
February
168,408
87,000
177,747
5.55%
March
245,012
76,604
260,308
6.24%
April
308,737
63,725
337,848
9.43%
May
358,094
49,357
395,193
10.36%
June
392,813
34,720
430,775
9.66%
July
419,421
26,607
August
441,879
22,458
September
462,623
20,744
October
486,497
23,874
November
524,782
38,285
December
579,600
54,818
Gas Utility Tax
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
"-CurrentYear Budget Prior Yeaz
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
19
Packet Pg. 35
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax
2020
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 79,271 $
79,271
$ 70,129
-11.53%
February
154,920
75,649
134,128
-13.42%
March
224,811
69,891
191,257
-14.93%
April
298,919
74,108
254,236
-14.95%
May
365,795
66,876
309,632
-15.35%
June
433,375
67,580
361,422
-16.60%
July
497,866
64,491
August
563,527
65,661
September
631,163
67,636
October
697,753
66,590
November
761,530
63,777
December
823,900
62,370
Electric Utility Tax
1,000,000
Telephone Utility Tax
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000 ir
0
JAN
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget � Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax
2020
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 176,332 $
176,332
$ 179,486
1.79%
February
369,755
193,422
371,370
0.44%
March
530,960
161,206
535,467
0.85%
April
710,778
179,818
710,200
-0.08%
May
852,710
141,933
854,417
0.20%
June
974,520
121,810
970,402
-0.42%
July
1,088,754
114,233
August
1,199,457
110,703
September
1,311,314
111,857
October
1,428,233
116,919
November
1,552,157
123,924
December
1,684,800
132,643
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
20
Packet Pg. 36
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales
2020
Meter Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
804,719 $
804,719
$ 737,298
-8.38%
February
1,363,439
558,720
1,256,012
-7.88 /
March
2,170,455
807,015
2,048,593
-5.61%
April
2,696,703
526,248
2,538,466
-5.87/,
May
3,481,516
784,813
3,275,201
-5.93/,
June
4,099,586
618,070
3,855,044
-5.97%
July
5,087,366
987,780
August
5,941,343
853,977
September
7,092,152
1,150,809
October
7,892,798
800,646
November
8,818,044
925,246
December
9,384,958
566,914
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales
2020
Storm Water Sales
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
355,919 $
355,919
$ 348,012
1.79%
February
1,125,592
769,673
1,101,727
0.44%
March
1,480,771
355,179
1,449,754
0.85%
April
1,795,425
314,654
1,758,968
-0.08%
May
2,150,929
355,505
2,107,634
0.20%
June
2,466,536
315,606
2,417,745
-0.42%
July
2,822,237
355,701
August
3,592,736
770,499
September
3,947,537
354,801
October
4,262,734
315,197
November
4,618,388
355,654
December
4,921,433
303,045
Storm Water Sales
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--6-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
ZZ
Packet Pg. 37
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales
2020
Unmeter Sewer Sales
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 843,972 $
843,972
$ 792,168
-6.14%
February
1,528,418
684,445
1,457,427
-4.64%
March
2,368,523
840,105
2,253,756
-4.85%
April
3,057,434
688,911
2,905,227
-4.98%
May
3,904,796
847,362
3,666,165
-6.11%
June
4,601,743
696,947
4,301,071
-6.53%
July
5,475,901
874,158
August
6,170,772
694,871
September
7,057,714
886,942
October
7,759,947
702,233
November
8,620,364
860,417
December
9,307,969
687,605
Unmeter Sewer Sales
10,000,000
9,000,000
8,000,000 —
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
Y'M
22
Packet Pg. 38
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund
2020
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
5,642,749 $
5,642,749
$ 3,641,481
-35.47%
February
8,910,266
3,267,517
7,564,087
-1S.11%
March
12,507,763
3,597,497
10,796,906
-13.68%
April
16,723,319
4,215,556
13,318,642
-20.36%
May
19,875,327
3,152,008
17,123,820
-13.84%
June
24,725,220
4,849,893
21,049,664
-14.87%
July
28,663,754
3,938,534
August
32,968,461
4,304,707
September
36,464,588
3,496,127
October
40,092,243
3,627,655
November
44,563,572
4,471,329
December
49,044,056
4,480,484
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental
2020
Non -Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
2,923,229 $
2,923,229
$ 1,280,852
-56.18%
February
3,405,897
482,668
2,717,261
-20.22%
March
4,567,146
1,161,249
3,569,389
-21.85%
April
6,398,890
1,831,744
3,731,670
-41.68%
May
6,709,824
310,934
5,129,301
-23.56%
June
8,510,257
1,800,433
6,488,886
-23.75%
July
9,528,179
1,017,922
August
10,974,933
1,446,754
September
11,879,864
904,931
October
12,546,369
666,505
November
14,100,020
1,553,651
December
15,322,110
1,222,090
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
23
Packet Pg. 39
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council
2020
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
26,361 $
26,361 $
23,825
-9.62%
February
54,130
27,769
55,625
2.76%
March
88,475
34,345
81,971
-7.35%
April
119,273
30,799
106,847
-10.42%
May
158,791
39,518
133,074
-16.20%
June
205,911
47,121
160,080
-22.26%
July
239,007
33,095
August
285,476
46,469
September
323,555
38,079
October
346,924
23,369
November
382,373
35,449
December
418,912
36,539
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor
2020
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
25,001 $
25,001 $
28,750
15.00%
February
50,898
25,897
60,151
18.18%
March
76,062
25,164
87,486
15.02%
April
101,769
25,706
114,642
12.65%
May
126,945
25,177
142,030
11.88%
June
151,749
24,804
169,276
11.55%
July
177,563
25,814
August
203,939
26,376
September
229,480
25,541
October
254,419
24,939
November
279,429
25,010
December
306,685
27,256
Office of Mayor
350,000.00
300,000.00
250,000.00
200,000.00
150,000.00
100,000.00
50,000.00
0.00
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget - -Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
24
Packet Pg. 40
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources
2020
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 59,451 $
59,451
$ 68,346
14.96%
February
117,267
57,816
134,278
14.51%
March
178,196
60,929
184,385
3.47%
April
229,767
51,571
233,118
1.46%
May
284,932
55,165
283,462
-0.52%
June
355,895
70,963
335,262
-5.80%
July
411,216
55,322
August
469,554
58,338
September
531,309
61,755
October
590,790
59,481
November
649,771
58,981
December
740,691
90,920
Municipal Court
Human Resources
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Yeaz Budget Prior Year
City of'Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court
2020
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 86,636 $
86,636
$ 79,231
-8.55%
February
180,238
93,602
166,073
-7.86%
March
272,302
92,065
249,701
-8.30%
April
365,299
92,996
331,047
-9.38%
May
465,516
100,217
422,932
-9.15%
June
553,704
88,188
507,527
-8.34%
July
646,093
92,389
August
743,853
97,760
September
834,912
91,059
October
934,920
100,009
November
1,028,111
93,191
December
1,138,771
110,660
Municipal Court
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-0---CurrentYeaz Budget �PriorYear
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
25
Packet Pg. 41
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development
2020
Community Services/Economic Development
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
49,169 $
49,169 $
40,001
-18.65%
February
106,160
56,991
82,357
-22.42%
March
165,380
59,220
123,069
-25.58%
April
227,893
62,513
165,175
-27.52%
May
286,048
58,155
210,066
-26.56%
June
342,978
56,930
258,279
-24.70%
July
404,684
61,706
August
472,943
68,259
September
532,197
59,254
October
597,110
64,914
November
667,285
70,174
December
761,493
94,208
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk
2020
City Clerk
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 71,401 $
71,401
$ 83,447
16.87%
February
129,624
58,223
139,339
7.49%
March
187,005
57,380
199,113
6.47%
April
251,043
64,039
258,617
3.02%
May
306,774
55,730
321,093
4.67%
June
361,810
55,036
378,904
4.72%
July
423,597
61,787
August
486,276
62,679
September
539,284
53,008
October
597,946
58,662
November
662,981
65,035
December
726,962
63,981
City Clerk
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
26
Packet Pg. 42
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Technology Rental Fund
2020
Technology Rental Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
177,914 $
177,914 $
81,888
-53.97%
February
334,463
156,549
291,582
-12.82%
March
444,630
110,167
352,886
-20.63%
April
528,740
84,111
396,588
-24.99%
May
626,604
97,864
462,422
-26.20%
June
728,444
101,840
540,328
-25.82%
July
813,042
84,598
August
911,499
98,456
September
1,028,310
116,812
October
1,126,888
98,577
November
1,231,196
104,309
December
1,454,784
223,588
Finance
Technology Rental Fund
1,500,000
1,200,000
900,000
600,000
300,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget � Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance
2020
Cumulative
Monthly
YTD
Variance
Budget Forecast
Budget Forecast
Actuals
%
January
$ 124,756
$ 124,756
$ 148,549
19.07%
February
235,691
110,935
251,089
6.53%
March
337,197
101,506
353,610
4.87%
April
438,143
100,947
456,877
4.28%
May
539,685
101,542
562,662
4.26%
June
639,437
99,752
795,796
24.45%
July
7S0,562
111,125
August
854,084
103,522
September
970,025
115,941
October
1,081,072
111,048
November
1,184,488
103,415
December
1,289,583
105,095
Finance
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
27
Packet Pg. 43
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney
2020
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 76,045 $
76,045
$ 49,883
-34.40%
February
1S2,090
76,045
142,611
-6.23%
March
228,135
76,045
192,534
-1S.61%
April
304,180
76,045
288,462
-5.17%
May
380,225
76,045
359,660
-5.41%
June
456,270
76,045
431,895
-5.34%
July
532,315
76,045
August
608,360
76,045
September
684,405
76,045
October
760,450
76,045
November
836,495
76,045
December
912,540
76,045
Police
City Attorney
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-*-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year
City of'Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Police
2020
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 940,461 $
940,461
$ 887,236
-5.66%
February
1,891,364
950,903
1,893,712
0.12%
March
2,844,400
953,036
2,821,483
-0.81%
April
3,808,566
964,166
3,703,720
-2.75%
May
4,764,870
956,304
4,601,807
-3.42%
June
5,757,552
992,683
5,628,905
-2.23%
July
6,727,081
969,529
August
7,664,129
937,048
September
8,620,478
956,349
October
9,688,901
1,068,423
November
10,939,777
1,250,876
December
11,951,730
1,011,953
Police
12,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
--ft- Current Year Budget Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
Z$
Packet Pg. 44
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services
2020
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $
249,933 $
249,933
$ 241,446
-3.40%
February
530,487
280,553
461,847
-12.94%
March
820,192
289,705
685,780
-16.39%
April
1,114,858
294,666
922,412
-17.26%
May
1,418,144
303,286
1,151,071
-18.83%
June
1,697,166
279,021
1,370,746
-19.23%
July
1,991,793
294,627
August
2,295,145
303,352
September
2,593,333
298,188
October
2,899,612
306,279
November
3,239,495
339,883
December
3,582,847
343,352
Y'M
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation
2020
Parks &z Recreation
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 310,663 $
310,663
$ 278,296
-10.42%
February
633,218
322,555
596,263
-5.84%
March
976,069
342,851
892,745
-8.54%
April
1,332,232
356,164
1,186,533
-10.94%
May
1,699,847
367,615
1,472,976
-13.35%
June
2,069,338
369,491
1,756,039
-15.14%
July
2,534,539
465,201
August
3,070,105
535,567
September
3,504,600
434,495
October
3,876,641
372,041
November
4,200,535
323,894
December
4,594,969
394,434
Parks & Recreation
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
+Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
29
Packet Pg. 45
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works Administration
2020
Public Works Administration
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 51,939 $
51,939
$ 41,796
-19.53%
February
105,536
53,597
83,385
-20.99%
March
157,916
52,379
125,953
-20.24%
April
210,278
52,362
169,511
-19.39%
May
262,800
52,522
212,944
-18.97%
June
316,459
53,659
256,932
-18.81%
July
370,954
54,495
August
422,825
51,871
September
472,902
50,077
October
524,167
51,265
November
575,881
51,714
December
630,194
54,313
Facilities Maintenance
Public Works Administration
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance
2020
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January $
284,728 $
284,728
$ 177,532
-37.65%
February
585,426
300,698
353,835
-39.56%
March
887,362
301,936
583,052
-34.29%
April
1,181,106
293,744
781,557
-33.83%
May
1,483,561
302,454
1,002,638
-32.42%
June
1,740,520
256,959
1,175,527
-32.46%
July
2,069,330
328,810
August
2,371,409
302,079
September
2,707,430
336,020
October
3,011,628
304,199
November
3,381,203
369,574
December
3,758,153
376,950
Facilities Maintenance
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
-*-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
30
Packet Pg. 46
I 5.2.b I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering
2020
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
%
January
$ 219,750 $
219,750
$ 212,290
-3.39%
February
436,542
216,792
426,262
-2.35%
March
671,678
235,136
646,635
-3.73%
April
915,104
243,427
868,452
-5.10%
May
1,155,255
240,151
1,118,106
-3.22%
June
1,402,970
247,715
1,335,611
-4.80%
July
1,656,398
253,428
August
1,917,510
261,112
September
2,156,951
239,441
October
2,402,446
245,495
November
2,635,839
233,393
December
2,908,416
272,577
Engine a ring
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
� Current Year Budget � Prior Year
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
31
Packet Pg. 47
I 5.2.b I
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail
As of June 30, 2020
Years
Agency/
Investment
Purchase
to
Par
Market
Maturity
Coupon
Issuer
Type
Rice
Maturity
Value
Value
Date
Rate
RFCS
Bonds
1,999,698
0.04
2,120,000
2,119,816
07/15/20
1.60%
Grant Cnty WA
Bonds
4,014,120
0.51
4,000,000
4,018,960
01/01/21
1.47%
First Financial
CD
3,000,000
0.78
3,000,000
3,000,000
04/10/21
2.86%
Port of Seattle WA
Bonds
273,305
0.84
270,000
270,778
05/01/21
2.23%
Grant Cnty WA
Bonds
410,553
1.51
405,000
412,829
01/01/22
1.79%
FFCB
Bonds
1,998,548
1.96
2,000,000
2,062,848
06/14/22
1.88%
Energy Northwest
Bonds
1,466,077
2.00
1,345,000
261,430
07/01/22
5.00%
Energy Northwest
Bonds
260,748
2.00
250,000
1,469,829
07/01/22
2.95%
Mason & Kitsap Cnty WA
Bonds
948,084
2.42
855,000
952,393
12/01/22
5.00%
FHLB
Bonds
3,000,000
2.50
3,000,000
3,020,028
12/30/22
1.79%
Grant Cnty WA
Bonds
1,517,955
2.51
1,500,000
1,536,720
01/01/23
1.54%
Grant Cnty WA
Bonds
576,332
2.51
520,000
579,836
01/01/23
5.00%
Seattle WA Muni
Bonds
2,224,500
2.59
2,000,000
2,240,900
02/01/23
5.00%
First Financial
CD
2,803,516
3.38
2,803,516
2,803,516
11/15/23
2.10%
Kent WA
Bonds
286,648
3.42
250,000
289,203
12/01/23
5.00%
Spokane County WA
Bonds
259,075
4.42
250,000
263,733
12/01/24
2.10%
First Financial
CD
2,000,000
7.34
2,000,000
2,000,000
11/01/27
1.68%
TOTAL SECURITIES
27,039,157
2.40
26,568,516
27,302,818
Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool
25,033,286
25,033,286
Demand
0.37%
Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool
10,058,556
10,058,556
Demand
1.87%
TOTAL PORTFOLIO
$
61,660,358 $
62,394,659
Energy Issuer Diversification
Northwest,
6%
FHLB, 11% First
Financial -
Spokane CD, 29%
County
WA, 1% RFCS, 8%
Cash and Investment Balances Checking,
(in $ Millions) $4.0 , 6%
Bonds,
$18.8, 29%
State LGIP,
$25.0, 38%
CD's, $7.8,
12% County
LGIP,
$10.1, 15%
Y'M
32
Packet Pg. 48 1
I 5.2.b I
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Annual Interest Income
$1,400, 000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000 917 754
$800,000 $653,690
$600,000
$00,000 335 926 $423,816 $448,124
$200,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 YTD 2020
2.3
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.0
Edmonds Rate of Return Compared to Benchmark (Rolling 12 months)
— - - 6 Month Treasury Rate (Benchmark) City Blended Rate
—..---- - - - — -
�
July September November January March May
Maturity Distribution and Rate of Return
$ 8,000, 000 5.00%
$7,000,000
$ 6,000, 000 4.00
$ 5,000, 000 3.00%
$4,000,000
$3,000, 000 2.00%
$2,000,000
1.00%
$1,000, 000
$-A I 0.00%
It:
0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48 48-54 54-60 60-66 66-72 72-78 78-84 84-90 90-96
Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo
33
Packet Pg. 49
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
I 5.2.b I
GENERAL FUND
& SUBFUNDS
001-General Fund
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
012-Contingency Reserve Fund
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund
016-Building Maintenance
017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation
018 -Edmonds Homelessness Response
019 - Edmonds Opioid Response
Total General Fund & Subfunds
FUND BALANCES
Iy:/_1►lei a1►1111►19] 1_1WG161[a]
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2019
3/31 /2020
6/30/2020
$ 15,552,187
$ 11,855,874
$ 14,130,526
$
355,874
266,504
416,192
1,782,149
1,782,149
1,782,149
12,187
12,187
14,687
210,221
210,221
210,221
864,491
864,491
864,491
223,581
223,581
223,581
50,000
50,000
50,000
$ 19,050,690
$ 15,265,008
$ 17,691,847
j $
---- ACTUAL ----
Q2 YTD
r
L
2,274,651 $ (1,421,66, 0
149,688 60,31 t
(0)
c
2,500 2,501
ii
L
0 -
(0) C�
0
2,426,839 $ (1,358,84:
*$2,000,000 of the General Fund Balance has been assigned by management for the development of Civic Field.
*$7,720,000 of the fund balance in Fund 001 added to the $1,782,149 balance in Fund 012, represent the required
20% operating reserve.
General Fund & Subfunds
21
-
18
General Fund
15
$9 33
& Subfunds
$7.97
12
$5.55
General Fund
c
Operating Reserve
= 9
■ Civic Field
6
$7.72
$7.72
$7.72
3
$2.00
2.
$2.00
Dec 2019
Mar 2020
June 2020
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The ending fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the audited 2019 Financial Statements.
34
Packet Pg. 50
5.2.b
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
CHANGE IN FUND
FUND BALANCES
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
---- ACTUAL ----
FUNDS
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2019 3/31 /2020 6/30/2020
Q2 YTD
General Fund & Subfunds
$ 19,050,690 $ 15,265,008 $ 17,691,847
$ 2,426,839 $ (1,358,84:
Special Revenue
10,622,237 11,614,731 10,896,734
(717,997) 274,497
Debt Service
- - (0)
(0) (C
a
Capital Projects
6,443,150 6,660,453 6,362,622
(297,831) (80,52f
Total Governmental Funds
$ 36,116,078 $ 33,540,192 $ 34,951,202
$ 1,411,010 $ (1,164,87E
c
ca
c
ii
L
V
0
Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund Balances -
Combined
0
21 40
$19.05 $36.12 $34.95
0
18 35
17.69
v
,General
Fund & 30
ii
15 Subfunds
--a—Special 25
L
12 Revenue c
_
o
1111111— 0.62 $10.90 2 20
CY
m
9 Debt
3
Service 15 —
d
6 $6.36
--*--Capital 10 —
Projects
0
3 5 —
U
c
0
$
E
Dec 2019 Mar2020 June 2020
Dec 2019 Mar2020 June 2020
U
Q
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The ending fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the audited 2019 Financial Statements.
35
Packet Pg. 51
5.2.b
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW
FUND
BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCE;
GOVERNMENTAL
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL
----
SPECIAL REVENUE
12/31/2019
3/31/2020
6/30/2020
Q2
YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund
$ 39,839
$ 103,012 $
77,411
$ (25,601) $
37,572
1 1 1 - Street Fund
1,298,473
1,058,743
1,088,447
29,704
(210,02E
112- Combined Street Const/Improve
1,421,769
2,510,488
2,197,489
(312,999)
775,72C
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
634,011
636,762
647,244
10,482
13,2K
118 - Memorial Street Tree
19,785
19,928
20,012
84
227
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
93,013
106,944
96,191
(10,753)
3,17E
a
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund
86,844
95,528
96,987
1,459
10,14C
a�
W
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund
13,600
13,075
13,303
228
(297
123 -Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
72,101
78,166
80,804
2,638
8,70C
125 -Real Estate Tax 2 *
2,625,364
2,683,963
2,507,321
(176,642)
(118,04:
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1
2,486,325
2,426,874
2,177,940
(248,934)
(308,38E
m
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund
332,255
351,290
337,990
(13,300)
5,73E
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
260,685
244,205
255,125
10,920
(5,56C
136 - Parks Trust Fund
163,071
164,250
164,942
692
1,871
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
1,053,314
1,063,167
1,070,881
7,714
17,56-1
p
138 - Sister City Commission
10,129
10,191
12,734
2,543
2,60E
m
140 -Business Improvement Disrict
11,546
28,362
19,465
(8,897)
7,91�
141 -Affordable and Supportive Housing I'd
112
18,783
32,446
13,663
32,334
0
Total Special Revenue
$ 10,622,237
$ 11,613,731 $
10,896,734
$ (716,997) $
274,491
2-
*$200,000 of the fund balance in Fund 125 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding
Special Revenue Funds
12
10
8
c
•2 6 $11.61
$10.62 $10.90
4
2 REA
Dec 2019 Mar 2020 June 2020
■ Special
Revenue
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The ending fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the audited 2019 Financial Statements.
36
Packet Pg. 52
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 5.2.b I
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
421
-Water Utility Fund
422
- Storm Utility Fund
423
- Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund
424
- Bond Reserve Fund
411
-Combined Utility Operation
Total Enterprise Funds
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2019 3/31 /2020 6/30/2020
$ 23,049,550 $ 24,053,743 $ 22,708,684 $
12,607,151 12,584,653 11,522,128
46,572,051 47,460,885 47,580,092
843,961 843,965 843,968
- 29,880 30,710
$ 83,072,713 $ 84,973,126 $ 82,685,581 $
CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL ----
(1,345,060) $
(1,062,525)
119,207
3
830
(2,287,545) $
*$250,000 of the Storm Utility Fund Balance has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000, 000
0
Enterprise and Agency Fund Balances as of June 30, 2020
$47,580,092
Combined Utility Water Storm Sewer/WWTP
(340,86-1
(1,085,022
1,008,04C
7 �
30,71 C a
a�
(387,13�
a�
c
ca
c
ii
`m
C�
c
0
m
$843,968 $154,816
Bond Reserve Firemen's Pension
Fund
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The ending fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the audited 2019 Financial Statements.
37
Packet Pg. 53
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
I 5.2.b I
FUND BALANCES
CITY-WIDE
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2019 3/31 /2020 6/30/2020
Governmental Funds
$ 36,116,077 $ 33,540,192 $ 34,951,202
$
Enterprise Funds
83,072,713 84,973,126 82,685,581
Internal Services Fund
10,803,067 10,908,350 11,259,633
Agency Funds
146,733 123,716 154,816
Total City-wide Total
$130,138,590 $129,545,384 $129,051,233
1 $
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
Q2 YTD
1,411,010 $ (1,164,87°
(2,287,545) (387,132 o
351,283 456,56E y
31,100 8,084 y
(494,151) $ (1,087,35-1
c
ii
L
V
Governmental Fund Balances (Excluding General Fund) as of June 30, 2020 0
as
Drug Enforcement Fund $77,411 1 1 1 1
Street Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve Fund
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Youth Scholarship Fund
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Gifts Catalog Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Parks Trust Fund
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Sister City Commission
Business Improvement District
Parks Capital Construction Fund
622
$- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,OOC
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The ending fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the audited 2019 Financial Statements.
38
Packet Pg. 54 1
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 5.2.b I
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
512 -Technology Rental Fund
Total Internal Service Funds
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000, 000
6,000, 000
4,000, 000
2,000, 000
K:$786,798
Dec 2019
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2019 3/31 /2020 6/30/2020
$ 10,016,269 $ 10,173,544 $ 10,412,411 $
786,798 734,806 847,223
$ 10,803,067 $ 10,908,350 $ 11,259,633 1 $
Internal Service Fund Balances
�J
$734,806
Mar2020
$10,412,411
$847,223
June 2020
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
Q2 YTD
238,867 $ 396,142 ._
r
L
112,417 60,42E a
a�
351,283 $ 456,56E
c
ca
c
ii
L
V
O
c.i
v/
■ 511- Equipment Rental Fund
■512- Technology Rental Fund ,
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
The ending fund balances for 2019 are preliminary, these will be updated
after the completion of the audited 2019 Financial Statements.
39
Packet Pg. 55
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/4/2020
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2020
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:
Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2020
Packet Pg. 56
7.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
July 28, 2020
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Council President Fraley-Monillas 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
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
K. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
Councilmember Buckshnis pulled Items 6.3 and 6.4 from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE,
MOVED TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 1
Packet Pg. 57
7.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis said she pulled Item 6.3 at the request of Public Works Director Phil Williams
because the date of the extension needed to be changed from December 31, 2019 to December 31, 2020.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE PERSONAL SERVICES
CONTRACT FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT AS AMENDED.
City Clerk Scott Passey advised the items were pulled from the Consent Agenda as part of the approval of
the agenda. They should be taken up after approval of the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (HTTPS:HZOOM.US/S/4257752525)
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Nancy Johnson, Edmonds, on behalf of the Sno-Isle Sierra Club, encouraged the Council's support of
the proposed bike lane project. She has lived in Edmonds since 2013 and when she first arrived, tried to
ride her bike from her home near Yost Park to the grocery store and for exercise, but found it too
dangerous. After a couple close calls on 220' & 9th and while rounding a curve on Bowdoin, she retired
her bike. After reviewing the planned project, it will be time to dust off her bike and try again. Bicycles
and pedestrians will be much safer, plenty of parking in the area will be retained, greenhouse gas
emissions will be reduced and people who are not ready to get back on public transit due to COVID-19
will have a safer option. There needs to be public input to ensure all safety measures are considered, but
overall it looks like a great project that deserves the Council's full support.
Andrew Morgan, Edmonds, relayed most residents on 9t' Avenue think bike lanes are fine, but no one
living on 9t' Avenue /100t' Avenue supports losing 50% of the on -street parking which will happen under
this plan. The world has changed since COVID with many more people working from home; people have
family and friends to their homes instead of going to restaurants, parks and public spaces; and the demand
for parking seems to be increasing instead of decreasing. Parking on side streets on 9t1' Avenue and 100'1'
Avenue is dangerous and impractical because of the slopes on east -west side streets make it difficult and
dangerous to get out of the car especially for the elderly and young children. Sound Transit's ridership is
down 80-90% and their own financial forecast shows them losing up to $12 billion through 2041. The
crisis we now face is not short-term but has changed things perhaps forever. People do not want to get
into crowed buses, trains and planes. He respectfully requested the City Council table voting on putting in
these bike lanes until the pandemic is such that the public can legally get together to discuss the plan to
ensure the interest of bicyclists and homeowners are balanced and taken into consideration and when
there is more clarity about what the post-COVID world looks like.
Shawn Detrich, Edmonds, expressed support for the bike lane project especially the segment on 100'
and 9' Avenues as that links a lot of things that cyclists are interested in, especially those who bike for
function rather than for exercise such as QFC, PCC, Yost Park, 5 Corners and Edmonds-Woodway High
School. It is a great connection for a lot of things the City has to offer. That section, 100' and 9t1'
Avenues, can be a little hairy for beginner cyclists without a protected lane.
Margaret Elwood, Edmonds, said she and her husband's disabilities makes bicycling their preferred
exercise especially since the gyms have closed due to the pandemic. She has MS with balance issues and
walking more than a mile does not work, but cycling works well. Her husband has kidney disease and is
easily fatigued, but can get exercise appropriate for his ability riding an e-bike. She is an experienced
bicycle commuter, commuting for 10 years to Snohomish County PUD, using the Swift bus to get within
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 2
Packet Pg. 58
7.1.a
bicycling range so she is experienced cycling in traffic. For a biker going between 5 Corners and
Westgate there is a steep hill and it is not particularly safe to go from QFC at Westgate to 220t' where
there are bike lanes but there is a steep hill. She typically turns up 224t'', but it doesn't have sidewalks and
is a narrow street. It is distressing for a cyclist who want to promotes cycling to have traffic back up
behind them, but without a bike lane there is no other options and cyclists are entitled to use the road
because they also pay taxes. She strongly advocated for adding bike lanes in this area for safety; more
people are getting e-bikes and for older, experienced cyclists it is not a question of whether they will get
an e-bike but how soon. Bike riding enables them to continue exercising and promoting their own health.
She urged the Council to proceed with the bike plan.
Peter Hallson, Edmonds, Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group member and Cascade Bicycle Club
member and ride leader, supported approval of the Sound Transit bicycle grant. As he said last week, five
years ago Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace engineered a network of bike routes to improve
access to health and wellness choices. At that time about 13% of the population surveyed were regular
bike riders and 70% said they would like ride more. The goals of Bike-2-Health were to make bicycling
safer, increase connectivity between the three communities and create a regional connected network of
safe bike lanes. The current Sound Transit plan builds on the last five years and adds value to the Bike-2-
Health project. The stated goals of Bike-2-Health and of the new grant are to have bike routes from
Edmonds connecting with the Mountlake Terrace light rail station by 2024, increase ridership from 13%,
improve safety for riders in the three communities, reduce the barrier of safety concerns for riders, build
riders' confidence by providing bike lanes and sharrows with inter -ride guidance via wayfinding signs,
raise awareness about the health benefits of cycling and provide education. Bicycle safety education has
been provided to 3' to 8t' grade students in the Edmonds School; the goal is to educate 5,000-10,000
students. Goals also include establishing a bike network that meets the needs of a variety of users
including commuters, recreation, students, seniors and first time rider and building a healthy and
physically active community that cycles thereby reducing the need for parking. The Sound Transit grant
meets the stated goals and improves bicycling infrastructure. For those reasons, he recommend the
Council approve the Sound Transit citywide bicycle improvement grant.
Mike McMurray, Edmonds, expressed support for bike lanes and healthy ridership. One of his favorite
assets in the community is Yost Pool and its partnership with the YMCA has made it a more local and
regional draw in the summer. The majority of parking for this key community asset is the overflow
parking on Bowdoin. For eight years, he lived four doors down from the entrance; during the summer
months cars were often parked on the street. There are only 56 spaces within the park to accommodate the
pool, playground, tennis and pickleball courts, and trails. He suggested if a parking study was used to
justify removal of 50% of the parking in close proximity to this asset, that was not acceptable considering
the global pandemic and closure of the park. It could be justified that every street in Edmonds should
have bike lane if safety was the primary reasoning. Yost Park is evolving rapidly, offering more than just
swimming including tennis and pickleball. The tennis and pickleball courts were so busy last summer that
the City installed two additional portable toilets. There was a movement to save the community pool
several years ago and he was concerned about the financial jeopardy if parking in close proximity to the
was not taken seriously. It sends the wrong message to the community that visitors are not a priority and
giving the impression of a private pool. He asked the Council to look for alternative bike lane routes to
preserve the parking capacity for Yost Park. He was also interested in a year-round facility in the future.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, referred to a KING 5 news article posted on October 8, 2019 promoting the
benefits of this bicycle lane project that includes an interview with Peter Hallson from the Edmonds
Bicycle Group where he states, "we're hoping that more people will feel comfortable without putting
more cars on the road." The article also states, "parking in those areas will also be improved." Nowhere in
the article does it state that 50% of parking in those areas will be removed. She relayed her concerns:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 3
Packet Pg. 59
7.1.a
1) Bicycle numbers she shared last week showing at best a minimal increase and some decreases in actual
bicyclists using 761h and 212'h after the bike lanes were put in is accurate as it compares direct data points
along these routes from 2016 to 2019. Using the same counts that Mr. Hauss will share, it compares direct
locations before and after versus the combined count chart he showed last week.
2) Promoting the success of bike lanes on 76'h also does not compare to the almost entirely residential
nature of Bowdoin and 9'h Avenue; 76'h has 3 schools, a hospital, church, medical offices and businesses
with ample parking lots and the side streets in the small residential portion of 76t1i is flat with mostly local
access only. Unlike Bowdoin and 9'h Avenue with steep slopes and numerous parking and pedestrian
safety issues and no sidewalks and a lot of cut through traffic.
3) This is strictly a bicycle grant for moving bicyclists to use Sound Transit. It is not an Edmonds leisure
bicycle plan. In the scenic but very hilly Edmonds, it seems to benefit a select few commuting residents as
the bicycle counts show. It is not a pedestrian safety plan; pedestrians will have to cross Bowdoin
between Yost and 5 Corners where there is not a single marked crosswalk.
4) A critical flaw of the plan eliminating a full lane of north -south traffic across SR-104 from QFC and
PCC to Key Bank, Bartell and the old WWHS. Taking 2 lanes down to 1 lane will stack up traffic just
like the Lynnwood north -south bike lane project at 76' & 196' causing longer commute times and
making access to local retail more hazardous for drivers. She has personally witnessed two accidents from
cars exiting the Lynnwood QFC onto 196'h as it is now a blind spot.
Mike DeLilla, Seattle, City of Edmonds Utilities Engineer, spoke in favor of the bike project. He bikes
the route from Seattle approximately twice a week in spring to fall or about 40-80 trips/year for the last 10
years. Other members of staff also bike for a combined total of about 4,000-5,000 trips in and out of
Edmonds. The proposed routes are the only feasible routes per the city code and the ordinances that have
been approved regarding these types of projects as it is more a Complete Streets projects with a bike
aspect to it. He served on the North Seattle Design Group for four years and dealt with similar issues and
ended up doing a similar project on Linden between 130'h and 145'h where a number of parking stalls
were removed due to the addition of bike lanes; in the end it was a very successful project. That group
considered board members' experience as well as existing ordinances. Edmonds has similar ordinances
and regulations that cover this, for example, the Transportation Plan limits the streets that are available for
bike lanes. The only candidate street other than 76"' is 100'; 95"' does not work because there are no
shoulders and 80'h does not work. He suggested the Council look at Ordinance 3842 which addresses this.
He supported the Council approving the project, and moving forward with design, comment and vetting.
Anthony Dashti, Edmonds, spoke against removing 50% of the parking. Adding bicycle lanes was a
good idea but not at the expense of eliminating that much street parking. He lives on a private driveway
on 9'h Avenue between Pine and Walnut and there have been many occasions when they cannot drive to
their house due to public works activity or snow or freezing temperatures which forces them to compete
for parking on 9'h Ave. With an aging household it is difficult to negotiate parking particularly on side
streets or a private driveway. As a bike rider, he likes to use bike lanes but the health and wellbeing of the
households should be of upmost importance. He see riders negotiating that street quite easily without any
issues; if drivers have to share the road with bikes, riders can do the same. The end result must work for
riders and residents alike; removing that many parking spaces puts residents at a major disadvantage.
Anyone who bicycles any significant distance already must negotiate streets without bike lanes; 9'h
Avenue South is wider than most, allowing for a relatively safe ride. The current limited parking leaves a
lot of room for bikes to negotiate safely. Removing the parking spaces will have little impact on riders but
have a much larger impact on residents. He asked the Council to look for better options.
Lora Hine, Edmonds, described a car accident that occurred at 9 a.m. on Sunday at 96'h Avenue W &
2241 Street S, 3 houses to the west of her home. She rushed outside to see a two car collision, one with
airbags deployed. As there were enough people already at the vehicles, she returned home to call 911;
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 4
Packet Pg. 60
7.1.a
Police and Fire arrived within minutes and a neighbor swept up the broken glass in the street. This is not
the first incident at this corner. There have been efforts over decades to make this school crossing
intersection a four-way stop. Traffic coming from the west has just crested a hill and having accelerated
up the grade, often are exceeding the 30 mph (25 mph when children are present) and reach the
intersection where stopped northbound cars may not have noticed the sign, shaded and obscured by tree
limbs, informing them that cross traffic does not stop. Drivers must pull forward to be able to look both
ways; she has seen and heard many near misses, fender benders but never as serious an accident as the
one that occurred on Sunday. This intersection is a thoroughfare of neighbors near and far walking on one
of the few sidewalks. She offered to send in the remainder of her comments.
John Routt, Edmonds, a resident of 25+ years near Yost Park, referred to the parking situation around
Yost Park. He explained a drivers come down the hill from 92" d where there is a blind corner and 2
obscured driveways; often a car coming down the hill does not see a car backing out of their driveway. He
has also seen bicycles flying down the hill and not stop at the stop sign. His concern was due to what he
witnessed on Dexter Avenue in Seattle, a car backing out and a bicyclist unable to stop in time colliding
with the car. He has also seen car doors nearly take out bicyclists. He did not think Bowdoin Way was the
proper place for bike lanes. There are bike lanes on 220th that are not heavily used and bicyclists use Main
Street which is much wider and does not have a parking problem except near the Wade James Theater. He
requested the Council rethink the process of bike lanes on Bowdoin before someone gets hurt.
Christien Miller, Edmonds, a resident on loth & Walnut, said he received a flyer as did many other
residents. He was concerned there will not enough on -street parking. He was unsure what the plan was for
bike lanes and how it would impact parking on Walnut Street. He asked if plans had been released
regarding how the bike lanes will look and how they will affect parking. At times, Walnut will fill with
parking for swim meets or other events.
Nora Carlson, Edmonds, a resident of the Westgate, said she wanted to go on record a second time as a
resident urging the Council to assist the neighbors who have ongoing concerns about the dangerous
intersection of 96' Avenue W & 224t' SW. Last March she submitted a citizen action and petition for the
City's engineering department's traffic calming program for needed changes to this intersection. Her
request was denied and she was told the flow of traffic did not warrant change. The transportation
engineer encouraged her to resubmit this past spring for consideration; however, she felt the same result
would occur with no changes made. She learned recently two nearby neighbors submitted requests 20
years ago for changes to the same intersection due to their concerns with the same result of no
improvements made. Due to increased traffic and many vehicles using 224' to bypass Edmonds Way or
220th, there is clearly a need to change the intersection to slow vehicles and stop before proceeding. Her
neighbors and she have experienced multiple near misses as a result of vehicle traveling too fast or
driving through the stop signs and drivers appear to be confused about how to use the intersection. The
collision between two cars on July 26t' is further proof this intersection needs to be changed; she
suggested referencing Police Department case 20-17046 for details. On behalf of her neighborhood, she
requested the intersection be altered from a 2-way to a 4-way stop to offer a much safer crossing for all.
She feared it was a matter of time before there was a more serious accident that could potentially injure or
kill an adult or child. It is vital to address this intersection sooner than later; the residents urgently need
the Council's help to address improvements to this intersection.
Jim Carraway, Edmonds, thanked the two Councilmember who responded to his comments and the
individuals who left a flyer at his door. Everyone should benefit from infrastructure because everyone
pays for it in one form or another. In response to a previous comment, he said it was naive to think
someone will ride 30 minutes from the Edmonds station to Mountlake Terrace link light rail in addition to
riding Sounder twice a day 30 minutes in and out of Seattle. He relayed his concerns; regarding parking,
similar to Mr. McMurray's comments, many homes along the street were built in the 50s and 60s and do
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 5
Packet Pg. 61
7.1.a
not have adequate parking. By reducing parking, residents and visitors will have to hunt for parking on
other streets, affecting those residents. After reviewing the parking study in last week's packet, he
seriously questioned its validity as it treats the entire stretch of Walnut and Bowdoin the same and only
looks at select periods of time. Anyone who traverses this stretch knows there is heavy usage between 9t1i
and Yost Park on Walnut and the 1/10' mile between 5 Corners and the water reservoir on Bowdoin. On
Sunday he counted 24 cars parked along the 2 stretches plus an additional 2 cars between Yost and the
water reservoir, 30% more than in the study. There is also the need for parking during special events like
the 4'h of July. His second concern was safety with parking on surrounding streets; he questioned whether
the City would install sidewalks, crosswalks and lighting to enable residents to reach their homes. Similar
to Bowdoin, there is no crosswalk at Walnut & 10'. The intersection at 9" & Walnut is notoriously
dangerous; in the 4%2 years he has lived on Walnut, there have been 3 accidents, the latest of which totaled
the vehicle, imagine if that was a bicycle. His third concern was speeding; Walnut is notorious for
speeding. He has reached out to the City and Police Department but nothing has changed.
Melvin Brady, Edmonds, a resident since 1984 and a resident on 9' Avenue for the last 8 years,
disagreed with the person who said no one on 9t' Avenue wants parking removed as he wholeheartedly
supports installing bike lanes. He rides both a regular bike and an e-bike. He wrote to Council previously,
submitting pictures of an accident in March 2018 that resulted in a vehicle landing on its roof. There have
been other accidents in the area and he recommended looking into not only the installation of bike lanes
but where parking is located. He agreed with removing 50% or more of the parking; 9t' Avenue S is a
highly trafficked north -south commuter route through Edmonds. Parking greatly reduces visibility when
exiting a driveway on 9' Avenue S. He has also sent the Council pictures of a trailer one house away that
has been parked there for over a week that destroys visibility exiting driveways. He suggested there be
some rhyme or reason to removing parking as there is currently no rhyme or reason with regard to the
location of parking and residential driveways and he recommend a distance of more than 50 feet. He
supported the bike lanes and removing as much parking along 9' Avenue S given its capacity and status
as commuter route.
Steve Kaiser, Edmonds, expressed support for the bike lanes. Unless parking spaces are private, they are
owned by the public and bike lanes are one use of that public space. Currently little money is spent on
transportation projects specifically for bicycles, according to one survey it is less than 1%. This a small
step forward and he envisioned people will appreciate it more and more in the future.
Matthew Routt, Edmonds, a resident half a block from Yost Park, shared concerns related to parking
especially for events at Yost Park. As Mr. McMurray said, there were only 56 spaces in park which is not
sufficient for swim meets and other events at park. When the pool is open, it is common to see cars
parked on both sides of the street between 92" d Avenue W and 96' Avenue W as well as to see cars
parked as far west as 10'h Avenue on Walnut. He urge the Council to reconsider where they are putting
the bike lane. He was not necessarily opposed to the bike lane, but felt there were better locations.
Bea Wilson, Edmonds, a resident on 9'h Avenue, said she was opposed to installing the bike lane where
suggested as she felt there were far better places for it. She agreed with a previous speaker that parking
outside Yost Parking during the summer is essential. She questioned why she did not receive information
about this much sooner.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmonds.wa.gov are attached)
6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 6
Packet Pg. 62
7.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis restated her intent in removing Item 6.3 from the Consent Agenda. City Clerk
Passey recommended the Council vote on approval of the Consent Agenda and then take up the items that
were removed.
Councilmember Paine referred to Item 6.2, Approval of Claim Checks and Wire Payments, noting an
abundance of Amazon purchases (page 69 of the packet). Not that Amazon was bad, but recognizing that
small businesses were struggling, she suggested directing some purchase decisions to other businesses.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2020
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
7. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATOR AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (Previously Consent
Agenda Item 3)
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she pulled this from the Consent Agenda at the request of Public
Works Director Phil Williams so that the date of the extension of the personal service contract could be
changed from December 31, 2019 to December 31, 2020.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO APPROVE AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Z JUNE 2020 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT (Previously Consent Agenda Item 4)
Councilmember Buckshnis said she pulled this item from the Consent Agenda to vote no because
generally quarterly reports go through a vetting process either at committee or a committee of whole. She
appreciated that Acting Finance Director Turley added this to the Consent Agenda as it will be good to
have these financial for tomorrow's budget retreat and he plans to make a presentation next week.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she will vote yes as she contacted the Acting Finance Director and
got her questions answered.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested waiting until the presentation was made next week.
Councilmember Distelhorst relayed the agenda memo for this item states no action needed, information
only. He questioned whether the Council was required to vote on this. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed
it had been scheduled on the Consent Agenda. Mayor Nelson said one of the challenges is there is no
place on the agenda for FYI items. City Clerk Scott Passey said the motion would essentially be to
acknowledge the report.
Council President Fraley-Monillas aid it was reasonable to acknowledge the report.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, THAT THE COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGE THIS REPORT, BUT IT IS NOT
CONSIDERED A CONSENT ITEM.
Council President Fraley-Monillas encouraged the Council to support the motion as it is just an FYI. She
got her questions answered in advance. Just because it has not been presented to Council does not mean it
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 7
Packet Pg. 63
7.1.a
is not relevant. She encouraged Councilmember to vote against the motion and then vote for a motion to
accept the report.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is about public transparency. There have been many incidents
this year where the public has been excluded from looking at things asking questions or having it vetted.
Historically the financial statements have gone through committee, a committee of the whole or the
Council where they are vetted publicly. She disagree with setting a new precedent and having the report
on Consent without vetting or presentation to citizens.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the report has been vetted by citizens; it has been out for 5-6 days
and any questions could have been submitted to staff. In light of COVID, the Council should not spend a
lot of time on mundane and usual things. She encouraged Councilmembers to vote against the motion and
have their questions answered next week.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she was glad one Councilmember had her questions answered; however,
as previously stated, this report usually goes through the finance committee. Since there was a committee
of the whole a week or two ago, this should have been discussed then. Since it wasn't and although it's
great to have this information in advance, until it's presented, she felt it was premature to adopt it. She
relied on the Council President and Council Pro Tem to follow the regular rules of business; this is highly
irregular ad COVID has nothing to do with it.
Councilmember Distelhorst commented if the Council waited for the report until committee night, it
would not be available for two more weeks, the second week of August. He appreciated the early notice
that Acting Director Turley has given Council and the public by including it in the packet. That visibility
provides more information for the budget retreat as well as next week's Council meeting.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not disagree with Councilmember Distelhorst; she disagreed with the
statement that financial reports were mundane. During a COVID situation with economic issues, citizens
should have a presentation from staff like has occurred every other quarter.
Councilmember Paine raised a point of order, that Councilmembers have spoken twice. Mayor Nelson
suggested Councilmembers avoid restating the same arguments.
Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Distelhorst's comment, but it is the same comment
that Councilmember Buckshnis is making, that the Council was happy with receiving the report but
whether it should be approved was the distinction between their approaches.
Councilmember Buckshnis restated the motion:
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE REPORT WAS PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA BUT THAT
DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSENTS TO ITS ACCURACY.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT IS PART OF
THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 8
Packet Pg. 64
7.1.a
Council President Fraley-Monillas accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion and the seconder
agreed.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. JOINT MEETING
JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD
Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the joint meeting with Council is an opportunity
for the Planning Board to share their ideas and thoughts and to get Council thoughts and perspective.
Chair Daniel Robles reviewed:
Planning Board Members
o Todd Cloutier
January 2010
o Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
March 2014
o Dan Robles (Chair)
May 2014
o Matt Cheung
October 2014
o Nathan Monroe
June 2015
o Alicia Crank
February 2016
o Mike Rosen (Vice Chair)
June 2017
o Roger Pence (Alternate)
July 2019
o Conner Bryan (Student Rep)
April 2019
Map of Members' residences in City
COVID-19 changes everything
o Focus on physical spaces
o Flexibility and resourcefulness
o Social consensus
o Shift in resource allocations
Knowledge Endowment
o Civil Engineer
o Software Designer and Program Manager
o Engineer/Business Owner
o Planner/Business Owner
o Construction manager
o Corporate relations officer
o Lawyer
o Marketing executive
o Transportation industry
o High school student
Top Work Priorities
1. Code updates implementing the
to tree regulations
Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) including updates
2. Code updates reflecting Climate Change goals, including electric vehicle charging
infrastructure
3. Low -impact subdivision code updates
4. Code updates related to sidewalks requirements for new development
Ancillary Activities (provide necessary support to the primary activities of an organization
instruction or industry)
o Updates:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 9
Packet Pg. 65
■ Parks and recreation, housing commission, low-impact/stormwater review and updates,
PSRC Vision 2050, capital projects, comprehensive pan
o Joint meetings/liaison
■ City Council, EDC, Architectural Design Board, Housing Commission, Tree Board
o Increase public engagement with Planning Board
■ Outreach, targeted announcements — social media, online attendance
Conclusion
o Planning Board is available to serve a wide range of city needs
Board Member Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig said the 2020 work program was a response to the planning
department's direction and board members' concerns. The goal of the joint meeting is an affirmation of
the work program and/or adjustment by the City Council.
Councilmember K. Johnson, a former member of Planning Board and a planner, said she was always very
interested in these joint meetings. She relayed her understanding that the Planning Board planned to
review the floodplain regulations in six months. She suggested looking at the model floodplain ordinance
and not just do the minimum allowed but considering whether it is a good idea to allow for development
or redevelopment in the floodplain. Generally, if that is allowed, it can cost cities millions of dollars to
provide the kind of hardening, levies and pumps to get water out of areas where development has
occurred. She liked that there were only four priorities for this year and said the tree code is one of the
most important. She was interested in addressing not only public lands but also private lands, pointing out
the cutting of trees on private land for development. She recalled there had been a lot of discussion over
the past eight years about subdivision and PRD regulations, however, those are not on the list other than
low impact development. Another thing that is not on the list is the 5 Corners land use update.
Chair Robles said other items on the list include Highway 99 Subarea Plan Implementation, Buildable
Lands, Neighborhood Center Plans and Implementation, and Architectural Design Board review process
and policies. The four that were identified were the top priorities. Councilmember K. Johnson noted the
Work Plan in the packet included ten Planning Board priorities plus six updates, joint meetings, liaisons
with other citizen boards and public engagement. The topics she suggested, other than the tree code
update, were not on the work program.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she thoroughly enjoys reading the Planning Board's minutes and the
work they are doing, noting each board member has their own personality. The members are very
dedicated and their backgrounds are evident in their questions and comments. She recalled Chair Robles
saying the Planning Board looked at the bike lane code, pointing out they did not review the Sound
Transit bike lane project that was addressed during audience comments. Chair Robles said five years ago
the Planning Board considered north -south routes and getting people off the thoroughfares in Westgate
and north to 5 Corners. That was before e-bikes although they cautioned that e-bikes were coming.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her respect for Ms. Hope who has been leading the charge, noting she
also enjoyed her department summaries. She recalled last year the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee
had a company put together a greenhouse gas modeling tool that would be used to reduce greenhouse gas.
She asked if the Planning Board would be part of vetting that model. Chair Robles said the Planning
Board would like to see that as climate goals will influence code revisions. Councilmember Buckshnis
said it was being vetted through the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee and the Tree Board and
wondered when that would be presented to the Planning Board. Ms. Hope said the Planning Board will be
involved in climate change goals and the climate action plan; staff will be making a presentation to the
City Council about the project in the next week or two. More work will need to be done in the next few
months by the Climate Protection Committee, Tree Board, Planning Board and others. Councilmember
Buckshnis commented it was a very exciting model and she looked forward to the presentation.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 10
Packet Pg. 66
7.1.a
Councilmember L. Johnson said she watched the meeting online and appreciated the comments about
simplifying and prioritizing the most pressing and feasible topics particularly during COVID. She was on
board with the list of four items, noting they all have an environmental aspect. With regard to increased
public engagement, she appreciated the point about the student representative actively encouraging youth
participation and reaching out to the Youth Commission. As the Council liaison to the Youth Commission
and the mother of three teens, the Planning Board will be impressed, possibly even blown away, by the
perspective and contribution that youth can bring. She was encouraged that they were recognized as a
valued resource in the community.
Councilmember Paine agreed with the top four priorities and suggested including the Architectural
Design Board (ADB) design review process if possible this year. Chair Robles said getting the ADB
involved at the beginning could make a great deal of difference. Councilmember Paine was glad to see
that was on the Planning Board's list of priorities, although item 5, as that process needs attention. She
recognized the work the Planning Board does for the City and for the talents they bring to the table.
Councilmember Distelhorst voiced support for #2, Code updates reflecting Climate Change goals, as that
is very important work as well as addressing affordable housing in the City, although he recognized that
may have to wait for the Housing Commission's recommendations. He relayed two of his external
appointments are Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Alliance for Housing Affordability so he was
interested in the Planning Board's work to promote more affordable housing in Edmonds. Chair Robles
said the Planning Board was at the epicenter of the housing issue meltdown that led to the creation of the
Housing Commission. The Planning Board was glad the Housing Commission was formed to spearhead
ideas and provide feedback.
Councilmember Olson agreed with the top four priorities and was happy to see that the tree code was at
the top of the list, noting a lot of people have been waiting for that. She highlighted the code rewrite
related to sidewalks, commenting it becomes an equity issue where some homeowners are required to go
to great lengths and expense to include a sidewalk in their development or remodel and due to loopholes
or the way the code is written, it does not apply to other development.
Councilmember Olson said in looking at how big the City's budget has gotten over a 10-20 year period,
she wondered whether any consideration was given to utilization of City buildings and the possibility for
savings. For example, privatizing and preserving the historic elements of the Edmonds Museum. She has
attended meetings about developing a presence in other areas of the City where there is not as much
representation. If it were privatized, some of the things in the museum could be displayed elsewhere such
as a welcome station or a koban (Japan's take on a police station that is more friendly, where people can
get directions, etc.). That would avoid the City spending money on elevator updates, etc. Another
example is City Hall where there are empty office spaces that could be used to generate revenue. She
asked whether that was anything the Planning Board would delve into. Chair Robles said that was a new
ideas; baby steps needed to be taken as people get scared by new things. He noted in Japan, they will
build a building over a building they want to preserve. Ideas could include community workspaces,
intentional living, or repurposing larger spaces such as the auditorium in Frances Anderson Center as a
classroom where people could be spaced apart. He summarized everything is up to reinterpretation due to
COVID. The Planning Board could introduce ideas and then allow others to hash out what is practical.
Board Member Crank said she liked the idea but from a procedural standpoint anything with a fiscal
impact should come from Council and trickle down to the Planning Board. It likely would not go over
well for the Planning Board to make that type of recommendation to Council and create community
conflict. While she did not necessarily disagree, it was something for the Council to discuss and make a
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 11
Packet Pg. 67
7.1.a
decision and refer it to appropriate groups. Chair Robles agreed it was up to the City Council to see the
Planning Board as a resource.
Councilmember Olson clarified she was not saying she would ever want to do that without having a full
conversation with the public. It was just a thought that could possibly be pursued but not before asking
the public how they felt about it.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said beyond asking the public, it takes a majority of the City Council
before moving forward with ideas. There have been issues in the past few years with the Planning Board
moving forward without a majority of City Council making a decision. It is important for citizens to
understand that the Planning Board does not proceed based on one, two or even three Councilmembers'
opinion, it must be a majority of the Council that makes that decision. The priority is code updates. She
expressed appreciation for everything the Planning Board does and for having a student representing the
perspective of the younger population.
Ms. Hope relayed her understanding that the Council in general was comfortable with the priorities the
Planning Board has identified, knowing that other things will come up including Climate Action and
other topics like the floodplain update. She asked for confirmation that the Council was satisfied with the
priorities.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked about the timeline for floodplain update, whether it would be six
months from the date the temporary was approved. Ms. Hope advised staff is working on it and it will
come back to the Council this year. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested that be on the list of priorities.
Ms. Hope agreed there were the four priorities mentioned in the presentation plus the floodplain update
and the Climate Action Plan.
The Council was agreeable with the work program.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
9. ACTION ITEMS
1. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ECC 2.10.010 FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF
APPOINTIVE POSITIONS
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson said this is continued discussion of a proposed code amendment to
ECC 2.10 Duties and confirmation of appointed officers. Last week the Council discussed adding a
provision to the code that would allow the Mayor to request a waiver of the three interview requirement
for a person who has been in an acting capacity as a director for a certain period of time and move
forward with confirmation of a single appointment. Subsequent to last week's meeting, she and Mr.
Taraday developed two potential code amendments: the first one was the same as was presented last week
with the proposed change to 2.10.010 which added language that allows the exemption for the one
applicant to move forward plus new language regarding if the person had been in an acting capacity for
three months, the Mayor could request the three candidate rule for interviews be waived.
Ms. Neill Hoyson explained after further discussion, there were other amendments to the code that staff
recommends Council consider for consistency. If the Council chooses to amend 2.10.010, they may also
want to consider the additional amendments in the alternate code amendment. The language in the code
section is very clear about the timing to begin recruiting for a director position and when it can be delayed
such as reorganization, salary and compensation review, etc. The amendment clarifies that recruiting did
not need to begin while someone was in the acting capacity and the Mayor would either begin recruiting
after four months or request the variance. With regard to the Mayor reappointing should the first
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 12
Packet Pg. 68
7.1.a
appointment lapse; the amendment clarifies the intent of that language is to require Council approval of
subsequent reappointments of an acting capacity even if there is a lapse in the initial appointment.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what staff was trying to fix. This has been in the code for a long
time and the proposed language removes total authority from the Council regarding appointments. If a
Mayor made a temporary appointment, after six months they would have the authority to appoint without
Council approval, circumventing the Council's involvement. Ms. Neill-Hoyson said the Mayor would still
need to request of Council bringing forward a single candidate who has been in an acting capacity.
Council would need to approve that via a majority plus one. It does not give the Mayor carte blanche to
appoint without Council approval. It provides the Mayor the option to request this of Council and Council
could choose to not approve and request the other options, two or three candidates.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the current policy requires the Mayor to present three candidates
for an administrative position. She understood the Mayor can still make a decision on one person, but the
proposal takes that process away entirely. Ms. Neill-Hoyson answered the vetting period would occur
during the temporary acting appointive period. It takes into account promotion from within and
encourages that and considers if there is a solid internal candidate who has been in an acting capacity,
whether it makes sense to go through a recruiting process.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what happened if a Mayor was interested in appointing a person
who had been in the position for six months who may be an appropriate appointment for the Mayor but
was not appropriate for the City or for the Council. She asked if that took away the ability to make a
decision based on skill. In a political environment, if someone is appointed who will agree 100% with
whatever the Mayor tells them to do versus having them look at factors other than leadership approval,
that would be gone at that point. Ms. Neill-Hoyson said she was not tracking the difference between the
two processes. In the end whatever process occurs, whether Council interviews three candidates or two or
the Council chooses to allow the except that allows only one candidate, the Council still has final
authority to approve the Mayor's selection for appointment.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what happened if the Mayor comes forward with one candidate
and a majority of the Council says no. Ms. Neill-Hoyson said the appointment would not move forward.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said there also would not be three candidates. Ms. Neill-Hoyson said if
one candidate is presented, the Council would interview the one person and approve or not approve the
appointment of a single candidate.
Councilmember Olson recalled the whole reason the Council liked this idea was allowing the Mayor to
appoint someone from within who the City already has experience with. She had not anticipated the
possibility that the temporary appointment could be someone who was not already a City employee. She
asked if the Mayor had the authority to choose someone to be an acting director before the appointment.
If so, she would want to add that caveat. Ms. Neill-Hoyson said as written it does not state that the Mayor
can only appoint current employees to an acting role. She agreed it would be odd to appoint an external
person to an acting role and she had not seen that happen, but the way the language is written, technically
that would be allowed. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed. If the Council felt strongly that this exception
should apply only to situations where it is promoting from within, that amendment could be made.
Councilmember Olson thanked Council President Fraley-Monillas for bringing that up as an option
because that had not occurred to her but was a distinction she wanted to address. She liked the other
proposed changes.
Councilmember Paine raised a procedural question, relaying she was not sure she understood why these
changes needed to be made now. If she did not want to vote for either option, she asked how that would
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 13
Packet Pg. 69
7.1.a
happen, whether she would vote no on both. Mr. Taraday advised there are two ordinances in the packet;
if there was a motion for Option A or B and she did not want either, she should vote no. Councilmember
Paine preferred to have an Option C which was no change. Mr. Taraday answered voting no is essentially
Option C. If neither ordinance is adopted, the code remains as is.
Councilmember Paine commented there were a series of dynamics that could crop up with these
configurations, and she was unsure any of them would be considered best practices for hiring particularly
a director or chief of police level position whether it was an either internal or external candidate.
Councilmember Distelhorst voiced caution regarding both options as he did not feel fully briefed or that
he understood all the elements well enough to vote on either one tonight. He appreciated Council
President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Olson bring up the possibility of someone external being
appointed acting and then moving to a permanent position. He also voiced concern with the word
"immediately" in Section 2.10.010(D), to interview any other candidate and proceed immediately to
confirming the appointment. If the code allowed for one person in an acting position to be brought
forward, he felt strongly the Council should still have opportunity to interview that person and he was
concerned with what "immediately" meant, whether that right was waived and Council immediately voted
on the confirmation. There may be instances when he would be comfortable with proceeding to
confirmation but not immediate confirmation as he wanted to ensure the Council and the public were
familiar with the candidates that hold appointive positions.
Councilmember Buckshnis said last week's minutes reflect some good points made by Mr. Taraday. She
pointed out there have been candidates that previous Mayors selected that were confirmed by the Council
but were not the Council's favorite. She recalled examples where there were one, two or three candidates
and once where there was a new candidate due to a retirement. She did not have a problem with
promoting from within and was unsure that needed to added to Section F. She did not think the Mayor
should be able to recruit and appoint an interim without Council confirmation or Council interview.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled at last week's meeting Mr. Taraday said the Mayor can in fact
appoint whoever he wants and the Council can confirm or not, but it is still the Mayor's decision. Mr.
Taraday agreed the appointment power lies with the Mayor and confirmation power lies with the Council
and there cannot be a new director unless both of those things happen. Councilmember Buckshnis asked
if the Council confirmation had to be a majority plus one (supermajority). Mr. Taraday said it was just a
majority; a supermajority was only required to waive the interview requirement. Councilmember
Buckshnis recalled this had been done this in the past; Shawn Hunstock had been a one person interview
as was Mary Ann Hardie. She supported having the appointment of an acting director be someone from
within rather than the Mayor selecting someone to serve as acting for a period of time.
Councilmember L. Johnson said this was not personal, it is about policy and procedure, transparency and
public engagement and legislative voice. She had an issue with making a change to a City policy to
accommodate one position, a position that ironically was rooted in policy and procedure. It is a change
that would set a precedent and have long term implications. Right now police departments around the
country are under intense scrutiny and if there was ever a time to not only follow the policy and procedure
but to go the distance and make sure the best choice for Edmonds is made, this is that opportunity. She
was unable to support either of the proposals.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said the Council can currently waive the three person minimum and
have done that multiple times. She did not understand the urgency or need to move this forward. She was
aware of discussion about hiring internally versus externally; she reminded that none of the current
directors or managers were internal promotions and were all hired from outside the City. In her opinion
this was not about the Police Department or what was occurring now, this was about long term as this
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 14
Packet Pg. 70
7.1.a
changes the procedure going forward with future mayors. Changing this when there have not been any
problems is not respectful of the citizens and perhaps not respectful to the democratic process as far as
allowing decisions to be made openly in the public eye. Three different mayors have hired candidates
from throughout western Washington. She was uncomfortable with the thought that current employees
should get some level of special treatment or policy that allows them an easy entrance that external
candidates do not get.
Councilmember Olson said there has been conversation that the City Council has granted this exact
exception in the past and talking about granting it now without changing the code. In no way does adding
this exception limit the Mayor to internal hires; it just codifies the ability for the Mayor to ask for an
exception. The City has a history of not adhering to the code, to some degree because it has not been
updated. That is a very bad practice and the City should uphold its laws and include procedures in the law
that made make sense. Obviously if this has been done repeatedly in the past and there is discussion about
doing it now, it makes sense to have it as an exception which does not limit the exercise of that option.
With regard the point about current directors, she pointed out Acting Director Shannon Burley did a
brilliant job in that acting capacity; had she wanted the job, the Mayor may have wanted to appoint her so
why would the City go through the time and effort and moving expenses for a new director. She clarified
she was not saying the Mayor should always choose an internal candidate, but that should be an option.
Mr. Taraday clarified if neither ordinance is adopted, the Mayor will have no choice but to begin
recruiting for at least two candidates to fill the vacant position because there is currently no provision in
the code to waive down to only one candidate. Not adopting either ordinance forces the Mayor to begin a
recruitment process.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the number of candidates have been waived in the past without changing
the code for Mr. Hunstock and for Ms. Hardie. She asked why the code needed to be changed now. Mr.
Taraday said he was not sure those other provisions violated the code. If he remembered correctly, one of
those fell within one of the other exceptions in the code. However, he did not have all facts at the top of
his head so did not want to be quoted on this. If anyone wanted to confirm the facts of the past, they
should review past minutes. As of right now, unless the Council wanted to violate the code, there was no
way of confirming Assistant Chief Lawless as the Police Chief without forcing the Mayor to begin a
recruitment process.
Councilmember K. Johnson realized that Ms. Neill-Hoyson and Mayor Nelson are new to their jobs but
they are responsible for enforcing all the City codes and processes. It is a convoluted process, but it
sounds like recruitment should have begun after there was a vacant position no later than 30 days. She
appreciate that there were a couple different process, 1) the interim position, and 2) the appointive process
that includes Council confirmation. She recalled last week Mr. Taraday said Council confirmation wasn't
applicable and it was ultimately the Mayor's choice, but tonight he said both were needed to appoint a
director. Mr. Taraday said there are two different steps, the appointment step and the confirmation step.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked what happens if the Council does not confirm the Mayor's appointed
person. Mr. Taraday said the Mayor then has to appoint someone else, either someone who was already a
candidate or recruitment starts over.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this whole thing was handled very poorly due to COVID, the nationwide
recruitment, the appointive process, letting the appointment expire, a series of missteps. However, nothing
that has happened affects her confidence in Assistance Chief Lawless. She has known and worked with
him for eight years, he was retiring Chief Compaan's recommendation, and he has the support of the
existing Mayor as well as the rank and file in Police Department. It has been a great disservice to Mr.
Lawless to have this period of uncertainty plus not having a full negotiated salary and only a 5% increase.
She found fault with the process but the end result of appointing Mr. Lawless she could support
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 15
Packet Pg. 71
7.1.a
wholeheartedly. She recognized there was another appointed interim position in the Finance Department
so anything the Council does will have repercussions on that position as well.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson. To Council President Fraley-
Monillas' comment, she pointed out Mary Ann Hardie was promoted from within and she was sure there
have been other instances. Shawn Hunstock was single candidate and she had the minutes that state then-
Councilmember Peterson made a motion to amend so the Mayor may opt to interview as few as one or
two candidates for the vacancy of an appointive office and that motion carried unanimously. She was
unsure why that was not included in Section C of the policy. She recalled when Ms. Neill-Hoyson and
Ms. Hite were interviewed there were two candidates. After Roger Neumeier left, the Council had already
interviewed Scott James and he was brought in via a confirmation.
Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated this had been done in the past without changing the code. She was
confused why a motion could not be made tonight to allow the Council to opt to interview as few as one
or two candidate as was done in 2014 and asked if it was only because there was a wonderful code person
in HR. Mr. Taraday said he recently looked at the minutes that Councilmember Buckshnis was
referencing where then-Councilmember Peterson made a motion to amend the proposed code; he
specifically made a proposed amendment to the code that would have allowed Council to only interview
one candidate and that motion failed. The language that was adopted is what is in the code today. In 2014,
the Council did not want to have just one candidate to interview. The Council was not bound by that
decision; circumstances have changed and the Council was not thinking as much as they should have been
in 2014 about the possibility of hiring from within and that it might not make sense to recruit when there
was a great internal candidate. Similarly, if previous Councils violated the code, the Council was not
excused by their past violations.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not disagreeing with Mr. Taraday but she feels bad for Acting
Chief Lawless who has been doing a stellar job and has been treated terribly. The fact of the matter is on
April 7, 2020, Mayor Nelson indicated he was going to appoint Lawless as Chief of Police. She did not
understand what happened and why this was still being belabored when there were examples of people
being promoted from within and when there had been one or two candidates.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked for clarification; if neither code amendment were adopted, the Mayor
would need to start a recruitment process. Based on the current code, he asked if that date had already
passed or when was it. Mr. Taraday said the code says 30 days from the vacancy. In light of how the code
has recently been interpreted to allow the expiration of an acting director to create a vacancy, it was 30
days from July 1 so pretty soon.
Councilmember Paine said she did not support either option and preferred to retain the current code. As
Councilmember K. Johnson stated, there are currently two vacancies. Everyone benefits from a
competitive process, internal and external candidates. There can be a strong panel to choose from and to
ask questions. Edmonds is a very desirable city to work for, it is a lovely location and the City is pretty
well run overall. Everybody benefits by bringing in external candidates even the internal candidates who
are strong candidates without a doubt. She recalled when Ms. Hite interviewed with the City of Redmond
and their indication that she was a strong candidate. She was very pleased with Ms. Feser who was hired
as the Parks & Recreation Director. The City has a strong process and existing processes that bring in the
best candidate and there are no issues with reduced expectations. Acting Chief of Police Lawless is a
doing a very good job and the City has a great police force and other things need to be encouraged. There
is always room for growth and she wanted to bring forward the best candidates for the City.
Councilmember Olson disagreed entirely with Councilmember Paine's assertion that Edmonds has been a
great city to work for; the circumstance with the police chief is a perfect case study. The acting police
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 16
Packet Pg. 72
7.1.a
chief took the desire for a national head hunt as a vote of no confidence. A national search is above and
beyond what is typically done when there is an internal candidate you love, usually the position is just
posted in -state. Thinking that he would not get hired by Edmonds, he began looking elsewhere and
making it far along in other processes until the entire City was notified of via press release on April 9'
that Mayor Nelson intended to appoint him to the position.
Councilmember Olson said she would not want to work for the City right now because she was so
disappointed. People have said it's not personal but of course it is personal because people's lives are in
the mix. This has been an amateur hour, completely ridiculous and despicable and she was ashamed to
have had any part in it. She anticipated citizens will have a total cow with the Council and she hoped that
would be reflected in the elections in a year and a half if the Council was not supportive of one of the few
leaders in the City that has been above reproach in last few months and has acted so admirably. She hoped
Councilmembers thought about that and the loss to the community if the Council did not confirm Mr.
Lawless because if he was not selected as chief, she assured the City will lose him which would be so
disappointing.
Council President Fraley-Monillas found Councilmember Olson's comment about amateur hour
interesting coming from someone who has been on Council for six months as well as her threats that
Councilmembers would not be reelected because of this.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said her concern was public process and the fact that there were
discussions during the elections including by Councilmember Olson about public process. She did not see
this as amateur hour in any sense and she found threats very offensive. She recognized Mayor Nelson
who asked for an opportunity to speak regarding this issue.
Mayor Nelson said there have been a lot of bold statements about how the City should be run during a
crisis, during a pandemic that has not occurred in over 100 years and during a worldwide crisis that still
exists. When he came into office there was nothing like that. When he took office he did not have a
choice and was told who would be the acting chief so he was interested in having a choice. Then COVID
happened which changed how everything was done, but most importantly it changed how he saw the
acting chief. He got to work with him, see him handle these unprecedented times where there was no
playbook on how to respond, how to keep the community safe, how to keep officers safe. He has done an
outstanding job and he could not think of any other time period or thing the City has gone through to see
how someone can perform under those kind of stresses and rise to that occasion. He changed his mind and
decided Acting Chief Lawless was the best person for the City which was why he announced it. When he
announced it, he was very clear that it was up to Council confirmation; it was never a decision that he just
anointed. He understood that any appointment has to be confirmed by Council and that was what he was
seeking. He believed Acting Chief Lawless could do the job because he was doing it right now; the future
is unknown, this crisis is not over, and the numbers are going up. He was very doubtful there would be
candidates who would be able to apply and could do any of the things a leader needs to do during this
crisis; Acting Chief Lawless was the best person for the job.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not disagree with Mayor Nelson in whole.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating a Councilmember was only allowed to speak
twice on a subject and Council President Fraley-Monillas has already spoken twice. Mr. Taraday said
Roberts Rules of Order says a member is not supposed to speak twice in a row and that the speaking
opportunities are to be shared evenly across the Council but there is no total number of times a
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 17
Packet Pg. 73
7.1.a
Councilmember is allowed to speak. Mayor Nelson said he would allow Council President Fraley-
Monillas to continue.
Council President Fraley-Monillas appreciated what Mayor Nelson said about Mr. Lawless, but did not
think there should be an issue or concern with bringing other names forward. Everyone seems to be in
support of Mr. Lawless but she wanted the code to be followed and to allow the public to have input. She
understood this had been a very interesting time in the City with COVID and everything else that has
occurred but she wanted to follow the code moving forward.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CREATING
AN EXCEPTION TO THE THREE -INTERVIEW REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CITY COUNCIL'S CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF APPOINTIVE
OFFICERS.
Mr. Taraday asked for clarification regarding which version of the ordinance was being moved, if
Councilmember Buckshnis was moving the one with more changes. Councilmember Buckshnis said she
was moving the ordinance with the lesser amount of changes that allows the Mayor to go ahead with the
process. She thought it was the second one. Ms. Neill-Hoyson said the ordinances are titled differently,
one is the alternate code amendment and the other is the code amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis
answered the ordinance she was moving was the code amendment; the shorter ordinance references an
acting director and interviewing one candidate.
Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating this was getting too confusing. She
recommended Councilmember Buckshnis clarify whether it was the first or second ordinance.
Councilmember Buckshnis said it was the second ordinance which has the least amount of change but
allows the mayor to request an exception to the three interview requirement, on page 146 of the packet.
She wholeheartedly believed in everything that Mayor Nelson said. She was speechless regarding how
this has played out and she hoped things could be moved forward.
Councilmember Olson apologized to the City Council, Mayor and staff for her inappropriate comment.
She would be pleased for the Council to validate these actions by passing the ordinance on packet page
146. This is a change that needs to be exercised now and possibly in the future. It in no way encourages
the Mayor to avoid the public or more competitive process but allows it in a circumstance like this. She
supported making this change so that the Council can comply with the code in this and other
circumstances that may or may not arise again.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for the motion as nothing in it prevented Council
confirmation. Even if the Mayor chose to have one candidate, there would still be a confirmation process.
She relayed an interesting suggestion from a very prominent citizens; because the community is so
interested in the selection of the police chief, he suggested a virtual open house to give people who do not
know Interim Chief Police Lawless an opportunity to meet him and have some greater discussion. She
supported the motion and said it has been a disservice to the Police Department not to have resolved this
immediately before COVID hit.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND TO ADD LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS ONE PERSON EXCEPTION
WAS TO BE MAINTAINED FOR INTERNAL CANDIDATES ONLY ACTING AS THE ACTING
DIRECTOR.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 18
Packet Pg. 74
7.1.a
Councilmember Distelhorst asked what language would be inserted and where in Section D. Mr. Taraday
suggested the word "someone" be replaced with "an internal candidate" so it would read, "and further
provided that when the mayor appoints an internal candidate who has served for at least three months as
an acting director...".
Councilmember Paine asked if that change would preclude an external candidate. Mr. Taraday answered
yes.
In response to Councilmember Paine's comment, Councilmember Olson clarified this was for the one
interview exception that the Mayor could request, not that there wouldn't be other candidates at other
times.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for the amendment, agreeing that applying it to internal
candidates was good idea.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO AMEND, AT THE END OF SECTION D WHERE IT STARTS, "WAIVE THE
REQUIREMENT TO INTERVIEW ANY OTHER CANDIDATES," CHANGE THE REST OF
THE SENTENCE TO READ, "AND PROCEED TO INTERVIEW AND POSSIBLE
CONFIRMATION OF THE APPOINTMENT."
Councilmember Olson asked in the case where there's only a single candidate and some of the process is
being removed, should the interview be a public interview or open house rather than a council only
interview. Councilmember Distelhorst suggested this would leave those possibilities open.
Councilmember Distelhorst restated the amendment:
"...WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO INTERVIEW ANY OTHER CANDIDATES AND
PROCEED TO INTERVIEW AND POSSIBLE CONFIRMATION OF THE APPOINTMENT."
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO AMEND SECTION D, "...THE CITY COUNCIL MAY, BY MOTION
ADOPTED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE FULL COUNCIL,
WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO INTERVIEW..."
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification, if the Mayor brings one choice to waive the
three candidate rule, does there need to be seven votes or to appoint there needs to be seven votes.
Councilmember Distelhorst answered seven votes would be needed to the waive requirement to interview
one person and confirmation would just be a majority. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed that if
one Councilmember disagreed with bringing only one candidate forward, the Mayor would have to
present three candidates for interview. Councilmember Distelhorst answered yes, either three or two and
two would require a super majority vote.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she was not aware of any decisions by the Council that was required to
be unanimous. Mr. Taraday said he could also not think of any. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was
usually a majority or super majority. She concluded this was a poor precedent to set.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 19
Packet Pg. 75
7.1.a
Councilmember Paine expressed concern that that was too high of a hurdle. She preferred to start the
recruitment process rather than that high of a hurdle.
Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmembers K. Johnson and Paine, that it would be harder to get
the waiver for one interview than to confirm.
AMENDMENT FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST VOTING YES.
Councilmember Buckshnis restated the motion:
ON PAGE 146 OF THE PACKET, PASS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THE THREE -INTERVIEW REQUIREMENT
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S
APPOINTMENT OF APPOINTIVE OFFICERS.
Mr. Taraday pointed out there two amendments were passed that amended the version in the packet.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. UPON ROLL CALL,
MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING
NO.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested proceeding with the update to the City's Fireworks
Ordinance and move the other items to the next meeting. She did not see the Council completing all the
times before midnight and once it gets to 11:00, she felt the Council was making poor decisions.
Councilmember Distelhorst wanted to ensure there were no pressing dates for the Six Year Transportation
Improvement Program which he thought had a July 15t due date or for the Sound Transit funding
agreement. Public Works Director Phil Williams answered his understanding was all bets were off due to
COVID. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss said this week or next would be fine for both items.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if there was any point for her to make a motion to approve the other
ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE OTHER ORDINANCE, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THE THREE -INTERVIEW
REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONFIRMATION OF THE
MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF APPOINTIVE OFFICERS, VERSION 1.
Councilmember Olson said that ordinance was better than not having this opportunity.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson for his heartfelt statement. As he said earlier, he was
not ready this week. The Council had had some discussion last week and then a new ordinance was
presented this week. He was unsure if the Mayor could delay starting a recruitment process an extra 3-4
days, but he would appreciate an extra week to have a bit more input and understanding on the proposed
amendments.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 20
Packet Pg. 76
7.1.a
Councilmember Olson said as a point of order this was not a study item, but was scheduled as an action
item which was not the Council's practice.
Council President Fraley-Monillas requested the maker of the motion withdraw the motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson declined to withdraw the motion.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS CALLED THE QUESTION. CALL FOR THE
QUESTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS VOTING YES.
Councilmember K. Johnson said it was important to make this motion and consider it carefully; however
if it fails, she would like to bring it back for continued discussion next week.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO TABLE THIS UNTIL NEXT WEEK.
Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, a motion to table was not debatable.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, asking whether there was time to wait until next week
based on the recruitment process.
Mr. Taraday said even though the word "table" was used, he understood it as a motion to postpone to a
certain time which is debatable.
Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, according to Roberts Rules of Order a motion
to table is very specific.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON, TO POSTPONE TO NEXT WEEK.
Councilmember Buckshnis said this is important and although she wished the Council could vote on it
tonight, she will gladly give Councilmember Distelhorst or any Councilmember extra time to review the
ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW HER MOTION.
Councilmember Olson wanted to ensure there would be time based on the recruitment issue. Mr. Taraday
relayed the code states "begin recruitment of candidates," but does not define what that means. If the
Mayor takes some action within the 30 days to begin recruitment of candidates, he has satisfied the code
requirement.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. 2021-2026 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF SOUND TRANSIT FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR CITYWIDE
BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 21
Packet Pg. 77
7.1.a
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
10. STUDY ITEMS
1. REVIEW OF COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
2. ORDINANCE UPDATING THE CITY'S FIREWORKS CODE
Mayor Nelson said he commented on this previously following the most recent 4t' of July and requested
the City Attorney draft an ordinance. After realizing how outdated the City code is in this area, some
things 25 years old, and to kick off why that is important when the dangers of fireworks have not declined
and to update where other communities are with regarding to enforcement and education, he invited South
County Fire Chief Hovis and Assistant Chief Kevin Zweber to speak to the Council.
Assistant Chief Zweber, fire marshal for South County Fire (SCF) including the City of Edmonds, spoke
in support of the proposed code amendment. The use of personal fireworks has consequences that are
both predictable and preventable. Fireworks put people, property and the environment at risk every 4t' of
July and can result in numerous things including property loss with the potential of serious economic
impacts. Since 2005 SCF has had more than $3.5 million in property loss related to fireworks. The
average annual fire loss due to fireworks is about $43 million. Death or serious injuries can occur; 12,000
firework injuries are treated in U.S. hospitals annually. Seventy percent of fireworks injuries are sustained
by males, 36% of injuries were to children younger than 15 and children ages 10 to 15 have the highest
estimated rate of emergency room treated fireworks related injuries. An average of more than 7 fireworks
related deaths occur annually in the nation between 2002 and 2017.
The danger, stress and anxiety to pets and wildlife are widespread. PAWS, which has a shelter located in
SCF's service area, reports an increase in lost dogs and cats in the days before, during and after fireworks
use due to the loud noises and bright lights which cause fear, anxiety and confusion. Structural fires and
injuries make headlines, but the most common complaint SCF hears from residents is the loss of their
sense of security. They fear leaving home on the 4t' of July because of fireworks use in their
neighborhoods. This past 4t' of July, SCF responded to a fireworks incident where a citizen lost a portion
of their hand while trying to throw a mortar. Deaths related to fireworks occurred in both Marysville and
Mt. Vernon this year.
As the City's Fire Department, SCF is committed to community risk reduction. This means identifying
risks within the community and developing effective strategies to mitigate risks. The City's fireworks ban
is one of those risk reduction strategies, but bans have shown to be only partially effective in reducing
property loss and injuries and it is clear fireworks bans have not been completely effective in changing
behaviors. SCF supports the proposed code amendment and is committed to working together on code
enforcement, public information and community outreach to educate the communities they serve about
the risk of fireworks, fireworks bans and attending professional community fireworks displays as a better
alternative to using personal fireworks.
Councilmember Distelhorst said 4t' of July is his birthday; he supports these code amendments due to
their importance to the community. He asked about SCF's experience working with police departments in
their service areas in the past, whether it was only educating people about the code or have they been
enforcing and ticketing violators. Assistant Chief Zweber said all the cities SCF serves have fireworks
bans. Most police department are trying to be sensitive and educate the public rather than initially write
citations, but in the past that has not resulted in changed behaviors. These incidents continue to occur,
structural fires and definitely injuries. He was unsure if the education process by the police department
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 22
Packet Pg. 78
7.1.a
was effective. He heard when Marysville enacted their ban, their citation was quite stiff and although it
was typically reduced in court, it got people's attention, they saw good statistics after that ban and it was
effective in curbing illegal fireworks in the City of Marysville.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if increasing the fine from $50-$150 to up to $1000 would be enforced.
Assistant Chief Zweber answered yes. Chief Hovis said SCF also served Mountlake Terrace and Brier
before regionalizing with what was Fire District 1; in the most egregious cases the police departments
usually cite after multiple visits to a home and requests to stop. He talked with the Fire Chief in
Marysville where there was a fatality on the 4th of July as well as a serious injury. In many cases when
that happens, there is not the will to cite because something so terrible happened which skews the data
somewhat.
Mayor Nelson said in addition to updating the ordinance, he has asked SCF to partner in education and
enforcement so it is not just the police but also fire marshals enforcing the code as well begin a robust
education and enforcement campaign prior to next 4th of July.
Councilmember Paine agreed with the changes, commenting on the importance of enforcement having an
education component. She appreciated everything the fire department does. Assistant Chief Zweber said
part of SCF's outreach program falls under the fire prevention division where a total of five people are
committed to community outreach on all different programs including the ACT program, school programs
teaching children about fire safety, etc. SCF has gone beyond especially during the COVID situation to
educate and are actually finding greater success with education via technology than in person.
Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked Assistant Chief Zweber and Chief Hovis for their assistance
and their support of a higher fine. She lives near Lake Ballinger and woke up on July 511i to find bottle
rockets in her yard and on her roof, things that could have set her house on fire. She emphasized
fireworks are not a necessity and she appreciated SCF's agreement with increasing the fines which will
make people think twice. People still lighting off fireworks in her neighborhood when it's obvious a
Councilmember lives there which shows they do not worry about what happens if they get caught. She
expressed support for the ordinance updating the City's Fireworks Code.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she is in full support of the ordinance. She is involved in the dog
community and things were out of control this year. People know where she lives and they still light off
fireworks. She relayed the dog community's question whether the ordinance will be enforced and how it
will be enforced to ensure fines occur. Many people call the police to report fireworks on the 4' of July
and they are always too busy. Assistant Chief Zweber said the proposed ordinance includes empowering
the fire marshal and designees with police powers and of course the police department for enforcement
purposes as well as changing it from a civil infraction to a criminal infraction. That topic will need to be
worked through with the police chief because he holds the power to grant limited commissions for
enforcement. He discussed that with Acting Chief Lawless and it sounded like agreement could be
reached if the police department needed SCF's assistance with enforcement. Mayor Nelson said the intent
is to not just rely on the police but have fire marshals and others assist in enforcement because the police
are overwhelmed. Councilmember Buckshnis said it only takes 1-2 tickets and then the word gets out.
She summarized it was great to have rules, but enforcement was key.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled when she was growing up, there were two kinds of fireworks, the
legal ones available at the grocery store and the illegal ones purchased out of state or on Indian
reservations. She asked if that was still the case today. Assistant Chief Zweber answered yes. The
Washington State Patrol, who regulates explosives in the state, puts out a document every year to educate
fire departments on what is legal and illegal. Typically the fireworks sold in stands in the local
community are legal fireworks and the ones sold at other places such as the Indian reservations are illegal.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 23
Packet Pg. 79
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if sparklers and snakes were still legal. Assistant Chief Zweber
answered yes, under the ban there is an exception for sparklers and snake type things. Typically if a
fireworks fly into the sky and explodes, it is illegal.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked the difference between a civil infraction and a misdemeanor in terms of
enforcement and a person's record. Mr. Taraday answered potentially jail time and the burden of proof.
Criminal offenses carry a higher burden of proof than a civil offense. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if
it would be prosecuted at the municipal level. Mr. Taraday said that was his understanding.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this had been a great discussion, she believed there was a problem that
needed to be resolved and she appreciated the Council debate, but before she could act on this, the City
should touch base with the judge and the acting police chief. She recommended postponing this to a date
in the future depending on scheduling and availability of those key people.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
POSTPONE THIS TO A DATE IN THE FUTURE DEPENDING ON SCHEDULING AND THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE JUDGE AND THE ACTING POLICE CHIEF.
Councilmember Distelhorst raised a point of order, stating not all Councilmembers have spoken and this a
study item.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION.
Councilmember K. Johnson reiterated the need to include these key people when discussing enforcement.
SCF will not do all the enforcement; they will help with education and the fire marshal can be deputized.
Councilmember L. Johnson reported this year in particular it sounded like a war zone and was coming
from all directions. As the daughter and sister of veterans who have served multiple tours, she was very
cognizant of the impact this can have on veterans as well as others with PTSD in addition to the physical
safety and fire risk and impact on pets. It doesn't happen on just one evening; it tends to go for multiple
days. She was in favor of the code update and would be comfortable with it being on Consent next week
or as an action item.
Councilmember Olson agreed independent fireworks are not consistent with an urban environment and
are asking for trouble. As Councilmember K. Johnson stated, she was concerned with the change from
civil to criminal. The fine should be high enough that it is a deterrent and that people know the City plans
to enforce it. She had reservations and concerns that warrant thought from Councilmembers before this is
an action item on the agenda, thinking about what it would mean to have something criminal on a
person's record in terms of future employment. Offenders tend to be young people and she was unsure
about burdening them with a criminal charge, particularly if it was a first offense. She suggested it could
be for a second offense.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER
K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
In response to Councilmember Olson, Assistant Chief Zweber said in discussion with Acting Chief
Lawless regarding the change from a civil to a criminal offense, the civil process is much lengthier and is
not just writing a ticket. He deals with code enforcement in all cities and agreed criminal was much easier
in his experience. He envisioned that was likely one of the reasons for that change in the proposed
ordinance. Councilmember Olson suggested making that part of the education component, that people
would not want to have that on their record.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 24
Packet Pg. 80
7.1.a
Councilmember K. Johnson looked forward to discussing this again. She suggest a warning for a first
offense, $500 fine for a second offense and $1000 for a third offense.
Assistant Chief Zweber said it was great to see familiar faces and he looked forward to meeting the new
Councilmembers outside this forum. The Council will see him early next year for code amendments.
11. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEETING
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson reported the Snohomish Health District released information today showing the overall
numbers in Snohomish County continue to go up; 97.2/100,000 residents which is virtually identical to
March 15. The difference is the age group; only 5% of those cases are for those 70 years or over and 55%
are in ages 15-39, indicating an overwhelming amount of young people are spreading the virus like
wildfire. It will only get worse unless people wear masks and practice social distancing. In Yakima where
there was 95% compliance with masks, their numbers are going down. He summarized masks do work
and they do save lives.
iK�K1111e[yMQiL17UMuMDMeIK
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked everyone for their input on the Sound Transit bicycle improvement
plan project and he appreciated all the productive discussions.
Councilmember Buckshnis thank everyone who has reached out to her. To WNBA fans, she said Seattle
Storm are playing and their games are on TV, go Storm.
Councilmember Paine appreciated Mayor Nelson's comments about the region's collective health. She
reminded that wearing a mask will help us all get through this together. She appreciate everyone's
comments tonight and the lively discussion; parking and bike lanes are always a hot topic. She plans to
follow up with Mr. Williams regarding 96th & 224th SW, she used to live down the hill and knows the
intersection well as it was on her bike route.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR THREE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1),
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
Councilmember Olson said decorum is important and she apologized to the citizens and her fellow
electeds for categorizing recent events in an unflattering way. She tries to live by impatience with herself
and patience with others and she fell short tonight.
Councilmember K. Johnson said Councilmember Olson was forgiven, everyone makes mistakes and can
learn from them. She wished everyone be well and fill out their census. Anyone who hasn't completed
their census will have a census taker come to their home by the end of the month to answer the ten
questions on the form.
With regard to the information from Snohomish Health District, Council President Fraley-Monillas said
that is four times the acceptable amount of people to test positive for COVID in a day. During COVID,
she has been reading a lot including the book, "White Fragility, Why It Is So Hard for White People to
Talk About Racism." She encouraged the Council to order the book, written by a white person, or read it
online.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 25
Packet Pg. 81
7.1.a
Councilmember L. Johnson thanked everyone who has emailed her. She urged the public to please wear
masks and help get us out of this mess.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 26
Packet Pg. 82
7.1.a
Public Comment for July 28, 2020 Council Meeting:
7/28/20 Inez Taylor, Subject: On street parking on Bowdoin Way to be removed if decided by
Council
We have just moved to this area from South King County and live in a cul-de-sac with two
parking spaces only outside our garage on Bowdoin Way. We expected to have some street
parking if necessary for family gatherings. Now it may be that parking is removed from both
sides of the road. This street is not that easy for bicycles and it goes up and down. We walk to
Yost Park often and see that many scooters and bikes are motorized to manage this road. It
seems very abrupt to only know of this through a flyer left at our door Friday evening. An
outside agency like Sound Transit that goes over budget and over any real deadlines for its own
projects now can come with this grant and disrupt a relatively quiet street compared to Main
Street and remove all street parking? Surely there should be more of a survey of how practical
and useful this might be to the actual residents. I am sure other small houses near us would
also be negatively impacted. We are not sure how maintenance trucks can come for repairs or
re -modeling or tree service. This seems an extreme measure. Please consider removal of only
one side if at all. I have seen no heavy bike traffic or special lane need. There are also the
many months of cold weather, rain and low visibility. I hope these considerations can be heard.
7/28/20 Lora M. Hein, Subject: 224th intersection Comment cut short at 28 July meeting
(Trimmed to 443 words) I thank all of you for your dedication and hard work in the midst of so
many challenges. I hope you had some quiet over the weekend to rest in preparation for this
week. About 9:00 a.m. Sunday morning, I was having a cup of tea, getting a little calm and
peace before a full day. I heard SQUEE, Bam, THUMP. I knew where it had come from. Similar
sounds are frequent from the intersection of 96th Ave. W and 224th St. SW, 3 houses west.
This was new — I imagined a body impacted, flung, landing broken, bleeding on the pavement.
I rushed to the door, put on shoes, and dashed outside. Neighbors were converging on two
broken vehicles, one facing east on the south side of 224th, the other at an angle on the NE
corner sidewalk, driver's side caved in, side air bag obscuring windows and open door, except a
limp leg. Enough people were there, none masked and I saw no phones. I went inside to call 9-
1-1. The dispatcher informed me another call had been received and officers were en route.
One Edmonds police car arrived, another, then a motorcycle. A firetruck with 3 emergency
personnel showed up. A neighbor brought a broom to sweep up broken glass as vehicles wove
through people criss-crossing the intersection. This is not the first incident at this corner. Many
efforts over decades have attempted making this school crossing a 4-way stop. Traffic coming
from the west has just crested a hill from 100th. Having accelerated up that grade, cars often
exceed the 30 mph (25 when children are present) speed limit by the time they reach the
intersection. Stopped North -bound cars may have not noticed a sign, shaded by trees, saying
"cross -traffic does not stop." Those drivers must pull forward to look both ways. They then see
the crosswalk to their left and assume cars from the west — difficult to see beyond 3 big trees —
are stopping. They proceed, and Scree -wham! I've heard and seen near misses, fender
benders, but not the sound of an air -bag deployed. This intersection is a thoroughfare of
neighbors near & far, walking one of the few sidewalks locally. Some follow children on bikes
with training wheels, others recently progressed to riding on their own. Scooters, strollers, dogs
and skateboards, bicyclists with and without trailers, some with children aboard, elders returning
home with groceries. How much do a pair of stop signs cost weighed against the life of a child
or parent? How are numbers of 4-way stops calculated against lives? Must it come to that?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 27
Packet Pg. 83
7.1.a
7/28/20 Judy-B Wilson, Subject: Opposed to Dedicated Bike Lanes on 9th South
Bea Wilson, 1033 9th Ave S, Edmonds, WA 98020
1 called in with comment & was recognized as last 4 numbers as 0976. 1 was addressed as
Justin, but I identified self as Bea Wilson. Then there was no response, apparently I could hear
you but you couldn't hear me. I think adding bike lanes would become a bigger safety issue
slowing down exceedingly fast-moving, heavy traffic. Safety issue for bikers and residents
trying to cross to their homes. I have witness accidents from my window when Cars are backed
up bumper to bumper from the 4 way stop intersections during peak traffic causing rear end
accidents to occur. That issue should be addressed and resolved before creating safety for
pedestrians.
7/28/20 Jim Carraway, Subject: Final point
My third and most important concern is communication. I find it funny the city does not notify
residents who will be directly impacted by these types of projects, but the city's building
department does notify residents when neighbors are proposing changes to their property. The
councilwoman's response to my public comment including the following
statement. "Unfortunately, there has been some misinformation shared regarding this
project." I'm assuming that is in reference to the flyer left around my neighborhood. While the
flyer may have misstated some of the facts of the project, it got me to act. When I went to verify
its information on the city's website, I couldn't find anything other than the press release issued
last fall. Even the presentation to the council last week which the councilwoman shared only
has one bullet point regarding speeding and doesn't show which streets will be
addressed. Combine that with Mr. Hauss' comments earlier in the year, speeding on Walnut will
not be addressed which has been one of my primary concerns with living in Edmonds. So, the
final question becomes — how to address misinformation and the lack of information? I still
receive NextDoor notifications regarding projects from the City of Kenmore where I used to
live. These notifications even have links to project documentation more detailed than council
notes and presentations. It would be nice if the city could implement this or if this does exists,
evangelize it, because right now the citizens of Edmonds are left in the dark. Thank you.
7/28/20 Albert Cohen, Subject: Parking removal on 9th Ave South
We are adamantly opposed to giving over parking on 9th Ave South for recreational bike lanes.
They may serve a purpose in dense traffic of downtown Seattle for urging more bicycling
commuters, but are hardly appropriate for small town, residential Edmonds. We don't even have
a major bus line on 9th Ave South. Our objections rise from the fact the we, and everyone who
lives on the East side of the street, has to deal with steep driveways in icy weather (and the
West side too, I suspect) and need to park at the bottom of our hills. Parking on side streets is
not an option as most of those are steeper still.
In addition, many of us share driveways that lead to limited parking. The council has followed
the planner's lead in limiting our impervious surface area as being healthy for the environment
and good storm water management. If this bike lane program becomes the reality of 9th Ave.,
we will need to add some additional parking on our property to accommodate guests, especially
the elderly that cannot walk several blocks from a side street. Recreational bikers are getting
exercise, so why cannot they use the parallel side streets that are safer and connect to the
same locations. I suspect they already do use them, because it is generally a rare event to see
a bicycle rider on 9th Ave S. In conclusion, we feel this is not appropriate for Edmonds, and 9th
Ave South is not "expendable" for the city to look'hip' or'vogue'. I notice you are not urging
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 28
Packet Pg. 84
7.1.a
bike lanes on 5th Ave South, saying this will encourage recreational visitors to the downtown
core and solve parking issues downtown. You know that would never fly. This is simply not a
good idea as it benefits so few, and penalizes many residential homeowners, unlike anywhere
else in Edmonds.
7/28/20 John Hotmail Larpenteur, Subject: SoundTransit bicycle improvements
Please support the changes offered by SoundTransit to add bicycle amenities in Edmonds.
Increasing safety and bicycle awareness will improve Edmonds. The benefits for recreation,
transportation, health and improved air quality are all worthy. Becoming more bicycle friendly
will attract tourists and business to Edmonds. The additions of 'sharrows' to 80th Ave W
between 220th SW and 228th SW and the improvements on 228th will complete an excellent
route connecting the existing bicycle infrastructure to the bicycle route leading to the Mountlake
Terrace Park & Ride, a future lite rail station, and the Interurban Trail. This route also continues
to routes leading to Lake Forest Park and the Burke Gilman Trail. Please support this offer from
SoundTransit.
7/28/20 Nathan Proudfoot, Subject: Public Bike infrastructure
I would like to support the idea of improved cycling infrastructure. I am unsure of the public input
process that took place in deciding on these locations for improvement and have been
advocating for cycling infrastructure/. path going through yost park for some time. This
continues to be overlooked as a family friendly location for improved cycling infrastructure. I
know that my words mean little to the overall goal as when money is available it speaks. please
move forward in the direction that has the least resistance. Thank you.
7/28/20 Kent Smith, Subject: 7/28/20 Meeting- Support for Approval of Citywide Bicycle
Improvement Project
On behalf of parents and coaches of the Edmonds Middle School (6t1_8tn grade) and High
School (91"-12th grade) mountain bike teams we wholeheartedly support the efforts for the
addition of dedicated bike lanes on Bowdoin Way from 5 Corners to Yost Pool; further down
Walnut to 9th Avenue South and from Walnut on 9th Avenue South and 100th Avenue West the
entire way to Firdale Village. In our six years of existence we have seen participation in our
team's grow from one team consisting of nine riders the first year to over sixty riders for the
2020 season. From a higher level view, the state-wide league in which we participate has grown
for around 300 riders when we joined in 2015 to around 1,000 for 2020. Being in Edmonds we
do not have off -road riding spaces available. Many of these riders ride all year round and can be
found riding the streets around Edmonds. In addition, many of our coaches, parents, and riders
commute to school/work and run errands by bike using the very roads and routes that are on
the list for the dedicated bike lanes. This is a great opportunity to add to our cycling
infrastructure and promote a healthy and alternative form of transportation and exercise.
7/28/20 Allan & Nancy Rustad, Subject: Proposed Bike Lanes on 9th Ave.S.,100th Ave.W. &
Bowdoin Wy.
This issue came to my attention via a posting on a neighborhood forum web site, just a few days
ago. I had seen no notice in the Edmonds Beacon, or other publication. I expect the plan would
be similar to the bike lane striping on NW185th St/Richmond Beach Road in Shoreline. My wife
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 29
Packet Pg. 85
7.1.a
and I agree that this does not seem like a good idea, considering the consequent complete loss
of street parking, especially on 100th Ave.W -.9th ave.S in the area immediately North of Hwy
104. There is street parking by QFC employees and others daily along the Edmonds Cemetery,
and further North, especially on the West side of the street.. The QFC/Goodwill parking lot is
commonly filled to capacity, and across the street, the PCC/Wallgreens lot is not quite as full.
The message I have received indicates that the survey of parking use in the subject area was
done during the early weeks of the COVID lockdown, when there was a precipitous drop in car
and truck traffic on 100th W/9th S., and consequently little street parking. The present situation
is quite different, as anyone can see, travelling North from Hwy 104 during business hours.
Farther North on 9th, residences generally have off-street parking, some are not easily
accessible by large trucks. Trucks commonly park curbside, both North and Southbound, to
deliver packages and mail, and would block a curbside bike lane, although temporarily. There
are very few side streets to offer parking, and most are rather steep hills, up or down. We
request the Council seriously consider alternatives to this proposal, and seek other routes, or
some arrangement to at least preserve parking near Hwy 104 Westgate. Thanks for your
consideration
7/28/20 Peter Block, Subject:Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project/Comments for 7/28 City of
Edmonds Council Meeting
I have been a resident of the Town of Woodway since 1973 and wish to register my strong
support of the City's acceptance of the Sound Transit Grant for bicycle improvements. I
regularly bicycle about 100 miles a week, most of it within the City, and I often use the roads
identified for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. These streets have been experiencing an
increase in bicycle and pedestrian usage, which can be directly attributed to the COVID 19
pandemic. Bicycle shops have seen an increased demand for child -sized and adult -sized
bicycles. These riders need safe places to ride. As school districts plan for remote learning for
Fall, 2021, there will continue to be an increased demand for bicycle riding and walking. When
we get through the pandemic, bicycle and pedestrian usage will not go away. To the contrary,
the health benefits of safe, alternative transportation will remain. I urge you to accept the Sound
Transit Grant and proceed with the improvements.
7/28/20 Margaret Elwood, Subject: Citywide Bicycle Improvement Project
My husband and I are both seniors with some disability, and bicycling is our only safe mode of
exercise while gyms are closed due to the pandemic. (I have balance issues from MS that make
walking difficult while cycling still works fine. My husband has kidney disease and relies on his
e-bike to assist when walking or a regular bike would be too tiring.) We frequently ride along
Bowdoin Way, 228th St., and 100th/9th Ave. While the power of a -bikes allows us to escape a
dicey traffic situation more quickly than on a regular bike, we are still at a huge disadvantage
when encountering cars. Neither do we wish to hold up traffic while going uphill at a slow speed
with no safe space to turn out and allow cars to pass. We need more bike lanes. Please do
proceed with the addition of bike lanes to improve the safety of cycling in Edmonds. It would
serve many more residents than it would inconvenience through the loss of some street parking.
Thank you.
7/28/20 Rob Gendron, Subject: Support Expanding Bike Lanes in Edmonds
I am writing today to support the expanding bike lanes in Edmonds, especially the section of
100t" Ave West between 23811 St SW and Edmonds Way. This section of 1001" Ave West has 4
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 30
Packet Pg. 86
7.1.a
traffic lanes. I am a regular bike commuter, riding 20+ miles from 240th St SW in Edmonds to
Redmond without feeling unsafe, but can't ride the 1 mile from my house to the PCC on the
corner of 100t1 Ave West due to safety concerns. The 4 lanes leave no room for bicycles, cars
frequently speed in that section and drivers do not respect cyclist rights to take a lane.
Currently, many cyclists avoid 100th Ave West, which without this unsafe section, would be a
great route from Edmonds Bowl to the Interurban and Burke Gilman / Samish River trails. Bike
lanes serving both 911 Ave and Firdale Ave / 244th St SW would receive more utilization by
cyclists if the unsafe section in the middle of an otherwise safe route was removed. The section
of 1001h Ave West between 238th St SW and Edmonds Way is the home of 2 schools in the
Edmonds School District, Scriber Lake and Edmonds Heights. Few students would consider
cycling to school given the lack of a bike lane. The safety of students waiting for Community
Transit busses would be increased with the extra distance between traffic and the sidewalk. A
single lane will make it harder for drivers to miss the school zone signals and help reduce
speeds, increasing the safety of students. The 4 lanes on 100th Ave West are also unsafe for
drivers. On rainy nights lane markings become hard to see, resulting in cars crossing the line,
both the white lane and double center lines. The lack of a left turn lane creates unsafe
conditions as cars try to change lanes to avoid delays for people making left turns.
Channelization of this section of 1001h Ave West will not slow traffic significantly as the left turn
lanes will reduce delays. Drivers using the arterial running from 244th St SW, Firdale Ave, to
10011 Ave / 911 Ave would have a consistent experience, without going from 2 lanes to 4, then
back to 2 lanes. Thank you for considering improving the bike lanes in Edmonds, especially the
section of 100th Ave West between 240th and Edmonds Way.
7/28/20 John Kenny, Subject: Parking along 9th ave
Thank you Council Members for your responses to my wife's email this morning. I'm a third
generation Edmonds resident. I live on 9th Avenue. My grandparents lived on 9th Avenue. My
Aunt lives on 9th Avenue. I would appreciate you voting no on eliminating parking spaces along
9th Avenue/100th. I appreciate the myriad of alternatives and believe that a plan can be
achieved that spares the parking spaces along 9th Avenue. Please vote no on eliminating
parking spaces along 9th. Thank you for your time and service.
7/28/20 Emily Bergen, Subject: Bike lane
I know that you are currently receiving a lot of negativity about the bike lane along 100th Ave
w/9th Ave but I wanted to write in support. If there was a dedicated bike lane I would feel more
comfortable riding my bike as a transportation option. I haven't seen the plane yet but I hope
these will be put in as protected lanes- I often see drivers try to use painted lanes to get around
slower cars I also think that safe crossing needs to be addressed if parking is limited to one side
of the road. Thanks!
7/28/20 Hank Landau, Subject: Citywide Bicycle Improvement Project
My wife and I own property in Edmonds along 100th Ave. W. I am a long time member and past
co-chair of Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group, worked as a transportation engineer many years
ago, and am one of the original members of the Edmond's Mayor's Climate Protection
Committee (CPC). I write in full support of the improvements planned for 100th Ave / 9th Ave,
Bowdoin Way and 228th St.
Together with the Edmonds School District, Verdant, the Cascade Bicycle Club and the City of
Edmonds we have been successful in introducing bicycle education for children in the primary
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 31
Packet Pg. 87
7.1.a
grades and middle schools and the implementation of bike signage in Edmonds and the
surrounding communities. The primary purpose for bicycle education was to reduce childhood
obesity and diabetes while providing children with a safe outlet for a healthy outdoor activity.
Another reason was to teach children how to interact with motorists without impeding motorists
in their use of the roads. Bike signage helps direct cyclists, both young and old, to the safest
and most convenient route to destinations in Edmonds and surrounding communities. I am now
at an age where I often take the routes in question for medical appointments at and in the
vicinity of Edmonds Steven's Hospital. Bike lanes provide me with a much appreciated sense of
security. Bike transport is important for more than good personal health and recreation. The
Edmonds CPC recognizes the growing need to include bicycle use as an important component
of our transportation network. Bicycle riding not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions, it also
reduces traffic congestion and the need for parking by taking cars off our roads. I recognize that
bike lanes sometimes interfere with parking but it is important to remember that our roads, even
those in front of people's homes, are for public use and are paid for by all taxpaying residents,
including bicycle riders. I trust that the Edmonds' Council will prioritize the overall health of our
community and the safety of bicycle riders, especially children and the elderly, and will approve
this project. Thank you.
7/28/20 Jim Kenny, Subject: 9th Ave Parking Replaced with Bike Lanes
I ask you to reconsider your movement toward replacing the parking on 9th Ave with bike lanes.
I write to you in support of Margaret Kenny, 721 9th Ave S. She is writing separately in
opposition to removing the parking. The Kennys have lived on 9th Ave for decades. For our
large family functions at Margaret's house, we use the parking lanes on 9th Ave. There is little
parking in the driveway. If you replace the parking with bike lanes, then we will have no place to
park. I used to live in Edmonds, and I travel the roads in Edmonds regularly. The parking lanes
on 9th Ave seem well -used. Removing the parking lanes will be a significant inconvenience for
residents who park there and their guests and families. Thank you for considering my
comment.
7/28/20 Ken Reidy, Subject: Public Comments for July 28, 2020 City Council meeting
Article 1, section 7 of the state constitution mandates that "[n]o person shall be disturbed in his
private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." Exculpatory evidence: anything
that clears someone or something of guilt or blame is exculpatory. Exculpatory comes from
the Latin word exculpat, meaning "freed from blame." The verb exculpate means to free from
guilt or blame. By its past conduct, has City of Edmonds administration chosen to act in such a
way that its Policy Makers now need to adopt something like the Brady Rule to place a duty on
Mayors, City Staff and City Attorneys to affirmatively disclose exculpatory evidence in
their possession when they are prosecuting Code Enforcement? I think the answer is
obviously yes. Please appreciate - former Mayor Gary Haakenson met with my wife and I on
November 17, 2009, the same day City Staff drafted notes that prove they knew about and had
discussed that "Setbacks will be grandfathered by Planning if, at minimum, a letter from
neighbor states it was there prior to 1981." City Staff's Meeting Notes dated November 17, 2009
are exculpatory evidence. So are City Staff notes dated July 31, 2009 that clearly stated that
"Non -conforming structures constructed prior to 1980 (new ordinance) are grandfathered." Both
sets of City Staff notes prove that the City of Edmonds knew our setbacks could be
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 32
Packet Pg. 88
7.1.a
grandfathered. Please have City Employee Jeanie McConnell disclose why she did not
include the notes dated July 31, 2009 and November 17, 2009 in the documentation
provided Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice before our Code Enforcement Hearing or tell Ms.
Rice DURING our hearing that the City of Edmonds Administration had full knowledge of
the grandfathering Ordinance, Ordinance No. 3696. Hearing Examiner Rice was provided
evidence during my hearing that my building had been seen as far back as 1968. What
more should any citizen have to do? I followed the procedure — paid the appeal fee,
provided the law and the evidence. Rice ruled it wasn't relevant. It was absolutely
relevant and City Staff knew so because they had discussed using the EXACT
LAW months earlier. That is documented FACT as shown by the City Staff notes. Our
City's laws aren't little play things to be brought out when they help the City but kept
hidden when they work for the citizen. Remember — the City of Edmonds has always had a
duty to be scrupulously just. This duty applies to Mayors, City Attorneys and City Staff. Please
contact me immediately about initiating legislation that will place a duty on Mayors, City
Staff and City Attorneys to affirmatively disclose exculpatory evidence in their
possession when they are prosecuting Code Enforcement. Thank you.
7/28/20 Amy Kenny, Subject: Edmonds 9th Avenue bike lanes
We live on 9th Avenue in Edmonds, WA and are opposed to the elimination of street parking to
create bike lanes. I value the parking spaces along the road. This road is much too busy for
bikers and I fear for the potential accidents given it is such a thoroughfare. Parking is highly
coveted on this street, and a parking study being done during the Covid-19 shelter in place is
inaccurate and unfair. Not only do residents and their families use street parking, but usage is
higher during the following scenarios, which are currently decreased for obvious reasons during
our shelter in place:
1. Activities at the nearby cemetery (funeral or other event) creates the need for street
parking.
2. Parking for bus riders near the Bartel's bus stop.
Please survey residents for safety and practicality of these bike lanes; you will see it is not the
best option. Thanks for your time.
7/28/20 Margaret Kenny, Subject: bike lanes proposal
I write you to register my opposition to the proposal for establishing bicycle lanes along 9th Ave
S/ 100th between Walnut and Firdale Village. My home address is 721 - 9th Ave S. My
concerns are:
1. Safety : It is frequently unsafe to drive onto 9th from my col de sac entrance. One wreck
occurred there and another occurred across the street. Speeding cars are common. I'm
sure an examination of police records for 2018 and 2019 will show many incidents along
the proposed 911 bike route, particularly at the intersections with Walnut, 220th, and
Edmonds Way.
Spruce to Pine St is a single block with side road residences like mine. For large
gatherings, our guests park on 9th. My guests, at least, are often elderly, as am I. Getting
together could be a problem for us if all street -side parking is eliminated. Just crossing
the street is difficult — especially at rush hour when cars back up beyond my road
entrance.
2. Bike lanes aren't warranted by the number of Edmonds cyclists using 9th: It's rare
to see families riding 9th as a unit — more often 1 or 2 adults at a time pass my yard. A
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 33
Packet Pg. 89
7.1.a
usual weekly count would be small. Recently, more riders per week have
appeared. One told me they are from the Cascade Bicycle Club, a large Seattle based
group. Again I suggest the Council examine any cyclist's 9t" Ave usage data be
gathered from 2018 and 2019 statistics lest such an abnormal current increased use
skew city planning.
3. Sound Transit grant for bike lanes planning: Integrating Sound Transit services into
the life of Edmonds citizens should, I think, be openly and publicly discussed to avoid
unintended consequences. Getting a grant from them may be good but what justifies a
rushed Council discussion in July when many interested Edmonds citizens are away or
have never heard of this proposition? For example would these proposed bike lanes be
extended to 9t" Ave North in the future? What has or does the grant enable? What city
expenditures do or might result from its use? Unless I missed something, the current
Beacon issue carries no mention of the Council's bringing the 9t" Ave/100t" Ave matter
forward now. I, for one, want more information before I concur in a move that definitely
adds more stress to my life while potentially endangers motorists, cyclists, or
homeowners. Thank you.
7/28/20 Heidi Karna, Subject: Removal of street parking on 9th Ave and Bowdoin
This past weekend I received a "flyer" on my front porch informing residents of street parking
removal along 9th Ave and Bowdoin Streets. I live along 9th Ave West and STRONGLY
OPPOSE the removal of street parking. Many of us have short driveways and rely on street
parking for a variety of reasons i.e.) family and friends, work trucks, etc. To suggest we utilize
side streets is unreasonable for a variety of reasons due to distance, availability, hills,
negative impact on neighbors living on those streets. I enjoy riding my bike like many folks, but
to ask residents who live along these streets to be inconvenienced for the addition of bike lanes
is wrong and not fair. As a side note, I'm very much aware of the amount of bikers along these
streets and in my opinion I do not think bike lanes are warranted. I believe other options should
be explored to the betterment of all residents. It is discouraging residents were not formally
notified via mail, email or another form of formal communication. I feel this change was trying to
be pushed through the back door rather than full transparency. How does this benefit the
residents along impacted streets?
7/28/20 Eric Goodman, Subject: Citywide bicycle improvements and open streets
First, thank you for your service and dedication to our community during this trying time. I'm
unable to attend tonight's meeting, so this message is meant to express my strongest possible
support for the citywide bicycle improvements. Rather than "improvements" I view the provision
of space for people of all ages and abilities on our streets as an essential duty of our city
government. Right now it is possible for me to reach every address in this region by car without
a thought for whether or not there is a safe path, while only a fraction of addresses have
sidewalk or cycle paths. To achieve a "balanced system" we would need to invest 100% of our
transportation dollars into active modes for more than a decade. I am not asking for that, but I
am asking you to be bold and make a significant investment not only of these ST dollars, but our
own tax revenue as well. Much more than in the past. And I want you to keep and expand the
open streets downtown. I took my children down to experience that and rather than just rushing
into the bookstore where we had an item to pick up, we stopped for gelato and got take-out to
bring home too. I drove and parked on 3rd between Edmonds and Bell without searching or
waiting. For comparison, I would have parked farther away from my destination if it was
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 34
Packet Pg. 90
7.1.a
anywhere inside Alderwood Mall. Had the streets been open to cars, and people stuck on
narrow sidewalks, I would have ordered the book on Amazon, left the kids home and picked up
food in Lynnwood. I would not have been browsing windows in Edmonds. Tell that to the shop
owner complainers, or let them experience the bankruptcy of their ideas about parking.
Dedicated and physically separated paths for slow speed travel are essential for safe
movement. Providing wide lanes over 10' for vehicles encourages speeding and increases the
danger to everyone not inside a vehicle. Is it equitable that the city gives me 10' of pavement if I
can afford a car, but only 6' of concrete if I am poor and need to walk? and 3-5' if I choose to
cycle? I am an AICP transportation planner and research in the field bears out the safety of
separating modes and providing a connected grid of options for travel throughout the area.
Studies have also shown that small local businesses get more revenue from people walking and
cycling than from people driving by. I support closing off the fountain circle to cars permanently
and would like you to also look into closing 4th Avenue to cars for its entire length or at least
making it a greenway. If there is demand for private parking, let the market satisfy that demand
the way it does all other valuable commodities in the American capitalist system. Price it and
provide it - privately. We have a public transit system that provides good service to downtown
Edmonds and we should do more to encourage people to walk, bike and bus when they need to
get here. We are struggling to provide housing for our humans, but how many acres of city land
does Edmonds dedicate to housing inanimate hunks of metal? Does that reflect our values -
You bet it does! We love our cars more than our neighbors, and that is incredibly sad. Providing
parking for private vehicles is not an essential function of government. Allowing my children to
travel safely to school is. Allowing me a healthy choice for my commute and my shopping trips
is. Our ancestors have been walking for millions of years, bicycling for almost 200 years and
driving cars for 130 years. The first paved roads were for bicycles. Then cars took over all of our
public right of way and made it dangerous for anyone not in a vehicle. Including anyone trying to
breath near a running motor that pours out toxic gases. You are in the position to correct that
mistake. Cars have a place. They should not have every place. Our city desperately needs
more streets dedicated to human beings, rather than machines. Look up what happened in
Pontavedra, Spain when they closed off streets. But remember, being for the people is not a
European concept, it is as American as it gets. I support protected bike lanes and paths - and if
you have to take half the road and make it one way for cars, then that is what equity looks like.
You have an opportunity to walk your talk and make real change. Please step up and think of
the future, and do not listen to those loud people mired in the past. Please ride around our city
on a bike and walk through our neighborhoods. If you feel safe, then ignore me, but if you can
understand the issues, and why I am terrified to let my children out on our streets, please
address those concerns now. Thank you.
7/28/20 Pauline Dibble, Subject: Bike lanes on Walnut Street
In my opinion the bike traffic is minimal on Walnut and because the hill is steep most people
choose to walk their bikes up the hill. The need for parking is usually great (pre-covid19). With
Yost Park overflow and people parking to walk to events in downtown Edmonds every parking
spot can be taken. I am 70 and have lived in Edmonds since 1956. Many of those years on
Walnut. I visit my son and his family at their home on Walnut and can generally park on the
street near their house. The bike lanes would make that difficult. Please take these concerns
into account and reconsider putting bike lanes on Walnut. Thank you.
7/28/20 Mark Clark, Subject: Bike Lanes Proposal
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 35
Packet Pg. 91
7.1.a
I'd like to register my support for the addition of bike lanes and any other improvements that can
be made in the city to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety.My wife and I are avid cyclists,
runners and walkers. We feel immensely vulnerable while cycling through the city. I want to use
my bike to commute to work in Seattle, but there is no safe route that connects to the Interurban
Trail unless I ride miles out of my way in the opposite direction. Adding lanes to 9th through
Firdale would be a logical and much needed north -south route. Bike sales this season are at an
all-time high. People need safe places to ride for exercise, commuting, and reducing carbon
footprints. Need data? Studies show that bike lanes reduce fatalities. Let's not wait for a tragic
accident to take action. Look what happened in Woodinville this week. Let's make our streets
safer.The bike lanes in Richmond Beach are great. Please do the same for Edmonds! Thanks.
7/28/20 Andrew Morgan, Subject: Proposed Sound Transit Funding Agreement for City Wide
Bicycle Improvement Project
At the July 8, 2020 meeting of the Sound Transit Citizen Oversite Panel, Sound Transit
presented its Program of Realignment in response to COVID-19. During this pandemic ridership
is down 80-90%. For 2020-21 revenue loss projections are between $0.7 Billion and $1 Billion
while losses through 2041 are projected at $ 8 Billion to $12 Billion. Sound Transit's near term
priorities include, "Slower, more incremental approach... as long term realignment takes place,"
with a recommendation to "Wait to advance projects into final design or construction" to "Avoid
over -commitment until Board priorities become clearer." We live in a new world with people
afraid to be confined with a multitude of strangers in a bus, train, or airplane. We have no idea if
or when public transportation will bounce back. Even Sound Transit indicates funding for the
Mountlake Terrace station could be delayed as much as five years or more. If getting bikers to
the local Sound Transit location at Mountlake Terrace is the whole point of this bike lane project
and the potential project delay for more funding of the Mountlake Terrace station is being
recommended to take five additional years then it could be the year 2029 once it is operational.
The City Council is urged to thoughtfully pause and not "zoom" through approval of the bike lane
project now when Citizens are asking for more dialogue on this issue. If not it seems like we
could be could hit with a double whammy: Bike lanes to nowhere and on -street car parking
reduced by half. Thank you for considering our perspective on the matter.
7/28/20 Stacie Echelbarger, Subject: Dedicated Bike Lanes
I would like to express my opposition to adding bike lanes to Walnut & 9th up Bowdoin to 5
Corners because it will drastically reduce the amount of parking available in my neighborhood. I
live at 1052 Alder. Thank you for your consideration.
7/28/20 Jack Nielsen Subject: Bike Lane on both sides of Bowdoin to 5 corners NO, Do not
want it! J. Neilsen home owner
7/28/20 Ann Lawson-Beerman, Subject: Proposed Bicycle Lane on Bowdoin Way
I think the proposed bike lane on Bowdoin Way from Five Corners to Yost Park is a mistake. As
a frequent cyclist has noted in MyEdmondsNews.com, there is no need for it because Bowdoin
is already wide and easily travelled by bike. In addition, because I live on Pioneer Way and turn
onto Bowdoin daily, I know that the geography of the hill at that intersection makes it challenging
to see oncoming vehicles and even pedestrians. If the City of Edmonds proceeds with this
proposal, it is incumbent on the City to maintain all intersections with Bowdoin Way to ensure
proper visibility. Today, at 2 p.m., I counted 15 cars parked on Bowdoin Way. Where will they go
if a bike lane is created? Onto our curvy, hilly, fully developed residential streets that already
host parked cars? Lest you think I am hostile to bicyclists, I'd like to say that is not the case. In
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 36
Packet Pg. 92
7.1.a
fact, I created the first bicycle program in Portland, Oregon when I was an assistant to the City
Council person who was in charge of Public Works, which received state gas tax money for
bicycle transportation improvements. I believe it was the first dedicated bicycle transportation
program in the country. We created an advisory board that knew streets, transportation science,
and bicycling to help craft the program. As we've since seen in Portland, downtown Seattle, and
countless other venues across the country, painting a stripe is not adequate when bicycling is
retrofitted into existing traffic. A serious transportation analysis is needed. Last, I want to ask
why this has come to my attention only through a letter in an online newspaper. Is it not
necessary to post the proposal for all who use the routes to see? Shouldn't we citizens be
advised of a possible change that affects our daily lives?
7/28/20 Allan and Nancy Rustad, Subject: Proposed Bike Lanes on 9th Ave.S., 100th Ave.W. &
Bowdoin Wy.
This issue came to my attention via a posting on a neighborhood forum web site, just a few days
ago. I had seen no notice in the Edmonds Beacon, or other publication. I expect the plan would
be similar to the bike lane striping on NW185th St/Richmond Beach Road in Shoreline.
My wife and I agree that this does not seem like a good idea, considering the consequent
complete loss of street parking, especially on 100th Ave.W -.9th ave.S in the area immediately
North of Hwy 104. There is street parking by QFC employees and others daily along the
Edmonds Cemetery, and further North, especially on the West side of the street.. The
QFC/Goodwill parking lot is commonly filled to capacity, and across the street, the
PCC/Wallgreens lot is not quite as full. The message I have received indicates that the survey
of parking use in the subject area was done during the early weeks of the COVID lockdown,
when there was a precipitous drop in car and truck traffic on 100th W/9th S., and consequently
little street parking. The present situation is quite different, as anyone can see, travelling North
from Hwy 104 during business hours. Farther North on 9th, residences generally have off-street
parking, some are not easily accessible by large trucks. Trucks commonly park curbside, both
North and Southbound, to deliver packages and mail, and would block a curbside bike lane,
although temporarily. There are very few side streets to offer parking, and most are rather
steep hills, up or down. We request the Council seriously consider alternatives to this proposal,
and seek other routes, or some arrangement to at least preserve parking near Hwy 104
Westgate. Thanks for your consideration.
7/28/20 John Kenny, Subject: Parking along 9th ave
Thank you Council Members for your responses to my wife's email this morning. I'm a third
generation Edmonds resident. I live on 9th Avenue. My grandparents lived on 9th Avenue. My
Aunt lives on 9th Avenue. I would appreciate you voting no on eliminating parking spaces along
9th Avenue/100th. I appreciate the myriad of alternatives and believe that a plan can be
achieved that spares the parking spaces along 9th Avenue. Please vote no on eliminating
parking spaces along 9th.Thank you for your time and service.
7/28/20 Susan Brevik, Subject: Bike lanes
I say No to the proposal of new bike lanes on 9th, 100th, Walnut, Bowdoin and 5 Corners in
Edmonds. I live on 9th and there's little action of bike riding. I believe parking is more relevant.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 37
Packet Pg. 93
7.1.a
Leave it the way it is. Maybe give the grant money back or if possible fix bad streets and more
sidewalks.
7/27/20 Trish Ruis, Subject: Bicycle Lanes — Opposition
I am writing this to express my opposition to the City Council's proposal to create dedicated bike
lanes on several streets, including Bowdoin Way. I have been a lifelong resident of Edmonds. I
was born at Stevens Hospital and grew up in a house on Bowdoin Way - a house that my
parents still reside in. Bowdoin has always been a busy street, and traffic has increased since
the traffic circle was installed at 5 corners. Adding dedicated bike lane(s) to this road, where
there is a blind corner with driveways as you approach Yost, would be extremely dangerous as
bicyclists do not yield to cars. Can you picture a bicyclist flying down the road around the blind
corner approaching Yost as a person is backing out of their driveway? Cars speeding down the
road is bad enough - SO many vehicles speed down Bowdoin, adding a bike lane will just
increase the danger to everyone (bicyclists and drivers alike). Aside from the occasional family
on bikes (riding on the sidewalk),there are rarely bicyclists on Bowdoin. What kind of studies
have you done to assess the bicycle traffic on these roads? I highly doubt that any have been
done and this has been decided on the suggestion of a very small group of people. We also
have an increased need for parking in Edmonds and your proposal takes away street parking on
many roads, especially 9th where many people use the street parking for their vehicles.
Bowdoin has always provided spare parking for Yost, particularly for swim meets, and a bike
lane removes that additional parking. I find it outrageous that the City Council is focused on
creating dedicated bike lanes during a pandemic. It appears that you are using this situation as
a way to push things through without including the public - most importantly those that will be
directly affected by this decision. Usually, the public is able to attend an in person council
meeting to speak their mind. Right now, this feels as if you are avoiding the public altogether. A
zoom meeting is NOT a public forum. Dedicated bike lanes on these roads will create issues for
those who live on those streets - people that are paying THOUSANDS in property taxes. I, like
many others, ask that you reconsider this proposal. What about bike lanes on Main Street?
There are no houses that will be affected by loss of parking on that road. In fact, cars are rarely
parked on Main. There is no reason to create dedicated bike lanes on Bowdoin, 9th, and
Walnut. If you insist on moving forward with this, I would hope that you reconsider pushing this
through without giving Edmonds residents the opportunity to speak their mind in a public
meeting - in person, not via Zoom. I guarantee that the public will speak and the majority will be
against this proposal. Stop following everything Seattle does. Listen to the residents of
Edmonds. We are the ones that elected you to office to be our voice, not to push your agendas
on our behalf. Thank you for your consideration.
7/27/20 Lianne Kono, Subject: Please stop the new bike lanes in Edmonds
I ask for your consideration of not putting more bike lanes in the Edmonds 9th street area. I
don't see that there are bikers taking advantage of current bike lanes so I think that giving them
more lanes at the expense of residents being able to park on streets would be wasteful. Street
parking is necessary for those residents who live off the main streets. This would also make it
more dangerous for people to cross 9th with minimal street crossing options. It would also be
dangerous for bikers to be riding in those lanes with cars pulling out onto 9th which is already
difficult to do. Please do not add in bike lanes. Thank you.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 38
Packet Pg. 94
7.1.a
7/27/20 Mark Bucklin, Subject: Bike Lanes on 9th/100th.
I urge you to reject the tentative plan to use Sound Transit grant money for bike lanes on 91h
Ave./100' - I have lived on 9th Ave. S. For 45 years. The current bike lanes in Edmonds are
rarely used. Second, 9th Ave. S. is a major commuter feeder line for N/S traffic in Edmonds and
to the freeway. Third, there are no good off street parking options for deliverymen, vendors or
guests of those who live on 9th. I see lots of Amazon, UPS and yard maintenance trucks and
residents cars parked during the day on 9'h. Those who currently elect to bike on 9th Ave.
S./100th do not seem to be having any problems doing so. I have biked on 9th S. for 62 years
and had no problems. Bike lanes can create a false sense of security for cyclists and increase
the risk of right turn accidents with motorists. (Note young woman lawyer killed last year in
downtown Seattle bike lane.). The premise of the grant seems to be to have commuters bike to
Sound Transit park and ride lot in Mountlake Terrace. Any study to show that this would really
happen? I doubt it especially during the eight rainy months of the year. This is not a good
idea. Please vote no to this idea.
7/27/20 Anthony Dashti, Subject: Sound Transit grant to City of Edmonds for dedicated bike
lanes Adding a bicycle lane to portions of 9th Ave. south is a good idea but not at the cost of
eliminating all the street parking. Our house is on a private driveway on 9th Ave. south between
Pine and Walnut street. We've had many occasions when we could not drive to our house due
to public work or snow situations; we have a steep driveway which easily freezes in winter or
snow conditions, forcing us to park in the street for days or even a week or more. I'm very
concerned about the dangers of leaving my car far away and having to walk on slippery streets.
As a rider myself, I welcome streets with bike lanes while as a resident, the health and wellbeing
of my household is of utmost importance. I don't want me or my family or my neighbors to risk
crossing the busy street specially when passing cars may have less control to stop or slow
down. I see riders on my street all the time without any issues. If drivers can share the road with
riders, riders can do the same. The end result must work for riders and residents alike and
removing all street parking puts the residents at a major disadvantage. There are better options
available. Bike lanes can be on one side only, while some street parking remains intact. I thank
you for your time to take these issues under serious consideration.
7/27/20 Patricia Kajlich, Subject: Parking on Walnut St
Please keep street parking on Walnut St. For the safety of our neighbors on Walnut, to prevent
further congestion around City -owned Yost Park during the summer and to prevent a poor use
of our tax dollars, we ask you to NOT remove parking on Walnut in favor of dedicated bicycle
lanes. Thank you
7/27/20 Dakota Allen Bunger, Subject: Bicycle Lanes Along 9th Avenue
I live along 9th Avenue South and use the street parking every single day. My family and I have
three cars and they are all parked along the street. Adding in bike lanes and taking away the
street parking would be difficult for my family and I. We would have to park along side roads
somewhere, and maybe have to cross 9th Avenue, a very busy street sometimes, at an
unsignalized crossing. If there was a way to introduce bike lanes, but keep current parking that
would be ideal, but just keeping some of the street parking or providing more signalized
crossing across 9th Avenue would be suitable as well.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 39
Packet Pg. 95
7.1.a
7/27/20 Virginia Ouellet, Subject: Sound Transit grant to Edmonds to add dedicated Bicycle
lanes on both sides of 9th Ave S and 100th Ave W
I have lived on the corner of 9th Avenue and 224th Street SW for the past four years. I am
opposed to having Dedicated Bicycle Lanes added on either side of 9thAve S or 100th Ave
West. I frequently walk along both that route and seldom see bicycles traveling in either
direction. Crossing 9th Avenue is already dangerous for pedestrians, without the added danger
of encouraging bicycles to use the same route. In fact, crossing 9th onto 14th avenue SW or
Elm's way or East on 224th, none of which have dedicated sidewalks, is dangerous and would
be a city project that is far more needed and to both the neighborhood school children and
residents. In addition, if adding the dedicated bicycle lanes is approved, it will eliminate most, if
not all of the parking spaces allowed on 9th Ave S and 100th Ave W, forcing patrons and
workers for Westgate Village or visitors to the Edmonds Cemetery events to park on side
streets, giving residents in those areas far fewer options. Please also think of USPS trucks,
Frontier vehicles, lawn service vehicles and recycle/garbage trucks, Amazon and Fed Ex trucks
and the impact to their providing services. All in all, I think it's a bad proposal.
7/27/20 Diane Huson, Subject: Parking on 9th ave south
As a resident living on the west side of 9th ave south I want to let you know this is a terrible idea
to remove the parking and put in bike lanes. We built our home 5 years ago according to city
regulations, following the restrictions of so many square feet we could have for
impervious parking. Knowing this would never be enough parking for our large family,
hoildays & various get togethers that we host we went ahead & built knowing we would have
overflow parking on the street. On an every day basis my family alone has a minimum of 4 cars
parked on the street as well as the 4 we have in our driveway.
Not only concerned about this for my home & family I am also an employee of QFC.on 9th &
Edmonds way.On a regular basis we have employees parked on the street so we may service
our customers better since our parking lot is to small for the volume of business we do.During
Holidays all employees of QFC & PCC are required to park off lot which if you have seen leaves
us parked 4 blocks plus north on both sides of the street. Removing the parking is just wrong.
The cemetery also uses all the parking on 9th for services as well as their Veterans day event.
Traffic on 9th ave is dangerous enough with out putting bike lanes in. This is one of the worst
idea's you all have come up with. We pay a ton of money in tax's to live here which also pays
your wages. Where do you all expect us to park? If you don't live on these streets you should
not be able to make these decisions. We were just put on notice about this today we knew
nothing about it previously. I have 2 neighbors out of town which I am sure also have known
nothing about this and can not comment, and that is just unfair to push something through like
this when people are not made aware of the plan. NO NO NO NO NO leave 9th avenue and
surrounding streets alone!!
7/27/20 Phuong Nguyen, Subject: No Bike Lanes
My family lives on 91" Ave South and just recently heard that the city of Edmonds is planning to
have dedicated bike lanes on 9t" Ave which will remove most or all parking allowed. I used to
live in North Seattle and the city created bike lanes that caused more traffic and the bike lanes
were hardly used by bicyclists. If you ask Seattleites about the dedicated bike lanes there, they
will tell you that they were a waste of money and caused more traffic for the residents. One of
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 40
Packet Pg. 96
7.1.a
the reasons why we decided to move from Seattle is because the council members were
making poor decisions and without the peoples' input. I feel like Edmonds is turning into
Seattle. There's already traffic on 9` Ave South during rush hour so I would hate to see the
traffic getting worse. We jog and walk our dog on 9th everyday and hardly see any bicyclists so
the bike lanes will not be used. The bike lanes will only cause more traffic for the residents. If
you think that having bike lanes will make people more comfortable to ride without putting cars
on the road then you are delusional. I bought the house knowing that it is on a busy road, but
there is parking in front of my home for my family and friends to park when they visit me. If
parking is gone, I'm not sure they will visit me often since parking will be challenging. My
mother is in her 80s and has a hard time walking. Where can she park if there's no parking in
front of my house? I'm already bothered about the lack of diversity and the racism in Edmonds
that has made me thought of moving out of Edmonds. Finding out of the bike lanes and limiting
my parking has made it very easy to move out. Just because Sound Transit awarded the city of
Edmonds $1.85 million, does not mean it's in the best interest of the residents to accept it.
7/27/20 Dennis and Ruthann Lenihan, Subject: Parking
Please do not remove onstreet parking on 9th Avenue. We live in a cul de sac on 9th and
frequently experience difficulty safely entering 9th with cars passing north and south. Adding
bicycles would exacerbate the situation.
7/27/20 Megan (Greig) Hansen, Subject: CONCERNED CITIZEN : Dedicated Bike Lanes on 9th
Ave
I live in 9th Ave and have recently learned that there is a plan to remove ALL street parking in
order to add dedicated bicycle lanes on both side of our street. - It is my understanding that a
usage study was done recently - during COVID?? when we were all observing stay at home
orders and had no visitors, babysitters, etc.... and during the SUMMER when people are more
likely to walk and ride bikes vs the winter when all visitors DRIVE? I can tell you that we
regularly use the spots located by our home, but have not been doing so since early March so
any study done recently is not an accurate or fair depiction. - Additionally, the Edmonds bowl is
on a very steep incline, and when it snows, we have to park our cars up on 9th Ave as we can
not get them out of our driveway. - Most of our side streets (on the West side of 9th) are also
very steep and and have no parking blocked - so where are we to park? In short, I could be
supportive of A SINGLE bike lane on ONE side of the road (such as is found in many other
spots around the area), however removing all street parking would cause serious challenges for
myself and our neighbors. Thank you for considering an alternative of keeping parking on one
side of the street (preferably the West side).
7/27/20 Andrew Morgan, Subject: Preserve and Maintain On -Street Parking on 9th Avenue
During this COVID 19 Pandemic the public is not allowed to legally assemble inside City Hall to
show either support or opposition to the proposal to eliminate 50% of the parking on 91h Avenue
and other locations in Edmonds to facilitate bike lanes. A Zoom meeting is a completely
unacceptable alternative because it is incapable of adequately expressing the emotions
underlying this proposal. The City Council should delay a vote on this project until such time as
the people can legally assemble for a full and frank discussion with the City Council. To do
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 41
Packet Pg. 97
7.1.a
otherwise will inadvertently lead to an environment of suspicion and distrust as many citizens
will feel that this was "zoomed" through, so to speak, instead of undergoing a full and frank in -
person discussion. It is one thing for the City Council to adopt aspirational policies and quite
another to implement these aspirations in detail without full and frank in person discussions with
affected citizens. Putting this vote off until citizens can assemble inside City Hall will also avoid
potential lawsuits as several Edmonds citizens are seriously contemplating legal action to
challenge this project under the current circumstances. Thank you for considering our
perspective on this issue.
7/27/20 Donald Bruce, Subject: Bike Lanes
I have lived on Bowdoin Way since 1956. 1 have 3 street spots and driveway for my
parking. Next door use one spot for travel to job. if I HAVE kIDS & fRIENDS COME HERE FOR
HOLIDAY OR ASIT, wHERE WILL THEY pARK ?? Delivery or repair trucks or US
Mail ... WHERE wILL THEY PARK?????? I respectfully ask DON'T PUT IN BIKE LANES
7/27/20 Ryan Stoulil, Subject: Parking on Walnut Street
Please keep street parking on Walnut St. For the safety of our neighbors on Walnut, to prevent
further congestion around City -owned Yost Park during the summer and to prevent a poor use
of our tax dollars, we ask you to NOT remove parking on Walnut in favor of dedicated bicycle
lanes.
7/27/20 Tom, Subject: Recent Racism
America has done more than any other Country in the world to atone for its past sins and this
should not be overlooked. We fought a Civil War largely but not exclusively, over the issue of
slavery, we amended our constitution, we enacted civil rights legislation, equal rights, and
affirmative action. Name one other country that has done same. Yes there is racism in the
world, always has been, always will be, we cannot control the way some morons think. That
being said can we please stop beating ourselves up and flogging ourselves for the sins of the
past. Our country is not some evil empire!!! We are the first country to have boots on the
ground in the case of a natural disaster, famine or other problems. When a massive Tsunami
swept over the largely Muslim populated country of Indonesia we were on scene with a massive
aid response. Iran, Saudia Arabia and others had a very limited response.
As a nation we give more to charitys than any other nation in the world. We elected a black
President for 2 terms just recently and our Goverment is full of women and men of color. We
must remember one thing that binds us all together, we are all AMERICANS! And deep down
we are caring, friendly and happy people. Lets come together and stop beating ourselves up.
There are way more positive things about America and Americans than the negatives and
isolated cases of racism. I do not believe that there is a systemic entrenched racist community
in our country that seeks to harm people of color
7/27/20 Rachel Maxwell, Subject: New Bike Lanes - Yes!
I strongly support the addition of bike lanes in our town. It is deeply important that we continue
to encourage all forms of transit that reduce our carbon footprint. This is one important way.
These are all busy thoroughfares and prioritizing bikes over cars encourages not only carbon
emissions reduction but also good health. As a council that wisely committed to reducing our
city's carbon emissions, you must make difficult decisions that cannot accommodate all those
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 42
Packet Pg. 98
7.1.a
people who have multiple vehicles and therefore want more on street parking. Thank you for
your commitment to creating a healthier future for us all!
7/27/20 Kelly Keller, Subject: Walnut Street
Please keep street parking on Walnut St. For the safety of our neighbors on Walnut, to prevent
further congestion around City -owned Yost Park during the summer and to prevent a poor use
of our tax dollars, we ask you to NOT remove parking on Walnut in favor of dedicated bicycle
lanes.
7/27/20 Kelsey Boyce, Subject: Support for bike lanes
I am writing in support of adding new and extending existing bike lanes by reducing on -
street parking in Edmonds, WA, in response to the call for opposition in MyEdmondsNews.com
In order to support alternative carbon -free transportation methods, and healthy activities for
positive community change, the addition of safe spaces for bicycles need to be prioritized over
street parking. Street parking should not be considered part of a home's property value, and no
homeowner should feel ownership about the public space in front of their home. Bike lanes are
for the greater good and safety of our community members.
7/27/20 Erik M. Borgen, Subject: Keep Street Parking On Walnut St
7/27/20 Bre Borgen, Subject: Keep Street Parking on Walnut
We are writing to urge you to NOT remove parking on Walnut St between 9th and 96th
Avenues. We have lived in our home on Walnut for 13 years and heavily rely on street parking.
We have no alley behind our home. We are very concerned about our safety and the safety of
our 8-year old son if you remove street parking on Walnut. Many vehicles travel far too fast on
Walnut, especially heading from the stop sign near Yost Park down to the flashing light at 9th
and Walnut. If there is no parking allowed on the south side of Walnut, we would be forced to
cross this busy street to get to our home. There are no crosswalks near our home and lighting
is very limited. This is especially concerning in the dark, wet winter months. Our personal safety
would be put in jeopardy if you remove our access to street parking in front of our home. We
understand that you or Sound Transit commissioned a "parking study." Did you complete a bike
study? Walnut is a pretty steep climb. We have been home since stay at home orders first went
into effect. We rarely see cyclists come up or down Walnut. Removal of this parking resource
in favor of bike lanes that will likely be rarely used appears to be a poor use of our collective tax
dollars. People attending swimming meets and other events at City owned Yost park use
parking on both sides of the street all of the way down Walnut, well past our home in the middle
of the 900 block of Walnut. These events occur on multiple weekends and evenings during the
summer. Where will these cars park at such times in the future? Removal of parking will make
this situation even worse in the future. For our personal safety, the safety of others living on
Walnut, and for the Edmonds community as a whole, we urge you to not remove parking on
Walnut Street.
7/27/20 Beth Featherstone, Subject: No Bike Lanes on 9th Ave S
As a 25 year resident who lives on 9th Ave S, I strongly opposed the addition of bike lanes
which would eliminate parking on our residential street. Just because the city is offered grant
money, does not mean it's in the best interest of residents to accept. Most lots on 9th lack
driveway parking and rely on street parking for visitors and delivery parking. Removing street
parking will negatively impact property values and quality of life on our street.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 43
Packet Pg. 99
7.1.a
7/27/20 Jim Lagucik, Subject: City Wide Bike project
As a longtime resident of Edmonds and a homeowner off of 9th and Pine I was surprises to be
informed the other day of the possibility of removing all parking along 9th Avenue to make
bicycle lanes. I appreciate the idea of connecting bike paths as a way to commute throughout
the city, although I have several concerns with the impact of this proposal. 9th Avenue is
already an extremely busy road, especially at certain times of the day, during commuting hours.
Sometimes crossing 9th Avenue as a pedestrian can be very dangerous and challenging, even
when using the cross walks. I believe by adding bicycle lanes we will actually be increasing the
risks to pedestrian and cyclist and we will be narrowing a road that actually seems to be turning
into an unsafe road. I have not seen the results of the study which this decision is being based
on, but for my opinion to make a decision of this size and scope that can have a serious impact
on 9th Avenue, as well as Walnut and Bowdoin Way we need much more clarity of the impact
this will have on the community, I have also live on Bowdoin way for 10 years previously and
completely reject the idea of removing street parking for bicycle lanes. This proposal should be
postponed for further impact studies or flat out rejected.
7/27/20, Terry Mclenaghan, Subject: From the Mclenaghan home at 1035 9th ave. S Edmonds
I am writing to protest the removal of on street parking on 9tn avenue in Edmonds for bike lanes.
This is the only parking for guests or those needing access to the surrounding homes to do work
in a home. If there is no parking where would a vendor park while they are working on a home?
We absolutely need the parking on 91" avenue. There must be a better route to use for the bike
lane. I question the feasibility study being done during a time residents were staying home to
quarantine due to the covid-19 virus. Vendors were not allowed into peoples homes during that
time which gives a false result of how often the parking is used. The people in this area deserve
a voice in this decision. Thanks
7/27/20 Jim Fowler, Subject: Parking on 9tn Ave
I find it interesting that the city of Edmonds received a grant from Sound Transit to eliminate
parking along Walnut street and 9th ave for bike paths. I live on a side street off 9th ave and we
don't need more cars parking on side streets that can easily park along 9th ave. It's hard to
believe that Sound transit doesn't have better uses for the money they have in this time of fewer
bus riders and Sound transit riders then to spend it to eliminate parking for bike riding. I walk
every day along 9th ave. Every now and then I see someone on a bike. They are not having
any problems riding on 9th as it is. The people that live along 9th will now have no way to have
any guests because they will have nowhere to park. I believe this is a poor use of funds in this
time of less tax revenue and the council should do a better job of allocating projects.
7/27/20 Rosemary Fraine, Subject: bike lane plans
We are longtime Edmonds residents, having moved here 34 years ago. We live on Bowdoin
Way and have lived in the same home since coming to Edmonds. We raised three children in
this home. We would like to address the plan to place bicycle lanes on Bowdoin from 9 t"
Avenue to 84 t" Avenue. It is our understanding that these plans could include the removal of
parking for one or both sides of the street. We have been trying to get information from the City
and from the Traffic Engineer to determine what is being proposed and what studies have been
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 44
Packet Pg. 100
7.1.a
done to determine these decisions but have been unsuccessful. Over the years, the number of
cars, trucks and other vehicles traveling Bowdoin has increased. The speed limit used to be 25
near our home but is posted at 30 now. The speed of many cars is faster. The speed of
bicycles coming down the hill is also too fast for them to stop suddenly. It is a concern of ours
every time we pull out of our driveway. Bowdoin Way has curves, and multiple driveways that
are "blind", especially on the north side of the street. It is a safety issue. The idea that we, our
guests, delivery services or workers coming to our home should park on a side street and walk
to our home is not acceptable. There are homes on Bowdoin that are not near a side
street. Side streets are already full of cars of those homeowners. We are in our 60's, and my
husband is disabled. Crossing Bowdoin with a cane is unsafe. We sometimes care for our
grandchildren. Crossing Bowdoin with a toddler and an infant is unsafe. There are no
crosswalks, few streetlights, and speeding cars and trucks. There are adult family homes, a
group home, and condos on Bowdoin. All of these require street parking for staff and
visitors. They also require frequent access for disability transportation, medical
emergencies. Yost Park is a busy place and draws people for swimming, pickleball, hiking and
playground use. There are days during the (normal) summer months when park users must use
street parking due to the lot being full. Where will they park? We bought our home with street
parking available. We also bought a house without a garage, so street parking is a
necessity. The houses near me generally do not have space for more than 1 or 2 cars off
street. We have a large extended family. We have holiday gatherings. We expect to be able to
have people continue to visit us and be able to park near where we live. Would not side streets
be safer for all? What are the numbers of bikes you expect to be using these lanes daily? If it is
related to transit, buses, commuting, then are the lanes only "open" during commuting
hours? Are there exceptions for deliveries, disabled parking? If you do this, will there be any
efforts to reduce speed? Is there any reason you need to eliminate parking on both sides of the
street? We urge you to consider these concerns when making a decision.
7/27/20 Justin Chan, Subject: Proposed Bike Lanes
As a citizen of Edmonds for the last 13 years and being a recreational cyclist riding 6 times per
week in addition to commuting to work in Mountlake Terrace, I fully support the addition of the
bike lanes being proposed. Not only for the safety of other riders, but also for my 2 young
daughters who I fear for their safety when riding in Edmonds. The 9th/100th and Bowdoin Way
corridors are highly far trafficked area with few cars parked on the street. Bike lanes will provide
a safe way for everyone to ride in those areas. Thank you for the consideration.
7/27/20 Natalie Endres, Subject: Bike Lanes Proposal
I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed bike lanes along 9th Ave, and Walnut street.
We have lived in Edmonds for nearly 20 years. First near Firdale Village and currently on
Walnut St. We see $1.5mil is a waste of funds to benefit a few. There are not enough avid or
even casual cyclists to warrant the number of people who will be inconvenienced by losing
much utilized parking in our neighborhood. I work from home and while the number of people
walking or jogging down our street increased significantly during the pandemic, the number of
cyclists did not. I have a street view from my "office" window and witnessed a parade of
pedestrians throughout the day but very few cyclists. Today I counted over 18 vehicles parked
on 9th between Walnut and Firdale Ave; including a postal carrier, landscaping vehicles and an
Amazon van. To have those who provide these services be pushed to side streets to do their
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 45
Packet Pg. 101
7.1.a
jobs is highly ineffective, inconvenient and unsafe. Again, not a cyclist in sight on a gorgeous
day as I drove toward Shoreline. We, along with all our neighbors along the proposed routes
use the street parking. Many times out of necessity as our own driveways don't allow enough
space for our vehicles and many lack a garage. Also, when people have visitors to have them
park several blocks away is insensitive especially when it is dark (our street is particularly dim)
or inclement weather when there definitely won't be cyclists out. When events occur at Yost
park vehicles overflow down Walnut/Bowdoin and several side streets. The eateries at 5
Corners draw a crowd despite most patrons needing to park on the street. Please consider
alternate routes that would not be as impacted and could accomplish the same goal. Thank
you
7/27/20 Jay and Carrie Halle, Subject Bike lane proposal
As residents of Edmonds for 32 years, we oppose the proposed plan to eliminate parking along
9t" Ave South, 100t" Ave West, as well as Bowdoin to 5 Corners to put in a bicycle lane. Similar
to many homes along 9t", we share our driveway with three other homes which limits the
amount of parking available in our driveway. The option to park along 9t" has been well -used by
guests, construction workers, trucks and various delivery drivers. Because of the slope of our
driveway, we park our cars along 91" whenever the weather forecast calls for snow to ensure our
ability to make it to work. The parking places are also frequently used by drivers pulling over to
talk on the phone, to get out of the way of oncoming fire, aid, and police cars, to look for an
address, to stop for a garage sale or to just enjoy the gorgeous views.
We feel that each of the roads in question have plenty of room for cars, bicycles AND parking.
We have felt completely safe riding our bikes along 9t" Avenue South while sharing the road
with cars -whether moving or parked. The only area we have ever felt unsafe is on 100t"
between Edmonds Way and Firdale Village. There are a couple turns that can hide a biker (or a
mail truck) just long enough to cause panic and quick lane changes for drivers. We can see a
potential change needed in that area but certainly not North of Edmonds Way. The idea of
having parking only on one side of the street is also ridiculous. Forcing people to run across 91"
100t", or Bowdoin to get to their destination is just plain dangerous. And unfortunately, people
will not use the crosswalks unless they are convenient. Please rethink this proposal and find
another way to use any grant money or tax dollars in a way that makes sense and actually
benefits the majority of residents in Edmonds. Thank you.
7/27/20 Richard and Barbara Angus, Subject: Street Parking on 9th Ave.
We are against this proposal since it further complicates the already difficult traffic situation on
9th Ave. where we live. How will that effect the present 4 way stop at 9th Ave. except to make it
more dangerous and less safe for the present residents. No bike lane is necessary for the
amount of cyclists we see on 9th Ave.
7/27/20 Charlie Laughtland, Subject: On -street parking/bike lanes
A lifelong Edmonds resident, I'm writing to voice my strong opposition to taking away street
parking on Walnut Street from 9th Ave. S and Bowdoin, continuing to 5 Corners. I've lived over
30 years on Walnut Street and can confidently say that street parking is used daily by myself
and my neighbors despite the findings of a survey that took place while the public has been
staying home due to COVID-19. 1 would also ask, where is the bike usage survey that points to
the need for these permanent bike lanes? How many cyclists are using these streets regularly?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 46
Packet Pg. 102
7.1.a
Summer after summer, I've seen Walnut Street lined with cars as people gather for swim meets
at Yost Park, or to park and walk down the hill to the Downtown Summer Market, Arts Festival,
Taste Edmonds, and 4th of July parade. Plus, all of the other backyard gatherings that aren't
happening due to the pandemic. It stands to reason that this spring and summer there'd be
significantly less street parking. What an irresponsible time to conduct such a study.
One of the reasons we built our new home on Walnut Street is to be able to host our extended
family and friends for holiday celebrations, birthdays, barbecues and more. Without street
parking, our guests (many over 70 years old) would be forced to park on side streets and walk
up and down the hill to our house. Or is the expectation that homeowners would operate our
own valet service when we want to have people over? Better yet, should we all pave over our
front yards and convert them to parking spaces? These proposed bike lanes are a solution to a
problem that simply does not exist. I've seen bikes and cars safely coexist for over 30 years on
Walnut Street and absolutely no evidence pointing to the need for dedicated bike lanes.
7/27/20 Willie Russell, Subject: Bike Lanes
As usual Edmonds taking away from the many to give to the elitists. Quick monies and quick
votes from a small group is more important that homeowners/TAXPAYERS comfort in their own
neighborhood. Covid 19 being used to push many programs through that will cost citizens with
no public comment. Just another elitist move
7/27/20 Karen Prater, Subject: No bike lanes!
Absolutely opposed to any bike lanes. I vote No!
7/27/20 John Weiss, Subject: Bike Lanes on 100 Ave W, 9th Ave S
I have recently heard about the move to create bike lanes on 100 Ave W and 9th Ave S. I
believe it is ill-advised to create any bike lanes that will reduce street parking on 100 Ave W
between 224th St and Edmonds Way. Current parking is often used to near capacity by QFC
employees, and to a lesser extent for the cemetery. Parking at QFC is already tough to find
some days, and it will only get worse. Another example of what reduced parking is doing:
Sunday morning Jul 26, a gardening service truck & trailer were double-parked on Edmonds St
near Sunset while the gardeners were working at the house. Also, during all the big Edmonds
downtown festivities, people have to park as far away as 9th & Fir. The City Council has to open
their eyes and admit the parking situation in Edmonds is getting worse by the day, so they
should be VERY careful about reducing public parking anywhere in the city. Additionally,
adequate on -site parking should be a requirement for ANY development in the city!
7/27/20 Tracie Schlatter, Subject: No Bike Lanes
No bike lanes on 100th/9th. Parking is already difficult at the QFC/Goodwill shopping center with
businesses shut down for covid. Once things are running again street parking will be even more
necessary. Street parking is also necessary for memorial events at the cemetary. Farther south,
the two stoplights so close together at 238th currently cause traffic back ups from the merging of
8th onto 100th. It would be even worse if lanes were removed.
7/27/20 Krista Merkley, Subject: Walnut Street Parking
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 47
Packet Pg. 103
7.1.a
I live near Walnut Street in Edmonds. I want to let you know we heavily rely on street parking
and rarely see bikes on our street. Cars go fast on our road, there is no crosswalk and it is
poorly lit. If we are forced to park away from our home and cross Walnut, we will be risking our
family's safety by just getting home, especially in the dark, wet winter months. Thanks
7/27/20 James and Kathryn Morino, Subject: Please vote no to Bike lanes on Walnut Street
Please keep street parking on Walnut St. For the safety of our neighbors on Walnut, to prevent
further congestion around City -owned Yost Park during the summer and to prevent a poor use
of our tax dollars, we ask you to NOT remove parking on Walnut in favor of dedicated bicycle
lanes.
7/26/20 Ruth Maroun, Subject: Homeowner concern re: Citywide Bicycle Improvement Project -
Impact on Street Parking
I own a home on 100th Ave. W. and naturally often park my car on the street in front of my
home. Please do not remove parking to create a bike lane. This would create undue hardship
for my family and for visitors coming to our home. Our driveway is on the side of the house on
Elm Way. There is limited view of the street and oncoming cars when pulling out of our driveway
onto the street, which can be dangerous for my family and particularly challenging for visitors
unfamiliar with the arrangement. Due to traffic patterns, pulling into our driveway from Elm Way
can also be challenging. Visitors would be forced to park on side streets and walk up Elm Way
to get to our home. The closest side street parking would require a two -block walk to our front
door, including walking along Elm Way, which does not have a sidewalk. This would be
inconvenient, dangerous, and an extreme hardship for those visiting with mobility
issues. Although I understand the need for a safe space for biking as I am an avid bicyclist
myself, as a homeowner living along 100th Ave. W., this is an extremely troubling situation.
Please consider an alternate solution that would accommodate the needs of both homeowners
and bicyclists.
7/26/20 Chad Berman, Subject: Bike Lanes on 9th Ave and 100th Ave West
No bike lanes please. It seems you all don't visit friends my god we try to make a simple life we
are not Seattle
7/26/20 Treg Camper, Subject: Oppose 9th Ave S and Walnut Street Bike Lanes
I want to express my opposition to the proposed bike lanes along 9th Ave S and Walnut. I'm
also oppose eliminating 50% of the parking as a result. I urge every member of the council to
vote no on the 91h Ave S and Walnut St bike land project. Here is a short list of reasons.
1. Edmonds is not a biking town. This is driven by demographics, terrain (hills), weather
(cold and rain), and a small percentage of people who bike. Believe me, Edmonds is not
a fun town to bike
2. Building bike lanes along 9th Ave S and Walnut is dangerous. Speed, ingress, egress,
pedestrians and bikers will create additional danger for all parties. The many bikers I
speak with prefer less crowed routes. Should alternative routes be explored?
3. Existing bike lanes are seldom used. I rarely see any biker use any bike lane in this
city. I walk 9th Ave S daily ... I can't remember the last time I saw a biker. Building bike
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 48
Packet Pg. 104
7.1.a
lanes won't make more people ride bikes. Refer to point 1. Conversely, creating traffic
congestion won't cause fewer people to drive.
4. Spending and estimated $1.91VI for street paint is wasted money; seems like there are
bigger, more important issues to solve.
5. Eliminating parking will increase pedestrian risk. Streets above and below 9th are
steep. Do you expect the people, especially the elderly, to hike up streets or worse
yet —cross 91h to get to their destination?
6. Eliminating parking will cause unnecessary hardship for businesses that depend on
street parking.
7. The neighbors along 9th and Walnut are upset about this —even the bikers. One of my
neighbors left Seattle to escape wasteful spending.
8. COVID has changed our lives. People are looking for ways to avoid mass transit and
flee high density housing if they can.
9. Bikers can bike any street they choose —with or without stripes. It's free.
Please oppose the 9th Ave S and Walnut Street bike lanes and corresponding elimination of
parking. I'm urging the council to table this issue until we can meet again at city hall. I also
encourage the council to table other such issues until we can meet and discuss in person, as a
community. I'm happy to discuss further.
7/26/20 Nick Perrault, Subject: 9th Ave Proposal
I am currently a resident on 9th Ave S between Pine and Walnut. I believe you will be be
discussing a bike lane on 9th Ave proposal during the upcoming Council meeting. While
improvements to 9th Ave sound great for our community, I am concerned about losing a
majority of parking spaces. This is the primary parking for our guests and extended family. Is
there more information available about this proposed project? Thank you!
7/26/20 Doug Canfield, Subject: New bike lanes
Thank you for planning new bike lanes in Edmonds. In particular, I use the Firdale 100th Ave
W/9th Ave S road frequently, and it was my regular commute bicycle for a decade. Where the
road bends from West to North coming into Westgate has always been very sketchy, especially
in the winter when it's dark and wet in the evening. That will be a big help and the traffic lanes
can easily be reduced along there without adding congestion. Having bike lanes to the Sounder
and light rail via bicycle is will be a great incentive to get people using those modes of
transportation. This is smart governing and I appreciate it. Thanks again.
7/26/20 Pamela Ching-Bunge and Christoph K. Bunge, Subject: Proposed Elimination of Street
Parking to put in Bike Lanes: 9th Avenue
As 20-year residents and tax payers of Edmonds, we STRONGLY OPPOSE the elimination of
our street parking on 100th Avenue S. to create bike lanes. As our home is located directly on
100th Avenue S, the street parking in front of our house is essential. Our driveway has limited
parking space for two cars, but we often need the extra street parking for ourselves for
deliveries, loading or unloading large amounts of garden material, guest parking, and for
maneuvering safely into busy traffic. Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the city council before
making this hasty decision, to consider the following serious and consequential concerns:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 49
Packet Pg. 105
7.1.a
1) The side streets which we would have to use as street parking are NOT SAFE FOR US, AS
SENIOR CITIZENS. The street off 100th Ave S nearest our house, 14th street SW.,
is extremely steep and would be dangerous to use as street parking even for able-bodied
persons. Parking on such steep inclines would invite bodily injury getting out of and into
the car and attempting to park on such a steep slope would be difficult even in good
weather. Rain, snow, ice would make this extremely difficult if not impossible. I WOULD
STRONGLY ADVISE AN ON -SITE ASSESSMENT OF 14th Street SW (going west off 100th
Ave. S) WHERE YOU EXPECT US TO PARK DUE TO THE REMOVAL OUR CURRENT
STREET PARKING. 2) During the process of parking on 14th Street SW, the abrupt steepness
of 14th St SW creates additional danger because cars turning from 100th west onto 14th St SW
cannot see a car parking below until already heading downhill. 14th St SW is not wide enough
for street parking without driving into parking areas when turning. 3) Many of our visitors (family
and friends) are also senior citizens or persons with disabilities. You are putting these persons
at risk also, and deterring them from visiting to check on us. 4) As a fan of bicycle riding, I
support more bike lanes in Edmonds. But why put them on major thorough -fares with lots of
traffic? It is safer and healthier (less auto exhaust) for both bicyclists and vehicle drivers to keep
them separate as much as possible. Have you considered locating bicycle lanes on wide side
streets like 8th Avenue S, where there is less traffic and fewer traffic lights? I feel you could
reduce existing conflicts between vehicle drivers and bicyclists by keeping bike lanes away from
busy traffic. Furthermore, it is much more pleasant a route for bicyclists than 100th!!!!Thank you
for carefully considering our objections and comments. Furthermore, the first we heard of these
proposed changes was yesterday. More timely notification to those directly affected is essential
for an engaged and informed citizenry. We love Edmonds and appreciate your dedication and
hard work. Thank you.
7/26/20 Becky Dickison, Subject: Parking on 9th Ave.
I'm sending my opinion regarding the addition of bike lanes on 9th Ave. and 100th Ave. W. No,
no, no, I don't want this to happen! It will greatly impact the area by taking away the parking
available currently for its residences and the essential workers at Westgate Shopping Center.
As a customer who shops there it can also be hard to park, especially during holidays. I've
had to park on 100th to get to the store when there's no parking in their lots. It will also affect
the cemetery during its services for special events. Where will people go? Will they end up
having to use the side roads that are already impacted with no sidewalks and limited or no
parking? I have property along 100th and I hardly ever see any bikers utilizing this road and if
so, it's very seasonal. One thing that might help is to provide a bike lane along 8th Ave. There
are no sidewalks, you could put some in, and put the bike lane there which has access to many
roads that can get to the ferry, parks, etc. It's also less traveled than 100th/9th which may make
it safer. Another thing that might be a compromise is to lower the speed limit along 100th/9th to
25 mph if people are concerned for bikers' safety. Please listen to the businesses and people
who live along this road. Do we support a bike lane? NO! Thanks for listening.
7/26/20 June Magill, Subject: Bike Route Improvement on 100th Ave W, 9th Ave N, Walnut
Street & Bowdoin Way
My Name is June Magill Address: 935 Walnut St, Edmonds, WA 98020 1 have deep concerns
about the impact on parking of the proposed Bike lane improvement on 9th Ave N, 100 Ave SW,
Walnut str, and Bowdoin Ave. The loss of existing parking will be a serious detriment to many
residents on these streets. The data provided for Walnut street is skewed and doubtful. An
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 50
Packet Pg. 106
7.1.a
accurate bike count not reflecting COVID19 impacts is required. Parking on 100th Ave to
Westgate supporting the QFC, PCC, Goodwill, the Cemetery, and other businesses must be
retained. On street parking around Yost Park must be retained to support park activities,
particularly the swimming pool. There are several adult family homes on these streets. Parking
must be provided for staff and visitors to these homes. Also consideration must be given to
service business (e.g. house cleaners, yard services, pest control, and others). Several along
Walnut have these services weekly and required adequate close -in parking to residents
they service. Parking needs must not be sacrificed for the small number of cyclists likely to use
these proposed lanes.
7/26/20 Jay Magill, Subject: Bike Route Improvement on 100th Ave W, 9th Ave N, Walnut Street
& Bowdoin Way
My Name is Jay Magill Address: 935 Walnut St, Edmonds, WA 98020. 1 was unable to
participate in the Public Hearing concerning the subject project. I do however, want my
comments and concerns to be recorded. First, in general, the Council must not proceed
headlong without considering the full impact of adding bike lanes at the expense of street
parking. Councilperson Buckshnis addressed this at the July 21 st Council meeting for Westgate
along 100th Ave W, but this applies to Walnut and Bowdoin as well. Many residents have no
viable option other than street parking, and taking those away will hurt many. Alternate side
parking as proposed, will force some to cross busy streets to reach their residence adding
potential for pedestrian accidents. COVID 19 notwithstanding, we will eventually return to a
more outgoing and social society. Eliminating parking and forcing residential parking to
disperse greater distances and the opposite side of the street they wish to visit increased
accident risks not to mention inconvenience. I noticed a comment from minutes of the July 21 st
meeting Steve Kaiser stated in the last 4 or 5 months "bike sales are up 100 -300%" implying
this was a clear sign bike ridership would increase. False premise. I offer bike sales are up due
primarily to the COVID19 lockdowns. People not going to work have extra time and opted to
walk, run, or ride bicycles for recreation and exercise. This is only a temporary spike and will
drop off as quickly as it took off as activities return to normal. I also noted that Michelle Dotch
reported Bike land count data from the 212th Strand 76th Ave project completed in 2019. Public
record request data show basically no change in bike counts through that intersection. This
apparently surprised some city staff. This data needs to be verified. If accurate, the bike
element of that project certainly cost more for insignificant results. The future parking and bike
counts must be addressed accurately and in total during the promised design phase of this
proposed project. Parking has an equal value and need with bike plan development.
7/26/20 John Routt, Subject: Comment Regarding Action Item #3: Approval of Sound Transit
Funding Agreement for Citywide Bicycle Improvement Project
I feel there has been a complete lack of transparency regarding this Action Item and only found -
out about this Action Item / issue when a flyer was placed on our doorstep. I also question the
validity of the study and information provided to council members in the draft 21 July Council
Meeting minutes. IMHO the comments of Councilmember K. Johnson don't represent the actual
situation on Bowdoin Way below 92nd Ave: I live on Bowdoin Way a block from Yost Park and
disagree with the study findings (number of parked cars and bicycles traffic): 1)During freezing
weather, I see quite a few (more than 5) cars parked near the entrance to Shell park - did this
study account for them? 2) There are usually 6 - 10 cars parked below 93rd Ave overnight, with
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 51
Packet Pg. 107
7.1.a
less during the daytime and these can be in -front of different residences. 3) There are multiple
driveways below a blind curve just west of 93rd Ave where cars backing out of their driveway
already caused heavy braking action to avoid accidents. Bicycles coming down this hill
probably won't stop in a short distance like cars; Thus, the probability of a car - bicycle accident
will be increased. 4) Where has the study accounted for Yost Park event parking (like swim
meets and other large get togethers)? Usually both sides of Bowdoin Way are used for overflow
parking reaching nearly up to 93rd Ave. Did the study consider using Main street for the bike
lanes up to 5 corners? I know it is a step hill, but there are less driveways and minimal on -
street parking except near the theater
7/26/20 Dan Taylor, Subject: Bike lane vs parking
Please do not take away the parking on 9th/100th or Walnut. The cities job is to provide the
greatest good for the greatest numbers. You would be derelict in your duty if you traded 1,000
parking spaces for a few bike riders. Would you be impacted by the lack of parking? A lot of us
who pay a lot of taxes would. We would get over flow parking on our street and that would
negatively impact our lives. It is obvious you would like to make Edmonds into a little Seattle.
Just remember there is a reason why we pay a premium to live in Edmonds and would never
live in Seattle or King County. Make your legacy in city government retaining what makes living
in Edmonds so great and not the ones responsible for everything going to hell under there
(your) watch.
7/26/20 Wendy Taylor, Subject Bike lanes
Bicycle lanes in my opinion are the last thing Edmonds needs. In the years I have lived in
Edmonds I have not seen any bike traffic on Alder street east of 9th, but we would definitely be
impacted by the lack of parking in the immediate area. To take away parking from the
residents of Edmonds is truly uncalled for. The city council needs to know that just because
Seattle does this does not mean Edmonds has to follow suit. WE ARE NOT SEATTLEH! Please
let Edmonds be Edmonds with all the wonderful things our beautiful city has to offer..
7/26/20 Peggy Estela, Subject: Public comment on Proposed Bike Lanes
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the issues of bike lanes in Edmonds. The northwest,
and Seattle in particular has a reputation for being progressive with deep concerns about
climate change. We should be encouraging as much non -automobile traffic as possible. We
value our quality of life here which includes to a large extent the ability to access the outdoors,
and to maintain an active lifestyle in nature. We cannot just pay lipservice to ideas about livable
cities and inclusion without actually making our surroundings liveable and inclusive for
everyone. Nothing changes without a few people getting uncomfortable or even angry. Seattle
has finally gone the direction of extending the light rail to take the pressure off our overburdened
highways. Cars have control and priority over all of the roads with a very few exceptions, and
most people understand that this is unsustainable. Bike riders deserve their small share of the
road and an assurance that they can ride in safety. There are bike lanes in Seattle where cars
are much more inconvenienced than in Edmonds A few bike lanes is not asking for much, but
it's a great start in the right direction towards a future where cars will have less and less
significance. Bike lanes are in keeping with the small town friendly feel of Edmonds. The
proposed route is perfect because the parking spaces in question are not used heavily and
there are plenty of alternatives for drivers to park nearby. If we want progressive cities we need
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 52
Packet Pg. 108
7.1.a
progressive actions and policies. Looking back on this issue 5-10 years from now, it will seem
utterly obvious that any town such as Edmonds needs a way for all people to use a variety of
safe transportation.
7/25/20 Linda Massey, Subject: Comment submission in response to putting a bike lane on
Bowdoin
Putting a bike lane on Bowdoin is crazy. Too steep/too narrow, and with the curves in that street -
there could be many close calls, or deadly consequences. A driver could be pulling out of their
driveway or a side street to get out on to Bowdoin and not see a biker in time - or the biker doesn't
see the car in time. Bikers can be very difficult to see - depending on the weather/time of day, and
there are many bikers who just plain go way too fast on those streets. There are also many residents
who depend on parking where they are currently allowed to park on Bowdoin near their homes. If you
put in bike lanes - where are those residents supposed to park? Does the Edmonds City Council care
that they could negatively impact and change the lives of those residents? I've seen what bike lanes
have done to too many busy crowded relatively narrow streets in Seattle. Not only is it hazardous for
the drivers and bikers, but also pedestrians. I understand the desire and reason to have bike lanes
but don't make the same mistake Seattle has done repeatedly by putting them on streets that are
similar in width as Bowdoin. There is too much traffic on Bowdoin and add to that the hill and curves.
There just isn't enough room to add bike lanes that can make it safe for anyone.
I have walked along Bowdoin in the curved areas and the bikers just love going as fast as they can
down that hill and into the curves. It's crazy already. It's like a carnival ride for them. Please Edmonds
City Council do not make it easier for bikers to do that. Putting bike lanes in will not make that kind of
biker safer, nor safe for any biker, pedestrian, or motorists in that area. Thank you
7/25/20 Peter Henry, Subject: Bike lane proposal for 9th Ave., Bowdoin, Walnut and Firdale
This is public comment concerning the proposal to add a bike lane to several streets in
Edmonds. I am writing to advocate for NO bike lane even though I am an avid cyclist. I
occasionally park my car on Bowdoin across from the shops at 5 corners, because their parking
lots are often full. So any plan should keep in mind there is a high demand for these spaces on
the street. I am a Seattle substitute teacher and for the last two years I have commuted by bike.
I take Sound Transit to Seattle, then I ride home. I also run errands on my bike, and I ride
recreationally. On the streets in question, I ride often from Pine Street (where I live) down 9th
Avenue, south past Edmonds Way, up 9th Avenue (100th Avenue) to where it becomes 8th
Avenue in Shoreline. I also ride north on 9th Avenue coming home, and also further north to
access Olympic View Drive. I ride from home up the Firdale hill to get to Aurora Village. I also
ride on Bowdoin from the intersection with 98th, and occasionally I ride down Walnut to the
intersection with 9th. I have done this a lot (multiple times a week) over the last 2 years and I
have never run into a problem due to congestion on 9th Avenue, Walnut, Bowdoin or Firdale.
There is one exception - the hill on 9th (100th) Avenue south of 238th Street. There is no
shoulder and cars pass too closely for comfort going south up the hill. Even though there's no
shoulder there is no problem going north downhill because bikes can keep up with traffic.
Otherwise - there are no problems to speak of. All streets (9th, Bowdoin, Walnut and Firdale)
are amply wide for cars to share the street safely with cyclists. An inexpensive solution would
be to paint Sharrows on the streets, to indicate they are suitable for cyclists. If you want to add a
bike lane or shoulder, a great candidate would be Olympic View Drive. It is very popular with
cyclists, but it has no shoulder and is quite curvy, which presents a problem. Thanks for
considering my opinion.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 53
Packet Pg. 109
7.1.a
7/25/20 Carl Stout, Subject: Parking on 100 ave w.
Do not remove parking on 100 ave w from walnut street to Firdale village it serves no purpose
we need the parking. I live at 22009 100th ave w. We dont need people street parking here.
What are you thinking. During the taste of Edmonds they park all the way up here. When you
close down 5th they park up here. What in the world would it accomplish removing parking. Do
you people really think people will get out of their cars and ride a bike????? What about the
winter and the rain which in most of the year...... A truly pissed off Edmonds resident.
7/25/20 Christian Johnson, Subject: I am a cyclist, please don't put a bike lane on Bowdoin
I ride my bike almost daily on Bowdoin. I have never felt the need for a bike lane. if cars
currently parking on Bowdoin have to park on our street it will make walking, kids playing and
getting our car in/out of our driveway far more dangerous. My 3yr old and 1yr old won't be able
to see oncoming traffic at the end of our driveway and they regularly ride their balance bikes
down our driveway. Please don't do it. You are going to create a parking problem and endanger
kids in a rapidly growing neighborhood.
7/25/20 Melvin Brady, Subject: Parking Removal and Dedicated Bicycle Lanes on 9th Ave S
from Walnut Street to Firdale Village and from 9th and Walnut to 5 Corners
Further to my email yesterday to the City Council regarding the above proposed measures
please see attached photos of the accident that I refer to in my earlier email which occurred in
March of 2018 on 9th Ave S very near our house and less than a quarter mile south of
Walnut. As mentioned this accident was caused due to view blockage from a parked car on the
west side of 9th Ave S obscuring sight of oncoming traffic heading south on 9th at speeds that
are often above the speed limit. The BMW shown could not see this traffic properly as it
egressed its drive way. These City designated parking stalls are mostly located too close to the
driveways of the houses on 9th Ave S given the amount of traffic that use 9th Ave S as a
commuter corridor.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 54
Packet Pg. 110
7.1.a
7/25/20 Melvin Brady, Subject: Parking Removal and Dedicated Bicycle Lanes on 9th Ave S
from Walnut Street to Firdale Village and from 9th and Walnut to 5 Corners
As Edmonds homeowning residents since 1984 and now living on the west side of 9th Ave S
since 2012 (situated about a quarter mile south of Walnut Street at 820-9th Ave S) please be
advised my wife and I are truly delighted with, and whole heartedly support, the above
referenced proposed measures. As 9th Ave S is a through street for commenter traffic that often
travels over the speed limit vehicle egress from our driveway has always been difficult because
of poor visibility due to cars parked on 9th Ave S that are too close to our driveway. We
witnessed a major accident about two years ago on 9th Ave S less than a hundred yards north
of our driveway (with one of the two vehicles involved ending up on its roof) which was caused
by a car parked on the west side of 9th Ave S blocking the view of oncoming traffic for a BMW
egressing from its driveway. Shortly after that accident occurred some neighbors and I were
successful in getting the City of Edmonds to remove one designated parking stall on 9th Ave S
that was located far too close to our driveway for good visibility and safe egress. Nevertheless,
given the nature of the traffic on 9th Ave S, the remaining nearby designated parking stalls on it
are located still too close for our safe egress and we would welcome their removal. Additionally,
as a bike owner and frequent cyclist around Edmonds and the nearby Inter -Urban Bike route I
whole heartedly support the proposed installation of dedicated bike lanes in my immediate
area. It is time to make Edmonds even more livable by doing what great international cities like
Vancouver Canada, Amsterdam in the Netherlands and other European municipal authorities
have done by promoting dedicated bike lanes as viable travel alternatives to the overly
ubiquitous automobile. Please pass these parking and bike lane measures as proposed as soon
as possible.
7/25/20 Paul Malatesta, Subject: Parking
I have just learned that Edmonds might greatly restrict legal parking on 100th Ave W, 9th Ave S,
and Bowdoin. This would be done to add dedicated bicycle lanes on both sides of these
streets. This is a bad idea. Removing all of the on street parking would greatly inconvenience
local area residents and provide little benefit to the small number of bicyclists who now have no
noticeable problems sharing these streets with motor vehicles. Please ask yourselves, who
pays the taxes and fees to support road construction and maintenance? It is not the bicyclists.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 55
Packet Pg. 111
7.1.a
7/25/20 Alex Abdo, Subject: Dedicated Bike Lanes Along 9th Ave -NO!
This is a terrible idea! Bike lanes will make these streets less safe for both pedestrians and the
motoring public. This change would only benefit a few at the detriment to the many. Adding bike
lanes sounds like a nice enough idea but the infrastructure is not in place to properly handle
bike lanes. There are not enough crosswalks or metered intersections to properly handle the
displaced pedestrian traffic that will result in people not being able to park in front of thier
homes. So ... are you planning on incurring those costs as well? And for what? A very limited
amount of bike traffic? This plan is totally short sighted. And conducting the parking study during
the COVID shutdown...? Nice really nice move. Edmonds was one of the last places unaffected
by the sound transit boondoggle. Please dont change that. Thank you
7/25/20 John and Darlene Wilczynski, Subject: Bike lanes on 9th Ave
It has come to our attention that you are looking at a major traffic revision that would eliminate
parking on both sides of 9th Ave in order to put in bike lanes. As residents living on 9th we have
firsthand experience and can confidently tell you removing ALL parking would cause severe
issues with people living on this street. Many, if not most, of the houses on this street were not
designed with extra parking for visitors or for businesses providing deliveries and other services.
Our understanding is that you studied our street for this project during the Iockdown period
associated with the COVID crisis. If so, you are doing all of us an injustice and using severely
compromised data. It would be comparable to saying a business area has little usage because
there was no real traffic when parking was studied at 4am on Tuesday mornings. I do think one
bike lane is not unreasonable and could help with the issue of speeding vehicles which the city
of Edmonds has failed to do anything about. Why not set up a road similar to 76th Ave W which
uses a zigzag pattern. This way you have traffic lanes (which not being straight reduce the
ability to speed), a bicycle lane and areas of parking alternating on both sides of the street. The
parking on both sides would make for a much safer experience since crosswalks are not
plentiful and crossing the street would be very hazardous especially for older individuals or
those with disabilities.
7/25/20 Nicole Titus, Subject: Bike lane on Bowdoin
I live just off of Bowdoin Ave. I heard of the plan to put bike lanes on Bowdoin. If cars currently
parking on Bowdoin have to park on our street it will make walking, kids playing and getting our
car in/out of our driveway far more dangerous. Our children won't be able to see oncoming
traffic at the end of our driveway and they regularly ride their bikes down our driveway. Please
don't put bike lanes in on Bowdoin. My husband rides his bike regularly on Bowdoin and says
bike lanes are not needed. You are going to create a parking problem and endanger kids in a
rapidly growing neighborhood.
7/25/20 Cathy Willcock, Subject: Bike lanes
I am in favor of the bike lanes on 9th and on Bowdoin. Most homes have driveways to park in
and visitors can park on side streets. There are already lots of cyclists on the roads and I think
their safety And of the Safety of drivers is more important than an inconvenience for visitor
parking. Edmonds needs to be more bike/scooter and walker friendly and see that the future is
in alternative methods of transportation other than cars.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 56
Packet Pg. 112
7.1.a
7/25/20 Sandra Schenkar, Subject: Parking on 9th Ave. South
I am astounded that the city would even consider such a major change in isolated meetings ---
without general input from the actual residents. It seems as though you are trying to pass this
legislation during this period of time (covid 19) when meetings are not permitted and the
Edmonds Beacon has had to reduce circulation by 50%. As a resident on 9th Ave. S. I have a
very steep, short driveway (allowing only 1 car). 9th Ave. is the only place for guests, delivery
trucks, USPS van and even the garbage and recyling trucks to stop at the curb. In addition, I am
handicapped--- cane, ...sometimes a walker and can't always park in my steep driveway to enter
and exit car. Also, anybody on 9th S. who has to park a 2nd car on a side street would have to
walk themselves and their packages UP the steep side streets (Fir) and then walk along 9th to
their home. This creates an inherent handicap within the supposed solution. In addition some of
the uphill side streets can't be navigated in snowy, icy weather so most folks have to move cars
up to 9th Ave. the night before they have to drive to work. Another problem, there is a safety
issue when heavy trucks and those with pup trailers have to DRAG themselves up streets like
Fir and 'hang on' to the top of hill until they can turn onto 9th. If cars are parked on either side of
the streets it would make driving up the "bowl" dangerous to maneuver without the extra
shoulder space. This is a very ill conceived concept in many ways, and it robs more residents of
the usage of public streets than it adds to the convenience/safety of many fewer bike
riders. Please consider all the negative ramifications and vote NO
7/24/20 Penny N. Lyons, Subject: Proposed Bicycle Lanes on Bowdoin Way
I am writing as a concerned resident on Bowdoin Way in response to information I've received
in regards to proposed bicycle lanes on both sides of Bowdoin Way from 96th Ave. W. (or
actually from 9th Ave. S.) up to 5 Corners. That essentially eliminates all on -street parking for
residents and guests in that area. Side street parking is impossible due to very short cul-de-
sacs off Bowdoin Way. The amount of bicycle traffic on this street does not warrant closing off
all vehicle parking. There are increasingly numbers of delivery vehicles, commercial repair
vehicles, etc., that would also have nowhere to park. I have noticed other area streets with
vehicle parking lanes and bicycle lanes lined off. The situation of vehicles backing out of
driveways into bicycle lanes is extremely dangerous. Also dangerous is having to cross a busy
street, such as Bowdoin Way, on foot to access your vehicle. Bowdoin Way has increased in
vehicle volume as well as increased speeders which also compounds the situation. Having lived
in this area for fifty years, it does not seem fair to take away our right to have street parking
availability eliminated entirely. Please consider the actual residents living in this area before
you install bicycle lanes that hamper street parking and create a very dangerous situation.
Thank you for your consideration.
7/24/20 Debra Shore-Dundas, Subject: Bike lanes on 9th Ave and On Bowdoin Way
I'm against adding bike lanes on 9th Ave and on Bowdoin Way. I live on 9th and it is already
difficult enough for people to find parking. It also further complicates getting in and out of
driveways, deliveries and walking/crossing these streets. Parking studies conducted during
Covid shutdowns are completely invalid. Please don't make things harder for us.
7/24/20 Andrew Morgan, Subject: Preserve and Maintain On -Street Parking on 9th Avenue
My wife Susan Morgan and I have recently purchased a home at 808 9th Ave S in Edmonds,
WA 98020. One of the reasons we selected this property was that it has adequate on -street
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 57
Packet Pg. 113
7.1.a
parking in front of our home. The lot sizes are limited and when we have family and guests at
the home, or USPS/Fed Ex/UPS deliveries, there is nowhere else to safely park except on -
street. We had to get a City of Edmonds Street Use Permit to park a POD on 9th Avenue when
we moved into our home since the driveway is on a slope and provided no flat space for a POD.
The side streets surrounding our home are a half a block away (making walking inconvenient)
and these side streets are on steep slopes making street parking on those streets impractical
and questionable from a health and safety standpoint. Additionally, restricting on -street parking
to one side of 91h Avenue is impractical and unsafe due to the hazard to pedestrians of crossing
this busy avenue. Furthermore, eliminating on -street parking on 9th Avenue would diminish
property values for the aforementioned reasons which would in turn negatively impact the City's
property tax revenues. 9th Avenue is broad and the laws of the State of Washington currently
provide adequate, safe, legal access for all bikers. It is imprudent and unnecessary to eliminate
on -street parking that is convenient for thousands of individual homeowners who live in the City
of Edmonds to make it more convenient for the limited number of bikers who would transit 9th
Avenue. For the record, we are not opposed to dedicated bike lanes if they do not eliminate on -
street parking. We recognize that Sound Transit has given the City of Edmonds a grant to
create dedicated bike lanes. We understand the reluctance to forego any grant monies;
however, it would not serve the interests of the citizens of Edmonds to eliminate or restrict on -
street parking on 91h Avenue. We understand and appreciate the virtues of "top down"
international policies such as U.N. Agenda 2030 and regional planning exercises conducted by
entities such as Sound Transit. However, what sounds like great idea from a "top down"
theoretical perspective is often untenable in the context of practical, local interests. Well
intentioned "top down" or "regional" policies should be carefully considered in the light of the
local landscape before being implemented at the local level. Eliminating or restricting on -street
parking on 91h Avenue is not a good idea. Thank you for considering our perspective on the
matter.
7/24/20 Andrew Morgan, Subject: Preserve and Maintain On -Street Parking on 9th Avenue
During this COVID 19 Pandemic the public is not allowed to legally assemble inside City Hall to
show either support or opposition to the proposal to eliminate 50% of the parking on 9th Avenue
and other locations in Edmonds to facilitate bike lanes. A Zoom meeting is a completely
unacceptable alternative because it is incapable of adequately expressing the emotions
underlying this proposal. The City Council should delay a vote on this project until such time as
the people can legally assemble for a full and frank discussion with the City Council. To do
otherwise will inadvertently lead to an environment of suspicion and distrust as many citizens
will feel that this was "zoomed" through, so to speak, instead of undergoing a full and frank in -
person discussion. It is one thing for the City Council to adopt aspirational policies and quite
another to implement these aspirations in detail without full and frank in person discussions with
affected citizens. Putting this vote off until citizens can assemble inside City Hall will also avoid
potential lawsuits as several Edmonds citizens are seriously contemplating legal action to
challenge this project under the current circumstances. Thank you for considering our
perspective on this issue.
7/24/20 Jim Carraway, Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - Bike Lanes
The plan to install bike lanes along 100th Ave W, 9th Ave S, Walnut St. and Bowdoin Way
utilizing Sound Transit funds is misguided and obviously doesn't take into consideration the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 58
Packet Pg. 114
7.1.a
impact this plan will have on the residents of Edmonds. It also shows that the city planners are
not prioritizing safety. Impact
• Many of the homes along the roads slated for bike lanes are from the 1950s and
60s. My home was built in 1953 and does not have a parking space for visitors. If street
parking is removed, the city council is stating that my elderly mother will not be able to
visit me in the future. And in turn telling all residents on affected streets, you cannot
have friends and family visit.
• The city is also forgetting that 9th Ave S and Walnut St are overflow parking for many
city events, including the Fourth of July celebrations. Every year except for this one,
Walnut St is packed with cars from 9th all the way to Yost Park, as are the surrounding
streets. Is the city council truly expecting visitors to our town come on bicycles? Safety
• The intersection of 9th and Walnut is notoriously dangerous. In the four and a half plus
years I have lived on Walnut, I know of three accidents at the intersection.
• People constantly speed on Walnut/Bowdoin. The Edmonds Police Dept set up its
portable radar sign at my request, which slowed traffic down when it was in place. The
minute it was removed speeds increased again. I have also spoken with Bertrand
Hauss, Transportation Engineer, regarding installing a radar sign similar to what is on
95th PI W between 220th and 224th St SW. Mr. Hauss stated all projects had been
decided for the current project roadmap. While there is a project on Bowdoin to
address speed, the earliest the city could do anything regarding the speeding on
Walnut was the year 2022.
• 1 have heard also heard the rationale for these bike lanes was to connect the Sounder -
Edmonds Station to the Mountlake Terrance Link light rail station. No commuter is ever
going to make that 30-minute ride twice a day. There is nothing stopping people from
riding their bicycles now. On a daily basis, I see people riding up and down Walnut
St. A better use of the funds would be safety education, radar signs
and enforcement. The last of which applies to both car drivers and cyclists. While
drivers speed, cyclists don't stop at stop signs. I have personally seen this occur five
times this year at the intersection of Walnut St, Yost Park, Bowdoin Way and 96th Ave
W.
7/24/20 Thomas Dundas, Subject: Bike Lanes
Just a quick note to express my concerns about the proposed bike lanes on 9th Ave. and
Bowdoin Way. First of all, a parking study done during the COVID crisis is completely invalid
because of the considerable reduction in traffic and parking along 9th and Bowdoin during this
period. In normal times, there are many dozens of vehicles parked on those streets every day
and at night as well. We have had a house on 9th since 1992 and have seen it first hand.
Besides parking, there are deliveries, construction and other activities that need to use 9th and
Bowdoin as streets on which to park vehicles. There isn't that much bicycle traffic on 9th
presently, and what little there is, has little trouble using the street for transits in the present
configuration. If the lanes are put in, it will draw more bike traffic to the area most likely, and
increase dangers when vehicles are attempting to enter or exit driveways. I am completely
against the proposed bike lanes in Edmonds and hope the Council will reject the idea.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 59
Packet Pg. 115
7.1.a
7/24/20 Pam Bingen, Subject: Sound Transit Bicycle Lane Grant
I am opposed to removing all parking on these streets, especially around Yost Park and 5
Corners. Street parking is needed to support the small businesses at 5 corners and there is not
enough parking in Yost park during swimming events. In addition, I am opposed to trying to put
a bike lane next to a parking lane. This configuration is dangerous for both bikers and people
who are trying to get in and out of their cars. It is especially a concern on Bowdoin which is a
curvy road with steep uphill and downhill sections. When I saw the agenda for last week's
Council agenda, I looked on line for drawings or detailed plans on how the Sound Transit
Bicycle Grant was to be implemented and found the information very vague. I live one block
from Walnut street and 9th Ave and am impacted by changes on both of these
streets. Residents in the neighborhoods on and adjacent to the streets involved need to see
detailed plans and have a voice in this decision. Have alternatives, such as routing the bike
lane to 96th Ave West or 92 Ave West been considered? Can we afford to afford to sacrifice
parking and car traffic on two of the main arterials? Is the proposed design safe for drivers and
bicyclists?
7/24/20 Megan Hansen, Subject: CONCERNED CITIZEN : Dedicated Bike Lanes on 9th Ave
I live in 9th Ave and have recently learned that there is a plan to remove ALL street parking in
order to add dedicated bicycle lanes on both side of our street.
- It is my understanding that a usage study was done recently - during COVID?? when we were
all observing stay at home orders and had no visitors, babysitters, etc.... and during the
SUMMER when people are more likely to walk and ride bikes vs the winter when all visitors
DRIVE? I can tell you that we regularly use the spots located by our home, but have not been
doing so since early March so any study done recently is not an accurate or fair depiction.
- Additionally, the Edmonds bowl is on a very steep incline, and when it snows, we have to park
our cars up on 9th Ave as we can not get them out of our driveway.
- Most of our side streets (on the West side of 9th) are also very steep and and have no parking
blocked - so where are we to park? In short, I could be supportive of A SINGLE bike lane on
ONE side of the road (such as is found in many other spots around the area), however
removing all street parking would cause serious challenges for myself and our neighbors. Thank
you for considering an alternative of keeping parking on one side of the street (preferably the
West side).
7/24/20 Cinthia Smith Subject: Retain some parking on Walnut St!
I understand that the City of Edmonds is considering removing some or all parking on specific
neighborhood streets in Edmonds. I am a bike rider and resident of Edmonds (Walnut St).
I have family members with mobility issues, requiring parking spots directly in front of my
home. I would ask that we retain some parking on neighborhood streets to allow for residents
and guests to have easy access to homes. I live near Yost Park, and have experienced the
summer swim events parking overflow on my street. This negatively impacts the local residents'
ability to park near their homes and restricts potential visitors. While we can deal with
occasional disruptions, a permanent change is not acceptable. PLEASE consider our access to
our homes as you make your decisions.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 60
Packet Pg. 116
7.1.a
7/24/20 Lori Cormack, Subject: Sound Transit - 9th and Walnut
As a resident/homeowner on Walnut St., I am upset the councilmembers are considering a
major change to my street, without any engagement with myself and the other
stakeholders. Since learning of the proposed elimination of on street parking, I reviewed the
available data and question the validity, especially of traffic surveys, during Covid. The houses
above and below mine are both Adult Family homes. In normal times, there are a number of
visiting medical personnel as well as family and friends in addition to the caregivers. My house
as well as many others on our street have limited off-street parking. The grade of Walnut
especially at 91" is high and challenging for most people to walk, let alone the seniors that live
there or visit. Having to walk from another street isn't feasible for most and certainly not safe,
especially in wet, ice or snow. The intersection of 9t" and Walnut is busy and has many
accidents. I see nothing in the available data that addresses safety for cyclists, pedestrians or
drivers. External funding is attractive, it should not however, entice action that is not well
thought out and not coordinated with the affected residents.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
July 28, 2020
Page 61
Packet Pg. 117
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/4/2020
Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #243217 through #243338 dated July 30, 2020 for $1,028,219.47 (re -issued
check #243280 $350.00) and wire payment of $417.67.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payment.
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 07-30-20
wire 07-30-20
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 07-30-20
Packet Pg. 118
7.2.a
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243217 7/30/2020 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
243218 7/30/2020 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
0
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun r
INV-2-3988
INV-2-3988- EDMONDS PD -
XING
c
CLIP ON TIE
>,
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
9.9� a
10.0% Sales Tax
L_
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
1.0( 3
INV-2-3989
INV-2-3989 - EDMONDS PD-
STRUN
SAM BROWNE BELT BUCKLE - GOI
c
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
15.0(
HERE'S WHEELS & WINGS-
GOLD
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
10.9� U
10.0% Sales Tax
E
001.000.41.521.71.24.00
2.6( R
INV-2-3990
INV-2-3990 - EDMONDS PD-
MEHL
,-
OC SPRAY POUCH
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
22.2E >
10.0% Sales Tax
o
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
2.2< a
INV-2-4009
INV-2-4009 - EDMONDS PD
- SAUNI
Q
"POLICE" NAMETAPE FOR JUMPSL
o
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
N
8.0( c
NAMETAPE FOR JUMPSUIT
M
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
r`
8.0( o
PATCH REMOVAL/INSTALL JUMPSI
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
3.0(
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
1.9(
Total:
84.9E E
t
35246 WWTP: 7/24/20 PEST CONTROL SE
U
m
Pest Control Service
Q
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
73.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
7.5�
Total :
80.51
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 119
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243219 7/30/2020 077851 ACE LIFE USA
243220 7/30/2020 065568 ALLWATER INC
243221 7/30/2020 077848 ALVERSON, ROBERT
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
07282020-Ace Life
072120025
072120026
2005407.009
243222 7/30/2020 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 180853
243223 7/30/2020 077856 APATOFF FAMILY DENTISTRY
243224 7/30/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
342759
07282020-ApatoffDDS
1991831639
PO # Description/Account
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
Total
ACCT: COECITYH FINANCE DEPT
Finance dept water
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
WWTP: ACCT: COEWASTE: 7/21/2(
Acct COEWaste:-
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
Total
MEMBERSHIP -PLANNING
APA Membership - KLien
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
MEMBERSHIP -PLANNING
APA Membership - AGroll
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
Total
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
Total
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
7.2.a
Page: 2
Amoun
c
8,000.0( �%
8,000.0( a
m
L
3
46.7(
4.8E U
t
U
E
4.2� o
97.1( >
0
L
a
a
Q
295.0(
295.0( N
0
M
0
420.0( E
149.0( r_
569.0( E
t
U
m
r
8,000.0(
8,000.0(
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 120
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243224 7/30/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 3
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
r
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
c
E,
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
29.5E
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
3.0 � L
1991840886
WWTP: UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MAT;
3
Mats/Towels
c
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
51.4E
Uniforms: Jeanne - 3 Lab Coats $0.1 '
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
1.4- (D
10.4% Sales Tax
U
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
5.3E E
10.4% Sales Tax
ii
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
0.1 E %-
1991840887
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
_0
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
fd
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
56.5E o
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
5.8E Q
1991840888
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
N
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
c
29.5E °?
10.4% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
3.0
1991846156
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
R
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
U
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6"
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
m
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1- t
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
r
6.1- Q
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1-
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1-
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 121
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 4
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
243224
7/30/2020
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
E,
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.0£
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1; L
10.4% Sales Tax
3
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6z c
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6z Y
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6z U
10.4% Sales Tax
E
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6' R
10.4% Sales Tax
-
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6z
1991846157
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
>
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
o L
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.2� a
FLEET DIVISION MATS
Q
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.1( o
10.4% Sales Tax
0
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
0.9 1 M
10.4% Sales Tax
o
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1.9£
Total
243225
7/30/2020
077852 ASIA TRAVEL & TOURS CORP
07282020-AsiaTravel
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
(D
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
8,000.0( t
Total:
8,000.0( m
r
243226
7/30/2020
068245 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC
052439
E4FE.TO 19-01.SERVICES THRU 6/
Q
E4FE.TO 19-01.Services thru 6/16/2C
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
391.8z
Tota I :
391.8z
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 122
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243227 7/30/2020 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
243228 7/30/2020 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
243229 7/30/2020 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
243230 7/30/2020 077853 BEJOU GROUP LLC
243231 7/30/2020 002258 BENS EVER READY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 5
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
0222927-IN
WWTP: 7/14/20 DIESEL FUEL
r
ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include
c
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
1,009.2' �%
10.4% Sales Tax
a
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
104.9E L
Total :
11,114.111, .3
116819
WOTS MAILING SERVICE
ea
WOTS MAILING SERVICE
Y
123.000.64.573.20.41.40
136.9E u
10.1 % Sales Tax
123.000.64.573.20.41.40
13.8E E
Total
66730
ROUGH BOX - SUBCLEFF
p
ROUGH BOX - SUBCLEFF
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
586.0( o
66733
ROUGH BOX - WALSH
a
ROUGH BOX - WALSH
Q
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
586.0(
Total :
1,172.0( N
07282020-Bejou
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
0
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
o
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
8,000.0( E
Total :
8,000.0( 'R
z
19204 INV 19204 - YEARLY SERVICE - EDI
YEARLY SERVICE- 5 FIRE EXT. m
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 70.0( t
1 EXT -6 YR MAND. BREAKDOWN m
r
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 15.0( Q
5 EXT - REQUIRED RECHARGE
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 75.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00 16.6z
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 123
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243231 7/30/2020 002258 002258 BENS EVER READY
243232 7/30/2020 074307 BLUE STAR GAS
243233 7/30/2020 075025 BRANDING IRON LLC
243234 7/30/2020 077840 BYRUM, KRIS
243235 7/30/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 6
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
Total :
176.61
m
1187078
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 611.0 GAL
E
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 611.0 GAL
sa
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
a
606.2< m
Total:
606Z 3
10499
PRINTING FOR MAIN STREET CLO!
c
Printing of poster for Main Street
N
001.000.61.558.70.49.00
26.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
t
001.000.61.558.70.49.00
2.7( U
Total :
28.7( •9
2005392.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
O
001.000.239.200
R
260.0( o
Total:
260.0( a
a
21682579
PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON
Q
PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON'
o
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
N
266.4- c
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
27.7( o
21682580
CANON 5250
N
Contract charge July 2020
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
167.7(
Contract charge July 2020
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
20.9E
Contract charge July 2020
t
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
20.9E
bw meter usage June 2020
r
Q
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
4.1
bw meter usage June 2020
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
0.5,
bw meter usage June 2020
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 124
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243235 7/30/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 7
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
r
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
c
0.5-
clr meter usage
E,
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
16.7, a
clr meter usage
L
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
2.0� .3
clr meter usage
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
2.0f
10.4% Sales Tax
Y
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
19.5E W
10.4% Sales Tax
U
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
2.4,' E
10.4% Sales Tax
ii
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
2.4,' %-
21682582
CANON 2501 F
O
bw meter usage June 2020
>
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
2.3, o
clr meter usage June 2020
Q
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
25.1 Q
10.4% Sales Tax
o
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
5.6- c
contract charge July 2020
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
26.4z o
21682585
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
74.9"
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
7.7E m
21682586
PARK MAINT IRC2501F COPIER COI
t
PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi
U
m
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
r
72.8E Q
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
7.5E
21682589
COUNCIL CANON COPIER MONTHI
Monthly contract charge
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 125
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 8
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
243235
7/30/2020
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
26.4,
B/W meter usage
E
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
0.6, a
Color meter usage
L
.3
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
10.5(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
c
3.9-
21682590
INV 21682590 - EDMONDS PD
Y
7/20-CONTRACT CHARGE-IRC5550
U
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
185.7, �
6/20- BW METER USAGE-IRC55501
E
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
32.5E n
6/20- CLR METER USAGE-IRC55501
U
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
171.3E O
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
40.5< o
21682593
INV 21685893 - EDMONDS PD
a
7/20-CONTRACT CHARGE-FAXBOA
Q
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
36.0, o
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
0
3.7E °?
21686582
ENG COPIER JULY 2020
0
Eng Copier July 2020
N
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
436.5E
Total:
1,725.0( Z
243236
7/30/2020
077845 CAPARROSO, LAURA
2005402.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
m
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
E
001.000.239.200
170.0( m
Total :
170.0(
Q
243237
7/30/2020
077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC
008
STATE LOBBYIST FOR JULY 2020
State Lobbyist for July 2020
001.000.61.511.70.41.00
3,750.0(
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 126
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
243237 7/30/2020 077353 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC (Continued)
243238 7/30/2020 077836 CARSON, NATALIE 2005388.009
243239 7/30/2020 070088 CASCADIA CONSULTING GROUP
243240 7/30/2020 077855 CHE EMPIRE INC DBA BAMBU
243241 7/30/2020 077727 CHINN, MARNIE
243242 7/30/2020 077841 CHOE, SARAH
243243 7/30/2020 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
giP1*1SIKiZr>r]
7228
7382
07282020-CheEmpire
�iP1+7cI�ilr>r]
2005401.009
2005393.009
10-11 u
Description/Account
Total
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
Total
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Professional Services: Consulting for
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Consulting for Edmonds Housing
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
Total
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
Total
REFUND: CLASS TRANSFER
REFUND: CLASS TRANSFER FROM
001.000.239.200
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
Total
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
Total
E4FD.1 ST HALF OF 2020
7.2.a
Page: 9
Amoun
3,750.0(
m
E
�a
a
215.0(
L
3
260.0(
475.0( Y
U
m
t
v
4,416.8( •�
0
9,206.2.' R
13,623.11 0
L
Q
a
Q
8,000.0( N
8,000.0( o
M
0
U)
320.0(
490.0( m
810.0( t
U
m
Q
129.0(
129.0(
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 127
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 10
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
243243
7/30/2020
022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
(Continued)
E4FD.1 st half of 2020
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
3,400.0( �%
Total:
3,400.0( a
m
243244
7/30/2020
064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO
67289
CITY CODE & DEV. CODE JULY 202
3
city code and development code july ;
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
562.5(
10.4% Sales Tax
Y
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
58.5( u
Total:
621.0(
243245
7/30/2020
062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC
RO43183
UNIT 437 - REPAIRS TO REAR HAT(
E
UNIT 437 - REPAIRS TO REAR HAT(
U
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
912.6, o
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
94.9- o
Total :
L
1,007.5: a
Q
243246
7/30/2020
069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC
3-1-1853
NEW 2020 F150CC - E174PO
2020 Ford F150 - E174PO
N
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
38,137.0( M
8.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
3,203.5- N
Total :
41,340.51 E
.R
243247
7/30/2020
070323 COMCAST BUSINESS
8498310300732547
PUBLIC WORKS - DIGITAL CABLE
U
Public Works - 7110 210th St SW -
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
1.5< E
Public Works - 7110 210th St SW -
t
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
9.1 � r
Public Works - 7110 210th St SW -
Q
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
9.1 �
Public Works - 7110 210th St SW -
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
9.1 �
Public Works - 7110 210th St SW -
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 128
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 11
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
243247
7/30/2020
070323 COMCAST BUSINESS
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
9.1
Total:
38.25
243248
7/30/2020
005965 CUES INC
563407
STORM - PARTS
STORM - PARTS
422.000.72.531.40.35.00
855.2£
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.35.00
88.9E
Total :
944.2;
243249
7/30/2020
076385 CVENT INC
4110005562
WOTS SERVICES
WOTS SERVICES
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
249.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
25.9(
Total :
274.9(
243250
7/30/2020
077437 DASH MEDICAL GLOVES INC
INV1206645
INV 1206645 - EDMONDS PD
1 CS - BLACK NITRILE GLOVES- XL
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
85.9(
1 CS - BLACK NITRILE GLOVES- M
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
85.9(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
17.8E
Total :
189.6E
243251
7/30/2020
077849 DEEP ROOTED MUSIC LLC
HMP VIRTUAL CONCERT
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA VIRTUAL CO
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA VIRTUAL CO
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
480.0(
Total :
480.0(
243252
7/30/2020
076319 DIAMOND MOWERS INC
0180208-IN
UNIT 19 - 3/8 BRG FLANGE GROUN
UNIT 19 - 3/8 BRG FLANGE GROUN
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
579.1 E
Freight
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 129
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
243252
7/30/2020
076319
DIAMOND MOWERS INC
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota I :
243253
7/30/2020
064531
DINES, JEANNIE
20-4025
CITY COUNCIL MTG MINUTES 7/14
city council mtg minutes 7/14 and 7/2
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Total
243254
7/30/2020
077838
DORAN, ISABEL
2005390.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
Tota I :
243255
7/30/2020
007675
EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
1-107661
WATER DEPT: MOWER PARTS
WATER DEPT: MOWER PARTS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Tota I :
243256
7/30/2020
076610
EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
1710
PM: SCREWDRIVER, LACQUER TH
PM: SCREWDRIVER, LACQUER TH
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1711
PM: SCREWDRIVER, LIGHT BULB -
PM: SCREWDRIVER, LACQUER TH
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1712
PLAZA DECK - PRIMER/ SEALER
PLAZA DECK - PRIMER/ SEALER
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1713
PM SUPPLIES: STAPLES
PM SUPPLIES: STAPLES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
7.2.a
Page: 12
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 130
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 13
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
243256 7/30/2020 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
0.5,
1714
PM SUPPLIES: WRENCH, WRENCF
PM SUPPLIES: WRENCH, WRENCF
f°
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
59.9E L
10.4% Sales Tax
3
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.21
1715
PM SUPPLIES: FAUCET LINE, COUI
PM SUPPLIES: FAUCET LINE, COUI
Y
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
45.51 uw
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.7z E
1716
PD SUPPLIES: KEYS
R
PD SUPPLIES: KEYS
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
33.9( O
10.4% Sales Tax
>
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
3.5< o
1717
PM SUPPLIES: SCREWDRIVERS, V
a
PM SUPPLIES: SCREWDRIVERS, V
Q
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
23.2' c
10.4% Sales Tax
c
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.4, c?
Total:
251.0( c
243257 7/30/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
3-01808
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S
E
LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S'
2
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
57.4E
3-03575
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL
E
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
447.4(
3-07490
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
f°
HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
107.6E
3-07525
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
52.8E
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 131
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243257 7/30/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 14
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
r
3-07709
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
c
LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
52.8E a
3-09350
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
L
LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i
3
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
112.2E
3-09800
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R
Y
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
66.5, uw
3-29875
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR /
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
52.8E 'm
3-38565
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c
SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c
O
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
52.8E >
6-00025
MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER
o
MARINA BEACH PARK
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
863.7, Q
6-00200
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
o
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
364.2, M
6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
0
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
598.9E .
6-00475
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
589.2.E
6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
E
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
m
772.6,
6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
Q
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,429.1 E
6-01280
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 132
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 15
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
243257 7/30/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
309.2f
6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
f°
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
677.2( L
6-02727
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
3
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
312.6,
6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
Y
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
303.5, u
6-02745
VETERANS PLAZA
E
VETERANS PLAZA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
_M
312.3E
6-02885
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
O
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
402.5z o
6-02900
FAC SPRINKLER
a
FAC SPRINKLER
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,141.1 ' c
6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
N
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
593.1 , c
6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
426.7( 12
6-03575
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
(D
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
362.5( E
6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
U
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
303.5, Q
6-04425
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
623.9'
6-04450
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 133
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243257 7/30/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
6-06040
6-07775
6-08500
6-08525
243258 7/30/2020 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR170462
243259 7/30/2020 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 156353
243260 7/30/2020 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH903339
7.2.a
Page: 16
PO # Description/Account Amoun
c
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
d
E,
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
755.3E
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF
f°
a
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF
L
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
171.21 '3
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
sa
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
388.3' Y
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
U
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,578.2( E
YOST POOL
R
YOST POOL
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
309.2E O
Total:
14,591.5, >
0
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
L
a
Maintenance 07/21/20 - 08/20/20 Car
Q
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
307.2( c
Copier overage 4/21/20 - 7/20/20 51
N
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
3.9£ roi
10.4% Sales Tax
r-
0
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
31.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
0.4' TU
Total :
343.5'
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
E
Climate Action: Consulting 3/1/20 -
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
550.0(
Total :
550.0( Q
LEGAL AD
Legal Ad: PLN2020-0034 (B Munson
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
51.8(
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 134
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 17
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
243260
7/30/2020
009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
(Continued)
EDH903560
ORDINANCE 4191
ordinance 191
E
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
19.6( a
EDH903568
LEGAL AD
L
Legal Ad: PLN2020-0015 (Westgate
3
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
95.2( -o
Total:
166.6( M
243261
7/30/2020
077843 FISHER, SHANNON
2005399.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
N
m
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
t
001.000.239.200
U
158.0( E
Total :
158.0( .ii
U
243262
7/30/2020
077857 GENIEOLOGY INC
07282020-Genieology
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
o
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
R
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
5,000.0( o
Total:
5,000.0( a
a
243263
7/30/2020
077858 GOLF & CORPORATE SOLUTIONS
07282020-GolfCorp
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
Q
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
N
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
8,000.0( o
Total :
8,000.0(
0
243264
7/30/2020
063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
159628
UNITS 16, 71 & INVENTORY - TIREc
UNITS 16, 71 & INVENTORY - TIRE:
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
3,428.0"
STATE TIRE TAX
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
19.0( E
10.5% Sales Tax
t
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
359.9z
Total :
r
3,806.9! Q
243265
7/30/2020
012199 GRAINGER
9589524702
WWTP: PO 337 LABEL KIT
PO 337 LABEL KIT - picked up at Ew
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
15.4(
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 135
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 18
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
243265
7/30/2020
012199 GRAINGER
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
1.5' >,
9589525139
PUBLIC SAFETY - PARTS/ CEILING
f°
a
PUBLIC SAFETY - PARTS/ CEILING
L
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
161.0, .3
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
c
16.7E
Total :
194.6f Y
U
243266
7/30/2020
077859 GUTHERIE LLC
07282020-Guthrie
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
t
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
U
E
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
8,000.0(
Total:
8,000.0(
0
243267
7/30/2020
012560 HACH COMPANY
12036734
WWTP: NO PO, REAGENT SET CHL
i
REAGENT SET CHLORINE
>
0
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
1,263.8( a
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
131.4z
12041894
WWTP: PO 341 AMMONIA, NITRATE
N
PO 341 AMMONIA, NITRATE TNTW
M
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
736.7E
Freight
N
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
88.1 E E
10.4% Sales Tax
fd
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
U
85.8'
Total:
2,305.91,
E
243268
7/30/2020
074804 HARLES, JANINE
527289
PHOTOGRAPHY - JULY 2020
Photography for July 2020
r
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
200.0( Q
Total :
200.0(
243269
7/30/2020
010900 HD FOWLER CO INC
15503827
WATER - INVENTORY/ PARTS
WATER - INVENTORY/ 1" METER SE
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 136
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 19
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
243269
7/30/2020 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
627.7,
WATER - PARTS
E
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1,526.0, a
10.4% Sales Tax
L
.3
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
650
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
c
158.7-
15503831
WATER - PARTS/ UPPER VALVE PLC
Y
WATER - PARTS/ UPPER VALVE PLC
U
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
498.0£ r-
10.4% Sales Tax
E
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
51.8- n
15522636
WATER - INVENTORY/ PARTS
U
WATER - PARTS/ PLUGS
O
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
272.7E >
WATER - INVENTORY 1" METER SE
o
L
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
1,213.1 E a
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
28.3 , o
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
0
126.1 E °?
15522643
WATER - INVENTORY/ 1" METER SE
o
WATER - INVENTORY/ 1" METER SE
N
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
3,138.6(
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
326.4,
Total:
8,033.1(
E
243270
7/30/2020 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC
2019-219
TOURISM PROMOTION AND MARKI
U
Tourism promotion and marketing for
m
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
1,666.0( Q
Tourism website maintenance July 20
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
200.0(
Total:
1,866.0(
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 137
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243271 7/30/2020 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 20
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
1020090
PM SUPPLIES: PLYWOOD, RAINX, i
PM SUPPLIES: PLYWOOD, RAINX,!
E,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
192.6E
10.2% Sales Tax
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
19.6E
L
1071688
PM SUPPLIES: SOLVENT, RUST ST
3
PM SUPPLIES: SOLVENT, RUST ST
c
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
210.3E
10.2% Sales Tax
Y
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
21.4E
(D
3522119
PM SUPPLIES: BIT SET, GLASS CLI
U
PM SUPPLIES: BIT SET, GLASS CLI
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
43.2z
n
10.2% Sales Tax
,U
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.4-
_0
4072676
PM SUPPLIES: PIPE, PVC, BUCKET
fd
PM SUPPLIES: PIPE, PVC, BUCKET
0
L
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
55.4,
a
10.2% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
5.6E
o
4513384
PM SUPPLIES: UTILITY BLADE SET
c
PM SUPPLIES: UTILITY BLADE SET
�?
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
7.5,
o
10.2% Sales Tax
N
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
0.7,
6010837
PM SUPPLIES: TRASH CANS, LUME
PM SUPPLIES: PLYWOOD, RAINX, i
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
197.8,
PM SUPPLIES: PLYWOOD, RAINX,!
E
E
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
158.1 E
m
10.2% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
20.1 £
10.2% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00 16.1:
8094541 PM SUPPLIES: PLIERS, BATTERIES
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 138
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 21
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
243271 7/30/2020 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
PM SUPPLIES: PLIERS, BATTERIES
m
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
46.9z >,
10.2% Sales Tax
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.7� L
90549
PM SUPPLIES: MOUNTING TAPE
3
PM SUPPLIES: MOUNTING TAPE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
c
39.9z
10.2% Sales Tax
Y
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.01 (D
Total:
1,049.2: r
E
243272 7/30/2020 061013 HONEY BUCKET
0551619342
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
U
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
644.9� O
0551619343
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
o
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
439.6( a
0551619344
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
Q
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
c
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
246.0( N
0551619345
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
c
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4E
0551619346
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
E
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
2
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4E
0551619347
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
r-
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
221.6E u
0551619348
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B1
f°
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B1
Q
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4E
0551619349
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
1,514.1 ,
Page:
21
Packet Pg. 139
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243272 7/30/2020 061013 HONEY BUCKET
243273
243274
243275
243276
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
0551619350
0551619351
0551632019
,'r1&7i[:1CX1w11
0551633278
7/30/2020 077782 HORST REAL TIME REPORTING INC 812
7/30/2020 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE
7/30/2020 075576 IAN MCFERON BAND LLC
7/30/2020 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
BID-4318-hulbert
HMP VIRTUAL CONCERT
1905701056732
7.2.a
Page: 22
PO # Description/Account Amoun
c
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY
E
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4E a
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
L
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
3
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
118.2E
ANYWAY PARK HONEY BUCKET CF
ANYWAY PARK HONEY BUCKET CF
Y
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
-379.7,
CITY HALL HONEY BUCKET CREDI'
CITY HALL HONEY BUCKET CREDI'
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
-264.0" 'm
CITY PARK HONEY BUCKET
CITY PARK HONEY BUCKET
O
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
915.4( >
Total:
3,938.0f o
a
DIVERSITY COMMISSION CART TR
Q"
Q
Diversity Commission CART transmis
c
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
212.6( N
Total :
212.6( M
BID/ED! REIMBURSEMENT FOR PC
BID/Ed! reimbursement for postage
E
140.000.61.558.70.49.00
87.9E 2
Total:
87.95 U
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA VIRTUAL CO
m
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA VIRTUAL CO
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
V
450.0( tea,
Total : 450.0( Q
INV 1905701056732 - EDMONDS PE
AA BATTERIES 8 - 24/PK
001.000.41.521.22.31.00 77.1
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 140
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 23
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
243276
7/30/2020
014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
8.0, >,
300-10074994
E174PO - PARTS/ GENIUS BOOSTE
f°
a
E174PO - PARTS/ GENIUS BOOSTE
L
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
189.9E .3
10.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
c
19.7E
Total :
294.8' Y
U
243277
7/30/2020
075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS
6029
FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC
Aug-2020 Fiber Optics Internet
E
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
590.0E
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
61.3E O
Total:
651.3E
0
243278
7/30/2020
076191 JAYMOR KIM DDS PLLC
07282020-Jaymor Kim
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
a
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
Q
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
8,000.0(
Total:
8,000.0( N
243279
7/30/2020
077860 JOHN'S BARBER SHOP
07282020-JohnsBarber
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
0
M
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
o
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
8,000.0( E
Total :
8,000.0( 'R
z
243280
7/30/2020
077467 KARTEMQUIN EDUCATIONAL FILMS
1443 1444
DIVERSITY COMMISSION FILM SEF
Diversity Commission Film Series mo
aD
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
350.0( t
Total:
350.0( m
r
243281
7/30/2020
077839 KIM, JENNIFER
2005391.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
Q
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
148.0(
Tota I :
148.0(
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 141
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 24
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
243282
7/30/2020
077864 KP AT YOUR SERVICE
07282020-KP EHRLICH
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
r
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
c
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
8,000.0( �%
Total:
8,000.0( a
m
243283
7/30/2020
071899 KREITZBERG, ALAN
2005406.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
3
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
224.0(
Total :
224.0( Y
U
243284
7/30/2020
017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
07132020-02
INV 07132020-02 JUNE - EDMONDS
t
JUNE 2020 CAR WASHES
U
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
10.11 •9
Total:
10.1d z
243285
7/30/2020
077747 LENTZ, DEANNA
2005398.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
O
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
R
o
001.000.239.200
107.1E a
Total:
107.1 ° Q
243286
7/30/2020
075233 LEPAK, JASPAR C
HMP VIRTUAL CONCERT
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA VIRTUAL CO
N
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA VIRTUAL CO
c
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
300.0( M
Total :
300.0( c
243287
7/30/2020
077850 MAGUIRE, KIMBERLY D
HMP VIRTUAL CONCERT
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA VIRTUAL CO
E
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA VIRTUAL CO
U
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
450.0( +%
Total:
450.0( (D
E
243288
7/30/2020
068443 MAIL N' STUFF SERVICES
BID-4318
BID/ED! MAILING OF ANNUAL MEET
U
BIID/Ed! mailing of annual meeting
140.000.61.558.70.49.00
132.8( Q
Tota I :
132.8(
243289
7/30/2020
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
42879921
WWTP: PO 350 PIPE FITTINGS
PO 350 PIPE FITTINGS
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 142
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 25
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
243289
7/30/2020
020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
222.6(
Freight
E
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.2- a
10.4% Sales Tax
L
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
24.1 - .3
Total :
255.9,
c
243290
7/30/2020
077844 MILLER, MARIEKA
2005400.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
Y
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
U
001.000.239.200
170.0(
Total:
170.0( E
243291
7/30/2020
020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
330696
PM SUPPLIES: POLE PRUNER, PO;
U
PM SUPPLIES: POLE PRUNER, PO:
o
001.000.64.576.80.35.00
1,700.9' -jj
10.4% Sales Tax
o
001.000.64.576.80.35.00
176.8� a
331084
PM SUPPLIES: OIL, PRO LINE
Q
PM SUPPLIES: OIL, PRO LINE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
234.3E N
10.4% Sales Tax
M
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
24.3
331104
PM SUPPLIES: BLOWER
PM SUPPLIES: BLOWER
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
56.4E fd
10.4% Sales Tax
U
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
5.8 1
Total:
2,198.85 E
t
243292
7/30/2020
024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
0736554-IN
WWTP: PO 344 ULTRA DUTY GR E
r
PO 344 ULTRA DUTY GR EP-2-40/1
Q
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
172.9 ,
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
18.0(
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 143
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 26
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
243292
7/30/2020
024302 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
(Continued)
Total :
190.91
243293
7/30/2020
077861 NINE BILLIARD
07282020-NineBilliar
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
8,000.0(
Total :
8,000.0(
243294
7/30/2020
025690 NOYES, KARIN
000 00 732
PROF SVC
Historic Preservation Commission
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
78.0(
Total :
78.0(
243295
7/30/2020
077436 NUVODA LLC
5041
WWTP: CONTRACT - MOB
MOB
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
6,000.0(
Total :
6,000.0(
243296
7/30/2020
026015 OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE
PWB-200001
BANNER PROGRAM REFUND PWB
Refund Summer
111.000.322.40.000.00
300.0(
Total :
300.0(
243297
7/30/2020
072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS
3685-482064
UNIT 32 - PARTS/ CLOCK SPRING
UNIT 32 - PARTS/ CLOCK SPRING
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
144.7<
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
15.0E
Total :
159.71
243298
7/30/2020
064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO
100400051266
PW ELEVATOR MAINT SVC CONTR
PW ELEVATOR MAINT SVC CONTR
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
3,825.1 ,
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
397.8
Total :
4,222.9:
243299
7/30/2020
077854 PACIFIC PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY
07282020-PacPedDenti
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 144
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243299 7/30/2020 077854 PACIFIC PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY
243300 7/30/2020 077539 PAULL, ANDREA
243301 7/30/2020 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 27
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
r
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
c
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
8,000.0( �%
Total:
8,000.0( a
m
2005395.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
3
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
72.7E
Total :
72.7F Y
U
200000704821
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
a)
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
U
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
691.41 •9
200002411383
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN
o
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
480.4E Ta
200007876143
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
0
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
a
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
37.6E Q
200011439656
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
69.8E M
200016558856
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME
N
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
327.0 1 E
200016815843
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
2
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
U
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
160.2'
200017676343
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
E
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
U
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
101.9E
200019895354
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
Q
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 40.3,
200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 145
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243301 7/30/2020 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
243302
243303
243304
7/30/2020 077846 RUECKERT, ALISE
7/30/2020 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
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
200024711901
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
220023412418
WWTP: 6/22-7/22/20 METER 00039C
METER 000390395 200 DAYTON ST
423.000.76.535.80.47.63
Total
2005403.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
Total:
S3-5585365
UNIT 16 - PARTS
UNIT 16 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
7/30/2020 077862 SEATTLE SUGAR SPA EDMONDS LLC 07282020-SeaSugarSpa
Total
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
7.2.a
Page: 28
Amoun
c
4.6,
17.5- a
17.5- .3
c
17.5-
17.5" y
t
U
17.5( E
.ii
U
4" 41.2(
Ta
0
134.8, a
2,177.2° Q
0
N
O
M
170.0( c
170.0(
2
U
53.1 C
E
5.5' U
58.7,
Q
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 146
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
243304 7/30/2020 077862 077862 SEATTLE SUGAR SPA EDMONDS LL (Continued)
243305 7/30/2020 071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP BN11999055
243306
243307
243308
Description/Account
Total ;
JUN-2020 CLOUD SERVICE CHARC
Jun-2020 Cloud Service Charges
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
Total
7/30/2020 076831 SKAGIT SHOOTING RANGE LLC 752 INV 752 - EDMONDS PD
7/20/20- RANGE QUAL FEES
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
8.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
7/30/2020 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY LLC 8498 SKYHAWKS
7/30/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
8500 SKYHAWKS
200202547
200260271
200348233
200398956
Total :
8498 SKYHAWKS BASKETBALL CAI
8498 SKYHAWKS BASKETBALL CAI
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
8500 SKYHAWKS BASKETBALL CAI
8500 SKYHAWKS BASKETBALL CAI
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Total
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
7.2.a
Page: 29
Amoun
8,000.0(
m
E
�a
a
1,263.8z
L
3
131.4z
1,395.21
U
m
t
225.0( U
2
19.1< U
244.1; "
R
0
a
183.7E Q
0
N
210.0( o
393.7E
0
E
16.6(
W
617.3£ t
U
m
r
Q
36.5�
1,025.2<
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 147
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243308 7/30/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 30
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
r
200468593
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
c
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
257.5� a
200611317
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
L
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
3
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
126.7,
200638609
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
Y
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
128.3" y
200651644
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
280.6E 'M
200714038
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
O
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.3, >
200739845
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
o
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
a
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
20.2, Q
200865202
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
o
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
N
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
59.2( M
201184538
HICKMAN PARK
0
HICKMAN PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
17.7, .
201197084
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
32.0( (D
201236825
FISHING PIER RESTROOMS
E
FISHING PIER RESTROOMS
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
m
153.3< Q
201431244
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
19.4E
201453057
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 148
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243308 7/30/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 31
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
r
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
c
65.8E
201551744
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN
E
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN
f°
a
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,231.01 L
201572898
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
3
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
43.3,
201751476
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
Y
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
y
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
43.6� u
201782646
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / �
E
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / �
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
19.4E
201942489
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
O
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
77.6' o
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
a
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
295.0( Q
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
c
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
295.0( c
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
c�
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
295.0( c
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
N
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
295.0(
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
294.9E +%
202250627
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
(D
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
E
t
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
19.4E m
202250635
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
Q
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.4E
202291662 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 ,
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1,
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 5,307.1 E
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 149
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 32
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
243308 7/30/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
202439246
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
E
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,121.3, a
202540647
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
L
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
3
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
20.0<
202807632
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
Y
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
19.9( um
203652151
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
E
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
201.1E 'M
220216386
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
O
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
62.1' >
Total:
13,536.0E o
a
243309 7/30/2020 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
2020-6391
JUNE 2020 JAIL FEES - EDMONDS
Q
161.5 BASE RATE @ $103.25 EA
c
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
16,674.8E N
36 BOOKINGS @ $126.97 EA
M
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
4,570.9, c
65 MED SPEC HOUSING @$59.33E
N
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
3,856.4E .
15.5 MENTAL HEALTH @ $143.25EP
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
2,220.3,
9.5 VIDEO CT HRS @ $199.29 EA
001.000.39.523.60.41.50
1,893.2E E
Total:
29,215.81 m
r
243310 7/30/2020 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
1000532710
INV 1000532710 - CUST SSH00095 -
Q
RANGE FEE 6/18- 10HRS @ $58/HF
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
580.0(
RANGE FEE 6/19- 10HRS @ $58/HF
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
580.0(
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 150
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 33
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
243310
7/30/2020
063941 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
(Continued)
Total :
1,160.0(
m
243311
7/30/2020
075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE
Enroachment Agrmnt
ENROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR
E
enroachment agreement for engineer
a
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
108.5( m
Total:
108.5( 3
243312
7/30/2020
075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE
Enroachment Agrmnt 2
ENROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR
c
enroachment agreement for engineer
N
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
107.5(
Total :
107.5( t
U
243313
7/30/2020
075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE
Critical Area Notice
CRITICAL AREA NOTICE FOR PLAN
E
critical area notice for planning
2
U
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
106.5(
Total:
o
106.5(
R
243314
7/30/2020
075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE
Critical Area 2
CRITICAL AREA NOTICE FOR PLAN
P
L
cirtical area notice for planning
a
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
105.5( Q
Total :
105.5( c
N
243315
7/30/2020
037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE
20-039
AUG-2020 FIRE SERVICES CONTR)
Aug-2020 Fire Services Contract Pay
c
001.000.39.522.20.41.50
614,893.1,
Total :
614,893.1 , .�
243316
7/30/2020
074568 SPROUT DESIGN
1323
WOTS POSTCARD
WOTS POSTCARD
123.000.64.573.20.41.40
750.0( E
Total:
750.0( U
m
r
243317
7/30/2020
040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING
2889476
PM: FLOWER BASKET SUPPLIES
Q
PM: FLOWER BASKET SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
188.6E
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
17.3E
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 151
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243317 7/30/2020 040250 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING
243318 7/30/2020 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
243319
243320
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
S103117517.001
S 103135645.001
S103147441.002
7/30/2020 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 7737
7/30/2020 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18281655
18282041
7.2.a
Page: 34
PO # Description/Account Amoun
Total:
206.0'
m
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ LIGHTS
E
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ LIGHTS
sa
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
247.5E
a
m
10.5% Sales Tax
3
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
25.9E
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
r-
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
255.0'
U
10.5% Sales Tax
t
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
26.7E
U
E
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
M
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
z
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
250.4E
o
10.5% Sales Tax
6
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
26.3( o
L
Total:
832.1: a
Q
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR JUL
Social media services for July 2020
N
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
300.0( M
Total :
300.0( r-
0
PM COVID SUPPLIES: RED DANGE
E
PM COVID SUPPLIES: RED DANGE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
83.5E
10.4% Sales Tax
o
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
8.6E E
FLEET - SUPPLIES
FLEET - SUPPLIES
r
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 473.5E Q
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20 49.2E
Total : 615.0j
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 152
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 35
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
243321
7/30/2020
072790 TCC PRINTING & IMAGING
4589
WOTS POSTCARD PRINTING
r
WOTS POSTCARD PRINTING
c
E,
123.000.64.573.20.41.40
349.1 ,
10.4% Sales Tax
a
123.000.64.573.20.41.40
36.3" L
4652
DESIGN AND PRINTING OF 150 BIP
3
Design of Bird Fest poster 2020
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
100.0(
Printing of 150 Bird Fest posters 202(
Y
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
156.8( (D
10.4% Sales Tax
U
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
10.4( E
10.4% Sales Tax
ii
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
16.3- ,-
Total:
668.95
R
243322
7/30/2020
071666 TETRATECH INC
51616698
E9FA.SERVICES THRU 7/24/20
0
L
E9FA.Services thru 7/24/20
a
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
72,272.0E Q
Total :
72,272.0E o
N
243323
7/30/2020
027269 THE PART WORKS INC
INV58309
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - FLL
M
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - FLL
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
0
198.1 , N
Freight
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8.4; 2
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
21.4�
Total:
228.OF E
t
U
243324
7/30/2020
077847 TRACY, LINDSEY
2005404.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
;,
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
Q
001.000.239.200
340.0(
Total :
340.0(
243325
7/30/2020
077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER
105328
STORM - DUMP FEES
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 153
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
243325 7/30/2020 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER (Continued)
243326 7/30/2020 077842 VON FELDT, FRANCIS
243327 7/30/2020 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC
243328 7/30/2020 077837 WARD, RENEE
PO # Description/Account
STORM - DUMP FEES
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
Total :
2005397.009 REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION:
REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
Total
8801587548 WWTP: SIEVE BIN - NO PO
SIEVE BIN - NO PO
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
2005389.009
243329 7/30/2020 077785 WASHINGTON KIDS IN TRANSITION 07232020-CARE
07232020-CARES-ADMI N
243330 7/30/2020 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 120-398
120-399
Total :
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
Total
HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL RE
Housing and supplemental relief gran
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL RE
Housing and supplemental relief fund
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
Total
TREE REMOVL - 17500 72ND AVE V
TREE REMOVL - 17500 72ND AVE V
111.000.68.542.71.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.48.00
TREE REMOVAL - 621 BELL ST. REI
7.2.a
Page: 36
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 154
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
243330 7/30/2020 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS (Continued)
243331 7/30/2020 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 11799465
11835433
11845438
243332 7/30/2020 069605 WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 2020-EDM-APR
243333 7/30/2020 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS
PO # Description/Account
TREE REMOVAL - 621 BELL ST. REI
111.000.68.542.71.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.48.00
Total
FAC MAINT - COVID/ FOAMING SAI`
FAC MAINT - COVID/ FOAMING SAI`
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
PARK MAINT: SUPPLIES
PARK MAINT: SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
FAC MAINT - COVID/ DISINFECTAN'
FAC MAINT - COVID/ DISINFECTAN'
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Consulting/Plan Review (BLD2019-0f
001.000.62.524.20.41.00
Total
30380 PM: PLANTS
PM:PLANTS
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
7.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
Total :
7.2.a
Page: 37
Amoun
c
1,450.0( �%
�a
a
150.8( L
2,064.41 .3
c
ea
78.0( U
t
U
8.1- E
104.7( O
R
10.8� o
a
a
Q
3,086.0( c
N
320.9z
3,608.6' c
E
2
U
555.0(
555.0(
E
t
U
m
r
255.0( Q
19.8�
274.W
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 155
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 38
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
243334
7/30/2020
063008 WSDOT
RE 41 JZ0249 L012
E7JA.PROJECT COSTS FOR JUNE
r
E7JA.Project Costs for June 2020
c
d
421.000.74.594.34.41.00
181.0 1 >,
Total:
181.0, a
m
243335
7/30/2020
077562 YOUNG, LINDSAY
2005396.009
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: (
3
REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION:
001.000.239.200
69.5(
Total :
69.5( Y
U
243336
7/30/2020
077863 YUMMY TERIYAKI & SUSHI
07282020-Yummy
CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT
t
CARES Fund business support grant
U
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
8,000.0( •9
Total:
8,000.0( z
243337
7/30/2020
070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC
20-EDM0007
JUL-2020 RETAINER
4-
O
Monthly Retainer
R
o
001.000.36.515.33.41.00
21,250.0( a
Total:
21,250.0( Q
243338
7/30/2020
011900 ZIPLY FIBER
253-007-4989
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
o
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
c
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
31.1 , M
253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
o
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
N
E
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
162.7'
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
302.1,
253-012-9189
WWTP: 7/25-8/24/20 AUTO DIALER
m
7/25-8/24/20 AUTO DIALER - 1 VOI(
t
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
41.5£
253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
r
Q
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
19.8,
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
36.9(
Page: 38
Packet Pg. 156
vchlist
07/30/2020 10 :33 :24AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
243338 7/30/2020 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
122 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
122 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 39
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
r
253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
c
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
>,
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
47.0, a
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
L
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
87.3E .3
425-712-8347
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
74.1 ' Y
425-771-5553
WWTP: 7/25-8/24/20 AUTO DIALER:
U
7/25-8/24/20 AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSI
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
128.9' E
425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
is
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
U
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
74.6E
425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL,
_0
>
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
o
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
139.7 - a
Total :
1,146.2: Q
Bank total :
0
1,028,569.41, N
0
M
Total vouchers :
1,028,569.41
0
E
M
U
m
E
t
U
m
r
Q
Page: 39
Packet Pg. 157
7.2.b
vchlist
07/30/2020 10:47:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
7302020 7/30/2020 076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun
Aug 2020 ACCT #00397358 4TH AVE PARKIN(
d
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - Augus
E
001.000.39.542.64.45.00
417.E 1
Total :
417.61
m
L_
Bank total :
417.61
3
c
Total vouchers :
417.6�
f°
N
m
t
U
E
M
U
4-
0
�a
0
L
Q
a
O
N
O
M
O
Cl)
L
3
c
Cl)
E
U
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 158
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6J13
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
SWR
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
c492
E6GC
WTR
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
STR
2019 Downtown Parking Study
s021
E9AC
Q'
STR
2019 Guardrail Install
i039
E9AB
a�
L_
STR
2019 Overlay Program
i036
E9CA
3
STR
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
i041
E9DB
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project (Phase 7)
c516
EBGA
Y
U
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
E
STR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
U
STR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
o
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
EBJB
c
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
L
a
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement (Phase10)
c498
E7JA
Q
STR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
N
STR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
0
ti
STR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
L
STR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
M
STR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
z
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
o
STR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
m
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
a�
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
a
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
a�
STR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
a�
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
E
STR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
Q
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
STR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
STR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
STR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
EODC
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
Revised 7/29/2020
Packet Pg. 159
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STIR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
STIR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
STIR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
sol 1
ESGB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
STIR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
EOFA
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STIR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
i044
E9DC
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
c
m
E
M
Q.
a�
L
3
c
M
Y
V
N
t
E
U
4-
0
0
L
Q
om
Revised 7/29/2020 Packet Pg. 160
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
STIR
EOAA
i046
2020 Guardrail Installations
STIR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STIR
EOAC
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STIR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
STIR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
m
STIR
EODB
i049
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
�,
STIR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
M
Q'
a�
L
STM
EOFA
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
3
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
M
SWR
EOGA
c548
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
Y
U
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
E
PRK
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
U
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
0
STIR
E1 CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
>
0
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
a
a
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
Q
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
N
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
M
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
ti
c
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
E
0
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
Z
0
L
STIR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
a
STIR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
m
STIR
ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c
STM
ESFD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
a
SWR
ESGB
sol 1
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
u_
WWTP
ESHA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c
WTR
ESJB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
E
WTR
ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
Q
STIR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
SWR
E6GC
c492
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
Revised 7/29/2020
Packet Pg. 161
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering Proiect
Proiect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Proiect Title
WTR
E6J13
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR
E6JC
c493
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i005 Iff
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
STIR
E7DC
.W&
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
STM
E7FB
StorkDrain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
MOP
E7AJ
Ir
2019 Waterline Replacement
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
E8
220th Adaptiv
STR
E8CA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
E8CC
K-031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STIR
E8DB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
' 37
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STM
E8FA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
STM
E8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
6
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E8JA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
s020
2019 Utility RaUMMFC Update
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
ir i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STIR
E9AB
i039
2019 Guardrail Install
s021
2019 Downtown Parking Study
STIR
HAD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i036
2019 Overlay Program
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STIR
E9DB
i041
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
_
STIR
E9DC
im
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4
STM
E9FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
Revised 7/29/2020 Packet Pg. 162
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Protect
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
PM
EBMA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
E1 CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
>,
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
M
Q'
a�
L
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
3
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
M
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
Y
STIR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
WTR
ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
E
STIR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
U
STIR
ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c
STM
ESFD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
>
0
WWTP
ESHA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
a
a
WTR
ESJB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
Q
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
N
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
M
SWR
E6GC
c492
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
ti
c
WTR
E6JC
c493
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
E
0
PRK
E7MA
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
Z
0
L
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
a
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
SWR
EBGA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c
STM
EBFB
c521
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
a
WTR
EBJA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
u_
STM
EBFC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c
PRK
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
E
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
STM
EOFA
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
Q
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
SWR
EOGA
c548
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
WTR
E6JB
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
Revised 7/29/2020 Packet Pg. 163
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Protect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
STR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STR
EBAB
i028
220th Adaptive
STR
EBCA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
>,
STR
EBCC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
M
Q'
a�
L
STR
EBDB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
3
STR
E9CA
i036
2019 Overlay Program
M
STR
EBDC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
Y
U
STR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STR
E9AB
i039
2019 Guardrail Install
E
STR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
U
STR
E9DB
i041
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
c
STR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
>
0
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
a
a
STR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
Q
STR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
N
STR
EOAA
i046
2020 Guardrail Installations
STR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
ti
c
STR
EOAC
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STR
EODB
i049
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
E
0
STR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
Z
0
L
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
a
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
STM
E7FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
c
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
a
SWR
ESGB
sol l
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
LL
STR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
c
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
E
STM
EBFA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
UTILITIES
EBJB
s02O
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
Q
STR
E9AC
s021
2019 Downtown Parking Study
STM
E9FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
STR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
Revised 7/29/2020 Packet Pg. 164
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
STM
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
EOFA
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
STR
2019 Downtown Parking Study
s021
E9AC
STR
2019 Guardrail Install
i039
E9AB
STR
2019 Overlay Program
i036
E9CA
STR
2019 Pedestrian Safety Program
i041
E9DB
STR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
STR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
STR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
STR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
STR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
STR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
STR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
c
m
E
M
a�
L
3
c
M
U)
Y
V
a�
t
E
U
w
0
0
L
a
a
i
Revised 7/29/2020 Packet Pg. 165
7.2.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
ElCA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STIR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STIR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
STIR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
EODC
STIR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
STIR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
STIR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STIR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STIR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
i044
E9DC
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
SWR
2018 Sewerline Replacement Project
c492
E6GC
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
s0l l
ESGB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s02O
EBJB
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6JB
WTR
2018 Waterline Replacement Project
c493
E6JC
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
c
m
E
M
a�
L
3
c
M
Y
V
N
t
E
w
0
0
L
a
a
i
Revised 7/29/2020 Packet Pg. 166
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/4/2020
Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport Contract Extension
Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead}
Department: Wastewater Treatment Plant
Preparer: Michael Derrick
Background/History
A 2-year Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport Contract Extension was before City Council on
4/18/2017 (ID# 1966). Due to ongoing litigation and the potential changes to the City WWTP NPDES
Permit, staff requested a 3-month contract extension which was before City Council on 5/5/2020 (ID#
4602). This extension was signed on May 15, 2020. Due to ongoing litigation staff is now requesting an
eighteen (18) month extension.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending the City Council Authorize Mayor Nelson to sign the 18-month contract
extension.
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 determined the
ownership interest of each Partner and their capital contribution rate; it defined a process to ensure the
Partners pay their share of operating expenses based on their annual measured flows to the facility; and
it defined the role and responsibility of the Oversight Committee that is composed of one member from
each Partner organization. The Agreement expired in May 2018 but was extended for two (2) years by
means of the "Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport Contract Extension." Due to on -going
litigation and the potential changes to the City WWTP NPDES Permit, staff requested a 3-month contract
extension which was before City Council on 5/5/2020 (ID# 4602). This extension was signed on May 15,
2020. Due to ongoing litigation staff is now requesting an additional 18-month extension.
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 30 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
original Agreement. As the Oversight Committee entered into the final stages of Contract review
concerns arose among the Parties regarding the City of Shoreline's assumption of Ronald Wastewater
District and the City's intention to take over the Pt. Wells area (currently within the service area of
Olympic View Water and Sewer District). These concerns have brought the parties to an impasse on the
Packet Pg. 167
8.1
development of the new Contract.
The Department of Ecology has put the City on notice that the next NPDES permit that will be issued will
have requirements for nutrient removal. These requirements are of great concern because of the
potential adverse impact on future growth in the area and the WWTP's ability to provide the quality of
treatment outlined in a future NPDES permit.
A general agreement has been reached among the Parties regard the new Contract. However due to the
on -going litigation and potential nutrient removal impacts we believe it prudent to extend the current
Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport Agreement until such time that the litigation is
completely resolved and the NPDES concerns are better understood.
Attachments:
2020 Addendum 3-COE+COM+Oly View WS+Ronald W PSA (with SEC edits) 7.20.20
Packet Pg. 168
ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
8.1.a
Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport
WHEREAS, the City of Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water and Sewer District, and
Ronald Wastewater District (the "Participants") and the City of Edmonds (the "City"),
(collectively the "Parties"), all municipal corporations of the State of Washington, entered into an
underlying Agreement for wastewater treatment, disposal and transport, for a term of thirty (30)
years, from May 17, 1988 to May 17, 2018; and
WHEREAS, in May 2017, the Parties entered into an Addendum to the underlying
Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement for two (2) years, through May 17, 2020, to allow
time for issues between the Parties to be resolved; and
WHEREAS, in April 2020, the Parties entered into Addendum No. 2 to the underlying
Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional three (3) months, through August
17, 2020 to allow additional time for issues between the Parties to be resolved; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to further extend the term of the underlying
Agreement for an additional eighteen (18) months, through February 17, 2022, to allow additional
time for issues between the Parties to be resolved;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and among
the Parties hereto as follows:
1. The underlying Agreement of May 17, 1988 among the Parties, the term of which
was extended to May 17, 2020 through the first Addendum to the Agreement, and further extended
to August 17, 2020 by Addendum No. 2, all of which are incorporated by this reference as fully as
if herein set forth, is further amended in, but only in, the following respect:
1.1 Term of Agreement: To extend this Agreement to February 17, 2022.
2. In all other respects, the underlying Agreement among the Parties shall remain in
full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein.
DATED this day of 52020.
CITY OF EDMONDS CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
Michael Nelson, Mayor
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Scott Passey, City Clerk
By: _
Title:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
By: _
Title:
Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 169
ADDENDUM NO.3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
8.1.a
Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND
SEWER DISTRICT
By:
Title:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
By:_
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Title:
RONALD WASTEWATER DISTRICT
By:
Title:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
By:
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Title:
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 170
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/4/2020
Approval of Sound Transit Funding Agreement for Citywide Bicycle Improvement Project
Staff Lead: Bertrand Hauss
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Nicholas Falk
Background/History
On March 10, 2020, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee.
On July 21, 2020, public comment was received on the Sound Transit Funding Agreement for the
Citywide Bicylce Improvement Project.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the System Access Project Agreement.
Narrative
In 2019, a Sound Transit Access grant in the amount of $1.85 Million was secured for the Citywide
Bicycle Improvements project. The project will add bike lanes on both sides of the street along 1001h Ave
from 2441h Street to Walnut Street, Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave to 841h Ave, and 228th Street from 78th
Ave to 80th Ave. Sharrows will be added along 801h Ave from 228th Street to 220th Street (within
Snohomish County). The purpose of this agreement between the City of Edmonds and Sound Transit
establishes the terms and conditions for the eligible work during the duration of this agreement. The
agreement includes the scope of work, deliverables, funding plan, project schedule, reporting
requirements, and Sound Transit invoice forms.
The design phase is scheduled to begin in September 2020. Construction is anticipated to begin in Spring
2022, if the project does not require right-of-way acquisition (to be determined during the design
phase). Right-of-way acquisition (if needed) could delay the start of construction by up to one year
depending on the complexity and evaluation of the property acquisition. A new presentation (from one
presented on July 21s') has been included, with additional parking demand data and bike count
information.
Attachments:
Sound Transit Agreement
July 21st Presentation
Packet Pg. 171
8.2.a
SYSTEM ACCESS FUND PROJECT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND
REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY FOR
CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
GA 0010-20
This Agreement, made and entered on , between the City of Edmonds
(hereinafter "City'), and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, (hereinafter "Sound
Transit");
WHEREAS, the Sound Transit 3 ("STY") high capacity transit system expansion plan was
approved by the voters in November 2016 and includes a $100 million System Access Program to
"fund such projects as safe sidewalks and protected bike lanes, shared use paths, improved bus -
rail integration, and new pick-up and drop-off areas that provide convenient access so that more
people can use Sound Transit services;"
WHEREAS, Sound Transit opened the System Access Fund 2019 Call for Projects in February
2019 and subsequently evaluated applications from local governments against evaluation criteria
identified by the Sound Transit Executive Committee;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public comment period and online open house in August
2019, the Sound Transit Board of Directors approved 30 applications from 27 local governments
on September 26, 2019;
WHEREAS, Sound Transit and the City have a joint interest in delivering on citywide bicycle
improvements, (hereinafter the "Project), which was duly approved by the Sound Transit Board as
part of the System Access Program by virtue of M2019-97;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions, covenants, and performances
contained herein, or attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, it is mutually agreed as
follows:
1. GENERAL
1.1. Purpose. The intent of this Agreement is to establish the terms and conditions for the eligible
work to be performed for the Project during the duration of this Agreement. Attached hereto
as Exhibit A, is the Scope of Work and Deliverables, which outlines the activities, products
and general capital improvements eligible for fundingby Sound Transit, as presented to Sound
Transit in the City's application for Project funding. Funds may be expended on eligible
elements listed in Exhibit A up to the not to exceed amount outlined in Section 1.2 below.
System Access FundProject Agreement Page 1 of 18
GA 0010-20
Packet Pg. 172
1.2. Agreement Not -to -Exceed Amount. The total amount of the Agreement shall not exceed
$1,850,000.00. No payments will be made in excess of the established not -to -exceed amount
according to the Project Description outlined in Section 2.1 below.
The funding amount provided by Sound Transit does not include federal funding.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1. The Project will extend bicycle facilities along key east -west and north -south corridors and
provide an alternative mode of transportation for community members to reach both Edmonds
and Mountlake Terrance Transit Centers as identified in Exhibit A, Scope of Work and
Deliverables. Sound Transit funding will support two Phases:
2.1.1. Design Phase. The City will design the bicycle improvements. The Design Phase
is expected to require up to $500,000.00 of the total Not -to -Exceed amount noted in
Section 1.2. Any work in the Design Phase exceeding $500,000.00 must be approved
by Sound Transit. To be reimbursed for the Design Phase, the City must provide the
following: 1) Exhibit B, Project Funding Plan; 2) Exhibit C, Project Schedule, 3)
Exhibit D, Engineer's Estimate.
2.1.2. Construction Phase. The City will construct the Project. To be reimbursed for the
Construction Phase, the City must provide the following: 1) completed design plans
for Sound Transit review, 2) updated Exhibit B, Project Funding Plan; 3) updated
Exhibit C, Project Schedule; 4) Exhibit E, Environmental Review Certification; 5)
Exhibit F, ROW Certification; 6) updated Exhibit D, Engineer's Estimate
3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
3.1. Designated Representatives. The City and Sound Transit have designated formal points of
coordination for this Agreement. The Designated Representatives shall communicate
regularly to discuss the status of the tasks to be performed, to identify upcoming decisions
related to the Project, to provide any information or input necessary to inform those
decisions, and to resolve any issues or disputes related to the Project consistent with this
Agreement.
The Designated Representatives are:
CITY
SOUND TRANSIT
Alex Krieg
Deputy Director, Planning & Integration
401 S Jackson St
Seattle WA 98104
206-903-7663
Alex.Krieg@soundtransit.org
The Parties may change designated representatives by written notice to the other Parry during
the term of the Agreement.
System Access FundProject Agreement
GA 0010-20
Page 2of18
Packet Pg. 173
8.2.a
3.2. Reporting Requirements. The City is required to submit Quarterly Progress Reportto Sound
Transit's Designated Representative to include the below elements (Exhibit G: Template for
Reporting Requirements). The report may include supporting documentation (photos, City
documentation, financial information, etc.).
3.2.1. Project Update. Status of major activities including, Phase 1-Design and Phase 2-
Construction, in the reporting period, both current and upcoming.
3.2.2. Assessment of on -going risks. The City will notify Sound Transit of any issues that
may affect the Project Schedule and overall implementation of the Project.
3.2.3. Project Funding. Summary of expenditures during reporting period, and expected
expenditures in the subsequent reporting period.
3.3. Eligible Costs. Eligible costs include actual costs identified in Exhibit A, Scope of Work and
Deliverables.
3.4. Additional Project Funding. The Not -to -Exceed funding amount in Paragraph 1.2 represents
approximately 100% of the total Project cost (assuming no need for right of way costs, which
the City will be responsible for). The City's Funding Plan is attached as Exhibit B.
3.5. Project Schedule. The parties agree to the project schedule identified in Exhibit C, Project
Schedule. The City shall complete all work and deliverables of the Project by one year after
the expected project completion date shown in Exhibit C, Project Schedule, unless otherwise
mutually agreed in writing by both Parties. The City is responsible fornotifying Sound Transit
of any material changes to the Project Schedule and rationale for the change in writing as part
of its quarterly reporting requirements.
3.6. City Work. The City is solely responsible for the environmental review, design, permitting
construction, project and construction management of all applicable Project elements
including, but not limited to, procurement and construction administration. The City is
responsible for all costs relating to the operations or maintenance of service and capital
improvements related to the Project upon its completion. The City will be the owner of the
completed Project. Sound Transit is not responsible for funding any service operations or for
maintenance of any improvements implemented under this Agreement.
3.7. Signage. Any identification signage that is used duringthe Project shall identify Sound Transit
as a funding partner.
3.8. Design Review. The City shall provide Sound Transit the opportunity to review design plans
at milestones identified in Exhibit C, Project Schedule.
3.9. Project Closeout. Before payment of the final invoice, the City and Sound Transit will meet
to ensure final deliverables are complete per Exhibit A, Scope of Work and Deliverables.
4. INVOICING
System Access FundProject Agreement Page 3 of 18
GA 0010-20
Packet Pg. 174
8.2.a
4.1. The City will submit quarterly invoices and supporting documentation that align with the
Scope of Work and Deliverables for payment (See Exhibit H, Invoice Form). The invoices
must include the Sound Transit purchase order number provided by Sound Transit.
4.2. The City will submit its invoices with the required documentation, in two .pdf files, via email
to accountspayable(d,soundtransit.or (and carbon copying Sound Transit's Designated
Representative). Invoices will be paid within (30) days of Sound Transit's receipt of the
invoice and acceptable and complete supporting documentation.
4.3. The City agrees to submit a final invoice to Sound Transit within forty-five (45) days after the
City has completed each phase of the work.
4.4. If Sound Transit determines that an invoice lacks sufficient documentation to support
payment, Sound Transit will notify the City of its determination and request that the City
provide additional documentation. Sound Transit may withhold payment of the invoice until
supporting documentation is provided, however such approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
5. TERM, SUSPENSION, AND TERMINATION
5.1. Term. This Agreement shall take effect upon the last date of signature by the Parties as set
forth below. This Agreement shall remain in effect until 180 days following Project
completion, unless extended by mutual written agreement of the Parties, superseded by a
future agreement, or suspended or terminated in accordance with this Section 5.
5.2. Termination by Sound Transit. Sound Transit may terminate this Agreement under the
following circumstances:
5.2.1. If work as defined in Exhibit A is not completed by one year afterthe expectedproject
completion date shown in Exhibit C, Project Schedule, unless otherwise agreed to by
the Parties.
5.2.2. If the City fails to make progress towards completing the Project and the City has not
provided adequate assurances of its desire or ability to complete the Project and
commence operations.
If the Agreement is terminated under this Section 5.2, the City shall reimburse Sound Transit
the full amount of all payments it made to the City under this Agreement within 90 days of
the date of termination. The City may ask for an extension of time to complete the Project for
good cause. Sound Transit's agreement to extend the completion will not be unreasonably
withheld.
5.3. Termination by Either Party. Either Party may terminate this Agreement for cause in the event
that the other Party fails to fulfill its material obligations under this Agreement in a timely
manner or breaches any material provision of this Agreement and the Dispute Resolution
Process has failed to reach resolution within the timelines described therein. The Party wishing
to terminate this Agreement for cause will provide the other Party with notice of its intent to
System Access FundProject Agreement Page 4 of 18
GA 0010-20
Packet Pg. 175
8.2.a
terminate and will give the other Party an opportunity to correct the failure to perform or
breach within thirty (30) days of the notice or within such longer period as may be necessary
in the event that correction cannot reasonably be accomplished within thirty (30) days. If the
failure orbreach is not corrected or cured, this Agreementmay be terminated by the aggrieved
Party by giving ninety (90) days' notice to the other Party.
5.4. Except as provided in this Section, a termination by either Party will not extinguish or release
either Party from liability for costs or obligations existing as of the date of termination. Any
costs incurred prior to proper notification of termination will be borne by the Parties in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
6. INDEMNITY
6.1. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the City will hold harmless from, and indemnify
and defend Sound Transit (including its board members, officers, directors and employees)
(the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, lawsuits,
actions, or liability of any kind or nature, arising out of or relating to the City's design,
construction, maintenance or operation of the Project, including claims by the City's
employees. THE CITY SPECIFICALLY ASSUMES POTENTIAL LIABILITY FOR
ACTIONS BROUGHT BY THE CITY'S OWN EMPLOYEES OR FORMER
EMPLOYEES AGAINST ANY INDEMNIFIED PARTY, AND FOR THAT PURPOSE
THE CITY SPECIFICALLY WAIVES ALL IMMUNITY AND LIMITATIONS ON
LIABILITY UNDER THE WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT, RCW TITLE 51, OR
ANY INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE ACT, DISABILITY BENEFIT ACT OR OTHER
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT ACT OF ANY JURISDICTION THAT WOULD
OTHERWISE BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF SUCH CLAIM. THIS
INDEMNITY OBLIGATION SHALL NOT BE LIMITED BY ANY LIMITATION ON
THE AMOUNT OR TYPE OF DAMAGES, COMPENSATION OR BENEFITS
PAYABLE BY OR FOR THE CITY OR A CONTRACTOR UNDER WORKERS'
COMPENSATION, DISABILITY BENEFIT OR OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
LAWS. THE CITY RECOGNIZES THAT THIS WAIVER WAS SPECIFICALLY
ENTERED INTO AND WAS THE SUBJECT OF MUTUAL NEGOTIATION.
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THE CITY'S WAIVER OF IMMUNITY BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH EXTENDS ONLY TO CLAIMS AGAINST
THE CITY BY SOUND TRANSIT, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE, OR EXTEND TO,
ANY CLAIMS BY THE CITY'S EMPLOYEE(S) DIRECTLY AGAINST THE CITY.
The foregoing indemnity applies only to the extent of the City's negligence.
6.2. The City further agrees to assume the defense of the Indemnified Parties with legal counsel
acceptable to Sound Transit, whose acceptance shall notbe unreasonably withheld. In all legal
or claim proceedings arising out of, in connection with, or incidental to the City's work or that
of its contractors, subcontractors of any tier, suppliers, consultants and sub -consultants. The
City shall pay all defense expenses, including attorney's fees, expert fees, and costs incurred
directly or indirectly on account of such litigation or claims, and shall satisfy any judgment
rendered in connection therewith. The City may settle any suit, claim, action cost, loss penalty
or damages, subject to the approval of Sound Transit, whose approval shall not be
System Access FundProject Agreement Page 5 of 18
GA 0010-20
Packet Pg. 176
8.2.a
unreasonably withheld, if such settlement completely and forever extinguishes any and all
liability of the Indemnified Parties. In the event of litigation between the Parties hereto to
enforce the rights under this provision, reasonable attorney fees shall be allowed to the
prevailing party.
6.3. Each Parry agrees to bear full responsibility for any and all tax liabilities owed that may arise
in relation to this Agreement, and each Parry will fully indemnify and hold the other Parry, its
officers, agents and employees harmless from any tax liability owed by the other Party arising
from or related to the transactions set forth herein, including, but not limited to, any taxes,
penalties, fines, and/or interest that are assessed by any tax authority against the indemnifying
Party and further including all attorneys' fees and costs incurred in response to any claims or
assessments by any tax authority against indemnifying Parry, its officers, agents and
employees.
6.4. The obligations in this Section will survive termination or completion of this Agreement as to
any claim, loss or liability arising from events occurring prior to such termination or
completion.
7. AUDITS
7.1. Each Parry will maintain accounts and records, including contract and financial records that
sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended for work
performed under this Agreement so as to ensure proper accounting for all monies paid to the
City by Sound Transit. These records will be maintained for a period of six (6) years after
termination orexpiration of this Agreement unless permissionto destroy the records is granted
by the Office of the Archivist pursuant to RCW Chapter 40.14 and agreed to by the Parties.
7.2. The City will make all Project records available for Sound Transit inspection upon prior
reasonable request. Audits may be performed by Sound Transit or its independent public
accountants to ensure compliance with and enforcement of this Agreement. Should the audit
determine that funds from Sound Transit have been used for expenses that were ineligible,
then Sound Transit shall provide a copy of the auditor's determination to the City. The City
agrees with the determination, then the City will reimburse Sound Transit the amounts found
to have been ineligible. If the City disputes the auditor's determination, then the matter shall
be referred to the dispute resolution process set forth in Section 9.
8. INSURANCE
8.1. Coverage. During the construction phase of any eligible elements within the Project, the
City shall provide primary insurance coverage in the amounts that it deems necessary for
construction projects of similar size and cost. If the City is self -insured, it shall provide to
Sound Transit's risk manager a certificate of self-insurance. The City shall require their
contractor(s) and sub -contractors to obtain and maintain insurance in amounts and types
suitable to protect Sound Transit and the City from exposures presented by the work
performed under this Agreement. The minimum insurance requirements during the entire
System Access FundProject Agreement Page 6 of 18
GA 0010-20
Packet Pg. 177
8.2.a
term of this Agreement are set forth below:
a) Commercial General Liability in the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000) each
occurrence limit, two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate limit, covering bodily
injury including death, personal injury, property damage, Employers' Liability and
contractual coverage endorsements, and utilize insurers and coverage forms acceptable to
Sound Transit.
b) Commercial Auto Liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage utilizing
insurers and coverage forms acceptable to Sound Transit, with a limit of at least one million
dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit.
c) Worker's Compensation insurance coverage, where applicable, shall comply with State of
Washington Labor and Industries requirements.
d) Builders Risk coverage will be the responsibility of all contractors and subcontractors.
e) Pollution Liability (if there is any potential environmental liability exposure) in the
amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence and two million dollars
($2,000,000) aggregate.
f) Professional Liability (if there is a potential professional liability exposure) in the amount
of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim.
8.2. Certificates. Certificates of insurance must name Sound Transit as an "Additional Insured,"
and shall reference the number and title of this Agreement. All insurance coverage obtained
by the City or its contractors and subcontractors must name Sound Transit, its officers and
employees as "additional insureds" and contain "severability of interest" (cross liability)
provisions. The City's and the contractor's insurance policies shall be primary to and not
contributing with any insurance or self-insurance that may be carried by Sound Transit and
waive their right of Subrogation against Sound Transit. Certificates of Insurance, including
the Additional Insured Endorsements, Waiver of Subrogation Endorsements and Primary
and Non -Contributory Endorsements, will be provided to Sound Transit before the start of
any work performed under this Agreement.
9. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
9.1. Any disputes or questions of interpretation of this Agreement or the performance of either
Party under this Agreement that may arise between Sound Transit and the City shall be
governed under the dispute resolution provisions in this Section 9. The Parties agree that
neither Party may take or join any action in any judicial or administrative forum to challenge
the other Party's performance under this Agreement until the dispute resolution process in this
Section 9 has been exhausted.
System Access FundProject Agreement Page 7 of 18
GA 0010-20
Packet Pg. 178
9.2. The Parties agree that cooperation and communication are essential to resolving issues
efficiently. The Parties agree to use their best efforts to prevent and resolve potential sources
of conflict at the lowest level possible.
9.3. Either Party may refer a dispute to the dispute resolution process by providing written notice
of such referral to the other Party's Designated Representative. The Parties agree to use their
best efforts to resolve disputes arising out of or related to this Agreement using good faith
negotiations by engaging in the following dispute resolution process should any such disputes
arise:
a. Level One - Sound Transit's Designated Representative and the City's Designated
Representative shall meet to discuss and attempt to resolve the dispute in a timely
manner. If they cannot resolve the dispute within fourteen (14) days after referral of
that dispute to Level One, either parry may refer the dispute to Level Two.
b. Level Two - Sound Transit's Deputy Executive Director of the Office of Planning &
Integration and the City's Departmental Leads shall meet to discuss and attempt to
resolve the dispute in a timely manner. If they cannot resolve the dispute within
fourteen (14) days after referral of that dispute to Level Two, either Party may refer
the dispute to Level Three.
Level Three - Sound Transit's Executive Director of the Planning, Environment, and
Project Development Department or Designee and the City's Department Directors
or Designee shall meet to discuss and attempt to resolve the dispute in a timely
manner.
9.4. In the event the dispute is not resolved at Level Three within fourteen (14) days after referral
of that dispute to Level Three, the Parties are free to file suit, seek any available legal remedy,
or agree to alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation. At all times prior to
resolution of the dispute, the Parties shall continue to perform any undisputed obligations and
make any undisputed required payments under this Agreement in the same manner and under
the same terms as existed prior to the dispute. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to
the contrary, neither Party has any obligation to participate in mediation or any other form of
alternative dispute resolution following completion of Level Three of the process described
herein. A Party may decline to participate in such proceeding for any reason or no reason.
10. LEGAL PROVISIONS
10.1. Warranties. By execution of this Agreement, both Parties warrant that they have the full
right and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement, and that by entering into or
performing this Agreement, they are not in violation of any law, regulation, or agreement;
and that the execution, delivery andperformance ofthe Agreement has been duly authorized
by all requisite corporate action, and that the signatories hereto, which have signed on each
Parties behalf, are authorized to sign this Agreement.
System Access FundProject Agreement Page 8 of 18
GA 0010-20
Packet Pg. 179
8.2.a
10.2. No waiver. Neither Party will be relieved of its obligations to comply promptly with any
provision of this Agreement by reason of any failure by the other Party to enforce prompt
compliance, and such failure to enforce will not constitute a waiver of rights or acquiescence
in the other Parry's conduct.
10.3. Costs. Each Party will be responsible for its own costs, including legal fees, incurred in
negotiating or finalizing this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties.
If either Party brings any claim or lawsuit arising from this Agreement, each Party will pay
all its legal costs and attorney's fees and expenses incurred in defending or bringing such
claim or lawsuit, including all appeals, in addition to any other recovery or award provided
by law; however, nothing in this paragraph will be construed to limit the Parties' rights to
indemnification.
10.4. Public Records. Each Party shall be responsible for its own public records and public
records requests.
10.5. Notices. All notices required under this Agreement must be in writing and addressed to the
Designated Representative. All notices must be either: (i) delivered in person, (ii) deposited
postage prepaid in the certified mails of the United States, return receipt requested, (iii)
delivered by a nationally recognized overnight or same -day courier service that obtains
receipts, or (iv) delivered electronically to the other Party's Designated Representative.
However, notice under Section 5, termination, must be delivered in person or by certified
mail, return receipt requested.
10.6. The parties may not unreasonably withhold requests for information, approvals or consents
provided for in this Agreement; provided, however, that approvals or consents required to
be given by vote of the Sound Transit Board or the City Board are recognized to be
legislative actions. The parties will take further actions and execute further documents,
either jointly or within their respective powers and authority, to implement the intent of this
Agreement. The City and Sound Transit will work cooperatively with each other to achieve
the mutually agreeable goals as set forth in this Agreement.
10.7. Time is of the essence in every provision of this Agreement. Unless otherwise set forth in
this Agreement, the reference to "days" shall mean calendar days unless otherwise noted.
Any reference to "working days" shall exclude any legal holidays and weekend days. If any
time for action occurs on a weekend or legal holiday, then the time period shall be extended
automatically to the next business day.
10.8. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement. No employees,
agents or subcontractors of one Party shall be deemed, or represent themselves to be,
employees of any other Party.
10.9. This Agreement has been reviewed and revised by legal counsel for both Parties and no
presumption or rule that ambiguity shall be construed against the Party drafting the
System Access FundProject Agreement Page 9 of 18
GA 0010-20
Packet Pg. 180
8.2.a
document applies to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. The Parties intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by applicable law.
10.10.This Agreement maybe executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
an original, and all counterparts together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
10.11. Severability. In case any term of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable
in whole or in part, by a court of law, the Parties will reform the agreement to satisfy the
original intent of the Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Agreement by having its
authorized representative affix her/his name in the appropriate space below:
SOUND TRANSIT CITY
By:
Kimberly Farley, Deputy CEO
Date:
LIN
Date:
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
By:
Sound Transit Legal Counsel
Exhibit List:
Exhibit A: Scope of Work and Deliverables
Exhibit B: Project Funding Plan
Exhibit C: Project Schedule
Exhibit D: Engineer's Estimate
Exhibit E: Environmental Review Certification
Exhibit F: ROW Certification
Exhibit G: Template for Reporting Requirements
Exhibit H: Invoice Form
System Access FundProject Agreement
GA 0010-20
By:
City of Edmonds Legal Counsel
Pagel 0of18
Packet Pg. 181
8.2.a
Exhibit A: Scope of Work and Deliverables
Scope ofwork
• The project consists in the installation of bike lanes on both sides of the street along
the following stretches:
o l OOth St. SW / 9th Ave. S from Walnut St. to 244th St. SW;
o Bowdoin Way from 91h Ave. S to 84th Ave. W;
0 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W; and
o Sharrows along 80th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to 220th St. SW.
Deliverables
• Design Phase
o Submittal of Quarterly Reports and Invoices
o PS&E Submittals
■ 30% PS&E;
■ 90% PS&E; and
■ Final PS&E.
o Environmental Documentation (SEPA)
• Construction Phase
o Submittal of Quarterly Reports and Invoices
o Construction Contract Closeout documents
System Access FundProject Agreement
GA 0010-20
Page 11 of 18
Packet Pg. 182
8.2.a
Exhibit B: Project Funding Plan
The project will be 100% funded by the $1.85 Million secured Sound Transit System Access
grant. Based on the preliminary engineer's estimate, the Sound Transit funds will be expended as
follows:
• Design Phase $350,000
• Construction Phase $1.5 Million
* * * The City doesn't anticipate any ROW costs for this project but ROW needs will be
confirmed during the completion of the Design Phase. If ROW acquisition is needed, the City
will be responsible for covering 100% of those costs.
System Access FundProject Agreement
GA 0010-20
Page 12of18
Packet Pg. 183
8.2.a
Exhibit C: Project Schedule
Option]: Project with no ROW acquisition
Design Phase
• Start September 2020
• 30%PS&E February 2021
• 90% PS&E July 2021
• Final PS&E December 2021
Construction Phase
• Advertisement January 2022
• Start April 2022
• Completion /Project Closeout December 2022
Option 2: Project with ROW acquisition
Design Phase
• Start
September 2020
• 30% PS&E
February 2021
• 90% PS&E
October 2021
• Final PS&E
February 2022
ROW Phase
• Start February 2021
• Negotiations with property owners April 2021
• Completion February 2022
Construction Phase
• Advertisement March 2022
• Start May 2022
• Completion /Project Closeout December 2022
System Access FundProject Agreement
GA 0010-20
Page 13of18
Packet Pg. 184
8.2.a
Exhibit D: Engineer's Estimate
Preliminary Cast Ewmate
Item
auarWry
unit
Ll—j hAm
Halt Game
Casn
I
1
YS
Surww
S2 OM
$2 OW
2
1
L5
Mobiliurian
$4olow
$.10,0w
3
1
L5
Traffic COnV01
$75,W0
$75,0w
A
1
LS
OK -Du Pulicc olfdei
smow
$Y Cw
5
1
L5
IL5'
szwo
$2xw
6
1
LS
54R—rur.Libn
$5,DDD
$.5Xw
7
LS
Removal of str luie erid pbsVuctiami
$ioxu
$1 006
a
25,000
1F
Hen— existing uripiq;
$6
$150.bOb
9
6Q,Qo0
LF
5uli: lirs•stripir•
$2
ID
1
MR
Sin Ibikr lone s' •fie rl
smow
Ularaw
11
6o
Um
-lik_1e—r I--ir,.,ki.g
$250
$Y5,006
IY
1
LS
Sw—water line Pyre yes f rdocaklnn
$73Aw
$100,00D
13
415
Wiik
—kch basin'rerne and ate
$2,5m
$115,OOD
14
1
LS
{{prb Mr irlutian
$1Q,om
$14,800
15
1
Ls
TrdRe S�nal MeM rellensi+rtlud.Lg pule ±-binr.
m diti-Liuni
$285,DQfl
$285,600
16
225
Ten
XMA
W113
$22,508
17
SG:
Tan
(SBC
$AO
S.40DO
3B
1
LS
Minar [h—ghs
smow
$Y0,000
14
3
L
ADA Pedesarian Curb Raney
$75G6
$22,500
5u6iatal
$1,02ko00
Design Cr timpmer (25%�
$25615m
I nilariun r3%j i iyear
$30,a00
LbnfrrvcfkM 5UB-7ilreLL
j]jI3.34b
city su ll 1.5%1
$15,390
Mengyrinern Rrer}e I1Q%I
$102,500
Cdnsiry lion Cngineering 110761
$1P2,500
roYAL
3,9.90
Iles; 159fi $146,99s
C pM (1.5%1 j19,7Q0
P—mllii S f5%I $65y65
7ataY aFsrG,V
System Access FundProject Agreement
GA 0010-20
7or1i! soon D rRAnlsiT RFQuFsr I $1,8.501WO
ROW cc& $200,000
TOTAL PMECT COSTS Sz. o o.uuu
Page 14of18
Packet Pg. 185
Exhibit E: Environmental Review Certification
8.2.a
The City of , as lead agency for purposes of the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA), hereby certifies that the proposal described herein has undergone environmental review in
accordance with all applicable SEPA rules pursuant to Chapter 197-11 Washington Administrative Code.
The City of has completed the following project -level environmental review
documentation and submitted to Sound Transit for review:
❑Letter of exemption from SEPA pursuant to WAC 197-11-800
❑SEPA Environmental Checklist/Determination of Non -significance (DNS) or Mitigated DNS
❑Environmental Impact Statement
❑SEPA Addendum
❑Other:
Signature of Authorized Local Government SEPA Responsible Official
Sound Transit's office of Environmental Affairs and Sustainability has reviewed the provided documents
checked above and authorizes the following:
❑Payment for construction (Design and Construction Agreements)
❑Environmental approval to execute agreement for construction of project (Construction Only
Agreement)
Signature of Corridor Environmental Manager
System Access FundProject Agreement
GA 0010-20
Page 15of18
Packet Pg. 186
8.2.a
Exhibit F: ROW Certification
The City to provide ROW Certification
System Access FundProj ect Agreement
GA 0010-20
Page 16 of 18
Packet Pg. 187
8.2.a
Exhibit G: Template for Reporting Requirements
CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
PROJECT REPORT
GA0010-20
Reporting Period:
Submitted
1. Project Update. Status of major activities in the reporting period, both current and upcoming.
2. Assessment of on -going risks. The City will notify Sound Transit of any issues that may affect
the Project Schedule and overall implementation of the Project.
3. Summary of expenditures during reporting period. Summary of expenditures during
reporting period, and expected expenditures in the subsequent reporting period.
System Access FundProject Agreement
GA 0010-20
Page 17of18
Packet Pg. 188
8.2.a
Exhibit H: Sound Transit Invoice Form
Invoice No. Dated:
TO: accountspayable(a,soundtransit.or
Attention: Accounts Payable and Alex Krieg
Re: Citywide Bicycle Improvements, System Access Fund Project, GA 0010-20
The City's authorized representative certifies that Sound Transit's pro rata share of costs under
this invoice is $ , and is due and payable to the City in accordance with the provisions of
the Agreement, and is supported by the attached invoice and supporting documentation. [Identify
the elements(s), and the amounts by element, for which the amount due applies]
The City makes the following representations and warranties to Sound Transit in connection with
the Invoice:
• All work performed to date has been, unless otherwise specifically stated by the City,
performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
• The amount specified above has been computedin accordance with, and is due and payable
under, the terms and conditions of the Agreement, has not been the subject of any previous
invoice (unless disputed or rejected for payment) and is not the subject of any pending
invoice from the City.
Any liability of Sound Transit arising from these representations and warranties are governed by
the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
City of Edmonds
Date:
[Name, Position]
System Access FundProject Agreement
GA 0010-20
Page 18of18
Packet Pg. 189
--O�l IN,
SOUND TRANSIT AGREEMENT
(CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT)
111
JULY 28F 2020 COUNCIL"MEETING
M
�r
N
a
Packet Pg. 190
8.2.b
INTRODUCTION
L
O
E
d
L
2017: EDMONDS, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, AND LYNNWOOD ADDED BIKE LANES THROUGHOUT THE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (THROUGH BIKE-2-HEALTH GRANT) WITH FOCUS ON NORTH / CENTRAL PART OF
u-
EDMONDS (_> ~ 7 MILES OF BIKE LANES IN EDMONDS). y
cu
LL
r
2019: SOUND TRANSIT HAD A CALL FOR PROJECTS WITH THE INTENT TO IMPROVE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION r-
0
ACCESS TO SOUND TRANSIT STATIONS (FOR OUR PURPOSES: MLT TRANSIT STATION & EDMONDS STATION) U)
N
C
CITY SECURED $1.85 MILLION IN GRANT FUNDING (100% SOUND TRANSIT ACCESS GRANT / NO LOCAL MAT( )
ALL STRETCHES IDENTIFIED IN 2015 TRANSPORTATION PLAN (ADOPTED BY COUNCIL IN 2015) 0
0
cu
0
PROPOSED BIKE IMPROVEMENTS WITH FOCUS ON SOUTH SIDE / CENTRAL PART OF EDMONDS N
a
• 1 OOT" AVE. W / 9T" AVE. N;
N
• BOWDOIN WAY;
• 228T" ST. SW SW; AND E
• 8 OT" AVE. W. a
.J Packet Pg. 191
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
8.2.b
� CITYWIDE
BICYCLE
IMPROVEMENTS
KEY
Proposed 5herrows
Proposed BTke Lanp
Existing Sharrows
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Existing Bike Lane
■�■■■+� Existing Bike Path
4
PUGET OR
1 mile
1
f CAS1t RS ST
1 /2 mile ti
}
1 /4 mile
F Edmonds =h
M MAIN 57
Transit Downtown ; -T.W&Pa,*
k Center Edmonds ��w__
i7
ti
1
�
f
To
r L. 1"e nore
mid&. School
000r■ ■ ■irrr■ ■ dGINE1i TM 9;i
Edmonds 3
rr W—d—xyy
d
4 Chase Lake tip i
s Bementry m
b y
�_ 41
i
■■■arrrrt■.+rrr■ "t ��� f���li
Westgate lit-
8e.r�erdrtr 0
72
h estgate si+■ii+ripipip irsxsi a `a
EL
•f � r S �L
hexed Use f' 1/41hiil �.
Mountlake
§SrH p; ; L Terra.�eJ{' T
. i •If r r■■ rf1F■■I.i
SVV
hladrona 239�fHSI SW ' *� h Transit K-g
Center
F Fi rda l e Village
h5athay-t3a��Toger 1 ti r
f I I Park - t
2"TH S T S'.k
W
Packet Pg. 192
MAN 5T
r
Downtown o YGA Park
ami Pool
E monds NU T
.� r
rl {
n
N Proposed Sharrows
�. Proposed Bike Lane
I I I I I I I k Existing Shot -rows
'■"'v" Existing Bike Lane
'oil '11,1 Existing Bike Path
x
II���IJIItIiiiii
;Nestgahe
Elementry
J
O_
M
t
CM
rR 'N PN
zirkk11
li■*��r�
1111�*��1��f lj
Edmonds
.
WoodwMYLIA•
Chase
Lake`
Lkwwn
l
m
i
i
IMTH ST MY
Esperu4m
Pa rk
L
Sherwood tixed
estgateElementa ry � Use = * I
Woodw Ory
Athletic Field
Hickman
Park
�J
�I
. r
MO&OM3 238TM ST SW
K-8 It
4 �
FICdale VillageMlliinger
NO
IC I Ica
8.2.b
C
O
r
c
m
U)
W
a
U)
N
.J Packet Pg. 193
r
`.J
EXIST
R.O.W.
2.6
r
J li
EXISTING
SIDEWALK
CROSS SECTIONS
1001" Ave. W from 2381" St. SW to north of SR-104
EXISTING SECTION
8.2.b
EXIST
R Q.W.
2.5'
.J Packet Pg. 194
`.J
V
v .-
fi1m Buse
V_ EXISTING
EXIST EXISTING CURB PAVEMENT
R.O.W.
2.5'
EXISTING BIKE TRAVEL LANE
SIDEWALK LANE
30.d'
t 0.9'
TWO-WAY
LEFT TURN LANE
ORA
TRAVEL LANE BIKE EXISTING
LANE SIDEWALK
STRIPING -ONLY SECTION
PROPOSED SECTION
30.0'
EXIST
R.O.N.
2.5'
Road diet (one lane in each direction with two-way left turn lane and bike lanes)
8.2.b
N
C
A
N
Q'
C
O
r
R
r
C
d
N
N
L
U)
r
N
*Sections within signalized intersections (such as SR-104 @ 100t" Ave. W) to be re-evaluated during design I I
packet Pg. 195
8.2.b
J
SHARROW MARKINGS (POSSIBLE ADDITION WITHIN
SR- 104 @ I OOTH AVE. W)
• Such markings to be added along stretches
where travel lanes can't be removed.
* Reminder to driver of potential bike activity.
• The shared lane marking is intended to inform
cyclists and motorists where a travel lane is
shared by both modes.
* Encourage safe passing of cyclist by
Motorist.
* Assist cyclists with lateral positioning
in a shared lane with on -street parallel
parking in order to reduce the chance
of a bicyclist impacting the DOOR OF PARKED
VEHICLE.
L
0
L
Q
C
U_
cu
_
0
N
0
r_
_U)
N
7
il
Packet Pg. 196
a\ . s�.� 2 \
-
k��.
. @
k
� � . � $� 1/� �}{• �J ,\ . -
.
:-
_
\\ « �• �, ��Jk � . - k� "����` � `�
�_
IL
.
�
.�
:
of kip
Me
: j1pQ - -
e�
_ . _
A-
plifimlolto
1
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
WITH TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE AND BIKE LANES
8.2.b
Packet Pg. 198
RESULTS FROM RECENT / SIMILAR CONVERSION
ALONG 76THAVE. W FROM 220THTO 212TH ,J s
*AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
•76T" AVE: 1 1,500 VEHICLES PER DAY
• l OOTH AVE. W (SOUTH OF SR- 104): 9,000 VEHIC
DAY
• l OOTH AVE.
PER DAY
E
L
a
u-
cu
L
LES PEI=
O
U)
04
W (NORTH OF SR— 104): 5,000 VEHICLES0
IL
—
U)
*STRETCHES WITH ADT LESS THAN
GREAT CANDIDATES FOR ROAD D
FHWA)
10,000 VPD ARE
ETS (SOURCE: m
f�
a
Packet Pg. 199
•
BENEFITS FOR CYCLIST
DEDICATED LANE _> IMPROVES SAFETY
FOR CYCLISTS BY PROVIDING A LANE
SEPARATED FROM VEHICLES
CYCLISTS MORE VISIBLE TO MOTORIST
COMPARED TO WHEN RIDING ON
SIDEWALK WITH SIGHT DISTANCE
OBSTRUCTIONS
PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNS WILL
MAKE MOTORIST MORE AWARE OF BIKE
ACTIVITY ALONG EACH CORRIDOR
THE INCREASE IN BIKE ACTIVITY WILL
MAKE THE CYCLISTS MORE VISIBLE TO
THE DRIVER.
8.2.b
Cyding is Setting safer at moip poopk ijde.
AaIEIPDP dAIa f IJ_IL CliitdW. LML,UL2ap0 Li. Ntlw Yb[k Ci[y.
ftladelphla, I'orda-yid. OR, San Framewo arA Waohai rx D.0
7N .
m
I I} 1 �,
30W{%m, NACT-D1 am6)
.J Packet Pg. 200
Four -Lane Undivided
Three -Lane
8.2.b
VEHICLE BENEFITS
(BASED ON FHWA /
LOCAL STUDIES)
Rgurei. Crossing and rhrasghrrai"xCarficMims a;Inrrxc-iaufaraFour -Line UndtiidedMadnayardarhrto-Lane Cross iec;on
+Adap-edfrom m4h mg)
Four -Lane Undivided
�} side LarneTraffk Hidden by
I nsade Larne VeNcJel
Three -Lane
{Na Hidden %k!fik s}
N
C
0
A
N
C
O
r
R
r
C
d
in
N
L
U)
r
N
7
7
r
C
N
�J
8.2.b
.
:.
MINIMAL IMPACTS TO TRAVEL TIME (AS SHOWN WHEN 76T" AVE. W L.
CONVERSION WAS COMPLETED FROM 220T" TO OVD=> 2 IA MILE STRETCH)
a
• 313 SECONDS (26 MPH) FOR NB MOVEMENT TO 332 SECONDS (25 MPH)
• 279 SECONDS (29 MPH) FOR SB MOVEMENT TO 293 SECONDS (28 MPH)
cu
LL
r
REDUCE NUMBER OF CONFLICTS POINTS (FROM 8 TO 4)
0
REDUCE SPEEDS (85TH PERCENTILE REDUCTIONS FROM 2 MPH TO 5 MPH (BASED o
2
ON VARIOUS CASE STUDIES COMPLETED ACROSS US) / MORE CONSISTENT PACE
0
cu
SAFETY IMPROVEMENT FOR CROSS TRAFFIC (CROSS STREET / DRIVEWAY)
L
• CAN ENTER THE MAINLINE ROADWAY MORE SAFELY BECAUSE THERE ARE FEWER N
LANES TO CROSS
d
• REFUGE AREA CAN BE PROVIDED WHEN ACCESSING CORRIDOR (WITH TWO-
f
a
WAY LEFT TURN LANE)
Packet Pg. 202
8.2.b
REDUCTION IN % OF VEHICLE CRASHES
FROM 19% TO 47% ("ROAD DIETS"
FH WA)
PARKING CAN STILL BE MAINTAINED IN
AREA WITH HIGH PARKING DEMAND (WITH
REMOVAL OF TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE
TO BE CONSIDERED UPON STUDYING LEFT
TURN DEMAND)
NO IMPACTS TO EMERGENCY VEHICLES
(ACTUALLY EASIER TO GET THROUGH
CORRIDOR)
Toad D iats
(Roadway Re onfiguration)
A "Road Diet," or roadway reconfiguration,
can improve safety, cairn traffic, provide
better mobility and access for all road
users, and enhance overall quality of life.
SAFETY BENEFIT:
4-Lane ) -Lane
Road Diet Conversions
1 -47%
Reduction in total crashes
5ourcc: Evaluatian-of Lane RcducUm'RaadDict"Measumsan
Crashes, FHWA-HRT-14.053.
L
0
E
d
a
u_
r_
cu
LL
r
0
N
0
0
cu
0
IL
N
E
il
11.
Packet Pg. 203
t
8.2.b
BENEFITS FOR PEDESTRIANS
• BIKE LANE PROVIDE BUFFER BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND TRAVEL LANES
• LESS TRAVEL LANES TO CROSS AT CROSSWALKS
BENEFITS FOR ENTIRE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Y
• SUPPORTS COMPLETE STREETS POLICY (ECDC 18.80.015)
• MANY IMPROVEMENTS FOR ALL MODES
• IMPROVE GAS EMISSIONS (IMPROVEMENTS WILL GET MORE DRIVERS
OUT OF VEHICLES /ONTO BIKE TO REACH DESTINATION OR BIKE TO
REACH BUS STOP)
L
L
Q
cu
0
N
C
0
C
0
cu
r-
L
IL
r
_U)
N
7
E
il
V Packet Pg. 204
V
EXIST
R.O.W.
2N
Ex. Cross Section along
100th froMSR-104 to Walnut St & Bowdoin Way from 100th to 84rn
k
EXISTING C1.1 R6
33 8.9
EXISTING EXISTING EXIST NG
SiDM4LK RRRKINC`, 1KAVEL L,.H
30.13
UST
O.W.
i
8.2.b
0
E
L
Q
U-
cu
C
7
O
U)
N
C
O
.20'
Packet Pg. 205
8.2.b
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ALONG 100r" AND BOWDOIN WAY
EXIST
ROW
FIM
EXI$7
R.D.W.
PY
Prop. Conditions with bike lanes on both sides of street / parking
Packet Pg. 206
on one side (parking alternating from one side of street to other)
F
8.2.b
• n n
Proposed conditions with one travel lane
in each direction, atwo-way left turn lane and
bike lanes on both sides (with ve-ry I&v pawing demani Packet Pg. 207
F
8.2.b
BIKE ACCIDENT SUMMARY
(PRE / POST BIKE-2
(8) MINOR INJURY CYCLIST COLLISIONS BETWEEN 2012 —
PROJECT)
• (2) ALONG 21 2T" ST. SW BETWEEN 72ND AVE. W AN
• (6) ALONG 76T" AVE. W BETWEEN 220T" ST. SW AND
• CYCLISTS HIT BY VEHICLE WHILE RIDING ON SIDEWALK =
• CYCLIST IMPACT WITH OPEN DOOR OF PARKED CAR
• CYCLIST GOING THROUGH HIT TURNING VEHICLE
• (0) MINOR INJURY CYCLIST COLLISIONS BETWEEN 2017 —
• WITH INCREASE IN CYCLIST ACTIVITY ALONG THOSE
-HEALTH PROJECT)
Y �
L
Q
2017 (PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF BIKE-2—HEALTH
cu
D 84T" AVE. W &
0
OVD N
> DUE TO LIMITED SIGHT DISTANCE WITH FENCES / VEGETATION -2
0
r_
0
r
0
L
2019 (SINCE COMPLETION OF BIKE-2—HEALTH PROJECT
N
STREETS
il
.J Packet Pg. 208
8.2.b
BIKE ACCIDENTS ALONG PROPOSED STRETCHES
BETWEEN 2015 AND 2019
• (4) BIKE COLLISIONS ALONG l 00T" AVE. W STRETCH & (1) ALONG
228TH ST. SW STRETCH
• CYCLISTS HIT WHILE RIDING IN SIDEWALK DUE TO LIMITED SIGHT
DISTANCE
• CYCLISTS HIT WHILE GOING THROUGH BY TURNING VEHICLE
L
O
L
a
u-
cu
O
N
C
O
O
cu
r-
L
U)
N
7
7
r
C
d
E
t
V
f3
il
.J Packet Pg. 209
8.2.b
100TH FROM SR-104 TO WALNUT ST (# parking stalls occupied during mid -afternoon time period / Source: Field study & Google Maps)
DATE
AUGUST 201 1
JUNE 2015
SEPTEMBER 2018
SEPTEMBER 2019
WEST SIDE OF STRETCH (160 stalls)
11 (7%)
9 (6%)
9 (6%)
17 (10%)
EAST SIDE OF STRETCH (1 30 Stalls)
6 (5%)
2 (2%)
4 (3%)
6 (5%)
BOWDOIN WAY FROM 9TH AVE. S TO 84TH AVE. W (# parking stalls occupied during mid -afternoon period l
Source Field Study & Google Maps)
DATE SEPTEMBER 2018 SEPTEMBER 2019 JULY 2020
NORTH SIDE OF STRETCH (220 stalls) 11 (5%) 18 (8%) 16 (7%)
SOUTH SIDE OF STRETCH (180 stalls) 3 (2%) 8 (6%) 4 (3%)
Additional parking studies to be completed during
Design Phase to find high demand areas
L
0
E
L
JULY 202C a
9 (6%)
6 (5%) w
Cn
L
//0^
v!
N
C
2
r-
0
L
N
7
7
il
M
Packet Pg. 210
PARKING STUDY �
ALONG I OOTH ST SW ,J P
(JULY 6THTHROUGH JULY 19TH 2O20
a
IOOr" AVE. S STRETCH (1.2 MILE)
U-
• PARKED CARS ON EAST SIDE OF STREET (OUT OF 130 PARKING STALLS)
• 3 (WEEKDAY EARLY MORNING) => — 2% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS,
N
• 6 (WEEKDAY MID -AFTERNOON) => — 4.5% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS .N
0
• 6 (WEEKEND MORNING) => — 4.5% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS
• PARKED CARS ON WEST SIDE OF STREET (OUT OF -- 160 PARKING STALLS)0
• 7 (WEEKDAY EARLY MORNING)
• 9 (WEEKDAY MID -AFTERNOON)
• b (WEEKEND MORNING)
=> 4% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS
=> 5% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS
> 4% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS
V Packet Pg. 211
8.2.b
PARKING STUDY
ALONG BOWDOIN WAY
• BOWDOIN WAY STRETCH (I. I MILE)
• PARKED CARS ON NORTH SIDE OF STREET (-- 220 PARKING STALLS)
• 12 (WEEKDAY EARLY MORNING)
• 16 (WEEKDAY MID —AFTERNOON)
• 10 (WEEKEND MORNING)
Y
=> — 5% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS
=> — 7% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS
=> — 4% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS
• PARKED CARS ON SOUTH SIDE OF STREET (-- 180 PARKING STALLS)
• 5 (WEEKDAY EARLY MORNING)
• 4 (WEEKDAY MID —AFTERNOON)
• 7 (WEEKEND MORNING)
L
O
L
Q
cu
L
_
O
N
C
O
O
cu
r_
L
IL
U)
r
N
f�
_> 4% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS
V Packet Pg. 212
=> — 3% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS
=> — 2% OF TOTAL PARKING STALLS
BIKE COUNTS INFORMATION (BASED ON VIDEO �
COUNTS COMPLETED BY IDAX/ KPG) �
Total Bike Count Data
L
3
LL
■April 2016 ■August 2016 June 2017 October 2017 N
r_
L
■ April 2019 ■July 2019 ■ September 2019 ■ Decem ber 2019
0
in 76th Ave & Olympic View Dr N
0
('2 9th Ave S & Walnut St .0
n3 76th Ave W & 212th St S1 i
_ o
0
100 150 200 250 3 00n 400 N
L
r
N
Based on pre -post bike lane installation studies (cities of various sizes), the increase in bike
activity has ranged from 50% to 400%
• Seattle: generated 400% increase in bike activity following addition of bike lanes along
various corridors several years ago
Packet Pg. 213
76th (p7 212th Intersection bike count from 7am to gam & 4pm to 6pmJ
8.2.b
Date
TOTAL BIKE COUNT (4 hour period)
4/26/2016
16
4/27/2016
18
4/28/2016
18
8/30/2016
23
8/31/2016
25
9/1/2016
32
10/17/2017
10/18/2017
9
10/19/2017
6
4/23/2019
13
4/24/2019
43
4/25/2019
29
7/16/2019
17
7/17/2019
24
7/18/2019
25
9/17/2019
2h
9/18/2019 43
9/19/2019 51
12/17/2019 24
12/18/2019 18
12/19/2019 20
Notes L
0
4-
E
Average of 17 cyclist / 4 hours in April ' 16 (pre-Bike2Health Projects L
a
u_
LL
r
Average 7 cyclists / 4 hours in October '17 (pre-Bike2Health project) cn
N
C
Average 28 cyclist / 4 hours in April '19 (post Bike2Health project)
0
a
r
N
Average 31 cyclists / 4 hours in September '19 (post Bike2 Health projec
E
a
Packet Pg. 214
8.2.b
9th 0 Walnut Intersection (bike count from 7am to 9am & 4am to 6
Date
4/26/2016
4/27/2016
4/28/2016
8/30/2016
8/31/2016
9/1/2016
6/27/2017
6/28/2017
6/29/2017
10/17/2017
10/18/2017
10/19/2017
4/23/2019
4/24/2019
4/25/2019
7/16/2019
7/17/2019
7/18/2019
9/17/2019
9/18/2019
9/19/2019
12/17/2019
12/18/2019
12/19/2019
TOTAL BIKE COUNT (4 hour period)
11
8
8
17
6
6
15
18
18
7
7
6
9
6
5
17
16
8
6
21
10
2
6
0
L
0
c
a�
L
Q
U-
cu
r-
0
U)
N
0
0
r
cu
r-
L
IL
U)
N
�.
� a
.J Packet Pg. 215
8.2.b
PROJECT SCHEDULE
• DESIGN PHASE
CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS
• START DESIGN
• COMPLETION OF DESIGN
• CONSTRUCTION PHASE
START OF CONSTRUCTION
• COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION
AUGUST 2020
SEPTEMBER 2020
DECEMBER 2021
APRIL 2022
DECEMBER 2022
Y
NOTE: IF ROW PHASE IS NEEDED FOR ROADWAY WIDENING, CONSTRUCTION COULD BE PUSHED BACK ONE YEAR.
il
Packet Pg. 216
V
t
8.2.b
SUPPORT FROM MANY AGENCIES
• EDMONDS BICYCLE ADVOCACY GROUP (EBAG)
• CASCADE BICYCLE ADVOCACY
• CITY OF SHORELINE
• CITY OF LYNNWOOD
• CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
• COMMUNITY TRANSIT
• EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT
Y
L
L
Q
cu
LL
r
r-
0
N
0
0
L
r
U)
N
7
7
E
il
.J Packet Pg. 217
8.2.b
CONCLUSION
• APPROVAL OF SOUND TRANSIT AGREEMENT
•Q&A
.J Packet Pg. 218
2015 - 2019 Pedestrian and Bicycle Involved Crashes
City of Edmonds
Um*?23U-&Ca&4WY02ra.73Zrs ,,;rr!4J.;m:,poru,J.nwp.s��1,.nra.rpssrffar�au�mraJ�*
"voo qr waam,% fg, arpfa" Ma mjfv y aw5abc cs c f i pile ag ohm& sfars h& r RvO..,,-o [afar, ar rm&-,- -y
tnaiAW am h ar s rbwaa an LNRVA[ rr, r a LbW mLf faro [ Wd mt br a F WLNW Or SRaa Or ewr p rd.x.LT jg Or ands fJrrad ar aAtr p 0pSW.r
C1aRY• B'&H JW d&Mde Gi 131URUAWm d1:. 60,-W- HX 62biacsrr r axhlfarxJo. 6Ahiii.V-r S. o*I1lp
J
L.p
f V
i L
r
r
r 3
— 11
Ir
Edrrald�
A
R��
r
i��w{rff�i 4
t --"fir Sw.•.#
* I Abh Sr. Sw- —
21dmb SW
{
a4 �I
-r
� ar Lw J
k4v
T
♦ Pedestrian- Fatal • Bi-cycle - Fatal School U-S. Intersrare
• Pedestrian- Serious D Bityde-5eri.aus City U-S. Highway
• Pedestrian - Minor or None # Bityde - M inor or Nane County — State Route
Wnwhinullm W.MW T—Mr„k,DIrL.6Q5-1N.NkVDEk3. - - County Line Local Reads
wrem..ti1 A Tr. n.por4301— Iran �r. —d aaa.A.0 a—w - = 0~331b
8.2.b
� r
a
Packet Pg. 219
2012 - 2ol6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Involved Crashes
City of Edmonds -(South)
Uadar 33 US. Code § 409 and23 U.S. Cads § 148, W04. data, raporrs, sm�Ws, schedules, lists cvWpilador collacvadfvr tha purpose of
ideut6aW,, etalaadng, vrpianntng the sgfa� enhanc sut gipvtentral wash sites, Ira=ardoas rvadxgr conditrvus, or mncvay-hWh vY
c srrlgs are rmtsukmtto drscvrsry• ar adlnrasd mia eridweca rn a Paderal ar Siam crrurrpmcesdrng ar voasidersdfav arhsrpvrpms
` in any acriom for damages arising front any vem"ance at a hxarlan mentioned or addressed in such r prom, suraDr, schedules, ELL-, or dma.
'4%d
M
FIR SW fi 1 pl '� 1�8F F► �.
1 at SW `tea StS �`+� 192
? v yl; sI �b 3 sw 1 tearti Plsw V
: o}pr _�1I941h G '-3 S
Pi 1
4 +ti P a
LWcdy Ln •9l3W
'ry E IlWduy Ln _-
�+
s c n se m
G1I i Orh Sf SSW
^ S1 F� ? t S r Grci ,� x 1&SSW 204M $" sl
r QC y S9 ! "' St sw 5 21
sx q. S �. `rp lux i _ E PI SYr $' ; r .i ''
.�fa T Cdn:xtdx 9ln 3 d 4 gSW
Lynnwood
Ma 5[ � Zt s � 263N'-' .
o at P ;tr Edmonds I _ - 6iIPc �t ,. a =iF py 21
AW. �t _ •c m 21ftS1SW
In.t
SP h 1 R m d SI
S y Ra
¢ I♦at�tr�1-S`S P [31dN.. I Lys 21 �216�i kSW 2131y
�r L.lJfl Fi SW I$LS 3t 9'hr SI SW rN o
sty q 0'� „ green - Iz1ee, a
2161h -
K L, r.^al pi m C API SVi w s
S'St
t4tix n-99
41 12y
sw zzllar r
PI t9W4 '
y� 4
B[ 1,. h r t o ..yy nd h Pt_StY
NB°r"I t2Mh 4}
IT58r a $3 J hI 3F4
rp.m 3 SH1J'; d1
8- Iw 228 qI sw
Woodway�_� 257n �'S1'?' i sSW
P-j 232nd
wmn�r —I 232d�& yy ��ria.L. s f sls
k a1sV� _ g• a. ; I
Wa..14. en y27ft � , Irt Su T w % Mountlake
PI a pl syyR ,yp, SrW ix 191 _ i g1 &W T e r r 3; e
391
F e� eta sW ? at SWA'3
L5 n
a zinn 3 c �. i
� � I R C. 2u&&5W #� $SI- 410
5" I p� r l '
All
_ g SPAR
li
ryl* Shlo rke fin. N2%f w6 1D u 1 l 0�ot
• Pedestrian - Fatal
• Btcycle - Fatal
2 School
— U.S. Interstate
• Pedestrian - Serious
0 Bicycle - Serious
City
— U.S. Highway
• Pedestrian - Minor or None • Bicycle - Minor or None
County
State Route
AW
- County Line
Local Roads
1Mashingken SIaLe
WSLi[?i-TRnaportatlon Data,GIS and Modeling 011lca
.{� Ueparl-1 al Transportation
cram RaMM11 Reporing Branch-ja VLO =[I
8.2.b
L
0
C
W
L
Q
C
U_
R
C
* Pedestrian - Fatal • Bicytl2 - Fatal
cn
* Pedestrian - Serious 111111 Bicycle - serious
N
* Pedestrian - Minor or None • Bicycle - Minor or None
o
NN�
11. 1.1� 1111-1� N..W
C
O
R
C
d
fA
d
L
N
N
C
d
t
c,>
to
r
a
Packet Pg. 220
Pedestrian - Fatal
Pedestrian - Serious
Pedestrian - Minor or None
N.W 11.1�
�J
8.2.b
• Bicytl2 - Fatal
11111 Bicycle - serious
• Bicycle - Minor or None
r
a
.J Packet Pg. 221
plum 1
ie CO Sw St C 4
PI 18 nd
+ age 0 Z t
.� 0 i 83rd
AL
St Sw_.r_ 185th; S1
1 t CO PI Sw �
1 8ttr rAo 189th
SVtif r~ P! Sw -�
189 th
FL CD PI t CO J91st > PI _ r PI
19 '� 2nc>t t Sw <
nd t SW�y St i t 19 nd o 192rr �°
f t 93rd� m rd aD Pi Sw V 192nd
y
PI S < PjgPI 51 1
�, � � a) E 193rd
th coo ai > 1 J4t
1+V °° > � 1 > 4 co
_ C3
=� 524
CL
' 199CL °
CO2 cc
FL I
O siry I>n I 5t O 200th St SV
fir tSIN tSvv
00 op
St Sw 3
r4h
C)2 °� 99
1�7 to CD
Q S I
Lynnwood
CO CL C 0 1,, � 208th
SW Sw
,, ... ...� F, 9I
nfh
8.2.b
L
C
0
L
Q
c
c
U_
c
Cu
c
Pedestrian Fatal
Bicycle - Fatal 0
Pedestrian - Serious
yy
13
Bicycle - Serious N
Pedestrian -Minor or None C Bicycle -Minor or None •N
a�
c
r
a�
a�
L
IL
r
N
21
3
C
a)
a
�.
.J Packet Pg. 222
8.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/4/2020
Proposed Amendment to ECC 2.10.010 for Council review of appointive positions
Staff Lead: Mayor Mike Nelson
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson
Background/History
During the July 21, 2020 Council meeting, Council discussed an amendment to ECC 2.10.010, entitled
"Review of vacancies, appointment authority and confirmation process." The proposed code
amendment would create an exception to the three -candidate rule which would allow the Mayor to
forward only one candidate to Council for interview and appointment should that one candidate have
been performing in an "acting" capacity of the appointive office for at least 6 months. After discussion
Council determined that the topic should be forwarded to the next Council meeting for action.
During the July 28, 2020 Council meeting, Council discussed the proposed Amendments to ECC.2.10.010.
Motion was made to approved the original code amendment and not the alternate code amendment.
The following two amendments to the motion were then made and approved.
Section 2.10.010 (D)
and further provided, that when the mayor appoints a an internal candidate who has served for
at least three months as an acting director, pursuant to subsection E, below, the city council may, by
motion adopted by a maiority plus one of the full council, waive the requirement to interview any other
candidates and proceed 0 mmedmately t eenfi n;RR the algR ORtF ent to interview and possible Council
confirmation of the appointment.
The main motion was then voted on and lost 4 to 3. Council indicated that the item should again be
move forward for further discussion and possible action at the next Council meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Review and take action as desired on proposed code changes.
Narrative
Staff is providing two options for code amendments for Council consideration. There is an ordinance in
the packet for each option, but only one of the two ordinances should be adopted if the Council so
chooses.
One option is the code amendment first presented to Council during the July 21, 2020 meeting and then
presented again at the July 28, 2020 meeting. Since the main motion during the July 28, 2020 meeting
on this proposed code amendment did not pass, the proposed amendments, which did pass, are not
reflected in the attached document but are provided in the background section of the agenda memo.
Packet Pg. 223
8.3
The second option, is as presented at the July 28, 2020 Council meeting and includes additional changes
to provide consistency between the possibility of acting director confirmation and the timing of the
mayor's recruiting obligation by allowing for a delay in active recruiting should the Mayor be considering
the permanent appointment of an acting director. The second option also includes language that makes
it so that any appointment of an acting director after the initial appointment would require council
confirmation. No action was taken on this proposed code amendment at the July 28, 2020 meeting.
Attachments:
2020-07-23 alternate ordinance adopting modification to confirmation process(Final)
2020-07-23 ordinance adopting modification to confirmation process
Packet Pg. 224
8.3.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THE
THREE -INTERVIEW REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED WITH
THE CITY COUNCIL' S CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S
APPOINTMENT OF APPOINTIVE OFFICERS.
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.12.090 states that the mayor shall have the power of appointment
and removal of all appointive officers and employees; and
WHEREAS, that statute also provides that confirmation by the city council of
appointments of officers and employees shall be required only when the council by ordinance,
provides for confirmation of such appointments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has had an ordinance requiring the confirmation of
certain mayoral appointments dating back to at least 1999 (and probably dating back
significantly further than that); and
WHEREAS, since at least 1999, the Edmonds City Code has contained some version of a
requirement to interview the top three candidates prior to confirming the mayor's appointment,
but the council's practice with regard to interviewing candidates did not always conform to the
code; and
WHEREAS, in 2014, the code was expressly modified to create some reasonable
exceptions to the three -interview requirement, exceptions which can only be implemented by a
supermajority vote of the city council; and
WHEREAS, the mayor has asked the city council to consider creating another exception
to the three -interview requirement; and
WHEREAS, the proposed exception is narrowly tailored to apply only where the mayor
would like the council to confirm someone who has served the City of Edmonds in an acting
director capacity for at least three months; and
WHEREAS, such an exception makes sense because the mayor and council would have
ample opportunity to judge the performance of such a candidate prior to confirmation, and
Packet Pg. 225
8.3.a
therefore, would know much more about such a candidate than could ever be learned through
merely conducting an interview; and
WHEREAS, the proposed exception would still require a supermajority vote of the city
council to waive the three -interview requirement; and
WHEREAS, other revisions to the code are necessary to allow recruitment to be deferred
to allow for an acting director to be evaluated; and
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Sections ECC 2.10.010, entitled "Review of vacancies, appointment authority
and confirmation process," and section ECC 2.10.040, entitled "Terms and extensions of terms,"
are hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in
2.10.010 Review of vacancies, appointment authority and confirmation
process.
A. Periodically, when the city conducts a salary survey regarding its
nonrepresented employees, and whenever a vacancy occurs in one of the positions
listed in this chapter, the city council may review the specifications for the
appointive officer position(s) and revise them as needed before acting to confirm
a permanent appointment. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent
the city council from reviewing such specifications at other times. The council's
revising of a specification will not have any effect on a previously confirmed
permanent appointment. Recruitment to fill a vacant appointive office may be
postponed until after the city council acts to revise the specifications or
determines them not to be in need of revision.
B. The mayor or his/her designee will review all applications and determine the
personts) with the highest qualifications. Any city council member, upon request
to the mayor, may review aM the applications received for a vacant position.
Additionally and/or alternatively, the city council may evaluate the qualifications
of an applicant or candidate for public employment in executive session pursuant
to RCW 42.30.110(1)(g).
C. If, on occasion of a vacant appointive office, the mayor elects to propose a
reorganization of the appointive offices which would alter the specifications of
Packet Pg. 226
8.3.a
the vacant appointive office, he shall have 60 days from the date of the vacancy to
introduce a reorganization proposal to the city council along with any necessary
accompanying budget amendment. If reorganization is proposed, recruitment to
fill the vacant appointive office may be postponed until after the city council acts
upon the reorganization proposal.
D. The mayor shall appoint, subject to council confirmation, the appointive
officers. The city council shall interview the top three candidates for each position
prior to the mayor's appointment; provided, that the city council may waive the
three -interview requirement by motion adopted by a majority plus one of the full
council and may opt to interview as few as two candidates for any vacant
appointive office; and further provided, that when an appointive office becomes
vacant, or is about to become vacant, again within nine months of the city
council's confirmation of the last mayoral appointment to that office, the city
council may waive an additional round of interviews, by motion adopted by a
majority plus one of the full council, and proceed immediately to confirming the
appointment of a candidate interviewed by the city council during the most recent
recruitment for that appointive office; and further provided, that when the may
appoints someone who has served for at least three months as an acting director,
pursuant to subsection E, below, the city council may, by motion adopted by
majority plus one of the full council, waive the requirement to interview an,, other
candidates and proceed immediately to confirming the he appointment. The mayor's
appointments to all other employee positions shall not be subject to city council
confirmation.
E. The mayor shall have the authority to appoint, without city council
confirmation, an acting director to perform the functions and duties of a vacant
appointive office, subject to the term limitations described in ECC 2.10.040(B);
provided, that there is budgetary authority to fill the position. The city council
shall be given written notice about any such acting appointments including the
effective date of the appointment. Acting directors shall be compensated pursuant
to applicable ordinances and personnel policies regarding acting pay.
F. The mayor shall begin recruitment of candidates to fill vacant appointive
offices no later than 30 days after the latter of the two city council actions
described in subsections (A) and (C) of this section; provided, that such
recruitment shall not be necessary where the city council opts to make an
immediate confirmation pursuant to a prior round of interviews as set forth in
subsection (D) of this section; and further provided that, where the mayor
appointed an acting director, recruitment of other candidates shall only be
required upon the passage of four months since the appointment of the acting
director without the mayor having initiated the appointment process for acting
directors as outlined in ECC 2.10.010.D.
2.10.040 Terms and extensions of terms.
Packet Pg. 227
8.3.a
A. Permanent appointive officers shall serve without a definite term.
B. The authority to hold an appointive office on an acting basis (an acting
directorship) shall expire and be deemed vacant six months after the date of the
acting appointment. If, during that six-month period, the administration has not
been able to generate sufficient interest from suitable candidates to satisfy the city
council interview requirement (see ECC 2.10.010(D)), the mayor may request an
extension of acting directorship authority from the city council, in increments of
no more than six months at a time, to allow the recruiting process to continue.
After the initial six-month term, each extension of the acting directorship shall be
subject to city council confirmation. If the initial six-month term of an acting
director expires before it can be extended, any subsequent acting director
appointment for that position shall require city council confirmation,
notwithstanding ECC 2.10.010.E.
C. Both permanent and acting appointive officers shall be at -will positions serving
at the pleasure of the mayor.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
ection 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
IM
Packet Pg. 228
8.3.a
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 229
8.3.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THE
THREE -INTERVIEW REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONFIRMATION OF
THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF APPOINTIVE
OFFICERS.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2020.
4840-7251-8158,v. 1
6
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 230
8.3.b
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THE
THREE -INTERVIEW REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED WITH
THE CITY COUNCIL' S CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S
APPOINTMENT OF APPOINTIVE OFFICERS.
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.12.090 states that the mayor shall have the power of appointment
and removal of all appointive officers and employees; and
WHEREAS, that statute also provides that confirmation by the city council of
appointments of officers and employees shall be required only when the council by ordinance,
provides for confirmation of such appointments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has had an ordinance requiring the confirmation of
certain mayoral appointments dating back to at least 1999 (and probably dating back
significantly further than that); and
WHEREAS, since at least 1999, the Edmonds City Code has contained some version of a
requirement to interview the top three candidates prior to confirming the mayor's appointment,
but the council's practice with regard to interviewing candidates did not always conform to the
code; and
WHEREAS, in 2014, the code was expressly modified to create some reasonable
exceptions to the three -interview requirement, exceptions which can only be implemented by a
supermajority vote of the city council; and
WHEREAS, the mayor has asked the city council to consider creating another exception
to the three -interview requirement; and
WHEREAS, the proposed exception is narrowly tailored to apply only where the mayor
would like the council to confirm someone who has served the City of Edmonds in an acting
director capacity for at least three months; and
WHEREAS, such an exception makes sense because the mayor and council would have
ample opportunity to judge the performance of such a candidate prior to confirmation, and
Packet Pg. 231
8.3.b
therefore, would know much more about such a candidate than could ever be learned through
merely conducting an interview; and
WHEREAS, the proposed exception would still require a supermajority vote of the city
council to waive the three -interview requirement;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection D of ECC 2.10.010, entitled "Review of vacancies, appointment
authority and confirmation process," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in
underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfo g ):
D. The mayor shall appoint, subject to council confirmation, the appointive officers. The
city council shall interview the top three candidates for each position prior to the mayor's
appointment; provided, that the city council may waive the three -interview requirement by
motion adopted by a majority plus one of the full council and may opt to interview as few as two
candidates for any vacant appointive office; and further provided, that when an appointive office
becomes vacant, or is about to become vacant, again within nine months of the city council's
confirmation of the last mayoral appointment to that office, the city council may waive an
additional round of interviews, by motion adopted by a majority plus one of the full council, and
proceed immediately to confirming the appointment of a candidate interviewed by the city
council during the most recent recruitment for that appointive office; and further provided, that
when the mayor gppoints someone who has served for at least three months as an acting director,
pursuant to subsection E, below, the city council may, by motion adopted by a majority plus one
of the full council, waive the requirement to interview any other candidates and proceed
immediately to confirmingthe he appointment. The mayor's appointments to all other employee
positions shall not be subject to city council confirmation.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5)
days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title.
APPROVED:
Packet Pg. 232
8.3.b
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Im
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 233
8.3.b
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THE
THREE -INTERVIEW REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED
WITH THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONFIRMATION OF
THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF APPOINTIVE
OFFICERS.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2020.
4840-7251-8158,v. 1
2
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 234
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/4/2020
Update on Climate Goals Project
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Edmonds has supported specific climate protection activities for at least a decade, as well as related
"sustainability" activities for even longer. In 2017, the Mayor signed the Mayors National Climate Action
Agenda and the City Council adopted Resolution No. 1389 (attached) to achieve or exceed at the local
level the goals established in the Paris Climate Accord. The resolution contains seven sections related to
climate issues, particularly for reducing greenhouse gases.
Staff Recommendation
Move the resolution to consider adopting a 1.5° Celsius target to the next available agenda.
Narrative
City staff and ESA will provide an update of the City's Climate Goals project at the August 4th City
Council meeting. The update will include a bit of history on this project that may be of particular
interest to newer Council members.
The City of Edmonds hired consultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to help implement
Resolution No. 1389 (Exhibit 1). As part of the project over the last couple of years, milestones have
included: a greenhouse gas inventory; a policy gap analysis regarding existing City policies related to
climate change; discussion on science -based targets for climate change planning; a tracking tool for the
City to use in meeting its climate goals; and a public information open house.
A memorandum discussing choices for Edmonds' climate targets is provided in Exhibit 3. In 2019, the
climate target was discussed by the Climate Protection Committee which recommended that the City
pursue efforts to limit the increase in the global average temperature to 1.5° Celsius above pre-
industrial levels. Setting a target is key for guiding the update of the City's Climate Action Plan. Exhibit 4
contains a draft resolution to formally recognizing the 1.5° Celsius target for the City of Edmonds.
While the Climate Action Plan planning process is beginning, Mayor Mike Nelson has formed an
Interdepartmental "Climate Action Team" of City employees to explore actions the City of Edmonds can
take now to help mitigate climate change.
ESA has completed a review of other jurisdictions' Climate Action Plans that may be good example (see
Exhibit 2). ESA and staff have begun considering the format for an updated Climate Action Plan.
Development of the Climate Action Plan will include a robust public engagement process. The Mayor's
Climate Protection Committee, comprised of local citizens, will continue providing input along the way.
Packet Pg. 235
9.1
Next Steps
Adopt resolution establishing 1.5° Celsius above pre -industrial levels at the City's climate target
Develop robust public engagement process for Climate Action Plan update
Continue consulting with the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee
Identify actions the City can take to implement existing climate goals as the Climate Action Plan
is being updated.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Resolution No. 1389
Exhibit 2: Review of other Jurisdictions Climate Action Plans
Exhibit 3: Science Based Targets Memorandum
Exhibit 4: DRAFT Resolution 1.5 Target
Exhibit 5: Climate Update PowerPoint Presentation
Packet Pg. 236
9.1.a
RESOLUTION NO. 1389
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMMITTING TO ACHIEVE OR EXCEED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
THE GOALS ESTABLISHED IN THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD
WHEREAS, climate change poses a grave threat to the health and well-being of this and
future generations in Edmonds and beyond; and
WHEREAS, according to the World Health Organization, human -caused climate change
is already killing some 150,000 people every year around the world; and
WHEREAS, people of color, immigrants, refugees, economically disadvantaged
residents, older people and children, people who are homeless, and people with existing mental
or health conditions will experience climate change disproportionately; and
WHEREAS, the 2015 EPA report, Climate Change in the United States; Benefits of
Global Action, states that global action on climate change would prevent nearly 70,000
premature American deaths annually by the end of the century while sparing the country
hundreds of billions of dollars in economic losses; and
am
WHEREAS, Washington State has already experienced long- term warming, more M
frequent nighttime heat waves, sea level rising along most of Washington's coast, increased o
coastal ocean acidity, decline in glacial area and spring snowpack and the State Department of Z
c
Ecology has reported that, "human caused climate change poses an immediate and urgent
r
threat"; and c
WHEREAS, economists have concluded that Washington's families and businesses are
likely to incur billions of dollars of annual economic costs if Washington state and other states
r
and nations fail to drive reductions in climate -changing greenhouse gas pollution. These
economics impacts include increased energy costs, coastal and storm damage, reduced food w
production, increased wildland fire costs, and increased public health costs; and
a�
WHEREAS, in recognition of the immediate need to take strong and proactive action to E
protect our environment, the City of Edmonds in 2006 established the Climate Protection U
r
Committee with a core mission to: a
1. Encourage Edmonds citizens to be a part of the solution
2. Encourage City staff and citizens to conserve current resources
3. Work with the City Council to implement ideas to preserve and enhance our
environment
4. Effectively address the future impacts of climate change
Packet Pg. 237
9.1.a
WHEREAS, the Climate Protection Committee has established key environmental
strategies to: 1) Reduce fossil fuels with renewable energy resources for energy supplied to
buildings, 2) Improve energy efficiency of and within buildings and 3) Require the design and
construction of new and remodeled commercial buildings to meet green building standards; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, Mayor Dave Earling signed the Mayors National Climate
Action Agenda and stated "In light of the [President's] decision to withdraw from the Paris
Accord, I feel it important for our city to emphasize our local commitment to, and continued
effort to improve our environment"; and
WHEREAS, as a signatory of the Safe Energy Leadership Alliance ("SELA"), Edmonds
has committed itself to being a regional and national leader in addressing the adverse impacts of
climate change driven by the burning of fossil fuels; and enacted bold policies and programs to
reduce emissions from its transportation, building energy, and waste sectors and reduced
emissions while its population has grown; and
WHEREAS, the Paris Agreement resulted in a commitment from almost every nation to
take action and enact programs to limit global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees
Celsius, with an expectation that this goal would be reduced to 1.5 degrees in the future; and
WHEREAS, the State of Washington has mandated statewide reduction of GHG
emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050; and
00
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11.29 on September 18, 2006
adopting the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd Annual U.S. Z
Conference of Mayors meeting; and 2
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1129 also requested semi-annual updates to City Council
regarding the progress of the City in implementing the following program milestones: 1)
Conduct a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast for the City, 2) Establish a
greenhouse gas emission target (GHG), 3) Develop an action plan to meet the local greenhouse
emissions target, 4) Im.plement the action plan and 5) periodically review progress and update
the plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2010 the City of Edmonds completed a Climate Change
Action Plan and within the plan it reported Edmonds buildings account for approximately one-
third of Edmond's GHG emissions for lighting, heating, cooling, and cooking; and
WHEREAS, the Climate Change Action plan states replacing fossil fuel -derived energy
with renewable energy sources for both city owned buildings and throughout our community is
critical to achieving the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals set forth in the City's Climate
Action Plan and the Compact of Mayors, to which the City is a signatory; and
WHEREAS, it is imperative that energy consumers and the utilities serving them take
early action to reduce carbon emissions given the accelerating rate climate change the planet is
Packet Pg. 238
9.1.a
experiencing, and shifting to 100% of electricity from renewable sources by 2025 is within
reach; and
WHEREAS, "renewable energy" includes energy derived from hydrogen, wind power
sited in ecologically responsible ways, solar, existing and low -impact hydroelectric, geothermal,
biogas (including biogas produced from biomass), and ocean/wave technology sources.
"Renewable energy" specifically excludes energy derived from fossil fuels, nuclear, biomass
feedstocks sourced from state and federal lands, hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, and
incineration of .municipal and medical waste; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council has demonstrated its commitment to D
environmental stewardship and the health and safety of Edmonds residents by numerous other a
actions, including passing Resolution 1362 on June 28, 2016 stating its opposition to the w
transport of crude oil by rail; t0
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, THAT: E
U
Section 1: City Council fully supports Mayor Dave Earling's June 6, 2017 endorsement o
of the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda.
a
Section 2: City Council rededicates itself to partnering with the City administration and
Edmonds citizens to identify the benefits and costs of adopting policies and programs that
promote the long-term goal of greenhouse gas emissions reduction while maximizing economic M
and social benefits of such action.
0
z
Section 3: The Planning Department and the Climate Protection Committee will report r_
annually to the City Council our current municipal and community -wide GHG inventory starting
in 2018. °
d
Section The Planning Department and the Climate Protection Committee will establish
and recommend to City Council a GHG emissions reduction target goal for both the near terns
Z
and long term by July 1, 2018.
x
Section 5: The Planning Department and the Climate Protection Committee will update w
our City's Climate Change Action Plan and review the specific strategies for meeting the
emissions reduction target as well as tying mitigation with adaptation measures where possible. z
°
Section 6. The City establishes the following renewable energy goals for both municipal Q
facilities and for the City at large:
i. 100% renewable energy for municipal facilities by 2019; and,
ii. 100% renewable energy for the City's community electricity supply by 2025.
Section 7. By November 1, 2018, the Planning Department and the Climate Protection
Committee will develop a work plan, including options, methods and financial resources needed
and an associated timeline and milestones to achieve these renewable energy goals.
Packet Pg. 239
9.1.a
RESOLVED this 27t' day of June, 2017.
APPROVED:
i
TOM M F.SAROS; COUNCIL PRFFSTI)ENT
ATTESTIAU'I'I ;N'I'ICATED:
tl-rY CLERK, SC ' PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: June 28, 2017
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: June 27, 2017
RESOLUTION NO. 1389
4
CD
00
M
Packet Pg. 240
r ESA Orr -
;A RS
J 1969.2019
memorandum
date December 13, 2019
5309 Shilshole Avenue NW
Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98107
206.789.9658 phone
206.789.9684 fax
to Shane Hope and Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds
cc Jeff Caton
from Mark Johnson and Breanna Sewell, Environmental Science Associates
subject Review of Other Jurisdictions' Climate Action Plans
Introduction
9.1.b
e
As a part of the City of Edmonds Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update, ESA was asked to research and report to
the City what other jurisdictions are doing to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a community scale.
Selected jurisdictions are either in the Northwest region, similar to the Edmonds community, or both. This memo
summarizes a range of possible actions beyond those Edmonds has already undertaken. It is intended for City
staff, policymakers, and the general public. It is not an exhaustive analysis, as hundreds of jurisdictions are doing
this type of planning; instead, it identifies practical and applicable examples for the City to consider now or in the
future.
This summary targets CAP strategies with the greatest reduction potential for the sectors in which Edmonds has
the greatest percentage of overall emissions (i.e., buildings and transportation). The 2017 GHG inventory showed
that buildings and transportation make up 52% and 40% of community -wide emissions, respectively. Within the
buildings sector, residential buildings contribute 67% of emissions. By 2035, with the City's planned reductions
realized and the State's Clean Energy Bill implemented, buildings and transportation are anticipated to make up
approximately 45% and 4 1 % of total emissions (162,815 MTCO2e), respectively. This insight allows the City to
target policy toward the sectors and activities that contribute the most to Edmond's emissions profile.
Each of the following six pages presents a snapshot of another jurisdiction's CAP. There are links in each section
to the respective CAP so that a curious reader may investigate further.
13-Dec-19
Packet Pg. 241
Review of Other Jurisdictions' Climate Action Plans
9.1.b
Seattle, Washington
The City_ of Seattle has been a frontrunner in
climate action since 2011, when it adopted the
goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. Along with
their 2013 CAP, which received an `A' grade
from the Carbon Disclosure Project the City
Population
`CAP Last Updated
Targets & Commitments
725,000
2013
Carbon Neutral by 2050 — Goa7
of Paris Agreement
published a CAP Implementation Strategy. A
Implementation Strategy;
succinct, updated Climate Strategy was Notable Features
published in 2018; it includes an overview of - Regular Performance Monitoring
the City's GHG emissions over time, recent climate action taken, and near -term priorities. Although Seattle is
over 15 times the size of Edmonds in terms of population, its proximity, climate leadership, and successful
transportation initiatives make it a useful and relevant city to model. Notably, among its near term goals, Seattle
has a goal of having 30% of light duty vehicles being electric or plug-in hybrid citywide by 2030; by comparison
to date we have been using about 19% by 2035 for Edmonds.
City of Seattle Actions & Strategies
Transportation
• A pilot program that permits the installation of publicly available electric vehicle (EV) charging stations
on non-residential streets in urban centers and commercial streets.
• Amendment of the City Electrical Code to ensure that new parking is built to facilitate future EV
charging infrastructure. The code requires adequate electrical capacity to serve one EV charging station
per parking space in new commercial and residential buildings.
• Incorporation of EVs and clean fuels into the municipal fleet. Seattle's Green Fleet Action Plan sets a
goal of reducing municipal fleet emissions by 50% by 2025.
• Development and distribution of a map of optimal distribution of charging infrastructure.
Buildings
• Creation of the Oil Heated Home Conversion Program. This program provides incentives for
homeowners to replace oil heating systems with clean, efficient, electric heat pumps by partnering with a
heat pump distributor who provides matching incentives. Conversion from oil heaters to electrical heat
pumps is estimated to save 5 MTCO2e per home.
• Implementation of an advanced commercial energy code, which requires either non -fossil fuel -based
heating or more efficient windows.
• Expedited permitting by the Department of Construction & Inspections for projects that meet certain
energy efficiency (15% better than code), water conservation, and indoor air quality criteria.
• Pilot program that will offer significant additional height and floor space incentives for up to 20 major
building renovations in urban villages, to encourage retention and energy efficiency improvements for
existing buildings.
13-Dec-19
Packet Pg. 242
9.1.b
Review of Other Jurisdictions' Climate Action Plans
Portland, Oregon
In 1993, the City of Portland was the first
U.S. city to develop a CAP, and they have
made significant headway in citywide
GHG reduction since then. In 2014, the
City was on track to meet their interim
goal of 40% reduction by 2030, reporting
emissions 21% below 1990 levels.
!Population 648,000
CAP Last Updated 2015
Targets &Commitments 40% Reduction by 2030;
80% Reduction by 2050 (From 1990)
M 2017 Progress Report; Annual GHG
Notable Features Inventories; First U.S. City to Develop
Portland reports that since 1990, their a CAP
population has grown 33%, they have
24% more jobs, and their per capita emissions have fallen 41%. Additionally, their 2017 Progress Report states
that 83% of the 171 actions from the 2015 CAP are on track to be completed by 2020. Portland's dedication to
climate action for over two decades, annual inventories of their carbon footprint, and diverse set of strategies
made them successful in their efforts thus far, even while experiencing significant growth.
City of Portland Actions & Strategies
Transportation
• Implementation of a bike share system. Portland's BIKETO" program resulted in a 26% auto trip
replacement rate.
• Introduction of a 10-cent-per-gallon tax on vehicle fuel to fund traffic safety projects; improvements to
sidewalks, street crossings, and bike routes; and street repairs.
Buildings
• Adoption of a policy that requires the disclosure of home energy information on single-family homes
when a home is listed for sale. Energy disclosure allows homebuyers to factor a home's energy use into
their purchasing decision.
• Implementation of a policy that requires owners of commercial buildings of a certain size to track and
report their energy performance, which enables benchmarking against buildings nationally.
Other
Adoption of a requirement that projects seeking a demolition permit for a house or duplex must fully
deconstruct the structure if it was built during or prior to 1916 or if it is a historic resource. This ensures
that materials are salvaged and reused instead of demolished and landfilled. Portland is working with
community partners to offer training and certification on deconstruction.
3
Packet Pg. 243
Review of Other Jurisdictions' Climate Action Plans
9.1.b
Bellingham, Washington
The City of Bellingham adopted their
first CAP in 2007, establishing targets
for 2012 and 2020. The 2018 update
established targets for 2030 and 2050.
Bellingham has identified separate
targets and measures for municipal
and community emissions. Their
2050 target is to reduce municipal
Population
B�AP Last Updated
0
Targets & Commitments
o Notable Features Summary of Reduction Measure Progress
emissions by 100% and community � Y g
emissions by 85%. The adoption of Bellingham's 2018 CAP update included the creation of a Climate Action
Plan Task Force. The task force is comprised of community members, utility and public transportation
representatives, and City staff members and is dedicated to the community and municipal 100% renewable
energy goals. It has contributed greatly to the City's emission reduction thus far, as accountability is a key
component of successful CAP implementation. Bellingham, like other Cities, has developed summary
information of progress to date that can be viewed online, as a means of keeping the public engaged.
City of Bellingham Actions & Strategies
Transportation
2018
Municipal — 100% Reduction by 2050;.4
Community — 85% Reduction by 2050
(From 2000)
Dedicated CAP Task Force; Online
• Addition of a municipal bike fleet. Eight fully accessorized bikes are available to staff for official
business and personal errands.
Collaboration with regional partners to limit vehicle idling. With funding from the Northwest Clean Air
Agency, RE Sources worked with 22 schools in the area to limit idling and reported preventing 1,380
tons of CO2 emissions. A toolkit was also created for municipalities.
Buildings
• Creation of the Community Energy Challenge, a program that provides whole -building energy
assessments for homes and businesses, resulting in a list of prioritized upgrades from no- to low-cost
actions, as well as financing options for larger retrofits. Program participants can access utility rebate
programs for lighting and insulation improvements, sealing, and more efficient appliances.
Other
• Retrofit of all public lighting with LED bulbs.
13-Dec-19
Packet Pg. 244
9.1.b
Review of Other Jurisdictions' Climate Action Plans
Ashland, Oregon
Although their climate action Population 21,000 V
started years before, the City of
Ashland did not create a CAP CAP Last Updated 2017
until 2017. Despite this, the City Municipal — Carbon Neutral by 2030 & Zero
is in a good position to meet their Targets & Commitments Fossil Fuel Consumption by 2050;
targets of 8% annual reductions in Community — 8% Annual Emissions Reduction
community emissions and a 2018 & 2019 Progress Reports; Informative
carbon neutral municipality by ArcGIS StoryMap; Online Emissions Dashboard
2050, according to their 2018 and
2019 Progress Reports. As of 2017, Ashland households were producing approximately 25% fewer GHG
emissions than the typical Oregon household. Like Edmonds, the transportation and buildings sectors together
contribute the vast majority of emissions to Ashland's total.
City of Ashland Actions & Strategies
Transportation
• Providing incentives for employer -sponsored bicycle programs, including for City employees.
Buildings
• Implementation of a program that offers incentives to building owners and occupants to upgrade or
replace building systems — including lighting, HVAC, heating — with newer and more efficient
equipment.
• Creation of a City -sponsored community solar project that gives citizens the opportunity to "adopt" a
City solar panel as a way to purchase local renewable energy.
Other
• Custom City of Ashland Carbon Offsets program, through funding of carbon offset projects, which is
available to residents and businesses.
5
Packet Pg. 245
Review of Other Jurisdictions' Climate Action Plans
9.1.b
Palo Alto, California
The affluent City of Palo Alto was
one of the first cities to adopt a Population 67,000
municipal CAP back in 2007. They CAP Last Updated 2016 am
adopted their current Sustainability
and Climate Action Plan in 2016, Targets & Commitments 80% Reduction by 2030 (From 1990)
setting a single goal of 80% reduction Implementation Plan; Online
of GHG emissions by 2030 (using a Notable Features MM& Performance Dashboard
baseline of 1990 levels), with no
mention of 2050 targets. Shortly after, they developed a 2017-2020 implementation plan and then a more concise
2018-2020 implementation plan. By 2016, Palo Alto had already achieved a 36% emission reduction from 1990
levels. To achieve the remaining 44% reduction, the City is focusing on transforming transportation and phasing
out natural gas use, as most of their reductions thus far have come from the introduction of carbon neutral
electricity.
City of Palo Alto Actions & Strategies
Transportation
• Exploration of parking management strategies, including dynamic pricing, to support transportation and
sustainability goals and better align the cost of commuting by car with the cost of commuting by transit.
• Evaluation of programs to expand EV charger deployment on private property, including rebates and
financing options.
Buildings
• Encouragement of voluntary electrification (and mandates as appropriate) of natural gas appliances
through actions such as pilot programs, process streamlining, evaluation barriers (rates/fees, financing),
and contractor/supplier engagement.
• Continue to purchase carbon offsets to match natural gas emissions as a transitional measure.
13-Dec-19
Packet Pg. 246
9.1.b
Review of Other Jurisdictions' Climate Action Plans
Shoreline, Washington
The City of Shoreline, Edmonds'
neighbor, adopted their CAP in
2013, committing to the targets of
25% reduction by 2020, 50%
reduction by 2030, and 80%
reduction by 2050 (using a
baseline of 2007 levels). In 2017,
Population
CAP Last Updated
Targets & Commitments
Notable Features
56,000 4F
2013
25% Reduction by 2020; 50% Reduction by
2030; 80% Reduction by 2050 (From 2007)
Simple, Accessible Online Performance
F�
Graphics
the Shoreline City Council
released a staff report summarizing progress and recommending future actions. The report included the
implementation status of each of the 45 CAP recommendations, 78% percent of which were either complete, in
process, or on -going. Shoreline's website features sector -specific progress graphics that are engaging and
accessible to the layperson. The proximity and size of the City of Shoreline make it a valuable asset in Edmonds'
review of potential CAP actions and strategies.
City of Shoreline Actions & Strategies
Transportation
• Creation of "No Idle Zones."
• Installation of "smart" water meters, which transmit water usage data electronically. This eliminates the
need for utility staff to drive house -to -house to read meters.
• Establishment of a car -sharing program, such as Zipcar or Gig.
• Creation of the Shoreline Walks Program, which organizes and leads free walks to encourage adults to
switch to non -vehicular transportation.
Buildings
Promotion of residential energy efficiency by a City partnership with SustainableWorks, a non-profit
energy -efficiency general contractor. SustainableWorks provides homeowners with low-cost home and
energy audits and financing assistance for upgrades in exchange for meeting space and advertisement
from the City.
• Investigation of the feasibility for developing a district energy system within the city, which eliminates
the need for individual boiler systems.
Other
• Investigation of opportunities for rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse at existing and new City
facilities and open spaces.
• Promotion of water conservation through outreach and communications to residents and businesses
• Consideration of a shift to every -other -week garbage collection and weekly organic collection.
• Collaboration and outreach with second-hand stores and King County to promote textile collection and
recycling.
7
Packet Pg. 247
To: Shane Hope, Development Services Director, City of Edmonds
From: Joshua Proudfoot, Principal, Good Company, Joshua. Proudfoot(a)goodcompany.com, Aaron Toneys,
Senior Assoc., Claudia Denton, Assoc. and Mark Johnson, ESA MJohnson(a)esassoc.com
Date: December 21, 2o18
This memorandum is provided as part of the City of Edmonds Climate Action Plan Update. It is intended to
assist City decision makers in setting a target for community climate actions. It was prepared by the ESA/Good
Company team to give background on setting a science -based target and what the implications of various
targets could be.
What is a Science -Based Target?
A science -based climate target sets a rate of climate action'that is aligned with keeping average global
temperature increases below a specified level of increase (such as 2°C) compared to pre -industrial
temperatures.' A science -based target is based on the physical characteristics of the earth's atmosphere and
how atmospheric changes are expected to affect the biosphere. A science -based target represents an
overarching global target that humanity can collectively work toward. Maintaining temperature increases
below a 20C threshold will allow the majority, but not all, of the global population to avoid the worst social and
economic effects of climate change3. A target of 20C is considered the "guardrail" target by numerous
international organizations, including the United Nations3, but any target equal to or more aggressive (e.g.,
1.5°C or s.o°C) would also be considered a science -based target. As a point of reference, the average
temperature of the earth is approximately 1.2°C higher4 today than at the beginning of the industrial
revolution.
One advantage of adopting a science -based target is that it can remain constant. Overtime, the rate of
decarbonization necessary to meet the target may go up or down, depending on the success of the climate
action plan. The science -based target is the desired endpoint, and decarbonization rates can be adjusted as the
primary means of reaching it.
This report and all documents in the Edmonds Climate Action Plan update use the Celsius temperature scale, as
this is the most common in scientific literature worldwide. Please see Table i for Fahrenheit conversion. Bold
font indicates the commonly used science -based target numbers.
Table 1: Celsius to Fahrenheit conversion table.
Science -based targets Other temperatures in this report
i° 1.50 20 1.2° 3.30 4.20
1.80 2.70 3.60 2.20 60 7.60
What are the Options?
An increase of 2°C is the target set forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
International Energy Agency (IEA), the Paris Climate Accord, and multiple states and cities across the United
1 Climate actions include reducing fossil fuel and other man-made sources of greenhouse gas emissions as well as implementing
negative emissions strategies. Negative emissions strategies provide more time to decarbonize.
2 A 2'C target is roughly aligned with an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 450 parts per million (ppm).
3 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC ARS).
4 World Meteorological Organization Press Release: Provisional WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 2o16.
goodcompany.com MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK Pagel
Packet Pg. 248
mood
COMPANY
States. The Paris Climate Accord legally binds its signatories to the 2°C target. It also states that signatories will
"pursue efforts" toward a i.5°C target. Inclusion of the additional 1.5°C target is meant to acknowledge that the
difference between a 1.5°C and 2°C temperature rise is that the latter will result in "a greater likelihood of
drought, flooding, resource depletion, conflict and forced migration" and that "those most at risk will be
individuals and communities experiencing multidimensional poverty, persistent vulnerabilities and various
forms of deprivation and disadvantage."' Within a climate action plan, different temperature targets affect the
rate at which greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to be reduced and the associated investments and
activities required to achieve those reductions. A 2°C target requires less mitigation action per year than a i.5°C
target does.
What are the Trade-offs between Targets?
Modern human society built over the past 150 years relies heavily on fossil fuel energy sources; therefore,
accelerating the deployment of renewable and low -carbon energy sources requires large-scale deployment of
existing and pending technology as well as significant changes in personal consumption. The 2°C target is
intended to strike a pragmatic political and technological balance between limiting the physical impacts of
climate change and the time it will take to transition away from fossil fuels and reduce global GHG emissions.
However, the 2°C target takes humanity right up to the edge of feedback loops, potentially beyond human
control, that will further accelerate global warming, such as ocean and permafrost releases of methane, or the
melting of the ice caps, which reflect solar heat from the oceans'. More aggressive targets, such as i.5°C, move
everyone closer to safety, but require that emissions reductions measures and negative emissions
technologies? be implemented more quickly with a greater near -term investment.
What Rates of GHG Reduction are Required by the Different Options?
Table 2 presents three temperature target options or scenarios - a global average temperature increase of i°C,
1.5°C, or 2°C. The decarbonization rates presented on Figure 2 for a 2°C target are based on an IPCC's
decarbonization pathway (ARC RCP2.6 scenario). The decarbonization rates for a i.5°C target is based on
IPCC's recently released work on this target.' And 1°C is based on a paper by James Hansen, who is best known
for his work as a climate scientist at NASA and his work with 350.org and Our Children's Trust.' IPCC does not
have a published decarbonization pathway for IPCC 1°C target. The Hansen paper is the best source available to
guide decarbonization requirements consistent with the goals of organizations like 350.org, or Eugene,
Oregon's Climate Recovery Ordinance.
These targets all assume global participation. In other words, the rates presented below are assumed to be
complimented by reductions by other nations. A way to think about these rates are - Edmonds contributions
will feed into Washington's contributions, which will feed into US contributions. US contributions will feed into
global actions taken by other nations in accordance with the Paris Accord.
Additionally, to reduce to the 350 ppm GHG levels and the subsequent 1°C average temperature increase, the
global community will need to utilize "negative emissions" actions and technologies. The most low -tech of
these is to utilize existing means of "biological sequestration" —trees and soils. These actions could include
5 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2018), Special Report on Global Warming of ii.s°C.
6 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene.
7 Negative emissions refer to the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Currently, land management options are
available for biological carbon sequestration by forests and agricultural practices. Longer term, negative emissions technologies will
need to be developed. The most likely of these technologies is bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration.
8 Hansen et. al. (2011). Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature. Downloaded
online at http://www.columbia.edu/-'eh3./mailings/201;t/201;t12O2 PopularSciencePlosOngf.pdf.
goodcompany.com MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK Page 2
Packet Pg. 249
mood
COMPANY
protecting existing forests, planting new trees and forests, and integrating compost into soils to maximize
carbon uptake potential. Depending on how rapidly we respond as a globe to mitigation emissions and increase
carbon sequestration, we may also need "technological sequestration." These could include technologies
currently being developed such as - bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration which would use
biological fuel sources and pump the COz underground for long-term storage. Other technologies capture
carbon from the atmosphere and convert it into solid or liquid form. Unfortunately, these technologies are
currently inefficient and therefore expensive to operate at the scale required.
Even some of IPCCs modeled decarbonization pathways to reach the Paris Climate Accord target of 2°C
assumes that sequestration through negative emission technologies will be required at a large scale9.
Table 2: Target options, associated rates of reduction, and other agencies using these temperatures.
Target
Average Annual Rate of Reduction to Meet Target (rounded)
8%
5%
2%
Annual Reduction compared to 203.0 (values are rounded for simplicity)
By 2020
Is%
13%
10%
By 2030
70%
50%
35%
By 2050
100%
100%
8o%
Others Using These Temperatures
Eugene, OR
Seattle, WA
Paris Climate Accord
King County, WA
Notes:
a. Washington States 2008 goal of So % below lggo emission levels by logo is inadequate to meet a 2 °C increase if
adopted globally and is therefore not considered a science -based target.
b. Since the atmospheric concentration is already well above 350 ppm and we have passed a warming of 1 °C, the 1 °C Target
also requires roughly soo, 000 MT COze of cumulative sequestration on behalf of the Edmonds community between 2030
and 2080 to return to 350 ppm. This is equal to conserving 1, 000 acres of existing U.S. forest annually that would normally
be cut for use.
For example, if Edmonds wants to adopt a target of 1.50C, it would need to be accompanied by a cumulative
reduction goal similar to that established by the City of Seattle. That would mean reducing cumulative
emissions to 50 percent below 2010 levels by 203o and ioo percent by 2050. If Edmonds wanted to adopt the
1.o1C target, cumulative emissions would need to be reduced 70 percent by 2o3o, a much faster pace of
reduction. The relative costs of offsetting too percent of emission under each of these options are discussed at
the end of this memo.
Wealth, Consumption, and Responsibility
Wealthier nations and households have disproportionately high emissions per capital°. As basic needs are met
and disposable income is accumulated, there is an increase in consumption of goods, travel, and services'°. This
is illustrated for Edmonds in the 2017 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory report in the scale of imported or
consumption emissions. On the global scale, supply and demand for goods, fuel, and services is also
9 United Nations Paris Agreement 2oi5, Article 4.1.
10 Oxfam 2015 Media Briefing, Extreme Carbon Inequality.
goodcompany.com MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK Page
Packet Pg. 250
9.1.c
unbalanced"°. Some nations have high total emissions due to high production of goods and fuel that are sold to
other nations, while their own populations do not have high per capita emissions from consumption",". In
contrast, some nations import high amounts of goods and fuel but do not emit high amounts of greenhouse gas
emissions directly",". The United States is both a high emitter and a high consumer"o,".
China, the United States, and India have the highest total emissions in the world"". However, China and India
both have significantly larger populations, lower per capita emissions, lower Gross Domestic Product (total and
per capita) and higher levels of poverty",". In contrast, the United States and Canada have the highest
consumption footprints per capita"", and among the highest per capita Gross Domestic Product. Figure i
present a comparison of COze emissions per household among the G2o nations for which data is available.
Figure i also shows how the highest earning io% of households have substantially higher footprints than the
average in every country. Edmonds and the United States as a whole have better ability to decrease emissions,
due to both the scale of emissions and relative affluence, as compared to the rest of the world population.
Many people also consider the responsibility of the United States and affluent communities within the US to be
greater for the same reasons.
USA
CAN
GBR
❑EU
iTA
RUS
FRA
JPN
KOR
ZAF
MEX
TU R
ARG
CHN
BRA
IDN
IND
■ Top 10% ■ Bottom 50% R Bottom 40% ■Average
- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Household CO2 per capita (tonnes)
Figure 1: Per capita lifestyle consumption emissions in G20 countries for which data is available1O. Note: tonnes = metric tons.
11 The World Research Institute, World's Top io Emitters.
goodeompany.com _ MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK Page
Packet Pg. 251
Turning the Temperature Target into Action
The science -based temperature targets discussed above represent the most commonly cited type of climate
target— limiting average global temperature increases. There are a variety of climate targets in the region of
this type.
• The Paris Climate Accord commits signatories to at least a 20C target.
• King County, WA passed Ordinance 17270 limiting emissions consistent with a 2°C target.
• Seattle, WA passed Resolution 31312 adopting a target of net -zero GHG emissions by 205o and a 1.5°C
target.
• The City of Beaverton OR selected i.5°C as their community target.
• The City of Eugene OR selected 1°C as their community target.
• Other groups, such as 350.org, are focused on a 1°C target to further limit the negative societal impacts
of climate change.
• The Washington State legislature adopted reduction targets in 2oo8 for 5o% below 19go levels by 2050,
which is insufficient to meet a 20C target. Note — Washington's target is not a science -based target.
While science -based temperature targets are the convention — and should be included in Edmonds'target and
goal setting discussion —they do not represent the only form of community climate action goals. A science -
based temperature target can provide an overarching metric that can guide development of other goals, and
especially the rate at which other goals need to be accomplished. Communities commonly set additional or
complementary goals for specific mitigation opportunities. For example, Edmonds' existing goal to transition
the entire community to t00% Renewable Electricity by 2030 is important and aligned with climate mitigation
goals. The Portland, OR metro region recently set a goal of t00% renewable electricity by 2035, and t00%
renewable energy for all energy sources by 2050 (e.g., replacing natural gas, gasoline, diesel, etc.). Another
example is setting a goal around a percentage reduction in fossil fuel use, which is being used in Eugene, OR
and Bend, OR (e.g., a 5o% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2030). Additional goals may be set that are specific to
and address other large sources of community emissions. The climate action planning process will highlight
actions that fit Edmonds' unique community context. Ideally each of the actions in Edmonds' Climate Action
Plan will include an action -specific goal/target, be assigned an organizational lead, establish a tracking metric,
and identify a data stream to measure progress overtime.
goodcompany.com MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK Page 5
Packet Pg. 252
9.1.c
amp, E
How Urgent is Our Situation and What Can We Expect Moving Forward?
Existing international and domestic activities and policies remain inadequate to prevent a 2°C warming, as can
be seen in Figure 2. The Paris Climate Accord commitment period ending in 203o aims for no more than a 2°C
increase12. The United Nations project annual global emissions to reach 53-55 gigatons COZe in 203o, but in
order to meet the 2°C target, emissions have to be at a maximum of 40 gigatons CO2e12. Figure 2 also provides
estimated temperature in year 21oo based on various emissions paths.
Since global political uncertainty is likely to continue, collective action beyond national plans, such as state and
local efforts in the U.S., is essential in order to meet a 2°C or lower increase.
150
0
w .� 100
ro ti
ry
Q1 C)
3
0
50
0
0
Associated increase in
temperature in 2100:
2000 2050 2100
Figure 2: Climate Interactive estimated increase in temperature forecast based on UN modeling.
4.2°C 17.6°F
3.3T 16.0°F
1.8°C 13.3'F
1.5°C 12.8°F
While average global temperature differences may seem small, even slight changes in average temperatures
mean large changes in seasonal temperature and subsequently extreme weathers. Edmonds can expect milder,
shorter winters and significantly hotter, longer summers13,5. With current policies and activities in place, it is
estimated that by year 21oo, average temperatures will have increased by 3.3005.
Additionally, Edmonds will have a summer climate similar to Laguna Niguel, CA— an Orange County city
southeast of Los Angeles — an increase of 6°C (i10F) if we were to proceed globally as we are now13,5. See Figure
12 United Nations Environment Programme Emissions Gap Report 2018.
13 Climate Central tools: Seasonal Warming Trends Across the US, Summers in 2100.
goodcompany.com MAKING SUSTAINA6ILITY WORK Page
Packet Pg. 253
F` E
A
3. Table 3 (next page) describes some of the other changes in physical conditions that could result from
different levels of temperature rise.
I lire in Edmonds, WA
By 2100 summers in EDMONDS, WA } Q66 0 F will I�fl no summers
w in
CLIMATE Co CENTRAL
Figure 3: Summers in zloo, Climate Central tool.
LAGUNA NIGUEL, GA 81913 O F
goodcompany.com
MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK Pagel
Packet Pg. 254
mood
COMPANY
Table 3: Differences in Physical Conditions.
Differences in Physical ConditionS14
(mainly available for 1.50 and z°C)
ft sea level rise loball �5
7- 9 Y
ft sea level rise loball �5
9�4- g Y
i ft sea level rise loball is
5- g Y
r
r,.
r
r
Pr, t i Edrr :r i i
'.";irn7 � �
Par rt L d
rJ'7rrna can
P xt ri omInn'1; C
•'J'nr5ia � �
c
�
�
rn
3
Figures 3-5: Differences in sea level rise due to global temperature increases. Note how the sea level creeps up the hillside and gradually
covers more of the low-lying areas. Other areas in Edmonds are also affected.
Physical Conditions�4
.•
Ocean acidity increase g%
Ocean acidity increase 24%
Frequency of warm extremes over
land (PNW) increase 131%
Frequency of warm extremes over
land (PNW) increase 350%
=
Extreme heat: 3.4%of global
Extreme heat: 37%of global
population exposed to severe
population exposed to severe
heat at least once every 5 years
heat at least once every 5 years
Population exposed to water
scarcity worldwide: 271 million
Population exposed to water
scarcity worldwide:
388 million
71—
Sea -ice -free arctic: at least
Sea -ice -free arctic: at least
i summer every ioo years
io summers every ioo years
Species loss: 4% of vertebrates
Species loss: 8% of vertebrates
lose at least half of their range
lose at least half of their range
Species loss: 8% of plants lose at
least half of their range
Species loss: 3.6% of plants lose at
least half of their range
l
Species loss: 6% of insects lose at
Species loss: 3.8% of insects lose at
least half of their range
least half of their range
�4 References available from CarbonBrief.org.
�5 Climate Central Surging Seas Seeing Choices tool.
E
U
a
goodcompany.com MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK Page
Packet Pg. 255
9.1.c
mood
COMPANY
What Does Daily Life Look Like by 2050?
Sample Community Changes — Refer to the Edmonds 2017 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory for details on
Edmonds significant local and imported emissions sources and terminology.
Impacted
emissions Change to: Through:
source
local . i00% renewable electricity and
local • No fossil fuel combustion large-scale energy storage o
• Electrified transport a.
imported N
imported • Reduced consumption of c
goods, use of disposables, and Purchase of durable goods with a
local subsequent waste a focus on reuse and repair CU
E
local Reduction of waste in processing v
and sales (pre -consumer) c
• Buying just what you need a;
• Reduced food waste • Composting (post -consumer, to -a
local CL
avoid methane production at R
landfills and as a means of E
increasing soil carbon storage)
• fruits, i
• Reduction in GHG-intensive More vegetables,
imported foods legumes, grains, and fish o
E
• Reduced meat and dairy
imported . Decreased household
local consumption of goods and • Family education a,
local energy
ALL • Negative emissions actions • Mass sequestration via forests
and technology
m
a�
• M
_ x
UJ
E
G�b
a
goodcompany.com MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK Page
Packet Pg. 256
T
How Much Would It Cost to Offset s00% of Community Emissions?
Edmonds' 2017 community emissions were roughly 16q,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases / carbon dioxide
equivalent (MT COZe). This estimate includes GHG emissions generated within Edmonds plus the GHG
emissions embodied in electricity consumed within Edmonds (using market -based electric accounting; see
inventory for discussion) known as a "local" or a "sector -based inventory." This does not include upstream,
"imported" emissions from the consumption of food, goods, fuel, and services made outside of Edmonds,
which were estimated to be 444,000 MT COze, for a combined total of 613,000 MT COZe. Regulatory -grade
offsets in California's Cap -and -Trade market sold in January 2o18 for an average of $15 per MT. Likewise, the
Climate Trust produces high -quality, voluntary -market carbon offsets for about $15 per MT. Globally, the
average offset price has hovered around $5 per MT for several years. The primary differences in price for carbon
offsets depend on the supply relative to demand; "co -benefits" and the appreciation for these by the customer
(forestry projects typically command a higher market price than a landfill gas project); and the rigor of the
carbon offset verification process (e.g., regulatory market quality versus voluntary market quality). It should be
noted to that the cost of carbon offsets is expected to rise if and when carbon markets are established, and the
lowest costs offset options are exploitedi6
Unlike the emissions inventory, the purchase of offsets should be based on market -based accounting of
electricity emissions. The City of Edmonds and Snohomish PUD are already focused on low -emission
electricity. Note, however, that the current Pacific Northwest supply of low -emission electricity is limited — if
Edmonds does not reduce demand, other communities may not have access to the same energy contracts.
Based on a price of $1.5 per MT and 2017 total community emissions, the annual cost for the community to be
carbon neutral is about $526 per household or sq.z million dollars per year for the entire community, if offsets
were the only method of reducing community emissions. That said, the community does not need to be carbon
neutral next year to meet a science -based target. If offset costs were paired with an assumed reduction pace
towards a 1.5°C science -based target, the cost at $15 per MT in 2020 would be $1,195,350 for the entire
community (about s68 per household). See Table 4 (next page) for estimated cost scenarios and Table z for
reduction rates and reference. Note that these costs are only applicable if Edmonds does not make changes in
ways that reduce emissions.
16 California Air Resources Board, January 2017 Proposed Plan, Appendix E.
goodcompany.com MAKING SUSTAINABILITY WORK Pageio
Packet Pg. 257
mood
COMPANY
Table 4: Estimated annual cost of offsets for cite -wide emissions in different pricing and target scenarios, using 2o18 dollars.
Note: This table based on z00%
Offsets, with no behavior or policy
changes.
Local
emissions
Local +
imported*
Local
emissions
Local +
imported*
Local
emissions
Local +
imported*
2020
$126,750
$459,750
$253,500
$919,500
$380,250
$1,379,250
2030
$591,500
$2,145,500
$i,i83,000
$4,291,000
$1,774,500
$6,436,500
2050
$845,000
I $3,o65,000
$i,69o,000
1 $6,130,000
$2,535,000
1 $9,195,000
2020
$1o9,850
$398,450
$219,700
$796,9oo
$329,550
$1,195,350
2030
$422,500
$1,532,500
$845,000
$3,o65,000
$1,267,500
$4,597,500
2050
2'C target offset costs
2020
$845,000
s5 per
$84,500
$3,o65,000
IVIT
$3o6,500
$i,69o,000
..
s16g,000
$6,130,000
$613,000
$2,535,000
$253,500
$9,195,000
$9191500
2030
$295,750
$1,072,750
$591,500
$2,145,500
$887,250
$3,218,250
2050
$676,000
$2,452,000
$1,352,000
$4,904,000
$2,028,000
$7,356,000
*Local emissions refer to sector -based emissions; local + imported refer to sector -based plus consumption. Please refer to
Edmonds 2017 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory for details on terminology and accounting.
Making the Choice for Edmonds
Edmonds' leadership is faced with an important choice about which science -based target to pursue. Essentially
the choice between the i°C target, the 1.5°C target and the 20C target is a choice between local and global
safety contrasted with the discomfort of taking on the effort at a slower or faster pace. Once the overarching
target is embraced, the required pace of emission reductions becomes evident.
Once a target is selected, the next phase of the Climate Action Plan process we will examine which actions can
get Edmonds to the target in the right timeframe. In the selection and testing of those actions, the chosen
actions —for example energy efficiency and decreased food wasting — will require the development of more
common tracking metrics such as: the number and percentage of Edmonds buildings that have been
weatherized or the total tons of food waste reduced at the point of collection. These actions will need to be
tracked over time to show progress against a periodic community carbon footprint. The selection of a science -
based target will guide Edmonds on a new path of continued climate action commitment.
goodcompany.com MAKING SUSTAINA6ILITY WORK Pageil
Packet Pg. 258
9.1.d
RESOLUTION NUMBER
A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SETTING A SCIENCE BASED
CLIMATE CHANGE PLANNING TARGET OF LIMITING THE GLOBAL AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE INCREASE TO 1.5 DEGREES CELSIUS ABOVE PRE -INDUSTRIAL
TEMPERATURES
WHEREAS, climate change poses a grave threat to the health and well-being of this and future
generations in Edmonds and beyond; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, Mayor Dave Earling signed the Mayors National Climate Action
Agenda and stated, "In light of the [President's] decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord, I
feel it important for our city to emphasize our local commitment to, and continued effort to
improve our environment"; and
WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 1389 the Edmonds' City Council fully supported May Dave Earling's
June 6, 2017 endorsement of the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda; and
WHEREAS, as a signatory of the Safe Energy Leadership Alliance ("SELA"), Edmonds has
committed itself to being a regional and national leader in addressing the adverse impacts of
climate change driven by the burning of fossil fuels; and enacted bold policies and programs to
reduce emissions from its transportation, building energy, and waste sectors and reduced
emissions while its population has grown; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2010 the City of Edmonds completed a Climate Change Action Plan
that states replacing fossil fuel -derived energy with renewable energy sources for both city
owned building and throughout our community is critical to achieving the greenhouse reduction
goals set forth in the City's Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1389 noted the City Staff and the Climate and the Climate Protection
Committee will establish and recommend to the City Council a GHG emissions reduction target
goal for both the near term and long term; and
WHEREAS, a science -based climate target sets a rate of climate action that is aligned with
keeping average global temperature increases below a specified level of increase compared to
pre -industrial temperatures.
WHEREAS, an advantage of adopting a science -based target is that it can remain constant. Over
time, the rate of decarbonization necessary to meet the target may go up or down, depending
on the success of the climate action plan. The science -based target is the desired endpoint, and
decarbonization rates can be adjusted as the primary means of reaching it.
WHEREAS, the Paris Agreement resulted in a commitment from almost every nation to take
action and enact programs to limit global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius,
with an expectation that this goal would be reduced to 1.5 degrees in the future; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, a science based climate target was discussed by the Climate Protection
Committee which recommended that the City pursue efforts to limit the increase in the global
average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre -industrial levels; and
1
Packet Pg. 259
9.1.d
WHEREAS, the City is updating the Climate Change Action Plan which will include reviewing
specific strategies for meeting the emissions reduction targets based on the City's adopted
science based climate target;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council adopts the science based climate target of limiting the increase in
the global average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre -industrial levels.
Section 2. While updating the City's Climate Action Plan, the City will review specific strategies
for the Edmonds' share of meeting the 1.5 degrees target as well as tying mitigation with
adaption measures where possible.
RESOLVED this 4th day of August, 2020.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
2
CITY OF EDMONDS
MAYOR, MIKE NELSON
Packet Pg. 260
OF�D�I
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 261
9.1.e
'a
a
Packet Pg. 262
9.1.e
'a
a
Packet Pg. 263
9.1.e
'a
a
Packet Pg. 264
Buildings L e rige
(Industrial) Loss
2% 6%
305,962 MT CO2e
7.2 MT CO2e per capita
R f ' rant
9.1.e
Packet Pg. 265
9.1.e
7507000
N
O
U
75
5001000
.E
w
V
0
2501000
F-
E
0
CU
r
0
N
Local + Imported
Emissions
Packet Pg. 266
9.1.e
CAP Strategy I Metric
TR-1 Additional Units in Commercial and Multi -Family Centers by 2035 and 2050
Number of housing units built in activity centers.
TR-2 Percent of Commuters Using Transit by 2035 and 2050
Percentage of commuters using public transportation (avoided VMT).
TR-3 Percent of Commuters Walking or Biking to Work by 2035 and 2050
Percentage of commuters using an active mode of transportation (avoided VMT).
TR-4 Percent of Commuters Carpooling and/or Utilizing an Alternate Work Week by 2035 and 2050
Percentage of commuters carpooling, telecommuting, and/or working shorter weeks and longer hours (avoided
VMT).
TR-5 Percent of Electric Vehicles by 2035 and 2050
Percentage of Citywide fleet that is BEV and PHEV (avoided VMT).
W-1 Reduction in Solid Waste Generation by 2035 and 2050
Change in amount of solid waste generated per capita as compared to 2017 levels.
EY-1 Number of New Residential and Commercial Solar PV Systems Installed by 2035 and 2050
Number of homes and businesses that installed solar PV since 2017.
EY-2 Percent of Residential and Commercial Area Retrofitted by 2035 and 2050
The total residential and commercial area (in square feet) that is upgraded with energy efficiency programs/
opportunities.
Savings from 2017 Improvements to Wastewater Treatment Plant
Amount of electricity and fuel oil saved from 2017 efficiency improvements to wastewater treatment plant.
EY-3 Percent of New, LEED-Certified Residential and Commercial Development by 2035 and 2050
Percentage of new development since 2017 that is built LEED-certified.
EY-4 Number of Trees Planted by 2035 and 2050
Number of trees planted citywide since 2017.
U)
0
C9
a�
r
E
U
c
0
m
a
Packet Pg. 267
350,000
300,000
N 250,000
O
200,000
C
O
tA
E150,000
w
l7
100,000
50,000
W
GHG Reductions by Inventory Sector -- Progress Toward 2035Target
2017 Emissions
2017
Energy
Reductions By
Sector
Waste
Target
19 2, 337
2035
9.1.e
'a
a
Packet Pg. 269
9.1.e
'a
a
Packet Pg. 270
9.1.e
0
c�
a�
r
0
E
'a
a
Packet Pg. 271
9.1.e
Science -baser targets
10 1.51, 2-P
1.8° 2.7" 3.60
The average temperature of the earth is approximately 1.2°C higher today than at
the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Packet Pg. 272
9.1.e
+1.0' C
350 ppm
"Tl'.5°C
400 ppm
+2.0° C
450 ppm
0
c�
a�
r
0
E
'a
a
Packet Pg. 273
9.1.e
'a
a
Packet Pg. 274
9.1.e
0
c�
a�
r
0
E
'a
a
Packet Pg. 275
9.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/4/2020
Review of Council Code of Conduct
Staff Lead: Council/Laura Johnson
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
In December 2013, the Council passed Resolution No. 1306 adopting a new Code of Conduct and in June
2015, the Council approved a new Code of Ethics.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Councilmember Laura Johnson has revised the Code of Conduct for the Edmonds City Council to include
language that addresses appropriate communications between Council to staff, the general public, and
to fellow Councilmembers; the Council is asked to review these updates.
Attachments:
Updated Code of Conduct 2020 DRAFT
Resolution 1306 Code of Conduct
CODE —OF —ETHICS 06-02-2015
Packet Pg. 276
9.2.a
Updated Code of Conduct 2020 - DRAFT
Section 6. Council Conduct.
Councilmembers should seek to improve the quality of public service and ensure public
confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective, open, and equitable operation.
To this end, the following Code of Conduct for members of the Edmonds City Council is
established:
6.1 Conduct during Public Meetings
A. Councilmembers have a public stage to show how individuals with disparate points of view
can find common ground, demonstrate effective problem -solving approaches, and seek
solutions that benefit the community as a whole.
B. Councilmembers will practice civility and decorum in discussions and debates.
Disagreements should focus on vision, policies, and their implementation.
C. Ensuring the public feels welcome is a vital part of the democratic process. No signs of
partiality, prejudice, or disrespect should be evident on the part of individual Councilmembers
toward an individual participating in a public forum. Every effort should be made to be fair and
impartial in listening to public testimony.
D. Councilmembers shall prepare themselves for public issues and listen courteously and
attentively to all public discussions before the body during the meeting. Council discussions are
open and transparent and diverse ideas and opinions are welcome.
E. Whenever possible, Councilmembers shall seek to minimize surprises at public meetings
including vetting of amendments or new ideas prior to introduction and/or discussion and should
seek to provide key questions to staff ahead of public discussions.
F. While the Council is in session, Councilmembers shall neither, by conversation or otherwise,
delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the Council, nor disrupt any member while
speaking nor refuse to obey the orders of the Council or the Mayor, except as otherwise
provided in these Rules.
G. If a member is offended by the remarks of another member, the offended member should
make note of the words used and call for a "point of personal privilege." The meeting chair will
maintain control of this discussion and if deemed necessary, ask the offending member to
restate their remarks.
H. It is important that each Councilmember is treated equally by their Council peers. All
members are duly elected or appointed and should be afforded mutual respect. With the
exception of the Council President's agenda -setting power, no member has or shall be afforded
extraordinary powers beyond those of other members.
6.2 Conduct with City Staff
Packet Pg. 277
9.2.a
A. Councilmembers shall treat all staff as professionals with clear, honest communication that
respects the abilities, experience, and dignity of each person.
B. As feasible, Council Members will work with Department Directors or designees before
meetings to obtain the information needed to participate in discussions and debates and to
make decisions.
C. City Council policy is implemented through dedicated and professional staff. To support
effective relationships, it is important that roles are clearly recognized. Councilmembers shall
avoid intrusion into areas that are the responsibility of staff and recognize that it is not the role of
the Council or its members to administer City business.
D. Councilmembers may ask Department Directors or designee about the status of work items
or request information. Except through their participation on Council, they shall not expressly or
implicitly give orders or direction, attempt to influence the decisions or recommendations of staff
members, or otherwise be involved in administrative functions.
E Councilmember communications with City Staff shall be limited to normal City business hours,
except in cases of emergency or a pre -agreed upon event or meeting held outside of normal
City business hours. Responses to questions posed outside of normal business hours should be
expected no earlier than the next business day.
F. Councilmembers shall never express concerns about the performance of a City employee in
public, to the employee directly, or to the employee's manager. Comments about staff
performance should only be made to the Mayor through appropriate correspondence.
6.3 Conduct with Council Legislative/Administrative Assistant
A. Councilmembers shall treat the Legislative/Administrative Assistant as a professional with
clear, honest communication that respects abilities, experience, and individual dignity.
Additionally, Councilmembers are responsible for ensuring a supportive and positive work
environment for the Legislative/Administrative Assistant.
B. Given the need for shared coordination, Councilmembers shall not request the Council
Legislative Assistant to initiate any significant project or study, outside of limited research,
without the consent of the Council President. The Legislative/Administrative Assistant's time will
be divided equally among the seven Councilmembers.
D. Councilmember communications with the Legislative/Administrative Assistant shall be limited
to normal City business hours, except in cases of emergency or a pre -agreed upon event or
meeting held outside of normal City business hours. Responses to questions posed outside of
normal business hours should be expected no earlier than the next business day.
E. Councilmembers shall never express concerns about the performance of the
Legislative/Administrative Assistant in public or to the Legislative Assistant directly. Comments
about performance should only be made to the Council President through appropriate
correspondence.
Packet Pg. 278
9.2.a
6.4 Conduct with Boards, Committees, Commissions, and Outside Agencies
A. The City maintains several boards and commissions as a means of encouraging and
gathering community input. Citizens who serve on boards and commissions become more
involved in government and serve as advisors to the City Council or Mayor. They are a valuable
resource to the City's leadership and should be treated with appreciation and respect.
B. Councilmembers are appointed as non -voting members to serve as the primary two-way
communication liaison between the Council and boards, commissions, and committees.
Councilmembers are not to direct the activities or work of the board, commission, or committee
C. Councilmembers may attend any board or commission meeting to which they are not
appointed but shall do so as a member of the public. Personal comments or positions, if given,
will be identified as such and shall not be represented as the position of the City or Council.
D. Councilmembers shall not contact a board or commission member to lobby on behalf of an
individual, business, or organization. It is acceptable for Councilmembers to contact the board,
committee, or commission members in order to clarify or contextualize a position taken by the
body. When making contact the relevant Council liaison should be included in such
communication.
E. When attending a non -city sponsored event, meeting, conference, or other activity, a
Councilmember may be authorized to represent the Council only upon a majority vote of the
Council. Likewise, a Councilmember may be authorized to represent the City only upon the
express permission of the Mayor.
6.5 Conduct via Technologic Communication
A. Technology allows words written or said to be distributed far and wide. Written notes,
voicemail messages, texts, and email are public records and should be treated as such.
6.6 Compliance and Enforcement
A. The integrity of individual councilmembers reflects, both positively and negatively, on the
overall public perception of the ethical behavior of the entire Council and City. Councilmembers
themselves have the primary responsibility to ensure that conduct standards are understood
and met and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of its
government.
B. The Council has a responsibility to intervene when actions of a member or members appear
to be in violation of the Code of Conduct or when a violation is brought to their attention. The
City Council, by majority vote, may impose sanctions on members whose conduct does not
comply with these standards. Sanctions may include any or all of the following:
Packet Pg. 279
9.2.a
1. Official verbal reprimand in an open meeting.
2. Formal public letter of censure by a majority vote of the council.
3. Loss of committee or external appointment assignment(s).
Packet Pg. 280
9.2.b
RESOLUTION NO: 1306
A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING A CODE OF CONDUCT
FOR THE MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, AND ALL MEMBERS OF CITY BOARDS,
COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, OR WORK GROUPS.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that City business should be conducted publicly, in an atmosphere of respect
and civility,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the following Code of Conduct is adopted and shall apply to the Mayor,
City Councilmembers, and members of all City Boards, Commissions, or work groups.
In the course of their duties, all group leaders will:
1) provide all members a fair opportunity to participate,
2) not permit any member to dominate proceedings or intimidate other members, and
3) not permit any disrespectful behavior toward participants.
In the course of their duties, all participants, including leaders, will:
1) respect the individual talents and contributions of others,
2) avoid offensive comments and behavior,
3) avoid intimidating comments and behavior,
4) listen courteously and attentively,
5) conduct public business in an open and transparent manner,
6) assist leaders in ensuring fair treatment of all members, and
7) assist leaders in controlling disrespectful or intimidating behavior.
When speaking officially, all leaders and members will respectfully convey the position of their group. When
speaking personally, all leaders and members will disclose that their comments are their own, and not made as a
representative of their group.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted this 10th of December, 2013.
ATTESTI NTICA
CITY K, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 6, 2013
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL December 10, 2013
RESOLUTION NO: 1306
Packet Pg. 281
9.2.c
CODE OF ETHICS
The purpose of the Edmonds Code of Ethics is to strengthen the quality
of government through ethical principles which shall govern the conduct
of elected officials and appointed citizen volunteers serving in an official
capacity (i.e. Boards and Commissions).
We shall:
• Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic government.
• Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by government and
maintain a sense of social responsibility.
• Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and
personal relationships.
• Recognize that the chief function of local government at all times is to serve
the best interest of all the people.
• Keep the community informed on municipal affairs and encourage
communications between the citizens and all municipal officers. Emphasize
friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to improve
the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens.
• Seek no favor; do not personally benefit or profit by confidential information
or by misuse of public resources.
• Conduct business of the city in a manner which is not only fair in fact, but
also in appearance.
Approved by the Edmonds City Council on 06-02-2015.
Packet Pg. 282