Loading...
2020-10-13 City Council - Full S Agenda-2692o Agenda Edmonds City Council SPECIAL MEETING AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 OCTOBER 13, 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. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Special Council Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2020 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2020 Edmonds City Council Agenda October 13, 2020 Page 1 CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS 1. Council Student Representative Interviews and Appointment (60 min) AUDIENCE COMMENTS (HTTPS://ZOOM.US/S/4257752525) 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Set Public Hearing for 184th Street SW Street Vacation (5 min) 2. Carbon Recovery Project Bond Authorization (30 min) 3. Consideration of the Planning Board recommendation to deny a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family - Urban 1" for two properties located at 530 and 522-9th Ave. N. (20 min) 9. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 1. Utility of the Future Today Recognition (10 min) 2. Presentation of an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum (10 min) 3. Presentation of a PUD Easement for the Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Project (10 min) 4. Presentation of the Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report (20 min) 5. Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with Blueline for the Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project (30 min) 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda October 13, 2020 Page 2 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Approval of Special Council Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2020 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 10-06-2020 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 5.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES October 6, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Adrienne Fraley Monillas, Council President Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Susan Paine, Council President Pro Tem Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER At 6:01 p.m., an Edmonds City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Council President Fraley Monillas. The Council utilized the Zoom online meeting platform to conduct this meeting. 2. The Council then convened in Executive Session to receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee per RCW 42.30.110(1)(f). ADJOURN At 6:59 p.m., the executive session concluded and the meeting was adjourned. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 5.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of October 6, 2020 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 10-06-2020 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 5 5.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES October 6, 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 Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Leif Bjorback, Building Official Brad Shipley, Associate Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk At Mayor Nelson's request, City Clerk Scott Passey shared the reason for the technical difficulties; it was initially with the live streaming software due to installation of a new server and new encoder. Then there was a problem with the government access channel broadcast; that was rectified and the meeting is now live streaming and on the government access channel and the phone line is open as well. The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:18 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Paine 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 OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 6 5.2.a COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO MOVE ITEM 10.2, CARBON RECOVERY PROJECT BOND PRESENTATION, TO STUDY ITEM 9.1. Councilmember K. Johnson explained the Council has never heard this presentation before and if bond counsel or consultants are present, it is important that they be at the top of agenda. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson advised the remaining Action Items would be renumbered. 5. BOARD/COMMISSION INTERVIEW 1. INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO A BOARD/COMMISSION Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty explained the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) meets a few times a year. Councilmember K. Johnson chairs the committee this year. There has been an opening all year, one of members representing the lodging community on the LTAC passed away last year and the LTAC did not meet again for several months. The candidate replaced the previous member as manager of the Best Western Harbor Inn and has applied to replace him on the LTAC. Mr. Doherty introduced Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Applicant Benjamin Mason and Councilmembers introduced themselves. The Council interviewed Mr. Mason (responses in italics): Councilmember Paine: Have you ever participated on a public board in the past. I have not. Councilmember Paine: This board is totally industry related and I'm sure you will pick up quickly and offer a lot of valuable input. I'm thrilled to see you volunteering for this position. Councilmember Distelhorst: You have 20 years' experience in the industry. Is there something from that experience from in another city or state that you think Edmonds could implement? I have not done anything like this before. My ideas circle back to the idea of longer term events to provide tourists with more opportunities to visit the local businesses. Councilmember Buckshnis: Thank for applying. It has been a very strange year. How are things going at Best Western and what do you think would be a good thing to promote tourism? March, April and May were very, very slow. It started to pick up in June and we had a pretty decent July and August and even compared to last year, we've had a fairly decent September. It seems like, in my opinion, that things are picking up and have not slowed down as I would have expected by now. Councilmember L. Johnson: Your application states you are seeking the position to help determine how to spend tax revenue in promoting visitors coming to Edmonds. What top two things come to mind, either in the current situation to promote visitors, or if you want to be hopeful and think two years down road? Longer term events, the longer visitors stay in town, the more they spend at businesses including at lodging facilities. Things like multi -day music and food festivals would be worthwhile investments. Councilmember K. Johnson: Best Western has always been the premiere lodging facility in Edmonds, so it is important to have you representing that. I encourage you to speak to either Patrick Doherty or Frances Chapin to get you up to speed and background about the LTAC. The committee will be meeting later this month on Zoom which will be a good opportunity for you to experience that process. The City collects a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 7 5.2.a bed tax and the LTAC determines how to allocate it to promote Edmonds as tourist destination that supports entertainment and lodging. It is a good program offered by the state. Councilmember Olson: I'm excited about your 20 years' experience. With regard to your reference to a lack of events, I assume you are not from this area. Where did you work previously? Most of my experience is in Seattle. Councilmember Olson: When things open up, Edmonds has a lot of great events to bring people to the City and to the hotel. It has been fun learning about the events the City has. Council President Fraley-Monillas: Thank you for volunteering your time, it is not always easy to volunteer for one of the various committees the City has. I appreciate you offering to serve on the committee. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised action on Mr. Mason's appointment to the LTAC is on the Consent Agenda. 6. PRESENTATIONS 1. EMERGENCY NURSES WEEK PROCLAMATION Mayor Nelson advised Mike Hastings, manager of the Swedish Edmonds ER, was present to virtually receive the proclamation. As someone who had the unfortunate experience of taking his youngest child to the Swedish Edmonds ER, Mayor Nelson was very appreciative of the calm, cool collectiveness of the ER nurses. Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming October 11-17, 2020 Emergency Nurses Week in the City of Edmonds and calling upon all citizens to recognize and honor the great contributions of Emergency Nurses to our community and society. Mr. Hastings thanked Mayor Nelson for the proclamation, explaining in addition to managing the Swedish ER, he is also the president of the Emergency Nurses Association, an international association to recognize emergency nurses. Swedish Edmonds has a top notch team of nurses caring for the community. He thanked the City for their support; the proclamation helps show his staff the City's support. 2. HOUSING COMMISSION QUARTERLY REPORT Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Housing Commissioner Jim Ogonowski and Alternate Commissioner Tana Axtelle. Ms. Axtelle reviewed: Background o Council Resolution #1427 Established Citizens' Housing Commission o Housing Commission's Mission ■ "Develop diverse housing policy options for Council consideration designed to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds; options that are irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual orientation." o Commission Make-up ■ Edmonds residents with various backgrounds working together to fulfill the Housing Commission's mission ■ Housing Commission Members Karen Haase Herrick- Zone 1 Tanya Kataria-Zone 5 - Zone 1 Greg Long -Zone 5 Leif Warren- Zone 1 Alternate Zone 5 Alternate - Resigned Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 8 5.2.a Keith Soltner- Zone 2 Weijia Wu- Zone 2 Wendy Wyatt- Zone 2 Alternate George Keefe- Zone 3 John Reed (dec.)- Zone 3 Eva -Denise Miller- Zone 3 Alternate Nichole Franko- Zone 4 Michael McMurray- Zone 4 Kenneth Sund- Zone 4 Alternate • Housing Commission Support o City Council Liaisons ■ Councilmember Vivian Olson ■ Councilmember Luke Distelhorst o City Staff ■ Director Shane Hope ■ Associate Planner Brad Shipley ■ Planner Amber Groll ■ Admin. Assistant Debbie Rothfus Jess Blanch -Zone 6 Alena Nelson-Vietmeier-Zone 6 Rick Nishino-Zone 6 Alternate Will Chen -Zone 7 Judi Gladstone -Zone 7 Jean Salls-Zone 7 Alternate Bob Throndsen-Mayor's Choice Tana Axtelle-Mayor's Choice Alternate o Consultants ■ Senior Associate Gretchen Muller, Cascadia Consulting Group ■ Project Coordinator Kate Graham, Cascadia Consulting Group Policy Proposal Timeline o May 14 meeting — introduce draft policy ideas and clarifying questions o May 28 Meeting — Discuss round 1 policy ideas o June 11 meeting — decide which policy ideas will move forward for community input o July 9 meeting — discuss round 2 policy ideas o August 13 meeting — discuss round 2 policy ideas o September 10 meeting — Decide which round 2 policy proposals move forward for additional community engagement o September 17 meeting — review survey results o October 8 meeting — Start to assimilate community input and policy ideas o November 12 meeting — refine policy proposals o December 10 meeting — vote on final policy proposals Community Engagement Timeline — will be revised soon to reflect updates o May — begin drafting online open house (OOH) o July — August - Launch OOH and survey and community mailing o August — close out OOH survey for round #1 o August — September - update OOH for round #2 (if applicable), in person outreach as allowed, tabling o September — close OOH round #2 survey o October — event on draft proposals and online engagement o December — share final proposals Quarterly Accomplishments since July 2020 o Continued holding regularly scheduled monthly public meetings via Zoom on the second Thursday of the month. Meetings are recorded and available for public viewing online o Additionally, a special public meeting was held in September o Each of the five committees continue to hold their own meetings via Zoom to discuss and develop housing policy ideas o A second community survey was developed, distributed, conducted and results reviewed to gage public interest in Round 1 policy ideas Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 9 5.2.a o Round 2 policy ideas have been developed and preparation is underway for additional community input Policy Committees o City Resources Committee o Incentives & Requirements Committee o Housing Types Committee o Zoning Updates Committee o City Processes or Programs Committee Mr. Ogonowski reviewed Survey Results for Round 1 Policy Ideas o Background ■ Online open house and Survey #2 conducted from July 22 to August 16, 2020 ■ Outreach through multiple community outlets along with a random mailing of 3,825 promotional postcards to Edmonds households ■ Paper surveys sent to 600 random households (88 returned) ■ The online open house received 1,387 unique visitors ■ A total of 684 individuals responded to survey #2 (compared to 907 for survey # 1) - 96% were Edmonds' residents - 63% were homeowners ■ 294 written comments received o Summary of Findings ■ City Resources - Using existing state sales tax that's been shifted to Edmonds for housing: 65% support short term rental assistance to low income, COVID impacted households 65% support long term assistance for affordable housing only within Edmonds - 54% oppose advocating for county to adopt sales tax for housing ■ Accessory Dwelling Units - 65% support allowing accessory dwelling units with certain restrictions ■ Transition Zoning Areas - 57% support creating housing transition areas along transit routes adjacent to commercial zones, with certain conditions - 49% support & 41% oppose creating transition areas in lots zoned for 8000 or more sq. ft. when adjacent to multifamily or commercial zones, with certain conditions ■ Housing Types and Design Guidelines - 56% oppose guidelines or incentives for duplexes to be allowed in single family zones - 49% support & 38% oppose developing design guidelines for multifamily projects ■ City Processes and Planning - 78% support simplifying zoning code language - 53% support reducing number of land uses that must have conditional use permit ■ Written Feedback Themes - Opposition to growth and/or increased density - Concern for changes to the character of single family neighborhoods - Support for considering environmental impacts and preserving Edmonds tree canopy - Support for considering housing related infrastructure, namely parking, sidewalks, transit, and access to green space - Support for more affordable housing options - Support for the Commission and its work - Support for making Edmonds a welcome and diverse place Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 10 5.2.a Policy Ideas Discussed for Round 2 Community Engagement ("indicates ideas the commission plans to move forward for public input and more consideration) Note: All "Policy Ideas" Are Still Preliminary & Do Not Represent The Housing Commission's Final Recommendations o City Resources Committee ■ Homelessness prevention programs ■ Eviction reduction measures o Incentives & Requirements Committee ■ Multifamily tax exemption program ■ Inclusionary Zoning for housing affordability o Housing Types Committee ■ Equity in housing access, policy and programs o Zoning Updates Committee ■ Cluster housing ■ Multifamily design standards ■ Neighborhood villages o City Processes or Programs Committee ■ Zoning concessions vs. property tax exemptions ■ Comprehensive Plan transportation element update ■ Childcare voucher program Ms. Axtelle advised the surveys are not considered statistically valid; they represent the responses of those who took the survey, but are not a random sample of the entire community. She reviewed: • Next Steps o Second Online Open House and Round 2 Policy Ideas Survey ■ Date to be announced soon ■ To be announced widely & Posted for about 3 weeks ■ To include: - Videos - Graphics - Engaging activities o Community Engagement ■ Online open house ■ Welcome public inputs/feedback o Commission Meetings — Always open to the public ■ Zoom meetings until face to face meetings are allowed + video o Analysis of Data and Public Input/Feedback o Policy Developments o Policy Recommendations Finalized o Final Recommendation to City Council in December 2020 • Additional Resources: https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org_/ Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Commissioners Ogonowski and Axtelle and all the Housing Commissioners for all their hard work. He has been impressed over the last eight months with the evolution and learning that has occurred during the presentations and the discussions where he often learns something new as well. At the last meeting the commission was discussing inclusionary zoning, form based code and equitable housing access, cutting edge concepts in the housing industry not just regionally but around the world and in many different jurisdictions. The Housing Commission has a short timeline and the end goal for a final recommendation is in sight. He urged the commission to keep up good work. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 11 5.2.a Councilmember Buckshnis said she has been kept in loop by her two appointees to the Housing Commission. She hasn't taken the survey yet but plans to. With regard to written feedback themes she asked if some of those, such as environmental impact and preserving the tree canopy, were incorporated into the new online survey. She recalled a recent comment that the questions were directive and did not allow people to make comments on certain areas. Mr. Ogonowski answered the feedback themes from the first survey were not necessarily incorporated into the second survey. The current survey is directed at getting feedback on specific policies versus looking back at the previous ones. In the next 1-2 months, the Housing Commission will be assimilating all the feedback from all the surveys and all the policy ideas to develop a recommendation for Council based on a holistic approach. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding from his reply that the Housing Commission will take into consideration trees, low impact development, etc. Mr. Ogonowski assured that would be part of their consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis commented low impact development has an impact on the environment. Councilmember Olson commented for everyone that has been hard up for entertainment, she loved the virtual open house and found it one of the warmest virtual events she has attended since virtual events began happening. She thanked staff, commissioners, and consultants for an outstanding job on that event and encouraged Councilmembers and the public to watch it. She was hopeful there would be 100% participation and because it was educational, it provides a great deal of information to the public on policy options as well as seeking their feedback. She encouraged everyone to take the survey, pointing out citizens do not need be subject matter experts; everyone's input is valuable. She encouraged citizens to reach out to the Housing Commission and the City Council with questions, this topic is important to the entire community and the commission and council want to hear from citizens. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Mr. Ogonowski and Ms. Axtelle for their contributions to the Housing Commission. It seems like the commission just started, and now they are nearing their recommendations. She expressed appreciation for all the work the commission has done and urged them to keep up the good work. Mr. Ogonowski remarked it was certainly a team effort. Councilmember Paine thanked the Housing Commission for all their hard work. She has not yet participated in the virtual open house but plans to; she has taken the survey. She was pleased the past survey considered the environment. She asked about the commission's preliminary discussions about the Multi Family Tax Exemption (MFTE), which has been used in two areas of the City and is of interest to her as well as the community. Mr. Ogonowski answered it was certainly a source of discussion and the commission has spent quite a bit time on it. There are advantages to MFTE but it is not a panacea. The commission needs to discuss it further and he was hesitant to make a statement because there are certainly different views on the Housing Commission regarding the benefits of that approach. Ms. Axtelle said the new survey contains quite a bit of discussion about that topic. One of the committees has delved into it and are putting together an interesting packet of information regarding how to incorporate MFTE. Councilmember Paine thanked Ms. Axtell and Mr. Ogonowski for their volunteer service, commenting this has been hard work and is a big lift for the community. Ms. Hope agreed the commission has been working hard, members have different opinions and they have not yet reached a conclusion on a number of issues. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what type of data had been collected on the demographics of the survey respondents and whether that was telling in any way. Mr. Ogonowski answered recognizing the sample size of the survey respondents, the demographics were fairly representative of the community at large. Overall he was pleasantly surprised that it was pretty representative of age and ownership versus renters. Ms. Hope said there are some places where it is not representative of the citizens. The Council can be provided the demographic data and it is also available online. The respondents tend to be a little bit older, more female than male, and they tend to be a little higher income, but there is a lot of other representation throughout. She emphasized this is not a statistically valid survey; it is simply a representative sample of the people Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 12 5.2.a who self-select. Hardcopy surveys were provided to a random sampling of 600 households, recognizing that not everyone is comfortable taking online surveys and to increase the diversity. Councilmember L. Johnson asked the surveys had been successful in collecting data from a wide geographic range of the community. Ms. Hope answered data is not available at that level because the survey does not track individuals. Council President Fraley-Monillas said her interests strictly lie with low income and low, low income housing and asked what the commission has done to look at that. Ms. Axtelle answered that has been addressed in every committee, including MFTE, different housing options, housing types and less expensive housing types. That has been one of the main focuses of all the committees and she felt the commission had done a good job gathering information and discussing it. Council President Fraley- Monillas said that was her concern; the MFTE housing in Westgate starts at $1400 for a studio which was not affordable to someone earning minimum wage. She was most interested in seeing what the commission comes up with to address low income and low, low income which includes housing for seniors, the disabled, veterans, etc. Ms. Axtelle said that is addressed in the survey. Council President Fraley-Monillas thanked Mr. Ogonowski and Ms. Axtelle for all the work they have done. She has attended a few meetings, the members come from all areas of the city and she appreciated their differing opinions. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (https://zoom.us/s/4257752525) Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Miriam Gold, Edmonds, Perrinville resident, former vice president of the Edmonds-Woodway High School Students Saving Salmon and now a biology student at Western, was worried about zoning changes to the lot on 76th and the additional stress the change would put on the already stressed Perrinville Creek Watershed. Before moving forward with a zoning change to that lot, she recommended more serious consideration be given to the effect development of that lot would have on the watershed. Development keeps chipping away at the wooded areas in Perrinville which is a such a big part of what makes Perrinville what it is. Ms. Hope inquired if her comments were related to the public hearing. Mayor Nelson suggested she hold her comments until the public hearing. Kimberley Koenig, Edmonds, thanked the Council for the funds that were previously allocated to help small businesses and was grateful the Council was considering allocating additional funds. Prior to tonight's meeting, it was her understanding grant applications would potentially be opened again but the packet did not indicate that and she hoped it was still an option. Many businesses are still struggling, ones that misunderstood the grant criteria or missed the program announcement even with the City's concerted outreach effort. For her business, July seemed like things were on the road to recovery and then in August and September, the momentum decreased. She knew anecdotally that hers was not the only business having challenges due to COVID. When considering the reallocation of funds, she urged the Council to remember that small business owners still need support. Pam Stuller, Edmonds, Walnut Street Coffee, current president of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance, spoke about the CARES fund allocation. The agenda is very full and she was hopefully the Council would be able to discuss that item because time is of the essence since CARES funds expire at the end of the year. As a business that received an $8,000 grant from the City, she could attest to what a lifeline it was for a small business; she was able to add an opening window to improve ventilation as winter arrives, creatively monetize an area that was previously used for indoor seating that she can no longer provide, and purchase holiday merchandise that she otherwise would not have had the confidence or cash to purchase. She thanked the City, commenting the CARES fund allocation really make a huge difference. The packet is unclear whether new applications would be allowed and she highly encouraged the City to allow new applications as a lot of people didn't not hear about the grants, may have misunderstood the criteria or thought they were Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 13 5.2.a doing fine and now find themselves in new circumstances as winter approaches. Using the same applications and scoring criterial will ensure businesses are prioritized the way that was originally intended. Sheila Cloney, Edmonds, president of the Downtown Edmonds Merchant Association (DEMA) and owner of Anchor Chic, expressed support for Ms. Stuller and Ms. Koenig's comments. On behalf of DEMA, she urged the Council to increase support for small businesses via the $400,000 CARES funding which would allow 50 additional businesses to receive $8,000 grants. She was also appreciative of the other items proposed in the funding package and thanked the City Council for their ongoing support of small businesses and other organizations affected by the coronavirus. A brief discussion followed regarding allowing members of the public interested in the change to the Comprehensive Plan designation on 9th Avenue N to speak during this item as that was not on the agenda as a public hearing. Charles LaPorte, Edmonds, referred to the Comprehensive Plan map change, commenting it was a huge governance issue if City staff was willing to misrepresent the Planning Board which he thought happened at the last City Council meeting when staff presented the Comprehensive Plan map change on 9tn Avenue and Glen Street. The staff member neglected to represent what the Planning Board said even though it was their job to provide a recommendation to the City Council and when that failure was pointed out by the public, he minimized the Planning Board's discussion and implied they were confused about spot zoning. Thankfully, both meetings were recorded so the public can see for themselves that following a long, detailed and thoughtful discussion, the Planning Board voted 6-1 to deny this change to the Comprehensive Plan map because it would be tantamount to a favor for one couple. The Planning Board was very articulate in identifying the problems. Not only did the staff member do that in the oral presentation, even in the summary in the agenda item for tonight's meeting, the Planning Board is misrepresented and staff recommends proceeding with the Comprehensive Plan map change. It is a huge governance issue if staff s job is to bring this to the City Council and it is an insult to the Planning Board as well as the City Council who deserve to have a disinterested presentation. Agerico Manahan, Edmonds, said he tried to participate at the previous meeting by dialing in but was unsuccessful and he knew others in the community had a similar experience. As Councilmember Olson stated earlier, citizen input is very important; a lot of citizens tried to dial in to the meeting to participate but were unable to do so. He reviewed the notes from the last City Council meeting and asked how the City Council and Mayor are informed of the Planning Board's recommendation. The Planning Board voted 6-1 to deny and had a thoughtful discussion about letting those two homes have special zoning, some referred to it as spot zoning, that it seemed arbitrary, would cause equity issues, would be a favor for two homes and set a precedent for other homeowners in Edmonds area. He asked how the Planning Board's recommendations were delivered to the City Council and whether the Council reviewed the Planning Board's meeting minutes or did they rely on the City planner to honestly relay how the Planning Board voted. Carolyn Mangelsdorf, Edmonds, applicant, thanked the City Council for their consideration and thanked Mr. Shipley for the work he has done on their behalf. They have lived on the property for many years and raised their family there. Their goal is to simply divide a lot that is unusually large for the zoning it is in, sell their house and build a smaller house in their backyard to be able to age in place because they love their neighborhood and their neighbors. They feel it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the goals of providing more housing without impacting the character of the neighborhood. She pointed out this is the only process by which property owners can make changes; there is no other process to make it happen. The lines on the map may look like there is consistency but it does not actually exist. She suggested the project itself be considered in terms of the City's goals and this particular instance. She referred to the LaPortes who have spoken previously, commenting their mother's property has a view through their Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 14 5.2.a backyard which her family has carefully protected for over two decades and might be impacted if a house were constructed there. Robert Grimm, Edmonds, co -applicant, reiterated what his wife stated and said they did not start this project to change the Comprehensive Plan map or zoning for 21 properties in Edmonds nor were they looking for any preferential treatment. They only want to subdivide their lot which is close to 20,000 square feet. A lot of the people who have weighed in on the proposal have 6,000 square foot lots; even dividing their lot in half, the lots were be would be considerable larger than many in the surrounding lots. He recalled his wife pointing out inconsistency in lot sizes on the zoning map, 27 lots to the north are significant smaller than the R-12 zoning. In preparation for the Comprehensive Plan amendment that they began over a year ago, he read the Comprehensive Plan quite thoroughly; one thing that stood out was by the year 2035 Edmonds is projecting population in excess of 45,000 which will be an issue in the near future. He referred to public comment regarding the change to the Comprehensive Plan designation in Perrinville taking about preserving greens space, pointing out dividing an existing lot prevents the development of unspoiled area or forests to provide more living space and is beneficial to the City and its residents. Regardless of the outcome of their application, this will be in the forefront in future Edmonds' planning and decision making. Laurena LaPorte, Edmonds, said she was speaking on behalf of a neighbor who did not have access to Zoom. After the last meeting, she called her neighbors and neither were able to speak at the meeting due to technical difficulties. She read from a neighbor's letter that was also provided to the Council: Although the proposal doesn't not call for cutting down trees, we know by watching what is going on in Edmonds that a lot vegetation will be clear cut which isn't not good aesthetically or environmentally. Edmonds is on record for valuing trees and being good stewards of the environment. A good, hard rain such as has occurred in past years has already sent water down Daley Street and then down driveways and into yards and sometimes homes and continues to lower levels to the north. Taking out trees and turf on the slopes that exist on the properties of 530 and 522 9th Avenue North and replacing them with concrete and roofs will surely increase the volume and speed of runoff, potentially doing significant damage to the properties to the north. Additionally, trees and bushes add beauty and value to the area. Edmonds prides itself on its annual garden tour; people come from all over to enjoy the beauty Edmonds offers. A beautiful Magnolia tree at 522 9ch Avenue North will be removed if the property is subdivided and developed. If Edmonds allows itself to be cut and pasted away from the character it has to become just another mass of houses on top of one another, it loses something precious. For these reasons, I am opposed to subdividing the properties at 530 and 522 9t` Avenue North. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2020 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF BOARD/COMMISSION CANDIDATE Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 15 9. STUDY ITEM 1. CARBON RECOVERY PROJECT BOND PRESENTATION Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Scott Bauer, NW Municipal Advisors, the City's bond advisor, and Marc Greenough, the City's bond counsel. Mr. Williams reviewed: What does this Bond Ordinance do o It authorizes the Finance Director t(or designee) to complete a bond sale under very specific conditions o A true interest rate maximum of 4.5% o Within a time frame of one year o With a maximum amount borrowed of $14,000,000 o With an amortization period up to 25 years Operating Cost Comparison o Savings of $341,247 Utilities Existing Incinerator (Baseline) Project A Pyrolysis Centris s Project B Gasification Ecoremed Unit Utilities $163,566 $193,479 126,666 Total $/yr Odor Control Chemicals $47,768 $74,826 $3,009 Total $/yr Polymer $160,000 $160,000 $56,000 Total $/yr Screenings $0 $24,000 $0 Total $/yr Labor 4321,725 $333,271 $333,271 Total $/yr Annual Maintenance $89,951 $52,000 $35,000 Total $/yr Regulatory $172,183 $120,000 $60,000 Total $/yr Hauling $36,000 $0 $36,000 Total $/yr Sub Total All Costs $/ $991,193 $957,575 $649,946 Total $/yr Benefits of Project B — Pyrolysis/Gasification o Most flexible, efficient, and affordable approach to implement and the lowest operational costs o Produces and environmentally -friendly end product (biochar) while generating its own thermal conversion from the biosolids. This will move the City closer to achieving the goals established in Resolution 1389 o No acidic side steam or hazardous waste is produced o Biochar will likely be land applied in eastern Washington. We will also look for sites in western Washington. Assumptions and qualifications on this financing o Includes all sales taxes ■ Much of equipment package cost likely will be tax free due to the product produced from the biosolids (those savings are not included in the assumptions) o Bond insurance is not needed o Interest rates could increase or decrease prior to sale of bonds o Edmonds partners share ■ MLT 23.174% Working on their own bonding process now ■ Ronald 9.488% Will cash fund ■ OVWSD 16.551 Will cash fund o Working to establish these as green bonds and as climate bons ■ If successful Edmonds would be the first City in the state to issue bonds with that designation Mr. Bauer reviewed: ■ Current Bond Market Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 16 5.2.a o Interest rates spiked in March but have fallen to historically low rates o The charts are an index of well -rated, 20-year, general obligation tax-exempt bonds o Charts of Bond Buyer 20-bond GO Index 1990 to present and Bond Buyer 20-Bond GO Index October 2017 to present: Graph of Outstanding senior lien revenue debt o Outstanding debt for the City: Water and Sewer Bonds Par Outstanding Callable Par Final Mat. Coupon Range Call Date WS Im rov and Ref Rev 2011 $9,340,000 $8,045,000 12/1/2031 3%-4% 12/1/2021 WSRev 2013 $13,935,000 $13,285,000 12/1/2038 4%-5% 6/l/2023 WSRev 2015 $16,459,000 $13,570,000 12/1/2040 2%-4% 6/l/2025 Total Water and Sewer Bond Debt 1 $39,770,000 1 $34,900,000 Mr. Williams reviewed: • Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2020 o Staff recommended structure ■ 2020 Bonds: 25 year, wrap debt service — Total debt service: $21,860,814 — All -in interest cost: 2.64% — Debt service first 18 years: $375,432/year — Debt service last 5 years: $2,552,250/year Mr. Bauer reviewed bond proceeds and uses for the recommended structure: Sources Par Amount $14,005,000 Original Issue Discount 135,609 Total Sources $13,869,392 Uses Project Fund $13,266,000 Reserve Account 368,589 Issuance Cost 234,803 Total Uses $13,869,392 Mr. Williams reviewed: Other Structuring Options 0 25 year amortization ■ 2020 Bonds: 25 year, level debt service — Total debt service: $18,566,12 — All -in interest cost: 2.28% — Debt service first 15 years: $741,936/year — Debt service last 5 years: $743,125 0 20 year amortization ■ 2020 Bonds: 20 year, level debt service — Total debt service: $17,412,610 — All -in interest cost: 2.05% — Debt service first 18 years: $871,123/year — Debt service last 2 years: $870,188/year 0 20 year amortization ■ 2020 bonds, 20 year, wrap debt service Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 17 5.2.a Total debt service: $18,179,777 - All -in interest cost: 2.22% - Debt service first 19 years: $729,264/year - Debt service final year: $2,549,138 Comparison of Debt Options between July and October 2020 20-YR Levelized 20-YR Wrap 25-YR Levelized 25 YR Wrap July August July August July August July August Interest Rate 2.39% 2.05% 2.62% 2.22% 2.75% 2.28% 3.24% 2.64% Initial Avg. Annual Debt $898,203 $871,123 $766,917 $729,364 $784,500 $741,936 $509,150 $375,432 Service Total Debt Service $17,964,050 $17,412,610 $18,984,500 $18,179,777 $19,612,350 $18,566,142 $23,255,500 $21,860,814 Payments Total Interest $6,144,050 $7,129,500 $7,852,350 $11,640,000 Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format, with each Councilmember asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Buckshnis requested the PowerPoint be included in future presentations so she could review the numbers more closely. She referred to the true interest cost for the City of 4.5% and asked if that was the bond coupon rate. Mr. Bauer answered that is both the coupon and the yield, basically the all - in borrowing cost, similar to the APR on a house. In this case, there could be discount or premium bonds that are issued which could change the change the coupon rate. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what staff was seeking, noting it appeared there had to be two readings of the ordinance before approval. She asked if this was first reading and second reading was scheduled for October 13th. Mr. Williams answered that would be fine, two reading do not have to be done but that has been the preference. Even with two readings, this could be done in time to stay out of the volatile period ahead of the election. The Council could make a decision tonight or it could be on the Consent Agenda or an action item on next week's agenda. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the bond rate was expected to increase between now and October 13t". Mr. Bauer answered there is a concern with volatility as the presidential election approaches. Councilmember K. Johnson asked why the group recommended a 25-year wrap when the interest would be almost twice that of a 20-year wrap. Mr. Williams answered it is 2.64% versus 2.21%. Councilmember K. Johnson said the total interest for a 20-year wrap is approximately $6 million and the total interest for the 25-wrap is $11,640,000, which is almost double. Mr. Williams answered the big payments and the extra interest paid in up to 25 years are deflated by the inflation rate which is one of the big tradeoffs. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not see any advantage to paying twice as much for a five year longer amortization. Mr. Williams said this may not be the only borrowing the City does in the next 25 years. He did not expect more borrowing would be necessary for pipe replacement in the sewer fund as there is adequate cash flow from increasing rates to generate ongoing revenue for pipe replacement. Councilmember K. Johnson reiterated her question, why the group was recommending the 25-year versus the 20-year wrap when the interest payment would be double and said she was not asking about sewer or water. Mr. Williams answered this is a sewer bond, there is underlying debt, some of which will be paid off by the time the large payments are due so the intent is to even out the cost to the sewer utility over time. It may be necessary to borrow again; the City is facing an issue with nitrogen in the next 5-10 years and if that requires a large capital project, he would like to keep the total interest low enough to absorb it without higher rate increases. That supports a longer amortization period and the wrap. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 18 5.2.a Mr. Bauer agreed clearly there were tradeoffs between short versus long debt. Shorter debt raises the debt service payments, but then overall total debt service is certainly lower than the 25-year wrap. As Mr. Williams said, as they began to look at potential future borrowings, they figured given known interest rates which are historically low, those could be locked in for a longer term and then conceivable return in a couple years if a borrowing was needed and layer that debt in the shorter term. Interest rates are unknown for that time, but as far as the yield curve goes, the shorter debt would be at a lower interest rate. He acknowledged it is a balance. Councilmember Paine referred to level debt service versus wrap debt service and said the wrap appears to absorb some of the bonding capacity. It was her understanding from the Finance Director that the City has more than adequate bond capacity. She asked if the reason wrap debt service was preferred versus level debt service was to reserve excess capacity that might be needed in the future. Mr. Bauer answered if debt issuance was necessary for a $10 million project in 5 years, the debt could be structured shorter and higher and then if there were another bond issue in 5-10 years, it was likely the debt would have to spill over the edge in a wrap scenario unless rates support debt service payments that could be higher if it were kept at a level debt service structure. If the plan was to continue spilling debt over the edge, there was the question whether the short term capacity was not being used at the expense of putting it out long. In the City's past debt issuances, there has been a little of both; the initial issuance was level debt service, the next one wrapped it around the 2011 bonds and the following issue was a level debt service. Councilmember Olson commented as this was the first of two, she did not delve into this quite as much to notice that information included in a previous presentation had not been included such as the impact to the rate payer. When that information was provided, it illustrated a clear winner, but it was not evident in today's presentation. She was certain her choice was not the 25-year wrap when that additional information was provided. She asked to have that information provided next week. Mr. Williams agreed that could be done, but it was difficult to include it in a simple way when comparing two wrap and two level debt service options. It would be easy to compare the rate impact of a level debt service because the payment is constant throughout the amortization period which is why it was referred to as the initial rate impact on the graphs. The initial rate impact and for 18 years, the 25-year wrap has the least impact on rates for the next 18 years. Mr. Williams recalled a 20-year level debt service was recommended initially which is the lowest interest rate and results in the least amount spent on interest over the entire bond issue. A 20-year level debt service is the cheapest if that is the only goal, but there are other considerations which is why that changed. His impression of the Council's direction during the previous presentations was a preference for the longer amortization period. A 20-year level debt service would double the existing payments for the next 18 years but there would not be the large payments at the end. No one can guess what inflation will be, but whatever it is, it will eat away at the true value of the payments made in 2040-2045. The payments are fixed but the value of the money goes down. Councilmember Distelhorst said the 20-year level had an initial rate impact of 6.43% and the 25-year wrap had an initial rate impact of 3.1%, approximately half. Mr. Williams answered those were after the savings expected in O&M, electricity, and chemicals were subtracted. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the wrap debt service. The City's AAA rating should result in a good rate differential and she asked if that had been taken into consideration. In looking at AAA rated 30-year muni bonds, they are 1.4% and AA are 1.6%. Her husband works in this field and said that green bonds are not selling. She wanted to ensure the City was focusing on getting the best deal and not doing something new that was not out in the market. She asked if the numbers were based on the City's AAA rating. Mr. Bauer answered they do not assume a AAA rating; that is the City's general obligation bond rating by Standard and Poors; a revenue bond will be rated differently. They went through the process, a rating call, with S&P last week and expect to receive the rate in the next couple days. He assumed the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 19 5.2.a City will be in the AA category; the City's current bonds are rated AA by Moody. Councilmember Buckshnis said the interest rate seemed a little high, but that explained it. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Mr. Williams saying that sales tax was included in the cost, but that he expected some of it to be refunded. She asked the amount of sales tax included in the estimates. Mr. Williams said it is unknown what parts of the project will be determined to be eligible for sales tax exemption. He was fairly confident that some of the large pieces that are being purchased will be, not the labor or miscellaneous materials. If the entire $11 million equipment package was eligible, there could be $1 million in savings. Councilmember K. Johnson asked why bond for that if a $1 million in savings was anticipated. Mr. Williams answered that decision would not be made until the end of project. If funds were left over, it could go to the ending fund balance of the utility and used for pipe replacement, etc. There needs to be enough from the proceeds of the bond sale in case there is an adverse decision on the sales tax for the equipment. Councilmember Paine asked if there was a surcharge for climate bonds and green bonds. Mr. Williams answered there is a charge for the services of the company that reviews the project and makes a decision. There is no impact on interest rates, the bond does not cost more or generate any savings for the City. It is a way to have the project reviewed and have it labeled and be able document that this is a much better process than the existing process or other options that were considered. Mr. Bauer said there is a $21,000 fee to the third party verifier. Councilmember L. Johnson said she looked forward to studying the information presented tonight and will submit any questions later. Councilmember Buckshnis said people often do not understand the time value of money; inflation will spike eventually but when is unknown. She suggested illustrating why the 25-year wrap was more advantageous due to the time value of money. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled discussion about bonding for the full project or only the City's share and asked what decision was made. W. Williams answered the partners have decided not to have Edmonds bond for their portion of the project; Mountlake Terrace is working on their own bond issue and Ronald and OVWSD intend to cash fund their contributions to the project. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized this is only Edmonds' portion. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 2. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE PPT Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien advised a public hearing is scheduled in two weeks. Invite to send him questions. Building Official Leif Bjorback is also present to answer questions. Mr. Lien reviewed: National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) & Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) o The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is a voluntary Federal program that enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. o FIRM establishes flood hazard area o New FIRM maps became effective June 19, 2020 o City was required to update its flood regulations by June 19thto remain in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Proposed Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance o Primarily a Building Code Amendment Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 20 5.2.a ■ Establishes construction standards for development within floodplains ■ Standards intended to prevent damage to structures should a flood occur o Does Not Change Allowable Land Uses, Zoning, Critical Areas or Other Development Regulations ■ Any development within floodplains must still comply with existing zoning and development regulations ■ No policy changes related to floodplain development Chapter 19.07 ECDC o Questions from Council about Flood Damage Prevention Model Ordinance o Staff reviewed most recent model ordinance o Chapter 19.07 ECDC reflects changes from interim ordinance ■ 19.07.020 Additional Definitions ■ 19.07.025 Administration ■ 19.07.030/.040 Reconstruction ■ 19.07.065 Changes to Special Flood Hazard Areas ■ 19.07.095 General Requirements for Other Development ■ 19.07.110 Variance Next steps o Interim ordinance expires after six months (12/2/20 o Council review ■ Public hearing October 20, 2020 Mr. Lien said the packet includes the Planning Board minutes as well as two comments that were received. Notice was provided to all property owners in the new floodplain area in the FIRM prior to the Planning Board public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the majority of this was a mandate. Mr. Lien answered if the City wants to remain in the NFIP, which allows properties within the floodplain to buy insurance, yes it is mandated in that way. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was very detailed and very complex. Councilmember Olson said she had had a discussion with Mr. Lien on a couple things. The things that made the least sense to her were the language that was provided verbatim from the federal program. Councilmember K. Johnson asked Mr. Lien to explain how the City and the Planning Board interpreted the model floodplain ordinance and what parts were incorporated and what parts were left out. Mr. Lien answered the model floodplain ordinance applies to all types of flood hazard areas such as floodplains, floodways and shallow flood areas. Since Edmonds does not have floodways or shallow flood areas, they were not included. Councilmember K. Johnson said she noticed building were required to be three feet above the flood hazard area. She asked what the requirement were for development and redevelopment in the waterfront area other than that. Mr. Bjorback said Councilmember K. Johnson might be referencing the two -foot elevation difference needed for the lowest floor level above the base flood elevation (BFE). In the waterfront area, the Waterfront Center for example, the minimum was two feet, but they elected to go three feet to provide additional protection against future flooding. The ordinance under consideration is a minimum of two feet for raised construction. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if that was the only thing considered. She was trying to understand how flood areas in the waterfront would be protected, how to deal with redevelopment, and how to protect the City from paying for very expensive armoring and flood control measures in the future, all aspects of the model flood ordinance. Mr. Lien answered the ordinance deals with construction within the floodplain. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 21 5.2.a There are other City codes that address floodplain management such as frequently flooded areas in the critical area code, the building code, as well as sections in the Shoreline Master Program that address not allowing development that will require future protection. This is just one piece of it; it is not a policy call, it is building code for structures in the floodplain. Councilmember K. Johnson appreciated the answer but said she has a larger problem with construction and reconstruction in a known floodplain which seemed like very poor planning. Mr. Lien answered there is a section in the model ordinance that deals with development and redevelopment related to substantial development which is new construction or an addition to an existing structure that is more than 50% of its value, that development has to comply with this ordinance. This ordinance doesn't prevent development but prevents damage to structures should a flood occur. 10. ACTION ITEMS 1. EDMONDS CARES FUND ORDINANCE SECOND AMENDMENT Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty thanked Councilmembers who submitted questions in advance. He explained the City Council approved Ordinance 4189 accepting Edmonds' allocation of federal CARES Act funds and establishing the Edmonds Cares Fund with three programs: 1. Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants: $300,000 (supplemented by $150,000 from other City funds) for a total of $450,000 2. Small Business Support Grants: $700,000 3. City Expenditures: $265,100 TOTAL: $1,265,100 All three programs are under way, expenses are being incurred, and invoices are in process to the State Department of Commerce for reimbursement of corresponding CARES Act funds. Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants A report was provided to Council today. With substantially upgraded public outreach, and the recently Council -approved ability to offer more than one grant to a qualifying household (Ordinance 4195), 234 new applications were received in September, up from 164 in June, 62 in July, and 145 in August. These increased applications volumes are anticipated to continue over the next two months. Small Business Support Grants Of 145 valid applications received, grants have been offered to 90 businesses for a total of $697,500. City Expenditures Current estimates for City expenditures to date and through November 30th, related to COVID-19 response, are approximately $440,000. Up to $211,650 of that total may be FEMA-eligible, leaving approximately $228,350 to be covered by CARES Act funds. As such, it is estimated that the $265,100 initially allocated to City Expenditures should be sufficient to cover remaining non-FEMA-eligible, yet CARES Act -eligible City expenses. In early September the City was informed that a second round of CARES Act funds will be allocated to Edmonds from the State Department of Commerce, in the amount of $632,550. In addition, the expenditure/invoice deadline was moved back to 11/30/20 (from the initial 10/31/20 deadline). In order to plan for utilization of the additional $632,550 CARES Act funds, the Administration proposes the following Edmonds Cares Act Fund program changes: 1. Housing and Supplementary Relief Grants. Increase this fund by $130,000. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 17 Packet Pg. 22 5.2.a 2. Small Business Support Grants. Increase this fund by $430,000. 3. Edmonds Food Bank. Provide an additional $35,000 to the Food Bank. 4. LEAP scholarships. Provide scholarships to qualifying, lower -income and disadvantaged households for participation in the LEAPS program, funded by up to $37,550 (revised from $97,550 due to potentially lower participant rate). The $60,000 reduction was split between the Housing and Supplemental Relief Grants and Small Business Support Grants. In addition, the Administration proposes that the City Council allow the Administration 10% flexibility in the funding of each of the Edmonds Cares Act programs during the remainder of the life of the fund and its programs. This will allow for nimbler response to changing conditions and demands. The draft ordinance amends Ordinance 4189 (as recently amended by via Ordinance 4195) to reflect all of the above -cited program changes. • Section 1 is amended to reflect the additional funds allocated to Edmonds from the CARES Act, new total $1,897,650 • Section 3 is amended to allow 10% flexibility in the funding of each of the Edmonds Cares Fund programs • Section 4(B) is amended to add $130,000 to the Housing and Supplemental Relief Program, for a total of $430,000. • Section 4(C) is amended to add $430,000 to the Business Support Grant Program, for a total of $1,130,000. And at subsection (c) the eligibility criterion regarding the date a business must have been in business at least on year's duration is changed from April 1st to October 1st. • Section 4(D) is added to allocate $35,000 to the Edmonds Food Bank, $20,000 for holiday season food support; $7,500 to help fund an automated ordering system for delivery service to Seniors, ADA clients, Veterans and other COVID-impacted community members; and $7,500 to add shelving to the delivery van to expedite packing and disbursement of online orders • Section 4(E) is added to allocate $37,550 to the LEAP program with funding allocated to provide "reduced or free tuition to scholarship funding for full or partial registration fees to Edmonds households of low-income or hardship situations to help them enroll their school -aged children in LEAP" Mr. Doherty advised it was decided to open the Small Business Support Grants to new applications in addition to the applications already received that have not been awarded. He recalled a question about the definition of low income and said a sentence could be added to Account E regarding LEAP that states, "Low-income households shall be defined as eligible for the Edmonds School District free or reduced meal program." Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format, with each Councilmember asking one question during their turn. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Account E on packet page 267 that states $97,550 is for designated LEAP but in tonight's presentation, Mr. Doherty indicated it was only $37,550, a $60,000 difference. She asked which was the correct amount. Mr. Doherty said in discussions today and in estimating the sign-ups for LEAP, it was felt $97,500 would overshoot the need. A change was offered tonight to allocate $37,550 for LEAP and reallocate the $60,000 as $30,000 to business grants and $30,000 to household grants. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Ms. Feser's proposal was that LEAP would be a self -funding program where the total tuition would cover low-income households. If $37,550 was being added to the program, she asked if that reduced the overall cost for non -low-income households. Parks & Recreation and Cultural Services Director Angie Feser said daycare is eligible under CARES funding so some of the funds are being used to build up the scholarship fund and offer full scholarship for any household that meets the Edmonds Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 18 Packet Pg. 23 5.2.a School District (ESD) free or reduce meal program as well as reduce the registration fee from $300 to $150. The additional funds benefited the program and reduced the reliance on paid registrations. Councilmember K. Johnson commented that was excellent, recalling the initial expectation was 25 subsidized students and asked if that number had increased as a result of the CARES funding. Ms. Fester answered the second funding allows up to 35 full scholarships per week. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented this will assist people who need the support. She assumed the administration would continue reaching out to those who have not received grants including businesses, families and whoever else who needs assistance. She noted a number of businesses have closed on Highway 99 and a number of people for whom English is not their first language have received support. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the amendment in Section 3 to allow 10% flexibility for administration, noting it would exceed the Mayor's $100,000 in the purchasing policy. She will make an amendment to change "should not exceed 10%" to add "or $100,000." Mr. Doherty said there is a general purchasing policy that give the Mayor authority to contract up to $100,000. In the current proposal, the highest value account is $1,130,000; if a full 10% were moved into another account it would be $113,000 which would be over the amount allowed by the policy. In creating the ordinance, the Council has the ability to state for this express purpose, the Mayor has the authority to exceed that amount. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the $100,000 that has been referenced applies to mayoral authority to contract for goods and services acquired by the City and is not applicable to this situation except for possibly the A Account related to City expenditures. As far as reallocating money from one account, that is not contracting and is more akin to budgeting. Councilmember Olson said she liked the proposed definition of low income, recalling she recommended including a definition of low income so that the ordinance was as clear as possible. She also had concern about the word "hardship" because it is open to interpretation and too loose. She suggested the City did not want such a loose word in the ordinance and suggested further defining what is a hardship and who makes that decision. She was concerned it could be subject to abuse and that there could be concerns with regard to how the money was spent. She proposed removing the word "hardship" and invited Councilmembers to provide input regarding how to make it more enforceable or defined. Councilmember L. Johnson appreciated that the Small Business Support Grants were opened to new applicants, recalling the Council heard from three business owners during Public Comments about that topic. With regard to the Housing and Supplemental Relief Grants, she recalling there was concern that not all the funds could be granted, but the increased outreach had resulted in an increased number of applicants. With regard to the LEAP scholarship, she asked if the 10% flexibility could be used to add funds to the LEAP scholarships if the need increased. Mr. Doherty answered yes. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson and Mr. Doherty for their work on this. Councilmember Paine referred to the proposed supplemental language regarding the definition of low that was related to eligibility for ESD free and reduced lunch program and wanted to ensure that would apply to families who did not attend ESD but qualified for free or reduced according to the ESD guidelines or Title 1 qualifications. Mr. Doherty answered that was the intent, that they qualify conceptually based on the ESD criteria versus have qualified. Councilmember Paine wanted to ensure people understood they do not have to attend ESD schools to qualify. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Section D on packet page 267 related to providing $35,000 to the Edmonds Food Bank, reiterating her full support for providing $35,000 to the food bank for food but did not want $15,000 to go toward capital or administrative support as that was not meeting the needs of people. It may meet the needs of the food bank but it was not food. She requested Mr. Doherty bring back that Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 19 Packet Pg. 24 5.2.a change. Mr. Doherty said there needed to be direction from the full Council. The food bank believes their funding requests for an automated ordering system for delivery service will help them get the food out more quickly to avoid perishables going bad and responding to the increasing demand. While those requests are not food, they help get food to those in need more assuredly fresh, quickly and efficiently. With regard to the shelving for the van, it will allow them to put more food in the van and distribute more food to the community via fewer trips. Councilmember K. Johnson understood that was the food bank's desire, but it was not food and did not meet the needs as defined in the CARES Act. Council President Fraley-Monillas wanted to ensure the $35,000 was used for food for Edmonds citizens and not food for non -Edmonds citizens. She was interested in feeding the hungry that live within the City. Mr. Doherty said the contract with each agencies including food bank specifies the recipients are only Edmonds residents. When agencies are not sure about addresses, City staff has helped them determine whether applicants are in the Edmonds city limits. Councilmember Olson expressed concern with businesses surviving this economic environment and with the jobs those businesses provide for citizens. She was concerned about taking money from the Small Business Support Grants and wanted businesses to receive the funds to the extent the demand exists. She requested the 10% flexibility be in the spirit of using the funds, but when there was demand in the originally allocation and the amounts agreed to by the Council, that the funds be used in that manner. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND AMENDING ORDINANCES 4189 AND 4195, RELATED TO THE EDMONDS CARES FUND. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND SECTION 3 REGARDING 10%, "UNDER THE MAYORS DIRECTION, IF THE ADMINISTRATION FORECASTS AN INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF RESPONSIVE APPLICATIONS OR ELIGIBLE EXPENSES IN ANY ACCOUNT DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4, TO ALLOWIT TO EXPEND THE FULL AMOUNTAUTHORIZED, HEREIN, THE ADMINISTRATION SHALL HAVE THE FULL AUTHORITY TO REALLOCATE FUNDS AMONG THE ACCOUNTS, PROVIDED THAT IF THE AUTHORITY TO REALLOCATE FUNDS FROM ONE ACCOUNT (THE SOURCE ACCOUNT) TO ANOTHER ACCOUNT (THE RECEIVING ACCOUNT) SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN PERCENT OF THE SOURCE ACCOUNT ALLOCATION SET FORTH IN SECTION 4 BELOW." COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND TO 10:30 P.M. Councilmember K. Johnson commented the Council had more work to do than could be accomplished in the next 30 minutes. She did not want to meet for five hours. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if this limits the 10% to only forecasts of insufficient applicants or could the administration also make the decision if there were more applicants for LEAP. Councilmember Distelhorst answered his intent and understanding was that would still be allowed as the intent was to expend the full amount authorized. It does not say from which account it needs to be expended and could be from any of the accounts. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the amendment said up to $100,000. Councilmember Distelhorst answered it maintained shall not exceed 10%. Councilmember L. Johnson said if the motion referenced insufficient applicants but also retained shall not exceed 10%, there was the potential for leaving money on the table. She asked if removing the reference to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 20 Packet Pg. 25 5.2.a 10% would better fit the goal. Mr. Doherty said the administration proposed what was thought to be a reasonable, modest amount to allow flexibility without going back to Council in the short time remaining. If the Council wishes, the flexibility percentage could be increased; there was nothing magical about 10%. Councilmember L. Johnson said her concern was not with the original 10%, but with the amendment saying if insufficient applicants are forecast, having the flexibility to make transfers sooner rather than later. Mr. Doherty responded it was very unlikely there would be an insufficient number of applicants for the business grants. Even before accepting new applications, there were already enough applications to give all the money away. Based on the current rate, he expected to give away $400,000+ of the total $580,000 with the existing application pool and anticipated reaching the total funds allocated. However, it was possible in early November there may not be enough applicants for the housing grants, and funds could be moved to the housing grants or elsewhere such as the food bank. The total in the housing grants is $580,000 so he did not anticipate reaching the 10% in either that or the business grant program. He said the 10% was more of a failsafe, he did not anticipate needing it. Councilmember L. Johnson asked it was needed, would there be time to come to Council to remedy it. Mr. Doherty said he did not know as it was unknown when the final reckoning would occur. He referenced the section Councilmember Paine originally added to the ordinance about PPE. Councilmember Paine clarified her addition to the ordinance was to use any unexpended funds to purchase PPE for distribution as needed. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised there are three more Tuesdays between now and the end of October and the funds need to be used by the end by November. If there is an expectation that funds will not be expended, she was confident Mr. Doherty would bring them to Council. Councilmember K. Johnson advised the CARES Act period ends November 30. Mr. Doherty agreed. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that leaves seven more weeks. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND D ON PAGE 267 OF THE PACKET, ALLOCATE $35,000 TO THE FOOD BANK, AND DELETE THE $7,500 TO HELP FUND AN AUTOMATED ORDERING SYSTEM FOR DELIVERY SERVICE TO SENIORS, ADA CLIENTS, VETERANS AND OTHER COVID-IMPACTED COMMUNITY MEMBERS; AND $7,500 TO ADD SHELVING TO THE DELIVERY VAN TO EXPEDITE PACKING AND DISBURSEMENT OF ONLINE ORDERS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Doherty asked if the Council wanted to propose a definition of low income. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO DELETE "LOW INCOME" PRIOR TO "EDMONDS" AND ADD THE SENTENCE, "LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS SHALL BE DEFINED AS ELIGIBLE FOR THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FREE OR REDUCED MEAL PROGRAM." Councilmember Olson asked if there was any interest in defining hardship or if that word should be removed in its entirety via an amendment to this amendment. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she had no problem using the ESD qualifications for low income. She suggested adding in addition to low income, "below low income." Councilmember Olson accepted that as part of her amendment. Ms. Feser said the reason "hardship" was included was to handle potential one-off situations such as a family with one person working who knows they will lose their job at the end of the month but as of the date they register, they do not qualify for the ESD free or reduced meal program. She wanted to have the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 21 Packet Pg. 26 5.2.a leniency to allow that household to put a child or children into the program. She noted things are changing so rapidly with COVID and the phases and she anticipated that would continue through the end of the year. The intent of the hardship language was to provide enough flexibility for the director to approve or consider one-off situations. Councilmember K. Johnson said that made sense and the hardship language would allow discretion to deal with a family with students that needed to be considered. Councilmember Olson said to expect scrutiny on how hardship is used and ensure decisions will stand up to that scrutiny. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Doherty wanted to ensure it was clear the Council was approving the ordinance as presented tonight, not the ordinance in the packet and as amended tonight. Mr. Taraday suggested toward that end, Account E be read in its entirety with that amendment. Mr. Doherty read, "Account "E" shall be the "Edmonds Learning and Activities Program (LEAP) Scholarship Support Program" account into which $37,550 of the CARES Act funding shall be allocated to provide scholarship funding for full or partial registration fees to Edmonds households of low income, below low income, or hardship situations to help them enroll their school age children in LEAP. Low income household shall be defined as eligible for the Edmonds School District free or reduced meal program." MAIN MOTION ON THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED TONIGHT AND AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE FOR TWO UNDEVELOPED PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM DFNCITY?' Associate Planner Brad Shipley explained this is a continuation of the public hearing held on September 22, 2020 for two properties located in the Perrinville area. The proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi Family —Medium Density." This a Type "V" legislative decision. Based on the findings in the Staff Report, staff recommended approval. The Planning Board voted 6-1 to recommend City Council approve the proposal. The City Council held a public hearing on September 22, 2020 and voted to continue the public hearing until October 6, 2020. Mr. Shipley reviewed: • Four review criteria for evaluating Comprehensive Plan amendments: 1. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? 2. Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development? • What is the difference between "lot coverage" and "impervious surface calculations?" o "Lot coverage" is defined as "the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site..." ■ Structures are defined as something permanently affixed to the ground over 3 feet in height o Maximum lot coverage allowed by zoning designation Zoning Designation I Maximum Lot Coverage All single family zones RS 35% Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 22 Packet Pg. 27 5.2.a Multi -family zones RM 45% Business Neiglborhood (BN) I None o "Impervious surface" is defined as "a non -vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development." Compliance with Comprehensive Plan o Land Use Element Residential goals and polices encourage: ■ RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets ■ Height of multi -family buildings that abut single family zones shall be similar to the height permitted in single family zones. - Maximum height allowed • RM zone - 30 feet • RS zone - 25 feet ■ Good design practices that preserve natural surroundings - Preliminary site plan shows: 40% impervious surface coverage and 60% landscaped or undisturbed areas and leaving the slope untouched o Commercial goals and polices encourage: ■ Parcels of land planned or zoned for commercial use but are identified as inappropriate for commercial use should be rezoned. - Land was rezoned for commercial use in 1962 and has never developed - Additionally, the site sits approx. 8' above street level, making it difficult for visibility necessary for commercial use. o Housing goals and policies ■ Provide for a variety of housing types that respect the established character and land use policies that provide for a mixture of housing types and densities which addresses the missing middle housing type Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City o What we heard: Concerns about health of Perrinville watershed o Issue: Sedimentation and channeling of creek has led to declining quality of habitat. ■ Caused by past development practices. ■ Updated stormwater requires projects of a certain size to prove infeasibility of low -impact development (LID) best management practice (BMP) methods with the objective of. - Minimizing degradation of surface water quality; - Minimizing degradation of groundwater quality; - Avoiding damage to adjacent or downstream properties. ■ Reminder: The subject site can currently be developed by -right with either commercial or detached single family, two uses that could be more detrimental to the critical areas on site than what is being proposed. ■ Geotech letter confirms that the soils on the site are suitable for infiltration. ■ Proposal avoids grading of the hillside Closing o Staff finds the proposal meets the criteria as established by ECDC 20.00.050, and recommends approval. o Planning Board concurs with staff s assessment and also recommended approval. o If a motion is made to not approve the proposal, please specifically state which criterion the proposal does not meet. Hans Korve, applicant, DMP Engineering, said he had a 20 minute presentation but would attempt to condense it due to time constraints. He referenced the neighborhood context map, recalling key points by the Housing Commission such as housing should be located around transit and commercial uses which their project is, that more affordable housing options as well as less expensive housing types should be provided without changing the character of the community. Their project does all of those; it provides fee -simple Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 23 Packet Pg. 28 5.2.a home ownership in a more compact housing type that leaves the majority of the project site untouched. He pointed out this is not a choice between development or no development; a lot of the comments seem to indicate the public wants this left as an undeveloped site. If the Comprehensive Plan rezone is not adopted, the client will go back to their single family development option which will impact a greater amount of the site, impact the hill to a greater extent and eliminate the trees on the hill. Mr. Korve referenced the Neighborhood Concept Exhibit, explaining their proposal impacts the minimum amount of hillside and trees, the vast majority of larger trees on the slope are left undisturbed. One of the issues raised was infiltration; a geotech letter has been provided that specifies permeable pavement is possible on the site. He paraphrased a public comment that townhomes would put water into a pipe and shove it down the hillside, commenting that was untrue. Permeable pavement can be applied to a single family or retail project, it is a matter of soil, not the development type. However, if a public street with a cul-de-sac is constructed, public streets are not allowed to be permeable pavement, a private drive for a townhouse project can be permeable. Mr. Korve referred to his September 25''' letter regarding the 2015 flow reduction study the City commissioned that found in Reach 1 of Perrinville Creek, the area where this project is located, the stream bank is in a pre -modified stage and has no erosion. Many of the comments at the first public hearing were in regard to water gushing into the creek and causing erosion. He said that would not happen; there is an existing stormwater system and whatever is not infiltrated on their project will be collected on site and released at a predevelopment rate per the adopted stormwater manual. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of clarification, whether this person was restricted to the three minute public comment or was responding to staff s presentation. Mr. Shipley advised Mr. Korve is the applicant. At the public hearing, he was included in public comments and was not able to make a presentation about the proposed project. Mr. Korve explained there would not be any degradation of the stream as a result of their project; the applicable codes do not allow it. There is existing infrastructure to address stormwater via a piped system long before it reaches the stream. He contacted the Department of Fish and Wildlife, there are no toads so there is no toad impact. All the problems with the creek are based on 60-year old development with no stormwater standards whatsoever. Their project will have no negative impact on the creek, erosion, toads, or the environment because they will build to the current standards which do not allow water to gush into the stream. He urged Councilmembers to read the information he provided. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND TO 11 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson reopened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Gayla Shoemake, Edmonds, said it was interesting to listen to the applicant because she had heard those kinds of proposals and promises about what would happen before and very often there were problems. She remained opposed to the requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan primarily because the environmental issues have been downplayed by staff to both the Planning Board and the City Council. Now that the environmental concerns had been publicly noted, it was clear the proposed amendment would endanger an already fragile watershed and critical area in Perrinville and harm habitat. She noted there are fish in area, not just toads. It would also further contribute to possible residential flooding that is already a problem in Perrinville. She requested the City Council not approve this amendment. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, a resident of the Seaview neighborhood for 25 years, stood behind the comments he made at the September 22"d public hearing on this topic. The primarily focus of those comments was that Council should end the practice of providing changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 24 Packet Pg. 29 development codes that are not put forward by conscientious prospective consideration by the Planning Department, Planning Board and/or Council but rather by a developer who purchased the property with full knowledge of the development requirements and limitations and then looks for a financial windfall resulting from a zoning change. In fact, Mr. Korve mentioned that no one was willing to develop the property due to the expense associated with its elevation and steep slopes. He suggested that should have been considered before the property was purchased. Mr. Korve also astonishingly expressed a complete lack understanding of watersheds when he indicated that excessive stormwater is not an issue because Perrinville Creek is located on the opposite side of street. Perhaps he does not understand that water flows downhill following the path of least resistance and that removal of trees and vegetation will result in more excessive flows and that a street does not stop flows into the creek. Dr. Senderoff said Perrinville Creek is a salmon creek and the creek banks and habitat are being damaged and private property downstream is already flooding during rain due to excessive stormwater. Given these facts along with Lynnwood development activities on the east side of 76t1i Avenue, the City should pay more attention to development impacts on the Perrinville Watershed, not less. It is time for a time for master plan for the Perrinville Woods properties that recognize the watershed, taking stormwater, steep slopes, wetlands, significant tree canopy and wildlife habitat provided by the current open space into account. Dr. Senderoff supported the concept of addressing the missing middle in Edmonds. But just like there is a right place and a wrong place to plant a tree, there is right and wrong place for new developments. Impacting forested open space already limited in Edmonds that affects the watershed and salmon streams is the wrong place. Edmonds should be protecting these areas, not expanding development into them. He quote Theodore Roszak, "Suddenly it becomes a subversion of progress to assert the commonsense principle that communities exist for the health and enjoyment of those who live within them, not for the convenience of those who drive through them, fly over them or exploit their real estate for profit." Joe Scordino, Edmonds, appreciated the Council continuing the public hearing so that environmental issues could be brought to Councilmembers' attention. He was troubled that these same environmental issues were not brought to Planning Board's attention when they made their recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment which he viewed as a flaw in the process. The background material provided to Council includes a 14-page document regarding infeasibility criteria that can be used to justify not using various onsite stormwater management BMPs, essentially 14 pages of excuses for developers to not to follow stormwater protection procedures. The City has a problem getting correct stormwater protection structures and drainage in place to protect wetlands throughout the City. That makes it clear that whatever commitment the developer is making at this stage in the process was not likely to continue to the end of the process. Mr. Scordio said the current Comprehensive Plan map designation for this property should not be changed because it could not be demonstrated that any change would be better for the habitat. This parcel is in a critical area which has not been mentioned; critical area restrictions will considered later in development but should be considered to ensure best management practices occur to ensure the property is not developed in an adverse manner for the watershed under the current Comprehensive Plan map designation. This proposal does not adhere to the Comprehensive Plan, environment quality goal Al and C indicate this amendment should not be approved and it is clearly not in the public interest. It is clearly in a private developer's interest to change the designation. The public's interest is the entire watershed and what citizens want for this property He urged the Council to deny the proposal. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, emphasized the need for more information about the environmental implications of development in the Perrinville Watershed. Piecemeal decisions about the area like the current proposed change camouflage the big picture. Citizens along Perrinville Creek do not find flooding their yards wonderful and would disagree with the 2015 engineering report that there is not erosion or bank degradation along the creek across from the development site. Students Saving Salmon disagree the proposal is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 25 Packet Pg. 30 5.2.a wonderful for salmon due to sediment blocking the creek. The City's report acknowledges Perrinville Creek has been degraded over the last 60 years as a result of urban development and inadequate stormwater regulations. She wanted to ensure the next 60 years did not continue that degradation. Councilmembers should not be asked to make a decision that impacts the Perrinville Watershed until a master plan for the area has been created. There needs to be a separate section in the Comprehensive Plan for Perrinville due to the sensitive nature of the area. Mariam Gold, Edmonds, a resident in the Perrinville Watershed and on Perrinville Creek of all 19 years of her life, said she has a vested interest. The developer's presentation on a magical lack of environmental impact to the Perrinville Creek watershed is willfully naive of how development works in its inherent nature. For him to act as though the development will magically have no impact on a nearby watershed does not seem a reasonable expectation. She expressed concern with allowing this rezone to go forward without a lot of oversight to ensure what occurs does not impact creek. There needs to be more regulation and investigation into the impacts independent of the developer. A change from single family to a significant increase in residential density cannot have a positive impact on the watershed. It is already a highly stressed watershed and even small changes can have significant impacts on the function of the watershed and stormwater runoff that plague the Perrinville Watershed. Any additional development in such a fragile ecosystem needs to be entered into with less monetary motivation and a lot more investigation regarding the impacts. She urged the Council to deny this proposal as it was not in the interest of the natural ecosystems or the residents of Perrinville. Justin Monroe, Edmonds, a lifetime Edmonds resident, said he submitted an email to Council identifying his concerns and asked if Councilmembers had an opportunity to read it. Mayor Nelson advised the public hearing is an opportunity for comment, not a back and forth exchange. Mr. Monroe echoed all the previous speakers regarding environmental concerns from the project. This neighborhood is awaiting the impact of an additional 40-50 new townhomes in a Lynnwood project. Streets in the neighborhood are already dangerous; Olympic View to the west is a very windy, narrow, dangerous road; 76th Avenue to the north is extremely narrow and dangerous with sidewalks on only one side and limited space between the sidewalk and passing cars. Additional vehicles from the Lynnwood project as well as this proposed development will only add to those concerns. The Perrinville intersection also needs improvement. He requested the Council pause and not allow this rezone, and wait to see the impacts of the Lynnwood townhome project before allowing more development. To Mr. Shipley's assertion that the property has been zoned commercially for 60 years and has not been developed so it is improperly zoned, there has been a great deal of development in the area so commercial development may occur on that lot. He asked the Council to reject this proposal, allow the neighborhood to absorb the already pending project and wait to see the impacts before adding further development in the neighborhood. Kathleen Sears, Edmonds, assumed the Planning Board would have made a different decision if they had all the environmental information. She trusted the Council had that information to weigh in its decision. She echoed previous requests to push the pause button on this amendment as it is putting the cart before the horse. There are master plans for Westgate, Five Corners and Highway 99, but no master plan for an area that is the most fragile, most damaged, and needs the most care and thoughtful consideration. The appeal of low income and affordable housing is a big carrot, everyone wants that. As stewards of the City and property, she requested the Council push pause. Proposals are being approved for single lots throughout the area and she envisioned playing "whack a mole" with the problems that develop if there is not a master plan. Hearing no further public testimony, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 26 Packet Pg. 31 In reference to the public comments, Mr. Shipley said there is an assumption there will a huge increase in density. The site could currently be developed with seven units; the preliminary proposal is for six units. There is a lot of discussion about whether the stormwater system has been properly designed; the project is not at that stage yet and other stages need to be completed before the stormwater infrastructure is designed. Critical areas are typically addressed via a subdivision or a development proposal, this is neither of those. Housing, particularly housing diversity, is in the public interest and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This step in the process is the consideration of a Comprehensive Plan map change. If approved, the applicant could apply for a rezone and then submit a development proposal which would go through design review and a building permit application. There are several stages of review that are not being considered by the public. Stormwater can and will be addressed at the appropriate time; it is not feasible for a developer to design the system before they know whether the development type will be allowed. Mr. Korve said he understood everyone's passion for protecting the creek. Everyone assumes the applicant has nefarious intent which is not the case. They worked with staff to develop something they thought would be acceptable. To the inference that the Planning Board lacked information and that now that secret was out, he pointed out the Planning Board had exactly the same information that was presented to the City Council. Other than one board member, they were happy with the presentation and addressing the idea of missing middle including one board members who wanted to know when she could move into the project. There was opposition at the Planning Board, but they addressed the opposition. One adjoining neighbor to the north whose backyard abuts the property changed his mind and now supports the project. The proposal is not intended to degrade the environment but to live within it. The proposal is to build six townhomes next to shopping which the Comprehensive Plan supports so that residents can walk to services instead of driving. Mr. Korve explained this a small project with a new sidewalk removed from 76th with trees on both sides creating a boulevard in front of the project. This will be an improvement in the neighborhood, it will be hidden by trees and 8 feet above the street level. He anticipated when it was complete, it would not be visible from the street. He urged the Council to look at their concept sketch. He was unclear about the reference to a 14-page document, explaining the stormwater manual does not allow them get out of anything. The project will go through an arduous process of stormwater design to meet the currently adopted standards that are applicable across the state. This project will meet Ecology standards or it will not be approved. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to Mr. Shipley's comment that this meets the City's goals and asked how it met the City's goals related to low income and low, low income housing. Mr. Shipley answered this will be market rate housing. It provides other housing options and a more diverse range of housing options, but it is not a subsidized project. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how it was a more diverse range of housing. Mr. Shipley said adding townhomes instead of single family homes diversifies the range of housing. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how that how diversified the range of housing. Mr. Shipley said if someone did not want to take care of a yard, a townhome was a great option. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the difference in cost between single family and townhomes. Mr. Shipley said the proposal is not to build more units than is currently allowed. Townhomes can share walls and do not require construction of full streets so there are cost savings in development. Council President Fraley-Monillas said it does not respond to the low income or low, low income housing that is needed in Edmonds. The report refers to missing middle housing, but that is not where the City is struggling, the struggle is with low income and low, low income housing. Mr. Shipley said there are no programs to promote affordable housing in Perrinville. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if there could be. Mr. Shipley answered maybe, but the City has not done that. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 27 Packet Pg. 32 5.2.a Councilmember Distelhorst observed based on the current zoning, this not open space or public space, this is a privately owned property and could be developed in two different manners if an applicant applied tomorrow. Mr. Shipley agreed and said that was likely the route the property owner would take, developing it with single family homes, if this was not approved. The approach the applicant has proposed is more environmentally sensitive; everyone is talking about the environment, but are talking across each other. Councilmember Paine recalled Mr. Shipley was unable to complete his sentence about lot coverage and impervious surface percentages during his presentation. Mr. Shipley said he wanted to clarify the difference between those; lot coverage for single family development is 35% and 45% for multifamily development. The site is currently zoned BN which has no lot coverage maximum. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she brought this up two weeks ago, why hasn't the City done a Perrinville master plan when master plans have been done in other areas and in her opinion, Perrinville was just as important as Five Corners, Westgate, Firdale, and Highway 99. Ms. Hope said budgets are set for subarea plans; there is actually only one full subarea plan and that is for Highway 99. Some work was done for Five Corners but it was never completed. There was a code change for Firdale, but there is no subarea plan. There are no subarea plans for most of the City. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS EXTEND TO 11:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ms. Hope was not with the City when the Firdale Plan was done; there was also a form based plan for Westgate and the plan for Five Corners was not completed. She may be using the wrong terminology or Ms. Hope may misunderstand what she was saying about master planning the area because it is an important business area. Ms. Hope said there was no plan, only zoning code changes. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the City did do a master plan for Firdale and development at Firdale was approved but the property owners backed out. She recalled building heights on the back side of Firdale were up to 6-7 stories. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis that no planning had been done for the Perrinville area. Some say this proposed change is a benefit to the City but she only sees benefit to the City of housing for low income or low, low income people and $1400/month for a studio was not low income or even market rate at this point. She was not saying this area in Perrinville had to be identified for low income housing, but it was another missed opportunity to create low or low, low income housing. Changing the laws in Perrinville to allow this development caused her angst considering nothing was being done to provide the level of housing that was needed. The missing middle is not the problem in Edmonds; it is low income and low, low income. Councilmember Distelhorst observed the Council was discussing this specific change because that is the application, not because the City was initiating it to provide a certain type of housing. Mr. Shipley agreed the property owner initiated this Comprehensive Plan change, not the City. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled hearing the term press pause during the public hearing and asked what that would mean. Mr. Shipley said the proposal needs to be evaluated based on the current codes. If we see something we don't think fits with what we would like to see there, we can't press pause and change the code, that could open the City to lawsuits. Councilmember L. Johnson assumed pressing pause meant waiting for a more comprehensive plan for the Perrinville area. She asked his opinion on what would happen if that was done in this case. Mr. Shipley said the site would probably move forward with a subdivision for seven single family homes which is currently allowed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 28 Packet Pg. 33 5.2.a Councilmember Buckshnis said she has had it with piecemealing and thanked everyone who had contacted her. She was interested in an emergency ordinance that would put a moratorium on any development in heavily forested areas such as pocket forests and critical areas until the tree code was in place. The tree code and the housing code are due in a couple months. In the last four years, she was aware of seven pocket forests that have been razed for construction of houses. The Council needs to take control and speak on behalf of the environment. The Council waited three years for the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and are now waiting for the tree code. She was interested in doing something to press pause, noting emergency ordinances and moratoriums have been done in the past and it is time to do it now. She has had this conversation with Ms. Hope and Mr. Taraday and Mayor Nelson was copied. Councilmember K. Johnson said on the face of it, this looks like an interesting proposal. However, considering all the other plans that are nearing completion such as the housing plan and the tree code and the environmental concerns, it seems appropriate to remand this back to the Planning Board to consider all the public comments and to make a determination after the tree code and housing plan are presented. Ms. Hope said that may be a question for the City Attorney; state law directs the City to look at existing regulations and if something is incorrect, it is docketed for future correction. Projects are entitled to be considered under the existing requirements. Mr. Taraday explained according to the code, the Council choices on an application such as this are to consider the recommendation and subsequently approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the proposed amendment based on the findings required by the chapter. The code does not provide an option for remand. If the Council determines the application meets the findings required under Chapter 20.00.050, the application should be approved. If the Council determines it does not meet those findings, the Council should not approve it. If the absence of a master plan is the Council's primary concern, an applicant is always free to reapply in subsequent years if a master plan is ever presented. He pointed out under that criteria, no one in this area would be able to successfully apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is a legislative decision, not quasi judicial, even though the code directs that certain findings need to be made. The Council cannot be forced to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment that they think doesn't meet the test of what's appropriate. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested not making a decision tonight due to late hour. Public testimony has been provided and she wanted an opportunity to carefully consider what everyone contributed including the applicant's information and what she learned tonight from Mr. Shipley. Councilmember Paine commented the Council has received a lot of public comments on this topic. It is time to make a decision and she did not support postponing a decision. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO DENY IT. Councilmember Buckshnis did not believe the proposed amendment satisfied review criteria #4, Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? Consideration hasn't been given to the fact that it is a business area with Lynnwood on one side and Edmonds on the other side, there isn't a good master plan for the area, she has received a large number of comments, and she was interested in doing a moratorium until codes were in place. She felt the proposed amendment was detrimental to the public interest, health and safety. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order whether the Council should vote tonight when a Councilmember asked for time to review the information. She asked whether the Council should vote on whether to give that Councilmember the time they requested to digest what they heard. Mayor Nelson answered there is a motion on the floor; the Council will first take action on that and if they disagree with the motion, they can vote accordingly. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 29 Packet Pg. 34 5.2.a Councilmember Buckshnis offered to withdraw the motion. Council President Fraley-Monillas said until there is process developed for the Perrinville area, she was unwilling to give up something just because someone wanted it. She suggested the same process that was used for Highway 99, Westgate and Firdale, commenting the only area where that process did not occur was Perrinville. She was particularly interested in looking at the area as a whole and developing a plan for development because it involved streams, fish, trees and many other issues. Councilmember Olson thanked the citizens for their thoughtful comments, commenting she has learned a lot. She supported a master plan for Perrinville, but there was no plan for that and it was not included in the proposed 2021 budget and it was likely not something the Council could make a budget priority. What was a budget priority was restoring the health of that watershed. She supports that commitment, including it in the budget and considered it a top priority and will do everything in her power to ensure that funding remans in the 2021 budget. She researched this agenda item exhaustively and she was satisfied that the environmental impact from the project was equal to or less than the development opportunity that is already available to the property owner and that it is otherwise a greater community benefit than the commercial development that likely will not happen or the single family development that probably will happen. If the Council was not willing move forward on any development proposal, it is unethical for the City to be taking applications with no intention of approving them due to concerns with the environment. If that is true, the Council should absolutely do an emergency moratorium to take the opportunity for applications to vest off the table. Councilmember Paine appreciated the thoughtful discussion from everyone over the last two weeks. The competing needs of the environment and the need for entry level housing stock are troublesome. She did not see approving with modifications as an option as there were no modifications supported by the code to suggest or impose. If that was an option, she would like to hear about it. This area has large lots, and the last thing she wanted to see was 2, 3 or 7 single family residences on this property which was currently allowed without any Comprehensive Plan change. She asked if there were any modifications that the Council could offer, if not, the Council was stuck with approval or disapproval. Ms. Hope said she did not see any potential modification, the question was whether to change the Comprehensive Plan designation or not. Mr. Shipley agreed; it is a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, he was uncertain what modification could be made at this stage. In the next stage, a rezone, modifications could potentially be made such as a contract rezone. Councilmember Paine asked if the next stage would come to Council. Mr. Shipley said it would. Ms. Hope said the zoning designation would come to the Council and the Council would have a couple of choices including a contract rezone but that was a special process and not something that was typically done. Once it gets to the project stage, conditions would apply related to critical area protections, stormwater, etc. Sometimes it difficult to sort out whether the concern is related to what is truly best for the environment such as can it remain open space forever. That is not likely so the question is whether one designation is environmentally better than another, whether one designation provides for other needs in the community and another does not. She agreed it was a legislative decision and a balancing act. Councilmember Paine asked if the Council approved the Comprehensive Plan change, could the property owner proceed with seven single family homes without coming to the Council. Mr. Shipley explained if the applicant did not pursue a rezone, the zoning remains as is and the property could be developed with single family homes. Approving the Comprehensive Plan map change keeps the options open and allows further exploration of the environmental concerns. The rezone as well as a formal plat would come back to City Council before anything was developed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 30 Packet Pg. 35 5.2.a COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO TABLE THIS ISSUE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it is 11:22 p.m. and the Council has been meeting until 6:00 p.m. and it very late to be making such a drastic decision. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND OLSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THE REST OF THE AGENDA ITEMS TO THE WEEK AFTER NEXT DUE TO THE LATE HOUR AND NEXT WEEK IS COMMITTEE MEETINGS. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO SET THESE TWO ITEMS TO NEXT WEEK AND HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. Councilmember Olson suggested taking the public hearing comments and only delay the vote since members of the public have been present for hours. Keeping people up until 11:30 p.m. without resolution was inconsiderate. Mayor Nelson advised the Council had already voted to table the issue. Councilmember Olson clarified she was referring to the agenda item regarding properties on 9th Avenue. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the two items that would be moved to next week were 10.4 and 10. 5 and Item 10.3 was tabled indefinitely. As Council President Fraley-Monillas was experiencing technical difficulties, Mr. Taraday said that was his understanding of Council President Fraley-Monillas' motion. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed that was her intent. At Councilmember K. Johnson's request, Mayor Nelson restated the motion: TO MOVE ITEMS 10.4, CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY - RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY - URBAN 1" AND 10.5, SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR 184TH STREET SW STREET VACATION, TO A SPECIAL MEETING NEXT WEEK. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES BECAUSE THERE ARE APPOINTMENTS THAT NEED TO BE ANNOUNCED. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out there was a motion on the floor to extend the meeting. Mr. Taraday advised a motion to adjourn takes precedence over the motion on the floor and is not debatable. MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES. MOTION TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 31 Packet Pg. 36 5.2.a 3. CONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY - RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY - URBAN 1" FOR TWO PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 530 AND 522 - 9TH AVE. N. (Previously Item 10.4.) This item was rescheduled to a special meeting on October 13, 2020 via action taken under Agenda Item 10.2 4. SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR 184TH STREET SW STREET VACATION (Previously Item 1 This item was rescheduled to a special meeting on October 13, 2020 via action taken under Agenda Item 10.2 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson relayed the curbside dining program for downtown restaurants has been very successful. Staff is working on long term provisions for the code that will be presented to the Council for consideration and public comment. The existing special permit expires October 11 tt; therefore he is extending the curbside dining program to November 8t1' to ensure there isn't a gap between the curbside dining allowed by the special permit and the ordinance that will be presented to Council in approximately 30 days. Mayor Nelson announced the following appointments: • Economic Development Commission o Charlene Lieu, Position 1, term expiring 3/31/22 o Carrie Hulbert, Position 2, term expiring 3/31/21 • Youth Commission o Brooke Rinehimer o Alternates: Zane Marulitua and Aaron Nateephaisan 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis announced she appointed Grace Kamila to the Youth Commission. She advised the budget is available online. Anyone interested in obtaining a hardcopy can contact Finance Director Dave Turley. Councilmember L. Johnson announced she appointed Finn Paynich to the Youth Commission. Council President Fraley-Monillas announced she appointed Brooke Roberts to the Youth Commission. Councilmember Distelhorst announced he appointed Hunter DeLeon to the Youth Commission. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 32 Packet Pg. 37 5.2.a a+ a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 33 Packet Pg. 38 5.2.a Public Comment for 10/6/20 Council Meeting: From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:39 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Agenda, Action Item 10.4 Council, Please deny Item 10.4. Comprehensive Plan Map Designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family - Urban 1" In a LTE in myedmondsnews: https://myedmondsnews.com/202O/10/letter-to-the-editor-no-special-favors-for- homeowners-when-changing-the-comprehensive-plan-map/#comment-265465 The following is stated: "On August 26, 2020, the Planning Board voted overwhelmingly (6 to 1) to DENY a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for two lots on 9th Avenue between Glen and Daley, after having also voted (7 to 0) to deny the same proposal for the whole block." Please honor both the Planning Board's recommendation and the concerns expressed by the letter writers. Given the condition of our city code, this is not the time to approve Comprehensive Plan changes, to private property owners, to allow future development. There is not a clear public interest to warrant doing so. Regards, Joan Bloom From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:19 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 34 Packet Pg. 39 5.2.a <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Item 10.3. Perrinville Comprehensive Plan change request Council, Please deny Action Item 10. 3. Continuation of Public Hearing on Planning Board's recommendation to Approve a Comprehensive Plan map designation change for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential - Medium Density." I agree completely with Joe Scordino's letter which states: "the Council should deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment because 1) it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Environmental Quality goals; 2) it has not been shown to be in the Public Interest due to potential impacts on the watershed and a critical area; and 3) it can be detrimental to public interest, health, safety or welfare due to damage to wildlife habitat and confounding contributions to an already deteriorating watershed with potential flooding of residences in its lower reaches." Each Council member would best serve the citizens of Edmonds, in evaluating this and all future requests from the planning department, by keeping in mind the following: The Big Picture- poor code, no Urban Forestry Plan • As Ken Reidy has repeatedly brought to council's attention, our municipal code has been seriously in need of re -write, since 2000. Pause with that for a moment. Twenty years have passed since serious problems with our code were identified. Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent on consultants, and staff hours allocated for a code re -write, and yet it has not been accomplished. The city has yet to complete an Urban Forestry Plan. We have no code that specifically protects our trees. The Smaller/Personal Picture- the affect upon tax paying citizens Each approved development has an effect on the environment AND on nearby property owners. Joe Scordino states: "The stream's wildlife and the streamside property owners should not have to tolerate continued and additional deterioration of the creek caused by urban development." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 35 Packet Pg. 40 5.2.a It would be irresponsible for Council to go along with the planning department's aggressive support for development given our poor code, the lack of an Urban Forestry Plan, and the damage the proposed developments would do to our environment and to surrounding property owners. Regards, Joan Bloom From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 10:58 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Comments on Agenda Item 10.3 on proposed Comprehensive Plan Change in Perrinville Watershed Sorry, missed including the attachment. Here is a map from the Edmonds City GIS site showing the proximity of the parcels to Perrinville Creek. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 36 Packet Pg. 41 5.2.a -- City of Edmonds Map Title Legend 182NkI'LSW ,, -., - 1 � l_ I. N ,..,,i ,s,:,� creeks ® Se snnic Hazard Areas Minimum Buffer A djacent to He, v Wetlands sit. lairs m e� C Wetlands Sou ndary l t L8726` 9 ■� Iti� t GYli — Cse •` —Wet antl Bountlares Not Comp etel = Wellantl U-1 Enents e33z � — _ RIDGE NjPY Floodplans _ A m Q s' ve s f n Landdde Hazard Area 40% , a 1! ❑ Severe Erosion Hazard 15%-40% r_. is ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas 15%-40% 7114TH PL SW � v � r TNp �WISSTH OLYMPIC V1F1,4 �0 a �R`s PL SW I ' __ •� ,, .,�. 1:4,514 1 ��Thls Notes 0 188.08 3]6.2 Feet map is a u sergeneretetl static output fmm an Internet mapping stte antl Is for reference only. Data layersthatappearon this map may ormay not be actuate, WGS 1984 Web Marcator_Aux1-y Sphere rent, or otherwl se reliable. 0 City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN DR CONSTRUCTION On Tuesday, October 6, 2020, 10:40:39 AM PDT, joe scordino wrote: This is a follow-up to my prior public comments on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area. I am pleased to see that City staff have now provided additional information to the Council that acknowledges the long-standing excess stormwater problem in the Perrinville Creek watershed. It was a gross disservice to the Council for staff to ignore and not mention this huge environmental issue in their previous presentation to the Council. Unfortunately, this new information does not also affirm that the parcels are in Critical Area which ECDC Chapter 23.40 defines as "ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their functions and values." The SEPA checklist is still grossly inadequate and misleading relative to environmental impacts, presence of salmon, and doesn't even affirm that the parcels are in Critical Area (it incorrectly says the parcel is NOT within 200 feet of a stream - contrary to what the Edmonds GIS Map Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 37 Packet Pg. 42 5.2.a shows - see attached); but, I recognize the SEPA appeal period has passed and defer to the Council's attorney on how the Council's decision making is affected by a deficient SEPA Checklist. I did not send any E-Mails to Brad Shipley or to Zachary Richardson, City Stormwater Engineer, on this topic, so I don't know what E-Mails are being attributing to me in the document in the Council's packet (Packet page 345) - it obviously is not the public comments (Packet page 63) that I sent the Council as part of the public hearing on September 22nd. But, nonetheless, I am pleased that it acknowledges the severity of the excess stormwater issue in the Perrinville watershed and provided some details of what the stormwater ordinances say. Unfortunately, what is not emphasized is all the "loopholes" in the ordinances and BMPs that allow developers to circumvent intended environmental protections. However, the Council meeting packet starting on Packet page 349 does provide 14 pages of "infeasibility criteria that can be used to justify not using various on -site stormwater management BMPs..." This is like telling a student they must turn in homework to pass a class, and then to give them a wide -array of "authorized" excuses they can use for not turning in their homework. Unfortunately, Mr. Richardson's comparison of stormwater requirements for differing zoning did not take into account these "authorized excuses" nor incentives and varying development practicalities that would affect how much additional stormwater flows into an already "overcapacity" stormwater drain system. The bottom line is Council decisions on any Comprehensive Plan Amendments affecting the Perrinville Creek watershed have to be made with an eye towards whether it might, in any way, add -to the long-standing excess stormwater problem. The stream's wildlife and the streamside property owners should not have to tolerate continued and additional deterioration of the creek caused by urban development. Page 31 of the City's Comprehensive Plan sets forth Environmental Quality Goals that must come into play as the Council considers if a proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Quality Goal A.1 states: Ensure that the city's natural vegetation, especially native vegetation, associated with its urban forests, wetlands, and other wildlife habitat areas are protected and enhanced for future generations. Environmental Quality Goal C states: Develop, monitor, and enforce critical area regulations designed to enhance and protect environmentally sensitive areas within the city consistent with the best available science. It is very troublesome that in the Agenda Item narrative for the continued public hearing, staff Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 38 Packet Pg. 43 5.2.a added Housing goals from the Comprehensive Plan, but neglected to even mention the above Environmental Quality goals. The minutes of the September 22, 2020 Council meeting are clear that the continuation of the public hearing was due to Council's desire to obtain environmental information so Council could make an informed decision on whether the proposed amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Pubic Interest - yet, the Plan's Environmental Goals aren't even referenced. The minutes from the Planning Boards meetings indicate they too were not appraised of the environmental issues in reaching their recommendation to approve the proposed amendment. It is noteworthy that one of the Planning Board members voted against recommending the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment because "there is no guarantee that is the project that will ultimately get built. The Board should not base its recommendation on the site plan that was presented." This point also applies to whatever the applicant is stating currently about the development and how stormwater is treated - there is no irrevocable assurance that the actual development will include protective measures for the Perrinville watershed. The Planning Board minutes are also telling about the applicants personal interest, rather than public interest, for the proposed amendment - "If the property were developed for a commercial use, a lot of grading and a large retaining wall would be needed. This would be quite costly." Mr. Shipley is also quoted in the Planning Board minutes as stating "the applicant has indicated a desire for RM-2.4. However, it is not likely that the site will accommodate that amount of density." What is most disturbing about the staff's presentation to the Planning Board is the lack of acknowledgment that the parcels are in a sensitive watershed AND in Critical Area and that has special requirements for development (see Comprehensive Plan Goal C referenced above). A stated in my previous comments, high stormwater flows from multiple sources are causing serious erosion of the stream banks and destabilizing the valley walls in Southwest County Park and private properties downstream of the Post Office. Sediment buildup from streambank erosion and high flow scouring have destroyed fish habitat (coho salmon, chum salmon, and resident cutthroat trout) and have raised the stream level at the lower portion of the Creek such that private properties are threatened with flooding during every rain event. Any urban development that may adversely affect the health of the Perrinville Creek ecosystem needs to be avoided. So .... based on the information presented, the Council should deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment because 1) it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Environmental Quality goals; 2) it has not been shown to be in the Public Interest due to potential impacts on the watershed and a critical area; and 3) it can be detrimental to public interest, health, safety or welfare due to damage to wildlife habitat and confounding contributions to an already deteriorating watershed with potential flooding of residences in its lower reaches. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 39 Packet Pg. 44 5.2.a Separately, I hope the Council will begin a process to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include a separate section for the environmentally sensitive Perrinville Creek Watershed caused by urban development. From: dgarberson Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:19 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Kristiana <kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Distelhorst, Luke <Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Laura <Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov> Subject: AMD2019-0007 We represent three properties on Glen Street and we are adamantly opposed to both proposals in AMD2019-0007 (changing 21 parcels from 'Single Family -Resource' to 'Single Family -Urban 1' and changing 522 and 530 9th Avenue N from 'Single -Family Resource' to 'Single Family -Urban 1'). Changing 530 9th Avenue N to 'Single Family -Urban 1' will ultimately add more traffic to Glen Street, which is a very narrow street that cannot be widened. We believe that ingress and egress for the proposed flag lot at 530 will end up being off Glen Street as egress on 9th Avenue N would be too dangerous given that you cannot see cars travelling northbound down the hill (often well over the speed limit). We are also extremely concerned about how this issue has been presented to us by the City. Why did the City staff propose changing 21 parcels from Single Family -Resource to Single Family -Urban 1 when it was clear to them that it was never a viable option given the conditions on Glen Street? We were led to believe that the issue up for discussion was changing the designation for 21 parcels when, in fact, the issue was changing the Comprehensive Plan designation for just the two parcels (522 and 530). We do not understand why the notification letter we received from the City did not make it clear that there were two options up for a vote and that City staff recommended denying the first and approving the second. Even one of the Planning Board members pointed out during the 8/26/2020 meeting that the public was not clear about the proposals on which the Planning Board was voting. We do not believe that full and clear public disclosure is an unreasonable request. The Planning Board voted to deny both proposals. We ask that you review and consider their recommendations regarding this issue. Changing the designation for the two parcels sets a precedent for Comprehensive Plan and zoning changes based on individual exception rather than changes based on an established set of criteria in the best interest of the City as a whole. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 40 Packet Pg. 45 5.2.a Richard Garberson (property owner/resident) Doris Garberson (property owner/resident) 934 Glen Street Silvia Heldridge (property owner/resident) 923 Glen Street 930 Glen Street From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, October 5, 2020 6:39 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Confusion - Public Comments for either Mayor Mike Nelson's Proposed 2021 Budget Address on October 5th or the City Council Meeting on October 6th I am confused as to the surprise change to City Council's Plan (since July 2, 2020 per extended agenda) for the Mayor's Message and Presentation of Preliminary Budget to Council to be done during the October 6th Council Meeting. Is City Council as a whole being provided any information during the October 5th message and presentation? Is City Council attending the October 5th message and presentation? If so, the October 5th action may constitute a City Council meeting. Please consider the following Public Comments my 450-word written public comments for either October 5th (if this is a City Council meeting) or October 6th. If the public is allowed to make public comments on both October 5th and October 6th, please let me know promptly so I can prepare public comments for the October 6th City Council meeting. Thank you. My public comments follow City of Edmonds government knows it has operated with a flawed Code for many years. This includes the Edmonds City Code (ECC) and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). During the October 25, 2005 City Council meeting, former Development Services Director Duane Bowman said he had been describing the need to update the zoning code since 2000. The comment was also made that the City's Code dated to the 1980s and piecemeal amendments made it difficult to use and administer. In September of 2007, the former Hearing Examiner issued a written report which stated that: Several code provisions fail to provide adequate guidance because of the use of the phrase "and so forth," which creates ambiguities within various criteria for approval. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 41 Packet Pg. 46 5.2.a Thirteen (13) years later, the use of the phrase "and so forth," is still found in the City's Code. See ECDC 20.75.085. Former City Attorney Scott Snyder stated in his November 2007 City Attorney annual report that the biggest issue at the start of 2007 was the Code Rewrite. Mr. Snyder stated the intent was to begin the Rewrite last year and finish it this year (2007). Mr. Snyder summarized that the Code Rewrite was approximately a year behind schedule as of November 2007. It is now late 2020 and the Code Rewrite is MANY years behind schedule. The 2009-2010 Budget included the following: Major 2009-2010 Budget Issues Completion of the City"s Shoreline Master Plan update and the Edmonds Community Development Code rewrite will occur in 2009-2010. Completion of the Code Rewrite did NOT occur. In late 2012, during the PUBLIC HEARING ON the 2013 BUDGET, I made public comment that five years had passed since Mr. Snyder stated the intent and I questioned why the Code Rewrite had still not been completed. I urged the Council to include the proper amount in the 2013 budget to complete the long overdue Code Rewrite from start to finish. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been budgeted yet here we sit with a Code that is still flawed and has been for at least 20 years. There was an open house in March of 2015 trumpeting the City's just -launched Code Rewrite process — a process advertised as a major update of the City's development code. I attended that Open House in the hope that finally the Code Rewrite would be finished. The City has a page on its website - but I do not see any updates to this Code Rewrite website page for over 4 and a half years! The last update on that website page was in March of 2016. Please budget for the completion of the Code Rewrite - including the ECC which is also flawed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 42 Packet Pg. 47 5.2.a From: cdfarmen Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:37 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: October 6th hearing on 184th St SW street vacation Dear City Council Members, I am requesting the hearing on October 6 regarding the street vacation to be postponed for the following reasons. The initial notice of public hearing sent to residents of the Seaview area said the hearing would be about eliminating the right-of-way of 184th St SW from the official street map, not a partial vacation of the right-of-way. Since the original "notice of public hearing" was sent out, the council's agenda has been changed to deal only with vacating a segment of the easterly portion of 184th St SW. The area residents have not been notified of this change, nor have they been informed of the landowner's reason for their request. How can anyone any interested citizen make an informed decision without current and reliable information? Also, I think the council should be concerned that someone may join in via zoom and start talking about removing 184th St SW from the city official street map because they have not been privy to the change in the council's agenda. That would create an unnecessary and embarrassing situation for the caller. The reasons I have just cited warrant postponing the hearing scheduled for October 6 and a new notice of public hearing be sent out. Any new notice should include the reasons for the street vacation requested by the landowner. In all fairness, the concerned residents deserve sufficient and reliable information on which to make an informed decision so they can participate in any legislative decision regarding the landowner's vacation request. Respectfully submitted, Charles Farmen Seaview resident Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 43 Packet Pg. 48 5.2.a Public Comment for Tree Board Meeting October 1, 2020 Comments provided by Darrol Haug I spoke to the Tree Board at your March 2020 meeting. The topic was to amplify your policy of the Right Tree in the Right Place. I was talking about examples of the Wrong Tree in the Wrong Place. Sometimes wrong trees are ok but, in some instances, a wrong tree is dangerous to our citizens. On your agenda tonight is the tree on Chase Bank Property at Walnut and 5t" Ave S. You have been sent some of the background information about this tree. The City contacted the Bank at least as early as September 2019, pointing out the need to remove the tree as it was a violation of city code. As I commented at your March meeting, I first became aware of the violation when I ask code enforcement for a determination in January 2020. That is not in you packet, but I can assure you that it was determined to be a violation in January and likely back in 2019. I will not review the other information that you have been provided but do have some suggestions for your discussion. 1. City Code is very clear about this type of violation. Just ask staff. 2. City reached out to Chase over a year ago point out the violation and I did the same in January. 3. Chase submitted information, the City had requested added information, Chase asked for a 90-day extension, the extension expired, and when the City did not follow up on the issue until I asked for and update on the issue. 4. You now see a September 22, letter to Chase re -initiating the process. This means that more than a year has passed since the first letter to Chase. It was only in this last letter that a fine of $100 a day was outlined. I urge you to ask staff some questions about enforcement. 1. Why has it taken more than a year when there was no question about the violation? 2. The code seems to read that the property owner is responsible for the expense of the sidewalk repair, why is the city paying for that repair? 3. Chase has been asked to purchase a sidewalk tree grate. The sidewalk is not very wide in that area and already has various poles for lights and signs. Is their going to be a replacement tree, and where will it go? 4. Will the sidewalk be widened in this area? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 44 Packet Pg. 49 5.2.a 5. The tree has damaged a patch of sidewalk directly north as well. Will that sidewalk be repaired and at whose expense? The bottom line is this tree has been labeled dangerous for a long time and the City has not been as aggressive as it could have been to remove this hazard. I would urge the Tree Board to take a stand on "Wrong Trees" when such a tree is dangerous to our citizens. Thank you for your time and efforts for Edmonds. Respectfully submitted, Darrol Haug From: Finis Tupper Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 7:25 PM To: Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: September 22, 2020 Special City Council Meeting 6pm Dear offending Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas: Yesterday's Special Council Meeting at 6pm was conducted in violation of State and City laws. First off, there was no Roll Call of the Councilmembers attending this Special Meeting. After the executive session, the City Council failed to reconvene the Special Meeting which is required by State law. You failed to announce whether any action would take place and failed to announce if any information would be released which is in violation of City law. As the Presiding Chair of the Special Meeting you also failed to publicly adjourn this Special Edmonds City Council Meeting. Are you not aware of the rules governing Special Meetings or is it that you are assuming the City Attorney is making sure the City and State laws are being followed? The City Councilmembers have violated the OPMA on the following dates; May 15, 2020, May 26, 2020, September 8, 2020 and September 22, 2020. The OPMA requires a civil penalty of $500 each for the first violation and $1000.00 each for each subsequent violation of the Act for a total of $3500.00 per councilmember. Yours truly, Finis Tupper Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 45 Packet Pg. 50 5.2.a From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 3:26 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment for Public Hearing - Agenda Item 8.2 Perrinville Comp. Plan Amendment Council members; My name is Joe Scordino. I have lived in Edmonds for over 40 years and am a retired fishery biologist. I would like to provide the below public input to Agenda item 8.2 Public Hearing on the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area. The Perrinville Creek watershed, in which these parcels occur, has serious problems with excessive stormwater gushing into Perrinville Creek. Any development being considered, or changes to zoning for such development, has to be viewed with an eye towards whether it might exacerbate the long-standing excess stormwater problem. Studies contracted by the City have documented that urban development has resulted in higher flows in the creek during rain events that are causing environmental degradation of the stream system (see for example the 1998 Pontiac study on "Perrinville Creek Streambank Stabilization"). High flows from stormwater are causing serious erosion of the stream banks and destabilizing the valley walls in Southwest County Park and private properties downstream of the Post Office. Sediment buildup from streambank erosion has destroyed fish habitat and raised the stream level at the lower portion of the Creek such that private properties are threatened with flooding during every rain event. Recent monthly observations I've made over the past 3 years with Students Saving Salmon confirm these problems exist and are getting worse. Unfortunately, this well-known watershed problem is not addressed in the background information presented to the Council, or the Planning Board. It is essential that environmental issues be fully disclosed and considered in all decisions the Council makes. So..., for this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the review criteria should be viewed as follows: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 46 Packet Pg. 51 5.2.a Is the proposal in the public interest or is it detrimental to public interest, health, safety or welfare? It is NOT in the public interest to exacerbate 1) deterioration of Perrinville Creek; 2) destruction of fish habitat that otherwise is supporting cutthroat trout and juvenile coho salmon; 3) destruction of private property along stream channel; 4) potential flooding of private property in lower areas of Creek with each storm event; or 5) loss of tree canopy in Edmonds. There is NO information provided by staff or the applicant that would indicate the Perrinville watershed problems would be improved, worsened, or stay the same with a zoning change. Unless it can be proven that the zoning change will not make things worse, the proposed action must be DISAPPROVED. It is NOT appropriate for staff to say that a zoning change would make no difference to the environment unless they have presented analyses necessary to demonstrate such a finding. At a minimum, the following questions should have been addressed. Will a zoning change, which allows DENSE residential development at this site, make it worse for the environment than the current zoning? Does the current zoning provide better opportunities for low impact development, stormwater management & treatment, or retention of large trees, than a rezoning? Another aspect that is not addressed in the staff report is the fact that this parcel is in Critical Area. Has a Critical Area Report been prepared as required by City Ordinance? (The wetland observations included with staff material is NOT a Critical Area Report). In sum, I recommend the Council DISAPPROVE this proposal because critical information, necessary for an informed decision, on environmental affects has not been provided. Separately, I hope the Council will be considering amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that better address environmental issues, watershed health, and the goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Environmentally sensitive areas such as the Perrinville watershed or even the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary watershed need to have individual Master Plans that are incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Further, I hope the Council will direct City staff to begin implementing an actual solution to the Perrinville watershed problem of excessive stormwater during rain events. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 6, 2020 Page 47 Packet Pg. 52 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Council Student Representative Interviews and Appointment Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History Each year, the Edmonds City Council appoints a high school junior or senior to serve as Student Representative for the school year. The school does not need to be in Edmonds, but the student must reside in Edmonds. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Council is asked to conduct 15-minute interviews for three candidates applying to serve as student representative for the 2020-2021 school year. The candidates will come into the Zoom waiting room; they will be brought into the main room for an introduction and a reminder of the process. We will send the candidates back to the waiting room and bring them in to interview one at a time. After each interview we let them leave the meeting. The subsequent voting process will be as follows: Whenever there are multiple candidates for one position, the nomination and voting procedure follows Robert's Rules. The floor is opened for nominations. It only takes one councilmember to make a nomination. The nominees are voted on in the order that they were nominated. The chair only calls for votes in favor of the nominee. There is no need to call for votes against a nominee. The first candidate to obtain the votes of a majority becomes the successful appointee. (Because of this, it could be the case that the second and third candidates don't ever actually get voted on if the first candidate gets four or more votes. If no candidate reaches four votes, the floor could be reopened for nominations and the process repeats. Packet Pg. 53 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Set Public Hearing for 184th Street SW Street Vacation Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History Manjinder Josan has submitted a petition to vacate a portion of 184th Street SW that lies between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive . The City Council must consider street vacations in a public hearing that has been set by resolution. Staff Recommendation Adopt the resolution in Exhibit 1 to set a public hearing for October 6, 2020. Narrative A public hearing for October 6, 2020 was previously set via Resolution No. 1455. Unfortunately proper notice of the public hearing was not issued. As a result, the hearing cannot be held and a new resolution is proposed to set the public hearing for November 17, 2020 so that notice of the public hearing can be issued. Details of the proposal are not planned for presentation on October 13 but will be, along with any questions and answers, part of the November 17 public hearing. An easterly portion of 184th Street SW between 80th Avenue West and Olympic View Drive is the subject of this street vacation application. This section of right-of-way was created in 1942 with the Admiralty Acres plat. The right-of-way is 20 feet wide. No City utilities are located within this section of unimproved right-of-way. The applicant, Mr. Josan is the only owner of property that abuts this section of right-of-way. Pursuant to ECDC 20.70.070, the City Council is to consider the vacation request at a public hearing that has been set by resolution. Previously, a public hearing on this application was set via Resolution No. 1430, but the public hearing was subsequently postponed with Resolution No. 1432. This was done to ensure the application gave appropriate consideration to how future development of the site may affect which portion of 1841" Street SW should be vacated. In addition to the subject street vacation application, there is also an official street map amendment application associated with the property. The official street map amendment includes eliminating a planned right-of-way through the subject site. The future right-of-way needs will be met with the future subdivision application and can be seen on Exhibit 2. Packet Pg. 54 8.1 To clarify, the processing of both the street vacation and official street map amendment applications is necessary to prepare for the future formal subdivision application on the site. Because street vacations and street map amendments are Type V legislative processes, review of those applications must occur prior to the subdivision application. However, due to development complexities of the site, the exact location of which portions 1841h Street SW may be vacated (along with future dedications to expand the width of 184th Street SW in other locations) cannot be determined until detailed review of the proposed subdivision has been completed. Other complexities include locations of existing and realigned public utilities on the site which will require easements. Exhibit 2 contains a color coded map that shows the potential street vacation, official street map amendment, and utility easements. In accordance with ECDC 20.70.070, the resolution provided in Exhibit 1 will set a public hearing date of November 17, 2020. The application materials associated with the street vacation request are attached. Staff will prepare a staff report and recommendation for the Council's consideration at the public hearing. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Draft ResolutionSetting November 17, 2020 Public Hearing Exhibit 2: Color Coded Site Plan Exhibit 3: Land Use Application Exhibit 4: Petition for Street Vacation Exhibit 5: Vicinity Map Exhibit 6: Application Cover Letter Exhibit 7: Appraisal Packet Pg. 55 8.1.a RESOLUTION NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SETTING A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF 184T" STREET SW BETWEEN 80TH AVENUE W AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 and ECDC 20.70.050 authorizes a street vacation process to be initiated by the petition of the owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of the street or alley to be vacated; and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has received a petition from all of the property owners abutting the portion of 1841h Street SW requested for vacation; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 and ECDC 20.70.070 requires the city council to fix a time by resolution for public hearing on any proposed street vacation; and WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 and ECDC 20.70.070 requires that such hearing occur no less than twenty days and no more than sixty days after the passage of the resolution fixing the hearing date; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington as follows: Section 1. A public hearing on the proposed street vacation shall be scheduled for November 17, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. before the Edmonds City Council. Section 2. The city clerk shall provide notice of the public hearing as required pursuant to RCW 35.79.020 and ECDC 20.70.090 to the extent that such notice requirements are applicable. RESOLVED this 13th day of October, 2020. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 1 APPROVED: MAYOR, MIKE NELSON Packet Pg. 56 8.1.b w X U, 0 SEC 18, TWP 27N, RGE 5E, WM I I \ I I I I \\ I N \\\ I MI ° p °° ry9h tip° ry�h tip° " \ 4 II s I - T- SS - - - 3 ,�E`I��TE1A _ \\ I _wow-w- II� !"ww- / /// I 'IV// /P / // / � \\ II ti$°/ w/ / )D \ I I ' I /r- 0000, LOT` � 7 I OFFICIAL STREET ��i/ 1 \ \ \\ ,�2,185 S.F. \ I \0\ MAP AMENDMENT /��- � %' \ \ \ '� _ Q I moo L�� _ / -?90, \ 14,665 S.F.'SD 30' SANITARY /I // 0� w - - - 300 \ SEWER EASEMENT / 30'--DRAINAGE EASEMENT I, 001, I I I �9 I I I \ w --.0000 - - - _ y� j� 38. io, - \ \ IIII I I I I WATER E�,SE - - \ \ \ \ \ / /'SOT \\, 12,231-S.Fy %/ �� LOT 1 � ,// LOT 2 \\ LOT 13\\ \,-� / / I1I� I ► I I I J 12,016 S.F. 12,004 S.F. I 12,11 SIF. \ i // //// /� \ i 1 4� I II I I I 0 - - 1 / GRAPHIC SCALE �' I LOT I I III III I I 50 0 25 50 1 84.311.E 2g.2 35.6. 12,087 S.FI 102.2' \ \ I I I III IIII I I 124.0' / / I / FUTURE PEDESTRI N I I I I 1 1 1 I I ' ASS SS EASEME \ \ II 11 II11 II II II 11 II 1 =50 \ EXISTING I I / 1 1 1 N 9107' wW I 303.0' T - �` \ RIGHT-OF-WAY I I I 1 I 13 .oQ 1 I -- VA`F 3p - A�` 1 \- - - - - - - - - �•� � 1 1 1 \ 1 325 3?0 II LOT 81G�T \ A� 1 1 11111 1 •00'18wW II \ I \ \ 12,192 S.F. 1\ \11\ \\ \\ 1\ 111\ 111 II \I II I12 915' I I �_ I\ 1 1 1\\ 111 1 1 1 I I \ I I \ I I ;, I \ -� I � I 1\ I I I I \ 13410' I I I II 1 I 1 I 10 \ 1` I I LOT 141 1 1 1 I I I I 12,407 S.F] - - -- -- -- � 13 \ \ \ \ / I \ I LOT 9 I III II II I I I I 1 \ \ I \ \ \ �/ / I \ I 1 I I 1 13,077 S.F. I I I I I I\\\ \ \ 149�/ -Jr.I-AaI�11\\\\ \ \ 1------------- \ 1 I / I \ g I 1 � \ I � � 114.8 \ \ \ \ \ i I I LOT13 / \ I \\\ \ \\\ss• \ \ �- ---------- - - - --� � I 14 ,� \ I\ i \ 13,311 S.F. // � - I \ I 24.0 LOT 1\0\ \ \ �\ \\ \\ \\\ \ I 13,219 S. \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ I I 119.4' TRACT 997 1 1 1 I 6,983 .F. 131.4'�� 1 20.0' 159.9' \ 1 1 1 I I 1 \\ ---------------1 = 15 I00 1 I 1 � 1 1 / 0/1 \ 0-) N LOT 11 7 - - - - - - - - I LOTI 12 // Go I� 13,721 S.F. -\ I IIII III "� r I I ----- �\\ 120�2s.F. 16 \24.0' 142.0' -� 158.0' \ \ \ \ I \ \ 6 o 17 w 18 19 20 �X . 2� \ \ \I \ \-----{ - rw w w w w-� f9 I w 18 5 TH P LSW 1 BREAKDOWN OF IMPERVIOUS/PERVIOUS SURFACES Pre -developed Basin Area = 4.95 ac Existing Gravel Drive 3,600 sf = 0.08 ac Existing asphalt 184`h 2,420 sf = 0.06 ac Existing 2"d growth forest = 4.61 ac Existing Buildings Two - SFR's 2,620 sf = 0.06 ac (Lot 4 will retain ex SFR) Lawn and Landscape = 0.14 ac Total = 4.95 ac Developed Basin Area = 4.95 ac Proposed Cul-de-Sac Asphalt = 0.29 ac Fire Lane Tract 999 = 0.16 ac Driveways = 0.70 ac Sidewalks = 0.13 ac Building Lots Buildings 14 total roofs = 0.84 ac Lawn and Landscape = 1.66 ac Lawn at Cul-de-Sac = 0.13 ac Retain Existing 2"d growth forest = 1.04 ac Total = 4.95 ac PROJECT APPLICANT: JOSAN MAJINDER 132 143RD STREET SW LYN N WOOD, WA 98087 425-750-6606 PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE: BRIAN R. LINDSAY 2221 EVERETT AVENUE, SUITE 203 EVERETT, WA 98201 425-259-5556 ZONING INFORMATION: CURRENT ZONING - R97-28 PROPOSED ZONING - R12 SITE AREAS: AREA 215,472 SQ FT = 4.95 AC 15 LOTS PROPOSED MIN. LOT SIZE = 12,002 S.F MAX. LOT SIZE = 14,544 S.F. EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: -o 0 180TH ST SW > w a Q o SITE 0 N 184TH ST SW w Q 88TH ST SW 7704 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE PARCEL # 00370800100900 LOT 9, BLOCK 1 OF THE PLAT OF ADMIRALITY ACRES AS RECRODED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 832826, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 18408 79TH AVENUE WEST PARCEL # 00370800101000 LOT 10, BLOCK 1 OF THE PLAT OF ADMIRALITY ACRES AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 832826, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY , STATE OF WASHINGTON. 18325 80TH AVENUE WEST PARCEL # 00370800101100 LOT 11, BLOCK 1, OF THE PLAT OF ADMIRALITY ACRES AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, AS RCORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 832826, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON. NO ADDRESS PARCEL # 00434600010601 LOT 1, BLOCK 0, OF THE PLAT OF EDMONDS SEAVIEW TRACTS AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 75, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 106003, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON. BEING A PORTION OF TRACT 106 LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF BEVERLY PARK ROAD, LESS THE EAST 212 FEET AND LESS COUNTY ROAD. EXISTING SOIL: ALDERWOOD-EVERETT GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM EXISTING VEGETATION: TREES WITH SOME UNDERBRUSH WITH LAWN AND LANDSCAPE PROPOSED VEGETATION: 20% TO REMAIN FORESTED LAWN AND LANDSCAPING PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE: LOT SIZE: 12,407 SF AVERAGE DRIVEWAY: 800 SF = 0.02 AC BUILDING: 5,200 SF = 0.12 AC LAWN / LANDSCAPE: = 0.04 AC INFILTRATION / BIO-RETENTION AREA 30' x 10' x4' DEEP © Copyright 2016 by Brian R. Lindsay, BRL Services LLC. Design, map, text and data may not be used, copied or reproduced in any way without express written permission of Brian R. Lindsay, BRL Services LLC. VICINITY MAP z 0 SCALE 1" = 2000' w 7-17-2020 AM re, 'A m o z w U Q w C� IC-) CERTIFIED EROSION CONTROL SPECIALIST BRIAN LINDSAY r ` BRL SERVICES LLC 2221 EVERETT AVE, SUITE 203 ``1 EVERETT, WA 98201 `� 1-- 425-259-5556 Z Q ENGINEER o TED TREPANIER U BRL SERVICES LLC 2221 EVERETT AVE, SUITE 203 C� z EVERETT, WA 98201 425-259-5556 06) z � z BENCH MARK - DATUM (NAVD 88) w NGVD 29 = NAVD 88 - 3.17 z Q BENCHMARK: TOP OS SURFACE BRASS CAP PI MONUMENT 79THAVE WEST AND 79TH PLACE WEST. ELEVATION 343.68 CITY OF EDMONDS DATUM (MEAN LOWER LOW WATER) SHEET INDEX 1. SITE PLAN / EXISTING CONDITIONS 2. ROAD AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 3. STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 4. ROAD AND STORM NOTES AND DETAILS 5. GRADING PLAN 6. GRADING PLAN 7. SEWER AND WATER PLAN 8. SEWER AND WATER PLAN 9. SEWER PROFILES 10. SEWER AND WATER NOTES AND DETAILS 11. T.E.S.C. PLAN 12. T.E.S.C. PLAN 13. T.E.S.C. NOTES AND DETAILS 14. 20% VEGETATION AREAS APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDMONDS DATE: CITY ENGINEER DIVISION N z O H Z O Q 0 Z z 0 X W W 7 z � a J Q L W L Ld wL L0 N L0 C lfI o w o. o ~ N NLr)� N Qw� �zQ wog maw LLj CN N Z O O 0 O Z o N w 3r 0 r L co co as L co t 00 am C d as co c M a 0 c) `0 w m s a SHEET: REV: OF 14 Packet Pg. 57 I 8.1.c I City of Edmonds Land Use Application •' ivc -I 201S f- t _A11 NTERRMCES cou A i-i ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT L� - L CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # fW ^w19061 ZONE " LZ F HOME OCCUPATION DATE } '�I �4 REC'D BY L FORMAL SUBDIVISION F SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT X OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT L HE STAFF PB ADB { X STREET VACATION REZONE SHORELINE PERMIT VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION J OTHER: • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION . 7707 Olympic View Dr PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) MJ Edmonds Plat PROPERTY OWNER Manjinder Josan PHONE # 425-750-6606 ADDRESS 132 143rd St_ SW, Lynnwood WA 98087 E-MAIL mjosan@gmail.com FAX # n/a 00370800100900,00370800101000, TAX ACCOUNT # 00370800101100, 00434600010601 SEC. 18 TwP. 27N RNG. 5E DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) . Official street map amendment and stree vacation DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) as requested by City of Edmonds APPLICANT Manjinder Josan PHONE # 425-750-6606 ADDRESS 132 143rd St SW, Lynnwood WA 98087 E-MAIL mJosan mail.com FAX # n/a CONTACT PERSON/AGENT BRL Services LLC PHONE # 425-259-5556 ADDRESS 2221 Everett Ave ste# 203 E-MAIL brian@brlservicesllc.com FAX # n/a The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE 3/19/19 Property Owner's Authorization I, �A {3r,7p i ,..� O� S -�\ �.i _ , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. ` q SIGNATURE OF OWNER �� — DATE / % I If `7' '�f S - - Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Pag Packet Pg. 58 8.1.d PETITION FOR STREET OR ALLEY VACATION TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON We, the undersigned owners of two-thirds of the al property abutting 'Pon public right-of-way described below, Pws�� to RCW 35.79.010, re do hereby petition the City of Edmonds to vacate said public nght-of-way, described as follows: all situate in the City of Edmonds. County of Snohomish, State of Washington, and request that said City Camci . by Resolutim 5z a uine and place when this Petition shall be heard and determmed by that authority, which time shad not be more than sixty (60) days nor +less than twenty (20) &ys after the passage of such Resolution These pages are a group of pages containing an identical text and prayer intended by the signers of this Petition to be presented and considezed as one Petition and may be filed with other pages eonmining additional agnahrres which cumulatively may be considered as a single Petition - WARNING: Every person who signs this petition with any other than his or her true name, or who knowingly signs move than me Of #here pe=Ons, or signs a peaum seeking an election whoa he or she a not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he or she is othmw= not qualified to sing, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. PRAYER OF PETITION: For the vacation of Page. of MACPerncrn0WOV- e FL.ESV.%-" aWMLSC M M n cr 0 mm _o M Cn Packet Pg. 59 182ND PL SW OPENED R/W * 7914 18203 7822 # 81114 18208 * 18213 8115 * 18218 # 0 w z Li 8117 18226 * 0 18227 3 Li * 18335 8041 8001 # 184TH ST SW OPENED R/W 7821 * 7817 0 w z * 7809 a 47816 O 7810 * 3 w 5 U a * 18321 * 18305 0 vow 7704 OLYM P I C,o - VIEW DRIVE PARCEL # *040 00370800100900 18332 - oe 004v 95,230 SOFT 11po 8325 80TH/ 18408 79TH VENUE WEST AVENUE WEST ARCEL # 95,230 SOFT PARCEL # 0370800101100 00 0800101000 20,607 — 1841416 1618405 UNKNOWN ADDRESS PARCEL # 1841616 # 18415 00434600010601 18418 * 97,372 SOFT 418419 18426 16 1618427 VICINITY MAP 18212 # 18214 * 1 * 18216 18218 # 1822 183 GRAPHIC SCALE 150 0 75 150 18301 # 1 "=150' - VACATION UNOPENED R/W 2,727 SOFT w z w 7601 * a 3 Q 18401 1618432 1 18501 16 18508 * 1850� 106 * 8034 * * 3 7811 � - 7831 * # # # 7801 18512 7817 18516 w a 185TH PL SW OPENED R/W'$QQ 18510 '� 18521 101 18 o 18521 102 * *10 3 * 7802 7810# 18530 * 18521 1044 105 1 0- )1 # 7818 # 18521. BLDG * * 16 8035 790 * 118 18521 1074 0 7939 7925 7915 * * 7805 18596 * 18521 1091 7 186TH PL SW OPENED R/W 18521 110 18604 # # 18605 * 18601 18604 # 18603 BLDG 18603 1 f # _ � Ana (RECEIVED MAR 2 12019 DEVEWPIAENT SERVICES COUNTER Legend Parcel ID Snohomish Parcels Packet Pg. 60 8.1.f ryc ffRz services .z An Engineering Company March 21, 2019 City of Edmonds City Council Office — City Hall 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 ATTN: To whom it may concern RE: 7707 Olympic View Dr— Manjinder Josan Subject: Street Vacation (Petition) To whom it may concern: RJECEIVLL) MAR 2 i zoo DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER I respectfully request that you accept this petition for the Street Vacation to vacate the existing Right -of - Way as required for the development of the proposed MJ Edmonds Plat. See attached Site Plan. If you have any questions or comments, please call. Sincerely, Brian R Lindsay Owner of BRL Services LLC Agent for Manjinder Josan 2221 Everett Ave., Suite 203, Everett, WA. 98201 PH: 425-259-5556 draftstation @ea rth I ink.net Packet Pg. 61 8.1.g jaw� LU W T N y . Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 2927 Colby Avenue, Suite 100 Everett, WA 98201 425-258-2611 425-252-1210fax www,valbridae.com 18-0323 OlympicView.docx /191619 Packet Pg. 62 8.1.g Valbridge Corporate Office Smith Tower 1 ' PROPERTY ADVISORS 506 2nd Avenue suite 1001 Puget Sound Seattle, WA 98104 206-209-3016 phone 425-688-1819tax March 14, 2019 Mr. Manjinder Josan PD NW Investment, LLC 800 NW 85th Street Seattle, WA 98117 2927 Colby Avenue 18728 Bothell Way NE 419 Berkeley Avenue Suite 100 Suite B Suite A Everett, WA 98201 Bothell, WA 98011 Hrcrest, WA 98466 425-258-2611 phone 425-450-4040 phone 253-274-0099 phone 425-252-1210fax 425-688-1819fax 425-688-1819fax valbrldge.com RE: Appraisal of 4.90 acres of residentially -zoned land, located at 18325 801h Avenue W and 7704 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington (Our File #18-0323). Dear Mr. Josan: As requested, we have conducted inspections of the above -referenced property and prepared our analysis of current market data for forming an opinion of market value for the subject property in the "as is" condition, both before and after a proposed right-of-way vacation, as part of the development of a 14-lot residential subdivision. Your attention is invited to the following report for the narrative description, analyses and conclusions of value. The subject property consists of a 4.90-acre site (according to the site plan) on the west side of Olympic View Drive and east side of 80th Avenue W, in the City of Edmonds. As currently configured, it is bisected into non-contiguous parcels by 20-foot wide unimproved right-of-way running east -west ,n (known in the original Admiralty Acres plat as Olympic Avenue). Zoning is RS-12, a Residential Single- a family designation by the city which primarily allows detached single family residences on lots no a smaller than 12,000 SF. The land is currently improved with a 2,918 SF residence built in 1976 and 1,974 SF residence built in 1959. The property owner intends to demolish the structures and develop a 14-lot single family w residential plat, utilizing most of the unimproved Olympic Avenue right-of-way for a new street, identified as 184th Place SW. Without the proposed right-of-way vacation, the owner can develop a E 14-lot subdivision with average lot size of 13,208 SF. As proposed, the property owner would utilize the easterly 2,230 SF of unimproved right-of-way for development, with the north half of the acquired r area encumbered by a 10-foot wide pedestrian access easement connecting the end of the cul-de-sac r Q to Olympic View Drive. The increased area would allow the property owner to have more development flexibility and increase average lot size to 13,383 SF. This appraisal was prepared in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and is intended to conform to the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA). Complete descriptions of properties used for comparison are included in this report, as well as all our analyses and conclusions. The value conclusions herein are given subject to the specific assumptions and limiting conditions stated immediately following this transmittal letter. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 2 Packet Pg. 63 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound March 14, 2019 Mr. Manjinder Josan Page 2 Based on the investigation and analysis of all the elements which reasonably affect value, we have formed the opinion that market value of the subject property, as of October 16, 2018, is: Market Value Before Acquisition....................................................................................$2,240,000 Market Value After Acquisition.......................................................................................$2,247,000 MarketValue Difference............................................................................................................. $7,000 Sincerely, Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 7 Robert J. Macaulay, MAI Paul C. Bird, Senior Associate WA State Certified - General Appraiser No. 1100517 WA State Certified - General Appraiser No. 1100902 Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 2 Packet Pg. 64 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound TABLE OF CONTENT OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................................................I EXECUTIVESUMMARY ......................... ...........................,...................................................................................... 1 SUMMARYOF CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................... .............3 LOCATIONMAP.....................................................................................................................................................4 SUBJECTPROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS......................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................8 DEFINITION OF AN APPRAISAL ......................... ........................................ .. .. ........................................ .................. 8 DEFINITIONS.......__......................................................................................................................................................8 IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.........................................................................................................................8 LEGALDESCRIPTION........................................................................................................................................................9 PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL/APPRAISAL PROBLEM.............................................................................................................10 PROPERTYRIGHTS APPRAISED.........................................................................................................................................10 INTENDEDUSE OF THE APPRAISAL....................................................... ............................................................................ 10 CLIENT........ ......................... ..................................... ..................................................................................10 INTENDEDUSERS ...................... ............ .................................. ..............................................................................10 SCOPEOF THE APPRAISAL...............................................................................................................................................10 EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS......................................................................................................................................10 HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................................................11 EXPOSURETIME ............................................. ...................................................................................................11 COMPETENCYOF THE APPRAISERS...................................................................................................................................11 DATES OF INSPECTION/VALUATION..................................................................................................................................11 DATEOF REPORT ................................................ I ............................ .............................................................................11 FIVE-YEAR OWNERSHIP HISTORY.....................................................................................................................................11 ACCOMPANIMENTBY OWNER.........................................................................................................................................12 MARKETAREA DATA............................................................................................................................................13 LOCATION...................................................................................................................................................................13 ECONOMY...................................................................................................................................................................15 POPULATION...............................................................................................................................................................16 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MARKET ........................................... ............................................. .............. ........................ 16 APARTMENTMARKET...................................................................................................................................................17 RETAILREAL ESTATE MARKET........................................................... .............................................................................. 17 OFFICEMARKET ..................................................... ........................ ............................................................ .................. 17 INDUSTRIALMARKET .................................. .................................... .............................................................................. 18 SOCIALINFLUENCES....................................................................................................................................................19 ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES........................................................................................................................................19 SUMMARY.................... ................... ..................................................... ................ ............ ....................................... ...19 SITE DATA (BEFORE ACQUISITION).......................................................................................................................20 GENERALLOCATION......................................................................................................................................................20 LANDAREA/ACCESS.....................................................................................................................................................20 TOPOGRAPHY/DRAINAGE..............................................................................................................................................20 WETLANDS.................................................................................................................................................................. 21 SITEPLAN...................................................................................................................................................................22 SOIL/SUBSOIL CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................................22 F0 Mn Q Q Z t K W C N E t V R r Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page i 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 65 8.1.g kill Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT TABLE OF CONTENTS FLOODPLAINS.......................................... ..... ..................................................................................................23 IMPROVEMENTS........................... :............................................................................................................................... 23 UTILITIES....................................................................................................................................................................23 EASEMENTS OR OTHER USE RESTRICTIONS........................................................................................................................24 ASSESSEDVALUE AND TAXES..........................................................................................................................................24 ASSESSOR'S MAP.........................................................................................................................................................25 LANDUSE REGULATIONS...............................................................................................................................................26 ZONING MAP .................... ...................................................................................... ................................................... 27 HIGHEST AND BEST USE (BEFORE ACQUISITION)..................................................................................................28 PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION)................................................................................................... 31 LANDVALUATION.........................................................................................................................................................31 RECONCILIATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE................................................................................................................50 SITE DATA (AFTER ACQUISITION)......................................................................................................................... 52 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS TO BE ACQUIRED SITE PLAN (AFTER ACQUISITION) ........................... EFFECTS OF ACQUISITION ..................................... SITE DATA (DESCRIPTION OF REMAINDER) .............. ................................................................................52 ................................................................................ 52 ............................ ,................................................... 53 .......................................................................... I ..... 53 HIGHEST AND BEST USE (AFTER ACQUISITION).................................................................................................... 54 PROPERTY VALUATION (AFTER ACQUISITION)..................................................................................................... 54 DAMAGES.............................................................. SPECIAL BENEFITS .................................................... ... — 54 ......54 RECONCILIATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE..............................................................................................55 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ........................... ......................................................... 56 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................57 CERTIFICATION — ROBERT J. MACAULAY, MAI..................................................................................................... 63 CERTIFICATION — PAUL C. BIRD, SENIOR ASSOCIATE............................................................................................ 64 ADDEN DA............................................................................................................................................................ 65 APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS ...............................................................65 Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page ii 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 66 8.1.g Valbridge {}}ia PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project: Olympic View Drive 14-Lot Plat Ostensible Owner: PD NW Investment, LLC OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Property Location: Mailing address is 18325 80th Avenue W and 7704 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, 98026. It is on the west side of Olympic View Drive and east side of 80th Avenue W in the City of Edmonds, just northwest of a small commercial area known as Perrinville. The view amenity is territorial at best. Land Area/Size: Total land area of the irregularly shaped tract is 4.90 acres, according to the site plan, with 595.50 feet of frontage along Olympic View Drive and 115.0 feet along 80th Avenue W; in addition, there is a 20-foot wide right-of-way at the southerly boundary, extending southerly to 185th Place SW. As presently configured, there is a 20-wide unimproved right-of-way between 80th Avenue W and Olympic View Drive which bisects the tract. Topography is undulating, ranging from modest to steep, so development would require earth -moving along with a degree of soil removal and importation. Utilities: All utilities are available including electricity, water, sanitary sewer and natural gas services. Improvements: The land is currently improved with a 2,918 SF residence built in 1976 and 1,974 SF residence built in 1959. The property owner intends to demolish the structures and develop a 14-lot single family residential plat, utilizing most of the unimproved Olympic Avenue right-of-way for a new street identified as 184th Place SW. Without the proposed right-of-way vacation, the owner can develop a 14-lot plat with average lot size of 13,208 SF. Proposed Acquisition: As proposed, the easterly 2,230 SF of unimproved right-of-way is vacated, with the north half of the acquired area encumbered as a 10-foot wide pedestrian access easement, connecting the end of the cul-de-sac to Olympic View Drive. After Acquisitions: In the "after" situation, there is an additional 2,230 SF of land available for development, thus allowing the owner to have more development flexibility and increase average lot size to 13,383 SF. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 1 Packet Pg. 67 8.1.g kll�VaIbridge :?r. PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Legal Characteristics: Zoning is RS-12, a Residential Single-family designation by the city which primarily allows detached single family residences on lots no smaller than 12,000 SF. Dates of Inspection: Highest and Best Use: Appraisers: Date of Report: Date of Valuation: Final Estimates of Value: Various dates in October 2018. Some form of single-family residential subdivision. Robert J. Macaulay, MAI and Paul C. Bird March 14, 2019 October 16, 2018 Market Value Before Acquisition....................................................................................$2,240,000 Market Value After Acquisition.......................................................................................$2,247,000 MarketValue Difference.............................................................................................................$7,000 Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 2 Packet Pg. 68 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT AdIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Summary of Conclusions (Accounting tabulation - NOT indicative of appraisal method employed) Indicated Subject Value Before Project Highest and Best Use Before: 14-lot residential subdivision Lund Value Before Amount Rounded 213,241 SF unencumbered @ $10,50 per SF or $160,000 per DU $2,240,000 $2,240,000 0 SF encumbered @ per SF or per DU $0 $0 213,241 total SF @ $10.50 $2,240.000 $2,240,000 Improvement Value Before Structures Not affected Site improvements Not affected TOTAL SUBJECT VALUE BEFORE PROJECT $2,240,000 Indicated Subject Value After Project Highest and Best Use After: 14-lot residential subdivision Land Value After 214,356 SF unencumbered @ $10.50 per SF $160,500 per DU $2,247,000 $2,247,000 1,115 SF encumbered (reflected in unencumbered value estimate) $0 $0 215,471 total SF @ $10.43 $2,247,000 $2,247,000 Improvement Volue Befu Structures Not affected Site improvements Not affected TOTAL SUBJECT VALUE BEFORE PROJECT $2,247,000 Estimated value allocation of rights acquired Land Transfer from city to owner 2,230 SF $500 per DU $7,000 $3.14 per SF , Yv Structures Not affected Site improvements Not affected Total net acquisition $7,000 Plus damages and cost to cure $0 Less special benefits, if any $0 Estimated difference in market value $7,000 r Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 3 Packet Pg. 69 8.1.g Valbridge r;?y. PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound LOCATION MAP OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT LOCATION MAP ,rtr SoulhWes! 176th St SW .I�--—4..176th Si SVV ;nth;^,S+si County Paik Sr . N -LAA" FdI � � m 1601h SI SW -I !I P fig E f $ G a rf d C, 1$41h $l SIN. Ji.i: Ik. m LJ_UL li �e li.., — Pairirnre Lcti 188th 51 SV� Lynntiute Park iOBth St SW &own Bay Cs Reil = `� 51rrra iTDk ... nrad 2..I '192nd St SW Park oo w �' -���• 7 L if -`I 194th S _ `Pugel CIP 1-61h St SW 524= `v S3 crthur I Lake Park'! r Z Edmtmris. a 200th .St S`VU' ==-200lh Ft wV Liti CCtl� llrxMrwarnr a z v_ 0. n Park �' �,. Q a-r IL I - 272nd'St SW g -�' �.ar>e,-caaraY e r 4 1! l loath St ;sw c Q8!@]+ $[ . I. P S i<ru Ridele �i. 99 III I' 1< SJ r r T Mq u? dmonds b F ar k m i Jy 12 n 1L . w tut � N 7U4Vlie-tt Pow W d � Idn•SI. E?.�.o.-ti.fn � Wuodwayj_- Y Yogi Perk ro d, :� q � c. rn �' �9kd�ln y1�1 Pine $t 57 . 216th Sl SW Fir 5t r N 218th 5t SW Elm S A 2241h St a�N Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlyrnpicView.dou ,He 2061h St Sw f NCrJINw]rIW00 Pik 216th S1 SW 2111h St SW � R t� rn .c Page 4 Packet Pg. 70 8.1.g 0\1Valbridge + PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS 1, Looking east from the intersection of 801h Avenue W and 184th Street SW, 2. Interior view of tract, looking north. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 5 Q Packet Pg. 71 f �.�,'� � � � �'•� � fir, • , r . �� Sir ,.• .,' „ 4_y Yw� .`j�`� �' • � •r �� Jar-�- •. - {MM � tea. - '�y4e�y� N `� .f +r�'i.'• .�� _ - 8.1.g 01� Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS 5. Looking west at driveway from Olympic View Drive. 6. Southwesterly view of residence (7704 Olympic View Drive). Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS Page 7 Q Packet Pg. 73 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound INTRODUCTION OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT INTRODUCTION Definition of an Appraisal An appraisal is an unbiased estimate of the nature, quality, value, or utility of an interest in, or aspect of, identified real estate and related personalty. Appraisal involves selective research into appropriate market areas; the assemblage of pertinent data; the application of appropriate analytical techniques; and the use of knowledge, experience and professional judgment to develop an appropriate solution to the appraisal problem. Definitions Market Value Market value is defined as, "...the amount in cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the property would have sold on the effective date of the appraisal, after a reasonable exposure time on the competitive market, from a willing and reasonably knowledgeable seller to a willing and reasonably knowledgeable buyer, with neither acting under any compulsion to buy or sell, giving due consideration to all available uses of the property at the time of the appraisal."1 Fee Simple Interest Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power and escheat. 2 Gross Sellout Value Gross sellout value —also known as "sum of the retail values" —is defined:3 as the sum of the separate and distinct market value estimates for each of the units in a condominium, subdivision development, or portfolio of properties, as of the date of valuation. The aggregate of retail values does not represent the value of all the units as though sold together in a single transaction; it is simply the total of the individual market value conclusions. Identification of the Subject Property The subject property consists of a 4.90-acre site (according to the site plan) on the west side of Olympic View Drive and east side of 801h Avenue W, in the City of Edmonds. As currently configured, it is bisected into non-contiguous parcels by 20-foot wide unimproved right-of-way running east -west (known in the original Admiralty Acres plat as Olympic Avenue). Zoning is RS-12, a Residential Single- family designation by the city which primarily allows detached single family residences on lots no smaller than 12,000 SF. 1 Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, Page 30, Section B-2, prepared by the Interagency Land Acquisition Conference-2000. 2 TheApprarsal of Real Estate, Fourteenth Edition, 2013, Appraisal Institute. 3 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Sixth Edition, 2013, Appraisal Institute, page 226 Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 8 a rL a x w c m E z U a r Q Packet Pg. 74 8.1.g Vafbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT INTRODUCTION The land is currently improved with a 2,918 SF residence built in 1976 and 1,974 SF residence built in 1959. The property owner intends to demolish the structures and develop a 14-lot single family residential plat, utilizing most of the unimproved Olympic Avenue right-of-way for a new street, identified as 184th Place SW. Without the proposed right-of-way vacation, the owner can develop a 14-lot subdivision with average lot size of 13,208 SF. As proposed, the property owner would utilize the easterly 2,230 SF of unimproved right-of-way for development and for a 10-wide pedestrian access easement, the increased area would allow the property owner to have more development flexibility and increase average lot size to 13,383 SF. Legal Description Below is a legal description of the subject property, as excerpted from a December 2016 Quit Claim Deed. PARCEL A: TRACTS, ACCORDING TO TH TRACT 106, EDMOMDS SEA VIEW RECORDED RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 OF PLATS, PAGE 76, RECORDS OF $NQHdSRf§H: oV ► WASHINGTON; ` EXCEPT THE EAST 212 FEET, ~ r + AND EXCEPT PORTION FOR ROAD. f PARCEL B: LOT 9,.BLOCK 1, ADMIRALTY ACRES, .ACrnJ)ING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED .I06LUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 48, RLL RDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WRSHINI�TON. . PAR -Q: LOT 26, BLOCk x,'AD61"LTY ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT.THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME_.1-1 OF, . S, PACE 48, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY,. WASHINQToN.• 4' PARCEL D-1:; LOT 11, BLOCK It, AgMIRAL ( AI :RCS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 60 PLATS,'A,,E'4$,,RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE EAST 126-fJEET THER60F:. PARCEL D-2: y THE EAST 120 FEET OF LOT 1I,;'SL6%1J"ADMIRALTY ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN 11!OILUME 12 OF PLOtt PAGE 48, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 9 Packet Pg. 75 8.1.g Va I bridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Appraisal/Appraisal Problem The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate market value of the subject property (1) in the "as is" condition, and (2) after a proposed right-of-way vacation of 2,230 SF. Property Rights Appraised This appraisal sets forth an opinion regarding the fee simple interest. Intended Use of the Appraisal The client intends to use the appraisal to estimate market value in the "before" and "after' situations, for the purpose of establishing a reasonable compensation amount to the City of Edmonds. Client The client is PD NW Investment, LLC, whose governing member is Manjinder Josan. Intended Users The intended users of this report are the client and those parties assigned by the client. Scope of the Appraisal The appraisal included personal inspection of the subject tract on various dates in October 2018. Information was gathered on the neighborhood, local and regional market conditions; analysis of market supply and demand; determination of highest and best use and preparation of value estimates by the Sales Comparison Approach. Transactions in the immediate and competing areas involving properties similar to the subject were investigated and the following criteria were utilized in comparing the sale properties to the subject: date of sale, zoning and land use regulations, location, view, site utility, size, topography, frontage, soil conditions and other pertinent factors. Confirmation of the terms of sale entailed contact with the buyer, seller or broker handling the transaction. Supplemental information was obtained from public records as well as Costar Realty Information Inc., Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NMLS) and Commercial MLS, all of which are market data services which provide and confirm information on real estate sale transactions. Extraordinary Assumptions This term is defined as an assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, as of the effective date of the assignment results, which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser's opinions or conclusions. It presumes as fact otherwise uncertain information about the legal, physical or economic characteristics of the subject property. A key assumption is that lot yield is unchanged before and after the proposed right-of-way vacation, according to the site plans herein. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 10 Packet Pg. 76 8.1.g Valbridge PROPFRTY ADVISORS P OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT INTRODUCTION Hypothetical Conditions This term is defined as a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraisers to exist on the effective date of the assignment results but is used for the purpose of analysis. The hypothetical condition herein is the analysis of the property in the "after" situation. Exposure Time An exposure period is the estimated length of the time property interest being appraised has been offered on the market prior to a hypothetical rent at market value as of the effective appraisal date. Out of the comparable sales considered for analysis, seven were listed for sale on the open market and exposure times ranged from 6 days to almost 16 months, averaging 129 days or four to five months. Recognizing these transactions, along with discussions with brokers and investors knowledgeable of this property type, the exposure period for property similar to the subject in most attributes, including size, is estimated at three to six months at market value. Competency of the Appraisers Robert J. Macaulay, MAI and Paul C. Bird have appraised numerous residentially zoned sites throughout the greater Puget Sound region and are qualified to complete this assignment and provide a reliable estimate of market value. Additional information regarding appraisal experience and qualifications is presented at the end of this report. No one else provided substantive assistance in the appraisal process and report preparation. Dates of Inspection/Valuation The subject property was inspected on various dates in October 2018. The date of valuation is October 16, 2018. Date of Report March 14, 2019 Five -Year Ownership History The property was earlier listed in March 2014 for $3,000,000, then reduced to $2,200,000, and the listing expired in September 2014. This tract included the subject property and an adjacent 0.66-acre parcel owned by the city, and there had been plans for a 25-lot plat on the combined assemblage; however, the city elected not to sell its parcel, effectively stopping this particular development. In December 2015, the subject property was acquired via Quit Claim Deed by a trustee of the US Bankruptcy Court under Auditor's File No. 201512030368. It was placed back on the market in October 2015 for $1,700,000, then reduced to $1,380,000. In August 2016, the property was placed under contract and it closed in December 2016 at an agreed - upon price of $1,100,000. The current owner is PD NW Investment, LLC. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 11 Packet Pg. 77 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT ua I bridge INTRODUCTION PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Accompaniment by Owner Paul C. Bird had telephone conversations on various dates with the property owner, Manjinder Josan, who declined accompaniment. Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 12 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 78 8.1.g Va I bridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound MARKET AREA DATA OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT MARKET AREA DATA A piece of property is an integral part of its neighborhood. An appraisal must consider the environmental, social and economic forces currently influencing the district to ascertain probable trends and the neighborhood's influence on the subject property. Location The larger market area is defined as all of Snohomish County and the immediate market area is the Edmonds urban growth area (UGA). Snohomish County is located along Puget Sound, in the north central portion of western Washington, between Skagit County to the north and King County to the south. Snohomish County is the third most populous county in the state behind King and Pierce counties. The Seattle metropolitan region (King, Pierce and Snohomish counties), as of April 2018, contained 52.1% of the state's total population of 7,427,570. The county encompasses approximately 2,100 square miles, of which 43%± (to the east) includes portions of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. Most of the population is concentrated in the foothills of the Cascades and the Puget Sound lowlands. The City of Edmonds is situated along the eastern shore of Puget Sound, midway between the cities of Seattle and Everett (see comprehensive plan map on following page). The S.68-square mile town is in the southwestern corner of Snohomish County. The principal geographic feature of Edmonds is its waterfront location and resulting outstanding water and mountain views. The city lies generally south of 156th Street SW, west of 76th Avenue W and north of the King -Snohomish county line. Also included within city limits is Swedish Medical Center Edmonds Campus (formerly Stevens Memorial) and, to the southeast, there is an incorporated area between Highway 99, Lake Ballinger and 244th Street SW. Topography within the city limits is generally sloping upward from Puget Sound, leveling out to an undulating bench land. The western part of the city has good to excellent westerly sound and mountain views. Main east -west commercial thoroughfares include Edmonds Way (State Route 104), Main Street and 196th Street SW (State Route 524). Main north -south arterials include Highway 99, 5th Avenue, 9th Avenue and 76th Avenue W. Freeway access is good; there are interchanges approximately one-half mile east of the city at 220th Street SW and 244th Street SW. Most of the land in Edmonds is residential in character. Residences are primarily single family, but there is a growing multi -family segment in and around downtown, most of which are condominiums. Multi- family dwellings are also found around Swedish Edmonds Medical Center and along or near major thoroughfares. There are few manufacturing and industrial land uses in the city. The most prevalent commercial development is along Highway 99, where there is a diverse mix of commercial enterprises. Away from Highway 99, predominant commercial uses are neighborhood shopping centers along Edmonds. In the central business district, most commercial development consists of small offices and shops, in keeping with the city's small town atmosphere. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 13 Q Packet Pg. 79 8.1.g Valhridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT MARKET AREA DATA - City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map Plan D**ntlw1 Plan Overlap Gl•w.w.or/ f�/rre�rl A . j�Y rinsrr - Ow. - ..�7-y ... w w f 1— �1+ 3 r• •i. T Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 14 Q Packet Pg. 80 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT jll Valbridge MARKET AREA DATA PROPFRTY ADVISORS ,di JOlanu Economy The jobless rate for the Seattle metropolitan district (King and Snohomish counties) has declined to the point where there is a labor shortage. As seen below, the labor force and employment have grown. Employment Trends - Seattle-Reliew- up-FvPrPtt Metropolitan District Unemployment rate 1 4.1% 4.0% 3.5% Labor force 1,629,329 1,669,438 1,697,661 % growth 2.5% 1.7% Employment 1,562,740 1,601,890 1,638,635 % growth 2.5% 2.3% Source: State of Washington Employment Security Department Below is a summary from the June 2018 Puget Sound Economic Forecaster. Summary Forecast - Puget Sound Region 0• Growth Factors Employment 3.2% 2.5% 2.4% 1.0% Personal income (current dollars) 7.5% 4.1% 4.6% 5.1% Consumer price index 2.2% 3.0% 1.9% 2.3% Housing permits (number) -4.9% 8.5% -7.1% -11.5% Housing permits ($ amounts) -5.1% 15.1% -4.7% -3.5% Average home price 9.8% 11.8% 4.8% -1.1% Average apartment rent 9.0% 8.1% 4.8% -1.1% Retail sales 4.9% 4.8% 4.1% 4.0% Population 1.7% 1.5% 1.4% 1.2% Other Data Unemployment rate 4.5% 4.2% 4.1% 4.0% Housing permits (thousands) 25.8 28.0 26.0 23.1 Single family 10.9 10.9 9.9 9.7 Multi -family 15.7 17.1 16.2 13.4 Housing permits (millions $) $5,340.5 $6,146.1 $5,858.2 $5,655.5 Single family $3,327.8 $3,557.6 $3,391.1 $3,479.0 Multi -family $2,012.7 $2,588.5 $2,467.1 $2,176.5 Average home price (thousands $) $466.3 $521.4 $546.4 $540.5 Active home listings (thousands) 7.9 6.4 5.7 6.4 Home sales (thousands) 71.2 73.4 62.6 58.7 Apartment vacancy rate (%) 3.4% 3.8% 4.0% 4.2% Average apartment rent ($) 1 $1,411 _ $1,526 $1,593 J $1,631 Source: Puget Sound Economic Forecaster, June 2018 Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 15 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 81 8.1.g Val bridge OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT MARKET AREA DATA PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Population Below is a summary of population growth for the following municipalities. Because of limited available land, the countywide growth rate has exceeded Edmonds and nearby municipalities this decade. Population Growth - Selected Jurisdictions f City •0 2000 Edmonds 30,743 39,544 39,709 41,820 % change N/A 28.6% 0.4% 5.3% Lynnwood 28,637 33,847 35,836 38,260 % change --- 18.2% 5.9% 6.8% Mountlake Terrace 19,320 20,362 19,909 21,560 % change N/A 5.4% -2.2% 8.3% Mukilteo 6,982 18,019 20,254 21,320 % change N/A 158.1% 12.4% 5.3% Woodway 914 936 1,307 1,340 % change --- 2.4% 39.6% 2.5% Shoreline (1) 53,296 53,007 55,730 % change --- --- -0.5% 5.1% Snohomish County 465,628 606,024 713,335 805,120 % change --- 30.2% 17.7% 12.9% (1) Incorporated in 1996 Source: State of Washington Office of Financial Management, April 2018 Single Family Residential Market Below is a summary of sales activity from Northwest Multiple Listing Service. Over the past twelve months, the appreciation rate has slowed for single family residences; there are fewer sales and more active listings, and these are factors that point to a leveling off of pricing. Residential Sales Activity - Snohomish County .. �ng Median price $450,000 $484,995 7.8% Sold 1,203 955 -20.6% Pending 1,317 1,075 -18.4% Active listings 1,579 2,213 40.2% Months of inventory 1.3 2.3 76.5% Condominium. - Median price $296,000 $339.000 14.5% Sold 263 225 -14.4% Pending 297 232 -21.9% Active listings 271 355 31.0% Months of inventory 1 1.0 1,6 53.1% Source: Northwest Multiple Listing Service. Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 16 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 82 8.1.g k111� Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS ..,, Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT MARKET AREA DATA Apartment Market Conditions remain favorable for this market segment. There will be more inventory coming on line in 2019, which should meet ongoing demand. Below is a summary of mid-2018 trends in the five -county region, as charted by Kidder Mathews. Market Forecast Trends Market Snapshot Annual % Average Rer New Constriction 202018 3,037 102018 3,450 202017 2,982 1.84% Studio $1,323 Under Construction 27,729 28,327 25,567 8 46 % 1 Bedroom $1,448 Vacancy Rate 510111 5:50% 4,90% 4.08% 2 Bedroom $1,667 Avg Asking Renls $1,553 $1,521 $1,509 2,92 % 3 Bedroom $1,900 Avg Sales Pnce/Un1t $175,154 $7197,603 $201,036 -12,87 % Cap Rate 4.8406 4.66% 5.07% -4,54% Net Absorption 4,584 3,204 3,993 N/A Retail Real Estate Market According to a June 2018 retail study of the three -county region (King, Snohomish and Pierce counties) by Costar, the overall retail vacancy rate was 3.5%, slightly lower than the 3.6% rate one year earlier. In the Edmonds/Lynnwood submarket (see map below), Costar surveyed 660 properties totaling 10,989,866 SF. The June 2018 vacancy rate was 3.6%, with year-to-date absorption of 34,021 SF. There were no deliveries through mid-2018 but there was 43,600 SF under construction at mid -year; the average quoted rental rate was a modest $20.74/SF. Office Market The June 2018 vacancy rate was 7.0% in the Puget Sound area (King, Snohomish and Pierce counties), and has been on a gradual declining trend since 2011. In the Edmonds/Lynnwood submarket, Costar surveyed 337 properties totaling 5,019,176 SF. The June 2018 vacancy rate was 5.6%, and net absorption in the first six months of 2018 was minus 59,635 SF; there were no space delivered in the first half of 2018 and no space under construction at mid -year. Conditions are favorable despite the negative net absorption in the first half of the year. The average quoted rental rate was $27.11/SF. On the following page is a chart of Snohomish County market trends, courtesy of Kidder Mathews. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.dou h artha Lak L yonwood M ntfake T Traci• Costar Submarket Map (Retail, Office and Industrial) Page 17 T) a a Q Z x w c m E z U r Q Packet Pg. 83 8.1.g Va I bridge .... PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT MARKET AREA DATA Industrial Market The June 2018 vacancy rate was 3.1% in the Puget Sound area (King, Snohomish and Pierce counties) and, like the office market, has been on a gradual declining trend since 2011. In the Edmonds/Lynnwood submarket, Costar surveyed 183 properties totaling 3,282,445 SF. The June 2018 vacancy rate was 0.5%, and year-to-date absorption was minus 555 SF. There were no deliveries in the first half of 2018 and no space under construction at mid -year. The average quoted rental rate was $0.845/SF per month. Compared to King and Pierce counties, Snohomish County has more manufacturing and less distribution space and The Boeing Company remains a primary driving force. Below is a summary chart of the Snohomish County submarket, prepared by Kidder Mathews. SNOHOMISH COUNTY SF 1.5M 1.2M 5.Gf°R. 5.66%.. SU,7a 4.58re 300K 2% OK 0% • K New Construction : Net Absorption O Vacancy Average Rent (Median) Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicVievv.docx Page 18 Packet Pg. 84 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT Va I b ri dge MARKET AREA DATA 0\147PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Social Influences According to www.ciiy-data.com, median 2016 household income in Edmonds was $83,697, notably higher than the statewide median of $67,106. Environmental Influences No significant adverse environmental influences are noted. Summary The City of Edmonds is a medium-sized city of 41,820, situated along the Puget Sound shoreline. Because of its waterfront location and outstanding views, the city is an attractive place to live and work. Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 19 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 85 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT Va l bridge SITE DATA (BEFORE ACQUISITION) . u. PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound SITE DATA (BEFORE ACQUISITION) General Location Mailing address is 18325 80' Avenue W and 7704 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington, 98026. It is on the west side of Olympic View Drive and east side of 80`h Avenue W in the City of Edmonds, just northwest of a small commercial area known as Perrinville. The view amenity is territorial at best. Olympic View Drive is a secondary two-lane arterial that extends northwesterly from 76th Avenue W toward Puget Sound, then turns south (paralleling the shoreline) and terminates at Puget Drive. 80th Avenue W is a lightly traveled north -south collector. Adjacent properties consist of single family residences to the north, south and west, and US Post Office to the east. The property is in U.S. Census Tract 503.00, and it is within the boundaries of the Edmonds School District which, according to www.schooldigger.com, ranks 73d out of 205 districts measured in Washington State. Land Area/Access Total land area of the irregularly shaped tract is 4.90 acres, according to county assessor's records, with 595.50 feet of frontage along Olympic View Drive and 115.0 feet along 80th Avenue W. Vehicular access is by both rights -of -way; in addition, there is a 20-foot wide right-of-way at the southerly boundary, extending southerly to 185th Place SW. The nearest freeway access is 3.4 miles to the southeast, where 1-5 intersects with 1961h Street SW. Topography/Drainage Topography is undulating, ranging from modest to steep, so development would require earth -moving along with soil removal and importation. An engineered stormwater detention system would be required for new construction. On the following page is an aerial photograph which shows elevation changes. r Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 20 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 86 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound ;1V' OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT SITE DATA (BEFORE ACQUISITION) .L ,. Wetlands Additional expertise in scientific fields such as hydrology, geology, soil science and botany is necessary to interpret wetlands definitions and to accurately identify and delineate wetlands boundaries. According to the site plans, there are no sensitive areas on the tract. On the following page is site plan which shows the proposed subject parcels and right-of-way configuration. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 21 r Q Packet Pg. 87 8.1.g ON Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Site Plan u 7 .. LOT 8015 SF y 11 1 J CL CJ1 r• F---__ LDT 5 LOT 1 -- a 1247- LOT 2 LOT 3 270 FF 1s<w SF. 21K OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT SITE DATA (BEFORE ACQUISITION) ---- J LOT F IF Lo C) 17 ICE .76;9- 0 LOT 7 u,r IF n u d� 6SEi5 CRYYFhT Fuauc -2.O 'A, i1,21a SF. n ?ENs114G FrA7-,-F-w+Y e LOT B 12.M IF ti A is LOT . _ ^z,Wr;F LOT 9 LOT 13 111V IF v �Ep L:%T 10 •x 121g1 xF 1us' 1 NAJ W " r` ua- 7�Y 1rV1 I LOT 12 LOT 11 17,042 SF IJ,�a sF Soil/Subsoil Conditions No evidence of unstable soil conditions was observed. Unstable soil or geologic conditions that are not obvious require separate investigation and are not considered in this appraisal report. It is assumed for purposes of this report that the property contains no hazardous materials or soil contamination. An independent investigation by qualified experts in the field is necessary to ascertain the presence of Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 22 Q Packet Pg. 88 8.1.g Vaibridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT SITE DATA (BEFORE ACQUISITION) asbestos and/or other hazardous materials. We reserve the right to adjust the market value estimate if definitive evidence is presented showing that there are hazardous materials on or within the property. Floodplains The site is above the 100-year floodplain, as shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map No. 53061C, Panel No. 1305E, dated November 8, 1999; therefore, no flood insurance is required for financing. Improvements The land is currently improved with a 2,918 SF residence built in 1976 and 1,974 SF residence built in 1959. The property owner intends to demolish the structures and develop a 14-lot single family residential plat, utilizing most of the unimproved Olympic Avenue right-of-way for a new street identified as 184th Place SW. Without the proposed right-of-way vacation, the owner can develop a 14-lot plat with average lot size of 13,208 SF, as shown on the preceding page and below. Land Area Summary # Size (SF) 1 12,016 2 12,004 3 12,703 4 12,732 5 19,358 6 13,131 7 14,170 8 12,045 9 12,888 10 12,184 11 13,949 12 12,042 13 13,282 14 12,407 Total 184,911 Average 13,208 Right-of-way 28,330 Tota 1 213,241 Acres 4.90 Utilities All utilities are available, with electricity by Snohomish County PUD No. 1, natural gas by Puget Sound Energy, garbage removal by Republics Services, and water and sanitary sewer services by the City of Edmonds. On the following page is a city utilities map, with water lines in blue, sanitary sewer lines in Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 23 Packet Pg. 89 8.1.g 011Valbridge ' PROPERTY An\"'-r1RC P OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT SITE DATA (BEFORE ACQUISITION) gold, and storm drainage lines in green (the green squares are catch basins the green circles are manholes). 187)6 18727 S•t5-� _.�,��+ 5 i6CE VL PD5-85.16Cf f 8337 6 18:3(15 1fj 1831.1 ° k 18376 a .r • J� l4 s- 8001 s) 18315 18408 5.204 5 10J � Sewer U< t, �ns4 s At 0 9 2Cg 5.QW ° ° a 18415 ° 18-118 n 7601 18419 I � 18426 159: 5 135A f•1598 S 18437 1850i Easements or Other Use Restrictions A title report was not available. Based on review of other available documentation, there are no easements or encumbrances which would adversely influence market value. Assessed Value and Taxes Real property in Snohomish County is assessed at market value by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. Assessed values are updated annually and property taxes are based on levy rates, which are determined through the budgeting process of the county and various local districts on an annual basis. The 2018 levy rate is 1.066% of assessed value. On the following page is a summary of the subject property's 2018 assessed value and property tax burden. The taxes include surcharges for soil conservation, ranging from $5.93 to $6.06 per parcel. For tax year 2019, total assessed value increased by 6.5% to $2,059,600, and all but $84,200 of which is allocated to land. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 24 Packet Pg. 90 Q 8.1.g k1\11Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT SITE DATA (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Assessed Value and Real Estate Tax Summary Tax Account Land Building Real Estate Number Area (SF) Area (SF) Land Per SF Improved Per SF Total Taxes 003708-001-009-00 43,996 2,918. $410,200 $9.32 A75,300 $2581 $485,500 15,179.51 003708-001-010-00 27,878 0 $302,800 $10.86 $0 $0.00 $302,800 $3,232.54 003708-001-011-00 33,106 1,974 $350,800 $10.60 $0 $0.00 $350,800 $4,413.23 004346-000-106-01 99,317 0 $795,000 $8.00 $0 $0.00 $795,000 $8,747.48 Totals 204,296 4,892 $1,858,800 " $9.10 $75,300 '$15.39 $1,934,100 $21,572.76 Land and building areas are based on county assessor's records. /-%Nbe55U1 5 Ivl d r i r7 7294 �.. ;4 b 1043 13 LZI 8 irf,raf r I � 9 -o I. 12 i f1042 II I 9 030 11 10 m - -- - --- ----- ------ -- - -- - •- ----- - - - - - - - - - - - j P j 0 .r( 1 2 10 �,, ;, i 04 05 1 13 a , 9 106 8 M 7 6 61 01 5 r: 16 i 17 i 18 19 20 21 '� r 4 3 �� 185Tw--PL Sw 22 ,. W 26 25 24 23 02 01 -1 •L r� X w U a Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 25 Packet Pg. 91 8.1.g ON Valhridge ;;:•:;!/ PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT SITE DATA (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Land Use Regulations Zoning is RS-12, a Residential Single-family designation by the city which primarily allows detached single family residences on lots no smaller than 12,000 SF. Other primary permitted uses include churches and various public uses. Below is a chart of development standards, as excerpted from the Edmonds municipal code; and on the following page is a portion of the November 2017 zoning map, which shows all or most of the site under a contract rezone. The previous proposed Angler's Crossing plat expired in January 2017, according to city council minutes. 16.20.030 Table of site development standards. ® SHARE Sub Minimum Maximum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Minimum District Lot Area DensityLot Width Height Street Side Rear Coverage Parking (Sq.Ft.) Setback Setback Setback (%) Spaces2 RS-20 20.000 22 100, 25' 35-3 & 10' 25' 25' 35% 2 RS-12 12.000 37 80, 25' 10, 25' 25' 35% 2 RSW- 12,000 37 — 15, 10, 35' 25' 35% 2 124 RS-10 10.000 44 75' 25' 10, 20' 25' 35% 2 RS-8 8,000 5.5 70' 25' 7-112' 15' 25' 35% 2 RS-6 6,000 7-3 60' 20' 5' 15' 25' 35% 2 RS-MP5 12,0001 3.75 80'5 25'S 10'S 25.5 25' 35% 2 t'Density means 'dwelling units per acre" determined by dividing the total lot area by the density allowed by the underlying zoning, the number of lots or units permitted shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number- 2 See Chapter # 7.50 ECDC for specific parking requirements. 3 Thirty-five feet total of both sides. 10 feet minimum on either side- 4 Lots must have frontage on the ordinary high water irne and a public slreel or access easemenl approved by the hearing examiner 5 "MP' signifies 'master plan' The standards in this section show the standards applicable to development without an approved master plan Properties in this zone may be developed at a higher urban density lot pattern equivalent to RS-8 but this shall only be permitted in accordance with a duly adopted master plan adopted under the provisions of ECDC 16"2044§. ford.47 11 1 20051 Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 26 r Q Packet Pg. 92 8.1.g Va I bridge �►'?iW. PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT SITE DATA (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Page 27 a Packet Pg. 93 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT 0\1 VaIbridge HIGHEST AND BEST USE (BEFORE ACQUISITION) :'r"' PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound HIGHEST AND BEST USE (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Highest and best use is the most fundamental premise upon which estimations of market value are based. According to "The Appraisal of Real Estate" (Fourteenth Edition, 2013), highest and best use is defined as: "The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum productivity. Alternatively, the probable use of land or improved property — specific with respect to the user and timing of the use —that is adequately supported and results in the highest present value." Highest and best use analysis is a highly relevant consideration in the appraisal process. This analysis forms the basis upon which property is appraised, whether it is vacant land or land plus existing improvements. To this end, it is necessary to do two tests: (1) Highest and best use of land as though vacant and (2) Highest and best use of the property as improved. The primary reason for estimating the highest and best use of land as though vacant is to estimate land value. If there is an existing improvement on the site, the land is viewed as though vacant. A conclusion is then reached as to what use creates the highest residual to the land or the highest land value. It is then possible to identify comparable sales of vacant land. Legally Permissible Zoning is RS-12, a Residential Single-family designation by the city which primarily allows detached N single family residences on lots no smaller than 12,000 SF. L a Q. Numerous factors are considered by county agencies including sensitive areas, access from public a streets, utility availability, drainage, and other physical effects to the surrounding uses. Most of these factors are site -specific, thus interpretation of the code and its application to the subject is not entirely predictable until actual studies are completed. x w Physically Possible The site has undulating topography, ranging from modestly to steep, which adds to development z challenges, with no apparent wetlands or other sensitive areas. Soils appear to have sufficient load- U bearing capacity and all utilities are available. In summary, the tract can legally and physically Q accommodate a 14-lot plat. Financially Feasible/Maximally Productive The subject 4.90-acre tract is well -located in an established residential neighborhood. Market conditions remain robust but there are indications of softening. From July 2017 to July 2018, the median price of single family residences in Snohomish County increased 7.8% but there are fewer Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 28 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 94 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT Va I bridge HIGHEST AND BEST USE (BEFORE ACQUISITION) PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound sales and more available inventory compared to last year, so it is anticipated that price appreciation will continue to dampen over the next twelve months. For new construction (built in 2016 and newer) in Edmonds, on lots in the 6,000 SF to 20,000 SF range, there were 26 sales in the twelve months ending September 2018 and the median price was $1,075,000, with an average exposure period of 23 days and average living area of 3,253 SF. As noted in the Market Area analysis, regional economic indicators show a slight decline in average home prices and number of sales, which makes it important for there to be an appropriate number of new homes in categories where there is greatest demand. Below is a summary of homes and exposure periods by price category in the Edmonds area. Sold Listings in Edmonds (Lots Smaller Than 20,000 SF) 9 Months Ending 9/30/2017 9 Months Ending 9/30/2018 Range Number of AveragePrice Cumulative Numberof Average Cumulative Days Sales Days on Market Sales on Market $300,000 - $349,999 5 12 4 12 $350,000 - $399,999 28 19 9 17 $400,000 - $449,999 56 20 42 9 $450,000 - $499,999 63 26 60 15 $500,000 - $549,999 52 18 64 13 $550,000 - $599,999 65 20 58 23 $600,000 - $649,999 56 20 55 20 $650,000 - $699,999 39 23 50 14 $700,000 - $749,999 30 30 35 16 $750,000 - $799,999 25 21 28 23 $800,000 - $849,999 10 30 17 25 $850,000 - $899,999 8 10 17 27 $900,000 - $949,999 13 17 9 32 $950,000 - $999,999 11 44 14 17 $1,000,000 - $1,049,999 4 15 7 12 $1,050,000 - $1,099,999 3 7 13 12 $1,100,000 - $1,149,999 7 122 7 12 $1,150,000 - $1,199,999 4 95 6 6 Source: Northwest Multiple Listing Service. r Q The above data points to an active market in the $400,000 to $800,000 price range, recognizing the number of transactions. Although there have been fewer sales in the $800,000 to $1,200,000 range, exposure times were less than one month in all but one category. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 29 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 95 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT errsVa I bridge HIGHEST AND BEST USE (BEFORE ACQUISITION) PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Financially feasible options are examined, including market analysis of various property types in light of the subject site's location and physical characteristics. Considering the state of the market, along with all other relevant factors, highest and best use is for development of a 14-lot subdivision. Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 30 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 96 8.1.g Va I bridge PROPERTY ADVISORS r... R Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Approaches Used in the Valuation Process — The valuation estimates are obtained by the proper use of three different approaches to value, the Cost, Income and Sales Comparison approaches. These three approaches are different in character but related somewhat in the known facts they require to arrive at an opinion of value from each. The final conclusion of value is derived through a correlation process in which the appraiser weighs one approach against the other to determine the relative merits of each before coming to a conclusion. The Cost Approach to Value is the process of first determining the value of the subject land, to which is added the replacement cost new of the structure, less depreciation, and the cost of land improvements. The sum of the costs is the indication of value by the Cost Approach. The Income Approach to Value involves the estimation of a gross economic rental, which is then processed by subtracting an estimated vacancy and credit loss and operating expenses to obtain an estimated net operating income. The net operating income is then capitalized into a value conclusion by the appropriate capitalization rate derived from the market. The Sales Comparison Approach to Value is utilized in several different methods. Sales of comparable buildings and land are analyzed to determine a sale price per square foot or other market - accepted denominator. An alternative method deals with a gross income multiplier, which is an expression of the relationship between the gross income and value. Final Correlation and Conclusion of Value — The various indications of value from the approaches are analyzed as to how they relate to one another, as well as to the market. The approach or approaches most appropriate are given the most consideration in arriving at a final opinion of value. The property is non -income producing, so the Income Approach is not utilized. Because it is vacant land, the Cost Approach is not applicable, although elements of the Cost Approach are utilized in the land residual (or subdivision) analysis. Consequently, the primary valuation method is the Sales Comparison Approach. Under this valuation technique, market value is estimated using two valuation methods: (1) a subdivision (or land residual) analysis, and (2) comparable sales analysis of similar undeveloped residential acreage. Land Valuation The subject property is valued by comparing recent sales of residential land possessing similar characteristics. Adjustments are made to the unit sale price to compensate for differences such as zoning, physical characteristics, size, location and other relevant attributes. When the sale is inferior to the subject, an upward adjustment is made. Alternatively, when the sale is superior to the subject, a downward adjustment is made. These adjusted values are correlated to a single unit value that is then applied to the subject. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 31 Packet Pg. 97 8.1.g Valbrldge PROPERTY ADVISORS SORS .a,..+ A Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Subdivision Analysis This procedure begins by considering the probable selling price of the individual finished lots based on review of market sales data. Next, deductions are made for closing costs and commissions. Remaining development costs (if applicable) are deducted, as are holding costs such as real estate taxes. Finally, an allocation is made for an appropriate retail profit margin for the developer. Because lot sellout is anticipated to occur shortly after recording, recognizing current market conditions, a static residual analysis is utilized. GROSS SELLOUT VALUE Sales of similarly zoned land are investigated and compared to the subject property, and the search included transactions in the market area that have sold in 2018. The subject lots are viewed with all mitigation fees and utility assessments paid by the seller and all comparable sales are adjusted to reflect the same conditions. On the following page is a summary tabulation of the land sales used in the valuation process, followed by a comparable land sale map, photographs and plat maps of the comparables, analysis and conclusion. Comparable Lot Sales Tabulation Average Analysis Lot Size Price Per Sale No. Location Sale Date Subj. 7704 Olympic View N/A Zoning RS-12, Residential Price (SF) DUs DU Comments N/A 13,208 14 N/A .Average lot size is before Drive, Edmonds Single-family proposed right-of-way vacation. (12,000 SF minimum lot size) 1 5326 160th Street SW, 10/5/2018 R-9600, Residential $280,000 12,700 1 $280,000 Previously improved with a 2,593 SF Edmonds (maximum 4.5 residence built in 1978 and DUs/acre) demolished in 2017. The seller previously acquired the property in July 2018 via Trustee's Deed. Listed for $289,950 and 8 days on market. The buyer intends to construct a 2,642 SF residence with attached 732 SF garage. 2 914 Sea Vista Place, 8/24/2018 RS-10, Residential $300,000 11,031 1 $300,000 Sold for the asking price after 9 ,Edmonds Single-family days on the market. Sloping (10,000 SF topography, partial to good sound minimum lot size) and mountain views. 3 .3124 176th Street SW, 7/3/2018 RS-8, Residential $255,000 15,199 1 $255,000 Listed for $265,000 and 13 days on Lynnwood Single-family market, estate sale. Dilapidated (8,400 SF base mobile home on the property. 3/9/2018 minimum lot size) RS-20, Residential ^12,064 1 4 17123 69th Place W, $248,000 $248,000 Listed for $269,000 and 249 days -Edmonds Single-family on market. Vacant, sloping site with (20,000 SF filtered mountain views. minimum lot size) 5 19816 and 19824 86th 2/16/2018 RS-8, Residential $670,000 8,003 2 $335,000 Listed for $699,950 and 4 days on Place W, Edmonds Single-family market. The lots were created in (8,000 SF minimum October 2017 lot size) Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 32 18-0323 OlympicView.docx M N M L C. a r� Z t K W C d E t t� C r a Packet Pg. 98 8.1.g 01 1 Va 1 bridge :1., PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound COMPARABLE LOT SALES MAP OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) C"IC Point -North 99 Lynnwood , Meadowdele Beach Perk szs F Sculhwesl County Park w E sublt" a ss PERRINVILI E 4 i k E Lynnwood C.wens v $ Edmonds Community d colfte u Edmonds M.. Si 20M St 3W 46 $� 21Im S1 SW 'i1Ctt i1. i''- W H � 9 100 nft St SW i20th 11 SW Woodway g Esperance t Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 33 Packet Pg. 99 Q 8.1.g 4OValbridge PROPERTY ADVISOR` Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Comparable Land Sale No. 1 5326 160th Street SW, near Lynnwood Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 34 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Q Packet Pg. 100 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) • SET /Ro.V P/N W/Tf! PL457/C CAP!/00 9&qf .. ,•«C _z � _ •• • o - FOUND EX I,5TIA16 RiBAR 95 NOTEDF7� =. "1 2 S-28-85 i Ld U I (.ve6'sa'GS"w 29G.40 J .- 1 •1 Q J t. ��. .vsa!Ts' -w zo�.g7• .iaYrApkRdp . 'LAP,�gD 9dTf'' ••li 7 largo 1�d4.1Kb/tA�r'$3•+�e - WW Y .,. _ `v• i � LLJ 'v �+2 1/,O91dR, W Y ib i I/.3ZO 41 i w OD �. 'l97. Jd4.D0• 1 Qi L! RE9Aft S[ET3y� �r6�•rf3 x.s- 29¢..eg• R LIP .H14 LETC+VY.AdSCC.`-.' rU66 '37"W 296.W � ._ Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 35 a Packet Pg. 101 8.1.g 011 � Va I bridge ;;;; PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound COMPARABLE LOT SALE IMAGES Comparable Land Sale No. 3 3124 176" Street SW, Lynnwood Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Page 36 Q Packet Pg. 102 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Vafbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Comparable Land Sale No. 4 17123 691h Place W, Edmonds Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 37 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Q Packet Pg. 103 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Comparable Land Sale No. 5 19816 and 19824 861h Place W, Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Page 38 Q Packet Pg. 104 8.1.g kill Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound LOT SALE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Since no two properties are identical, it is necessary to compare all reasonable differences between the properties which sold and the subject property. When appropriate data is available, a paired sales analysis is attempted to determine the various elements to which property values are sensitive. If available data is insufficient to make quantitative adjustments; qualitative discussion is used when relating sales to the subject property and quantitative adjustments are made based on the appraisers' judgment. Adjustments are made, if necessary, to the comparable sale prices to make them comparable to the subject as of the effective date of the value estimate. The elements of comparison include property rights conveyed, financing, sale conditions, market conditions, location, view, access, size, zoning, physical characteristics and other relevant factors, and the adjustment grid on the following page reflects the direction and degree of adjustments. Although the most dated, most emphasis is placed on Sale No. 5 due to proximity and similar location, and secondary weighting is given to the remaining transactions. Considering the above, the average market value of finished lots at the subject property is estimated at $325,000 apiece. In addition to comparable lot transactions, a residual analysis is utilized to test the reasonableness of the value conclusion. The median price of new construction in Edmonds is $1,075,000 but, considering the prices of homes in the range of highest demand, the price of a completed residence is estimated at $800,000. Utilizing closing costs of 5%, cost data from Marshall Valuation Service (a national cost - reporting authority) and contractor's profit at 10%, residual per lot value is summarized below. Value of finished single family residence I $800,000 Less: Sales and marketing expenses @ 5.0% of gross sale price 40000 Net sale proceeds $760,000 Less: Contractor's profit @ 10.0% of gross sale price r ($76,000) Less: Construction costs $684,000 Residence: 3,253 SF @ $95.00 per SF ($309,035) Garage: 750 SF @ $25.00 per SF ($18,750) Landscaping, other ($40,000) Indicated lot residual value $316,215 (R) $316,000 Recognizing the above, market value of finished single family lots on the subject tract is reasonably concluded at $325,000 apiece. Gross sellout value summarized below. Gross Sellout Value 14 finished lots @ $325,000 per lot..............................................................................$4,550,000 Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 39 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Q Packet Pg. 105 8.1.g Va 1 bridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Comparable Lot Sales Adjustment Grid Property/Location 7704 Olympic View 5326 160th Street 914 Sea Vista Place, 3124 176th Street 17123 69th Place W, 19816 and 19824 Drive, Edmonds SW, Edmonds Edmonds SW, Lynnwood Edmonds 86th Place W, Edmonds .Asking price N/A $289,950 $300,000 $265,000 $269,000 $699,950 Days on market N/A 8 9 13 249 4 Sale date N/A 10/5/2018 8/24/2018 7/3/2018 3/9/2018 2/16/2018 Sale price N/A $280,000 $300,000 $255,000 $248,000 $670,000 Lots 14 1 1 1 1 2 Price/lot N/A $280,000 $300,000 $255,000 $248,000 $335,000 Auditor's File No. N/A 20181005-0054 20180824-0523 20180703-0466 20180309-0213 20180216-0657 Tax parcel number 004346-000-106-01; 005137-000-037-06 270325-001-150-00 005038-000-048-00 010173-000-011-00 270419-002-145-00, 003708-001-009-00, 146-00 010-00,-011-00 Rights conveyed N/A Fee simple Fee simple Fee simple Fee simple Fee simple Adjustment Financing N/A Cash equivalent Cash equivalent Cash equivalent Cash equivalent Cash equivalent Adjustment Sale conditions N/A Arm's length Arm's length Arm's length Arm's length Arm's length Adjustment Market conditions N/A Small upward Small upward Upward Upward Average lot size (SF) 13,208 12,700 11,031 15,199 12,064 8,003 Adjustment Small upward Small downward Upward Mitigation fees Assumed paid Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Adjustment Physical attributes Finished lots, level to Level Sloping Similar Sloping Level modest slope Adjustment Small downward Small upward Small downward Small upward Small downward Access Adequate Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Adjustment Location Good Inferior Superior, Edmonds Inferior Inferior Similar "bowl.. Adjustment Upward Downward Upward Smaller upward View Territorial Similar Superior Similar Slightly superior Similar Adjustment I I I Downward Small downward Utilities All available Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Adjustment Overall adjustment I N/A I Smaller upward I Smaller downward Upward Upward Smaller u ward BULK SALE DISCOUNTING A factor that inhibits additional analysis is that, because of changes in the financing environment since 2008, developers are predominantly "going vertical", meaning that they will purchase land in "raw" condition or with entitlements, develop the infrastructure, then construct and sell the finished residences. Less common are developers completing infrastructure and then selling finished lots to homebuilders, although there is a slow return to this business model. Considering this, it is anticipated that the subject lots will fully sell out within a year of infrastructure completion, either in in one transaction or multi -part takedown, without bulk sale discount. Since the sellout period is no longer than twelve months, no discounted cash flow analysis is deemed necessary. In our experience, developers in the Puget Sound region typically do not use discounted cash flow analyses for properties where development and lot sellout occur within a twelve-month period. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 40 Packet Pg. 106 8.1.g �111/ Valbridge R;? PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) CLOSING COSTS Typical sales commission rates for land are 5% to 7%, and other closing costs are typically 2%. To ensure that lots are sold in a timely fashion in the current economic and real estate climate, a 3% commission is estimated (recognizing that marketing may occur in-house) and another 2% is added to reflect closing costs such as excise tax, title report, etc., for a total of 5.0%. DEVELOPMENT COSTS Based on experience with dozens of plats in the metropolitan area, total development costs are estimated at $75,000 to $100,000 per lot. Considering the topography of the subject property, total development costs are estimated at the high end of the range, or $100,000 per potential lot. ENTREPRENEURIAL INCENTIVE Return to the developer for undertaking the effort and risk to acquire land, complete the development process and market finished lots varies widely. Historically, developers have sought to achieve returns ranging from 10% to 25% for raw land development. In the case of the subject property, it is nearing final plat approval, so entrepreneurial incentive is estimated at 15% of gross sellout value, which also incorporates holding costs. SUBDIVISION ANALYSIS CONCLUSION Considering the above variables, residual land value estimated as shown below. Residual Analysis "As Is" Total Per Lot Amount Number of potential lots: 14 Gross sellout value (GSV) @ $325,000 per lot $325,000 $4,550,000 Less: Sales and marketing expenses @ 5.0% of GSV 1 25 227 500 Net sale proceeds $308,750 $4,322,500 Less: Total estimated development costs @ $100,000 per lot ($100,000) ($1,400,000) Less: Entrepreneurial incentive @ 15.0% of GSV 48 750 682 500 $160,000 Indicated "as is" land residual value $2,240,000 (R) $160,000 $2,240,000 Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 41 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Mn a Q. Q t x w c m E t U a r r Q Packet Pg. 107 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT Va I b r i d g a PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Unimproved Acreage Analysis A search for similar acreage sales was made, and below is a tabulation of the comparables, followed by a map, photographs and analysis. Comparable Residential Acreage Transactions Sale No Location Sale Date Zoning Analysis Price $1,100,000 Land Area (Acres) 4.90 Average Lot Size (SIF) 13,208 DUs 14 DUs Per Gross Acre 29 Price Per DU $78,571 1Purchased Comments from the US Subj. '7704 Olympic View 12/23/2016 RS,12000, -Drive, Edmonds Residential Single- I Bankruptcy Court. Listed for family (12,000 SF $1.7 million and almost 36 minimum lot size) months on market. Sloping topography in significant _ portions of site 6 Hull 4-lot short plat, 6/14/2018 R-9600, Residential $650,000 0.96 10,446 4 4.2 $162,500 Originally listed for $800,000, 1625 180th Place SW, (maximum 4.5 then reduced to $650,000, on near Lynnwood DUs/acre) the market for 51 days, Improved with a 2,460 SF tri- level residence built in 1991. The buyer intends to develop a 4-lot short plat. 7 2588 Vine Road, Brier 1/31/2018 RS-12500, $2,500,000 4A6 13,667 13 2.6 $192,308 Negotiated directly between Residential Single- buyer and seller. Previously family (12,500 SF improved with 12 single family minimum lot size) residences utilized for military housing, with installed street infrastructure and utilities. The residences were demolished prior to sale. The buyer intends to keep the street and utility infrastructure, and develop a 13 lot subdivision, 8 22509 52nd Avenue W, 10/31/2017 RS-7200, $565,000 0.65 7,348 3 4.6 $188,333 (Listed for $670,000 and 13 days Mountlake Terrace Residential Single- on market, "fully approved family (7,200 SF short plat" at time of sale. base minimum lot (Previously sold in May 2016 for size) :$302,317 or $100,772 per 9/1/2017 7 4.7 Ihomesite in "raw" condition. (Negotiated directly between 9 Gustayson short plat, RS-8, Residential $1,000,000 148 8,412 $142,857 17420 32nd Avenue W, Single-family (buyer and seller. Improved with Lynnwood (8,400 SF base a 576 SF residence built in 1954 minimum lot size) .and 1,161 SF residence built in 1961, demolished subsequent sale. Purchased without .entitlements, the buyer is developing a 7-lot short plat. 10 (Leawood Heights, 1/6/2017 RS-8, Residential $1,720,000 4.35 8,491 16 3.7 $107,500 .Assembled from two sellers, '19100 block of 36th Single-family negotiated directly, in "raw" Avenue W, Lynnwood (8,400 SF base condition at time of sale. The minimum lot size) buyer subsequently developed a 16-lot residential subdivision. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 42 18-0323 OlympicView.docx M A M L Q. Q ti t K W j.i C d E t C) M 4+ a Packet Pg. 108 8.1.g ON Valbridge '`' !/ PROPERTY ADVISORS ...,,. Puget Sound COMPARABLE ACREAGE SALES MAP OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) C C 0 1761h St SV'd 1761h St Sw 1b p�m ° 525 -' 2 �JS cam[ � ta• � c .�� :�� �a a c fi.f 1I ur R 6Ciln .�iE..'/ll ,,,... „ l ° 18A1h St SW +Q m i:. � 401 i' ;? j8 iih $I w7 gf a i ri.F'A.rk ry[ S -I yPerrrnvale II 1� n h LYnr r: c, �l 1 3 1881111 St SW 1881h St SW L,yrmndalc Hai k '7 JL T V .j, - i A!7 i� L woad'M2 192ntl St l W Dr 41 iicrihrr Rlder"ad pa 1 dF n �194[h St Sn Mansrr:. ° a , l 1�� atr,ber .t1 si n o �fh ' St 5VV:1 '_" -524 r.,11i•: {9.P31 k "I' - — A II a Lake fixer k �La1 e F ark ��� - •-, LYMvrnor! 2a(3Rh Si SW . _ na 2oUt h Si 5Vd m @k IgHtnra ! dtk i Edmonds { ii II °� ' {: Vauey 204th St Sw —II +� 204th St -St�! Pine RWIGA Park: _.. Main y 'r5 [,; seaft 2061h } a ty st Park ��� /�r�`�s IL 1 :li 11 I' r • �i WAY ]liL 3LiLJ� LI I 21,23tf`` Sr•) Sw , 2T4eh St BRVS. N y� z2ath st svv 22[7t1, st.:SY_-•:I',nrk VSf2:r! fIJ 8 W[l . 222nd 'St SW �22Ath St 5VV I : 7aL4' U, :m Mountlake Trace r- Ter ce Brieras 228th St SVV. ;,...• §�[ creek Park 22atit St SVSi'• °f # ;"'c, CM0 B[� Park Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 43 Packet Pg. 109 8.1.g Valbridge sst PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound COMPARABLE ACREAGE SALE IMAGES Comparable Land Sale No. 6 Hull 4-lot short plat, 1625 180th Street SW, near Lynnwood OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) io to air rip = AL -_ 42 73• G Fti7`t FZ d R�� ' - 30�xGo cpr�k- .rc r N VF- Ilk g �'•-+[� . �_.. � � � ��'� � ir •r , Z% r� FOB ., d5.sirrf�lar.r.. rtw.Yr� Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 44 Q Packet Pg. 110 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound COMPARABLE ACREAGE SALE IMAGES Comparable Land Sale No. 7 2588 Vine Road, Brier Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Page 45 Q Packet Pg. 111 8.1.g �1 Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound COMPARABLE ACREAGE SALE IMAGES Comparable Land Sale No. 8 22509 52"d Avenue W, Mountlake Terrace OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) 1. `` d7dlH-�F6 M 1 c� t L 11t11 vAll} IR aMwtl •' 1• � i R I ]RAGA 1 µxal®onrcvar•unllin 1 A.Itr - - yf• � t � wa ( 19 �1 1 i� •� _ i 1 i r •' nl i r�•• r tAil LQf24-4 1 I{ RWvITi Tk�• JII •l `Y����t+i I � � I 111111GLARPA P I r , ��� 1SIpaR�i .wrnw ral A�NY.IWY[w tl ptI1A50rs _ "-- IU Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Q Page 46 Packet Pg. 112 8.1.g Va I bridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound Comparable Land Sale No. 9 Gustayson 7-lot short plat, 17420 32nd Avenue W, Lynnwood Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Page 47 Q Packet Pg. 113 ,�1� Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound COMPARABLE ACREAGE SALE IMAGES Comparable Land Sale No. 10 Leawood Heights, 19022 36th Avenue W, Lynnwood OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) u -.- �--'r N r, v 9 9 1 0e. PARA RE" . . ............. A V 0A*9 o 9 2 %. All 33 LEAWOOD HEIGHTS AU fAt ow tK istu iA n$W27ft ROE opyarLmmow VCVM j" j 4C w. mop IV, rw- ee®s WIN L 01 7RA I IN Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicViewdocx Page 48 1 Packet Pg. 114 8.1.g %Y111 Vaibridge ... PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound ACREAGE SALE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Below site is an adjustment grid illustrating the analytical process. The unadjusted range in per lot prices, not including the subject December 2016 sale, is $107,500 to $197,308 per potential lot and the average is $158,700 per homesite. Sale Nos. 2 and 3 are appropriately at the high end of the range, Sale No. 2 because the property already had improved street and utility infrastructure and Sale No. 3 because it was construction -ready at time of sale. Sale Nos. 4 and 5 are older transactions and in "rawer" condition when they sold, so they are given secondary consideration. Least is consideration is accorded the subject purchase due to underlying sale conditions. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 49 Q Packet Pg. 115 8.1.g �I. Va I bridge ?{{4;ti PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) Com arable Land Sales Adjustment Grid Property/Location 7704 Olympic View Hull 4-lot short plat, 2588 Vine Road, 22509 52nd Avenue Gustayson short Leawood Heights, Drive, Edmonds 1625 180th Place Brier W, Mountlake plat, 17420 32nd 19100 block of 36th SW, near Lynnwood Terrace Avenue W, Avenue W, Lynnwood Lynnwood Asking price $1,700,000 $650,000 N/A $670,000 N/A N/A Days on market 147 51 N/A 13 N/A N/A Sale date 12/23/2016 6/14/2018 1/31/2018 10/31/2017 9/1/2017 1/6/2017 Sale price $1,100,000 $650,000 $2,500,000 $565,000 $1,000,000 $1,720,000 Lots 14 4 13 3 7 16 Price/lot $78,571 $162,500 $192,308 $188,333 $142,857 $107,500 Auditor's File No. 20161223-0533 20171215-0475 20180131-0324 20171031-0734 20170901-0556 20170106-0471,- 0487 Tax parcel number 004346-000-106-01; 270325-001-055-00 003731-019-001-01, 004550-001-012-00 005038-000-014-00, 003726-004-003-01, 003708-001-009-00, 03 030-00,-031-00 02 010-00,-011-00 Rights conveyed N/A Fee simple Fee simple Fee simple Fee simple Fee simple Adjustment Financing N/A Cash equivalent Cash equivalent Cash equivalent Cash equivalent Cash equivalent Adjustment Sale conditions Bought out of Arm's length Negotiated directly Arm's length Negotiated directly Negotiated directly bankruptcy court Adjustment Market conditions Larger upward Small upward Smaller upward Upward Upward Larger upward $ adjustment $10,300 $4,000 $9,800 $13,000 $11,600 $13.700 Project size 14 4 13 3 7 16 Adjustment Downward I Downward Smaller downward Average lot size (SF) 13,208 10,446 13,667 7,348 8,412 8,491 Adjustment Upward Upward Upward Upward Physical attributes Topography issues Level, road Superior Somewhat superior Somewhat superior Similar extension necessary Adjustment Offsetting Downward Smaller downward Smaller downward Access Adequate Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Adjustment Location Good Inferior Somewhat inferior Similar Inferior Inferior Adjustment Upward Small upward Upward Upward 'View Territorial Similar Similar Similar Superior, partial Superior, partial mountain mountain Adjustment I Downward Downward (Utilities All available All available All available All available All available All available Adjustment Other "Raw" condition at "Raw" condition at Road and utility "Fully approved "Raw" condition at "Raw" condition at time of sale time of sale infrastructure short plat" time of sale time of sale completed Adjustment I Upward I Upward Lar a downward 1 Smaller downward U ward Upward Overall adjustment a Lar upward Larger upward Larger downward Smaller downward Upward Large upward Considering the location, physical characteristics, development status and other relevant factors, market value by this technique is estimated at $160,000 per potential homesite or $2,240,000. Reconciliation and Final estimate of value The two approaches used to value the subject property resulted in the following value indications: Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlynnpicView.docx Page 50 Q Packet Pg. 116 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT �I Va I br i dg a PROPERTY VALUATION (BEFORE ACQUISITION) PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound SubdivisionAnalysis............................................................................................................$2,240,000 Sales Comparison Approach............................................................................................$2,240,000 Considering the quantity and quality of comparable data, most emphasis is placed on the residual or subdivision emphasis. As such, it is our opinion that market value of the subject property, as of October 16, 2018, is: TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED AND FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,240,000) Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 51 18-0323 OlympicView.docx a Packet Pg. 117 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT 011 Va(briPROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound SITE DATA (AFTER ACQUISITION) Description of Property Rights to be Acquired As proposed, the easterly 2,230 SF of unimproved right-of-way is vacated, with the north half encumbered by a 10-foot wide pedestrian access easement, as shown in the map below. Site Plan (After Acquisition) F — — R f LOT 5 !y -- W LOT G oG LOT 4 tvv cr O ixra. sr 3: - J _ • .. - is me a'saip+r�— — '• 0.. f — umrr euoo+r — k LOT 1 s LOT 2 "� OTT 120ie Sr. Ita?aIr. 3 s3 I O LOT 7 I p a �] MM Sr. U PEWS1mw y se9srs+`wa�L"R.O.W.---='°r �r• — PAPv. LOT 8 y Ity of ara sr ti LOT 14 "• L� e;wr xr r LOT 9 •p� 110H 1R ±sir +wr LOT 43 eixa IF. LOT IC K a,ae+ sr TRACT 991 J CL ; spas aF - - �; r LOT 12 LOT II y Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx r Q Page 52 Packet Pg. 118 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT SITE DATA (AFTER ACQUISITION) Effects of Acquisition Land area is greater by 2,230 SF (a 1.0% increase of total land area), enabling the owner to increase average lot size by 175 SF, to 13,383 SF per homesite. The greater land area allows improved development flexibility and potential cost savings. Below is a land area summary. Land Area Summary # Size (SF) 1 12,016 2 12,004 3 12,703 4 12,732 5 19,358 6 13,131 7 15,365 8 12,192 9 13,077 10 12,387 11 14,641 12 12,042 13 13,311 14 12,407 Total 187,366 Average 13,383 Right-of-way 28,105 Total 215,471 Acres 4.95 Site Data (Description of Remainder) The site plan on the preceding page shows lot configuration after acquisition of unimproved right-of- way. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 53 Packet Pg. 119 8.1.g OLYMPIC VIEw DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT 1 Va l bridge HIGHEST & BEST USE AND PROPERTY VALUATION PROPERTY ADVISORS (AFTER ACQUISITION) Puget Sound HIGHEST AND BEST USE (AFTER ACQUISITION) Recognizing the size of the site relative to the acquisition area, and considering the configuration after acquisition, highest and best use is essentially unchanged. PROPERTY VALUATION (AFTER ACQUISITION) A similar analytical approach was applied in the "after" situation as in the "before" situation, the difference being slightly larger average lot size and improved development flexibility. The difference is quantified in the "after" situation at $160,500 per lot or $2,247,000. In a residual analysis, this would translate to a $600 to $700 difference in average lot value from the "before" situation, or $600 to $700 per lot savings in development costs, or some combination. A 175 SF difference in average lot size can be substantive in small -lot subdivisions such as planned residential developments (PRDs), where an increase of 175 SF to a 3,500 SF lot can enlarge a building footprint enough to affect underlying lot value. However, for a 13,200± SF lot, an increase in lot size of less than 200 SF does not measurably change intensity of use and, hence, does not significantly influence lot value. Damages There are no measurable damages to the property remainder. Special Benefits No special benefits are specified due to the acquisitions. a Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 54 Packet Pg. 120 8.1.g VaEbridge OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT 011 RECONCILIATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound RECONCILIATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE In developing valuation estimates as indicated by the approaches used in this report, the appraisers utilized all pertinent market data available. Using appraisal techniques best suited to the data presented and placing greater weight on the most reliable data (i.e., that which has greatest similarity to the subject property), the probable market value range of the subject property is resolved into conclusions of most probable market value. Based on the investigation and analysis of all the elements which reasonably affect value, we have formed the opinion that market value of the subject property, as of October 16, 2018, is: Market Value Before Acquisition....................................................................................$2,240,000 Market Value After Acquisition.......................................................................................$2,247,000 MarketValue Difference.............................................................................................................$7,000 Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 55 Packet Pg. 121 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT RECONCILIATION AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE Summary of Conclusions (Accounting tabulation - NOT indicative of appraisal method employed) Indicated Subject Value Before Project Highest and Best Use Before: 14-lot residential subdivision cr Vyh. rrer^,rs! 213,241 SF unencumbered @ $10,50 per SF or $160,000 per DU 0 SF encumbered @ per SF or per DU 213,241 total SF @ $10.50 [mprovement Volue &-fore Structures Site improvements TOTAL SUBJECT VALUE BEFORE PROJECT Indicated Subject Value After Project Highest and Best Use After: Land Value Aker 214,356 SF unencumbered @ 1,115 SF encumbered 215,471 total SF @ lmarovernent Value &-fare Structures Site improvements TOTAL SUBJECT VALUE BEFORE PROJECT Estimated value allocation of rights acquired Lend Transfer from city to owner Structures Site improvements Total net acquisition Plus damages and cost to cure Less special benefits, if any Estimated difference in market value 14-lot residential subdivision $10.50 per SF $160,500 per DU (reflected in unencumbered value estimate) $10.43 2,230 SF $500 per DU $3.14 per SF Amount RnrmrlPrl $2,240,000 $2,240,000 $0 $0 $2,240,000 $2,240.000 Not affected Not affected $2,240,000 $2,247,000 $2,247,000 $0 $0 $2,247,000 $2,247,000 Not affected Not affected $2,247,000 $7,000 Not affected Not affected $7,000 $0 $0 $7,000 r Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 56 Packet Pg. 122 ki Valbridge OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT ';;{�:'• PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is subject to the following limiting conditions: 1. The legal description — if furnished to us — is assumed to be correct. 2. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters, questions of survey or title, soil or subsoil conditions, engineering, availability or capacity of utilities, or other similar technical matters. The appraisal does not constitute a survey of the property appraised. All existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded and the property is appraised as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management unless otherwise noted. 3. Unless otherwise noted, the appraisal will value the property as though free of contamination. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound will conduct no hazardous materials or contamination inspection of any kind. It is recommended that the client hire an expert if the presence of hazardous materials or contamination poses any concern. 4. The stamps and/or consideration placed on deeds used to indicate sales are in correct relationship to the actual dollar amount of the transaction. 5. Unless otherwise noted, it is assumed there are no encroachments, zoning violations or restrictions existing in the subject property. 6. The appraiser is not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal, unless previous arrangements have been made. 7. Unless expressly specified in the engagement letter, the fee for this appraisal does not include the attendance or giving of testimony by Appraiser at any court, regulatory, or other proceedings, or any conferences or other work in preparation for such proceeding. If any partner or employee of Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound is asked or required to appear and/or testify at any deposition, trial, or other proceeding about the preparation, conclusions or any other aspect of this assignment, client shall compensate Appraiser for the time spent by the partner or employee in appearing and/or testifying and in preparing to testify according to the Appraiser's then current hourly rate plus reimbursement of expenses. 8. The values for land and/or improvements, as contained in this report, are constituent parts of the total value reported and neither is (or are) to be used in making a summation appraisal of a combination of values created by another appraiser. Either is invalidated if so used. 9. The dates of value to which the opinions expressed in this report apply are set forth in this report. We assume no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring at some point at a later date, which may affect the opinions stated herein. The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates contained herein are based on current market conditions and anticipated short-term supply and demand factors and are subject to change with future conditions. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 57 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 123 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT Puget Sound GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 10. The sketches, maps, plats and exhibits in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The appraiser has made no survey of the property and assumed no responsibility in connection with such matters. 11. The information. estimates and opinions which were obtained from sources outside of this office, are considered reliable. However, no liability for them can be assumed by the appraiser. 12. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. Neither all, nor any part of the content of the report, or copy thereof (including conclusions as to property value, the identity of the appraisers, professional designations, reference to any professional appraisal organization or the firm with which the appraisers are connected), shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without prior written consent and approval. 11 No claim is intended to be expressed for matters of expertise that would require specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that ordinarily employed by real estate appraisers. We claim no expertise in areas such as, but not limited to, legal, survey, structural, environmental, pest control, mechanical, etc. 14. This appraisal was prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the client for the function outlined x herein. Any party who is not the client or intended user identified in the appraisal or 2 engagement letter is not entitled to rely upon the contents of the appraisal without express -0 written consent of Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound and Client. The Client shall not a include partners, affiliates, or relatives of the party addressed herein. The appraiser assumes in no obligation, liability or accountability to any third party. 15. Distribution of this report is at the sole discretion of the client, but third -parties not listed as L a an intended user on the face of the appraisal or the engagement letter may not rely upon the Q- a contents of the appraisal. In no event, shall client give a third -party a partial copy of the appraisal report. We will make no distribution of the report without the specific direction of the client. x w 16. This appraisal shall be used only for the function outlined herein, unless expressly authorized by Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound. E 17. This appraisal shall be considered in its entirety. No part thereof shall be used separately or z U r out of context. Q 18. Unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, this appraisal assumes that the subject property does not fall within the areas where mandatory flood insurance is effective. Unless otherwise noted, we have not completed nor have we contracted to have completed an investigation to identify and/or quantify the presence of non -tidal wetland conditions on the subject property. Because the appraiser is not a surveyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 58 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 124 8.1.g Va I bridge PROPERTY ADVISORS OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14 LOT PLAT Puget Sound GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 19. The flood maps are not site specific. We are not qualified to confirm the location of the subject property in relation to flood hazard areas based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps or other surveying techniques. It is recommended that the client obtain a confirmation of the subject property's flood zone classification from a licensed surveyor. 20. If the appraisal is for mortgage loan purposes 1) we assume satisfactory completion of improvements if construction is not complete, 2) no consideration has been given for rent loss during rent -up unless noted in the body of this report, and 3) occupancy at levels consistent with our "Income and Expense Projection" are anticipated. 21. It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for engineering which may be required to discover them. 22. Our inspection included an observation of the land and improvements thereon only. It was not possible to observe conditions beneath the soil or hidden structural components within the improvements. We inspected the buildings involved, and reported damage (if any) by termites, dry rot, wet rot, or other infestations as a matter of information, and no guarantee of the amount or degree of damage (if any) is implied. Condition of heating, cooling, ventilation, electrical and plumbing equipment is considered to be commensurate with the condition of the balance of the improvements unless otherwise stated. Should the client have concerns in these areas, it is the client's responsibility to order the appropriate inspections. The appraiser does not have the skill or expertise to make such inspections and assumes no responsibility for these items. 23. This appraisal does not guarantee compliance with building code and life safety code requirements of the local jurisdiction. It is assumed that all required licenses, consents, certificates of occupancy or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state or national governmental or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value conclusion contained in this report is based unless specifically stated to the contrary. 24. When possible, we have relied upon building measurements provided by the client, owner, or associated agents of these parties. In the absence of a detailed rent roll, reliable public records, or "as -built" plans provided to us, we have relied upon our own measurements of the subject improvements. We follow typical appraisal industry methods; however, we recognize that some factors may limit our ability to obtain accurate measurements including, but not limited to, property access on the day of inspection, basements, fenced/gated areas, grade elevations, greenery/shrubbery, uneven surfaces, multiple story structures, obtuse or acute wall angles, immobile obstructions, etc. Professional building area measurements of the quality, level of detail, or accuracy of professional measurement services are beyond the scope of this appraisal assignment. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 59 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 125 8.1.g 01111 Valbridge .;}. PROPERTY ADVISORS OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14 LOT PLAT Puget Sound GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 25. We have attempted to reconcile sources of data discovered or provided during the appraisal process, including assessment department data. Ultimately, the measurements that are deemed by us to be the most accurate and/or reliable are used within this report. While the measurements and any accompanying sketches are considered to be reasonably accurate and reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. Should the client desire a greater level of measuring detail, they are urged to retain the measurement services of a qualified professional (space planner, architect or building engineer). We reserve the right to use an alternative source of building size and amend the analysis, narrative and concluded values (at additional cost) should this alternative measurement source reflect or reveal substantial differences with the measurements used within the report. 26. In the absence of being provided with a detailed land survey, we have used assessment department data to ascertain the physical dimensions and acreage of the property. Should a survey prove this information to be inaccurate, we reserve the right to amend this appraisal (at additional cost) if substantial differences are discovered. 27. If only preliminary plans and specifications were available for use in the preparation of this appraisal, then this appraisal is subject to a review of the final plans and specifications when available (at additional cost) and we reserve the right to amend this appraisal if substantial differences are discovered. 28. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the value conclusion is predicated on the assumption that the property is free of contamination, environmental impairment or hazardous materials. Unless otherwise stated, the existence of hazardous material was not observed by the appraiser and the appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea -formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required for discovery. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. 29. The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made a specific compliance survey of the property to determine if it is in conformity with the various requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance surrey of the property, together with an analysis of the requirements of the ADA, could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this could have a negative effect on the value of the property. Since we have no direct evidence relating to this issue, we did not consider possible noncompliance with the requirements of ADA in developing an opinion of value. 30. This appraisal applies to the land and building improvements only. The value of trade fixtures, furnishings, and other equipment, or subsurface rights (minerals, gas, and oil) were not considered in this appraisal unless specifically stated to the contrary. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 60 18-0323 OlympicView:docx Packet Pg. 126 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS C)LYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14 LOT PLAT Puget Sound GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 31. No changes in any federal, state or local laws, regulations or codes (including, without limitation, the Internal Revenue Code) are anticipated, unless specifically stated to the contrary. 32. Any income and expense estimates contained in the appraisal report are used only for the purpose of estimating value and do not constitute prediction of future operating results. Furthermore, it is inevitable that some assumptions will not materialize and that unanticipated events may occur that will likely affect actual performance. 33. Any estimate of insurable value, if included within the scope of work and presented herein, is based upon figures developed consistent with industry practices. However, actual local and regional construction costs may vary significantly from our estimate and individual insurance policies and underwriters have varied specifications, exclusions, and non -insurable items. As such, we strongly recommend that the Client obtain estimates from professionals experienced in establishing insurance coverage. This analysis should not be relied upon to determine insurance coverage and we make no warranties regarding the accuracy of this estimate. 34. The data gathered in the course of this assignment (except data furnished by the Client) shall remain the property of the Appraiser. The appraiser will not violate the confidential nature of the appraiser -client relationship by improperly disclosing any confidential information furnished to the appraiser. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Appraiser is authorized by the client to disclose all or any portion of the appraisal and related appraisal data to appropriate representatives of the Appraisal Institute if such disclosure is required to enable the appraiser to comply with the Bylaws and Regulations of such Institute now or hereafter in effect. 35. You and Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound both agree that any dispute over matters in excess of $5,000 will be submitted for resolution by arbitration. This includes fee disputes and any claim of malpractice. The arbitrator shall be mutually selected. If Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound and the client cannot agree on the arbitrator, the presiding head of the Local County Mediation & Arbitration panel shall select the arbitrator. Such arbitration shall be binding and final. In agreeing to arbitration, we both acknowledge that, by agreeing to binding arbitration, each of us is giving up the right to have the dispute decided in a court of law before a judge orjury. In the event that the client, or any other party, makes a claim against Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound or any of its employees in connections with or in any way relating to this assignment, the maximum damages recoverable by such claimant shall be the amount actually received by Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound for this assignment, and under no circumstances shall any claim for consequential damages be made. 36. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound shall have no obligation, liability, or accountability to any third party. Any party who is not the "client" or intended user identified on the face of the appraisal or in the engagement letter is not entitled to rely upon the contents of the appraisal without the express written consent of Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound. "Client" shall not include partners, affiliates, or relatives of the party named in the engagement letter. Client shall hold Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound and its employees harmless in the event of any lawsuit brought by any third party, lender, partner, or part-owner in any form of ownership or any other party as a result of this assignment. The client also agrees that Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 61 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 127 8.1.g �1 Valbridge ,ueti4 PROPERTY ADVISOR!; VIEW DRIVE 14 LOT PLAT Puget Sound GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS in case of lawsuit arising from or in any way involving these appraisal services, client will hold Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound harmless from and against any liability, loss, cost, or expense incurred or suffered by Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound in such action, regardless of its outcome. 37. The Valbridge Property Advisors office responsible for the preparation of this report is independently owned and operated by Puget Sound. Neither Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc., nor any of its affiliates has been engaged to provide this report. Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc. does not provide valuation services, and has taken no part in the preparation of this report. 38. If any claim is filed against any of Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc., a Florida Corporation, its affiliates, officers or employees, or the firm providing this report, in connection with, or in any way arising out of, or relating to, this report, or the engagement of the firm providing this report, then (1) under no circumstances shall such claimant be entitled to consequential, special or other damages, except only for direct compensatory damages, and (2) the maximum amount of such compensatory damages recoverable by such claimant shall be the amount actually received by the firm engaged to provide this report. 39. This report and any associated work files may be subject to evaluation by Valbridge Property Advisors, Inc., or its affiliates, for quality control purposes. 40. Acceptance and/or use of this appraisal report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing general assumptions and limiting conditions. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 62 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Q Packet Pg. 128 8.1.g CERTIFICATION — ROBERT J. MACAULAY, MAI I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. c 1 have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal 0 interest with respect to the parties involved. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound appraised the property thirteen months earlier for the City of Lynnwood. The value conclusion was $50.00/SF, which reflected land value as well as anticipated L .r demolition costs and entitlements as of the valuation date (September 24, 2017). The current rn $63.00/SF estimate reflects current market conditions, together with the fact that the building has N been demolished and the owner received conditional approval from Community Development. m I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved co with this assignment. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined 00 results. o My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly = related to the intended use of this appraisal. 2 My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in a conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. I have made a personal inspection of the exterior of the property that is the subject of this report. N The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, Mn in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of a Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. Q The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, I have completed the continuing education program for Designated t x w Members of the Appraisal Institute. ; c m % U Robert J. Macaulay, MAI Q State Certification No. 27011-1100517 Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 63 Packet Pg. 129 8.1.g CERTIFICATION — PAUL C. BIRD, SENIOR ASSOCIATE I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. c 1 have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal 0 interest with respect to the parties involved. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound appraised the property thirteen months earlier for the City of Lynnwood. The value conclusion was $50.00/SF, which reflected land value as well as anticipated ;v .r demolition costs and entitlements as of the valuation date (September 24, 2017). The current U) $63.00/SF estimate reflects current market conditions, together with the fact that the building has N been demolished and the owner received conditional approval from Community Development. m I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involvedco with this assignment. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined 00 results. o My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly = related to the intended use of this appraisal. 2 My analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in a conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. I have made a personal inspection of the exterior of the property that is the subject of this report. N The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, Mn in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of a Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. Q The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. t x w c m E Paul C. Bird, Senior Associate U WA State Certified - General Appraiser No. 1100902 r Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 64 Packet Pg. 130 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound ADDENDA Appraiser Qualifications OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT ADDENDA Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 65 Packet Pg. 131 8.1.g 1 Valbridge �Ii:;;'r;�1 PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound QUALIFICATIONS OF ROBERT J. MACAULAY, MAI Senior Managing Director Valbridge Property Advisors) Puget Sound Erli iratinn Bachelor of Arts in Economics, Washington State University, 1983. OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT Professional Education Appraisal Courses: All appraisal courses required for MAI designation. Seminars and Continuing Education (abbreviated summary of coursework): • Environmental & Property Dangers ■ UASFLA Seminar (Yellow Book) ■ Introduction to Valuation for Financial Reporting + Eminent Domain and Condemnation • Evaluating Commercial Construction ■ The Road Less Traveled: Special Purpose Properties • The Appraiser as Expert Witness • Litigation Appraising: Specialized Topics and Applications ■ Appraiser Consulting: A Solutions Approach for Professionals • Subdivision Valuation Professional Affiliation ADDENDA Member, Appraisal Institute. Received MAI Designation in 1995. (Member No. 10,712) Approved Appraiser and Review Appraiser, Washington State Department of Transportation Member, International Right -of -Way Association Past Board of Trustees - Washington Center for Real Estate Research Appraisal Experience Principal with Macaulay& Associates. Appraisal assignments include a wide variety of commercial, industrial and residential properties for financial institutions, governmental entities, law firms, corporations and private individuals. Examples include office buildings, retail shopping centers, multifamily residential complexes, industrial warehouses, restaurants, retail stores, mobile home parks, service stations, single family subdivisions and special purpose properties. Other valuation assignments cover rental valuations, partial interest studies (leasehold/leased fee estates), waterfront commercial and industrial properties for various port authorities, together with remote large acreage agricultural and forest land. Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 66 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 132 8.1.g kll�Valbridge .;;::� PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT ADDENDA ROBERT J. MACAULAY, MAI (cont.) One of Mr. Macaulay's specialties in which he has extensive knowledge and over 25 years of experience with is Local improvement district (LID) special benefit and feasibility study analysis. Robert's (LID) special benefit and feasibility study experience includes a variety of road Improvement, utility and other infrastructure projects. The firm's extensive experience with these projects dates back to 1975. Right-of-way projects include easement analysis for the United States Navy and analysis of 70+ parcels for the City of Renton for acquisition and easement purposes. Numerous appraisals were also prepared for a large trunk water line easement extending under the Snohomish River to the Tulalip Tribes and City of Marysville for the City of Everett. Similar to right-of-way work, special benefit and economic feasibility studies have been completed for the cities of Marysville, Vancouver, Bellevue, Burien, Ferndale, Freeland, Kent, Lynnwood, Ocean Shores, and Yelm (2006 to 2015). Consultation work on a road improvement district (RID) project for unincorporated Clallam County was performed in 2010. Other current or recently completed projects (2010-2014) include special benefit and feasibility studies for the cities of Bellevue, Edgewood, Freeland, Lynnwood and Tacoma. In addition to over 30 other feasibility and special benefit studies completed. A wide variety of multi -parcel right-of-way acquisition appraisals have been completed, such as riverbank protection easements for the City of Tukwila, right-of-way acquisition for road widening for the City of Bellingham and utility line easements, road widening and other public improvement projects for the City of Everett. A large right-of-way project for the Montana Department of Highways near Kalispell, Montana was completed several years ago. Also, eminent domain appraisals have been completed for the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad in Wenatchee and Tacoma. Other special purpose assignments are 6,000 acres on the Tulalip Indian Reservation for the Tulalip Tribes, 80 acres on Burrows Island in Skagit County, 900 acres in Skagit County for Skagit County Parks and Recreation Department, and the Eagle Harbor ferry maintenance site on Bainbridge Island for WSDOT. Various reports on mineral rights have been completed, including an 80-acre operating quarry in Bremerton, WA. Testified in various cases in King, Snohomish and Skagit counties, together with presentations at LID hearings on preliminary and final assessment rolls. Qualified as expert witness in the states of Washington and Montana. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 67 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 133 8.1.g Valbridge .:: .,,,,.. PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound ROBERT J. MACAULAY, MAI (cont.) OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT ADDENDA Other Experience Mr. Macaulay has been involved with MRSC dating back to the late 1990's and involves published (and updated) information on their website pertaining to local improvement district (LID) special benefit analysis, methodology and proportionality issues for a wide range of LID projects such as freeway interchange/arterial road improvements, utility (large sewer/water installation) infrastructure, slope stabilization, bridge improvements and other related publicly funded development. Numerous presentations have been made around the state for MRSC involving LID analysis examples completed for various cities and utility districts. Conferences have been made touching upon a wide variety of special benefit analysis issues relating to a wide variety of LID projects ranging from $500,000 to over 100 million in project cost. Representative Client list CitieslCou nties Cities of Aberdeen, Arlington, Bellevue, Bellingham, Blaine, Bothell, Burlington, Edgewood, Edmonds, Everett, Ferndale, Issaquah, Kent, Kirkland, Lacey, Lake Forest Park, Lake Stevens, Lynnwood, Marysville, Mount Vernon, Mukilteo, Oak Harbor, Ocean Shores, Pacific, Port Townsend, Redmond, Renton, Seattle, Shoreline, Stanwood, Sultan, Tacoma, Vancouver, Wenatchee and Washougal. Counties of Clark, Clallam, Douglas, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston and Whatcom. Government Ports of Anacortes, Edmonds, Everett, Seattle and Skagit County. Edmonds, Everett, Lake Stevens, Lynnwood, Monroe, Mukilteo, Marysville and Snohomish School Districts. Washington State Parks, WSDOT (Approved Appraiser/Reviewer Lists), DNR, WA State Attorney General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Navy, Everett Parks Foundation, Seattle DOT, University of Washington, Department of Interior, Snohomish County PUD, Skagit County PUD, Montana Department of Highways, Financial Institutions Anchor Bank, Bank of Washington, Banner Bank, BECU, China Trust Bank, Coastal Community Bank, Columbia Bank, Commerce Bank, First Savings Bank Northwest, GBC International Bank, Heritage Bank, Homestreet Bank, Key Bank, Mountain Pacific Bank, One Pacific Coast Bank, Opus Bank, Prime Pacific Bank, Peoples Bank, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo. Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound Page 68 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Packet Pg. 134 8.1.g Va I bridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound ROBERT J. MACAULAY, MAI (cont.) Corporations. Law Firms and Non Profits OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT ADDENDA Weyerhaeuser Company, Puget Sound Energy, SCA Engineering, Entranco Engineering, The Trust for Public Land, OTAK, HDR, Inc., The Boeing Company, Coates Field Service, Inc., Perteet Engineering, Gray & Osborne, Inc., Tetra Tech, Steven j. Fields, Brewe Layman, Weed, Graafstra & Benson, Inc., P.S., Anderson Hunter, Foster Pepper, Burgess, Fitzer, Leighton & Phillips, Inslee, Best & Dozier, Preston, Gates & Ellis. State Certification Number -General: 1100517 Expiration: 10/10/19 (Revised 02/13/15) Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 69 Packet Pg. 135 8.1.g Valbridge OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT ! It.J/ 1 L���..rr ADDENDA ;;•;; PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound QUALIFICATIONS OF PAUL C. BIRD, SENIOR ASSOCIATE Senior Associate Valbridqe Property Advisors I Puget Sound Education Bachelor of Arts in Business and Accounting, University of Washington, 1984. Professional Education Seminars and Continuing Education (abbreviated summary of coursework): ■ Ad Valorem Taxation ■ Construction Details and Trends • Environmental Issues • Business and Partial Interest Valuation • Land and Site Valuation • Appraisal of Self -Storage Facilities • The Appraiser as Expert Witness • Appraisal of Assisted Living Facilities • Subdivision Valuation Professional Affiliation Approved Appraiser and Review Appraiser, Washington State Department of Transportation Appraisal Experience Senior Associate with Macaulay & Associates. Appraisal assignments include a wide variety of commercial, industrial and residential properties for financial institutions, governmental entities, law firms, corporations and private individuals. Examples include office buildings, retail shopping centers, multifamily residential complexes, industrial warehouses, restaurants, retail stores, mobile home parks, self -storage facilities, residential subdivisions and special purpose properties. Other valuation assignments cover rental valuations, partial interest studies, appraisals of leasehold and leased fee estates, waterfront commercial and industrial properties for various port authorities. Additional experience includes knowledge and over 20 years of experience with local improvement district (LID) special benefit and feasibility study analysis, including a variety of road improvement, utility and other infrastructure projects. The firm's extensive experience with these projects dates back to 1975. Right-of-way experience includes partial and total acquisitions for road improvement projects and easements, the most notable being the acquisition of twenty properties across two city blocks for development of Xfinity Arena in Everett. Mn L Q Q Q x w c N E z U a r r Q Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 70 Packet Pg. 136 8.1.g Valbridge PROPERTY ADVISORS Puget Sound OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE 14-LOT PLAT ADDENDA PAUL C. BIRD (cont.) Similar to right-of-way work, special benefit and economic feasibility studies have been completed for the cities of Marysville, Lynnwood, Tacoma, Kent, Tukwila and Ocean Shores (2009 to 2015). Testified In various cases in Snohomish County Court, along with expert witness testimony at LID hearings, arbitration, mediation and Board of Equalization hearings. Other Experience Prior to Macaulay & Associates, Ltd., Mr. Bird was an analyst and manager of the Commercial Real Estate Portfolio Management Department in the Special Credits Division at Washington Mutual Savings Bank, from 1987 to 1991. Representative Client List Cities/Counties Cities of Arlington, Bellevue, Bellingham, Bothell, Edmonds, Everett, Issaquah, Kent, Lake Stevens, Lynnwood, Marysville, Mukilteo, Ocean Shores, Pacific, Redmond, Snohomish, Sultan, Tacoma. Counties of Snohomish, Island and King. Government Ports of Edmonds and Everett. Edmonds, Everett, Lake Stevens, Lynnwood and Marysville School Districts. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Navy. Financial Institutions Bank of Washington, Banner Bank, Boeing Employees Credit Union, China Trust Bank, Coastal Community Bank, Columbia Bank, Commerce Bank, First Savings Bank Northwest, GBC International Bank, Heritage Bank, HomeStreet Bank, Mountain Pacific Bank, One Pacific Coast Bank, Opus Bank, Prime Pacific Bank, Peoples Bank, and US Bancorp. Corporations, Law Firms and Non Profits Gray & Osborne, Inc., Steven J. Fields, Brewe Layman, Jelsing Tri, West & Andrus, Anderson Hunter, Skotdal Real Estate. State Certification Number - General: 1100902 Expiration: 12/09/2020 Valbridge Property Advisors I Puget Sound 18-0323 OlympicView.docx Page 71 Packet Pg. 137 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Carbon Recovery Project Bond Authorization Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History In August, 2014 City Council was presented with a plan to replace the Sanitary Sewage Sludge Incinerator with a gasification system. On April 10th, 2018, the Parks and Public Works Committee reviewed the incinerator replacement project proposal and recommended it be placed on the April 17th City Council agenda for presentation, discussion, and action. On April 171h, 2018, the City Council approved the pre -design contract with DES for the Carbon Recovery Project. The work was completed on time and within budget during 2018. City Council authorized a contract and funding with the State Department of Enterprise Systems (DES) for design of the WWTP Phase 6 Energy Conservation Project - Carbon Recovery in the 2019 budget. City Council appropriated $11,037,000 in the 2020 budget for construction to begin. On June 2nd, 2020 City Council received a presentation on the current status of the Incinerator Replacement Project (Carbon Recovery Project). The presentation presented a summary of work done to -date to identify and screen available options, described the significant design work done on the short-listed options, and presented a recommended option for City Council to consider as the preferred alternative. The comparisons included data on how the options actually work as well as how they compare on initial cost, on -going maintenance costs, and environmental performance. On June 9th, 2020 City Council received an additional presentation on this recommended project. Staff was directed to again place the project on the Action Agenda for June 16th. On June 16th, 2020 Council reviewed some of the preliminary funding considerations for the project but due to time constraints that discussion was unfinished. On June 23rd, 2020 Council again reviewed the project and entertained taking action to approve the project using an ESCO delivery model but ultimately decided to hold an optional Public Hearing on July 7th to get comments from the public regarding the project, its required funding, financing methods, and rate impacts. This is not a code - required Public Hearing but is being held to provide the public an opportunity to comment on this important project. July 7th, 2020 - upon conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Mayor was authorized to sign all necessary documents between the City and the Department of Enterprise Systems to deliver this project for the Guaranteed Maximum Cost of $26,121,040. Further Council action in 2020 will likely include selling revenue bonds to support the project. October 6th, 2020 - The attached bond ordinance was presented to Council with amounts and terms Packet Pg. 138 8.2 described. Tonight's presentation will answer council member questions. Staff Recommendation Approve the bond ordinance and authorize the Finance Director to execute the bond sale within the parameters specified in the ordinance . Narrative The Wastewater Treatment Plant currently utilizes a Sanitary Sewage Sludge Incinerator (SSI) to combust solids before final disposal by landfilling. The SSI and all of its support equipment were originally installed 30 years ago and are well beyond their originally expected useful life. The cost of operating and maintaining this equipment has risen sharply in recent years due to increasingly stringent federal air quality regulations The goal of these regulations is to bring all of the SSI systems across the country up to New Source Performance Standards. They do this by limiting the expenditures an owner can incur to keep these older systems running. Once these investments exceed a certain percentage of the original installed cost of the system it must be replaced. We are already within 5 years of meeting this trigger. USEPA does not want to see these older incinerators continue to operate. The increased cost for regulatory compliance alone (sampling, testing, and reporting) currently exceeds $125,000 per year. It is estimated that yearly maintenance and operation of the existing SSI is approximately $1,000,000. The bottom line is the City is obligated to bring our air emissions up to the standards that a brand new incinerator must now meet. Our choices are limited to: 1) putting in a new, modern incinerator or, 2) using a more environmentally friendly biosolids management system. A new incinerator would likely be more expensive than systems using gasification and pyrolysis but these newer technologies will cost less to operate and maintain, at least one will have superior energy balances, and can significantly reduce the City's carbon footprint. City Council Resolution No. 1389, which commits to achieving or exceeding, at the local level, the goals established in the Paris Climate Accord, adds additional motivation to begin development of the next generation biosolids processing and disposal system for our regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Initial research, technical information requests, and evaluation (established via an RFQ process that included proposals from across the USA) have revealed new technologies that can significantly improve the recovery of Carbon and are viable alternatives to incineration. The City has concluded that both Pyrolysis or partial Gasification could meet the goal and intent of Resolution No. 1389. In addition, these technologies would significantly reduce operating, regulatory, and disposal expenses. The project team (City, Ameresco, DES staff) have remained committed to providing the City with a project that meets the goals and intent of Resolution No. 1389 while also balancing both capital costs and O&M expense. With the help of our project design team, we have reviewed the available options to accomplish our desired goals and have concluded the gasification approach offered by Ecoremedy, Inc. is the best fit for Edmonds. We recommended this project to City Council and after several review meetings that recommended action was approved by Council on July 7th, 2020. Governor Inslee recently signed the 2020 Supplemental State Capital Budget, which includes an appropriation of $250,000 for the Edmonds Carbon Recovery Project. Packet Pg. 139 8.2 Another benefit of this project will be the opportunity to receive a sales tax exemption from the Washington State Department of Revenue on the purchase of the gasification system since the is considered a marketable and recyclable product. All equipment and materials required to produce the sellable product qualify. We cannot at this point state specifically what other items may qualify but we believe at least 50% of this tax burden will ultimately be exempted. We are now at the point of completing the project financing plan by issuing approximately $14,386,000 in revenue bonds to provide $13,266,090 to cover construction expenses, fund the necessary bond reserves for the project, and cover issuance costs. We are working to establish these bonds as Green Bonds or Climate Bonds. We are working through a third -party for the certification. If successful, we will be the first in the state to reach this designation. Attachments: WS Rev Bonds 2020 bond ordinance WS Rev Bonds 2020 bond ordinance_ redline Utility Bonds 2020 CC 10_13_2020 PWilliams Packet Pg. 140 8.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to the combined water and sewerage systems comprising the waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting, and ordering the carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the combined waterworks utility; providing for the issuance of one or more series of water and sewer revenue bonds for the purpose of providing the funds necessary: (1) to pay all or a portion of the costs of carrying out that plan of additions, (2) to make a deposit into the debt service reserve account, and (3) to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with respect to certain terms and covenants of the bonds; appointing the City's designated representative to approve the final terms of the sale of the bonds; and providing for other related matters. Passed October , 2020 This document prepared by: Foster Garvey P. C. 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 447-4400 FG:53778713.6 Packet Pg. 141 8.2.a TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Findings and Determinations..................................................................................................... 1 Section2. Definitions................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 3. Adoption of Plan of Additions.................................................................................................. 9 Section 4. Purpose and Authorization of the Bonds................................................................................... 9 Section 5. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative .................................... 9 c Section 6. Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds........................................................................ 10 N 0 Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds................................................................................................. 11 z Q Section8. Payment of Bonds................................................................................................................... 11 Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds ................................................ 11 0 m Section 10. Failure To Pay Bonds.............................................................................................................. 13 T U 0 Section 11. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds................................................................................... 13 a Section 12. Security for the Bonds; Bond Fund......................................................................................... 13 0 Section 13. Deposit of Bond Proceeds....................................................................................................... 15 0 U Section14. Flow of Funds.......................................................................................................................... 15 c Section 15. Additional Covenants 16 0 Section 16. Rate Stabilization Account...................................................................................................... 17 U Section 17. Separate Utility Systems......................................................................................................... 18 as U r- �a Section 18. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds; Parity Certificate.................................................................. 18 =a `o Section 19. Parity Conditions..................................................................................................................... 19 Section20. Tax Matters.............................................................................................................................. 19 c �° Section 21. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure. 20 i N Section 22. Amendatory Ordinances.......................................................................................................... 21 c N Section 23. General Authorization and Ratification................................................................................... 23 0 0 m Section24. Severability.............................................................................................................................. 23 > Section 25. Effective Date of Ordinance.................................................................................................... 24 to Exhibit A Parameters for Final Terms of the Bonds Exhibit B Parity Conditions For Issuance of Future Parity Bonds Exhibit C Description of Plan of Additions Exhibit D Form of Continuing Disclosure Undertaking * The cover page, table of contents and section headings of this ordinance are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be used to resolve any question of interpretation of this ordinance. FG:53778713.6 Packet Pg. 142 8.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to the combined water and sewerage systems comprising the waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting, and ordering the carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the combined waterworks utility; providing for the issuance of one or more series of water and sewer revenue bonds for the purpose of providing the funds necessary: (1) to pay all or a portion of the costs of carrying out that plan of additions, (2) to make a deposit into the debt service reserve account, and (3) to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with respect to certain terms and covenants of the bonds; appointing the City's designated representative to approve the final terms of the sale of the bonds; and providing for other related matters. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Determinations. The City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), makes the findings and determinations set forth below. Capitalized terms have the meanings given in Section 2. (a) Plan of Additions. The City is seeking funds with which to finance the Plan of Additions, the estimated cost of which is $13,266,093, and the City does not have available sufficient funds to pay the costs. The life of the improvements comprising the Plan of Additions is declared to be at least 30 years. (b) Previously Issued Bonds and Loans. The City previously issued the 2011 Bonds, the 2013 Bonds, and the 2015 Bonds and by the Outstanding Parity Bond Ordinances provided for the issuance of Future Parity Bonds the payment of which is secured by a lien and charge on Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity with the lien and charge that secure payment of the Outstanding Parity Bonds if certain Parity Conditions are met at the time the Future Parity Bonds are issued. The City also has outstanding Loans the payment of which is secured by a lien or charge on Net Revenue that is junior and inferior to the lien and charge on Net Revenue that secure payment of the Parity Bonds. (c) Parity Conditions Met. The amounts required to have been paid into the Bond Fund for the Outstanding Parity Bonds have been paid and maintained as required therein, and all other Parity Conditions for the issuance of the Bonds as Future Parity Bonds will have been met and satisfied before the Bonds are delivered to the Purchaser. Packet Pg. 143 8.2.a (d) Sufficiency of Gross Revenue. The Gross Revenue and benefits to be derived from the operation and maintenance of the Water and Sewer Utility at the rates to be charged for services from the Water and Sewer Utility will be more than sufficient to meet all Operating and Maintenance Expense and to permit the setting aside into the Bond Fund out of the Gross Revenue of amounts sufficient to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Outstanding Parity Bonds and the Bonds. In fixing the amounts to be paid into the Bond Fund under this ordinance, the City Council has exercised due regard for Operating and Maintenance Expense and has not obligated the City to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund a greater amount of Gross Revenue that in its judgment will be available over and above such Operating and Maintenance Expense and amount of Gross Revenue previously pledged. (e) Issuance of Bonds. It is in the best interest of the City to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser pursuant to the terms set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract as approved by the City's Designated Representative consistent with this ordinance. Section 2. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings: (a) "2011 Bonds" means the City's outstanding Water and Sewer Improvement and Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2011, authorized by the 2011 Bond Ordinance. (b) "2011 Bond Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 3863, passed on December 6, 2011. (c) "2013 Bonds" means the City's outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2013, authorized by the 2013 Bond Ordinance. (d) "2013 Bond Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 3933, passed on July 16, 2013. (e) "2015 Bonds" means the City's outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2015, authorized by the 2015 Bond Ordinance. (f) "2015 Bond Ordinance " means Ordinance No. 3996, passed on May 5, 2015 (g) "Adjusted Net Revenue" means Net Revenue plus withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account and less deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account. (h) "Annual Debt Service" means, for any fiscal year, with respect to all Parity Bonds outstanding or maturing in that year, all amounts required to be paid in that year in respect of principal of and interest on those Parity Bonds, less all bond interest payable from the proceeds of any Parity Bonds, and less all Tax Credit Subsidy Payments scheduled to be received in that year. Parity Bonds issued as Variable Interest Rate Bonds shall be assumed to bear interest at a fixed rate equal to the higher of (i) the highest variable rate borne during the preceding 24 months by any Variable Interest Rate Bonds then outstanding or (ii) if no Variable Interest Rate Bonds are then outstanding, a rate determined by reference to the index to be used to determine the interest rate on the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued or a comparable index. 2 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 144 8.2.a (i) `Authorized Denominations" means $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a maturity of a Series. 0) "Average Annual Debt Service" means, as of its date of calculation, the sum of the Annual Debt Service for the current fiscal year and the fiscal years remaining to the last scheduled maturity of the applicable issue or issues of bonds divided by the number of those years. (k) `Beneficial Owner" means, with respect to a Bond, the owner of any beneficial interest in the Bond. (1) "Bond Counsel" means the firm of Foster Garvey P.C., its successor, or any other attorney or firm of attorneys selected by the City with a nationally recognized standing as bond counsel in the field of municipal finance. (m) "Bond Fund" means the City's Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Bond Fund, 2011, created by the 2011 Bond Ordinance for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on Parity Bonds. (n) "Bond Insurance Policy" means a municipal bond insurance policy issued by a Bond Insurer insuring the payment when due of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds as provided in such policy. (o) "Bond Insurer" means a bond insurance company providing a Bond Insurance Policy or Reserve Security for any outstanding Parity Bonds. (p) "Bond Purchase Contract" means, with respect to each Series, an offer to purchase the Series, setting forth certain terms and conditions of the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Series, which offer is authorized to be accepted by the Designated Representative on behalf of the City, if consistent with this ordinance. In the case of a competitive sale, the official notice of sale, the Purchaser's bid, and the award by the City shall constitute the Bond Purchase Contract for purposes of this ordinance. (q) "Bond Register" means the books or records maintained by the Registrar for the purpose of identifying ownership of each Bond. (r) "Bonds " means the bonds authorized to be issued by this ordinance. (s) "City" means the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. (t) "City Council" means the legislative authority of the City, as duly and regularly constituted from time to time. (u) "Code" means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 145 8.2.a (v) "Construction Fund" means the fund or account designated by the Finance Director for the payment of the costs of the Plan of Additions. (w) "Coverage Requirement" means, for any fiscal year, an amount of Adjusted Net Revenue equal to not less than 1.25 times the Annual Debt Service in that year on all Parity Bonds then outstanding. For purposes of calculating the Coverage Requirement, ULID Assessments due in that year and not delinquent shall be subtracted from Annual Debt Service. (x) `Designated Representative" means the officer of the City appointed in Section 5 to serve as the City's designated representative in accordance with RCW 39.46.040. (y) `DTC" means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, or its nominee. (z) "Final Terms" means the terms and conditions for the sale of a Series, including the amount, date or dates, denominations, interest rate or rates (or mechanism for determining interest rate or rates), payment dates, final maturity, redemption rights, price, and other terms or covenants. (aa) "Finance Director" means the Finance Director of the City or any other City official who succeeds to the duties now delegated to that office, or the designee of such officer. (bb) "Financial Advisor" means Northwest Municipal Advisors of Bellevue, Washington, or any other financial advisor then appointed and acting as financial advisor to the City. (cc) "Fiscal Agent" means the fiscal agent of the State, as the same may be designated by the State Finance Committee from time to time. (dd) "Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance" means an ordinance of the City authorizing the issuance and sale of Future Parity Bonds. (ee) "Future Parity Bonds " means all revenue obligations and other obligations of the City for borrowed money (including financing leases) issued or incurred after the date of the issuance of the Bonds, the payment of the principal of and interest on which is secured by a charge or lien on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments equal in rank with the lien and charge on Net Revenue and ULID Assessments required to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay and secure the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds. (ff) "Government Obligations" means direct obligations of, or obligations the timely payment of principal of and interest on which are unconditionally guaranteed by, the United States of America. (gg) "Gross Revenue" means all of the earnings and revenues received by the City from the maintenance and operation of the Water and Sewer Utility, including: revenues from the sale, lease, or furnishing of commodities, services, properties or facilities; all earnings from the investment of money in the Bond Fund that are deposited into the Principal and Interest Account; earnings from the investment of money in any maintenance fund or similar fund; all 4 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 146 8.2.a connection and capital improvement charges collected for the purpose of defraying the cost of capital facilities of the Water and Sewer Utility; and withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account. However, the Gross Revenue shall not include: (a) revenues from City taxes; (b) principal proceeds of Parity Bonds or any other borrowings, or earnings or proceeds from any investments in a trust, defeasance, or escrow fund created to defease or refund obligations relating to the Water and Sewer Utility (until commingled with other earnings and revenues included in the Gross Revenue) or held in a special account for the purpose of paying a rebate to the United States Government under the Code; (c) income and revenue that may not legally be pledged for revenue bond debt service; (d) improvement district assessments including ULID Assessments; (e) federal or state grants, and gifts from any source allocated to capital projects; (f) payments under bond insurance or other credit enhancement policy or device; (g) insurance or condemnation proceeds used for the replacement of capital projects or equipment; (h) proceeds from the sale of Water and Sewer Utility property; (i) earnings on bond proceeds in any construction fund or bond redemption fund; 0) deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account; (k) Tax Credit Subsidy Payments; or (1) revenue from any Separate Utility System. (hh) "Independent Utility Consultant" means a professional consultant experienced with municipal utilities of comparable size and character to the Water and Sewer Utility and in such areas as are relevant to the purpose for which he or she is being retained. Such a consultant shall be deemed independent so long as he or she is not an employee or officer of the City. (ii) "Issue Date " means, with respect to a Bond, the date of initial issuance and delivery of the Bond to the Purchaser in exchange for the purchase price of the Bond. 0j) "Letter of Representations" means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations dated August 6, 1996, between the City and DTC, as it may be amended from time to time, and any successor or substitute letter relating to the operational procedures of the Securities Depository. (kk) "Loans" means any State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund loans, State Drinking Water Revolving Fund loans, or similar loans entered into by the City to fund improvements to the Water and Sewer Utility, the payment of which is secured by a lien or charge on Net Revenue that is junior and inferior to the lien and charge on Net Revenue that secure payment of the Parity Bonds. (11) `Maximum Annual Debt Service" means, as of the date of calculation, the maximum amount of Annual Debt Service that will mature or come due in the current fiscal year or any future fiscal year with respect to all Parity Bonds then outstanding. (mm) "Maximum Interest Rate" means, with respect to any Variable Interest Rate Bond, a numerical rate of interest that is the maximum rate of interest those Future Parity Bonds may bear at any time. (nn) "MSRB" means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. (oo) "Net Revenue" means the Gross Revenue, less Operating and Maintenance Expenses. E 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 147 8.2.a (pp) "Official Statement" means an offering document, disclosure document, private placement memorandum, or substantially similar disclosure document provided to purchasers and potential purchasers in connection with the initial offering of a Series in conformance with Rule 15c2-12 or other applicable regulations of the SEC. (qq) "Operating and Maintenance Expenses " means all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in causing the Water and Sewer Utility to be operated and maintained in good repair, working order, and condition, including payments made pursuant to contract for such service to any other municipal corporation or private entity for sewage treatment and disposal, water supply and distribution, or stormwater or other utility service (if the City combines such service into the Water and Sewer Utility), and including budget charges for the City's administration expenses allocated to the Water and Sewer Utility, but shall not include depreciation or any taxes (or charges in lieu of taxes) levied or imposed by the City. (rr) "Outstanding Parity Bond Ordinances" means the 2011 Bond Ordinance, the 2013 Bond Ordinance, and the 2015 Bond Ordinance. (ss) "Outstanding Parity Bonds" means the 2011 Bonds, the 2013 Bonds, and the 2015 Bonds. (tt) "Owner" means, without distinction, the Registered Owner and the Beneficial Owner. (uu) "Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance" means, as applicable to each series of Parity Bonds, the 2011 Bond Ordinance, the 2013 Bond Ordinance, the 2015 Bond Ordinance, this ordinance, and any Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance. (vv) "Parity Bonds " means the Outstanding Parity Bonds, the Bonds, and any Future Parity Bonds. (ww) "Parity Conditions " means the conditions precedent to the issuance of Future Parity Bonds, originally set forth in Exhibit A of the 2011 Bond Ordinance, and set forth in Exhibit B to this ordinance, which is incorporated herein by this reference. (xx) "Permitted Investments " means investments that are legal investments for the City at the time of such investment. (yy) "Plan of Additions" means the system or plan of additions and improvements to and betterments and extensions of the Water and Sewer Utility specified, adopted, and ordered to be carried out by Section 3. (zz) "Principal and Interest Account" means the account of that name created in the Bond Fund for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds. (aaa) "Purchaser" means, with respect to each Series, the corporation, firm, association, partnership, trust, bank, financial institution, or other legal entity or group of entities selected by the Designated Representative to serve as purchaser in a private placement, to serve 0 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 148 8.2.a as underwriter or placement agent for a negotiated sale, or awarded as the successful bidder in a competitive sale of the Series. (bbb) `Rate Stabilization Account" means the account of that name created for the purposes described in Section 16. (ccc) "Rating Agency " means each nationally recognized rating agency, if any, providing a rating on the Bonds at the request of the City. (ddd) "Record Date" means the Registrar's close of business on the 15th day of the month preceding an interest payment date. With respect to redemption of a Bond prior to its maturity, Record Date means the Registrar's close of business on the date on which the Registrar sends the notice of redemption in accordance with Section 9. (eee) `Registered Owner" means, with respect to a Bond, the person in whose name the Bond is registered on the Bond Register. For so long as the City utilizes the book —entry only system for the Bonds under the Letter of Representations, Registered Owner means the Securities Depository. (fff) "Registrar" means the Fiscal Agent or any successor registrar for the Bonds selected by the City. (ggg) "Reserve Account" means the account of that name created in the Bond Fund for the purpose of securing the payment of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds. (hhh) "Reserve Security" means, in lieu of cash and investments, any bond insurance, collateral, security, letter of credit, guaranty, surety bond, or similar credit enhancement device providing for or securing the payment of all or part of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds, issued by an institution that has been assigned a credit rating at the time that such Reserve Security is provided in the two highest rating categories without regard to gradations within those categories (i.e., AAA or AA). (iii) `Reserve Requirement" means, for the Outstanding Parity Bonds, the Bonds, and each issue of Future Parity Bonds secured by the Reserve Account, subject to Section 22(d), an amount equal to the least of (i) Maximum Annual Debt Service, (ii) 125% of Average Annual Debt Service, or (iii) 10% of the original proceeds of each series of the Parity Bonds then outstanding. 0J) "Rule I5c2-12" means Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (kkk) "SEC" means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (111) "Securities Depository" means DTC, any successor thereto, any substitute securities depository selected by the City that is qualified under applicable laws and regulations to provide the services proposed to be provided by it, or the nominee of any of the foregoing. 7 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 149 8.2.a (mmm) "Separate Utility System " means any water supply, sewage collection or treatment, stormwater management, or other utility service or facilities that may be created, acquired, or constructed by the City as provided in Section 17. (nnn) "Series " means a series of the Bonds issued pursuant to this ordinance. (000) "Sewer System " means the sanitary sewage collection and disposal system of the City, also referred to as the sewer utility. (ppp) "State " means the State of Washington. (qqq) "Stormwater System " means the stormwater management utility combined into the Water and Sewer Utility pursuant to chapter 7.60 of the Edmonds City Code. (rrr) "System of Registration " means the system of registration for the City's bonds and other obligations set forth in Ordinance No. 2451 of the City. (sss) "Tax Credit Subsidy Bond" means any bond that is designated by the City as a "build America bond" or other type of tax credit bond, pursuant to the Code, and which is fiuther designated as a "qualified bond" under Section 6431 of the Code (or under similar provisions of the Code providing for "direct -pay" tax credit bonds), and with respect to which the City expects to receive a Tax Credit Subsidy Payment. (ttt) "Tax Credit Subsidy Payment" means the amounts the City expects to receive as a tax credit payable by the United States Treasury to the City under Section 6431 of the Code (or under similar provisions of the Code providing for "direct -pay" tax credit bonds), in respect of any Parity Bonds. (uuu) "Tax -Exempt Bonds " means any Series issued on a tax-exempt basis. (vvv) "Term Bond" means a Bond designated as a term bond and subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity in the years and amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. (www) "ULID" means any utility local improvement district now existing or hereafter created for the acquisition or construction of additions, extensions, or betterments of any portion of the Water and Sewer Utility. (xxx) "ULID Assessments" means the assessments levied in any ULID that are pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund, including installment payments of any assessment as well as the interest and penalties (if any) thereon, less any prepaid assessments permitted by law to be paid into a construction fund or account. (yyy) "Undertaking" means the undertaking to provide continuing disclosure entered into pursuant to Section 21. (zzz) "Variable Interest Rate" means a variable interest rate or rates to be borne by a series of Future Parity Bonds or any one or more maturities within a series of Future Parity Bonds. The method of computing such a variable interest rate (or parameters with respect 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 150 8.2.a thereto) shall be specified in the Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance, which shall specify either (i) the particular period or periods of time or manner of determining such period or periods of time for which each value of such variable interest rate shall remain in effect or (ii) the time or times upon which any change in such variable interest rate shall become effective. (aaaa) "Variable Interest Rate Bonds " means, for any period of time, Future Parity Bonds that bear a Variable Interest Rate during that period. Future Parity Bonds the interest rate or rates on which have been fixed for the remainder of the term thereof no longer shall be deemed to be Variable Interest Rate Bonds. (bbbb) "Water and Sewer Utility" means the combined utility, as described in chapter 7.60 of the Edmonds City Code, including the component Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Systems, together with all additions thereto and betterments and extensions thereof at any time made, and any other utility systems hereafter combined with the Water and Sewer Utility. (cccc) "Water and Sewer Utility Fund" means, together, the Water Fund, the Sewer Fund, and the Stormwater Fund, each of which has previously been established by the City. (dddd) "Water System" means the system of water supply and transmission of the City, also referred to as the water utility. Section 3. Adoption of Plan of Additions. The City specifies, adopts, and orders the carrying out of the projects described in Exhibit C to this ordinance, which is incorporated herein by this reference, as a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the Water and Sewer Utility. The Plan of Additions shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by the City's engineers and consulting engineers. The City Council may modify the details of the Plan of Additions where, in its judgment, it appears advisable if such modifications do not substantially alter the purposes of that system or plan. The cost of the Plan of Additions, including the cost of issuance and sale of the Bonds, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds and from other money available to the Water and Sewer Utility. Section 4. Purpose and Authorization of the Bonds. The City is authorized to borrow money on the credit of the City and to issue water and sewer revenue bonds evidencing indebtedness to provide the funds necessary (a) to carry out the Plan of Additions, (b) to make a deposit into the Reserve Account, and (c) to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be allocated to paying the respective costs of the Plan of Additions in such order of time as the City determines is advisable and practicable. Section 5. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative. The Finance Director is appointed as the Designated Representative of the City and is authorized and directed to conduct the sale of the Bonds in the manner and upon the terms deemed most advantageous to the City, and to approve the Final Terms of each Series, with such additional terms and covenants as the Designated Representative deems advisable, within the parameters set forth in Exhibit A to this ordinance, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 0 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 151 8.2.a Section 6. Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds. (a) Registration of Bonds. Each Bond shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and the ownership of each Bond shall be recorded on the Bond Register. (b) Registrar; Duties. The Fiscal Agent is appointed as initial Registrar. The Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds, and to carry out all of the Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and the System of Registration. The Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on each Bond. The Registrar may become an Owner with the same rights it would have if it were not the Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Owners. (c) Bond Register; Transfer and Exchange of Bonds. The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of each Registered Owner and the principal amount and number of each Bond held by each Registered Owner. A Bond surrendered to the Registrar may be exchanged for a Bond or Bonds in any Authorized Denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same Series, maturity, and interest rate. A Bond may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the Owner or transferee. The Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange any Bond or transfer registered ownership during the period between the applicable Record Date and the redemption date. (d) Securities Depository; Book -Entry Only Form. If a Bond is to be issued in book - entry only form, DTC shall be appointed as initial Securities Depository and each such Bond initially shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as the nominee of DTC. Each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository shall be held fully immobilized in book -entry only form by the Securities Depository in accordance with the provisions of the Letter of Representations. Registered ownership of any Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository may not be transferred except: (i) to any successor Securities Depository; (ii) to any substitute Securities Depository appointed by the City; or (iii) to any person if the Bond is no longer to be held in book -entry only form. Upon the resignation of the Securities Depository, or upon a termination of the services of the Securities Depository by the City, the City may appoint a substitute Securities Depository. If (i) the Securities Depository resigns and the City does not appoint a substitute Securities Depository, or (ii) the City terminates the services of the Securities Depository, the Bonds no longer shall be held in book -entry only form and the registered ownership of each Bond may be transferred to any person as provided in this ordinance. Neither the City nor the Registrar shall have any obligation to participants of any Securities Depository or the persons for whom they act as nominees regarding accuracy of any records maintained by the Securities Depository or its participants. Neither the City nor the 10 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 152 8.2.a Registrar shall be responsible for any notice that is permitted or required to be given to the Registered Owner of a Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository except such notice as is required to be given by the Registrar to the Securities Depository. Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds. (a) Form of Bonds; Signatures and Seal. Each Bond shall be prepared in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and State law. Each Bond shall be signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. If any officer whose manual or facsimile signature appears on a Bond ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bond bearing his or her manual or facsimile signature is authenticated by the Registrar, or issued or delivered by the City, that Bond nevertheless may be authenticated, issued, and delivered and, when authenticated, issued, and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the Issue Date. (b) Authentication. Only a Bond bearing a Certificate of Authentication in substantially the following form, manually signed by the Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: "Certificate of Authentication. This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Edmonds, Washington, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2020." The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated, and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. Section 8. Payment of Bonds. Principal of and interest on each Bond shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Principal of and interest on each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository are payable in the manner set forth in the Letter of Representations. Interest on each Bond not registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable by electronic transfer on the interest payment date, or by check or draft of the Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Bond Register on the Record Date. The City is not required to make electronic transfers except pursuant to a request by a Registered Owner in writing received on or prior to the Record Date and at the sole expense of the Registered Owner. Principal of each Bond not registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bond by the Registered Owner to the Registrar. Payment of the Bonds is not subject to acceleration under any circumstances. Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds. (a) Optional Redemption. The Bonds shall be subject to redemption at the option of the City on terms acceptable to the Designated Representative, as set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A. 11 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 153 8.2.a (b) Mandatory Redemption. Each Bond that is designated as a Term Bond in the Bond Purchase Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A, shall be called for redemption at a price equal to the stated principal amount to be redeemed, plus accrued interest, on the dates and in the amounts as set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. If a Term Bond is redeemed under the optional redemption provisions, defeased, or purchased by the City and surrendered for cancellation, the principal amount of the Term Bond so redeemed, defeased, or purchased (irrespective of its actual redemption or purchase price) shall be credited against one or more scheduled mandatory redemption installments for the Term Bond. The City shall determine the manner in which the credit is to be allocated and shall notify the Registrar in writing of its allocation prior to the earliest mandatory redemption date for the Term Bond for which notice of redemption has not already been given. (c) Selection of Bonds for Redemption; Partial Redemption. If fewer than all of the outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed at the option of the City, the City shall select the Series and maturities to be redeemed. If fewer than all of the outstanding Bonds of a maturity of a Series are to be redeemed, the Securities Depository shall select Bonds registered in the name of the Securities Depository to be redeemed in accordance with the Letter of Representations, and the Registrar shall select all other Bonds to be redeemed randomly in such manner as the Registrar shall determine. All or a portion of the principal amount of any Bond that is to be redeemed may be redeemed in any Authorized Denomination. If less than all of the outstanding principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond to the Registrar, there shall be issued to the Registered Owner, without charge, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the option of the Registered Owner) of the same Series, maturity, and interest rate in any Authorized Denomination in the aggregate principal amount to remain outstanding. (d) Notice of Redemption. Notice of redemption of each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository shall be given in accordance with the Letter of Representations. Notice of redemption of each other Bond, unless waived by the Registered Owner, shall be given by the Registrar not less than 20 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Bond Register on the Record Date. The requirements of the preceding sentence shall be satisfied when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by an Owner. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed or sent electronically within the same period to the MSRB (if required under the Undertaking), to each Rating Agency, and to such other persons and with such additional information as the Finance Director shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of any Bond. (e) Rescission of Optional Redemption Notice. In the case of an optional redemption, the notice of redemption may state that the City retains the right to rescind the redemption notice and the redemption by giving a notice of rescission to the affected Registered Owners at any time on or prior to the date fixed for redemption. Any notice of optional redemption that is so rescinded shall be of no effect, and each Bond for which a notice of optional redemption has been rescinded shall remain outstanding. (f) Effect of Call for Redemption. Interest on each Bond called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption, unless either the notice of optional redemption is rescinded as provided in subsection (e) of this Section or money sufficient to effect such 12 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 154 8.2.a redemption is not on deposit in the Bond Fund or in a trust account established to refund or defease the Bond. (g) Purchase of Bonds. The City reserves the right to purchase any or all of the Bonds offered to the City or in the open market at any time at any price acceptable to the City plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. Section 10. Failure To Pay Bonds. If the principal of any Bond is not paid when the Bond is properly presented at its maturity date or date fixed for redemption, the City shall be obligated to pay, from the sources pledged herein, interest on the Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or date fixed for redemption until the Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund or in a trust account established to refund or defease the Bond, and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the Registered Owner. Section 11. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue refunding bonds pursuant to State law or use money available from any other lawful source to carry out a refunding or defeasance plan, which may include (a) paying when due the principal of and interest on any or all of the Bonds (the "defeased Bonds"); (b) redeeming the defeased Bonds prior to their maturity; and (c) paying the costs of the refunding or defeasance. If the City sets aside in a special trust fund or escrow account irrevocably pledged to that redemption or defeasance (the "trust account") money and/or Government Obligations maturing at a time or times and bearing interest in amounts sufficient to redeem, refund, or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance with their terms, then all right and interest of the Owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds shall cease and become void. Thereafter, the Registered Owners of defeased Bonds shall have the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds solely from the trust account and the defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding. In that event, the City may apply money remaining in any fund or account (other than the trust account) established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purpose, subject only to the rights of the registered owners of any other Parity Bonds then outstanding. Unless otherwise specified by the City in a refunding or defeasance plan, notice of refunding or defeasance shall be given, and selection of Bonds for inclusion in a refunding or defeasance shall be conducted, in the manner prescribed in this ordinance for the redemption of Bonds. Section 12. Security for the Bonds; Bond Fund. (a) Pledge of Net Revenue. The Net Revenue and ULID Assessments are pledged irrevocably to the payment of the Bonds, and the amounts pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay and secure the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due shall constitute a lien and charge on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity with the lien and charge on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay and secure the payment of the principal of and interest on the Outstanding Parity Bonds and any Future Parity Bonds, and prior and superior to any other liens or charges whatsoever. 13 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 155 8.2.a (b) Special Obligations. The principal of and interest on the Bonds are payable exclusively from the Bond Fund and the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. The Bonds are special obligations of the City and do not constitute an obligation of the State, either general or special, or any political subdivision thereof other than the City. The Bonds are not general obligations of the City and shall not constitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of the State constitution. Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City is pledged to the payment of the Bonds. The Registered Owners shall not have any claim for the payment of the Bonds against the City arising from the Bonds except for payment from the Bond Fund and the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. The Registered Owners shall not have any claim against the State arising from the Bonds. (c) Bond Fund; Deposits into the Bond Fund. The Bond Fund has been established within the Water and Sewer Utility Fund as a special fund of the City and is to be drawn upon solely for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on Parity Bonds. The Bond Fund is divided into two accounts: the Principal and Interest Account and the Reserve Account. The City obligates and binds itself to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund all ULID Assessments and, out of the Net Revenue, certain fixed amounts, without regard to any fixed proportion, namely: (1) Into the Principal and Interest Account, before each interest payment date for the Parity Bonds, an amount that will be sufficient, together with other money on deposit therein, to pay the interest on the Parity Bonds due on the interest payment date; and (2) Into the Principal and Interest Account, before each principal payment date of the Parity Bonds (including any mandatory redemption date), an amount that will be sufficient, together with other money on deposit therein, to pay the principal of the Parity Bonds due on the principal payment date (including mandatory redemption amounts due with respect to any Term Bonds); and (3) Into the Reserve Account, at the time and in the manner required by this ordinance, the amount, if any, necessary to make the amount on deposit in the Reserve Account equal to the Reserve Requirement for the Parity Bonds. When the total amount on deposit in the Bond Fund equals the total amount of principal and interest due for all outstanding Parity Bonds to the last maturity thereof, no further payment need be made into the Bond Fund. The Finance Director may create sinking fund accounts or other accounts in the Bond Fund for the payment or securing the payment of Parity Bonds as long as the maintenance of such accounts does not conflict with the rights of the registered owners of Parity Bonds. (d) Reserve Account; Reserve Requirement. The City will at all times maintain on deposit in the Reserve Account an amount equal to the Reserve Requirement, except as otherwise expressly authorized in this subsection, until the total amount on deposit in the Bond Fund equals the total amount of principal and interest due for all outstanding Parity Bonds to the 14 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 156 8.2.a last maturity thereof, at which time the money in the Reserve Account may be used to pay any such principal and interest, so long as the amount remaining on deposit in the Reserve Account is not less than the Reserve Requirement calculated based on the Parity Bonds then outstanding. The Reserve Requirement shall be deemed satisfied by any combination of Parity Bond proceeds, Reserve Securities, or other legally available money equal to the Reserve Requirement, or by the deposit of available funds of the City in approximately equal annual installments so that the Reserve Requirement is funded no later than three years after the issuance of any Future Parity Bonds. If there is a deficiency in the Principal and Interest Account to make the next payment of principal of or interest on the Parity Bonds, the deficiency shall be made up from the Reserve Account by the withdrawal of amounts necessary for that purpose, first, from money on deposit in the Reserve Account, and second, from pro rata draws on each Reserve Security. Any deficiency created in the Reserve Account by reason of any such withdrawal shall be made up from the next available of Net Revenue and ULID Assessments after making necessary provision for the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account, first, to restore each Reserve Security pro rata, and second, to make up any remaining deficiency. (e) Investment of Money in Bond Fund. All money in the Bond Fund may be kept in cash; deposited with an institution (as permitted by law) in an amount in each institution not greater than the amount insured by any department or agency of the United States Government; or invested in Permitted Investments maturing not later than the date when needed (for investments in the Principal and Interest Account) or the last maturity of any Parity Bonds then outstanding (for investments in the Reserve Account). Income from investments in the Principal and Interest Account shall be deposited into that account. Income from investments in the Reserve Account shall be deposited into that account until the amount on deposit therein is equal to the Reserve Requirement, and thereafter shall be deposited into the Principal and Interest Account or used for other Water and Sewer Utility purposes. (f) Action to Compel Payments. If the City fails to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund the amounts set forth above, the registered owner of any of the Parity Bonds then outstanding may bring action against the City and compel the setting aside and payment. Section 13. Deposit of Bond Proceeds. On the Issue Date, proceeds of the Bonds in an amount sufficient to satisfy the Reserve Requirement shall be deposited into the Reserve Account. The remaining proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited into the Construction Fund and be used to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds and the costs of carrying out the Plan of Additions. Until needed to pay such costs, the City may invest those proceeds temporarily in any Permitted Investment, and the investment earnings shall be retained in the Construction Fund and used for the purposes of that fund, except that earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement (if applicable) may be withdrawn from the Construction Fund and used for those tax or rebate purposes. Section 14. Flow of Funds. All ULID Assessments shall be paid into the Bond Fund and the Gross Revenue shall be deposited into the Water and Sewer Utility Fund (or the respective system funds therein) to be used for the following purposes only in the following order of priority: 15 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 157 8.2.a (1) To pay Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (2) To make when due the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account in respect of interest on the Parity Bonds. (3) To make when due the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account in respect of principal of (and premium, if any, on) the Parity Bonds, whether at maturity or pursuant to redemption prior to maturity. (4) To make when due all payments required to be made into the Reserve Account. (5) To make when due all payments required to be made under any reimbursement agreement with a Bond Insurer in any priority not inconsistent with this ordinance, which the City may hereafter establish by ordinance. (6) To make when due the required payments to be made into any revenue bond, note, warrant, or other revenue obligation redemption fund, debt service account, or reserve account created to pay and secure the payment of any revenue obligations of the Water and Sewer Utility the payment of which is secured by a lien or charge on Net Revenue junior and inferior to the lien and charge on Net Revenue that secure payment of the Parity Bonds. (7) Without priority, to retire by redemption or to purchase in the open market any Parity Bonds or junior lien obligations then outstanding, to make necessary betterments and replacements of or repairs, additions, or extensions to the Water and Sewer Utility, to make deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account, or for any other lawful purpose. Section 15. Additional Covenants. The City covenants and agrees with the Registered Owner of each Bond at any time outstanding as follows: (a) Maintenance and Operation. The City will at all times maintain, preserve, and keep the properties of the Water and Sewer Utility in good repair, working order, and condition, will make all necessary and proper additions, betterments, renewals, and repairs thereto and improvements, replacements, and extensions thereof, and will at all times operate or cause to be operated the properties of the Water and Sewer Utility and the business in connection therewith in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost. (b) Establishment and Collection of Rates and Charges. The City will establish, maintain, and collect rates and charges for all services and facilities provided by the Water and Sewer Utility that will be fair and nondiscriminatory. The City will adjust those rates and charges from time to time so that: (i) the Gross Revenue will at all times be sufficient to (A) pay all Maintenance and Operation Expenses on a current basis, (B) pay when due all amounts that the City is obligated to pay into the Bond Fund and the accounts therein, and (C) pay all taxes (or payments in lieu thereof), assessments, or other governmental charges lawfully imposed on the Water and Sewer Utility and any and all other amounts that the City may now or hereafter become obligated to pay from the Gross Revenue by law or contract; and (ii) the Adjusted Net Revenue in each fiscal year will be not less than the Coverage Requirement. 16 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 158 8.2.a (c) Sale or Disposition of Utility Property. The City will not sell, lease, mortgage, or in any manner encumber or dispose of all the property of the Water and Sewer Utility unless provision is made for payment into the Bond Fund of a sum sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on all Parity Bonds then outstanding. Further, the City will not sell, lease, mortgage, or in any manner encumber or dispose of (each, a "disposition") any part of the property of the Water and Sewer Utility that is used, useful, and material to the operation thereof (the "affected portion") unless provision is made for replacement thereof or for payment into the Bond Fund of an amount which shall bear the same ratio to the amount of Parity Bonds then outstanding (less the amount of cash and investments in the Bond Fund and the accounts therein) as (i) the Net Revenue from affected portion of the Water and Sewer Utility for the twelve months preceding such disposition bears to (ii) the Net Revenue from the entire Water and Sewer Utility for the same period. Any money paid into the Bond Fund as a result of such a disposition shall be used to retire that proportion of Parity Bonds then outstanding at the earliest practicable date. (d) Books and Records. The City will maintain complete books and records relating to the operation of the Water and Sewer Utility and its financial affairs, and will cause such books and records to be audited annually, and cause to be prepared an annual financial and operating statement, which shall be provided to any owner of Parity Bonds upon request. (e) No Free Service. Except to aid the poor or infirm, to provide for resource conservation, or to provide for the proper handling of hazardous materials, the City will not furnish or supply or permit the furnishing or supplying of any service or facility in connection with the operation of the Water and Sewer Utility free of charge to any person, firm, or corporation, public or private, other than the City. (f) Collection of Delinquent Accounts. On at least an annual basis, the City will determine all accounts that are delinquent and will take all necessary action to enforce payment of such accounts against those property owners whose accounts are delinquent. (g) Insurance. The City will at all times carry fire and such other forms of insurance on such of the buildings, equipment, facilities, and properties of the Water and Sewer Utility as are ordinarily carried on such buildings, equipment, facilities, and properties by utilities engaged in the operation of similar utility systems to the full insurable value thereof, and also will carry adequate public liability insurance at all times. The City may self -insure or participate in a joint intergovernmental insurance pool or similar plan, and the cost of that insurance or self-insurance shall be considered a part of Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (h) ULID Assessments. The City will promptly collect all ULID Assessments and deposit such collections into the Bond Fund to pay or secure the principal of and interest on any Parity Bonds without those ULID Assessments being particularly allocated to any particular series of Parity Bonds. Section 16. Rate Stabilization Account. The Rate Stabilization Account has been previously established within the Water and Sewer Utility Fund. Deposits and withdrawals shall be made in accordance with this Section at any time up to and including the date that is 90 days after the end of the fiscal year for which the deposit or withdrawal will be included as Adjusted Net Revenue for that fiscal year, as follows: 17 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 159 8.2.a (a) Deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account. The City may at any time, as determined by the Finance Director, consistent with the covenants contained in this ordinance, deposit into the Rate Stabilization Account amounts of Gross Revenue and any other money received by the Water and Sewer Utility and available to be used therefor, excluding principal proceeds of Parity Bonds or other borrowing. However, no deposit of Gross Revenue may be made into the Rate Stabilization Account to the extent that such deposit would prevent the City from meeting the Coverage Requirement in the relevant fiscal year. (b) Withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account. The City may withdraw money from the Rate Stabilization Account at any time upon authorization of the City Council (which may be by motion, resolution, or ordinance) for inclusion in the Adjusted Net Revenue for any fiscal year of the Water and Sewer Utility, except that the total amount withdrawn from the Rate Stabilization Account in any fiscal year may not exceed the Annual Debt Service in that fiscal year. Earnings from investments in the Rate Stabilization Account shall be deposited into that account and shall not be included as Adjusted Net Revenue unless and until withdrawn from that account. Section 17. Separate Utility Systems. The City may create, acquire, construct, finance, own, and operate one or more additional systems for water supply, sewer service, water, sewage, or stormwater transmission or treatment, or other commodity or utility service. The revenue of the Separate Utility System, and any utility local improvement district assessments payable solely with respect to improvements to a Separate Utility System, shall not be included in Gross Revenue and may be pledged to the payment of revenue obligations issued to purchase, construct, condemn, or otherwise acquire or expand the Separate Utility System. Neither the Gross Revenue nor the Net Revenue may be pledged to the payment of any obligations of a Separate Utility System, except that the Net Revenue may be pledged on a basis subordinate to the lien on Net Revenue that secures payment of the Parity Bonds. Section 18. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds; Parity Certificate. (a) Manner of Sale of Bonds; Delivery of Bonds. The Designated Representative is authorized to sell each Series by private placement, negotiated sale, or competitive sale in accordance with a notice of sale consistent with this ordinance, based on the assessment of the Designated Representative of market conditions, in consultation with appropriate City officials and staff, Bond Counsel, the Financial Advisor, and other advisors. In determining the method of sale of a Series and accepting the Final Terms, the Designated Representative shall take into account those factors that, in the judgment of the Designated Representative, may be expected to result in the lowest true interest cost to the City. (b) Procedure for Private Placement or Negotiated Sale. If the Designated Representative determines that a Series is to be sold by private placement or negotiated sale, the Designated Representative shall select one or more Purchasers with which to negotiate the sale. The Bond Purchase Contract for each Series shall set forth the Final Terms. The Designated Representative is authorized to execute the Bond Purchase Contract on behalf of the City, so long as the terms provided therein are consistent with this ordinance. 18 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 160 8.2.a (c) Procedure for Competitive Sale. If the Designated Representative determines that a Series is to be sold by competitive sale, the Designated Representative shall cause the preparation of an official notice of bond sale setting forth parameters for the Final Terms and any other bid parameters that the Designated Representative deems appropriate, consistent with this ordinance. Bids for the purchase of each Series shall be received at such time or place and by such means as the Designated Representative directs. On the date and time established for the receipt of bids, the Designated Representative (or the designee of the Designated Representative) shall open bids and shall cause the bids to be mathematically verified. The Designated Representative is authorized to award, on behalf of the City, the winning bid and accept the winning bidder's offer to purchase the Series, with such adjustments to the aggregate principal amount and principal amount per maturity as the Designated Representative deems appropriate, consistent with this ordinance. The Designated Representative may reject any or all bids submitted and may waive any formality or irregularity in any bid or in the bidding process if the Designated Representative deems it to be in the City's best interest to do so. If all bids are rejected, the Series may be sold by private placement or negotiated sale or in any manner provided by law as the Designated Representative determines is in the best interest of the City, consistent with this ordinance. (d) Parity Certificate. At the time of issuance of the Bonds, the Designated Representative shall cause to be executed and have on file a certificate of coverage as required for the issuance of Future Parity Bonds under Section 20 of the 2011 Bond Ordinance, Section 19 of the 2013 Bond Ordinance, and Section 19 of the 2015 Bond Ordinance. (e) Preparation, Execution, and Delivery of the Bonds. The Bonds will be prepared at City expense and will be delivered to the Purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, together with the approving legal opinion of Bond Counsel regarding the Bonds. Section 19. Parity Conditions. The City reserves the right to issue Future Parity Bonds the payment of the principal of and interest on which are secured by a lien and charge on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity with the lien and charge on Net Revenue and ULID Assessments that secure payment of the Bonds and the Outstanding Parity Bonds if the Parity Conditions are met and complied with at the time of the issuance of the Future Parity Bonds. Nothing contained in the Parity Conditions shall prevent the City from issuing revenue obligations the payment of which is secured by a lien or charge on Net Revenue that is junior and inferior to the lien and charge on Net Revenue that secure payment of the Parity Bonds, or from pledging to pay into a bond redemption fund or account for such junior lien obligations assessments (including interest and penalties thereon) in any utility local improvement district that are levied to pay part or all of the cost of improvements being constructed out of the proceeds of the sale of such junior lien obligations. Neither shall anything contained in this ordinance prevent the City from issuing revenue obligations to refund maturing Parity Bonds for the payment of which money is not otherwise available. Section 20. Tax Matters. (a) Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Tax -Exempt Bonds. The City will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or 19 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 161 8.2.a permit any use of proceeds of the Tax -Exempt Bonds (or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Tax -Exempt Bonds) that will cause interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirements of Section 148 of the Code are applicable to the Tax -Exempt Bonds, take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with those requirements in connection with the Tax -Exempt Bonds. (b) Post -Issuance Compliance. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to review and update the City's written procedures to facilitate compliance by the City with the covenants in this Section and the applicable requirements of the Code that must be satisfied after the Issue Date to prevent interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds from being included in gross income for federal tax purposes. (c) Designation of Bonds as "Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligations. " A Series of Tax - Exempt Bonds may be designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, if the following conditions are met: (1) the Series of Tax -Exempt Bonds does not constitute "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code; (2) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in such calculation) that the City and any entity subordinate to the City (including any entity that the City controls, that derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City, or that issues tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) will issue during the calendar year in which the Series of Tax -Exempt Bonds is issued will not exceed $10,000,000; and (3) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Series of Tax -Exempt Bonds, designated by the City as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code during the calendar year in which the Series of Tax -Exempt Bonds is issued does not exceed $10,000,000. Section 21. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure. (a) Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The Designated Representative shall review and, if acceptable to him or her, approve the preliminary Official Statement prepared in connection with each sale of a Series to the public or through a Purchaser as placement agent. For the sole purpose of the Purchaser's compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12, if applicable, the Designated Representative is authorized to deem that preliminary Official Statement final as of its date, except for the omission of information permitted to be omitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City authorizes and approves the distribution to potential purchasers of the Bonds of a preliminary Official Statement that has been approved by the Designated Representative and, if applicable, deemed final, in accordance with this subsection. (b) Approval of Final Official Statement. The City approves the preparation of a final Official Statement for each Series to be sold to the public or through a Purchaser as placement 20 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 162 8.2.a agent, in the form of the preliminary Official Statement that has been approved and, if applicable, deemed final, in accordance with subsection (a) of this Section, with such modifications and amendments as the Designated Representative deems necessary or desirable, and further authorizes the Designated Representative to execute and deliver such final Official Statement to the Purchaser. The City authorizes and approves the distribution to purchasers and potential purchasers of the Bonds of that final Official Statement so executed and delivered. (c) Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. If necessary to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as applicable to the Purchaser acting as a participating underwriter for a Series, the Designated Representative is authorized to execute a written undertaking to provide continuing disclosure for the benefit of holders of the Series in substantially the form attached as Exhibit D to this ordinance, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Section 22. Amendatory Ordinances. (a) This ordinance shall not be modified or amended in any respect subsequent to the initial issuance of the Bonds, except as provided in and in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Section. (b) The City, from time to time, and at any time, without the consent of or notice to the Registered Owners, may pass amendatory ordinances as follows: (1) To cure any formal defect, omission, inconsistency, or ambiguity in this ordinance in a manner not adverse to the registered owner of any Parity Bonds; (2) To impose upon the Registrar (with its consent) for the benefit of the registered owners of the Parity Bonds any additional rights, remedies, powers, authority, security, liabilities, or duties that may lawfully be granted, conferred, or imposed and that are not contrary to or inconsistent with this ordinance as theretofore in effect; (3) To add to the covenants and agreements of, and limitations and restrictions upon, the City in this ordinance other covenants, agreements, limitations, and restrictions to be observed by the City that are not contrary or inconsistent with this ordinance as theretofore in effect; (4) To confirm, as further assurance, any pledge under, and the subjection to any claim, lien, or pledge created or to be created by, this ordinance of any other money, securities, or funds; (5) To authorize different denominations of the Bonds and to make correlative amendments and modifications to this ordinance regarding exchangeability of Bonds of different authorized denominations, redemptions of portions of Bonds of particular authorized denominations, and similar amendments and modifications of a technical nature; (6) To modify, alter, amend, or supplement this ordinance in any other respect that is not materially adverse to the registered owners of the Parity Bonds and which does not involve a change described in subsection (c) of this Section; and 21 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 163 (7) Due to a change in federal law or rulings, to maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes. (c) Except for any amendatory ordinance passed pursuant to subsection (b) of this Section, subject to the terms and provisions contained in this subsection (c) and not otherwise: (1) Registered owners of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Parity Bonds then outstanding shall have the right from time to time to consent to the passage of any amendatory ordinance deemed necessary or desirable by the City for the purpose of modifying, altering, amending, supplementing, or rescinding, in any particular, any of the terms or provisions contained in this ordinance. However, consent by the registered owners of all the Bonds then outstanding is required for any amendatory ordinance authorizing: (i) a change in the times, amounts, or currency of payment of the principal of or interest on any outstanding Bond, or a reduction in the principal amount or redemption price of any outstanding Bond or a change in the redemption price of any outstanding Bond or a change in the method of determining the rate of interest thereon; (ii) a preference or priority of any Bond or Bonds or any other Bond or Bonds; or (iii) a reduction in the aggregate principal amount of Bonds. (2) Any amendatory ordinance passed for any of the purposes of this subsection (c) shall not become effective except in accordance with this paragraph (c)(2). Upon passage of any such amendatory ordinance, the City shall cause notice of the proposed ordinance to be given by first class United States mail to the registered owners of the Parity Bonds then outstanding and to each Rating Agency. The notice shall briefly describe the proposed ordinance and shall state that a copy is available from the Finance Director for inspection. The amendatory ordinance shall become effective in substantially the form described in the notice only if within two years after mailing of such notice, the City has received (i) the required consents, in writing, of the registered owners of the Parity Bonds (or of the Bonds, as applicable) and (ii) an opinion of Bond Counsel stating that such amendatory ordinance is permitted by this ordinance; that upon the effective date thereof, it will be valid and binding upon the City in accordance with its terms; and that its passage will not adversely affect the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds. (3) If registered owners of not less than the percentage of Parity Bonds (or Bonds, as applicable) required by this subsection (c) have consented, no owner of the Parity Bonds shall have any right to object to the passage of the ordinance (or to any of the terms and provisions contained therein or the operation thereof), or in any manner to question the propriety of the passage thereof, or to enjoin or restrain the City from passing, or from taking any action pursuant to, the same. (d) The Registered Owner of each Bond, by taking and holding the Bond, shall be deemed to have consented to the passage by the City of any amendatory ordinance to establish a separate Reserve Requirement for any or all of the Bonds or any Future Parity Bonds, which may 22 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 164 8.2.a be zero, and to establish one or more separate reserve subaccounts for any or all of the Bonds or any Future Party Bonds. (e) Registered owners of the Parity Bonds may be deemed to have notice of and have consented to the passage of any amendatory ordinance so long as (1) the Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance includes the nature of the proposed amendatory ordinance and states that registered owners of the Parity Bonds will be deemed to have consented to its passage and (2) the preliminary official statement, if any, and official statement, if any, for the Parity Bonds includes the nature of the proposed amendatory ordinance and states that registered owners of the Parity Bonds will be deemed to have consented to its passage. (f) An underwriter of Parity Bonds, either in its capacity as an underwriter or remarketing agent, or as agent for or in lieu of registered owners of the Parity Bonds, may consent to the passage of an amendatory ordinance. (g) Upon the effective date of any amendatory ordinance passed pursuant to the provisions of this Section, this ordinance shall be amended in accordance therewith, and the respective rights, duties, and obligations under this ordinance of the City, the Registrar, and all Registered Owners of Bonds then outstanding shall thereafter be determined, exercised, and enforced under this ordinance subject in all respects to such amendments. Section 23. General Authorization and Ratification. The Designated Representative and other appropriate officers of the City are each individually authorized to take such actions and to execute such documents as in their judgment may be necessary or desirable to carry out the transactions contemplated in connection with this ordinance, and to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of each Series to the Purchaser and for the proper application, use, and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds. All actions taken prior to the effective date of this ordinance in furtherance of the purposes described in this ordinance and not inconsistent with the terms of this ordinance are ratified and confirmed in all respects. Section 24. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. If a court of competent jurisdiction, all appeals having been exhausted or all appeal periods having run, finds any provision of this ordinance to be invalid or unenforceable as to any person or circumstance, such offending provision shall, if feasible, be deemed to be modified to be within the limits of enforceability or validity. However, if the offending provision cannot be so modified, it shall be null and void with respect to the particular person or circumstance, and all other provisions of this ordinance in all other respects, and the offending provision with respect to all other persons and all other circumstances, shall remain valid and enforceable. 23 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 165 8.2.a Section 25. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law and is not subject to referendum. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, Washington, at an open public meeting thereof, this day of October, 2020. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: FOSTER GARVEY P.C. Bond Counsel Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: 24 Mayor 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 166 Exhibit A 8.2.a DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS (1) Principal Amount. The Bonds may be issued in one or more Series and shall not exceed the aggregate principal amount of $14,500,000. (ii) Date or Dates. Each Bond shall be dated the Issue Date, which date may not be later than one year after the effective date of this ordinance. (iii) Denominations, Name. The Bonds shall be issued in Authorized Denominations and shall be numbered separately in the manner and shall bear any name and additional designation as deemed necessary or appropriate by the Designated Representative. (iv) Interest Rates. Each Bond shall bear interest at a fixed rate per annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) from the Issue Date or from the most recent date for which interest has been paid or duly provided for, whichever is later. One or more rates of interest may be fixed for the Bonds. No rate of interest for any Bond may exceed 5.50%, and the true interest cost to the City for each Series may not exceed 4.50%. (v) Payment Dates. Interest shall be payable semiannually on dates acceptable to the Designated Representative, commencing no later than one year following the Issue Date. Principal payments shall commence on a date acceptable to the Designated Representative and shall be payable at maturity or in mandatory redemption installments on dates acceptable to the Designated Representative. (vi) Final Maturity. Each Series shall mature no later than December 1, 2045. (vii) Redemption Rights. The Designated Representative may approve in the Bond Purchase Contract provisions for the optional and mandatory redemption of Bonds, subject to the following: (1) Optional Redemption. Any Bond may be designated as being (A) subject to redemption at the option of the City prior to its maturity date on the dates and at the prices set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract; or (B) not subject to redemption prior to its maturity date. If a Bond is subject to optional redemption prior to its maturity, it must be A-1 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 167 Exhibit A 8.2.a first subject to such redemption on a date that is not more than 10%2 years after the Issue Date. (2) Mandatory Redemption. Any Bond may be designated as a Term Bond, subject to mandatory redemption prior to its maturity on the dates and in the amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. (viii) Price. The purchase price for each Series may not be less than 96% or more than 140% of the stated principal amount of the Series. (ix) Other Terms. The Designated Representative may determine the following: (1) Tax Status. Any or all of the Bonds may be designated as Tax -Exempt Bonds. (2) Credit Enhancement. If determined to be in the best interest of the City, bond insurance or other credit enhancement may be provided for any or all of the Bonds, and the Designated Representative may accept such additional terms, conditions, and covenants determined to be in the best interest of the City, consistent with this ordinance. FEW 5377fl713.1 Packet Pg. 168 Exhibit B 8.2.a PARITY CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF FUTURE PARITY BONDS The City may issue Future Parity Bonds the payment of the principal of and interest on which is secured by a lien and charge on Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity with the lien and charge on Net Revenue and ULID Assessments that secure payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds if and only if the following conditions are met and complied with at the time of issuance of the Future Parity Bonds: (a) There may not be any deficiency in the Principal and Interest Account or the Reserve Account of the Bond Fund. (b) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must require that all ULID Assessments levied in connection with the Future Parity Bonds be paid directly into the Bond Fund. (c) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must provide for the payment of the principal thereof and interest thereon out of the Bond Fund. (d) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must provide for the deposit into the Reserve Account of amounts, if any, necessary to comply with the Reserve Requirement and Section 12. (e) The City must have on file either: (1) A certificate from an Independent Utility Consultant showing that, in his or her professional opinion, the annual Net Revenue available for debt service on the Parity Bonds then outstanding and the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued shall, for each year, be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. In making such certification, the Net Revenue for any 12 consecutive calendar months out of the immediately preceding 24 consecutive months shall be used, and the following adjustments may be made to the historical Net Revenue: (i) Any rate change that has taken place or been approved, may be reflected; (ii) Revenue may be added from customers actually added to the Water and Sewer Utility subsequent to the 12-month period; (iii) Revenue may be added from customers to be served by the improvements being constructed out of the proceeds of the Future Parity Bonds to be issued; (iv) A full year's revenue may be included from any customer being served, but who has not been receiving service for the full 12-month period; and (v) Actual or reasonably anticipated changes to the Operating and Maintenance Expenses subsequent to the 12-month period shall be added or deducted, as applicable; or In 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 169 8.2.a Exhibit B (2) A certificate of the Finance Director showing that, in his or her professional opinion, the annual Net Revenue available for debt service on the Parity Bonds then outstanding and the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued shall, for each year, be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. In making such certification, the Finance Director shall assume that (A) the proposed Future Parity Bonds will remain outstanding to their scheduled maturities and (B) any Parity Bonds to be refunded by the Future Parity Bonds are not outstanding. The Finance Director shall not make any of the adjustments referred to above. However, if the Future Parity Bonds are being issued for the sole purpose of refunding Parity Bonds then outstanding (including paying costs of issuance and providing for the Reserve Requirement), no coverage certification is required if, as result of the issuance of those Future Parity Bonds, (a) in each year that the Future Parity Bonds are scheduled to remain outstanding, the Annual Debt Service on the Future Parity Bonds to be issued is not increased by more than $5,000 over the Annual Debt Service for that year of the Parity Bonds being refunded, and (b) the final maturity of the Future Parity Bonds to be issued is not more than one year after the Parity Bonds being refunded. In addition, no coverage certification is required if the aggregate principal amount of the Future Parity Bonds being issued does not exceed the aggregate amount of ULID Assessments levied in connection with the issuance of the Future Parity Bonds by more than $5,000 plus any amount of the proceeds of such Future Parity Bonds deposited into the Reserve Account. 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 170 Exhibit C 8.2.a DESCRIPTION OF PLAN OF ADDITIONS The planned additions and betterments to the Water and Sewer Utility consist of those set forth in the City's Capital Improvement Program, as it may be amended from time to time by the City Council (the "CIP"). A summary of the improvements expected to be financed, in whole or in part, with proceeds of the Bonds is as follows: Project Name: Carbon Recovery Estimated Project Cost: $26,121,040 Project Description: The Carbon Recovery project would replace the sanitary sewage incinerator (the "SSI") and associated equipment. The SSI is 30 years old and must meet stringent Environmental Protection Agency and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulations which mandate a full replacement after 50% of the original cost in Operations and Maintenance ("O&M") upgrade has been expensed. Cost of regulatory compliance alone is estimated to exceed $100,000/year. Many pieces of equipment within the SSI system are beyond their life expectancy and many are not supported by manufacturers. The design for the project is scheduled for completion in early 2020. Project Benefit/Rationale: The replacement technology being proposed in the Phase 6 Carbon Recovery project is a belt dryer, gasification/pyrolysis units, and odor control system. The processing equipment will be housed in an existing building within the current Wastewater Treatment Plant (the "WWTP") footprint and would be fully integrated into the plant control system. The Carbon Recovery project is the single best opportunity for the WWTP to meet the goals and objectives of the Council Resolution No.1389 which commits the City to achieving or exceeding the environmental goals established in the Paris Climate Accords by reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions. The project can provide a beneficial use of the end products produced. These can be EQ Biosolids, concentrated inorganic minerals, or "biochar." The project will reduce O&M cost in terms of electricity, regulatory compliance, ongoing maintenance, and hauling and disposal costs. Annual savings are estimated to be approximately $340,000 per year. The project will be delivered using the Washington State Energy Savings Performance Contacting process under which capital costs, O&M costs, and energy savings are guaranteed by the contractor. This contractor is Ameresco, Inc., working for the State Department of Enterprise Services. The project would be shared with our treatment partners as follows: City of Mountlake Terrace 23.174% $ 6,053,290 Olympic View Water/Sewer District 16.551 4,323,293 Ronald Wastewater District 9.488 2,478,364 City of Edmonds 50.787 13,266,093 C-1 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 171 8.2.a Exhibit C Schedule of Expenditures: 2020-2022 2020 2021 2022 $11,037,000 $14,584,040 $500,000 C-2 r Q 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 172 8.2.a Exhibit D Form of UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCLOSURE City of Edmonds, Washington Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2020 The City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), makes the following written Undertaking for the benefit of the holders of the above -referenced bonds (the "Bonds"), for the sole purpose of assisting the Purchaser in meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds. Capitalized terms used but not defined below shall have the meanings given in Ordinance No. of the City. (a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Listed Events. The City undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a designated agent, to the MSRB, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB: (i) Annual financial information and operating data of the type included in the final official statement for the Bonds, as described in paragraph (b)(i) ("annual financial information"); (ii) Timely notice (not in excess of 10 business days after the occurrence of the event) of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds: (1) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) non- payment related defaults, if material; (3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (6) adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notice of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701 — TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events affecting the tax status of the Bonds; (7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds, if material; (8) bond calls (other than scheduled mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds), if material, and tender offers; (9) defeasances; (10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if material; (11) rating changes; (12) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, or similar event of the City, as such "bankruptcy events" are defined in Rule 15c2-12; (13) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the City other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; (14) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material, (15) incurrence of a financial obligation of the City or obligated person, if material, or D-1 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 173 Exhibit D 8.2.a agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the City or obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material; and (16) default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of the financial obligation of the City or obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties. The term "financial obligation" means a (A) debt obligation; (B) derivative instrument entered into in connection with, or pledged as security or a source of payment for, an existing or planned debt obligation; or (C) guarantee of (A) or (B). The term "financial obligation" shall not include municipal securities as to which a final official statement has been provided to the MSRB consistent with Rule 15c2-12. (iii) Timely notice of a failure by the City to provide the required annual financial information described in paragraph (b)(i) on or before the date specified in paragraph (b)(ii). (b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual financial information that the City undertakes to provide in paragraph (a): (i) Shall consist of (1) annual financial statements prepared (except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to local governmental units of the State such as the City, as such principles may be changed from time to time; (2) annual operating statistics for each of the component utility systems, as follows: number of customer accounts, a statement of gross and net revenues, total annual water consumption, and average daily water consumption; (3) monthly or bi-monthly rates and charges for each of the component utility systems; and (4) a statement of the coverage ratio for the fiscal year; (ii) Shall be provided not later than the last day of the ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law, commencing with the City's fiscal year ending December 31, ; and (iii) May be provided in a single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by specific reference to documents available to the public on the Internet website of the MSRB or filed with the SEC. If not submitted as part of the annual financial information described in paragraph (b)(i) above, the City will provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB audited financial statements, when and if available. (c) Amendment of Undertaking. This Undertaking is subject to amendment after the primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or of any broker, D-2 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 174 Exhibit D 8.2.a dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, rating agency or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner permitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City will give notice to the MSRB of the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be provided, the annual financial information containing the amended financial information will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of information to be provided. (d) Beneficiaries. This Undertaking shall inure to the benefit of the City and the holder of each Bond, and shall not inure to the benefit of or create any rights in any other person. (e) Termination of Undertaking. The City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of Rule 15c2-12 which require the City to comply with this Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of Bond Counsel delivered to the City, and the City provides timely notice of such termination to the MSRB. (f) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. As soon as practicable after the City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected. No failure by the City or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Bonds. The sole remedy of any holder of a Bond shall be to take action to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with this Undertaking, including seeking an order of specific performance from an appropriate court. (g) Designation of Official Responsible to Administer Undertaking. The Finance Director of the City or his or her designee is authorized to take such further actions as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to carry out this Undertaking in accordance with Rule 15c2-12, including the following actions: (i) Preparing and filing the annual financial information undertaken to be provided; (ii) Determining whether any event specified in paragraph (a) has occurred, assessing its materiality, where necessary, with respect to the Bonds, and preparing and disseminating any required notice of its occurrence; (iii) Determining whether any person other than the City is an "obligated person" within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 with respect to the Bonds, and obtaining from such person an undertaking to provide any annual financial information and notice of listed events for that person in accordance with Rule 15c2-12; (iv) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and consultants, including but not limited to financial advisors and legal counsel, to assist and advise the City in carrying out the Undertaking; and D-3 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 175 8.2.a Exhibit D (v) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking. r Q Ml Packet Pg. 176 8.2.a CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), hereby certify as follows: 1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. (the "Ordinance") is a full, true and correct copy of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held at the regular meeting place thereof on October , 2020, as that ordinance appears on the minute book of the City; 2. The Ordinance will be in full force and effect five days after publication in the City's official newspaper, which publication date is expected to be October , 2020; and 3. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting and a majority of its members voted in the proper manner for the passage of the Ordinance. Dated: October , 2020. 53778713.1 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON City Clerk Packet Pg. 177 8.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON •10I►.► ►• AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to the combined water and sewerage systems comprising the waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting, and ordering the carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the combined waterworks utility; providing for the issuance of one or more series of water and sewer revenue bonds for the purpose of providing the funds necessary: (1) to pay all or a portion of the costs of carrying out that plan of additions, (2) to make a deposit into the debt service reserve account, and (3) to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with respect to certain terms and covenants of the bonds; appointing the City's designated representative to approve the final terms of the sale of the bonds; and providing for other related matters. Passed fQctober }, 2020 This document prepared by: Foster Garvey P. C. 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 447-4400 FG:53778713.553778713.6 Packet Pg. 178 8.2.b TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. Findings and Determinations..................................................................................................... 1 Section2. Definitions................................................................................................................................. 2 Section 3. Adoption of Plan of Additions.................................................................................................. 8 Section 4. Purpose and Authorization of the Bonds................................................................................... 8 Section 5. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative .................................... 8 Section 6. Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds.......................................................................... 9 Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds................................................................................................. 10 Section8. Payment of Bonds................................................................................................................... 10 Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds ................................................ 10 Section 10. Failure To Pay Bonds.............................................................................................................. 12 Section 11. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds................................................................................... 12 Section 12. Security for the Bonds; Bond Fund......................................................................................... 12 Section 13. Deposit of Bond Proceeds....................................................................................................... 14 Section14. Flow of Funds.......................................................................................................................... 14 Section 15. Additional Covenants.............................................................................................................. 15 Section 16. Rate Stabilization Account...................................................................................................... 16 Section 17. Separate Utility Systems......................................................................................................... 17 Section 18. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds; Parity Certificate.................................................................. 17 Section 19. Parity Conditions..................................................................................................................... 18 Section20. Tax Matters.............................................................................................................................. 18 Section 21. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure............................................................................. 19 Section22. Amendatory Ordinances.......................................................................................................... 19 Section 23. General Authorization and Ratification................................................................................... 21 Section24. Severability.............................................................................................................................. 22 Section 25. Effective Date of Ordinance.................................................................................................... 22 Exhibit A Parameters for Final Terms of the Bonds Exhibit B Parity Conditions For Issuance of Future Parity Bonds Exhibit C Description of Plan of Additions Exhibit D Form of Continuing Disclosure Undertaking * The cover page, table of contents and section headings of this ordinance are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be used to resolve any question of interpretation of this ordinance. FG:53�778713.553778713.6 Packet Pg. 179 8.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, relating to the combined water and sewerage systems comprising the waterworks utility of the City; specifying, adopting, and ordering the carrying out of a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the combined waterworks utility; providing for the issuance of one or more series of water and sewer revenue bonds for the purpose of providing the funds necessary: (1) to pay all or a portion of the costs of carrying out that plan of additions, (2) to make a deposit into the debt service reserve account, and (3) to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the bonds; fixing or setting parameters with respect to certain terms and covenants of the bonds; appointing the City's designated representative to approve the final terms of the sale of the bonds; and providing for other related matters. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Determinations. The City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), makes the findings and determinations set forth below. Capitalized terms have the meanings given in Section 2. (a) Plan of Additions. The City is in need of funds with which to finance the Plan of Additions, the estimated cost of which is $[ +13,266,093, and the City does not have available sufficient funds to pay the costs. The life of the improvements comprising the Plan of Additions is declared to be at least 30 years. (b) Previously Issued Bonds and Loans. The City previously issued the 2011 Bonds, the 2013 Bonds, and the 2015 Bonds and by the Outstanding Parity Bond Ordinances provided for the issuance of Future Parity Bonds the payment of which is secured by a lien and charge on Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity with the lien and charge that secure payment of the Outstanding Parity Bonds if certain Parity Conditions are met at the time the Future Parity Bonds are issued. The City also has outstanding Loans the payment of which is secured by a lien or charge on Net Revenue that is junior and inferior to the lien and charge on Net Revenue that secure payment of the Parity Bonds. (c) Parity Conditions Met. The amounts required to have been paid into the Bond Fund for the Outstanding Parity Bonds have been paid and maintained as required therein, and all other Parity Conditions for the issuance of the Bonds as Future Parity Bonds will have been met and satisfied before the Bonds are delivered to the Purchaser. (d) Sufficiency of Gross Revenue. The Gross Revenue and benefits to be derived from the operation and maintenance of the Water and Sewer Utility at the rates to be charged for services from the Water and Sewer Utility will be more than sufficient to meet all Operating and Packet Pg. 180 Maintenance Expense and to permit the setting aside into the Bond Fund out of the Gross Revenue of amounts sufficient to pay when due the principal of and interest on the Outstanding Parity Bonds and the Bonds. In fixing the amounts to be paid into the Bond Fund under this ordinance, the City Council has exercised due regard for Operating and Maintenance Expense and has not obligated the City to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund a greater amount of Gross Revenue that in its judgment will be available over and above such Operating and Maintenance Expense and amount of Gross Revenue previously pledged. (e) Issuance of Bonds. It is in the best interest of the City to issue and sell the Bonds to the Purchaser pursuant to the terms set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract as approved by the City's Designated Representative consistent with this ordinance. Section 2. Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings: (a) "2011 Bonds" means the City's outstanding Water and Sewer Improvement and Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2011, authorized by the 2011 Bond Ordinance. (b) "2011 Bond Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 3863, passed on December 6, 2011. (c) "2013 Bonds" means the City's outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2013, authorized by the 2013 Bond Ordinance. (d) "2013 Bond Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 3933, passed on July 16, 2013. (e) "2015 Bonds" means the City's outstanding Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2015, authorized by the 2015 Bond Ordinance. (f) "2015 Bond Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 3996, passed on May 5, 2015. (g) "Adjusted Net Revenue" means Net Revenue plus withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account and less deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account. (h) `Annual Debt Service" means, for any fiscal year, with respect to all Parity Bonds outstanding or maturing in that year, all amounts required to be paid in that year in respect of principal of and interest on those Parity Bonds, less all bond interest payable from the proceeds of any Parity Bonds, and less all Tax Credit Subsidy Payments scheduled to be received in that year. Parity Bonds issued as Variable Interest Rate Bonds shall be assumed to bear interest at a fixed rate equal to the higher of (i) the highest variable rate borne during the preceding 24 months by any Variable Interest Rate Bonds then outstanding or (ii) if no Variable Interest Rate Bonds are then outstanding, a rate determined by reference to the index to be used to determine the interest rate on the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued or a comparable index. (i) "Authorized Denominations" means $5,000 or any integral multiple thereof within a maturity of a Series. 0) "Average Annual Debt Service" means, as of its date of calculation, the sum of the Annual Debt Service for the current fiscal year and the fiscal years remaining to the last scheduled maturity of the applicable issue or issues of bonds divided by the number of those years. 2 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 181 8.2.b (k) `Beneficial Owner" means, with respect to a Bond, the owner of any beneficial interest in the Bond. (1) "Bond Counsel" means the firm of Foster Garvey P.C., its successor, or any other attorney or firm of attorneys selected by the City with a nationally recognized standing as bond counsel in the field of municipal finance. (m) "Bond Fund" means the City's Water and Sewer Utility Revenue Bond Fund, 2011, created by the 2011 Bond Ordinance for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on Parity Bonds. (n) `Bond Insurance Policy" means a municipal bond insurance policy issued by a Bond Insurer insuring the payment when due of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds as provided in such policy. (o) "Bond Insurer" means a bond insurance company providing a Bond Insurance Policy or Reserve Security for any outstanding Parity Bonds. (p) "Bond Purchase Contract" means, with respect to each Series, an offer to purchase the Series, setting forth certain terms and conditions of the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Series, which offer is authorized to be accepted by the Designated Representative on behalf of the City, if consistent with this ordinance. In the case of a competitive sale, the official notice of sale, the Purchaser's bid, and the award by the City shall constitute the Bond Purchase Contract for purposes of this ordinance. (q) "Bond Register" means the books or records maintained by the Registrar for the purpose of identifying ownership of each Bond. (r) "Bonds " means the bonds authorized to be issued by this ordinance. (s) "City" means the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. (t) "City Council" means the legislative authority of the City, as duly and regularly constituted from time to time. (u) "Code" means the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and applicable rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (v) "Construction Fund" means the fund or account designated by the Finance Director for the payment of the costs of the Plan of Additions. (w) "Coverage Requirement" means, for any fiscal year, an amount of Adjusted Net Revenue equal to not less than 1.25 times the Annual Debt Service in that year on all Parity Bonds then outstanding. For purposes of calculating the Coverage Requirement, ULID Assessments due in that year and not delinquent shall be subtracted from Annual Debt Service. (x) "Designated Representative" means the officer of the City appointed in Section 5 to serve as the City's designated representative in accordance with RCW 39.46.040. (y) "DTC" means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, or its nominee. (z) "Final Terms" means the terms and conditions for the sale of a Series, including the amount, date or dates, denominations, interest rate or rates (or mechanism for determining 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 182 8.2.b interest rate or rates), payment dates, final maturity, redemption rights, price, and other terms or covenants. (aa) `Finance Director" means the Finance Director of the City or any other City official who succeeds to the duties now delegated to that office, or the designee of such officer. (bb) `Financial Advisor" means Northwest Municipal Advisors of Bellevue, Washington, or any other financial advisor then appointed and acting as financial advisor to the City. (cc) "Fiscal Agent" means the fiscal agent of the State, as the same may be designated by the State Finance Committee from time to time. (dd) "Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance" means an ordinance of the City authorizing the issuance and sale of Future Parity Bonds. (ee) "Future Parity Bonds " means all revenue obligations and other obligations of the City for borrowed money (including financing leases) issued or incurred after the date of the issuance of the Bonds, the payment of the principal of and interest on which is secured by a charge or lien on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments equal in rank with the lien and charge on Net Revenue and ULID Assessments required to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay and secure the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds. (ff) "Government Obligations" means direct obligations of, or obligations the timely payment of principal of and interest on which are unconditionally guaranteed by, the United States of America. (gg) "Gross Revenue" means all of the earnings and revenues received by the City from the maintenance and operation of the Water and Sewer Utility, including: revenues from the sale, lease, or furnishing of commodities, services, properties or facilities; all earnings from the investment of money in the Bond Fund that are deposited into the Principal and Interest Account; earnings from the investment of money in any maintenance fund or similar fund; all connection and capital improvement charges collected for the purpose of defraying the cost of capital facilities of the Water and Sewer Utility; and withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account. However, the Gross Revenue shall not include: (a) revenues from City taxes; (b) principal proceeds of Parity Bonds or any other borrowings, or earnings or proceeds from any investments in a trust, defeasance, or escrow fund created to defease or refund obligations relating to the Water and Sewer Utility (until commingled with other earnings and revenues included in the Gross Revenue) or held in a special account for the purpose of paying a rebate to the United States Government under the Code; (c) income and revenue that may not legally be pledged for revenue bond debt service; (d) improvement district assessments including ULID Assessments; (e) federal or state grants, and gifts from any source allocated to capital projects; (f) payments under bond insurance or other credit enhancement policy or device; (g) insurance or condemnation proceeds used for the replacement of capital projects or equipment; (h) proceeds from the sale of Water and Sewer Utility property; (i) earnings on bond proceeds in any construction fund or bond redemption fund; 0) deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account; (k) Tax Credit Subsidy Payments; or (1) revenue from any Separate Utility System. (hh) "Independent Utility Consultant" means a professional consultant experienced with municipal utilities of comparable size and character to the Water and Sewer Utility and in 4 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 183 8.2.b such areas as are relevant to the purpose for which he or she is being retained. Such a consultant shall be deemed independent so long as he or she is not an employee or officer of the City. (ii) "Issue Date " means, with respect to a Bond, the date of initial issuance and delivery of the Bond to the Purchaser in exchange for the purchase price of the Bond. 0j) "Letter of Representations" means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations dated August 6, 1996, between the City and DTC, as it may be amended from time to time, and any successor or substitute letter relating to the operational procedures of the Securities Depository. (kk) "Loans" means any State of Washington Public Works Trust Fund loans, State Drinking Water Revolving Fund loans, or similar loans entered into by the City to fund improvements to the Water and Sewer Utility, the payment of which is secured by a lien or charge on Net Revenue that is junior and inferior to the lien and charge on Net Revenue that secure payment of the Parity Bonds. (11) "Maximum Annual Debt Service" means, as of the date of calculation, the maximum amount of Annual Debt Service that will mature or come due in the current fiscal year or any future fiscal year with respect to all Parity Bonds then outstanding. (mm) "Maximum Interest Rate" means, with respect to any Variable Interest Rate Bond, a numerical rate of interest that is the maximum rate of interest those Future Parity Bonds may bear at any time. (nn) "MSRB " means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. (oo) "Net Revenue" means the Gross Revenue, less Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (pp) "Official Statement" means an offering document, disclosure document, private placement memorandum, or substantially similar disclosure document provided to purchasers and potential purchasers in connection with the initial offering of a Series in conformance with Rule 15c2-12 or other applicable regulations of the SEC. (qq) "Operating and Maintenance Expenses " means all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in causing the Water and Sewer Utility to be operated and maintained in good repair, working order, and condition, including payments made pursuant to contract for such service to any other municipal corporation or private entity for sewage treatment and disposal, water supply and distribution, or stormwater or other utility service (if the City combines such service into the Water and Sewer Utility), and including budget charges for the City's administration expenses allocated to the Water and Sewer Utility, but shall not include depreciation or any taxes (or charges in lieu of taxes) levied or imposed by the City. (rr) "Outstanding Parity Bond Ordinances" means the 2011 Bond Ordinance, the 2013 Bond Ordinance, and the 2015 Bond Ordinance. (ss) "Outstanding Parity Bonds" means the 2011 Bonds, the 2013 Bonds, and the 2015 Bonds. (tt) "Owner" means, without distinction, the Registered Owner and the Beneficial Owner. E 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 184 8.2.b (uu) `Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance" means, as applicable to each series of Parity Bonds, the 2011 Bond Ordinance, the 2013 Bond Ordinance, the 2015 Bond Ordinance, this ordinance, and any Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance. (vv) "Parity Bonds " means the Outstanding Parity Bonds, the Bonds, and any Future Parity Bonds. (ww) "Parity Conditions " means the conditions precedent to the issuance of Future Parity Bonds, originally set forth in Exhibit A of the 2011 Bond Ordinance, and set forth in Exhibit B to this ordinance, which is incorporated herein by this reference. (xx) "Permitted Investments " means investments that are legal investments for the City at the time of such investment. (yy) `Plan of Additions" means the system or plan of additions and improvements to and betterments and extensions of the Water and Sewer Utility specified, adopted, and ordered to be carried out by Section 3. (zz) "Principal and Interest Account" means the account of that name created in the Bond Fund for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Parity Bonds. (aaa) "Purchaser" means, with respect to each Series, the corporation, firm, association, partnership, trust, bank, financial institution, or other legal entity or group of entities selected by the Designated Representative to serve as purchaser in a private placement, to serve as underwriter or placement agent for a negotiated sale, or awarded as the successful bidder in a competitive sale of the Series. (bbb) "Rate Stabilization Account" means the account of that name created for the purposes described in Section 16. (ccc) `Rating Agency" means each nationally recognized rating agency, if any, providing a rating on the Bonds at the request of the City. (ddd) `Record Date" means the Registrar's close of business on the 15th day of the month preceding an interest payment date. With respect to redemption of a Bond prior to its maturity, Record Date means the Registrar's close of business on the date on which the Registrar sends the notice of redemption in accordance with Section 9. (eee) `Registered Owner" means, with respect to a Bond, the person in whose name the Bond is registered on the Bond Register. For so long as the City utilizes the book —entry only system for the Bonds under the Letter of Representations, Registered Owner means the Securities Depository. (fff) "Registrar" means the Fiscal Agent or any successor registrar for the Bonds selected by the City. (ggg) "Reserve Account" means the account of that name created in the Bond Fund for the purpose of securing the payment of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds. (hhh) "Reserve Security" means, in lieu of cash and investments, any bond insurance, collateral, security, letter of credit, guaranty, surety bond, or similar credit enhancement device providing for or securing the payment of all or part of the principal of and interest on Parity Bonds, issued by an institution that has been assigned a credit rating at the time that such 0 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 185 8.2.b Reserve Security is provided in the two highest rating categories without regard to gradations within those categories (i.e., AAA or AA). (iii) `Reserve Requirement" means, for the Outstanding Parity Bonds, the Bonds, and each issue of Future Parity Bonds secured by the Reserve Account, subject to Section 22(d), an amount equal to the least of (i) Maximum Annual Debt Service, (ii) 125% of Average Annual Debt Service, or (iii) 10% of the original proceeds of each series of the Parity Bonds then outstanding. 0J) "Rule I5c2-12" means Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by the SEC under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (kkk) "SEC" means the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (111) "Securities Depository" means DTC, any successor thereto, any substitute securities depository selected by the City that is qualified under applicable laws and regulations to provide the services proposed to be provided by it, or the nominee of any of the foregoing. (mmm) "Separate Utility System " means any water supply, sewage collection or treatment, stormwater management, or other utility service or facilities that may be created, acquired, or constructed by the City as provided in Section 17. (nnn) "Series " means a series of the Bonds issued pursuant to this ordinance. (000) "Sewer System " means the sanitary sewage collection and disposal system of the City, also referred to as the sewer utility. (ppp) "State " means the State of Washington. (qqq) "Stormwater System " means the stormwater management utility combined into the Water and Sewer Utility pursuant to chapter 7.60 of the Edmonds City Code. (rrr) "System of Registration " means the system of registration for the City's bonds and other obligations set forth in Ordinance No. 2451 of the City. (sss) "Tax Credit Subsidy Bond" means any bond that is designated by the City as a "build America bond" or other type of tax credit bond, pursuant to the Code, and which is further designated as a "qualified bond" under Section 6431 of the Code (or under similar provisions of the Code providing for "direct -pay" tax credit bonds), and with respect to which the City expects to receive a Tax Credit Subsidy Payment. (ttt) "Tax Credit Subsidy Payment" means the amounts the City expects to receive as a tax credit payable by the United States Treasury to the City under Section 6431 of the Code (or under similar provisions of the Code providing for "direct -pay" tax credit bonds), in respect of any Parity Bonds. (uuu) "Tax -Exempt Bonds " means any Series issued on a tax-exempt basis. (vvv) "Term Bond" means a Bond designated as a term bond and subject to mandatory redemption prior to maturity in the years and amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. (www) "ULID" means any utility local improvement district now existing or hereafter created for the acquisition or construction of additions, extensions, or betterments of any portion of the Water and Sewer Utility. 7 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 186 8.2.b (xxx) "ULID Assessments " means the assessments levied in any ULID that are pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund, including installment payments of any assessment as well as the interest and penalties (if any) thereon, less any prepaid assessments permitted by law to be paid into a construction fund or account. (yyy) "Undertaking" means the undertaking to provide continuing disclosure entered into pursuant to Section 21. (zzz) "Variable Interest Rate" means a variable interest rate or rates to be borne by a series of Future Parity Bonds or any one or more maturities within a series of Future Parity Bonds. The method of computing such a variable interest rate (or parameters with respect thereto) shall be specified in the Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance, which shall specify either (i) the particular period or periods of time or manner of determining such period or periods of time for which each value of such variable interest rate shall remain in effect or (ii) the time or times upon which any change in such variable interest rate shall become effective. (aaaa) "Variable Interest Rate Bonds" means, for any period of time, Future Parity Bonds that bear a Variable Interest Rate during that period. Future Parity Bonds the interest rate or rates on which have been fixed for the remainder of the term thereof no longer shall be deemed to be Variable Interest Rate Bonds. (bbbb) "Water and Sewer Utility" means the combined utility, as described in chapter 7.60 of the Edmonds City Code, including the component Water, Sewer, and Stormwater Systems, together with all additions thereto and betterments and extensions thereof at any time made, and any other utility systems hereafter combined with the Water and Sewer Utility. (cccc) "Water and Sewer Utility Fund" means, together, the Water Fund, the Sewer Fund, and the Stormwater Fund, each of which has previously been established by the City. (dddd) "Water System" means the system of water supply and transmission of the City, also referred to as the water utility. Section 3. Adoption of Plan of Additions. The City specifies, adopts, and orders the carrying out of the projects described in Exhibit C to this ordinance, which is incorporated herein by this reference, as a system or plan of additions to and betterments and extensions of the Water and Sewer Utility. The Plan of Additions shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor prepared by the City's engineers and consulting engineers. The City Council may modify the details of the Plan of Additions where, in its judgment, it appears advisable if such modifications do not substantially alter the purposes of that system or plan. The cost of the Plan of Additions, including the cost of issuance and sale of the Bonds, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds and from other money available to the Water and Sewer Utility. Section 4. Purpose and Authorization of the Bonds. The City is authorized to borrow money on the credit of the City and to issue water and sewer revenue bonds evidencing indebtedness to provide the funds necessary (a) to carry out the Plan of Additions, (b) to make a deposit into the Reserve Account, and (c) to pay the costs of issuance of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be allocated to paying the respective costs of the Plan of Additions in such order of time as the City determines is advisable and practicable. Section 5. Description of the Bonds; Appointment of Designated Representative. The Finance Director is appointed as the Designated Representative of the City and is authorized and directed to conduct the sale of the Bonds in the manner and upon the terms deemed most 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 187 8.2.b advantageous to the City, and to approve the Final Terms of each Series, with such additional terms and covenants as the Designated Representative deems advisable, within the parameters set forth in Exhibit A to this ordinance, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Section 6. Registrar; Registration and Transfer of Bonds. (a) Registration of Bonds. Each Bond shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and the ownership of each Bond shall be recorded on the Bond Register. (b) Registrar; Duties. The Fiscal Agent is appointed as initial Registrar. The Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall be open to inspection by the City at all times. The Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver Bonds transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Bonds and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Bonds, and to carry out all of the Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance and the System of Registration. The Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on each Bond. The Registrar may become an Owner with the same rights it would have if it were not the Registrar and, to the extent permitted by law, may act as depository for and permit any of its officers or directors to act as members of, or in any other capacity with respect to, any committee formed to protect the rights of Owners. (c) Bond Register; Transfer and Exchange of Bonds. The Bond Register shall contain the name and mailing address of each Registered Owner and the principal amount and number of each Bond held by each Registered Owner. A Bond surrendered to the Registrar may be exchanged for a Bond or Bonds in any Authorized Denomination of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same Series, maturity, and interest rate. A Bond may be transferred only if endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the Owner or transferee. The Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange any Bond or transfer registered ownership during the period between the applicable Record Date and the redemption date. (d) Securities Depository; Book -Entry Only Form. If a Bond is to be issued in book - entry only form, DTC shall be appointed as initial Securities Depository and each such Bond initially shall be registered in the name of Cede & Co., as the nominee of DTC. Each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository shall be held fully immobilized in book -entry only form by the Securities Depository in accordance with the provisions of the Letter of Representations. Registered ownership of any Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository may not be transferred except: (i) to any successor Securities Depository; (ii) to any substitute Securities Depository appointed by the City; or (iii) to any person if the Bond is no longer to be held in book -entry only form. Upon the resignation of the Securities Depository, or upon a termination of the services of the Securities Depository by the City, the City may appoint a substitute Securities Depository. If (i) the Securities Depository resigns and the City does not appoint a substitute Securities Depository, or (ii) the City terminates the services of the Securities Depository, the Bonds no longer shall be held in book -entry only form and the registered ownership of each Bond may be transferred to any person as provided in this ordinance. Neither the City nor the Registrar shall have any obligation to participants of any Securities Depository or the persons for whom they act as nominees regarding accuracy of any 0 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 188 8.2.b records maintained by the Securities Depository or its participants. Neither the City nor the Registrar shall be responsible for any notice that is permitted or required to be given to the Registered Owner of a Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository except such notice as is required to be given by the Registrar to the Securities Depository. Section 7. Form and Execution of Bonds. (a) Form of Bonds; Signatures and Seal. Each Bond shall be prepared in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and State law. Each Bond shall be signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. If any officer whose manual or facsimile signature appears on a Bond ceases to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds before the Bond bearing his or her manual or facsimile signature is authenticated by the Registrar, or issued or delivered by the City, that Bond nevertheless may be authenticated, issued, and delivered and, when authenticated, issued, and delivered, shall be as binding on the City as though that person had continued to be an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds. Any Bond also may be signed on behalf of the City by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Bond, is an officer of the City authorized to sign bonds, although he or she did not hold the required office on the Issue Date. (b) Authentication. Only a Bond bearing a Certificate of Authentication in substantially the following form, manually signed by the Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance: "Certificate of Authentication. This Bond is one of the fully registered City of Edmonds, Washington, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2020." The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Bond so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated, and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. Section 8. Payment of Bonds. Principal of and interest on each Bond shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Principal of and interest on each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository are payable in the manner set forth in the Letter of Representations. Interest on each Bond not registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable by electronic transfer on the interest payment date, or by check or draft of the Registrar mailed on the interest payment date to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Bond Register on the Record Date. The City is not required to make electronic transfers except pursuant to a request by a Registered Owner in writing received on or prior to the Record Date and at the sole expense of the Registered Owner. Principal of each Bond not registered in the name of the Securities Depository is payable upon presentation and surrender of the Bond by the Registered Owner to the Registrar. Payment of the Bonds is not subject to acceleration under any circumstances. Section 9. Redemption Provisions and Open Market Purchase of Bonds. (a) Optional Redemption. The Bonds shall be subject to redemption at the option of the City on terms acceptable to the Designated Representative, as set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A. (b) Mandatory Redemption. Each Bond that is designated as a Term Bond in the Bond Purchase Contract, consistent with the parameters set forth in Exhibit A, shall be called for redemption at a price equal to the stated principal amount to be redeemed, plus accrued interest, 10 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 189 8.2.b on the dates and in the amounts as set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. If a Term Bond is redeemed under the optional redemption provisions, defeased, or purchased by the City and surrendered for cancellation, the principal amount of the Term Bond so redeemed, defeased, or purchased (irrespective of its actual redemption or purchase price) shall be credited against one or more scheduled mandatory redemption installments for the Term Bond. The City shall determine the manner in which the credit is to be allocated and shall notify the Registrar in writing of its allocation prior to the earliest mandatory redemption date for the Term Bond for which notice of redemption has not already been given. (c) Selection of Bonds for Redemption; Partial Redemption. If fewer than all of the outstanding Bonds are to be redeemed at the option of the City, the City shall select the Series and maturities to be redeemed. If fewer than all of the outstanding Bonds of a maturity of a Series are to be redeemed, the Securities Depository shall select Bonds registered in the name of the Securities Depository to be redeemed in accordance with the Letter of Representations, and the Registrar shall select all other Bonds to be redeemed randomly in such manner as the Registrar shall determine. All or a portion of the principal amount of any Bond that is to be redeemed may be redeemed in any Authorized Denomination. If less than all of the outstanding principal amount of any Bond is redeemed, upon surrender of that Bond to the Registrar, there shall be issued to the Registered Owner, without charge, a new Bond (or Bonds, at the option of the Registered Owner) of the same Series, maturity, and interest rate in any Authorized Denomination in the aggregate principal amount to remain outstanding. (d) Notice of Redemption. Notice of redemption of each Bond registered in the name of the Securities Depository shall be given in accordance with the Letter of Representations. Notice of redemption of each other Bond, unless waived by the Registered Owner, shall be given by the Registrar not less than 20 nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Bond Register on the Record Date. The requirements of the preceding sentence shall be satisfied when notice has been mailed as so provided, whether or not it is actually received by an Owner. In addition, the redemption notice shall be mailed or sent electronically within the same period to the MSRB (if required under the Undertaking), to each Rating Agency, and to such other persons and with such additional information as the Finance Director shall determine, but these additional mailings shall not be a condition precedent to the redemption of any Bond. (e) Rescission of Optional Redemption Notice. In the case of an optional redemption, the notice of redemption may state that the City retains the right to rescind the redemption notice and the redemption by giving a notice of rescission to the affected Registered Owners at any time on or prior to the date fixed for redemption. Any notice of optional redemption that is so rescinded shall be of no effect, and each Bond for which a notice of optional redemption has been rescinded shall remain outstanding. (f) Effect of Call for Redemption. Interest on each Bond called for redemption shall cease to accrue on the date fixed for redemption, unless either the notice of optional redemption is rescinded as provided in subsection (e) of this Section or money sufficient to effect such redemption is not on deposit in the Bond Fund or in a trust account established to refund or defease the Bond. 11 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 190 8.2.b (g) Purchase of Bonds. The City reserves the right to purchase any or all of the Bonds offered to the City or in the open market at any time at any price acceptable to the City plus accrued interest to the date of purchase. Section 10. Failure To Pay Bonds. If the principal of any Bond is not paid when the Bond is properly presented at its maturity date or date fixed for redemption, the City shall be obligated to pay, from the sources pledged herein, interest on the Bond at the same rate provided in the Bond from and after its maturity or date fixed for redemption until the Bond, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Bond Fund or in a trust account established to refund or defease the Bond, and the Bond has been called for payment by giving notice of that call to the Registered Owner. Section 11. Refunding or Defeasance of the Bonds. The City may issue refunding bonds pursuant to State law or use money available from any other lawful source to carry out a refunding or defeasance plan, which may include (a) paying when due the principal of and interest on any or all of the Bonds (the "defeased Bonds"); (b) redeeming the defeased Bonds prior to their maturity; and (c) paying the costs of the refunding or defeasance. If the City sets aside in a special trust fund or escrow account irrevocably pledged to that redemption or defeasance (the "trust account") money and/or Government Obligations maturing at a time or times and bearing interest in amounts sufficient to redeem, refund, or defease the defeased Bonds in accordance with their terms, then all right and interest of the Owners of the defeased Bonds in the covenants of this ordinance and in the funds and accounts obligated to the payment of the defeased Bonds shall cease and become void. Thereafter, the Registered Owners of defeased Bonds shall have the right to receive payment of the principal of and interest on the defeased Bonds solely from the trust account and the defeased Bonds shall be deemed no longer outstanding. In that event, the City may apply money remaining in any fund or account (other than the trust account) established for the payment or redemption of the defeased Bonds to any lawful purpose, subject only to the rights of the registered owners of any other Parity Bonds then outstanding. Unless otherwise specified by the City in a refunding or defeasance plan, notice of refunding or defeasance shall be given, and selection of Bonds for inclusion in a refunding or defeasance shall be conducted, in the manner prescribed in this ordinance for the redemption of Bonds. Section 12. Security for the Bonds; Bond Fund. (a) Pledge of Net Revenue. The Net Revenue and ULID Assessments are pledged irrevocably to the payment of the Bonds, and the amounts pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay and secure the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due shall constitute a lien and charge on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity with the lien and charge on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay and secure the payment of the principal of and interest on the Outstanding Parity Bonds and any Future Parity Bonds, and prior and superior to any other liens or charges whatsoever. (b) Special Obligations. The principal of and interest on the Bonds are payable exclusively from the Bond Fund and the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. The Bonds are special obligations of the City and do not constitute an obligation of the State, either general or special, or any political subdivision thereof other than the City. The Bonds are not general 12 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 191 8.2.b obligations of the City and shall not constitute an indebtedness of the City within the meaning of the State constitution. Neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City is pledged to the payment of the Bonds. The Registered Owners shall not have any claim for the payment of the Bonds against the City arising from the Bonds except for payment from the Bond Fund and the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments pledged to be paid into the Bond Fund to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds when due. The Registered Owners shall not have any claim against the State arising from the Bonds. (c) Bond Fund; Deposits into the Bond Fund. The Bond Fund has been established within the Water and Sewer Utility Fund as a special fund of the City and is to be drawn upon solely for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on Parity Bonds. The Bond Fund is divided into two accounts: the Principal and Interest Account and the Reserve Account. The City obligates and binds itself to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund all ULID Assessments and, out of the Net Revenue, certain fixed amounts, without regard to any fixed proportion, namely: (1) Into the Principal and Interest Account, before each interest payment date for the Parity Bonds, an amount that will be sufficient, together with other money on deposit therein, to pay the interest on the Parity Bonds due on the interest payment date; and (2) Into the Principal and Interest Account, before each principal payment date of the Parity Bonds (including any mandatory redemption date), an amount that will be sufficient, together with other money on deposit therein, to pay the principal of the Parity Bonds due on the principal payment date (including mandatory redemption amounts due with respect to any Term Bonds); and (3) Into the Reserve Account, at the time and in the manner required by this ordinance, the amount, if any, necessary to make the amount on deposit in the Reserve Account equal to the Reserve Requirement for the Parity Bonds. When the total amount on deposit in the Bond Fund equals the total amount of principal and interest due for all outstanding Parity Bonds to the last maturity thereof, no further payment need be made into the Bond Fund. The Finance Director may create sinking fund accounts or other accounts in the Bond Fund for the payment or securing the payment of Parity Bonds as long as the maintenance of such accounts does not conflict with the rights of the registered owners of Parity Bonds. (d) Reserve Account; Reserve Requirement. The City will at all times maintain on deposit in the Reserve Account an amount equal to the Reserve Requirement, except as otherwise expressly authorized in this subsection, until the total amount on deposit in the Bond Fund equals the total amount of principal and interest due for all outstanding Parity Bonds to the last maturity thereof, at which time the money in the Reserve Account may be used to pay any such principal and interest, so long as the amount remaining on deposit in the Reserve Account is not less than the Reserve Requirement calculated based on the Parity Bonds then outstanding. The Reserve Requirement shall be deemed satisfied by any combination of Parity Bond proceeds, Reserve Securities, or other legally available money equal to the Reserve Requirement, or by the deposit of available funds of the City in approximately equal annual installments so that 13 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 192 8.2.b the Reserve Requirement is funded no later than three years after the issuance of any Future Parity Bonds. If there is a deficiency in the Principal and Interest Account to make the next payment of principal of or interest on the Parity Bonds, the deficiency shall be made up from the Reserve Account by the withdrawal of amounts necessary for that purpose, first, from money on deposit in the Reserve Account, and second, from pro rata draws on each Reserve Security. Any deficiency created in the Reserve Account by reason of any such withdrawal shall be made up from the next available of Net Revenue and ULID Assessments after making necessary provision for the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account, first, to restore each Reserve Security pro rata, and second, to make up any remaining deficiency. (e) Investment of Money in Bond Fund. All money in the Bond Fund may be kept in cash; deposited with an institution (as permitted by law) in an amount in each institution not greater than the amount insured by any department or agency of the United States Government; or invested in Permitted Investments maturing not later than the date when needed (for investments in the Principal and Interest Account) or the last maturity of any Parity Bonds then outstanding (for investments in the Reserve Account). Income from investments in the Principal and Interest Account shall be deposited into that account. Income from investments in the Reserve Account shall be deposited into that account until the amount on deposit therein is equal to the Reserve Requirement, and thereafter shall be deposited into the Principal and Interest Account or used for other Water and Sewer Utility purposes. (f) Action to Compel Payments. If the City fails to set aside and pay into the Bond Fund the amounts set forth above, the registered owner of any of the Parity Bonds then outstanding may bring action against the City and compel the setting aside and payment. Section 13. Deposit of Bond Proceeds. On the Issue Date, proceeds of the Bonds in an amount sufficient to satisfy the Reserve Requirement shall be deposited into the Reserve Account. The remaining proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited into the Construction Fund and be used to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the Bonds and the costs of carrying out the Plan of Additions. Until needed to pay such costs, the City may invest those proceeds temporarily in any Permitted Investment, and the investment earnings shall be retained in the Construction Fund and used for the purposes of that fund, except that earnings subject to a federal tax or rebate requirement (if applicable) may be withdrawn from the Construction Fund and used for those tax or rebate purposes. Section 14. Flow of Funds. All ULID Assessments shall be paid into the Bond Fund and the Gross Revenue shall be deposited into the Water and Sewer Utility Fund (or the respective system funds therein) to be used for the following purposes only in the following order of priority: (1) To pay Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (2) To make when due the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account in respect of interest on the Parity Bonds. (3) To make when due the required payments into the Principal and Interest Account in respect of principal of (and premium, if any, on) the Parity Bonds, whether at maturity or pursuant to redemption prior to maturity. (4) To make when due all payments required to be made into the Reserve Account. 14 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 193 8.2.b (5) To make when due all payments required to be made under any reimbursement agreement with a Bond Insurer in any priority not inconsistent with this ordinance, which the City may hereafter establish by ordinance. (6) To make when due the required payments to be made into any revenue bond, note, warrant, or other revenue obligation redemption fund, debt service account, or reserve account created to pay and secure the payment of any revenue obligations of the Water and Sewer Utility the payment of which is secured by a lien or charge on Net Revenue junior and inferior to the lien and charge on Net Revenue that secure payment of the Parity Bonds. (7) Without priority, to retire by redemption or to purchase in the open market any Parity Bonds or junior lien obligations then outstanding, to make necessary betterments and replacements of or repairs, additions, or extensions to the Water and Sewer Utility, to make deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account, or for any other lawful purpose. Section 15. Additional Covenants. The City covenants and agrees with the Registered Owner of each Bond at any time outstanding as follows: (a) Maintenance and Operation. The City will at all times maintain, preserve, and keep the properties of the Water and Sewer Utility in good repair, working order, and condition, will make all necessary and proper additions, betterments, renewals, and repairs thereto and improvements, replacements, and extensions thereof, and will at all times operate or cause to be operated the properties of the Water and Sewer Utility and the business in connection therewith in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost. (b) Establishment and Collection of Rates and Charges. The City will establish, maintain, and collect rates and charges for all services and facilities provided by the Water and Sewer Utility that will be fair and nondiscriminatory. The City will adjust those rates and charges from time to time so that: (i) the Gross Revenue will at all times be sufficient to (A) pay all Maintenance and Operation Expenses on a current basis, (B) pay when due all amounts that the City is obligated to pay into the Bond Fund and the accounts therein, and (C) pay all taxes (or payments in lieu thereof), assessments, or other governmental charges lawfully imposed on the Water and Sewer Utility and any and all other amounts that the City may now or hereafter become obligated to pay from the Gross Revenue by law or contract; and (ii) the Adjusted Net Revenue in each fiscal year will be not less than the Coverage Requirement. (c) Sale or Disposition of Utility Property. The City will not sell, lease, mortgage, or in any manner encumber or dispose of all the property of the Water and Sewer Utility unless provision is made for payment into the Bond Fund of a sum sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on all Parity Bonds then outstanding. Further, the City will not sell, lease, mortgage, or in any manner encumber or dispose of (each, a "disposition") any part of the property of the Water and Sewer Utility that is used, useful, and material to the operation thereof (the "affected portion") unless provision is made for replacement thereof or for payment into the Bond Fund of an amount which shall bear the same ratio to the amount of Parity Bonds then outstanding (less the amount of cash and investments in the Bond Fund and the accounts therein) as (i) the Net Revenue from affected portion of the Water and Sewer Utility for the twelve months preceding such disposition bears to (ii) the Net Revenue from the entire Water and Sewer Utility for the 15 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 194 8.2.b same period. Any money paid into the Bond Fund as a result of such a disposition shall be used to retire that proportion of Parity Bonds then outstanding at the earliest practicable date. (d) Books and Records. The City will maintain complete books and records relating to the operation of the Water and Sewer Utility and its financial affairs, and will cause such books and records to be audited annually, and cause to be prepared an annual financial and operating statement, which shall be provided to any owner of Parity Bonds upon request. (e) No Free Service. Except to aid the poor or infirm, to provide for resource conservation, or to provide for the proper handling of hazardous materials, the City will not furnish or supply or permit the furnishing or supplying of any service or facility in connection with the operation of the Water and Sewer Utility free of charge to any person, firm, or corporation, public or private, other than the City. (f) Collection of Delinquent Accounts. On at least an annual basis, the City will determine all accounts that are delinquent and will take all necessary action to enforce payment of such accounts against those property owners whose accounts are delinquent. (g) Insurance. The City will at all times carry fire and such other forms of insurance on such of the buildings, equipment, facilities, and properties of the Water and Sewer Utility as are ordinarily carried on such buildings, equipment, facilities, and properties by utilities engaged in the operation of similar utility systems to the full insurable value thereof, and also will carry adequate public liability insurance at all times. The City may self -insure or participate in a joint intergovernmental insurance pool or similar plan, and the cost of that insurance or self-insurance shall be considered a part of Operating and Maintenance Expenses. (h) ULID Assessments. The City will promptly collect all ULID Assessments and deposit such collections into the Bond Fund to pay or secure the principal of and interest on any Parity Bonds without those ULID Assessments being particularly allocated to any particular series of Parity Bonds. Section 16. Rate Stabilization Account. The Rate Stabilization Account has been previously established within the Water and Sewer Utility Fund. Deposits and withdrawals shall be made in accordance with this Section at any time up to and including the date that is 90 days after the end of the fiscal year for which the deposit or withdrawal will be included as Adjusted Net Revenue for that fiscal year, as follows: (a) Deposits into the Rate Stabilization Account. The City may at any time, as determined by the Finance Director, consistent with the covenants contained in this ordinance, deposit into the Rate Stabilization Account amounts of Gross Revenue and any other money received by the Water and Sewer Utility and available to be used therefor, excluding principal proceeds of Parity Bonds or other borrowing. However, no deposit of Gross Revenue may be made into the Rate Stabilization Account to the extent that such deposit would prevent the City from meeting the Coverage Requirement in the relevant fiscal year. (b) Withdrawals from the Rate Stabilization Account. The City may withdraw money from the Rate Stabilization Account at any time upon authorization of the City Council (which may be by motion, resolution, or ordinance) for inclusion in the Adjusted Net Revenue for any fiscal year of the Water and Sewer Utility, except that the total amount withdrawn from the Rate Stabilization Account in any fiscal year may not exceed the Annual Debt Service in that fiscal year. Earnings from investments in the Rate Stabilization Account shall be deposited into that 16 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 195 8.2.b account and shall not be included as Adjusted Net Revenue unless and until withdrawn from that account. Section 17. Separate Utility sty. The City may create, acquire, construct, finance, own, and operate one or more additional systems for water supply, sewer service, water, sewage, or stormwater transmission or treatment, or other commodity or utility service. The revenue of the Separate Utility System, and any utility local improvement district assessments payable solely with respect to improvements to a Separate Utility System, shall not be included in Gross Revenue and may be pledged to the payment of revenue obligations issued to purchase, construct, condemn, or otherwise acquire or expand the Separate Utility System. Neither the Gross Revenue nor the Net Revenue may be pledged to the payment of any obligations of a Separate Utility System, except that the Net Revenue may be pledged on a basis subordinate to the lien on Net Revenue that secures payment of the Parity Bonds. Section 18. Sale and Delivery of the Bonds; Parity Certificate. (a) Manner of Sale of Bonds; Delivery of Bonds. The Designated Representative is authorized to sell each Series by private placement, negotiated sale, or competitive sale in accordance with a notice of sale consistent with this ordinance, based on the assessment of the Designated Representative of market conditions, in consultation with appropriate City officials and staff, Bond Counsel, the Financial Advisor, and other advisors. In determining the method of sale of a Series and accepting the Final Terms, the Designated Representative shall take into account those factors that, in the judgment of the Designated Representative, may be expected to result in the lowest true interest cost to the City. (b) Procedure for Private Placement or Negotiated Sale. If the Designated Representative determines that a Series is to be sold by private placement or negotiated sale, the Designated Representative shall select one or more Purchasers with which to negotiate the sale. The Bond Purchase Contract for each Series shall set forth the Final Terms. The Designated Representative is authorized to execute the Bond Purchase Contract on behalf of the City, so long as the terms provided therein are consistent with this ordinance. (c) Procedure for Competitive Sale. If the Designated Representative determines that a Series is to be sold by competitive sale, the Designated Representative shall cause the preparation of an official notice of bond sale setting forth parameters for the Final Terms and any other bid parameters that the Designated Representative deems appropriate, consistent with this ordinance. Bids for the purchase of each Series shall be received at such time or place and by such means as the Designated Representative directs. On the date and time established for the receipt of bids, the Designated Representative (or the designee of the Designated Representative) shall open bids and shall cause the bids to be mathematically verified. The Designated Representative is authorized to award, on behalf of the City, the winning bid and accept the winning bidder's offer to purchase the Series, with such adjustments to the aggregate principal amount and principal amount per maturity as the Designated Representative deems appropriate, consistent with this ordinance. The Designated Representative may reject any or all bids submitted and may waive any formality or irregularity in any bid or in the bidding process if the Designated Representative deems it to be in the City's best interest to do so. If all bids are rejected, the Series may be sold by private placement or negotiated sale or in any manner provided by law as the Designated Representative determines is in the best interest of the City, consistent with this ordinance. 17 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 196 8.2.b (d) Parity Certificate. At the time of issuance of the Bonds, the Designated Representative shall cause to be executed and have on file a certificate of coverage as required for the issuance of Future Parity Bonds under Section 20 of the 2011 Bond Ordinance, Section 19 of the 2013 Bond Ordinance, and Section 19 of the 2015 Bond Ordinance. (e) Preparation, Execution, and Delivery of the Bonds. The Bonds will be prepared at City expense and will be delivered to the Purchaser in accordance with the Bond Purchase Contract, together with the approving legal opinion of Bond Counsel regarding the Bonds. Section 19. Parity Conditions. The City reserves the right to issue Future Parity Bonds the payment of the principal of and interest on which are secured by a lien and charge on the Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity with the lien and charge on Net Revenue and ULID Assessments that secure payment of the Bonds and the Outstanding Parity Bonds if the Parity Conditions are met and complied with at the time of the issuance of the Future Parity Bonds. Nothing contained in the Parity Conditions shall prevent the City from issuing revenue obligations the payment of which is secured by a lien or charge on Net Revenue that is junior and inferior to the lien and charge on Net Revenue that secure payment of the Parity Bonds, or from pledging to pay into a bond redemption fund or account for such junior lien obligations assessments (including interest and penalties thereon) in any utility local improvement district that are levied to pay part or all of the cost of improvements being constructed out of the proceeds of the sale of such junior lien obligations. Neither shall anything contained in this ordinance prevent the City from issuing revenue obligations to refund maturing Parity Bonds for the payment of which money is not otherwise available. Section 20. Tax Matters. (a) Preservation of Tax Exemption for Interest on Tax -Exempt Bonds. The City will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes, and it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Tax -Exempt Bonds (or other funds of the City treated as proceeds of the Tax -Exempt Bonds) that will cause interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The City will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirements of Section 148 of the Code are applicable to the Tax -Exempt Bonds, take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with those requirements in connection with the Tax -Exempt Bonds. (b) Post -Issuance Compliance. The Finance Director is authorized and directed to review and update the City's written procedures to facilitate compliance by the City with the covenants in this Section and the applicable requirements of the Code that must be satisfied after the Issue Date to prevent interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds from being included in gross income for federal tax purposes. (c) Designation of Bonds as "Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligations. " A Series of Tax - Exempt Bonds may be designated as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, if the following conditions are met: (1) the Series of Tax -Exempt Bonds does not constitute "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code; (2) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in such 18 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 197 8.2.b calculation) that the City and any entity subordinate to the City (including any entity that the City controls, that derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the City, or that issues tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the City) will issue during the calendar year in which the Series of Tax -Exempt Bonds is issued will not exceed $10,000,000; and (3) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Series of Tax -Exempt Bonds, designated by the City as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code during the calendar year in which the Series of Tax -Exempt Bonds is issued does not exceed $10,000,000. Section 21. Official Statement; Continuing Disclosure. (a) Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The Designated Representative shall review and, if acceptable to him or her, approve the preliminary Official Statement prepared in connection with each sale of a Series to the public or through a Purchaser as placement agent. For the sole purpose of the Purchaser's compliance with paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12, if applicable, the Designated Representative is authorized to deem that preliminary Official Statement final as of its date, except for the omission of information permitted to be omitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City authorizes and approves the distribution to potential purchasers of the Bonds of a preliminary Official Statement that has been approved by the Designated Representative and, if applicable, deemed final, in accordance with this subsection. (b) Approval of Final Official Statement. The City approves the preparation of a final Official Statement for each Series to be sold to the public or through a Purchaser as placement agent, in the form of the preliminary Official Statement that has been approved and, if applicable, deemed final, in accordance with subsection (a) of this Section, with such modifications and amendments as the Designated Representative deems necessary or desirable, and further authorizes the Designated Representative to execute and deliver such final Official Statement to the Purchaser. The City authorizes and approves the distribution to purchasers and potential purchasers of the Bonds of that final Official Statement so executed and delivered. (c) Undertaking to Provide Continuing Disclosure. If necessary to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as applicable to the Purchaser acting as a participating underwriter for a Series, the Designated Representative is authorized to execute a written undertaking to provide continuing disclosure for the benefit of holders of the Series in substantially the form attached as Exhibit D to this ordinance, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Section 22. Amendatory Ordinances. (a) This ordinance shall not be modified or amended in any respect subsequent to the initial issuance of the Bonds, except as provided in and in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Section. (b) The City, from time to time, and at any time, without the consent of or notice to the Registered Owners, may pass amendatory ordinances as follows: (1) To cure any formal defect, omission, inconsistency, or ambiguity in this ordinance in a manner not adverse to the registered owner of any Parity Bonds; 19 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 198 8.2.b (2) To impose upon the Registrar (with its consent) for the benefit of the registered owners of the Parity Bonds any additional rights, remedies, powers, authority, security, liabilities, or duties that may lawfully be granted, conferred, or imposed and that are not contrary to or inconsistent with this ordinance as theretofore in effect; (3) To add to the covenants and agreements of, and limitations and restrictions upon, the City in this ordinance other covenants, agreements, limitations, and restrictions to be observed by the City that are not contrary or inconsistent with this ordinance as theretofore in effect; (4) To confirm, as further assurance, any pledge under, and the subjection to any claim, lien, or pledge created or to be created by, this ordinance of any other money, securities, or funds; (5) To authorize different denominations of the Bonds and to make correlative amendments and modifications to this ordinance regarding exchangeability of Bonds of different authorized denominations, redemptions of portions of Bonds of particular authorized denominations, and similar amendments and modifications of a technical nature; (6) To modify, alter, amend, or supplement this ordinance in any other respect that is not materially adverse to the registered owners of the Parity Bonds and which does not involve a change described in subsection (c) of this Section; and (7) Due to a change in federal law or rulings, to maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes. (c) Except for any amendatory ordinance passed pursuant to subsection (b) of this Section, subject to the terms and provisions contained in this subsection (c) and not otherwise: (1) Registered owners of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Parity Bonds then outstanding shall have the right from time to time to consent to the passage of any amendatory ordinance deemed necessary or desirable by the City for the purpose of modifying, altering, amending, supplementing, or rescinding, in any particular, any of the terms or provisions contained in this ordinance. However, consent by the registered owners of all the Bonds then outstanding is required for any amendatory ordinance authorizing: (i) a change in the times, amounts, or currency of payment of the principal of or interest on any outstanding Bond, or a reduction in the principal amount or redemption price of any outstanding Bond or a change in the redemption price of any outstanding Bond or a change in the method of determining the rate of interest thereon; (ii) a preference or priority of any Bond or Bonds or any other Bond or Bonds; or (iii) a reduction in the aggregate principal amount of Bonds. (2) Any amendatory ordinance passed for any of the purposes of this subsection (c) shall not become effective except in accordance with this paragraph (c)(2). Upon passage of any such amendatory ordinance, the City shall cause notice of the proposed ordinance to be given by first class United States mail to the registered owners of the Parity Bonds then outstanding and to each Rating Agency. The 20 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 199 8.2.b notice shall briefly describe the proposed ordinance and shall state that a copy is available from the Finance Director for inspection. The amendatory ordinance shall become effective in substantially the form described in the notice only if within two years after mailing of such notice, the City has received (i) the required consents, in writing, of the registered owners of the Parity Bonds (or of the Bonds, as applicable) and (ii) an opinion of Bond Counsel stating that such amendatory ordinance is permitted by this ordinance; that upon the effective date thereof, it will be valid and binding upon the City in accordance with its terms; and that its passage will not adversely affect the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on the Tax -Exempt Bonds. (3) If registered owners of not less than the percentage of Parity Bonds (or Bonds, as applicable) required by this subsection (c) have consented, no owner of the Parity Bonds shall have any right to object to the passage of the ordinance (or to any of the terms and provisions contained therein or the operation thereof), or in any manner to question the propriety of the passage thereof, or to enjoin or restrain the City from passing, or from taking any action pursuant to, the same. (d) The Registered Owner of each Bond, by taking and holding the Bond, shall be deemed to have consented to the passage by the City of any amendatory ordinance to establish a separate Reserve Requirement for any or all of the Bonds or any Future Parity Bonds, which may be zero, and to establish one or more separate reserve subaccounts for any or all of the Bonds or any Future Party Bonds. (e) Registered owners of the Parity Bonds may be deemed to have notice of and have consented to the passage of any amendatory ordinance so long as (1) the Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance includes the nature of the proposed amendatory ordinance and states that registered owners of the Parity Bonds will be deemed to have consented to its passage and (2) the preliminary official statement, if any, and official statement, if any, for the Parity Bonds includes the nature of the proposed amendatory ordinance and states that registered owners of the Parity Bonds will be deemed to have consented to its passage. (f) An underwriter of Parity Bonds, either in its capacity as an underwriter or remarketing agent, or as agent for or in lieu of registered owners of the Parity Bonds, may consent to the passage of an amendatory ordinance. (g) Upon the effective date of any amendatory ordinance passed pursuant to the provisions of this Section, this ordinance shall be amended in accordance therewith, and the respective rights, duties, and obligations under this ordinance of the City, the Registrar, and all Registered Owners of Bonds then outstanding shall thereafter be determined, exercised, and enforced under this ordinance subject in all respects to such amendments. Section 23. General Authorization and Ratification. The Designated Representative and other appropriate officers of the City are each individually authorized to take such actions and to execute such documents as in their judgment may be necessary or desirable to carry out the transactions contemplated in connection with this ordinance, and to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of each Series to the Purchaser and for the proper application, use, and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds. All actions taken prior to the effective date of this ordinance in furtherance of the purposes described in this ordinance and not inconsistent with the terms of this ordinance are ratified and confirmed in all respects. 21 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 200 8.2.b Section 24. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. If a court of competent jurisdiction, all appeals having been exhausted or all appeal periods having run, finds any provision of this ordinance to be invalid or unenforceable as to any person or circumstance, such offending provision shall, if feasible, be deemed to be modified to be within the limits of enforceability or validity. However, if the offending provision cannot be so modified, it shall be null and void with respect to the particular person or circumstance, and all other provisions of this ordinance in all other respects, and the offending provision with respect to all other persons and all other circumstances, shall remain valid and enforceable. Section 25. Effective Date of Ordinance. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law and is not subject to referendum. PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Edmonds, Washington, at an open public meeting thereof, this day of October, 2020. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: FOSTER GARVEY P.C. Bond Counsel Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: 22 Mayor 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 201 8.2.b Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF THE BONDS (1) Principal Amount. The Bonds may be issued in one or more Series and shall not exceed the aggregate principal amount of $14,500,000. (ii) Date or Dates. Each Bond shall be dated the Issue Date, which date may not be later than one year after the effective date of this ordinance. (iii) Denominations, Name. The Bonds shall be issued in Authorized Denominations and shall be numbered separately in the manner and shall bear any name and additional designation as deemed necessary or appropriate by the Designated Representative. (iv) Interest Rates. Each Bond shall bear interest at a fixed rate per annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) from the Issue Date or from the most recent date for which interest has been paid or duly provided for, whichever is later. One or more rates of interest may be fixed for the Bonds. No rate of interest for any Bond may exceed 5.50%, and the true interest cost to the City for each Series may not exceed 4.50%. (v) Payment Dates. Interest shall be payable semiannually on dates acceptable to the Designated Representative, commencing no later than one year following the Issue Date. Principal payments shall commence on a date acceptable to the Designated Representative and shall be payable at maturity or in mandatory redemption installments on dates acceptable to the Designated Representative. (vi) Final Maturity. Each Series shall mature no later than December 1, 2045. (vii) Redemption Rights. The Designated Representative may approve in the Bond Purchase Contract provisions for the optional and mandatory redemption of Bonds, subject to the following: (1) Optional Redemption. Any Bond may be designated as being (A) subject to redemption at the option of the City prior to its maturity date on the dates and at the prices set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract; or (B) not subject to redemption prior to its maturity date. If a Bond is subject to optional redemption prior to its maturity, it must be first subject to such redemption on a date that is not more than 10% years after the Issue Date. (2) Mandatory Redemption. Any Bond may be designated as a Term Bond, subject to mandatory redemption prior to its maturity on the dates and in A-1 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 202 8.2.b Exhibit A the amounts set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract. (viii) Price. The purchase price for each Series may not be less than 96% or more than 140% of the stated principal amount of the Series. (ix) Other Terms. The Designated Representative may determine the 2 following: IL (1) Tax Status. Any or all of the Bonds may be 0 designated as Tax -Exempt Bonds. a (2) Credit Enhancement. If determined to be in the best c interest of the City, bond insurance or other credit m enhancement may be provided for any or all of the T Bonds, and the Designated Representative may accept such additional terms, conditions, and a covenants determined to be in the best interest of the City, consistent with this ordinance. U a� o: c 0 E L U FEW 5377fl713.1 Packet Pg. 203 8.2.b Exhibit B PARITY CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF FUTURE PARITY BONDS The City may issue Future Parity Bonds the payment of the principal of and interest on which is secured by a lien and charge on Net Revenue and ULID Assessments on a parity with the lien and charge on Net Revenue and ULID Assessments that secure payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds if and only if the following conditions are met and complied with at the time of issuance of the Future Parity Bonds: (a) There may not be any deficiency in the Principal and Interest Account or the Reserve Account of the Bond Fund. (b) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must require that all ULID Assessments levied in connection with the Future Parity Bonds be paid directly into the Bond Fund. (c) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must provide for the payment of the principal thereof and interest thereon out of the Bond Fund. (d) The Future Parity Bond Authorizing Ordinance must provide for the deposit into the Reserve Account of amounts, if any, necessary to comply with the Reserve Requirement and Section 12. (e) The City must have on file either: (1) A certificate from an Independent Utility Consultant showing that, in his or her professional opinion, the annual Net Revenue available for debt service on the Parity Bonds then outstanding and the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued shall, for each year, be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. In making such certification, the Net Revenue for any 12 consecutive calendar months out of the immediately preceding 24 consecutive months shall be used, and the following adjustments may be made to the historical Net Revenue: (i) Any rate change that has taken place or been approved, may be reflected; (ii) Revenue may be added from customers actually added to the Water and Sewer Utility subsequent to the 12-month period; (iii) Revenue may be added from customers to be served by the improvements being constructed out of the proceeds of the Future Parity Bonds to be issued; (iv) A full year's revenue may be included from any customer being served, but who has not been receiving service for the full 12-month period; and (v) Actual or reasonably anticipated changes to the Operating and Maintenance Expenses subsequent to the 12-month period shall be added or deducted, as applicable; or (2) A certificate of the Finance Director showing that, in his or her professional opinion, the annual Net Revenue available for debt service on the Parity Bonds then outstanding and the Future Parity Bonds proposed to be issued shall, for each year, be at least equal to the Coverage Requirement. In making such certification, the Finance Director shall assume that (A) the proposed Future Parity Bonds will remain outstanding to their scheduled maturities and (B) any Parity Bonds to be 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 204 8.2.b Exhibit B refunded by the Future Parity Bonds are not outstanding. The Finance Director shall not make any of the adjustments referred to above. However, if the Future Parity Bonds are being issued for the sole purpose of refunding Parity Bonds then outstanding (including paying costs of issuance and providing for the Reserve Requirement), no coverage certification is required if, as result of the issuance of those Future Parity Bonds, (a) in each year that the Future Parity Bonds are scheduled to remain outstanding, the Annual Debt Service on the Future Parity Bonds to be issued is not increased by more than $5,000 over the Annual Debt Service for that year of the Parity Bonds being refunded, and (b) the final maturity of the Future Parity Bonds to be issued is not more than one year after the Parity Bonds being refunded. In addition, no coverage certification is required if the aggregate principal amount of the Future Parity Bonds being issued does not exceed the aggregate amount of ULID Assessments levied in connection with the issuance of the Future Parity Bonds by more than $5,000 plus any amount of the proceeds of such Future Parity Bonds deposited into the Reserve Account. 5377fl713.1 Packet Pg. 205 Exhibit C 8.2.b DESCRIPTION OF PLAN OF ADDITIONS The planned additions and betterments to the Water and Sewer Utility consist of those set forth in the City's Capital Improvement Program, as it may be amended from time to time by the City Council (the "CIP"). A summary of the improvements expected to be financed, in whole or in part, with proceeds of the Bonds is as follows: Project Name: Carbon Recovery Estimated Project Cost: $26,121,040 Project Description: The Carbon Recovery project would replace the sanitary sewage incinerator (the "SSI") and associated equipment. The SSI is 30 years old and must meet stringent Environmental Protection Agency and Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulations which mandate a full replacement after 50% of the original cost in Operations and Maintenance ("O&M") upgrade has been expensed. Cost of regulatory compliance alone is estimated to exceed $100,000/year. Many pieces of equipment within the SSI system are beyond their life expectancy and many are not supported by manufacturers. The design for the project is scheduled for completion in early 2020. Project Benefit/Rationale: The replacement technology being proposed in the Phase 6 Carbon Recovery project is a belt dryer, gasification/pyrolysis units, and odor control system. The processing equipment will be housed in an existing building within the current Wastewater Treatment Plant (the "WWTP") footprint and would be fully integrated into the plant control system. The Carbon Recovery project is the single best opportunity for the WWTP to meet the goals and objectives of the Council Resolution No.1389 which commits the City to achieving or exceeding the environmental goals established in the Paris Climate Accords by reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions. The project can provide a beneficial use of the end products produced. These can be EQ Biosolids, concentrated inorganic minerals, or "biochar." The project will reduce O&M cost in terms of electricity, regulatory compliance, ongoing maintenance, and hauling and disposal costs. Annual savings are estimated to be approximately $340,000 per year. The project will be delivered using the Washington State Energy Savings Performance Contacting process under which capital costs, O&M costs, and energy savings are guaranteed by the contractor. This contractor is Ameresco, Inc., working for the State Department of Enterprise Services. The project would be shared with our treatment partners as follows: City of Mountlake Terrace 234723.1 $ 6,^w�v-346 00 74% 53,290 Olympic View Water/Sewer District 16.5516.5 4,C4�4,323, 51 293 Ronald Wastewater District 1 9-.499.4882,6''z 44T2,478, C-1 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 206 8.2.b Exhibit C 364 City of Edmonds 50.7950.7 87 1407�,48F 13,2 66,093 Schedule of Expenditures: 2020-2022 2020 2021 2022 $11,037,000 $46-,358-,0001 4,584,040 $500,000 C-2 r Q 5377fl713.1 Packet Pg. 207 8.2.b Exhibit D Form of UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCLOSURE City of Edmonds, Washington Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, 2020 The City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), makes the following written Undertaking for the benefit of the holders of the above -referenced bonds (the "Bonds"), for the sole purpose of assisting the Purchaser in meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12, as applicable to a participating underwriter for the Bonds. Capitalized terms used but not defined below shall have the meanings given in Ordinance No. of the City. (a) Undertaking to Provide Annual Financial Information and Notice of Listed Events. The City undertakes to provide or cause to be provided, either directly or through a designated agent, to the MSRB, in an electronic format as prescribed by the MSRB, accompanied by identifying information as prescribed by the MSRB: (i) Annual financial information and operating data of the type included in the final official statement for the Bonds, as described in paragraph (b)(i) ("annual financial information"); (ii) Timely notice (not in excess of 10 business days after the occurrence of the event) of the occurrence of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds: (1) principal and interest payment delinquencies; (2) non- payment related defaults, if material; (3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties; (4) unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties; (5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform; (6) adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notice of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701 — TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the Bonds, or other material events affecting the tax status of the Bonds; (7) modifications to rights of holders of the Bonds, if material; (8) bond calls (other than scheduled mandatory redemptions of Term Bonds), if material, and tender offers; (9) defeasances; (10) release, substitution, or sale of property securing repayment of the Bonds, if material; (11) rating changes; (12) bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, or similar event of the City, as such "bankruptcy events" are defined in Rule 15c2-12; (13) the consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the City or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the City other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material; (14) appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material, (15) incurrence of a financial obligation of the City or obligated person, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the City or obligated person, any of which affect security holders, if material; and (16) default, D-1 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 208 Exhibit D 8.2.b event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of the financial obligation of the City or obligated person, any of which reflect financial difficulties. The term "financial obligation" means a (A) debt obligation; (B) derivative instrument entered into in connection with, or pledged as security or a source of payment for, an existing or planned debt obligation; or (C) guarantee of (A) or (B). The term "financial obligation" shall not include municipal securities as to which a final official statement has been provided to the MSRB consistent with Rule 15c2-12. (iii) Timely notice of a failure by the City to provide the required annual financial information described in paragraph (b)(i) on or before the date specified in paragraph (b)(ii). (b) Type of Annual Financial Information Undertaken to be Provided. The annual financial information that the City undertakes to provide in paragraph (a): (i) Shall consist of (1) annual financial statements prepared (except as noted in the financial statements) in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to local governmental units of the State such as the City, as such principles may be changed from time to time; (2) annual operating statistics for each of the component utility systems, as follows: number of customer accounts, a statement of gross and net revenues, total annual water consumption, and average daily water consumption; (3) monthly or bi-monthly rates and charges for each of the component utility systems; and (4) a statement of the coverage ratio for the fiscal year; (ii) Shall be provided not later than the last day of the ninth month after the end of each fiscal year of the City (currently, a fiscal year ending December 31), as such fiscal year may be changed as required or permitted by State law, commencing with the City's fiscal year ending December 31, ; and (iii) May be provided in a single or multiple documents, and may be incorporated by specific reference to documents available to the public on the Internet website of the MSRB or filed with the SEC. If not submitted as part of the annual financial information described in paragraph (b)(i) above, the City will provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB audited financial statements, when and if available. (c) Amendment of Undertaking. This Undertaking is subject to amendment after the primary offering of the Bonds without the consent of any holder of any Bond, or of any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, participating underwriter, rating agency or the MSRB, under the circumstances and in the manner permitted by Rule 15c2-12. The City will give notice to the MSRB of the substance (or provide a copy) of any amendment to the Undertaking and a brief statement of the reasons for the amendment. If the amendment changes the type of annual financial information to be provided, the annual financial information containing the amended D-2 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 209 Exhibit D 8.2.b financial information will include a narrative explanation of the effect of that change on the type of information to be provided. (d) Beneficiaries. This Undertaking shall inure to the benefit of the City and the holder of each Bond, and shall not inure to the benefit of or create any rights in any other person. (e) Termination of Undertaking. The City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate upon the legal defeasance of all of the Bonds. In addition, the City's obligations under this Undertaking shall terminate if those provisions of Rule 15c2-12 which require the City to comply with this Undertaking become legally inapplicable in respect of the Bonds for any reason, as confirmed by an opinion of Bond Counsel delivered to the City, and the City provides timely notice of such termination to the MSRB. (f) Remedy for Failure to Comply with Undertaking. As soon as practicable after the City learns of any failure to comply with the Undertaking, the City will proceed with due diligence to cause such noncompliance to be corrected. No failure by the City or other obligated person to comply with the Undertaking shall constitute a default in respect of the Bonds. The sole remedy of any holder of a Bond shall be to take action to compel the City or other obligated person to comply with this Undertaking, including seeking an order of specific performance from an appropriate court. (g) Designation of Official Responsible to Administer Undertaking. The Finance Director of the City or his or her designee is authorized to take such further actions as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to carry out this Undertaking in accordance with Rule 15c2-12, including the following actions: (i) Preparing and filing the annual financial information undertaken to be provided; (ii) Determining whether any event specified in paragraph (a) has occurred, assessing its materiality, where necessary, with respect to the Bonds, and preparing and disseminating any required notice of its occurrence; (iii) Determining whether any person other than the City is an "obligated person" within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 with respect to the Bonds, and obtaining from such person an undertaking to provide any annual financial information and notice of listed events for that person in accordance with Rule 15c2-12; (iv) Selecting, engaging and compensating designated agents and consultants, including but not limited to financial advisors and legal counsel, to assist and advise the City in carrying out the Undertaking; and (v) Effecting any necessary amendment of the Undertaking. D-3 53778713.1 Packet Pg. 210 8.2.b CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, City Clerk of the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), hereby certify as follows: 1. The attached copy of Ordinance No. (the "Ordinance") is a full, true and correct copy of an ordinance duly passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held at the regular meeting place thereof on {October }, 2020, as that ordinance appears on the minute book of the City; 2. The Ordinance will be in full force and effect five days after publication in the City's official newspaper, which publication date is expected to be October , 2020; and 3. A quorum of the members of the City Council was present throughout the meeting and a majority of its members voted in the proper manner for the passage of the Ordinance. Dated: October }, 2020. 53778713.1 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON City Clerk Packet Pg. 211 8.2.c Utility Bonds 2020 - Bond Ordinance CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION OCTOBER 6TH, 2020 Packet Pg. 212 8.2.c WHAT DOES THIS BOND ORDINANCE DO? It authorizes the Finance Director (or designee) to complete a bond sale under very specific conditions: ❑ A True Interest rate maximum of 4.5% ❑ Within a time frame of one year ❑ With a maximum amount borrowed of $14,500,000 ❑ With an amortization period up to 25 years c 0 R N •L O t 7 Q C O m T v d O d d 0 V d C 0 M U M R d 0 N O N I M 0 I r U U 0 N O N y c 0 m r r c a� E r a Packet Pg. 213 8.2.c Project A Project B Existing Incinerator Pyrolysis Gasification Utilities (Baseline) Centrisys Ecorernedy Unit Utilities $163,566 $193,479 $126,666 Total /Vr Odor Control Chemicals $47,768 $74,826 $3,009 Total /yr Polymer $160,000 $160,000 $56,000 Total /yr Screenings Total /yr Savings of $341,247 $0 Labor Total $/yr $321,725 $333,271 $553,271 Annual Maintenance $89,951 $52,000 $35,000 Total /yr Regulatory $172,183 $120,000 $60,000 Total$/yr Hauling $36,000 $0 ;36,00 Total /yr Sub Total All Costs /yr 991J93 957575 5649,9461 Total S/yr c 0 R N •L O r a O m w m 0 L- a. i O c.i a� o: c O E U N IL 0 N O N I M 0 I U U 0 N 0 N N C O m a Packet Pg. 214 8.2.c BENEFITS OF PROJECT B - PYROLYSIS/GASIFICATION • Most flexible, efficient, and affordable approach to implement and the lowest operational costs. • Produces an environmentally —friendly end product (biochar) while generating its own thermal conversion from the biosolids. This will move the City closer to achieving the goals established in Resolution 1389 • No acidic side stream or hazardous waste is produced • Biochar will likely be land applied in eastern WA. We will also look for sites in Western Washington c 0 R N These projeds have been completed in partnership wi L. 0 Y AMERE5004 a Grcoi . Clrau . S�sraivak9r LSskingGa� Sim. D[ P.fl - ..' Enterprise SeN es -a 0 pp Ecoremedy successful biomass projects. L O 0 M E U E �a 0 r C N I M o_ I U U 0 N O tV y C O m 1 O d E t V to r a Packet Pg. 215 8.2.c ASSUMPTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS ON THIS FINANCING Includes all sales taxes Bond Insurance is not needed Interest rates could increase or decrease prior to sale of bonds Edmonds Partners Shares MTLK 23.174 % Working on their own bonding process now Ronald 9.488 % Will cash fund OVWSD 16.551 % Will cash fund Working to establish these as Green Bonds and as Climate Bonds If successful Edmonds would be the first City in the state to issue bonds with that designation c 0 R N L. These projects have been completed in partnership wi 0 L AMERESCO4 a Greeii . Clean . G—Ldi—L�� -sFinGQP�SIV.OFFo:lre.r o' O Erlter�ise SeNces m r.+ V r- 0 E U to E 0 a 0 N O N I M 0 I r U U 0 N O N y C O m � O d E t V t4 r a Packet Pg. 216 8.2.c CURRENT BOND MARKET Interest rates spiked in March but have fallen to historically low rates The charts below are an index of well -rated, 20-year, general obligation tax-exempt bonds Bond Buyer 20-Bond GO Index 1990 to Present 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 a d 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0 ti ry .n V v1 �o I, 0 0 0 r N n V ul ko I, co Ol O y N + V V1 w I, co 01 0 O1Q1Q14°a) ',a°iiai nai000�b'a55a c0000000oo00 a) a) H .-I H. H H. 'i K .-I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 4.80 4.30 3.80 ae m 3.30 i 2.80 2.30 1.80 O� Bond Buyer20-Bond GO Index October 2017 to Present ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� tia ti°' ti� ti°' ,yo ,yo ,yo o ,yo do do ryo .yo do ,yo do ,yo ,yo do JaCA �i� A ��c aA Qi• lJ�a ��c a� Qi• �JA >ac P O��o >a�J P Oho �acJ P 6 �/� /� NORTHWEST �/ MUNICIPAL ADVISORS Packet Pg. 217 8.2.c OUTSTANDING SENIOR LIEN REVENUE DEBT Water and Sewer Bonds WS Improv. and Ref. Rev 2011 WS Rev 2013 WS Rev 2015 Total Water and Sewer Bonds Debt $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1, 500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 Par Outstanding Callable Par Final Mat. $ 9,340,000 $ 8,045,000 12/1/2031 13,935,000 13,295,000 12/1/2038 16, 495, 000 13,570,000 12/1 /2040 $ 39,770,000 $ 34,900,000 Coupon Range Call Date 3.00% -4.00% 12/1/2021 4.00%-5.00% 6/1/2023 2.00%-4.00% 6/1/2025 yo titi yti ti'' tia by ti(0 ■ WS Improv. and Ref. Rev 2011 r WS Rev 2013 WS Rev 2015 NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL ADVISORS Packet Pg. 218 8.2.c WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, 2020 • Staff Recommended Structure 2020 Bonds: 25 Year, Wrap Debt Service $4,500,000 — Total Debt Service: $21,860,814 $a,000,000 I All -in Interest Cost: 2.64% $375,432 $3,500,000 $3,000,000———————————————�—i —i $2,5 250 $2,500,000 ti--I--I--I--'--'--'--I--I--I--I--LII-- i ■ ■--■-m-E-EA- $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 5- Hp 00 * O"I 0I O11d O�y 030 Off^ OI� 03O O''O O'�� O''ti O°'� O''b O''y O''O O°'1 O°'$ O''O CPO 001' Od1' CPM tl" OCh 'L 'L ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti '1. ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ■ WS Improv. and Ref. Rev 2011 ■ WS Rev 2013 0 WS Rev 2015 r 2020 Bonds Par Amount Original Issue Discount Total Sources Project Fund Reserve Account Issuance Cost Total Uses $14,005,000 O ca 0 a d 0 U c (135,609) M $13,869,392 V rn E M . a 0 $13,266,000 N M 368,589 0 r 234,803 U U $13,869,392 c N y C O m V V NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL ADVISORS D i-i C d E t c,> f3 a� r a Packet Pg. 219 8.2.c OTHER STRUCTURING OPTIONS 25 Year Amortization 2020 Bonds: 25 Year, Level Debt Service $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $741,936 Total Debt Service: $18,566,142 All -in Interest Cost: 2.28% $3,000,000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —� $2,s00,000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — $2,000,000 -- $743,125 $1,000,000 $500,000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — - s 0O 1le", 41, 10ff1 le", 0" OO 0" 10~ 1P, 1p Y " 11 01 44 01 MO CPy CPry CPS CPS OCS ■ WS Improv. and Ref. Rev 2011 ■ WS Rev 2013 ■ WS Rev 2015 ■ Proposed 2020 Bond 4 OF ED& O NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL ADVISORS Packet Pg. 220 8.2.c OTHER STRUCTURING OPTIONS • 20 Year Amortization 2020 Bonds: 20 Year, Level Debt Service $4,500,000 2020 Bonds $871,123 Total 0ebt Servim $17,412,610 $400000o All-inlnterestCosC 2.05% _ $a,500,00d — — — — —1-1-1— $3,000,000 — — — — ———— — — — — — — — — — $2,500,000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — $870,188 $2,000,000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — $s00,aoo — — — 5- tl' 'L�~o tip~~ tip~~ ti�~9 ti�•yA ti�~y ti�ryb ti�ry^ ti�•y0 ti�•1ui ti�,yo ti�,y1 tititied tidy ry�h titititi� tid't ti169 le ■ WS Improv. and Ref. Rev 2011 ■ WS Rev 2013 ■ WS Rev 2015 ■ Proposed 2020 Bond $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,00o,00o $1,500,000 $1,000,vo0 $500,000 S 2020 Bonds: 20 Year, Wrap Debt Service d C O M s_ fC U c� E f3 O N O N I M r I O r U U O N O N to le 'IS" tip~ 4P, 1.11 I'll 1,11, 1.11 le 'IN,, le le 111'r 1.11, 1011 1.", I'll, 11P tie 11P C 0 ■ WS Improv, and Ref. Rev 2011 ■ W5 Rev 2013 • WS Rev 2015 • Proposed 2020 Bond m 2020 Bonds $729,264 Total Debt Service: $28,179,777 $2,549,13B A[ -in Interest Cost: 2.22% 10 /VV NORTHWEST r MUNICIPAL ADVISORS r c E r a Packet Pg. 221 10 /VV NORTHWEST r MUNICIPAL ADVISORS r c E r a Packet Pg. 221 8.2.c Interest Rate Initial Avg. Annual Debt Service Total Debt Service Payments NPV of Total Debt Services (@ 2.0%) Comparison of Debt Options Between July and October 2020 20-YR Levelized July Oct 2.39%--* 2.05% $ 898,203 --" $871,123 $17,964,050 1 $17,412,610 $6,144,050 20-YR Wrap July Oct 2.62% --" 2.22% $ 766,917 --l' $729,364 $18,984,500 1 $18,179,777 $ 7,129,500 25-YR Levelized July Oct 2.75% — 2.28% 25-YR Wrap July Oct 3.24% � 2.64% $ 784,500 --" $741,936 $ 509,150 --0- $375,432 $19,612,350 1 $18,566,142 $ 7,852,350 $23,255,500 1 $21,860,814 $ 11,640,000 Packet Pg. 222 8.2.c DEBT STRUCTURE COMPARISON Totallnterest Level July — 2020 — est. $ 6,144,050 October — 2020 — est. $ 4,247,610 Difference $ 1,896,440 Debt Service (P&I) July - 2020 October - 2020 Difference $ 17,964,050 $ 17,412,610 $ 551,440 20-Year Wrap $ 7,129,500 $ 4,834,777 $ 2,294,723 $ 18,984,500 $ 18,179,777 $ 804,723 25-Year Level Wrap $ 7,852,350 $ 5,196,142 $ 2,656,208 $ 19,612,350 $ 18,566,142 $ 1,046,208 $ 11,615,500 $ 71855,814 $ 3,759,686 $ 23,255,500 $ 21,860,814 $ 1,394,686 c O m L m U N E a 0 N 0 N I M 0 I U U 0 N O N N C O m 12 I�I V NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL ADVISORS D c E Q Packet Pg. 223 8.2.c NET PRESENT VALUE OF TOTAL DEBT SERVICE NPV@2.0%*to 11/2020 $ 14,231,417 $ 14,357,220 $ 14,498,281 $ 15,254,110 Difference from 20-year Levelized N/A $ 125,803 * Discount Rate could be higher — 2.0% is very conservative 13 266,864 $ 1,022,693 NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL ADVISORS Packet Pg. 224 8.2.c APPROXIMATE FINANCIAL IMPACTS 20-year Levelized • The Project team estimates savings of $341,247/yr. in O&M Edmonds share of that varies but averages approx. 47% or $160,386 These projeds have been completed in partnership wi F E1 Y AMERE50OO Gr—, . Clan, . S­,r iu bl O � * LSIi�skingGa� 7RSrlatl9e e [kppS61 oerhn.-rr. $ s f12, l nqn Net Edmonds cost increase = $871,123 + UT@ 10% = $958,235 - $160,386 = $797,849 or 6.07% Single Family Residential would increase from $45.84/mo. to $48.62/mo. or $2.78/mo. 25-year Wrap ,,Net Edmonds cost increase (first 18 years) = $375,432 + UT@ 10% = $412,975 - $160,386 = $252,589 or 1.92% • Single Family Residential would increase from $45.84/mo. to $46.72/mo. or $0.88/mo. c 0 R N •L O t r 3 Q C O m T L 0 0 0 E U W E a 0 N O N I M I 0 r U U 0 N O tV y C 0 m E a Packet Pg. 225 8.2.c c 0 R N •L O t 7 a C O Co T v d O L CL Qi 0 c,> Nm 0 E L M U E cv a 0 N O N I M r 0 I r U U 0 N 0 N y C 0 Co r C d E t V R r a Packet Pg. 226 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Consideration of the Planning Board recommendation to deny a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family - Urban 1" for two properties located at 530 and 522-9th Ave. N. Staff Lead: Brad Shipley Department: Planning Division Preparer: Brad Shipley Background/History City Council held a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendment on September 22"d and voted to deny the proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan map designation for 21 properties included in the application. The Council also decided to further consider whether to redesignate just two of the properties. (Note: Minutes from the September 22 meeting were not available at the time this memo was being prepared.) Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) lists four findings that must be met in order to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal. One criterion requires findings be made that the subject parcel be physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development. This criterion could not be met for the 21 property proposal due to Glen St. being a private street and the fact that it does not meet the necessary right-of-way width. Staff recommended approving an option that would reduce the scope from 21 properties to two --one of the properties being the applicants' , where access can be provided from 9t" Ave. N. The City Council voted to postpone decision on a two -lot option until October 6t" to allow time for further consideration. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council tentatively APPROVE a change in designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1" for the two parcels, 522 and 530-9th Ave. N., which can provide access via 9th Ave. N. Note: Since Comprehensive Plan amendments can generally be updated only once per year and there are other Comprehensive Plan amendments under consideration for this year, all tentatively approved amendments will be brought back to City Council for final approval at the end of year. Narrative Staff forwarded a recommendation to approve the two -lot option based on finding the proposal met all four criteria found in ECDC 20.00.050. Planning Board concurred with staff's findings for the most part; however, Board members expressed concern that the proposal did not meet the latter half of the first criterion: Packet Pg. 227 8.3 "The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and is in the public interest." ECDC 20.00.050.A The Planning Board recommended the City Council deny the two -lot option. Board Member Cloutier, who made the motion to deny, stated he does not believe the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan or in the public interest. Several neighbors spoke out against the proposal based on the original scope of 21 properties. The public expressed concerns about traffic safety issues, loss of green space, and the overall "arbitrary' feeling of the proposal. This led Planning Board to consider whether the proposal was in the public interest. What constitutes public interest may seem subjective. Public interest, in the context of comprehensive planning, can be found in the Legislative findings of the Growth Management Act (GMA). GMA provides the legal framework for city and county comprehensive planning in Washington State. Legislative findings. The legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. Further, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest that economic development programs be shared with communities experiencing insufficient economic growth. RCW 36.70A.010 (emphasis added) The goals found in the GMA are intended to promote the public interest. As a starting point, it is helpful to contextualize "public interest" in the comprehensive planning context by examining the goals of the GMA and the City's Comprehensive Plan. The following GMA Planning goals are relevant to this proposal: (1) Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (4) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. (7) Permits. Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. (11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. Packet Pg. 228 8.3 (12) Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. RCW 36.70A.020 The following goals and policies found in the Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan are particularly relevant to this proposal: Sustainability Goal G. Develop housing policies, programs, and regulations designed to support and promote sustainability. Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which provide people with affordable housing choices geared to changes in lifestyle. Seek to form public and private partnerships to retain and promote affordable housing options. G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing needs while providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices. G.2 Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for residents to choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve and change over time. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, page 23. Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community. F.1. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities. F.1.a. Provide for mixed use, multifamily and single family housing that is targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in the land use element. F.2. Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the character of the surrounding neighborhood. F.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by considering innovative single family development patterns such as Planned Residential Developments (PRDs). F.2.b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods to address the needs of extended families and encourages housing affordability. F.2.c. Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as nonconforming lots, when development in these situations will be consistent Packet Pg. 229 8.3 with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to provide affordable single family housing. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, page 94. Based on the goals and policies identified above, staff finds the two -lot proposal to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest. The potential addition of one lot is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the city. The proposed amendment maintains the balance of land uses within the city. The two -lot option includes two properties that can provide access via 9th Ave. N. and are physically suitable for the anticipated development. Therefore, staff recommends approval based on the criteria found in ECDC 20.00.050. Attachments: Presentation Planning Board Meeting Minutes, Aug. 26, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes, Sept. 22, 2020 Parcels Under Consideration Packet Pg. 230 IL *Is @I*IIKZ.lf[= • 0 •I* Am A Change Comprehensive Plan map designation fro Initial Proposal: "Sinale Familv-Resource" to "Sinale Family -Urban 1 " ,8 r —ae cC l ' I i� r r r ' ' ' r G 4� .r ! - 4 ice'{ �' 1 "0 g C s ti 1� Packet Pg. 232 8.3.a Staff Recommendation A. Staff recommends City Council to DENY a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1 "for 21 parcels included in this proposal. B. Staff recommends City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1 "for the two parcels, 522 and 530-9th Ave. N., that can provide access via 9th Ave. N. Packet Pg. 233 8.3.a Planning Board Recommendation A. Planning Board recommended City Council DENY a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1 " for 21 parcels included in this proposal. B. Planning Board recommended City Council DENY a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1 "for the two parcels, 522 and 530-9th Ave. N., that can provide access via 9th Ave. N. Packet Pg. 234 8.3.a City Council Action A. City Council DENIED a change in designation from "Single Family - Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1 "for 21 parcels included in this proposa i. B. City Council is still considering a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1 "for the two parcels, 522 and 530-9th Ave. N., that can provide access via 9th Ave. N. Packet Pg. 235 8.3.a Proposal Under Consideration AL - - m _, Packet Pg. 236 REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? 2. Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city. 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for th requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development? CLOSING Staff finds the reduced scope proposal meets the criteria as established by ECDC 20.00.050, and recommends APPROVAL. Planning Board disagreed with staff's assessment and recommended DENIAL. Reminder: If a motion is made to not approve the proposal, please specifically state which criterion the proposal does not meet. Review Criteria Proposal is compatible with surrounding a rea • Review rite ri a Not cletrimenta to pubic health or safety , �-z f ffwfrfi {/{.III{` f l 1 f SF -Urban T, i�. 0 E 0 Packet Pg. 240 Review Criteria No shift in balance of land uses. The requested comprehensive plan designation allows the same use as currently exists, single family residential 77/ { r SF -Urban 1 k;' R U a Packet Pg. 241 Review Criteria • Glen St. is mostly ' KKIII private and does 'x a. a. not meet _ ' - � -��� _ .��-�. . , ,-� _ 1 4 < rn Engineering - _ L Q standards for o access widths. ' ° r C O R L �rrirr, r.� Table of Street Standards o U Number Minimum Dead f c ® coo of Lots R.O.W.* Pavement Curbs End m Zone or Units Width Width Gutters Reqrmts z" a.RS-20 10 - 15 40' 22' Yes cu I/sac . v RS-12 10 - 15 40' 22' Yess 3 !-• " cC RS-8, 10 - 15 40' 22' Yes y` Source: Edmonds Communiy and Development} Code, 18.80.010 -Street Standards. Packet Pg. 242 0 i-------------------- Review Criteria Glen St. existing conditions ///111i,� /Ie11i11j E E a CL CL U O C O Cu L O U c O r R r C d N d L d r C d E t V R r a Packet Pg. 243 J exAFi An L6-ArIa 4JIs the subject parcel physically suitably . the requested land use designation and t anticipated land use development? Comprehensive acket Pg. 245 Compatible Zoning Classifications Land Use Element Land Use Map Whenever there are references in this plan to categories of land use. they shall apply to areas shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map a s follow s: Plan Map Designation Land Use Type Compatible Zolling Density. Classifications Units/Acre Activity Center Corridor Developnient Designated Park or School Site Mix of uses; refer to specific plan designations-%&iticin activity center Mixed use development corridor; refer to specific plan designations %6d—in corridor Public Facility See appropriate category below; also refer to specific activity center discussion ili plan See appropriate category below; also refer to specific comdor discussion in plan P-zone or appropriate R-zone compatible v4rith neighborhood. --S--in--- ------------gl-fo-------------------------------------------------------------I --eFa--yRe-so-c-Sin dRS-12, RS-20 49 ------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Shigle Family, Urban 3 RS-10 < 4.4 Single Family, Urban 2 1 -8 < 5.5 n-eFnyCn------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ R--- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ � I Multi Family - High Density Multi fancily Multi Fancily — Medium Density R-1.5, R-2.4 RM-2.4, R-3.0 Packet Pg. 246 Critical Areas .N r - - 1 a II A F * I, Owl • . --; F� ALOHA ST . 1 --- ■ CAROL W------- --- i SEttt1 qr !� - I I � �irr��fPy Creek ■ £Mot ' 4 4 • ti i 1 �` _ �'LLI 'GLEN ST- L---------------� �--{ ivg--p rImp " Brad M I OMEWEL - DALEY 5Tdgm m - r IN - "12 rr�x Ut wkA4i[JE S 1 8.3.a w a CL a d c O U 0 c O Cu c O U C O m c m a� a c a Packet Pg. 247 Zoning NW NXV \V 'k 'A E E CL CL E 0 U O .2 cu cn r_ 0 .2 m r_ CL E zi Packet Pg. 248 8.3.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom August 26, 2020 Chair Robles called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Daniel Robles, Chair Mike Rosen, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Conner Bryan, Student Representative READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Brad Shipley, Planner BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no general audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Robles referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. Packet Pg. 249 8.3.b PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY — RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY — URBAN 1" FOR 21 PROPERTIES LOCATED BETWEEN 9TH AVE. N, CAROL WAY, 10TH AVE. N AND AN UNOPENED ALLEY BETWEEN GLEN AND DALEY STREETS (FILE NUMBER 4868) Mr. Shipley advised that this amendment was publicly -initiated, and tonight's hearing is the first of two. Following the Planning Board's public hearing, they will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold another public and then final action will occur simultaneously with the entire batch of 2020 Comprehensive Plan Amendments towards the end of the year. Mr. Shipley explained that the proposed amendment seeks to change the existing Comprehensive Plan Map designation for 21 properties (7.2 acres) located between 9th Ave. N (west), Carol Way (north), 101 Ave. N (east) and the unopened alley between Glen and Daley Streets (south). Currently, the properties are designated as "Single Family — Resource" (RS-R) and the applicants are proposing to change the designation to "Single Family — Urban 1" (RS-U1). The property is currently developed with single-family homes and is located about one mile from the downtown core. Mr. Shipley emphasized that the current proposal before the Board is not a rezone request. However, if the amendment is approved, it would allow the owners of the affected properties to apply for a subsequent rezone of their properties form Single -Family (RS-12) to either RS-8 or RS-6. All 21 properties were included in the proposal to create a cohesive block. He explained that the RS-U designation allows RS-12 and RS-20 zoning, and the property is currently zoned RS-12. The applicants want to rezone their property to RS-8, which requires a different Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. He shared maps showing the existing Comprehensive Plan Map designation and zoning of the subject parcels and surrounding properties. He pointed out that the current zoning results in a large lot designation next to the City's most dense single- family zone. He explained that the RS-R zone is intended to protect critical areas, but there are very few within the subject parcels. The property is located outside of creek buffers and steep slopes. Mr. Shipley reviewed the four criteria that must be met before a Comprehensive Plan amendment can be approved: 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The proposed V amendment is compatible with the surrounding area, and the allowed land uses would not change. However, the amendment would allow for smaller lot sizes. The proposal would result in only limited benefit to the public N interest. c N (O 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? The proposed N amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare. However, quite a few public comments have been received voicing concern about the negative impacts the amendment would have to the Q surrounding area. O 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land sues within the City? Both of the land use designations allow for single-family development so the types of land uses allowed would not change. 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designated and the anticipated land use development, including, but not limited to, access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and absence of physical constraints? There are access constraints for any property owner seeking to short plat the property in a manner that increases the number of lots requiring access from Glen Street, which is primarily used as a private street serving a number of single-family homes. The City's street standards require a minimum right-of- way width of 40 feet and a paved width of 22 feet for streets that provide access to between 10 and 15 lots. At the widest point, Glen Street has about 22 feet of easement, and the pavement width ranges between 14 and 16 feet. It would be very difficult for the street to be widened, and the City doesn't have a lot of interest in doing so. It would be incumbent upon the property owners to join together to grant back property, create a larger easement, and pave a 22-foot roadway. In addition, there are concerns that fire truck apparatus would be unable to turn around in the area. Engineering would require Glen Street to be punched through and brought up to standard if the entire area were to be redeveloped. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 250 8.3.b An image of Glen Street was provided to illustrate the existing conditions, which is a fairly narrow privately - maintained street. However, there is a potential short -plat option for the applicants' properties. The review team identified two parcels (522 and 530 9' Ave. N), one of which is owned by the applicant, where access could be provided via 91 Ave. N and not be subject to the constraints that limit development along Glen Street. Mr. Shipley summarized that, staff is recommending that the Planning Board recommend denial a change in designation from RS-R to RS-U1 for the 21 parcels included in the proposal and recommend approval of a designation change from RS-R to RS-U1 for the two parcels (522 and 530 91 Ave. N) that can provide access via 9" Ave. N. At the request of Board Member Monroe, Mr. Shipley explained that the applicant is seeking to subdivide an existing lot that is only 17,500 square feet. The current RS-12 zoning requires a minimum lot size of 12,000, so the applicant was unable to achieve the second lot. Board Member Monroe reviewed that the City initially determined it would be more appropriate to consider the land use designation change for the entire block rather than a single lot, but then later decided to recommend denial. He asked why the City encouraged the applicant to go through the process if the smaller lots sizes are unfeasible. Mr. Shipley said he has been working with the applicant for a long time, but he did not initially notice the access issues on Glen Street. Sometimes you have to go through more extensive review to identify the issues. The idea was to maintain a cohesive block. Board Member Monroe summarized that staff s current recommendation is to deny the majority of the request, but approve the designation change for the two parcels that have access via 91h Ave. N. Board Member Monroe asked what would prevent another owner of property in the northwest corner from requesting a designation change to RS-U1. He asked if applying the change to just the two lots near the existing RS-U1 designation could be considered a form of spot zoning. Mr. Shipley responded that, because the two lots are adjacent to properties zoned RS- U1, he would not consider it spot zoning. Mr. Chave suggested that the Board discuss this issue further with staff following the public portion of the hearing. From staffs point of view, this case is unusual and not clear cut. The two parcels are in proximity to the RS-8 zoning, but they also edge into an area that is zoned RS-10. The decision will come down to judgement. Board Member Monroe said that, as an engineer, he likes straight lines, and staffs recommendation would seem to create a jagged tooth. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that it might be appropriate for staff to address redevelopment proposals by first determining whether there is sufficient capacity on the streets to provide adequate access. c N O N Board Member Cheung pointed out that staff is recommending approval of the land use designation change for the two m properties in the southwest corner of the block, which seems to be a small area. He asked if this would be setting precedence N for other property owners who border denser zones to request the same. Mr. Chave answered not necessarily. He explained that there are other situations in Edmonds where portions of the same block are zoned differently. Board Member Cloutier Q pointed out that there is a graduated change of zoning in the neighborhood centers. While entire blocks may not have the m same zone, the corner of the block closest to the Neighborhood Business zone, for example, might have a different lot size. While he doesn't think that zoning needs to be done in squares, it should be contiguous rather than spot zoning. In this case, the change would simply extend the RS-U1 zoning to the two adjacent lots. Carolyn Mangelsdorf, Edmonds, said she and Robert Grimm are the applicants and they live at 530 — 9`h Ave. N. Robert Grimm, Edmonds, said he fully understands the concerns about Glen Street, but these concerns would be more appropriately addressed as part of future rezone application rather than at the Comprehensive Plan amendment stage. While the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation would allow the rezone, it would not necessarily guarantee approval of a rezone. Ms. Mangelsdorf pointed out there are already four properties within the 21-property area that fall below the required size of 12,000 square feet. Therefore, they are out of compliance with the current RS-R designation. Barbara Chessler, Edmonds, pointed out that, even if the land -use designation is changed for the entire 21-property area, it wouldn't impact property owners on Glen Street. The street isn't big enough and you would need a zoning change for each lot anyway. Mr. Shipley concurred. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 251 8.3.b Aaron Dean, Edmonds, said he opposes the proposed amendment. There is more than one parcel that would meet the same criteria as 530 — 9' Ave. N. He voiced concern that homeowners could be forced to revise the street over their objections because some parcel holders want to subdivide and redevelop. He pointed out that the lot at 530 — 9' Ave. N actually accesses off of Glen Street even though it has a 9'k' Ave. address. Although subdividing the lot would result in a type of flag lot, the ingress and egress would end up being off of Glen Street. Anne -Marie Laporte, Edmonds, agreed with the comments made previously around spot zoning. She commented that changing the land use for just the two properties seems arbitrary. She said she grew up on Daley Street, moved away, but came back with her family because she liked the walkability and character of the neighborhood. She is very concerned that the City is considering arbitrary changes. When reviewing the proposal, she asked the Board to keep in mind what is best for the community and specifically the neighborhood. She said she is opposed to the change for all of the lots, and not just most of them. Bob Schied, Edmonds, asked how the written comments would contribute to the Board's decision. Mr. Chave said the 2 Planning Board considers both written and oral comments when making a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Schied a asked about the process for Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr. Chave said that, typically, the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing, but that is dependent on their discussions after the public portion of the hearing is closed.CL z m L Mr. Schied said that even though rezoning is an entirely different process, approving the Comprehensive Plan Map E Designation as proposed would enable all 21 property owners to apply for a rezone in the future. Mr. Chave agreed that, if 0 the Planning Board recommends and the City Council concurs that the amendment should apply to all 21 lots, any and all of - the lots could request a zoning change. Mr. Schied said he has spoken with a number of property owners in the area who are 0 concerned about the propagation of further density throughout the neighborhood if all 21 properties are included in the map change. He asked the Board to consider the broader general perspectives that have been voiced in both oral and written comments. Beyond the density increase, Mr. Schied said he also has traffic safety concerns. Due to high traffic volumes and speed at the crest of the hill, it is difficult to enter 9'h Ave. N from Daley Street. This problem will only get worse if more people park on 9' Ave. N. If the zoning is changed, perhaps some parking restrictions will also be needed to avoid 0 safety issues and concerns. 0 Jerry Capretta, Edmonds, said he lives three houses behind the subject parcels to the east. He asked if the majority of 0 N N written comments received to date were against the proposed amendment to change the land use designation for 21 co properties. Mr. Shipley confirmed that all of the comments indicated opposition. Mr. Capretta said he joins with others to N oppose the amendment for the same reasons mentioned by the previous three speakers. He asked the Board to deny the proposed amendment. Q Theresa Ford, Edmonds, observed that Edmonds offers a wonderful sense of openness, greenspace, gardens, etc. The ui m subject properties are located in a very protected and quiet space, even with 9' Ave. N. She pointed out that 9' Ave. N is a � steep hill, and she has had several close calls trying to cross it. Site distance is a problem for cars turning into or out of Glen Street. The streets in the neighborhood are not designed to have a lot of cars coming in and out, and the proposed land use c designation change could result in serious problems. More cars parking on 9' Ave. N would make the situation significantly d worse. She summarized that she is opposed to the rezone and the negative impact it would have on the character of the neighborhood. She asked that the Board recognize that neighborhoods, such as hers, are treasures that need to be protected. 0 Jericho Manahan, Edmonds, said he, too, is opposed to changing the land use designation for all 21 lots, as it could CO potentially change the neighborhood environment. He said he was pleased to hear the Planning Board Members raise concerns about spot zoning and setting a precedent for other property owners to request changes, too. He concluded that the c proposed amendment would be detrimental to the character of Edmonds, and he asked that the Board recommend denial. cOv a Laurena Laporte, Edmonds, said she has lived in her neighborhood for 41 years, and she loves it. It is not overcrowded, and the neighbors all know each other. They also have privacy, greenspace and beauty. She is concerned that this will be lost, and it won't come back. She encouraged the Board to oppose the proposed amendment. t Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 252 8.3.b Mark Demaray, Edmonds, said he also lives in the neighborhood where the subject parcels are located and he supports the comments that have been provided thus far. He asked if the proposed amendment would have any other impact other than an increase in density. Mr. Shipley said that density is the primary difference between the two designations (RS-R and RS-U1). The height and lot coverage requirements would be the same, but the setbacks would change. Mr. Demaray asked if the o applicant is proposing RS-6 or RS-8 zoning. Mr. Shipley reminded them that the rezone would be a separate process, but o either zone would be allowed in the RS-U1 designation. Mr. Chave cautioned that the zoning would not automatically a change if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, agreed that approving the amendment for all 21 properties would set a precedent and have a d significant impact on the neighborhood. She noted that, while the properties along Daley Street are designated as RS-U1, the properties further north were likely protected because the topography slopes to the northwest. She asked if all of the emails E the City received regarding the subject of the hearing were included in the Board's packet. Mr. Shipley said many were a received after the packet was prepared, but they are all part of the public record. They will not be read into the record as part of the public hearing, but they were forwarded to the Board Members prior to the meeting. Ms. Dotsch voiced concern that the Zoom meeting format restricts the public's ability to provide and listen to public comments. She asked that, in the future, g written public comments should be read into the record if public hearings are conducted via Zoom. Mr. Chave said that a would be extremely difficult to do. Oftentimes, they are quite long. All of the public comments are included in the material > that goes before the Planning Board and City Council. People who want to participate at the City Council hearing will have an opportunity to review all of the comments made at the Planning Board hearing, both written and oral. Ms. Dotsch z suggested that the public comments should be posted in one location. a E Ms. Dotsch reminded them that the City's Housing Commission is currently reviewing density in Edmonds, and there is a V push to increase density in single-family neighborhoods. Those who value the current neighborhoods in Edmonds may want to listen to and participate in that process. o 0 Elena Sucio, Edmonds, said she agrees with all of the other public comments and is opposed to the proposed amendment. m Charles Laporte, Seattle, said his mother lives in Edmonds, and he knows the area extremely well. He said he is also opposed to the proposed amendment. He echoed Board Member Monroe's concern that approval of the amendment would V be considered spot zoning. Even if all 21 properties are included, the City has acknowledged that only the two lots would be 0 candidates for subdividing since they are the only ones that could be accessed from 91h Ave. N. The other lots would have to N be accessed via Glen Street, which doesn't have the capacity to accommodate the additional trips. The proposed amendment N appears to be a favor for just one property owner, which seems unjust and very arbitrary. N The public portion of the meeting was closed, and the Board started its deliberation. Board Member Crank said she read all of the written comments that were forwarded to the Board prior to the meeting. She echoed the concerns raised by both the Board Members and the public that it does not seem feasible to approve this application. She emphasized that she appreciates that anyone can apply for a change, even if it ends up being denied. She expressed her belief that the proposed amendment would result in spot zoning and create more issues than problem solve. Her recommendation is to deny the application. Board Member Monroe asked Mr. Shipley to explain how the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Criteria 1). Mr. Shipley said that, in this case, the proposed amendment would not change the uses that are allowed on the site. That being said, there is not a lot of information that would support a finding that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Board Member Monroe voiced his opinion that being contiguous to another zone is not enough to warrant a change. More planning and forethought are needed. The City has a good Comprehensive Plan, and he cautioned against arbitrary changes. He is concerned that it could set a precedent for other property owners making similar requests down the road. In the interest of being equitable to everyone, he recommended denial of the proposed amendment. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 253 8.3.b Board Member Cheung pointed out that all of the emails received to date regarding the subject of the hearing would be attached to the record and available to the public, which is no different than an in -person public hearing. They do not read all of the written correspondence during the public hearing. Board Member Cheung clarified that the staff recommendation is to deny the proposed amendment for all 21 properties. Instead, staff is recommending approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map change for just the two parcels (522 and 530 — 9'h Ave. N). Mr. Shipley explained that Criteria 4 requires that the subject parcels be physically suited for the requested land use designation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the change makes sense in a larger context. It is possible for the Board to recommend approval of the change for just those two properties. Board Member Cheung summarized that most of the comments were based on the proposal that all 21 parcels would change to RS-U1, but that is not actually what staff is recommending the Commission consider. He is interested in knowing if there is strong public opposition to just those two parcels being changed. He said he is not sure the public clearly understands the staff s recommendation. He voiced concern about changing the land use designation for just two parcels just because they are adjacent to RS-U1 zoning. This could set a precedent for anyone else in the City to do the same. Again, he said staff is not recommending that all 21 parcels be changed, but just the two at 522 and 530 — 91h Ave. N. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the applicants approached the Board a few months ago to discuss their hopes for their single-family lot. At that time, staff suggested that the proposal should include a larger area. She understands that Daley Street supports the properties that are designated as RS-U1 to the south of the subject parcels. She also understands staffs desire to consider the entire block as part of the proposal. However, she asked why staff didn't change the proposal once it was determined that Glen Street could not adequately accommodate a greater density. She also asked if staff considered changing the proposal to just include the properties that front on 91 Ave. N, Carol Way, and 101 Ave. N. Mr. Shipley said that, based on the review criteria, all of the middle properties would need to be excluded, and only a few properties on Carol Way and 101 Ave. N would be potential candidates for the denser zoning. He suggested this would raise concerns about spot zoning. He noted that most of the residents in the area voiced opposition to the amendment, so it didn't make sense to include the other properties. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the only properties that could potentially be redeveloped at the greater density V allowed by the RS-U1 designation would be those on 9'h Ave. N, 10`h Ave. N. and Carol Way. However, the City doesn't �- encourage land use and/or zoning changes that apply to just small areas. Mr. Chave agreed that the City tries to avoid N discontinuous areas. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that the applicant's properties are adjacent to other properties N that are designated RS-U1, and the City no longer has an interest in expanding the amendment to include the additional 19 co properties. She said that, oftentimes, adjacency is what starts the pattern of redevelopment. She asked staff to explain how N changing the designation for just the two properties would be a reasonable approach. Mr. Shipley said the City reviewed the criteria and discussed options that would allow the applicants to succeed in what they were trying to accomplish. Changing Q the land use for just a few properties is not how the City typically approaches change, but providing the recommendation has m created some good talking points, and it is up to the Board to decide the appropriate recommendation to forward to the City Council. E Board Member Rubenkonig emphasized that, if the proposed amendment is approved for just the two properties, any subsequent rezone would require access from 9'h Ave. N. She also clarified that if the change is approved for the two properties, the applicants could submit a subsequent rezone application that would potentially allow the two lots to be subdivided into three lots. There would be one additional single-family home adding traffic to 9'h Ave. N. She asked if a traffic study would be required as part of a subsequent rezone application, and Mr. Shipley answered that a traffic study would not be required if the rezone only included the two properties. The property at 522 — 9'h Ave. N is about 13,000 square feet. Even if it is rezoned to RS-8, it couldn't be subdivided. As per the staffs recommendation, the net potential gain would be one additional lot. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the two lots have access from 91h Ave. N, and Mr. Shipley said the applicant currently accesses the property from Glen Street, but the lot is wide enough to create a flag lot and gain access from 9'h Ave. N along the southern border of the property. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that Glen Street would no longer be used to access the subject parcels. She said she supports the staff s recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation to RS- U1 for the two properties located at 522 and 530 — 9'h Ave. N. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 254 8.3.b Student Representative Bryan said it is important to review the application through the lens of the four review criteria. It only seems logical to deny the application for either the two parcels or all 21. Clearly, the change is not in the public interest and people have voiced a number of safety concerns. Therefore, the application fails to meet Criterion 1 and 2. Board Member Pence said he read and considered all of the written public comments that were submitted prior to the meeting. He also visited the site, driving around the entire block and down Glen Street. With the exception of one parcel under construction on Glen Street, the entire block appears to be developed with very substantial single-family homes. In the event that the amendment is approved for all 21 properties, it wouldn't impact existing development since people would not likely tear down the larger houses to build slightly smaller ones. He said he supports the staff recommendation to deny the request to re -designate all 21 parcels to RS-U1 for all the reasons stated. He also supports the staff recommendation to approve the change for the two parcels at 530 and 522 — 91 Ave. N. for the reasons outlined in the Staff Report. However, as the alternate member of the Planning Board, he would not be eligible to vote on the matter since all of the Board Members were present. Vice Chair Rosen said he leans towards recommending denial of the proposed amendment, for either all 21 parcels or just the 2 parcels discussed. He expressed his belief that the change would compromise the integrity of the City's zoning process, as well as the integrity of the neighborhood. It would also create an undesirable precedent. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS TO THE STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY -RESOURCE TO SINGLE-FAMILY URBAN 1 FOR THE 21 PARCELS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A CHANGE IN DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE -FAMILY -RESOURCE TO SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1 FOR THE TWO PARCELS (522 AND 530 — 9TH AVE. N) THAT CAN PROVIDE ACCESS VIA 9TH AVE. N. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. 0 N Board Member Cloutier explained that his motion to deny was based on the review criteria. While staff explained how the N amendment meets Criteria 2, 3 and 4 to his satisfaction, he is still unclear as to how it meets Criteria 1. He said he does not co believe the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or in the public interest, and none of the public N comments were in support of the proposal. a Board Member Rubenkonig said her interpretation of the term "public interest" is that it is meant to express the interest of all m citizens of Edmonds. Property owners in the neighborhood have clearly presented their concerns and requests, but she cautioned against interpreting these comments to be all public interest. Chair Robles said he anticipates more requests of this type in the future, and the action the Board takes may have a basis in a c lot of future decision. There are a number of complexities to the issue, including the safety, health and welfare of citizens, as d well as the somewhat exotic terrain and public comments. If they were dealing with a flat piece of land, they could set a clear 2 precedent, but that is not the case in this situation. It is important to consider every nuance of the discussion so it can benefit "a future discussions as the trend continues throughout the City. 0 m Board Member Monroe commented that it is up to the applicant to show how the amendment is in the public interest, and this was not done. In this case, the public interest is the surrounding community because it doesn't have a bearing on the rest of c the City. The people who care about the proposal do not support it. c0v a Chair Robles noted that, in the future, there will be other opportunities for people to capitalize on their land, such as an ADU. These discussions are currently taking place at the Housing Commission level. c Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 255 8.3.b Board Member Cheung agreed that the amendment is inconsistent with Criteria 1. Changing the Comprehensive Plan for just two properties is for a private interest rather than the public interest. He is also worried about setting a precedent for changes in other areas of the City. THE CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBERS ROBLES, ROSEN, CLOUTIER, MONROE, CHEUNG AND CRANK VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Board Member Rubenkonig said she agrees with the explanation provided in the Staff Report to support staff's recommendation. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board's recommendation will be presented to the City Council for a public hearing (date to be determined), and notices will be sent out to all parties of record. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY — MEDIUM DENSITY" FOR TWO VACANT PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA (TAX I.D. 003700800300701 AND 00370800300702) (FILE NUMBER 4869) Mr. Shipley explained that the proposal seeks to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville area from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Multi -Family Residential — Medium Density (RM- MD). The immediate area is developed with a mixture of uses, including a post office, local retail shops and services, professional offices, restaurants, multi -family residential and single-family residential. Perrinville Village, a new 42-unit, fee -simple townhome development, is under construction in Lynnwood. The property has been zoned BN for many years, which allows for low -density, strip -mall type development. The height limit is 25 feet, and the setback requirement is 25 feet. The proposed RM-MD designation would allow either RM-2.4 or RM-3 zoning. Mr. Shipley said the Perrin Village property was rezoned from NB to Multi -Family Residential (RM-3) in 1985 and is currently developed with five, 4-unit buildings. In 1987, a 1.2-acre parcel was rezoned from RM-3 to BN to allow the United States Postal Service to expand its facilities. Mr. Shipley reviewed the four criteria that must be met before a Comprehensive Plan amendment can be approved: c N O N 1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? The Comprehensive Plan does not mention a specific vision for the Perrinville area. The neighborhood is generally N recognized as one that "includes commercial activities." However, there is one goal policy in the Transportation Element that identifies Perrinville. Goal 5(13)(2)(a)(1) states that RM uses should be located near arterial or Q collector streets. Both Olympic View Drive and 76th Ave. W are classified as either collector or minor arterial m streets, depending on the direction. If the proposal had been for property located on a local street, it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? The site was rezoned to BN in 1962. While he understands the desire for more commercial development, the site has been zoned as such for 50 years but hasn't been developed yet. The amendment offers potential to add to the "missing middle" housing type. The applicant's current intent is to develop the site with 6 or 7 townhomes. Any development along this section would require streetscape improvements to improve walkability and provide some type of connection from the site to the street. All of these could be seen as in the public interest and consistent with the health and safety of the City's citizens. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land sues within the City? The proposal would result in a slight shift (about 1 acre) from commercial to residential land uses. However, the shift would not disrupt the balance of land uses within the City. The proposed use is compatible with existing commercial uses, and office and daycare uses are allowed in the RM zone as primary conditional uses. Planning Board Minutes August 26, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 256 8.3.c There were no public comments. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MELAKU 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS (HTTPS:HZOOM.US/S/4257752525) PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM "SINGLE FAMILY - RESOURCE" TO "SINGLE FAMILY - URBAN 1" FOR 21 PROPERTIES WITHIN A BLOCK LOCATED BETWEEN 9TH AVE N, CAROL WAY, 10TH AVE N., AND AN UNOPENED ALLEY BETWEEN GLEN ST. AND DALEY ST. Development Services Director Shane Hope explained Comprehensive Plan amendments generally can only be done once a year with minor exceptions under state law. The reason, in both state law and the City code, is so that all the amendments are considered together rather than piecemeal throughout the year. However, because Comprehensive Plan amendments can be complicated and cover a lot of subjects, they are often considered separately during the year with a final decision made at the end of the year when all the amendments have been considered. The one exception is the Capital Facilities Plan which may require slightly different timing. Ms. Hope explained there are basically two types of Comprehensive Plan amendments, the first and most common are City -initiated amendments which usually come from staff and are things like the annual Capital Facilities Plan amendments, map amendments such as Haines Wharf Comprehensive Plan map amendment, text amendments or a subarea plan amendment. With City -initiated amendments, prior to a public hearing, the amendments are introduced to Council. Ms. Hope explained the second type of Comprehensive Plan amendment is one that is submitted by a private party who completes an application and pays a fee. By submitting that information and completing the process, the applicant is guaranteed a public hearing by the Planning Board and by the City Council, a process that is established in the City code. At the public hearing, the proposal is reviewed, the applicant has an opportunity to speak to the proposal and the public has an opportunity to weigh in. The reason there is not an introduction prior to the public hearing is because typically the applicant speaks to their amendment. Ms. Hope explained if review of the proposal cannot be completed in one meeting, the public hearing can be continued to another meeting. The Council's decision, whether at that meeting or a future meeting, is only a preliminary decision as the final decision occurs after all the amendments are considered. Tonight the Council will hear about two applications, the rationale behind them, and issues that arose during the Planning Board's review. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 257 8.3.c Associate Planner Brad Shipley explained tonight there will be public hearings on two private -initiated Comprehensive Plan amendments. The Planning Board held a public hearing on September 26, 2020 and forwarded their recommendation to the City Council. Final action on all 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments will occur simultaneously at the end of the year. The first amendment, AMD2019-0007, is a proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from `Single Family —Resource' to `Single Family —Urban 1' for 21 properties totally 7.2 acres. The subject properties are current developed primarily with single family residences and are located approximately one mile from the downtown core. The Single Family — Resource designation is adjacent to the Single Family - Urban 1 designation so there is some continuity. If the amendment is approved, any of affected properties could apply for a subsequent rezone, a process that includes a public hearing at a later date. Mr. Shipley reviewed: • Compatible Zoning Classifications Plan Map designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Units/Acre Single Family, Resource Single family RSW12, RS-12, RS-20 <4 Single Family, Urban 1 RS-6, RS-8 5-8 Map of Zoning Designations — RS-12 and RS-6 • One of reason for Single Family - Resource designation was to protect critical area o Critical Areas Map shows few critical areas other than erosion hazards which occur citywide ■ Erosion hazards require erosion to be controlled during development of the site o Property is outside of the buffers for Hindley Creek and Shell Creek and away from any potential landslide hazard areas Review Criteria 1. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? o Proposal is compatible with surrounding area o Limited public interest in the proposal 2. Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? o Not detrimental to public health or safety o A lot of comment letters were submitted opposed to the proposal, most addressed the larger proposal which staff is recommending denial. The comments expressed concern about access to Glen Street, increased traffic, safety, visibility and protection of views. 3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the city? o No shift in balance of land uses o The requested comprehensive plan designation allows the same use as currently exists, single family residential 4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the anticipated land use development? o Glen St. is mostly private and does not meet Engineering standards for access widths. ■ Ten properties currently take access from Glen Street o Table of Street Standards Zone Number of Lots or Units Minimum ROW Width Pavement Width Curbs Gutters Dead End Re uirements RS-20 10-20 40' 22' Yes Cul-de-sac RS-12 10-15 40' 22' Yes Cul-de-sac RS-8, 6 1 10-1 1 40' 22' Yes Cul-de-sac o Photo of Glen St. existing conditions ■ Limited ability to widen street Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 258 8.3.c o Potential short plat option for applicant's property that does not add to the number of lots accessing via Glen St. (lots with access from 9t1i Ave N) Staff Recommendation A. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to DENY a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1" for 21 parcels included in this proposal. B. Based on the findings of fact, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council to APPROVE a change in designation from "Single Family -Resource" to "Single Family -Urban 1" for the two parcels, 522 and 530 - 9th Ave. N., that can provide access via 9th Ave. N. Councilmember Buckshnis asked when the last time the zoning was changed in this area. Mr. Shipley answered the Single Family - Large Lot designation was changed to Single Family - Resource in 2000/2001 based on decisions made at the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) regarding whether the City met the minimum density of four units per acre. If critical areas hinder the ability to meet the four units per acre, that designation would be allowed. Since then, the GMHB has taken a different approach and the four units per acre threshold is not considered the same as it once was. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the biggest issue between Single Family - Resource and Single Family - Urban 1 is that Single Family - Resource can go up to RS-20. Mr. Shipley agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was interesting how Single Family - Urban 1 is on one street and then suddenly there's the Single Family — Resource designation. Councilmember Olson relayed she will recuse herself and abstain from the vote from this agenda item based on its proximity to where she lives. Council President Fraley-Monillas said that was her question, whether Councilmember Olson planned to abstain from the discussion since she received notification and lives across the street. Councilmember L. Johnson asked whether it was the intent of the individuals who submitted the citizen - initiated amendment to rezone all 21 properties or only the lot they own. Mr. Shipley answered they first approached the City wanting to subdivide their property, but did not have enough lot area. He informed them a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required for a Comprehensive Plan amendment; however, if they were applying for an amendment, it made sense to evaluate it for the entire block versus just two properties. Based on the advice of the City, the property owners approached it that way. Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Carolyn Mangelsdorf and Bob Grimm, applicants, owner of 530 91 Ave N for 23 years, explained their plan was to subdivide their large lot and build a smaller house in back and sell the property in front. At the public hearing for the 21 lots and the 2 lot solution, there was a great deal of public objection. To determine whether the objection was to the larger rezoning of the neighborhood or the two lots, she canvassed 23 households in the neighborhood; 11 were against the 21 lot rezone, 9 were neutral or no comment, 3 were for. Only one household was opposed to the 2-lot solution, 13 were neutral or no comment and 9 were for. The objection is clearly to the larger rezone, largely because of concerns with increased density, traffic and protecting Glen Street. The Planning Board's objections were primarily that changing the zoning for two lots creates inconsistency in the City plan. In researching the actual size of lots in the area bordered by 9ti', Olympic, Sprague and Edmonds Elementary, she found there are no fewer than 9 lots beyond the error variance in terms of less than 12,000 but still over 11,000, and 27 lots are less than 11,000. She summarized there actually isn't consistency in lots even though there is consistency in the plan. They feel this change reflects the City's bigger goal of increasing housing while maintaining the spirit and charm of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 259 8.3.c neighborhoods without upsetting neighbors in general, not straining limited resources, and protecting natural resources. Barbara Chessler, Edmonds (resident on Glen St), strongly supported Ms. Mangelsdorf s comments. She feels strongly the City needs to look at more housing and this is a simple, easy way to do it. Anne -Marie LaPorte, Edmonds, said while she appreciated the prior comments, she disagrees. She appreciated the desire to rezone and build additional housing, she grew up here, moved away and came back and now is raising her 11-year old daughter in Edmonds. She enjoys the green space and the neighborhood feel and is very concerned with what feels like arbitrary changes. She appreciated the City looking at the entire area to consider a change to the Comprehensive Plan instead of doing these one offs. She was particularly concerned with equity and inclusion issues; arbitrary, one-off decisions move away from the direction she has seen the Mayor and Council moving. She encouraged the Council to vote no, commenting she was well aware the proposal was for two properties. When one drives down 9' Avenue, at Daley Street, the grade of the hill changes which is the reason for the shift in the zoning and there is a safety issue coming off 9t' toward that hill. She encouraged the Council to take a fuller, strategic look instead of making spot zoning decisions, and to make a decision with a lens for equity and inclusion. Lorena LaPorte, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to deny the application for the several houses or for the two. She has lived here for 41 years, it is a fabulous place, very walkable, and they love their neighbors, the yard and the privacy. If exceptions are made, she feared they will happen more frequently and the area will get denser. While she appreciated that people want to live in Edmonds, one of the nice things about Edmonds is the nicely sized lots. Charles LaPorte, Seattle, said his mother and sister live in Edmonds. He clarified although Mr. Shipley implied the Planning Board was in favor of rezoning these two lots, he attended their meeting and the Planning Board voted 6-1 against. One of the reasons was their interest in equity. The topography is such that Glen Street cannot be rezoned so it will essentially be doing a special favor for one family. Although he had nothing against the family for applying to upzone their lot, it was not a policy decision, but rather favoritism. He was uncertain why Mr. Shipley did not mention that the Planning Board voted 6-1 against the proposal. He summarized he was opposed to favoritism and wanted the City to have consistent policies. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, relayed she watched the Planning Board meeting and said it was unfortunate the Planning Board's decision was not highlighted in the presentation. The Planning Board referenced spot zoning and was opposed to rezoning just two lots. Although she no longer lives in the neighborhood, she walked it every day on the way to school as a child; 9tn Avenue is a hill and to the east, Daley is flat, there is a dead-end that is flat and then there is a slope toward Holy Rosary. Walking down the hill on Daley, you can hear water rushing regardless of when it last rained which may be the reason for the larger lots. She was opposed to the rezone of the two lots for environmental reasons due to the slope, benefits of large lot sizes, to avoid setting a precedent as well as due to the work the Housing Commission is doing. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Shipley referred to the issue of spot zoning, explaining spot zoning is often thought of as a zoning classification change for 1-2 properties. That is not quite what it is; spot zoning is done to benefit a lot or a parcel in a way that is incompatible with the surrounding uses and the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal does not necessarily meet the definition of spot zoning and similar proposals have been approved in the past. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were plans to do any rezoning review of the area above 9' Avenue, noting there are many different zoning classifications in that area. Mr. Shipley asked if she meant Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 260 8.3.c if the City itself was looking rezoning. Councilmember Buckshnis said some of zoning has been the same since 50s and 60s and she was surprised some of the zoning had been changed in 2000. Twenty years later, she asked if there were plans to sort of master plan the neighborhoods above 9' Avenue in the bowl area. Ms. Hope said there are no current plans for that. If the Council went with the Planning Board's recommendation over staff's recommendation, Councilmember L. Johnson asked what options the property owners had. Mr. Shipley answered if it is not approved, they would have no options. If approved, they would go through another public hearing during the rezone process. Ms. Hope said the code allows the City Council to accept the Planning Board's recommendation, modify, or deny so there is some flexibility. If the Council denies all of it, that probably is the end of the road. Councilmember L. Johnson commented she was struggling with the term spot zoning which seems like a negative, but if the priority of some was to allow residents to age in place and increase infill, such proposals need to be considered going forward and there may be more proposals like this. Ms. Hope said people sometimes get confused about what spot zoning is; it has to do with favoritism to a particular party without consideration for the surrounding land uses and other factors that should apply. If a change benefits a particular property, but it is also reasonable for the surrounding land uses, the environment can be protected, applicable regulations are observed for stormwater, etc., then it is not necessarily spot zoning. With regard to public benefit, Councilmember L. Johnson said a case could be made that allowing residents to age in place and increasing infill was a public benefit. Councilmember K. Johnson said another option in the future would be to build a 1,000 square foot or less accessory dwelling unit (ADU) for seniors to age in place without going through rezone and without subdividing the property. That is a possibility in future if the Housing Commission makes that recommendation and the Council approves it. Council President Fraley-Monillas ADUs are already allowed; the Housing Commission is working on detached ADUs (DADU). She asked if that would be part of the Housing Commission's recommendation. Ms. Hope said the idea of DADUs will come up, the Housing Commission has not provided a recommendation yet, but it is expected by year end. If that is their recommendation, the Council would consider it in 2021 and potentially go through a zoning amendment. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding of Ms. Hope's comment that by the end of year, this request could be a non - issue. Ms. Hope answered if the applicants are satisfied with an ADU and are not interested in a full size dwelling, that may work for them. Councilmember Distelhorst pointed out the recommendations from the Housing Commission will not be submitted not until the end of 2020 at the earliest and it will take time to implement/act on their recommendations. That seems like a fairly lengthy horizon compared to what was presented tonight by City staff. He appreciated Councilmember L. Johnson's comments about looking at how the City can help promote diverse housing options that are consistent with adjacent properties. Councilmember Paine asked whether the Housing Commission has talked about allowing a non -compliant lot for the purposes of having a smaller dwelling and the potential for a flag lot. Ms. Hope answered the Housing Commission has not considered that issue specifically. The Housing Commission's job is to develop policy recommendations which are at a higher level than looking at the details of a flag lot. She was confident that the Housing Commission's recommendation would address DADUs. The Housing Commission is also looking at, although she did not know what they will recommendation, whether there should be transitional areas where different, smaller scale development such as duplexes, triplexes could be considered. The specifics regarding that type of development would occur at the code stage. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 261 8.3.c Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that the Housing Commission was not considering ownership opportunities. Ms. Hope said there has been an idea proposed by some of the commissioners regarding providing an ownership opportunity via smaller lots or even duplex options. Councilmember Paine said she was curious about the ownership option. The current proposal does not sound like a duplex. Ms. Hope pointed out duplexes or townhomes can be condominiumized which provides an ownership option. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council's responsibility is not to figure out what the property owners will do in the future if this is denied. The City needs to look at the regentrification of areas in a thoughtful manner which could include changing the zoning to allow duplexes and triplexes. She was uncertain whether the public hearing should be continued, but she was ready to follow the Planning Board's recommendation. She is old -school and views this as spot zoning. Consideration needs to be given to areas in the City where major rezoning could occur, downsizing if necessary to RS-8 or RS-10. She felt this request was just a bandaid on a bigger issue and feared there would be more requests if this was approved. The City needs to look at the entire housing mix and stock and consider different housing styles such as cottage, duplex, triplex. She preferred to focus on the code, zoning and housing stock before looking at something like this. She was ready to vote or to postpone to a future meeting. She expressed appreciation for the complete packet and the information from the Planning Board. Ms. Hope requested a tentative decision whether to approve or deny or continue, noting no final decision would be made tonight. Mr. Shipley said it would be helpful to know what specific review criteria the Council was basing their decision on. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FOLLOW THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE REQUEST. Councilmember Distelhorst raised a point of order and asked if Council President Fraley-Monillas' motion was regarding the 21 properties or the 2 properties. Council President Fraley-Monillas clarified her motion was regarding the 21 properties, not the 2 properties. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO DENY THE 2 PARCELS PER THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS, 522 AND 530 9TH AVENUE NORTH. Councilmember Paine asked if the Council voted today, would the applicants lose all their options or if something came up in 1-2 years that opened up options, would they have an opportunity in a more comprehensive post -Housing Commission application. Ms. Hope answered they could certainly reapply if they wanted their area or a variation of it reconsidered, but that would likely be 1-3 years in the future. Another possibility is if the City had a large scale reconsideration for properties meeting a certain criteria, but that would be 2-5 years or more in the future. area. The Council's decision tonight is tentative until the Comprehensive Plan amendment ordinance process is completed later this year. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that there was no immediate option in a shorter horizon. Ms. Hope agreed. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested holding onto this until the Housing Commission's planning process was completed because that may resolve many of the issues. If even the 2-lot amendment were approved, it could be contrary to the Housing Commission's recommendations. She preferred to sit on this until the Housing Commission makes its recommendation in 4-5 months. Councilmember Olson said although she recused herself from the vote, as a general comment, she disagreed there should be vote the same night as the public hearing. She suggested the Council consider the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 262 8.3.c information provided, allow the public to provide input and revisit this in two weeks as there is no Council meeting next week. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it would be possible to table the proposal for six months until the Housing Commission makes its recommendation and the Council has an opportunity to consider it. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the Council has already made a tentative vote to deny the application which would need to be reconsidered if Council wanted to do something different. This is a 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment application so there is no problem with delaying it as long as it is not tabled past the adoption of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan ordinance. He was unsure the Housing Commission would complete its work before the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendment ordinance needed to be adopted. Ms. Hope said the Housing Commission will not finish its work until the end of the year. The next time a Comprehensive Plan amendment could be considered would be at the end of 2021 as Comprehensive Plan amendments can only be done once a year. Councilmember K. Johnson concurred with Councilmember Olson regarding delaying a decision for two weeks. As Mr. Taraday pointed out, the Council has already made half of the decision. She offered to make a motion to postpone if it were seconded. Councilmember Buckshnis said this was split into two separate things and the Council voted on one. She was willing to extend the public hearing for two weeks. She was willing to withdraw her motion or reconsider the previous motion. Mr. Taraday said it was up to the Council, but if the Council wanted to leave the public hearing open, it may as well be left open for all aspects of the application so that anyone who wanted to comment could do so on any aspect of the application. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION. Mr. Taraday clarified if the Council wanted to keep the public hearing open for the 21 parcels, there needed to be a motion to reconsider. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in the 21-lot amendment, but was interested in the 2 lots. She preferred to table a vote on the 2 lots to a future date. Councilmember Paine said the vote to deny the 21-lot option was 6-0 so how would it be reconsidered. Mr. Taraday explained with a unanimous vote, anyone can make a vote for reconsideration because all Councilmembers were on the prevailing side of the vote. Ms. Hope clarified that could be done if the Council wanted to, it was not a requirement. The Council could move to have both options on the table or just the 2-lot option. Mr. Taraday agreed. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in the 21-lot option, but was interested in holding the 2-lot options to await the Housing Commission's recommendation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO HOLD THE 2-LOT APPLICATION UNTIL THE HOUSING COMMISSION'S ENDING RESPONSE. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out that cannot occur because this is A Comprehensive Plan change and it needs to occur before 2020 yearend and the Housing Commission's report will not occur until about the same time so it is not a reasonable target date. Ms. Hope answered it would be problematic because the Housing Commission is not making its recommendation until the end of 2020 and it will not be considered by the Council until 2021, so the Comprehensive Plan change would not be considered until the end of 2021. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 263 8.3.c Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, asking if the Housing Commission's recommendation would supersede other Comprehensive Plan amendments moving forward. Ms. Hope said there is no exception to the once a year process for Housing Commission recommendations. Mr. Taraday agreed, unless it is done in the context of a subarea plan which he did not think the Housing Commission was working on. He did not know what the Housing Commission will recommend; it is possible there will be things that can be implemented by the City Council via merely text amendments to the Zoning Code that will not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He clarified it is not a given that whatever the Housing Commission recommends would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Council President Fraley- Monillas asked what the proper motion would be to not take action tonight. Mr. Taraday said a motion to table would be appropriate because it can be removed from the table at any time. He interpreted the words "to hold" in Council President Fraley-Monillas' motion as a motion to table. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Ms. Hope saying it will take 4-5 years to do the code; she hoped it could be done sooner rather than later. The Housing Commission will provide a recommendation but it is still the Council's responsibility. Mr. Taraday clarified there are several different ways to postpone something. The problem with a motion to table is it is non -debatable and the Council is having debate. He suggested the motion be restyled as a motion to postpone indefinitely which would allow Council to continue its debate. Council President Fraley-Monillas restated the motion: TO HOLD OFF ON THIS MOTION. Councilmember Distelhorst said procedurally there is a code in place, property owners applied following the existing code, and the Housing Commission is looking at a wide variety of options that are simply policy recommendations to Council. Their final recommendations are unknown and it will be up to the Council to evaluate them and to implement what the Council and the community see fit for the City. The City is not doing its duty if it is not processing applications that are submitted under the current, legally valid code, and that in his opinion, that does not serve Council or the residents well. He supported reviewing the application for two lots at a future meeting and following the code that is currently in force. Mr. Taraday said Councilmember Distelhorst's comment reminded him of language in the code that requires action within a certain amount of time. If the motion is to postpone indefinitely, it still needs to be acted on within the timeline required in the City code. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if Mr. Taraday was suggesting she pull her motion. Mr. Taraday responded the motion is fine as long as it comes back for further action within the timeline required by code. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO POSTPONE FOR THREE WEEKS. City Clerk Scott Passey said the next opportunity to add something to the agenda would be November 2nd, as the agendas for October meetings are full. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION. Ms. Hope suggested the October 6t1i meeting as Comprehensive Plan amendments had been tentatively scheduled on that agenda. Mr. Passey agreed. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO POSTPONE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 2 LOTS TO OCTOBER 6TH. MOTION CARRIED 6-0-1, COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINING. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 264 8.3.c MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON ABSTAINING. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION CHANGE FOR TWO UNDEVELOPED PARCELS IN THE PERRINVILLE AREA FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY." Associate Planner Brad Shipley relayed this Comprehensive Plan amendment, AMD2019-0008, submitted by a private citizen is a proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from `Neighborhood Commercial' to `Multi Family - Medium Density.' He displayed an aerial map, identifying the property north of the northeast corner of Perrinville. He displayed a Comprehensive Plan Map that identified designations in the area including Neighborhood Commercial; the parcels are surrounded by Single Family - Resource and there is Single Family - Urban 1 and Multi -Family - Medium Density on 76t' Avenue West. Mr. Shipley reviewed: • Compatible Zoning Classifications Plan Map designation Land Use Type Compatible Zoning Density Units/Acre Multi Family - Medium Density Multi family RM-2.4, RM-3.0 <18 Neighborhood Commercial Commercial BN or equivalent based on Neighborhood plan • Existing zoning in the area is primarily BN o BN promotes strip mall type development with large setbacks and parking in front and maximum height of 25 feet • Proposal is for Multi -Family - Medium Density • Previous Similar Proposals in area o Perrin Village rezone (across the street to the south), 1985 ■ Rezone from "Neighborhood Business" (BN) to "Multi -Family Residential" (RM-3) was approved for a 2.2-acre parcel on 76th Ave. W o Post Office rezone, 1987 ■ Rezone from "Multi -Family Residential" (RM-3) to "Neighborhood Business" (BN) was approved for a 1.2-acre to allow for expansion of Post Office • New Development in Area o Perrinville Townhomes ■ 42 fee -simple townhomes under development in Lynnwood • Review Criteria 1. Is the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest? o Comprehensive Plan does not outline a specific vision for Perrinville o Residential goals and polices state that RM uses should be located near arterial or collector streets ■ Map of functional classifications of streets in the area - Subject site fronts on a collector street with minor arterials south and east from the Perrinville intersection 2. Is the proposal detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City? o Subject site was rezoned to `Neighborhood Business' in 1962 o Land containing subject site annexed in 1982 o After nearly 60 years, the site remains undeveloped o Opportunity to build `missing middle' housing types Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 265 � " City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Map 7 5 r r t7J � Ln r 6 Q tT j 0 7 — 70 0 9 5 60 Ca 4 ■ 43 w 3 94 4 �� =Q � 9 52 G1 N-= F:� E11111111111 g3 34 9'38 a .o �0• 0 C] r C] r 5 Z r n MLn N N 11'1 Ln LU CD rn r• CD CD 00 Q CD � 0 0 r r QA1 FY ST G 1:2,257 0 94.04 188.1 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accura WGS 1984 Web Mercator_Auxiliary-Sphere current, or otherwise reliaE © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIC 8.3 a Legend � 0 Rezones � � - ■ d PRD to � RoW Comprehensive Plan y . Retail Core � a� . ArEj ts Center Corridor � ® Downtown Mixed Commercial O <.i Downtown Convenience 4- Downtown Mixed Res C O Downtown Master Plan 4 mL Shoreline Commercial y Planned Residence -Office .N C ❑ Single Family Urban1 O V ® Single Family Urban2 Single Family Urbana O ® Single Family -Resource r i v rk Single Family - MP � ❑ Multi Family -Medium Den •� O . Multi Family -High Densi () Neighborhood Commercial L 0) . Community Commercial C Planned -Neighborhood to ® Mixed Use Commercial � L ® Corridor Development d ® Edmonds Way Corridor �+ C n Medical � t Notes � w r Q Packet Pg. 266 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Utility of the Future Today Recognition Staff Lead: Williams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Pamela Randolph Background/History Since 2012 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) staff have been engaged in Energy Cohort activities, sponsored by SnoPUD, and capital projects, completed under the State of WA Energy Performance Contract method. Both of these activities have significantly reduced the energy required to operate the WWTP and reduced our carbon footprint. In addition to receiving over $700,000 in grants and incentive funds from SnoPUD the City has reduced the ever increasing energy costs by over 45%. This work at the WWTP could only have been accomplished with the support of the past and present Mayor's and City Council members along with our Community Leaders and WWTP Partners. The "Utility of the Future Today" recognition program was launched in 2016 by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), the Water Environment Federation (WEF), the Water Research Foundation (WRF), and the Water Reuse Association with input from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In early July 2020, Plant Manager Pamela Randolph, on behalf of the City of Edmonds, applied for the "Utility of the Future Today" program under the Energy Conservation category. The recognition celebrates the achievements of water utilities that transform themselves from the traditional wastewater treatment system to a resource recovery center and thereby become a leader in the overall sustainability and resilience of the communities they serve. Staff Recommendation For City Council to authorize the WWTP to fly the "Utility of the Future Today" flag under the State of WA flag. Narrative The WWTP staff have developed and support a culture that aligns with the Utility of the Future Today concept. Starting in 2013, the staff at the WWTP began to demonstrate this culture by implementing a "Pathway to Sustainability" that would lead to reducing the plant's energy consumption and its carbon emissions. In June 2017, the City of Edmonds adopted Resolution 1389 which is a commitment to achieve or exceed, at the local level, all the goals established in the Paris Climate Accord. By leveraging the strength of the organizational culture, garnering the support of the City Council, and building consensus with our stakeholders, three significant energy efficiency upgrade projects have been completed: 1) Replacing several low efficiency blowers with smaller, high efficiency blowers 2) Replacing and repairing the entire aeration system piping and diffusers, and replacing the remaining blowers with high efficiency blowers, 3) Replacing the biosolids dewatering equipment with more energy efficient dewatering equipment. Packet Pg. 267 9.1 These three projects have resulted in electricity cost savings of over $200,000 per year, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (primarily carbon dioxide) of 1,146 tons per year, and the demonstrated proof that the WWTP is solidly on the "Pathway to Sustainability" as a Utility of the Future Today. And the journey continues. Now the WWTP has begun a Carbon Recovery project that will achieve more significant goals along the WWTP's "Pathway to Sustainability" by recovering and reusing the inherent energy value in the biosolids to produce biochar while at the same time further reducing energy consumption. This energy saving and carbon recovery project will help the City of Edmonds meet the goals established by Resolution 1389 and it will provide Utilities of the Future Today with a new option with which to process biosolids that is more efficient and is environmentally safer for land application than traditional, exceptional quality biosolids. Through the use of gasification and pyrolysis these biosolids will be converted to biochar. The WWTP will be one of the first treatment plants in the nation to be treating all its biosolids in this manner. The Carbon Recovery project is currently in final design with construction to begin in spring of 2021. The projects mentioned above were successfully completed using the Energy Savings Performance Contracting method promoted by the Washington State Department of Enterprise Services. Through collaboration among WWTP staff, government regulators, engineers, and consultants energy savings were achieved, budgets were met, and efficiencies realized. In addition to these completed projects, since 2010, WWTP staff have been involved with energy cohorts which include peer to peer reviews, Snohomish County Public Utility District (SnoPUD) oversight and partnering, and in-house completion of measuring and monitoring practices through Energy Smart Industrial programs. By being a part of the cohort and engaging with others of the cohort, plant staff is demonstrating their commitment to the "Pathway to Sustainability" and the culture it fosters. They have developed objectives and measurable goal statements in support of the continued efforts of the plant's Energy Team. The objectives and goals are shown below. o The Edmonds WWTP staff, through continuous improvement, will strive to balance energy efficiency, cost effectiveness, and environmental conservation to meet the needs of our community in a sustainable way. § Objectives § Goals Encourage energy conservation in our daily work through education and teamwork. Ensure new and replacement equipment is energy efficient and cost effective. Evaluate our efforts through benchmarking and baseline goals to ensure sustainability of our energy management program. Lower energy usage from the previous year. Develop a sense of team around energy conservation. Reduce our overall impact on the environment Packet Pg. 268 9.1 WWTP staff track the plant's ongoing performance and utilization of all utilities through the Energy Star Portfolio Manager program and power trend data supplied by SnoPUD. Since 2012 our Energy Score has improved from 7 to 44, we have reduced the plant's total energy cost by 47% from what it would have been without this program, and have achieved an almost 25% reduction in energy consumption. By establishing our "Pathway to Sustainability," we have created a road map for success. At the same time, we have developed and fostered an organizational culture of continuous improvement in our Operations team. Staff's commitment to continuous improvement guides our interaction with our community and business partners who are then more supportive of our "Pathway to Sustainability" and the projects on that journey. All of these successes support the organizational culture. The fact that we have been able to deliver these amazing results in such a short period of time demonstrates the commitment of our community and City officials to the "Pathway to Sustainability" and to our desire to become a Utility of the Future Today. Nigh Efficiency Bower Protect saves: $33,B48fyr, and 345 tans CC%, equivalentto: Lfi.Srhomi sYanrr4'r TBB Wrrels ar Y• �a,..>< 1 a+tan.��.ro Aeration &Slower Proiect saves: $34.1)62 yr. and 264 tans COm, equivalent to= 3T.A hanr's rrixpr � irr..sfrxsp a� snr ror ax yr.r al cdxunatl Dewatering Ta Project saves: $133,211 Nr. and 537 tans CO2, equivalent to: 3a7hons's insryy 1.34a banC or uta foroM Vaar Mf�aead Carbon Recovery This phase will feeua an the sewage siudga Inelnerelnr eMidFncy. we are evalusling OImone to reduce 996rallOhal ovals acd the anvlronnanlal footp+inl. Opportunities Include cirrn g*flflc*tivn rnd dryln8 the blPrallds to vraatl r h1uh- nuirlent sail amendmenr pmdutt. Attachments: City of Edmonds WWTP - Utility of the future - 04 (1) Packet Pg. 269 9.1.a 0 a� L LL 4- 0 Packet Pg. 270 9.1.a Under the State of Washington Energy Savings (ESPC) Program — A Partnership was Formed An ESPC is a contract between an energy services company (ESCO) and the Washington State Department of Enterprise Services (DES), under which the ESCO guarantees a not -to -exceed cost, system performance, and energy savings to the client (Edmonds). ICBM sP_Q—P3 ACBM spuowp3 ants Performance Contracting 0 a� L 0 0 2 0 d L Ameresco — bhc nNs�ETANTs 4— Parametrix 0`` ENGMEEPING.PLANNING,ENVIR6NMENTAL SCIEN[E�. WI 7 Engineering Mechanical Electrical Plumbing Consultants Contractor Contractor Contractor These pmjec7s have been completed in pa rtnership wit W AMERE5C0(4 >, r nam�.lr,sln.an.�d V Enterprise Services c0 G ci Q Packet Pg. 271 9.1.a A Pathway to Sustainability was Detailed High Efficiency Blower Project saves: $33,9091yr. and \345 tons CO2, equivalent to: 36.5 home's energy 799 barrels of use for one year , oil consumed Dewatering Project saves: $133,211/yr. and I 537 tons CO2, equivalent to: l A56.7 home's energy 1.243 reis of ail use for oneyear , consumed Aeration & Blower Project saves: $34,0621yr. and 264 tons CO2, equivalent to: A27.9 home's energy 611 barrels of use for one year , oil consumed Carbon Recovery This phase will focus on the sewage sludge incinerator efficiency. We are evaluating options to reduce operational costs and the environmental footprint. Opportunities include clean gasification and drying the bicsolids to create a high - nutrient soil amendment product- 0 a� L LL 0 O r U r c d E t O r r Q Packet Pg. 272 9.1.a 0 a 3 IL City Council Support of our Pathway to Sustainability O • The City Council has supported the Pathway to Sustainability by approving projects that established goals. o 2 • The City Councils adoption of Resolution 1389, which is a commitment to achieve or exceed, at the local level, the goals established in the Paris Climate Accord further demonstrated the City Council commitment to continuous improvement. Mayor Nelson Krisliana Johnson ' Ap µ 'l 1 :Ll Luke Adrienne Diane Distelhorsl Fraley-Monillas Buckshnis Vivian Susan Laura 0 E Olson Paine Johnson W These p,q-t. have been completed in part.—hipmt 4_ Y AMERESCO 0, r �j tiam�.rs�,sin.c<nom...d V Enterprise Services C cd G L ci Q Packet Pg. 273 9.1.a Edmonds WWTP Process Flow 0 a� L LL C 0 Packet Pg. 274 ;": L Established Our Energy Team Mission The Edmonds WWTP staff, through continuous improvement, will strive to balance energy efficiency, cost effectiveness, and environmental conservation to meet the needs of our community in a sustainable way. • Objectives Encourage energy conservation in our daily work through education and teamwork. Ensure new and replacement equipment is energy efficient and cost effective. Evaluate our efforts through benchmarking and baseline goals to ensure sustainability of our energy management program. Goals Lower energy usage from the previous year. Develop a sense of team around energy conservation. Reduce our overall impact on the environment. 9.1.a Teamwork Greeii . Cl— . Susieiiiek9r LSskingGa� Slate Dw.fl .-a $ Ii�7Rrl9e SerAoes Packet Pg. 276 Energy Performance Actual vs Predicted + Cumulative Savings, Last 12 Mo by Wk 2019-06-16 2020-06-15 1 80k — - 60k - - - ac Y 40k 20k Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Ok 200k -400k C H C a -600k t Ok IF - -800k )ul'19 Aug '19 Sep'19 Oct'19 Nov'19 Dec'19 )an'20 Feb'20 Mar'20 Apr'20 May'20 Jun '20 r- �---772000 2005 2010 1-0 2015 — Actual Energy — Predicted Energy — CUSUM Program Year 1 — CUSUM Program Year 2 — CUSUM Program Year 3 — Year 3 Goal 0 a� L LL 0 0 2 O O d L 3 d L 4- 0 r.+ r d H to c 0 W These prvjecls have been completed in partnershipwit L, AMERESCO4 >, Enterprise Services Services c� G ci Q Packet Pg. 277 Fuel Cooler I Stopped NSwitchPositionA ergency Fuel Pump 1 SWpped Coolant Temp nerator MAPLEWOOD Fuel Pump 2 Stopped Oil PressureIr 1iCoolantTemp Battery VoltageC,B 2 ''lr`Coolant PSI Right Exhaust12.47k' 52LB12.47kVCeiling Damper Closed LeftExhaust _Load 480V Exhaust Fan Stopped Engine RPM 0 Bank r v rv1 480V eel ing High Temp wormall Generator Hours 0 hrs 52B Fuel Tank Level Nnrmal CookngWatarvalve �aosed 52G 52A 2T Spare 1 WC302 Power W�r701 rrOG30a �� Power Surge I 0.0 kW factor 112 kW 100.1 kW 72,D kW Factor Protect " - $0. 00/hr Correct $o. �6/hr f �. o1/hr $5. on/hr Carcect Device w1cc 1A MCC7 al 2.6 kW 33.9 kW $0. 18/1 1 1111111 $2. 37/hr 0 • ••: Mode Decreasing: Total Air flow Greater than setpoi Total Air flow Less than se tpoint + Lead Zone Less Than DO Setpoi Blower Speed Less than 90% of full speed + Blower Speed Greater than 95% of full speed + Time Delay has Finished, Time Delay has Finished Increasing Decreasing Blower Energy Strategy Modes 920 Mode #1 B305 only up to 1100 scfm air flow 1455 900 Mode #2 0303 only up to 1700 scfm air flow 2100 1500 Mode #3 B302 or B304 only up to 2500 scfm air flow 2000 Mode #4 6302 or B304 and B305 up to 3500 scfm air flow Mode #5 e302 or 8304 and 6303 only up to 4200 scfm air flow B3 8304 up to 50U ftir flow Current influent Flow 4.23 MCD Current Plant KW Usage 317.18 rcw Kilowatts Used per MG Treated' 72.91 KW/MG. Pounds in AB to CFM: Total Influent Flow_ 55j 03.84 s/cFM ncD Total KWti 9231.81 xwtt Kilowatts Used per Pound of Solids Treated: 0_63 +/rr System Residence Time: 3.15 55.47 V.— Lb. Hypo Used per MG Treated: n/MG Gallons of Bfsulfita Used per MG Treated: 2.74 GP -/MG 0 a� L LL 0 r C 0 N O d 3 3 d L 0 w r d to 0 E W O U r c Iv t r r Q Packet Pg. 278 9.1.a Fostering a Culture of Continuous Improvement • Future Energy Projects • Influent pump replacement • High efficiency motors for fans and pumps • Energy management page and development of KPI's for daily monitoring • Continued lighting upgrades • Replace effluent gravity valve ZZIM Nihc�l X 0 Packet Pg. 279 9.1.a Where We Are Going - Gasification of Biosolids is in our Future • Most efficient, affordable to implement and lowest cost to operate having no acidic side stream or hazardous waste is produced. • Produces environmentally — friendly end product (biochar) while generating its own thermal conversion from the biosolids. This will move the City closer to achieving the goals established in Resolution 1389. Packet Pg. 280 City of Edmonds WWTP, Edmonds WA • r 4 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Presentation of an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On July 1, 2008, and September 7, 2010, Council approved a similar Interlocal Agreement (ILA) to be implemented by the appointed City representative to the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum. Both of these ILAs were one year agreements. The ILA approved in 2010 for calendar year 2011 included funding for a Federal lobbyist approved by City Council. On January 23, 2012, Council approved a version of this ILA with an end date of December 31, 2013 that included $1,600 to pay for Edmonds' portion of the Forum administration costs but did not include a $10,000 contribution toward the Forum's Federal Lobbying efforts. On April 3, 2012, Council approved this ILA that included funding for the Forum administration costs and the Forum's Federal Lobbying efforts. On January 21, 2014, Council approved the First Amendment to the ILA that included funding for the Forum administration costs and the Forum's Federal Lobbying efforts. On January 26, 2016, Council approved the Second Amendment to the ILA that included funding for the Forum administration costs and the Forum's Federal Lobbying efforts. On March 12, 2017, Council approved the Third Amendment to the ILA that included an extension of the ILA to December 31, 2020. Staff Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the October 20th Council meeting. Narrative The current ILA will expire on December 31, 2020. This Fourth Amendment to the ILA will: Make it effective January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023 (3-years) Authorize funding for Forum Administrative Support up to $4,800 per year, which will be split amongst the member jurisdictions. ($1,600 to Edmonds) In order to take advantage of the specialized technical skills possessed by Snohomish County, allow for the County to contribute in -kind services (i.e., lake monitoring/management, community stewardship, and tax district development) to supplement or replace their financial contribution. Replace the existing Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the extended term. Currently, the Forum has three official member jurisdictions, the Cities of Mountlake Terrace, Lake Forest Park, and Edmonds. This Fourth amendment will build on the work done by the Forum members and the Forum's lobbyist (currently not under contract). Over the past 3 years, progress Packet Pg. 282 9.2 has been made on the recurrent flooding issue that affects Edmonds' residents located on the south shore of Lake Ballinger. Staff have started working on an invasive plant issue which affects the use of much of the Lake Ballinger near shore area: Edmonds continued to operate a web -based early warning system so anyone with an internet connection can check the lake level at any time. Mountlake Terrace continued making progress on the Ballinger Park Master Plan, a $13 million project situated on the previous site of the Ballinger Park Golf Course. The Plan includes habitat, stormwater and flood -related improvements. Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace are using grant funds from Washington State Department of Ecology to continue developing an invasive aquatic weed management plan. Eurasian watermilfoil, a non-native invasive aquatic plant, has infested most of the shoreline of Lake Ballinger and in locations has precluded the safe use (swimming and boating) of the near shore area of the lake. Non-native lilies have also begun to infest both the inlet and outlets of the lake. The City Attorney has approved this Fourth Amendment to the ILA. Fiscal Impact The 2020 City budget has $13,600 for Lake Ballinger Associated projects in the Stormwater Utility Fund. The Councils of Lake Forest Park and Mountlake Terrace have indicated approval of this ILA amendment. If the Edmonds City Council approves the amendment to the ILA, our costs will be capped at $1,600 per year for Forum Administration. If additional jurisdictions join the Forum (such as Snohomish County, Shoreline, or Lynnwood), the cost per year will be less. Attachments: Fourth Amendment to Lake Ballinger Forum ILA Original Interlocal Agreement Packet Pg. 283 9.2.a Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement For Governmental Jurisdictions within the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Including the Cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Snohomish County The Interlocal Agreement for Governmental Jurisdiction within the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed ("ILA) was entered into in 2008; a First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Third Amendment were subsequently entered into. Together, the ILA and the three prior amendments thereto shall be referred to as the Agreement. This Fourth Amendment to the Agreement ("Fourth Amendment") is entered into by and among Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington, and the cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline, all municipal corporations of the state of Washington. RECITALS WHEREAS, the Agreement, expires on December 31, 2020; and WHEREAS, The Agreement, by its terms, may be extended for such additional terms as the Member Jurisdictions may agree in writing; and WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions desire to extend the Agreement for an additional three-year term commencing January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2023 ("extended term"); and WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions desire to provide for a replacement of Exhibit C2 ("Capital Improvement Plan"), Exhibit D3 ("Operating Fund Allocations"), and Exhibit E3 ("Service Provider Operating Fund Allocations") for the extended term; and WHEREAS, the Member Jurisdictions desire to amend the Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth in this Fourth Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein, the Member Jurisdictions agree to amend the Agreement as follows: Section 1. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms when used herein shall have the same respective meanings as are given such terms in the Agreement, unless expressly provided otherwise in this Fourth Amendment. Section 2. Extension of Term. The Member Jurisdictions acknowledge and agree that the term of the Agreement shall be extended by an additional three-year term, commencing Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 1 Packet Pg. 284 9.2.a January 1, 2021 and remain in effect through December 31, 2023 ("New Term"), unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions in the Agreement. Section 3. Replacement of Exhibit C1, Exhibit D3 and Exhibit E3. Member Jurisdictions acknowledge and agree that Exhibit CI, Exhibit D3 and Exhibit E3 to the Agreement shall be replaced respectively with new Exhibits, Exhibit C2 (Capital Improvement Plan), Exhibit D4 ("Operating Fund Allocations") and Exhibit E4 ("Service Provider Operating Fund Allocations"), which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Section 4. Method and Duty to File Fourth Amendment. Member Jurisdictions shall, upon execution of this Fourth Amendment to the Agreement, post this Fourth Amendment on its official website in accordance with RCW 39.34.040 and RCW 39.34.200. Section 5. Counterparts. This Fourth Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute the same instrument and, collectively, constitute the entire Fourth Amendment. Section 5. Conflict, No Further Modification. In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Fourth Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Fourth Amendment shall prevail. Section 60. Remaining Terms of Agreement. Except as specifically set forth in this Fourth Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement and Exhibits shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. Section 7. Effective Date of Amendment. This Fourth Amendment shall become effective upon the day the second Member Jurisdiction executes this Amendment, as authorized by each jurisdiction's legislative body. Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 2 Packet Pg. 285 9.2.a IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Member Jurisdictions hereto have executed this Fourth Amendment on the dates indicated below: Approved as to Form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to Form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to Form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to Form: By: Title: Date: Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement CITY OF EDMONDS Bv: Title: Date: CITY OF LAKE FOREST PARK Bv: Title: Date: CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE By: Title: Date: CITY OF LYNNWOOD By: Title: Date: Page 3 Packet Pg. 286 9.2.a Approved as to Form: By: Title: Date: Approved as to Form: By: Title: Date: Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement CITY OF SHORELINE By: _ Title: Date: SNOHOMISH COUNTY IRA Title: Date: Page 4 Packet Pg. 287 9.2.a EXHIBIT C2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 5 E Q Packet Pg. 288 9.2.a Lake Bailin er/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum Capital Im movement Plan (September 2020 Action or Project Description Project Information Goal Issues Projected Outcome Project Status 09/2020 Projected Potential Funding Project Lead Planning Options Agency Level Cost Lower McAleer Creek Upgrade/Replace Culverts on McAleer Enhance and replace 1 culvert at Perkins Way on McAleer Creek in Lake Forest TBD Grant Lake Forest Reduce localized flooding in Lake Forest Project benefits residents in Up to 10 residences in Lake Forest Park Project has not been initiated Creek Park Park Park. Lake Forest Park only. would be protected from localized Flooding. Upper McAleer Creek/Lake Ballinger/Hall Creek Calibrate and consolidate existing modeling information sufficient to develop Lake Ballinger to Lake Washington calibrated hydraulic and hydrologic model for Lake Ballinger for the purpose of Requires H&H model may be served by 2013 ACE memo. Model the Lake Ballinger system from Hell detemrining flooding impacts under various control scenarios during large storm Mountlake Answer questions, accurately reflect calibration by qualified Give accurate guidance to cities with MILT to complete H&H model of Hall Lake to Lake Washington events (for example. and determine flood plain elevations for Hall Creek and TBD Grant, Foram Te-, existing conditions during flood events consultant; cost currently development and redevelopment in the Lake to Lake Ballinger in 2021 (cost Lake Ballinger during a 100-year flood; simulate impacts to LFP property owners Edmonds unknown. affected flood plain. estimated to be $200K for MLT if the restricting culvert under 1-5 is modified to allow more flow, weir elevation changes, other scenarios.) portion) Develop use enhance environmentally sensitive areas, create Improve habitat quality in creek, riparian Improved habitat for birds, reptiles, Feasibility study completed (2020). passive park, Partnership with Mountlake reas, around ponds. Add boardwalk to amphibians, and some mammals;fulfills vision Design/engineering to be completed Ballinger Park Hall Creek Restoration stream meanders, increase stream channel capacity and improve quality of water $6M USACE Terrace protect sensitive areas and provide Cost of Ballinger Park Master Plan of wilder in 2021, construction to occur in entering Lake Ballinger. access. Add educational signs. contemplative side of park 2022. Gain understanding of baseline habitat Cost, difficulty in finding Useful biological baseline of watershed Habitat Inventory Aquatic life baseline, watershed study TBD Grant, Forum All and biological use of Hall Creek, Lake biological indicators that are system. Project has not been initiated Ballinger, and McAleer Creek diagnostic Project is anticipated to reduce Pollutants Feasibility study completed; Mathay-Ballinger Park Regional Infiltration Green stortrnvater infrastructure project to treat and infiltrate much of the Reduce stomrwater impacts on lakes At planning phase; flowing into the lake, help reduce mitigation engineering & design to be Facility Project Edmonds runoff to Lake Ballinger including a major portion of the highly urbanized $3-5 million Grant/Edmonds Edmonds including pollution, temperature and construction still several temperature irrpact form stormvater sources, completed in 202 ;construction Highway 99 corridor. 9 y quantity (each to varying degrees). years out. and reduce stormvater impacts on the Lake level. scheduled for 2022 Lake Management Ecology grant, MLT Florbicide treatment carried out in Invasive Weed Control Manage invasive plant species in Lake Ballinger to promote good water quality, $60K & Edmonds in -kind Mountlake Implement Integrated Aquatic Plant Control Cost, particularly ongoing Improved use of Lake Ballingerfor recreation, 2019, bottom barrier installation lower temperatures, and encourage a diverse plant community wntribution of labor Terrace Plan maintenance costs improved habitat and water quality completed in 2020 and resources Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 6 L Q cCi C L R m d Y fC J 0 Q J i O N d J_ E L O U_ L R m Y J O C d E C d E Q t r L O U_ E V �a Q Packet Pg. 289 9.2.a EXHIBIT D4 OPERATING FUND ALLOCATIONS Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 7 E Q Packet Pg. 290 9.2.a Table 1 Service Provider Operating Fund Allocation 2021-2023 Allocation shall be equal percentage for each (current) Member Jurisdiction Jurisdiction % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total Original members 5 members 4 members 3 members Edmonds 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% 33.33% Snohomish County* 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% Lake Forest Park 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% 33.33% Mountlake Terrace 16.67% 20.00% 25.00% 33.33% Lynnwood 16.67% Shoreline 16.67% 20.00% *Provided however, that Snohomish County, in its discretion and at its election, may provide mutually agreed in -kind contribution of services in lieu of its percentage share of the financial operating fund allocation as set forth in D4 and E4. Snohomish County shall, within thirty (30) days of becoming a Member Jurisdiction and no later than September 1 of each calendar year thereafter during the duration of this Agreement or extension thereof shall advise the other Member Jurisdictions of its election to provide in -kind contribution of services. In the event Snohomish County elects to provide in -kind contribution of services, the remaining Member Jurisdictions shall share equally Snohomish County's financial operating fund allocation. Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 8 Packet Pg. 291 9.2.a EXHIBIT E4 SERVICE PROVIDER OPERATING FUND ALLOCATIONS Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 9 Packet Pg. 292 9.2.a Administrative Support Service Provider Needs Listing The Forum wishes to retain the City of Mountlake Terrace as the Administrative Support Service Provider. The Forum has suggested quarterly meetings at a minimum for the current agreement period with other meetings held as needed. The Service Provider needs listing allows for four quarterly meetings and up to four additional meetings per year. Duties Hours per quarter Hours per year Manage and update email list for Forum 0.5 2 Edit and send out agenda 1 3 Arrange room reservations and provide materials for meetings 1 4 Take notes at meetings 2 8 Produce minutes for meetings 4.5 18 Maintain Forum records 1 4 Totals 10 40 Additional duties may be added as needs develop. Provider Support through the City of Mountlake Terrace Administrative Support for 2021 $1,600 Administrative Support for 2022 $1,600 Administrative Support for 2023 $1,600 This listing assumes services are provided at 10 hours a quarter are allocated for a total of 40 hours for each of the 2021, 2022, and 2023 calendar years. Each Member Jurisdiction's cost percentage of the Administrator Support Provider is listed in Exhibit D4 Table 1. Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 10 Packet Pg. 293 9.2.a INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT For the Governmental Jurisdictions within the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Including the Cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline and Snohomish County PREAMBLE THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by and among Snohomish County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington, and the cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline, all municipal corporations of the state of Washington. The parties executing this Agreement are located in King and Snohomish Counties, lying wholly or partially within the Watershed Area defined in Section 1.1 below (individually for those executing this Agreement "Member Jurisdiction" and collectively "Member Jurisdictions"). The Member Jurisdictions share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation and wish to provide for development of various activities and projects therein. A. B. MUTUAL COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning provided for below: 1.1 WATERSHED AREA: The Watershed Area is defined as those waters draining to Lake Washington through surface and subsurface natural or constructed water conveyance systems consisting of Hall Lake, Hall Creek, Chase Lake, Echo Lake, Lake Ballinger, McAleer Creek and all other known surface and subsurface tributary drainages along with -the associated pipe conveyance systems connected to existing surface conveyance as further delineated on the watershed map attached as Exhibit A and collectively known as the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed. Additional tributary drainage areas identified in the future that are not currently listed on Exhibit A may be added to the Exhibit A by amendment of this Agreement. 1.2 ELIGIBLE JURISDICTIONS: The governments eligible for participation in this Agreement as Member Jurisdictions are Snohomish County, and the Cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline. 1.3 MEMBER JURISDICTION: A Member Jurisdiction as referred to herein is a government eligible for participation in this Agreement that has also executed this Agreement. Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 11 Packet Pg. 294 9.2.a 1.4 LAKE BALLINGER/McALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM: The Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum (hereinafter referred to as the Forum) created herein is the governing body responsible for implementing this Agreement and is comprised of designated representatives of Eligible Jurisdictions who have authorized the execution of and become Member Jurisdictions of this Agreement. 1.5 STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN: The Strategic Action Plan, as referred to herein, is the plan developed by the Forum and adopted by all Member Jurisdictions to address water resource issues within the Watershed Area as provided in this Agreement. The plan identifies specific actions and projects to address the identified water resource issues and is attached as Exhibit B. 1.6 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN: The Capital Improvement Plan, as referred to herein, is the set of projects developed in the Strategic Action Plan to address the identified water resource issues. The Capital Improvement Plan lists specific projects, estimated costs, proposed funding mechanisms and project lead agency and is attached as Exhibit C. 1.7 FISCAL AGENT: The Fiscal Agent is the entity designated to perform all accounting and contract management services for the Forum, as it may require, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 39.34 RCW. 1.8 SERVICE PROVIDER(S): The Service Provider(s), as used herein, means that individual consultant or other entity which provides a service to and for the Forum and who is directed to carry out actions as determined or assigned by the Forum, including but not limited to, preparation of meeting agendas and minutes, maintaining documents and records, researching federal and state appropriation opportunities, and researching and applying for local, state and federal grants in support of the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan. 1.8.1 Service Provider Operating Fund: The Service Provider Operating Fund is the fund established for activities of the Service Provider(s) in the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan. The fund budget is set each year by action of the Forum and authorized by budget allocation from each Member Jurisdiction. 1.9 STEERING COMMITTEE and PROJECT SUBCOMMITTEES: The Steering Committee is composed of executive level staff members of each Member Jurisdiction who will provide specific guidance to technical level staff on the Project Subcommittees Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 12 Packet Pg. 295 9.2.a for each of the projects identified in the Capital Improvement Plan based on policy direction from the Forum. 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Agreement include the following: 2.1 To provide a mechanism and governance structure for the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan and to share the cost of Service Provider(s) to coordinate and provide the services necessary for the successful implementation of the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan. 2.2 To provide a mechanism for securing technical assistance and any available funding from state agencies, federal agencies or other sources to implement the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan in support of the Strategic Action Plan. 2.3 To provide a framework for cooperation and coordination among the member jurisdictions on issues relating to the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan. 2.4 To develop and articulate to state and federal legislators, watershed based positions on stormwater management issues, conservation issues, funding or any other issues jointly identified by the Member Jurisdictions. 2.5 To provide for the ongoing participation of citizens and other stakeholders in such efforts and to ensure continued public outreach efforts to educate and garner support for current and future watershed conservation efforts. It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the authority or role of any individual Member Jurisdiction or water quality policy body. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by Eligible Jurisdictions, as authorized by each jurisdiction's legislative body, and further provided that after such execution, this Agreement shall be posted on the web site of each Member Jurisdiction in accordance with the terms of RCW 39.34.040 and .200.Once effective, this Agreement shall remain in effect, unless terminated as provided in Section 9, until December 31, 2013; provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended for such additional terms as the Member Jurisdictions may agree to in writing. 4. ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF THE FORUM. The Member Jurisdictions hereby establish the Forum to serve as the formal governance structure for carrying out the purposes of Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 13 Packet Pg. 296 9.2.a this Agreement. Each Member Jurisdiction shall appoint one (1) elected official or designee and an alternate (elected official or designee and alternate hereinafter referred to as designee) to serve as its representative on the Forum along with a Steering Committee representative to carry out the policy direction of the Forum. 4.1 Upon the effective execution of this Agreement and the appointment of designees from each Member Jurisdiction to the Forum, the Forum designees shall meet and choose, according to the voting provisions of Section 5, representatives to serve as Forum Chair and Vice Chair to oversee and direct the activities associated with Forum meetings including the development of the agendas, running the meeting and providing leadership to the Forum. 4.2 The Forum shall have the authority and mandate to do the following: 4.2.1 Review and evaluate at least annually the duties to be assigned to the Steering Committee to this Agreement and provide for whatever actions it deems necessary to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the performance of this Agreement. 4.2.2 Review Steering Committee progress on implementation of the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan on a quarterly basis and provide for whatever actions it deems appropriate to ensure that such development is efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the performance of this Agreement. 4.2.3 On or before September 1 of each year, establish and approve a Service Provider Operating Fund budget for the following calendar year for the activities of the Service Provider(s), proposing the level of funding and total resource obligations of the Member Jurisdictions to support the activities of the Service Provider(s) which are to be allocated in accordance with the formula set forth in Exhibit D. 4.2.4 Review and evaluate at least annually the duties to be assigned to the Service Provider(s) to this Agreement and provide for whatever actions it deems necessary to ensure that quality services are efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered in the performance of this Agreement. 4.2.5 Oversee and administer the allocation of resources available to the Forum to implement the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan in support of the Strategic Action Plan. Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 14 Packet Pg. 297 9.2.a 4.3 The Forum designees may adopt other rules and procedures that are consistent with its purposes as stated herein and are necessary for its operation according to the voting provisions of Section 5. VOTING. The Forum designees shall make decisions, approve goals and objectives, specify work priorities and perform any other actions necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement as follows: 5.1 No action or binding decision will be taken by the Forum without the presence of a quorum of active Member Jurisdiction designees. A quorum exists if a majority of the Member Jurisdiction designees are present at the Forum meeting. The voting procedures provided for in 5.2 and 5.3 are conditioned upon there being a quorum of the active Member Jurisdiction designees present for any action or decision to be effective and binding. 5.2 Decisions shall be made using a consensus model as much as possible. Each designee agrees to use their best effort and exercise good faith in consensus decision - making. Consensus may be reached by unanimous agreement of the Member Jurisdiction designees at the meeting or by a majority recommendation agreed upon by the Member Jurisdiction designees. 5.3 In the event consensus cannot be achieved, as determined by rules and procedures adopted by the Forum, the Forum shall take action on a majority basis, as follows: 5.3.1 Each Member Jurisdiction, through its appointed designee, may cast its vote in connection with a proposed Forum action. 5.3.2 For any action subject to voting to be deemed approved, an affirmative vote must be cast by a majority of the Member Jurisdiction designees. No action shall be valid and binding on the Member Jurisdiction until it shall receive majority of votes of the total number of Member Jurisdiction designees. A vote of abstention shall be recorded as a "no" vote. 6. OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBER JURISDICTIONS; BUDGET; FISCAL AGENT; RULES. 6.1 Each Member Jurisdiction shall be responsible for meeting its financial obligations hereunder as described in Section 2.1 and established by the operating fund adopted by the Forum under this Agreement and described in Section 4.2.3. Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 15 Packet Pg. 298 9.2.a 6.2 On or before September 1 of each year of this Agreement, the Forum shall adopt a Service Provider budget for the following calendar year. The Service Provider budget shall propose the level of funding responsibilities of the individual Member Jurisdictions for the following calendar year and shall propose the levels of funding to be allocated to the Service Provider budget for implementation activities related to the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan within the Watershed Area. The Member Jurisdictions shall thereafter take separate legislative or other actions that may be necessary to timely address such individual responsibilities under the proposed operating fund, and shall have done so no later than December 31s1 of each such year, provided that the financial obligations of each Member Jurisdiction to fund this Agreement after December 31, 2011 are contingent upon local legislative appropriation of necessary funds in future fiscal years; and provided that financial obligations imposed herein shall not be for the purpose of funding the design or construction of specific Capital Improvement Plan projects. 6.3 Funds collected from any source on behalf of the Forum shall be maintained in a special fund by the Fiscal Agent as ex officio treasurer on behalf of the Forum pursuant to rules and procedures established and agreed to by the Forum. The Fiscal Agent shall also serve as the contractual agent for the Member Jurisdictions in acquiring any services needed, including those provided by the Service Provider(s), in the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan as directed by the Forum. The Fiscal Agent shall establish billing practices and collection procedures in the format established by the Washington State Auditor, and utilize its established purchasing authority and procedures, and any other procedures as may be necessary to provide for its efficient administration and operation. Any Member Jurisdiction may inspect and review all records maintained in connection with the special fund maintained by the Fiscal Agent at any reasonable time. 6.4 The Fiscal Agent, in the performance of its duties, shall not exceed the budgeted amounts authorized by the Forum and/or the total funds as appropriated by the individual Member Jurisdictions. 7. LATECOMERS. An Eligible Jurisdiction listed in Section 1.2 which has not become a Member Jurisdiction within six (6) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a Member Jurisdiction only with the written consent of all the Member Jurisdiction. The Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 16 Packet Pg. 299 9.2.a provisions of Section 5 otherwise governing decisions of the Forum shall not apply to this Section 7. The Member Jurisdictions and the county or city seeking to become a Member Jurisdiction shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under which the county or city may become a Member Jurisdiction. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county or city to the Member Jurisdictions of the amount determined jointly by the Member Jurisdictions and the county or city to represent such county or city's fair and proportionate share of all costs associated with activities undertaken by the Forum and the Member Jurisdictions on its behalf as of the date the county or city becomes a Member Jurisdiction. Any county or city that becomes a Member Jurisdiction pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of all other Member Jurisdictions. 8. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by any Member Jurisdiction, as to that Member Jurisdiction only, upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other Member Jurisdictions. The terminating Member Jurisdiction shall remain fully responsible for meeting all of its funding obligations for expenditures authorized by the jurisdiction, but only for costs incurred prior to the date of the notice. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the written agreement of all Member Jurisdictions. 9. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by state law, and for the limited purposes set forth in this Agreement, each Member Jurisdiction shall protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other Member Jurisdictions to include the officers, employees, agents and contractors of the Member Jurisdiction, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from and against any and all claims (including demands, suits, penalties, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, or losses of any kind or nature whatsoever) arising out of or in any way resulting from such Member Jurisdiction's own negligent acts or omissions, torts and wrongful or illegal acts related to such Member Jurisdiction's participation and obligations under this Agreement. Each Member Jurisdiction agrees that its obligations under this subsection extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees or agents. For this purpose, each Member Jurisdiction, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other Member Jurisdictions only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance act provisions of Title 51 RCW. The provisions of this subsection shall survive and continue to be applicable to Member Jurisdictions exercising the right of termination pursuant to Section 9. Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 17 Packet Pg. 300 9.2.a 10. NO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY. In no event do the Member Jurisdictions intend to assume any responsibility, risk or liability of any other Member Jurisdiction or otherwise with regard to any Member Jurisdiction's duties or any act, statute or regulation of any local municipality or government, the State of Washington or the United States. 11. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. This is a voluntary agreement and it is acknowledged and agreed that, in entering into this Agreement, no Member Jurisdiction is committing to adopt or implement any actions or recommendations that may be contained in the Strategic Action Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan pursuant to this Agreement. 13. NO PRECLUSION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROJECTS. Nothing herein shall preclude any one or more of the Member Jurisdiction from choosing or agreeing to fund or implement any work, activities or projects associated with any of the purposes hereunder by separate agreement or action, provided that any such decision or agreement shall not impose any funding, participation or other obligation of any kind on any Member Jurisdiction that is not a party to such decision or agreement. 14. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be construed to, create any rights in any third party, including without limitation NMFS, USFWS, any agency or department of the United States, or the State of Washington, or to form the basis for any liability on the part of the Forum or any of the Member Jurisdictions, or their officers, elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party. 15. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only by the unanimous consent of the Member Jurisdictions, represented by affirmative action by their legislative bodies. 16. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 17. APPROVAL BY MEMBER JURISDICTION'S GOVERNING BODIES. The governing body of each Member Jurisdiction must approve this Agreement before any representative of such Member Jurisdiction may execute this Agreement. Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 18 Packet Pg. 301 9.2.a 18. FILING OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be posted on the web site of each Member Jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of RCW 39.34.040 and .200 and with the terms of Section 3 herein. 19. ATTORNEY FEES. In the event a Member Jurisdiction brings suit to enforce this Agreement, or for breach of this Agreement, the prevailing Member Jurisdiction shall be entitled to its costs, expenses, and attorney fees for bringing or defending the action. Fourth Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Page 19 Packet Pg. 302 9.2.b I 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CONFORMED COPY 200811040338 10 PGS 11 / 04 f 2008 9 : 57am 0.00 INTERLOCAL AGISNOHOMISH COUNTY, ISHINGTON For the Governmental Jurisdictions within the Greater Hall Lake, Hall Creek, Chase Lake, Echo Lake, Lake Ballinger, McAleer Creek Watershed PREAMBLE THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement') is entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW by and among the eligible county and city governments executing this Agreement that are located in King and Snohomish Counties, lying wholly or partially within the Watershed Area defined in Section 1.1 below (individually for those executing this Agreement "Member Jurisdiction" and collectively "Member Jurisdictions"). The Member Jurisdictions share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation and wish to provide for development of various activities and projects therein. 14 MUTUAL COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS 15 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meaning 16 provided for below: 17 1.1 WATERSHED AREA: The Watershed Area is defined as those waters draining to Lake 18 Washington through surface and subsurface natural or constructed water conveyance 19 systems consisting of Hall Lake, Hall Creek, Chase Lake, Echo Lake, Lake Ballinger, 20 McAleer Creek and all other known surface and subsurface tributary drainages along with 21 the associated pipe conveyance systems connected to existing surface conveyance as 22 further delineated on the watershed map attached as Exhibit A. Additional tributary 23 drainage areas identified in the future that are not currently listed on Exhibit A may be L 24 added to the Exhibit A by amendment of this Agreement. Q 25 1.2 ELIGIBLE JURISDICTIONS: The governments eligible for participation in this Agreement �a o 26 as Member Jurisdictions are Snohomish County, and the Cities of Edmonds, Lake r' 27 Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline. c Fa 28 1.3 MEMBER JURISDICTION: A Member Jurisdiction as referred to herein is a 'a, 29 government eligible for participation in this Agreement that has executed this Agreement. 0 30 1.4 HALL LAKE, HALL CREEK, CHASE LAKE, ECHO LAKE, LAKE BALLINGER, 31 McALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM: The Hall Lake, Hall Creek, Chase Lake, 32 Echo Lake, Lake Ballinger, McAleer Creek Watershed Forum (hereinafter referred to a 33 as the Forum) created herein is the governing body responsible for implementing this 34 Agreement and is comprised of designated representatives of Eligible Jurisdictions 35 who have authorized the execution of and become Member Juisdictions of this 36 Agreement. 37 1.5 STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN: The Strategic Action Plan as referred to herein is the 38 plan to address water resource within the Watershed Area developed as provided in this Interlocal Agreement Page 1 Packet Pg. 303 9.2.b I Agreement. The plan shall identify specific actions and projects to address the identified ,2 water resource issues. 3 1.6 FISCAL AGENT: The Fiscal Agent refers to the City of Edmonds. The Fiscal Agent 4 will perform all accounting and contract management services for the Forum, as it may 5 require, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 39.34 RCW. 6 1.7 STAFF COMMITTEE: The Staff Committee is composed of technical staff members of 7 each Member Jurisdiction who are assigned to carry out actions as directed by the 8 Forum. A staff member from the Department of Ecology may be designated to serve in 9 an advisory capacity on the Staff Committee through the Phase I activities process. 10 Other governmental advisors may be considered for inclusion under the provisions of 11 Section 4. 12 1.8 PHASE I AND PHASE II ACTIVITIES: Phase I activities shall consist of development 13 of the STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN with funding provided by the State Legislature 14 through the Washington State Department of Ecology and completed in the fiscal year 15 ending June 30, 2009. Phase H activities shall consist of any additional work authorized 16 by the Forum and undertaken by the Staff Committee to finalize and prepare the 17 STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN for approval by the Forum and for consideration and 18 adoption by each Member Jurisdictions legislative body. This phased approach 19 recognizes that finalization of the Strategic Action Plan and consideration and adoption 20 of the Strategic Action Plan by each Member Jurisdiction may extend past the June 21 30, 2009 fiscal year funding deadline. 22 23 2. PURPOSES. The purposes of this Agreement include the following: 24 2.1 To provide a mechanism and governance structure for the development and 25 implementation of the Strategic Action Plan. 26 2.2 To provide a mechanism for securing technical assistance and any available funding from 27 state agencies, federal agencies or other sources to develop and implement the 28 Strategic Action Plan. 29 2.3 To provide a framework for cooperation and coordination among the member jurisdictions 30 on issues relating to the development and implementation of the Strategic Action Plan. 31 2.4 To develop and articulate to state and federal legislators, watershed based positions on 32 stormwater management issues, conservation issues, funding or any other issues jointly 33 identified by the Member Jurisdictions. 34 2.5 To provide for the ongoing participation of citizens and other stakeholders in such efforts 35 and to ensure continued public outreach efforts to educate and garner support for current 36 and future watershed conservation efforts. The Forum will consider citizen and Interlocal Agreement Page 2 Packet Pg. 304 9.2.b I stakeholder input along with other public input in the development of the Strategic 2 Action Plan. 3 It is not the purpose or intent of this Agreement to create, supplant, preempt or supersede the 4 authority or role of any individual Member Jurisdiction or water quality policy body. 5 6 3. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM. This Agreement shall become effective upon its execution by 7 Eligible Jurisdictions, as authorized by each jurisdiction's legislative body, and further provided 8 that after such execution, this Agreement shall be posted on the web site of each Member 9 Jurisdiction in accordance with the terms of RCW 39.34.040 and .200. Once effective, this 10 Agreement shall remain in effect, unless terminated as provided in Section 9, until July 1, 2010; 11 provided, however, that this Agreement may be extended for such additional terms as the 12 Member Jurisdictions may agree to in writing. 13 14 4. ORGANIZATION AND NATURE OF THE FORUM. The Member Jurisdictions hereby 15 establish the Forum to serve as the formal governance structure for carrying out the purposes of 16 this Agreement. Each Member Jurisdiction shall appoint one (1) elected official or designee 17 and an alternate (elected official or designee and alternate hereinafter referred to as designee) to 18 serve as its representative on the Forum along with one (1) technical staff member to serve on 19 the staff committee. 20 4.1 Upon the effective execution of this Agreement and the appointment of designees from 21 each Member Jurisdiction to the Forum, the Forum designees shall meet and choose, 22 according to the voting provisions of Section 5, representatives to serve as Forum Chair 23 and Vice Chair to oversee and direct the activities associated with Forum meetings 24 including the development of the agendas, running the meeting and providing leadership 25 to the Forum. 26 4.2 The Forum shall have the authority and mandate to do the following: 27 4.2.1 Approve a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to secure a vendor to develop the 28 Strategic Action Plan once funds are received from the granting agency. RFQ 29 documentation will be developed by the Staff Committee. The Staff Committee 30 shall interview one or more applicants and recommend a vendor to the Forum 31 for approval. The Fiscal Agent will provide vendor contracting and 32 administrative services according to the provisions of Section 7. 33 4.2.2 Review Staff Committee progress on development of the Strategic Action Plan 34 on a quarterly basis and provide for whatever actions it deems appropriate to 35 ensure that such development is efficiently, effectively and responsibly delivered 36 in the performance of this Agreement. Interlocal Agreement Page 3 Packet Pg. 305 9.2.b 1 4.2.3 By June 30, 2009 develop a Strategic Action Plan for the Watershed Area to 2 address water resource related concerns. 3 4.2.4 Finalize and approve the Strategic Action Plan by January 1, 2010 for 4 consideration and adoption by the legislative bodies of the Member 5 Jurisdictions by July 1, 2010. 6 4.2.5 Oversee and administer the allocation of resources available to the Forum to 7 develop the Strategic Action Plan. 8 4.3 The Forum designees may adopt other rules and procedures that are consistent with its 9 purposes as stated herein and are necessary for its operation according to the voting 10 provisions of Section 5. 11 12 5. VOTING. The Forum designees shall make decisions, approve goals and objectives, specify 13 work priorities and perform any other actions necessary to carry out the purposes of this 14 Agreement as follows: 15 5.1 No action or binding decision will be taken by the Forum without the presence of a 16 quorum of active Member Jurisdiction designees. A quorum exists if a majority of the 17 Member Jurisdiction designees are present at the Forum meeting. The voting 18 procedures provided for in 5.2 and 5.3 are conditioned upon there being a quorum of the 19 active Member Jurisdiction designees present for any action or decision to be effective 20 and binding. 21 5.2 Decisions shall be made using a consensus model as much as possible. Each designee 22 agrees to use their best effort and exercise good faith in consensus decision -making. 23 Consensus may be reached by unanimous agreement of the Member Jurisdiction 24 designees at the meeting or by a majority recommendation agreed upon by the Member 25 Jurisdiction designees. 26 5.3 In the event consensus cannot be achieved, as determined by rules and procedures 27 adopted by the Forum, the Forum shall take action on a majority basis, as follows: 28 5.3.1 Each Member Jurisdiction, through its appointed designee, may cast its vote in 29 connection with a proposed Forum action. 30 5.3.2 For any action subject to voting to be deemed approved, an affirmative vote must 31 be cast by a majority of the Member Jurisdiction designees. No action shall be 32 valid and binding on the Member Jurisdiction until it shall receive majority of 33 votes of the total number of Member Jurisdiction designees. A vote of 34 abstention shall be recorded as a "no" vote. 35 36 6. CREATION APPROVAL AND RATIFICATION OF THE WATERSHED STRATEGIC ACTION 37 PLAN. The Strategic Action Plan shall be developed, and recommended by the Staff Interlocal Agreement Page 4 Packet Pg. 306 9.2.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 7 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Committee, approved by the Forum and subject to consideration and adoption by the legislative bodies of the Member Jurisdictions subject to the following: 6.1 The Staff Committee shall be responsible for the development and recommendation of the Strategic Action Plan consistent with the purposes of this Agreement. 6.2 The Forum shall act to approve or remand the Strategic Action Plan within 60 days of receipt of the final Strategic Action Plan from the Staff Committee. In the event the Strategic Action Plan is not so approved, it shall be returned to the Staff Committee for further consideration and amendment and thereafter returned to the Forum for decision. 6.3 After approval of the Strategic Action Plan by the Forum, the Strategic Action Plan shall be referred to the legislative body of each Member Jurisdiction for consideration and adoption. Consideration and adoption means an affirmative action, evidenced by a resolution, motion, or ordinance of the legislative body of each Member Jurisdiction by a majority of the eligible Member Jurisdictions. OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBER JURISDICTIONS• BUDGET' FISCAL AGENT• RULES. 7.1 No funding obligations are anticipated on the part of each Member Jurisdiction under Phase I or Phase II of the Agreement unless otherwise approved by the Forum and adopted by the legislative body of the Member Jurisdiction. 7.2 Funds collected from any source on behalf of the Forum shall be maintained in a special fund by the Fiscal Agent as ex officio treasurer on behalf of the Forum pursuant to rules and procedures established and agreed to by the Forum. The Fiscal Agent shall also serve as the contractual agent for the Member Jurisdictions in acquiring any services needed in the development of the Strategic Action Plan as directed by the Forum. The Fiscal Agent shall establish billing practices and collection procedures and any other procedures as may be necessary to provide for its efficient administration and operation. Any Member Jurisdiction may inspect and review all records maintained in connection with the special fund maintained by the Fiscal Agent at any reasonable time. 8. LATECOMERS. An Eligible jurisdiction listed in Section 1.2 which has not become a Member Jurisdiction within six (6) months of the effective date of this Agreement may become a Member Jurisdiction only with the written consent of all the Member Jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 5 otherwise governing decisions of the Forum shall not apply to this Section 8. The Member Jurisdiction and the county or city seeking to become a Member Jurisdiction shall jointly determine the terms and conditions under which the county or city may become a Member Jurisdiction. These terms and conditions shall include payment by such county or city to the Member Jurisdiction of the amount determined jointly by the Member Jurisdiction and the county or city to represent such county or city's fair and proportionate share of all costs Interlocal Agreement Page 5 Packet Pg. 307 9.2.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 7 8 9 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 associated with activities undertaken by the Forum and the Member Jurisdiction on its behalf as of the date the county or city becomes a Member Jurisdiction. Any county or city that becomes a Member Jurisdiction pursuant to this section shall thereby assume the general rights and responsibilities of all other Member Jurisdictions. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by any Member Jurisdiction, as to that Member Jurisdiction only, upon sixty (60) days written notice to the other Member Jurisdictions. The terminating Member Jurisdiction shall remain fully responsible for meeting all of its funding obligations for expenditures authorized by the jurisdiction prior to the date of the notice. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the written agreement of all Member Jurisdictions. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by state law, and for the limited purposes set forth in this Agreement, each Member Jurisdiction shall protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other Member Jurisdictions to include the officers, employees, agents and contractors of the Member Jurisdiction, while acting within the scope of their employment as such, from and against any and all claims (including demands, suits, penalties, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses, or losses of any kind or nature whatsoever) arising out of or in any way resulting from such Member Jurisdiction's own negligent acts or omissions, torts and wrongful or illegal acts related to such Member Jurisdiction's participation and obligations under this Agreement. Each Member Jurisdiction agrees that its obligations under this subsection extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by or on behalf of any of its employees or agents. For this purpose, each Member Jurisdiction, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives, with respect to the other Member Jurisdictions only, any immunity that would otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance act provisions of Title 51 RCW. The provisions of this subsection shall survive and continue to be applicable to Member Jurisdictions exercising the right of termination pursuant to Section 9. 11. NO ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY. In no event do the Member Jurisdictions intend to assume any responsibility, risk or liability of any other Member Jurisdiction or otherwise with regard to any Member Jurisdiction's duties or any act, statute or regulation of any local municipality or government, the State of Washington or the United States. 12. VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT. This is a voluntary agreement and it is acknowledged and agreed that, in entering into this Agreement, no Member Jurisdiction is committing to adopt or implement any actions or recommendations that may be contained in the Strategic Action Plan pursuant to this Agreement. Interlocal Agreement Page 6 Packet Pg. 308 9.2.b 1 2 13. NO PRECLUSION OF ACTIVITIES OR PROJECTS. Nothing herein shall preclude any one or 3 more of the Member Jurisdiction from choosing or agreeing to fund or implement any work, 4 activities or projects associated with any of the purposes hereunder by separate agreement or 5 action, provided that any such decision or agreement shall not impose any funding, participation 6 or other obligation of any kind on any Member Jurisdiction that is not a party to such decision or 7 agreement. 8 9 14. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall it be 10 construed to, create any rights in any third party, including without limitation NMFS, USFWS, any 11 agency or department of the United States, or the State of Washington, or to form the basis for 12 any liability on the part of the Forum or any of the Member Jurisdictions, or their officers, 13 elected officials, agents and employees, to any third party. 14 15 15. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended, altered or clarified only by the unanimous 16 consent of the Member Jurisdictions, represented by affirmative action by their legislative 17 bodies. 18 19 16. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. 20 21 17. APPROVAL BY MEMBER JURISDICTION'S GOVERNING BODIES. The governing body of 22 each Member Jurisdiction must approve this Agreement before any representative of such 23 Member Jurisdiction may execute this Agreement. 24 25 18. FILING OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall be posted on the web site of each Member 26 Jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of RCW 39.34.040 and .200 and with the terms of 27 Section 3 herein. 28 29 19. ATTORNEY FEES. In the event a Member Jurisdiction brings suit to enforce this Agreement, 30 or for breach of this Agreement, the prevailing Member Jurisdiction shall be entitled to its costs, 31 expenses, and attorney fees for bringing or defending the action. 32 33 34 35 36 Interlocal Agreement Page 7 Packet Pg. 309 9.2.b I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Member Jurisdictions hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates 2 indicated below: 3 4 Approv d or 5 6 By: 7 8 Title: C 9 10 Date: 11 12 13 Approved as to form: 14 15 By: - Y, 1� 16 17 Title: 18 19 Date: 20 21 22 Approved as to form: 23 24 By: 25 26 Title: 27 28 Date: 29 30 31 32 33 Approved as to form: 34 35 By4:�2 36 37 Title:.z ® r 38 39 Date: --;2 -7 9 40 41 42 43 44 45 M CITY OF RDMONDS Title: Date: ? 1 �;- Moog Title:_ IVIA YOK- Date: -?' 2 / `by CI' By Titl Da Interlocal Agreement Page 8 Packet Pg. 310 9.2.b 2 Approved s to f�r 3 f 4 By: 5 6 Title: 7_ 8 Date: 9 10 11 Approved as to form: 12 � 13 By: 14 15 Title: .h �� s 16 17 Date: 18 CITY OF SHORELINE Title: n a �r Date: c� SNOHOMISH COUNTY Title: Date: f 1 .3 /0 F COUNCIL USE ONLY Approved: - .3 - Doc file: Interlocal Agreement Page 9 Packet Pg. 311 9.2.b Packet Pg. 312 9.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Presentation of a PUD Easement for the Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History None. Staff Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the October 20th Council meeting. Narrative The Dayton Street Pump Station project is under construction and requires a new transformer in order to provide adequate power supply for the pump station. Transformers are constructed and maintained by Snohomish County PUD, and thus the requested easement is required for construction of the transformer which powers the pumps. The parking lot where the transformer is located is jointly owned (50/50) with the Port of Edmonds and the easement document requires approval by the Port as well. The easement area is already covered by an easement between the Port and the City which also includes areas for the corresponding conduit runs, but a new easement specific to PUD is needed for the transformer area. A diesel -powered generator and manual plug-in outlets allow the pump station to be run in times of power outages or emergencies, but a failure to approve the attached easement would result in an inability to provide the main/steady power source to the pump station infrastructure which has been constructed. Attachments: PUD Easement Packet Pg. 313 9.3.a AFTER RECORDING, PLEASE RETURN TO: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Attn: Jennifer Southard Agent IV, Real Estate Services P.O. Box 1107 Everett, Washington 98206-1107 E- WO#100047822 N#10000089226 DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT Grantor ("Owner"): Port of Edmonds and the City of Edmonds, each with an undivided one- half interest Grantee: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Short Legal Description: Ptn. of SW'/4, SE'/4, Sec. 23, Twp. 27, R. 3 Tax Parcel No: 27032300415900 THIS DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT ("Easement") is made this day of 2020, by and between Port of Edmonds and the City of Edmonds, each with an undivided one-half interest ("Owner'), and Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, a Washington State municipal corporation ("District').. The Owner, and District are sometimes referred to individually herein as "Party" and collectively as "Parties". The District is referred to as "Grantee". WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of certain lands and premises situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, legally described as follows (hereinafter "Property"): SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. Situate in the County of SNOHOMISH, State of Washington WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of acquiring certain rights and privileges across, over, under, upon and through the Property. Packet Pg. 314 9.3.a NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Distribution Easement. Owner, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys and grants to Grantee, its agents, contractors, successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for the perpetual right, privilege, and authority to patrol, construct, erect, reconstruct, alter, improve, extend, repair, operate, and maintain overhead and/or underground electric distribution lines and facilities, Grantee -owned communication wires and cables, and other necessary or convenient appurtenances, across, over, under, through and upon the following portion of Owner's Property (hereinafter "Easement Area"): That portion of the above -described property being a strip of land ten feet (10') in width having five feet (5') of such width on each side of the centerline of the electrical facilities as constructed, to be constructed, extended or relocated within the above described real property. The exterior boundaries of said easement being widened accordingly to provide Grantee 8 feet of easement area adjoining all sides of Grantee's ground mounted transformers, switch cabinets, and/or vaults. 2. Access To and Across Property. Grantee has the right of ingress to and egress from the Easement Area across the adjacent Property of Owner where same is reasonably necessary for the purpose of exercising its easement rights described in Section 1. 3. Owner's Reservation of Rights and Use of Easement Area. Owner reserves the right to use the Easement Area in a manner that does not interfere with the Grantee's use of the Easement Area, and/or present a hazard to Grantee's electric distribution lines and facilities, communication wires and cables, and other appurtenances. The Owner shall not construct or permit to be constructed any structures of any kind in the Easement Area without prior approval of the Grantee. 4. Clearing of Power Line Right of Way. Grantee has the right at all times to clear said Easement Area and keep the same clear of all brush, debris and trees. 5. Trimming or Removal of Hazardous/Danger Trees. Grantee has the right at all times to cut, slash, or trim and remove brush, timber or trees from the Property which in the opinion of Grantee constitute a hazard to said lines and facilities, communication wires and cables, and other appurtenances or the Grantee's access thereto. Trees, brush or other growth shall be deemed hazardous to the lines or facilities or access of the Grantee when they are of such a height that they could, upon falling, strike the nearest edge of the Easement Area at a height of more than fifteen feet (15). Except in emergencies, Grantee shall, prior to the exercise of such right, identify such trees and make a reasonable effort to give Owner prior notice that such trees will be trimmed or removed. 6. Title to Removed Trees, Vegetation and Structures. The title to all brush, debris, trees and structures removed from the Easement Area and the Property pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 shall be vested in the Grantee, and the consideration paid for this Easement and rights herein described is accepted by Owner as full compensation for said removed brush, debris, trees and structures. Owner shall be entitled to request fallen timber be set aside for Owner's personal use. Grantee shall make reasonable effort to set aside said fallen timber provided doing the same is safe in Grantee's sole opinion. Title to any fallen timber set aside in this manner shall revert to the Owner. 7. Restoration Provision. To the extent that Owner's Property is disturbed and/or damaged by Grantee's exercise of its rights hereunder, Grantee shall restore the condition of the Property as nearly as reasonably possible to its existing condition prior to said exercise of its rights. Title to Property. The Owner represents and warrants having the lawful right and power Packet Pg. 315 9.3.a to sell and convey this Easement to Grantee. 9. Binding Effect. This Easement and the rights and obligations under this Easement are intended to and shall run with the Property and shall benefit and bind the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 10. Governing Law and Venue. This Easement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue for any action to enforce or interpret this Easement shall lie in the Superior Court of Washington for Snohomish County, Washington. 11. Authority. Each party signing this Easement, if on behalf of an entity, represents that they have full authority to sign this Easement on behalf of such entity. 12. Grantee Acceptance. By recording this Easement, Grantee hereby accepts all provisions set forth under this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed the day and year first above written OWNER(S): Port of Edmonds By: Its: (REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT) State of Washington County of I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she/they) (was/were) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of the Port of Edmonds to be the free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Given under my hand and official seal this day of 2020. Signature of (Seal or Stamp) Notary Public Print Name: Residing at: My appointment expires Packet Pg. 316 9.3.a IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed the day and year first above written OWNER(S): City of Edmonds By: Its: (REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT) State of Washington County of I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she/they) (was/were) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of the City of Edmonds to be the free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Given under my hand and official seal this day of 12020. Signature of (Seal or Stamp) Notary Public Print Name: Residing at: My appointment expires Packet Pg. 317 9.3.a EXHIBIT "A" THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING ATA POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SAID TO BE 150 FEET DISTANT NORTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE WESTERLY MAIN TRACK OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC. (FORMERLY GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY) AS NOW LOCATED AND CONSTRUCTED; THENCE SOUTH 47' 16' 30" WEST ALONG A STRAIGHT LINE WHICH EXTENDED WOULD INTERSECT A POINT 200 DISTANT NORTHWESTERLY FROM SAID CENTERLINE OF THE WESTERLY MAIN TRACK AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID CENTERLINE FROM A POINT THEREIN 655.9 FEET DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY, MEASURED ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3, SAID STRAIGHT LINE BEING SOUTH 47° 16' 30" WEST, 226.68 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF DAYTON STREET; THENCE SOUTH 38* 17' 07" EAST ALONG SAID MARGIN OF DATYON STREET 2.95 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT; THENCE SOUTH 59' 03' 29" EAST ALONG SAID MARGIN OF DAYTON STREET, 112.98 FEET TO A POINT SAID POINT BEING 15 FEET DISTANT NORTHWESTERLY MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC. SPUR TRACT, AS NOW LOCATED AND CONSTRUCTED; THENCE NORTH 41' 49' 31" EAST PARALLEL WITH SAID SPUR TRACK, 287.01 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 3, A DISTANCE OF 123.60 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING 25,920 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. Packet Pg. 318 9.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Presentation of the Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History Staff Recommendation No action required. This information is being presented for information only. Narrative In 2004, the City authorized the collection of Traffic Impact Fees to help pay for transportation projects that are needed to serve new growth and development. Pursuant to Section 3.36.080(C) of the Edmonds City Code (ECC), Attachment 1 is an accounting of the Traffic Impact Fee Fund for 2019. The City collected a total of $442,245 in traffic impact fees during 2019. These revenues combined with the 2018 beginning fund balance of $613,718 resulted in a total available funding of $1,055,963. On the expense side and in accordance with section 3.36.100 of the ECC, the traffic impact fee fund paid $40,318 for the annual debt service to the Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) for the 220th Street SW Improvements Project. In 2019, the City used $68,590 from this fund for construction costs from the 76th Ave/212th St. Intersection Improvements Project. Attachments: 2019 Traffic Impact Fee Report 2019 Traffic Impact Fee Presentation Packet Pg. 319 9.4.a 2019 for Council Transportation Impact Fee Receipts and Funds Transfer Data Record Transportation Impact Fee Fund Account Number: 112.502.345.86.000.00 RECEIPTS �PermitNumber Receipt Owner/Applicant Previous New Fee Collected with I Date Number Site Address ITE Land Use ITE Land Use Notes Building Permit Fee Amount 01/10/2019 BLD20181021 REC075258 Ombu SFR salon Business expanded into X $806.40 basement. Impact fees for main salon area collected in 2018. 121 3rd Ave. N 03/05/2019 BLD20180811 REC075650 Hann Homes LLC SFR townhomes 3 units w/ credit for SFR. X $9,113.67 20818 72nd Ave. W 05/02/2019 BLD20180503 REC076189 Kids Foundation Academy parking garage childcare X $96,012.00 21827 76th Ave. W, #100 06/26/2019 07/01/2019 BLD20181658 REC076820 Edmonds Waterfront Center senior center senior center 220 Railroad Ave. 07/09/2019 BLD20190430 REC076866 West Edmonds Coop Preschool St. Albans church preschool admin rooms 21405 82nd PI. W 07/11/2019 BLD20190120 REC076893 Doug's Hyundai auto sales and auto sales and service service 22130 Highway 99 07/11/2019 BLD20171119 REC076910 Doug's Lynnwood Mazda none auto sales 22214 Highway 99 09/16/2019 BLD20190997 REC077480 Nyland Apartments Bldg #2 apartment apartment 8513 244th St. SW 09/16/2019 BLD20190998 REC077481 Nyland Apartments Bldg #1 apartment apartment 8509 244th St. SW 09/24/2019 BLD20181634 REC077544 Vons Bell St. SFR townhomes 650 Bell St. 10/29/2019 BLD20190917 REC077843 CHC Snohomish County none medical 23320 Highway 99 02/25/2019 BLD20181577 REC075541 Select Homes Inc. vacant SFR 7904 203rd St. SW 02/27/2019 BLD20181126 REC075606 Select Homes Inc. vacant SFR 1122 Viewland Way 03/01/2019 BLD20181564 REC075620 Almark Corporation vacant SFR 926 Sea Vista PI. 03/11/2019 BLD20181549 REC075704 Norton guesthouse SFR 806 Cary Rd. Fees for additional square X $40,138.33 footage. X $3, 937.23 Remodel and addition. X $7,210.21 New building at existing auto X $40,772.40 sales site. 9 new units w/ credit for 4 X $20,461.80 demolished units. 10 new units w/ credit for 4 X $24,554.16 demolished units. 4 units w/ credit for SFR. X $12,431.80 Expansion to existing X $72,132.73 medical/dental clinic. X $4, 561.37 X $4, 561.37 X $6,249.14 X $4, 561.37 TRANSFERS 2019 Fund Name I Reference Transferred Total Beainnina Balance $613.717.66 PWTF Annual GJ 190100 Loan Payment-$40,317.91 $614,524.06 $623,637.73 $719,649.73 Q. m 3 c c $679,331.82 Q m m u_ $719,470.15I v ca a E v $723,407.38 1 L 0 a� $730,617.59 W a� a� u_ r v M $771,389.99I E0. v $791,851.79 rn r 0 N $816,405.95 E t v $828,837.75 r r Q $900,970.48 $905,531.85 $910,093.22 $916,342.36 $920,903.73 Page 1 Packet Pg. 320 9.4.a 2019 for Council Transportation Impact Fee Receipts and Funds Transfer Data Record Transportation Impact Fee Fund Account Number: 112.502.345.86.000.00 RECEIPTS Receipt Owner/Applicant Previous New Fee Collected with Date IPermitNumber Number Site Address ITE Land Use ITE Land Use Notes Building Permit Fee Amount 04/03/2019 BLD20171343 REC075914 Mietzner Brothers Properties LLC vacant SFR 8 SFR's - additional fees X $13,502.16 required since permits issued 2018 instead of 2017. 06/07/2019 BLD20181101 REC076578 Underbrink / Sharma vacant SFR X $6,249.14 15712 72nd Ave. W 06/20/2019 BLD20190102 REC076712 Select Homes Inc. vacant SFR X $6,249.14 713 Spruce St. 06/20/2019 BLD20190103 REC076713 Select Homes Inc. vacant SFR X $6,249.14 715 Spruce St. 06/20/2019 BLD20190105 REC076714 Select Homes Inc. vacant SFR X $6,249.14 709 Spruce St. 07/01/2019 BLD20180842 REC076812 Konasiewicz SFR duplex X $6,249.14 7606 206th St. SW 08/15/2019 BLD20181593 REC077178 Dynasty Holdings LLC vacant SFR X $6,249.14 7329 182nd St. SW 09/11/2019 BLD20190544 REC077421 Lindberg vacant SFR X $6,249.14 10721 235th PI. SW 10/15/2019 BLD20190651 REC077737 Echelbarger Homes & Land LLC vacant SFR X $6,249.14 714 13th Way SW 10/15/2019 BLD20190652 REC077738 Echelbarger Homes & Land LLC vacant SFR X $6,249.14 716 13th Way SW 10/31/2019 BLD20190991 REC077867 Select Homes vacant SFR X $6,249.14 21235 92nd PI. W 11/21/2019 BLD20190815 REC078024 Echelbarger Investments LLC vacant SFR X $6,249.14 712 13th Way SW 11/22/2019 BLD20181520 REC078032 Wickham / Weiss -Cook vacant SFR X $6,249.14 7412 176th St. SW 12/27/2019 BLD20191012 REC078282 Echelbarger Homes & Land LLC vacant SFR X $6,249.14 706 13th Way SW 12/31/2019 TOTAL Traffic Impact Fess $442,244.96 Interest Earned $0.00 W to r Q Page 2 1 Packet Pg. 321 9.4.b wo kim r Q Packet Pg. 322 9.4.b :111[�111i11Y. inning Balance act Fees Expenditures 220t" St. Loan Payment _ 76th/212th Intersection ending Balance ,&..e Report a E 19$613,71 LL r Mir $442,244M��M�M.O a (40,31E U- IF'($68,59vj E $947,0 r O N r Q Packet Pg. 323 9.4.b 2004-09 Impact Fees $554,772 0 $347873 ` $307,678 a $29,966 E $156, 652 L $202,295 0 $669334 L a $1393031 E $372,481 $2013348 r O N E $4423245 a $295079675 Packet Pg. 324 9.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/13/2020 Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with Blueline for the Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History None. Staff Recommendation Forward this item to a future Council meeting on an action agenda. 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 2281h Street from 78th Ave to 80th Ave. Sharrows will be added along 80th Ave from 228th Street to 220th Street (within Snohomish County). The design contract consists of the following tasks: Traffic Analysis; Parking Analysis; Public Outreach; and Preliminary / 60% / 90% / 95%/ Final Plans, Specifications, and & Estimates (PS&E); Staff and the consultant have agreed on a scope of services and budget for the project, in the amount of $309,521 (including $14,549 in management reserve) for the completion of the design phase. The design phase is scheduled to begin in October 2020 and be completed by the end of 2021. 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. Attachments: Blueline Professional Services Agreement Packet Pg. 325 . 1: !, . 9.5.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 Website: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT MIKE NELSON MAYOR THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and The Blueline Group, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant." WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide engineering services with respect to the Citywide Bicycle Improvements project; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has the necessary skills and experience, and desires to provide such services to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Work that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of THREE HUNDRED AND NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY ONE DOLLARS ($309,521.00). B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. 1 Packet Pg. 326 9.5.a C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data, reports, and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations, documentation and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become the property of the City. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this Agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and release under Chapter 42.56 RCW. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this Agreement shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this Agreement. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant's own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. Packet Pg. 327 9.5.a 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the term of this Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to the City. The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 7. Discrimination prohibited. The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. The Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City's prior written consent. Packet Pg. 328 9.5.a 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document, its Appendices 1 & 2, and the Scope of Work and fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibit A or B, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage the Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and the Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Work, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Work and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render services, or the City to pay for services rendered, in excess of the Scope of Work in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. The Consultant represents that the Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. The Consultant and any persons employed by the Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Work. 14. Non -waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he/she/it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she/it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. Because this Agreement is subject to federal nondiscrimination laws, the Consultant Packet Pg. 329 9.5.a agrees that the provisions of Appendices 1 & 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, apply to this Agreement. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: The Blueline Group 25 Central Way, Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS day of CITY OF EDMONDS Michael Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk] APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 2020. THE BLUELINE GROUP Ken Lauzen, PE, Principal Packet Pg. 330 9.5.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of 2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said person, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Pg. 331 9.5.a APPENDIX 1 CONTRACT (Appendix A of USDOT 1050.2A Standard Title VI Assurances) During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant/Contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Consultant/Contractor") agrees as follows: 1. Compliance with Regulations: The Consultant/Contractor shall comply with the acts and regulations relative to nondiscrimination in federally -assisted programs of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21 (49 CFR 21), as they may be amended from time to time (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement. Nondiscrimination: The Consultant/Contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the Agreement, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, income -level, or LEP in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The Consultant/Contractor shall not participate directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the Agreement covers any activity, project, or program set forth in Appendix B of 49 CFR 21. 3. Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations, either by competitive bidding, or negotiation made by the Consultant/ Contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurement of materials, or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the Consultant/Contractor of the Consultant's/Contractor's obligations under this Agreement and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, income -level, or LEP. Information and Reports: The Consultant/Contractor shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations and directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the City or the appropriate state or federal agency to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations, orders, and instructions. Where any information required of a Consultant/Contractor is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish the information, the Consultant/Contractor shall so certify to the City, or state or federal agency, as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the Consultant's/Contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this Agreement, the City shall impose such contract sanctions as it or the appropriate state or federal agency may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: • Withholding of payments to the Consultant/Contractor under the Agreement until the Consultant/Contractor complies; and/or • Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part. 6. Incorporation of Provisions: The Consultant/Contractor shall include the provisions of the above paragraphs one (1) through five (5) in every subcontract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto. The Consultant/Contractor shall take such action with respect to any subcontractor or procurement as the City or appropriate state or federal agency may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, that if the Consultant/Contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation by a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the Consultant/ Contractor may request that the City enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the City; or may request that the appropriate state agency enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State of Washington. In addition, the Consultant/Contractor may request the appropriate federal agency enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. Packet Pg. 332 9.5.a APPENDIX 2 CONTRACT (Appendix E of USDOT 1050.2A Standard Title VI Assurances) During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant/Contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Consultant/Contractor") agrees to comply with the following non-discrimination statutes and authorities, including but not limited to: Pertinent Non -Discrimination Authorities: • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21. • The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal -aid programs and proejcts); • Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex); • Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CFR Part 27; • The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age); • Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. § 471, Section 47123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); • The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms "programs or activities" to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal -aid recipients, sub -recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not); • Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilties Act, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 C.F.R. parts 37 and 38; • The Federal Aviation Administration's Non -Discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); • Executive Order 12898 , Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations, which ensures discrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; • Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Person with Limited English Profcency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure the LEP person have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100); • Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq). Packet Pg. 333 9.5.a Exhibit A r Q Packet Pg. 334 9.5.a Exhibit B [If needed] r Q Packet Pg. 335 9.5.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE Project Name: Citywide Bicycle Improvements job #: 20-074 Date: October 8, 2020 Project Description The Blueline Group, LLC ("Blueline") will provide engineering services for City of Edmonds' Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project ("Project") generally consisting of the addition of bike lanes in both directions along ±3.5 miles of roadway. Blueline will also provide permitting, community outreach, and bidding support services. Blueline's teaming partners on this project including PH Consulting ("PH") and Huitt-Zollars ("HZ"), and the three firms are collectively referred to as our "Team" throughout this proposal. Design will consist of traffic analysis, parking study, traffic signal revisions, channelization, signage, and street widening with ADA improvements (as needed). Additional pedestrian improvements may be included dependent upon parking study and community outreach. Blueline will provide topographic base mapping, design drawings, specifications, and engineer's estimates (PS&E). The Project area generally includes roadway improvements as follows: • Addition of bike lanes on both sides of the street on 100th Ave W/9th Ave S from 244th St SW/205th St SW to Walnut St through striping, roadway widening, and traffic signal modifications, approximately 2 miles in each direction. • Addition of bike lanes on both sides of the street on Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave S to 84th Ave W through new channelization, approximately 1 mile in each direction. • Addition of sharrows on both sides of the street on 801h Ave W from 2281h St SW to 220th St SW through new channelization, approximately % mile in each direction. • Addition of bike lanes on both sides of the street on 228th St SW from 80th Ave W to 781h Ave W through roadway widening, approximately 1/10 mile in each direction. Task Summary Task 001 Project Management Task 008 90% Design Task 002 Survey Services Task 009 Final Design Task 003 Traffic Analysis Task 010 Off -Site Analysis/Storm Drainage Task 004 Parking Analysis Report Task 005 Community Outreach Task 011 Land Use Permitting Task 006 Preliminary Design Task 012 Bidding & Award Services Task 007 60% Design Task 013 Management Reserve 1 Packet Pg. 336 9.5.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE Project Schedule Our Team shall begin work immediately upon receipt of Notice to Proceed and proceed according to the attached Project Schedule. This schedule reflects the City's desire to complete construction in 2022. Key dates include: Notice to Proceed................................................................................... October 20, 2020 Survey & Geotechnical Explorations ............................................ October/November 2020 Parking & Level of Service Analysis ......................................... November/December 2020 Preliminary Design Submittal........................................................................ January 2021 Community Outreach Begins......................................................................... February 2021 60% Design Submittal......................................................................................... May 2021 Project Walk-Through......................................................................................... June 2021 90% Design Submittal.......................................................................................... July 2021 Final Design Submittal.............................................................................. September 2021 Bidding & Award......................................................................... October/November 2021 Construction Begins......................................................................................... Spring 2022 Scope of Work Blueline's scope of work for the project is outlined on the following pages. Task 001 Project Management Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $25,860) This task is for general coordination and meetings on the project, including plan review/discussion meetings, in- house quality assurance, coordination with subconsultants, etc. Blueline will prepare monthly invoices for work performed during the previous month. This will also include bi-weekly meetings between the Project Manager and the City with attendance by other team members as necessary. (Phone calls every two weeks with PM/City and monthly or bi-monthly between other team members depending on work being completed.) Task 002 Survey Services Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $32,164) HZ will prepare base mapping from aerial tiles, City of Edmonds GIS data for the project areas specified below. The project areas generally include street surface improvements at the following locations: • 100th Ave W/9th Ave S from 244th St SW/205th St SW to Walnut St. • 228th St SW from 80th Ave W to 78th Ave W. • Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave S to 84th Ave W. • 80th Ave W from 228th St SW to 220th St SW. 2 Packet Pg. 337 9.5.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE Topographic survey will be provided for the following locations: • 2281h St SW from 801h Ave W to 781h Ave W (including right-of-way staking) • Intersection of Bowdoin Way and Walnut St • The four corners of the intersection of 1001h Ave W and SR 104 • Intersection of 220th St SW and 100th Ave W AutoCad drawings will be prepared at a scale of 1"=20'. Services will include the following: • Control survey in NAD 83/91 Horizontal Datum, with all elevations derived from and checked to NAVD 88 Vertical Datum. • Delineate parcel lines within above -described area as available from recorded plats and public records further compared to City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Parcel GIS lines. • Set additional elevation benchmarks at each end of project area and every 500-700' along the route. • Contract with and coordinate services of private utility locate company to ascertain conductible underground non -City owned utility locations and available asbuilt records. • Depict hard and soft surfaces on individual layers per accepted APWA standards. • Show and dimension located topographic features and contours at 2' intervals. • Show known utilities as provided by City of Edmonds GIS, research of available utility as -built records and as located by utility locators. ASSUMPTIONS & EXCLUSIONS The scope and fee for this task includes the following assumptions and exclusions: • The City will provide necessary right of entry into private property and notice to landowners along the route of mapping activity. The City will provide a copy of the notice to be presented to landowners by HZ. DELIVERABLES • AutoCad drawing file with point database and dtm files. Task 003 Traffic Analysis Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $18,461) The Traffic Analysis task includes determining existing conditions, evaluating LOS impacts of various project alternatives for a 10-year design horizon, and developing new traffic signal timing plans. PH will visit the project site intersections as necessary to familiarize themselves with the site conditions and data collected for the project. PH will collect intersection traffic count data and corridor volume data to support the traffic analysis. City will provide design year model information, pipeline development project trip information, and/or approval of PH proposed background traffic growth as necessary to develop horizon year traffic volumes. Data evaluation will include a calculated Covid-19 correction factor based on local data collected prior to impacts of on -going pandemic response efforts. Packet Pg. 338 9.5.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE PHC will prepare traffic analysis to document evaluation of various project alignment/intersection alternatives and report the following performance measures: • AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS PHC will evaluate existing signal timing parameters to ensure general consistency with MUTCD minimum requirements for pedestrian clearance, yellow change, and red clearance timings. Any existing deficiencies will be documented and reported to Blueline for action by City. DELIVERABLES • Signal Timing Basic Parameter Memorandum Task 004 Parking Analysis Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $11,680) The parking analysis task will focus on the 100tn/9tn and Bowdoin Way corridors between Edmonds Way and the Five Corners roundabout. Analysis will include detailed inventory of existing off-street and on -street legal parking, documentation of parking utilization, and coordination with team to evaluate impacts to parking of various corridor alignment alternatives. Report will include discussion of locally collected data, impacts of Covid-19, special use/event parking issues, and commercial zone vs residential zone parking issues. The data collection effort proposed for the parking study will consist of a combination of PH field inventory and traffic count vendor supplied hourly parking utilization surveys for the analysis corridors. Study parameters are proposed to collect hourly parking occupancy data between the hours of 7am and 7pm. Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday are proposed to be counted during those time periods to provide a reliable cross-section of time of day, midweek, end of week, and weekend usages. Graphical parking utilization exhibits will be generated showing the various utilization rates by locations. Analysis periods can be expanded if additional times/day are preferred by City. PH will incorporate existing data collected by staff as appropriate. PH will prepare Parking Utilization report summarizing the approach and findings. Report will include discussion of existing on-site/off-site parking inventory, describe utilization, availability, and be integrated into Traffic Analysis task in determining impacts of various corridor alternatives. DELIVERABLES • Parking Utilization Report (Draft & Final) • On -Street & Off -Street Parking Inventory Exhibit • Parking Utilization Exhibit. I []:7 4 Packet Pg. 339 9.5.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE Task 005 Community Outreach Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $35,482) Our Team will begin outreach efforts in the early design phases and will continue throughout the project. This will include the sharing of project information, gathering feedback and evaluating results during outreach efforts and the convening of community meetings during the design phase. This task will help identify neighborhood issues and concerns during the initial project stages and will significantly reduce the risk of neighborhood and customer concerns as the project proceeds. Services will include: • Coordination of outreach efforts with City staff. • Development and manage a Community Outreach Plan, providing revisions to the approach where needed throughout the project. • Implement informational outreach efforts via mailer to residents, postings on Nextdoor and other relevant social media outlets, working with the City on content for the City's webpage. • Provide public opportunity to share feedback. • Develop information gathering (surveys, questionnaires) and presentation material (project summaries, graphics, mapping) in support of public outreach efforts. • Preparation for and attendance of up to two (2) open houses (via Zoom/video conference) sessions, with resident and stakeholders and opportunity for feedback. o The first open house anticipated to be held after preliminary design submittal for alternatives discussion. o The second open house is anticipated to be held after 90% design submittal. • Attend up to three (3) City of Edmonds Council meetings, times to be determined. • Review feedback from stakeholders during outreach efforts and coordinate with the City. DELIVERABLES • Community outreach plan. • Information gathering and Presentation material. • Evaluation of community feedback on design proposals • Presentations for (2) public and (3) council meetings. Task 006 Preliminary Design Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $28,669) Using the base maps prepared in Tasks 002, and traffic and parking analysis prepared in Tasks 003 and 004, our Team will provide conceptual level exhibits showing three alternatives for roadway improvements. Design elements to be considered in alternatives include alternate corridor parking scenarios, sharrow lanes vs bike lane configurations, and various intersection lane configurations. Services under this task will include: • Kick -Off meeting. • Prepare exhibits for community outreach meetings/presentations. o Exhibits will show 3 design alternatives. • Review meeting with City to determine most feasible alternative and direction for community outreach. 5 Packet Pg. 340 9.5.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE DELIVERABLES • Intersection Lane Configurations Exhibits. • Alternate parking and bike lane exhibits. Task 007 60% Design Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $56,136) Using the base maps prepared in Task 002, traffic and parking analysis in Tasks 003 and 004, and ongoing stakeholder input, our Team will produce 60% design plans and draft specifications for the Project. The services under this task will include: • Incorporating the City's Preliminary comments into the contract documents. • Development of selected alternative from the preliminary design and community outreach efforts to 60% design. • Verification of types of utility grates, covers and other castings that are in the bike lanes for the selected alternative. • Show details necessary for construction of the improvements, utilizing City standards. • Provide general temporary erosion and sedimentation control notes and details as necessary. • Prepare plan sheets for the proposed improvements. o Corridor section/alignment plans. o Channelization plans. o Intersection lane configurations. o ADA Ramps under Sound Transit funding (2 @ 9tn and 220th intersection). o Civil improvements detail sheets. o Storm conveyance (2281" St SW only) in plan view. o Intersection layout and detail sheets. o Sheets to be 22"04" with roughly an 18"x28" drawing area utilizing Blueline's titleblock. o Scale for these drawings will be variable. • Prepare 60% technical specifications, including Proposal, Contract Forms, General Conditions, and Measurement and Payment in WSDOT format, using City -provided standard specifications when available. • Prepare 60% quantity take -offs and estimates per City standards • Prepare and submit 60% design package. • Sound Transit review submittal. • Review meeting with City and Project Team to incorporate City comments in the next submittal. DELIVERABLES • 60% Design Submittal: PDFs and 3 hard copies each of Plans, Draft Specifications, Engineer's Estimate, and Design Memo. 6 Packet Pg. 341 9.5.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE Task 008 90% Design Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $40,711) Based on City comments from the 60% Design stage, our Team will complete the 90% Design stage, including: • Project Walk-through with City engineering and maintenance staff to review 60% comments and verify site conditions. • Review meeting with City and Project Team to incorporate City comments in the next submittal. • Incorporating the City's 60% comments into the contract documents. • Developing grading and vertical components in the design. • Preparing 90% construction documents for Plans, Specifications and Estimates per City of Edmonds Standards. o Plans will include ADA curb ramp grading (3 ramps). • Sound Transit review submittal. • Internal constructability review and QA/QC. DELIVERABLES • 90% Design Submittal: PDFs and 3 hard copies each of Plans, Specifications, Engineer's Estimates, and Design Memo. Task 009 Final Design Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $24,521) Based on City comments from the 90% Design stage, our Team will complete the Final Design stage, including: • Review Meeting with the City to coordinate final design decisions. • Incorporating City's 90% comment into the contract documents. • Final Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate. • Sound Transit review submittal. • Internal QA/QC. DELIVERABLES • Final Design Submittal: PDFs and 3 hard copies each of Plans, Specifications, and Engineer's Estimate 7 Packet Pg. 342 9.5.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE Task 010 Off -Site Analysis/Storm Drainage Report Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $6,840) Blueline will prepare a Storm Drainage Report in accordance with the Department of Ecology's 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as adopted and amended by the City of Edmonds. The Storm drainage report will include all applicable sections as required in Section 1-3 of the 2014 SWMMWW. An off -site analysis for a single drainage basin per Section 1-3 of the 2014 SWMMWW is also included under this task. DELIVERABLES • Storm Drainage Report (PDF). Task 011 Land Use Permitting Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $7,554) This task will include preparation and submittal of applications for known necessary permits and approvals pertaining to this project. We will also provide the appropriate coordination during these processes until the approvals are obtained. It is assumed for budget purposes that the following permits/approvals will be needed for the project: • WSDOT • Snohomish County Right -of -Way PH will lead WSDOT permitting review which consists of Channelization Plan review and approval as well as scoping, preparing, and submitting Traffic Analysis. This will include: • Attending one virtual meeting with WSDOT to define scope of TIA and one additional TIA comment review virtual meeting with WSDOT staff. ASSUMPTIONS & EXCLUSIONS The scope and fee for this task includes the following assumptions and exclusions: • Any fees associated with the permits are not included and are to be paid by the City. DELIVERABLES • Snohomish County right-of-way permit. • WSDOT TIA Scoping Memorandum. • Traffic Impact Analysis (Draft & Final) to WSDOT. 8 Packet Pg. 343 9.5.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE Task 012 Bidding & Award Services Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $2,894) Blueline will provide consultation services during the bidding and award process, including: • Attend Pre -Bid Conference and address questions from prospective bidders, if necessary. • Prepare and issue addenda to clarify the construction documents, if necessary. • Generally assist the City during the bidding process as needed. ASSUMPTIONS & EXCLUSIONS The scope and fee for this task includes the following assumptions and exclusions: • The City will upload the bid documents to Builder's Exchange, conduct the bid opening, prepare the bid tabulation, review apparent low bidder references, and prepare a recommendation for contract award. DELIVERABLES • Addenda if necessary. Task 013 Management Reserve Fee: Hourly Rate/NTE (Estimated $14,549) This task provides for unanticipated services deemed to be necessary during the course of the Project that are not specifically identified in the scope of work tasks defined above, including additional Community Outreach or Field Survey needed. Funds in this task are not to be used unless explicitly authorized by the City. Fee estimate is based on ±5% of Tasks 001-012. Expenses Fee: Allowance (Estimated $4,000) This task provides for mileage reimbursement associated with meetings, plots, and site visits throughout the course of the project. 9 Packet Pg. 344 9.5.a EXHIBIT A — SCOPE & FEE ESTIMATE General Assumptions and Notes • Scope and fees outlined above are based on the Project Understanding included with this proposal as well as the following information (any changes to these documents may result in changes to the fees): a. Scoping meeting with the City, Blueline, HZ, and PH on September 16, 2020. b. City of Edmonds GIS records. • Blueline will not pay any Agency fees on behalf of the City. • Obtaining any offsite easements (if required) is not included in this proposal. • The fees stated above do not include reimbursable expenses such as large format copies (larger than legal size), mileage, and plots. These will be billed under a separate task called EXPENSES. • Time and expense items are based on our Team's current hourly rates. • These fees stated above are valid if accepted within 30 days of the date of the proposal. • Electrical plans, structural engineering plans, geotechnical services, new signal timings, WSDOT Channelization plan approval/checklist, and temporary signal design are not anticipated for the project and is not included in this scope of work. • City to prepare SEPA internally. • The City will provide all available project traffic data, signal as -built information, traffic signal timing/phasing plans, and Crash records. • Blueline reserves the right to move funds between approved Tasks 001- 012 as necessary based on approved scope of work provided the overall budget of Tasks 001-012 is not exceeded. The City's Project Manager will be notified if funds are shifted. • If Client requests Blueline's assistance in complying with any public records request, including without limitation providing copies of documents and communications, Client will pay Blueline's hourly fees and costs incurred in providing such assistance at then -current rates. Such fees and costs will be billed as a separate task. 10 Packet Pg. 345 EXHIBIT B ® City of Edmonds - Citywide Bicycle Improvements 9.5.a Job Number: 20-074 Prepared By: Grace Garwin Date: 10/8/2020 Checked By: Ken Lauzen,PE Senior Project Senior Project Engineer Engineering Director of Manager Engineer Designer Planning Task# Base Tasks $195/hr $184/hr $158/hr $156/hr $172/hr Total Hours Blueline Fee HZ/PH Fee Total Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 001 Project Management 96 24 2 0 14 136 $25,860 - $25,81 i 002 Survey Services - $32,164 $32,11 I 003 Traffic Analysis 2 2 0 2 0 6 $1,070 $17,391 $18,4i s 004 Parking Analysis 2 2 0 2 0 6 $1,070 $10,610 $11,61 I 005 Community Outreach 20 0 48 0 33 101 $17,160 $18,322 $35,41 006 Preliminary Design 12 36 18 44 0 110 $18,672 $9,997 $28,61 007 60%Design 4 52 96 62 0 214 $35,188 $20,948 $56,1E 008 90%Design 8 42 60 52 0 162 $26,880 $13,831 $40,7: Z 009 Final Design 6 28 44 24 0 102 $17,018 $7,503 $24,5: j O10 Off -Site Analysis/Storm Drainage Report 0 8 32 2 0 42 $6,840 - $6,84 s 011 Land Use Permitting 2 4 0 0 4 10 $1,814 $5,740 $7,55 1 012 Bidding & Award Services 0 6 2 2 0 10 $1,732 $1,162 $2,89 013 Management Reserve $14,549 $14,5, Expenses $4,000 $4,00 O Total Hours 152 204 302 190 51 899 s Blueline Personnel $29,640 $37,536 $47,716 $29,640 $8,772 $171,853 $137,668 $309,5 Total Project Cost $309,521 U n Packet Pg. 346 001 Project Management Senior Project Senior Project Engineer Engineering Director of To Manager Engineer Designer Planning Hours Item # Description $195/hr $184/hr $1S8/hr $156/hr $172/hr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 161- Project Meetings 20 10 8 261- Monthly Invoices/Progress Reports 16 - - 36L CA/QC 16 4 - 46L General Project Coordination 32 8 - 4 561- Bi-Weekly Status Checks 12 2 2 2 38 16 20 44 _ 18 N Total Hours 96 24 2 - 14 136 N Total Fee $18,720 $4,416 $316 $0 $2,408 $25,I E 002 Survey Services Item # Description 1HZ Survey & Base Mapping *See attached consultant fee breakdown Consultant Fee Blueline Markup 10% $29,240 $2,924 Total Fee $29,240 $2,924 Total P n $32,1 Senior Project Senior Project Engineering Director of Total S 003 Traffic Analysis Engineer Total F •• Manager g Engineer g Designer g Planning g Hours � Item # Description $195/hr $184/hr $158/hr $156/hr $172/hr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours D F1BL Coordination & Support 2 2 2 6 Total Hours 2 2 - 2 6 Total Fee $390 $368 $0 $312 $0 $1,m u Consultant Fee Blueline Markup G 10% 1 1PH Traffic Analysis & Report $11,310 $1,131 2PH Traffic Data/Counts $4,500 $450 *See attached consultant fee breakdown Total Fee $15,810 $1,581 $17,3 Task Total Senior Project 004 Parking Analysis Senior Project Engineer Engineering Director of e Total Total I = -C Manager Engineer Designer Planning Hours Item # Description $195/hr $184/hr $158/hr $156/hr $172/hr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 1BL Coordination & Support 2 2 2 6 c Total Hours 2 2 - 2 6 0 Total Fee $390 $368 $0 $312 $0 $1,M Consultant Fee Blueline Markup S 10% e Total Fee *See attached consultant fee breakdown $965 $10,6 p Task Total Packet Pg. 347 005 Community Outreach Senior Project Senior Project Engineer Engineering Director of To Manager Engineer Designer Planning Hours Item # Description 51y5/nr 51zm/nr 515zs/nr S1Sb/nr Sl/L/nr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 1BL Community Open Houses 6 4 6 2BL Council Meetings 9 4 9 3BL Community Outreach Plan 1 8 1 4BL Small Group Meetings - 9 5BL City/Public Comment Review/Resolution - 16 - 6BL Surveys & Questionnaires 2 8 4 7BL Coordination & Support w/Consultants 2 8 4 16 22 10 9 _ 16 to 14 N 14 Total Hours 20 - 48 - 33 101 Total Fee $3,900 $0 $7,584 $0 $5,676 $17,1 0" Consultant Fee Blueline Markup Q' 10% E 1PH Community Outreach $1,567 $157 1HZ Community Outreach $15,090 $1,509 Total Fee $16,657 $1,666 *See attached consultant fee breakdown 006 Preliminary Design Task Total $18,3 $35,4 Z Senior Project Senior Project Engineering Director of Total s Engineer Total S Manager Engineer Designer Planning Hours 4 Item # Description 5195/hr 5184/hr 5158/hr 5156/hr 517Z/hr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 1BL Kick -Off Meeting 4 4 4 - 2BL Design Alternative A 1 8 4 12 3BL Design Alternative B 1 8 4 12 4BL Design Alternative C 1 8 4 12 5BL Review Meeting 2 2 - 6BL Exhibit Revisions 1 4 2 8 7BL Coordination & Support w/Consultants 2 2 - 12 25 D 25 s 25 4 e 15 0 4 Total Hours 12 36 18 44 - 110 1" Total Fee $2,340 $6,624 $2,844 $6,864 $0 $18,6 S Consultant Fee Blueline Markup .S 10% 1PH Preliminary Design $5,728 $573 1HZ Preliminary Design $3,360 $336 Total Fee $9,088 $909 $9,95 *See attached consultant fee breakdown Task Total c Packet Pg. 348 007 60% Design Senior Project Senior Project Engineer Engineering Director of To Manager Engineer Designer Planning Hours item # uescription 51y5/nr 51zm/nr 515zs/nr S1Sb/nr Sl/L/nr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 1BL Incorporating Preliminary Comments 2 8 12 - 2BL 60% Design Plans - 24 40 60 3BL 60% Specifications 6 20 - 4BL 60% Engineer's Estimate - 4 20 2 5BL Sound Transit Submittal 1 - - - 6BL 60% Design Memo 1 4 4 7BL Coordination & Support w/Consultants - 6 - 22 124 26 26 _ 1 to 9 N 6 Total Hours 4 52 96 62 - 214 Total Fee $780 $9,568 $15,168 $9,672 $0 $35,1 L Consultant Fee Blueline Markup Q' 10% E 1PH 60% Design $16,524 $1,652 1HZ 60% Design $2,520 $252 Total Fee $19,044 $1,904 *See attached consultant fee breakdown Task Total $20'9 $56,1 Z 008 90% Design Senior Project Senior Project Engineer Engineering Director of Total Total I s c Manager Engineer Designer Planning Hours 4 Item # Description 5195/hr 5184/hr 5158/hr 5156/hr 517Z/hr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 1BL Project Walk-through 4 4 4 2BL Coordinating 60% Comments 2 4 8 - 3BL 90% Design Plans - 16 24 40 4BL ADA Ramp Design (2) 2 10 5BL 90% Specifications 4 8 - 6BL 90% Engineer's Estimate - 4 12 2 7BL Sound Transit Submittal 1 - - - 8BL 90% Design Memo 1 2 4 9BL Coordination & Support w/Consultants - 6 - 12 14 D 80 s 12 12 e 18 0 0 1 7 e 6 S Total Hours 8 42 60 52 - 162 Total Fee $1,560 $7,728 $9,480 $8,112 $0 Consultant Fee Blueline Markup 0 10% 1PH 90% Design $10,894 $1,089 1HZ 90% Design $1,680 $168 Total Fee $12,S74 $1,257 $13,8 It *See attached consultant fee breakdown Task Total Packet Pg. 349 009 Final Design Senior Project Senior Project Engineer Engineering Director of To Manager Engineer Designer Planning Hours item z; uescription >iys/nr >izm/nr >iszs/nr >1Sb/nr >l/L/nr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 1BL Review Meeting 4 4 4 - 2BL Final Design Plans 1 12 12 24 3BL Final Specifications - 4 8 - 4BL Final Engineer's Estimate 4 16 5BL Sound Transit Submittal 1 - - 6BL Coordination & Support w/Consultants 4 4 12 49 12 20 _ 1 N 8 N Total Hours 6 28 44 24 - 102 E Total Fee $1,170 $5,152 $6,952 $3,744 $0 $17,0 d Consultant Fee Blueline Markup 0 10% Q' 1PH Final Design $5,141 $514 1HZ Final Design $1,680 $168 *See attached consultant fee breakdown Total Fee $6,821 $682 $7,5( Q Task Total Senior Project Senior Project Engineering Director of Total s 010 Off -Site Analysis/Storm Drainage Report Engineer Total I + Manager Engineer Designer Planning Hours s item s uescription >iys/nr >lzs4/nr >iszs/nr >1Sb/nr >iiz/nr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 1BL Map Study Area 1 2 2BL Background Research - 2 3BL Site Visit - 4 4BL Downstream Analysis Report 1 4 5BL General Overview/Site Description 1 4 6BL Flow Control Analysis/Design 1 2 7BL Conveyance Analysis/Design 1 2 8BL TESC Calculations 1 2 - Existing and Developed Site Conditions Drainage 9BL 4 2 Maps 10BL Exhibits (Soil Maps, Isopluvials, etc.) - 2 - 11BL Address Comments 2 4 011 Land Use Permitting I 3 2 4 D 5 s 5 3 e 3 0 3 6 S 2 .i 6 Total Hours - 8 32 2 - 42 Total Fee $0 $1,472 $5,056 $312 $0 $6, Senior Project Senior Project Engineering Director of Total Engineer Total � Manager Engineer Designer Planning Hours Item # Description $195/hr $184/hr $158/hr $156/hr $172/hr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 1BL WSDOT Coordination 2 2 - 2BL Snohomish County Coordination - 2 4 C S 4 u 6 Total Hours 2 4 - - 4 10 S Total Fee $390 $736 $0 $0 $688 $1,81 Consultant Fee Blueline Markup 10% 1PH WSDOT Permitting $4,798 $480 1HZ Permitting Support $420 $42 Total Fee $5,218 $522 $5,7< < *See attached consultant fee breakdown Task Total Packet Pg. 350 012 Bidding &Award Services Senior Project Senior Project Engineer Engineering Director of To 9.5.a Manager Engineer Designer Planning Hours Item # Description $195/hr $184/hr $158/hr $156/hr $172/hr Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours 1BL Pre -Bid Conference 2 - - 2 2BL Addenda (if necessary) 2 2 2 6 3BL Coordination & Support w/Consultants 2 - - 2 Total Hours - 6 2 2 - 10 Total Fee $0 $1,104 $316 $312 $0 $1,72 C N Consultant Fee Blueline Markup 10% > 1PH Bidding & Award Services $636 $64 1HZ Bidding & Award Services $420 $42 *See attached consultant fee breakdown 013 Management Reserve Item # Description 1BL Unassigned Services Reserve Total Fee $1,056 $106 $1,1f Task Total F i Total Cost Total 5% s a s $14,549 y Total Fee $14,549 $14,5 S Packet Pg. 351