Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2020-11-12 City Council - Full S Agenda-2723
o Agenda Edmonds City Council SPECIAL MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 12, 2020, 7:00 PM DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, MEETINGS ARE HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/94807895088 OR JOIN BY DIAL -UP PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 948 0789 5088 PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "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/ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO EVALUATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF AN APPLICANT FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, RCW 42.30.110(1)(G) (60 MIN.) 4. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION/FLAG SALUTE 5. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Edmonds City Council Agenda November 12, 2020 Page 1 AUDIENCE COMMENTS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 2, 2020 2. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 3. Claims for Damages by Colleen Schaffer and Edmonds Chamber of Commerce 8. STUDY ITEM 1. Presentation of the Proposed 2021-2026 Capital Improvements Program/Capital Facilities Plan (60 min) 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda November 12, 2020 Page 2 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/12/2020 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 2, 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: 11-02-2020 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 7.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES November 2, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Brad Shipley, Associated Planner Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council Special virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Council President Fraley-Monillas read the City Council Land Acknowledgement 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 BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (HTTPS://ZOOM.US/S/4257752525) Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Mike Pattison, Edmonds, referenced Item 8, the proposed moratorium, urged the Council not to pass the moratorium. Moratoriums are extremely harmful to business and this moratorium would be hurtful to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 7.1.a affordable housing in the community. Businesses, especially during COVID, cannot go dormant and expect to survive. The moratorium will shut businesses down and prevent them from doing business. Homebuilders' carrying costs such as interest and other costs do not stop, the clock keeps ticking so this is a very expensive proposition for them. Further, there is no evidence the City's existing regulations are not working. Edmonds is well known in the building community as having some of the most stringent regulations with regard to trees, critical areas and others and there is no need for an emergency moratorium to address water quality issues. In fact, water quality and related issues are regulated by stormwater and LID laws and trying to address those with tree regulations is simply misplaced. Finally, the industry would like to work with the City and its staff and already have a good relationship with Ms. Hope and others. He urged the City to look to other avenues instead of what they consider a rather draconian measure of a moratorium. He offered to communicate with the City on such issues at any time. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2020 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2020 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. 2021 COLA ADJUSTMENT FOR NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY LEGAL SERVICES AGREEMENT HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson advised Sharon Cates and Angela Tinker, City Attorney's Office, worked on this presentation. Ms. Cates provided an update on the Prosecuting Attorney Legal Services Agreement and recommendation for next steps: • Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. o Currently working under Amendment No. 4 to the parties' 2013 Professional Services Agreement, a one-year extension which expires December 31, 2020 o Original agreement extended four times, the last two were one-year extensions o After the RFP process, City provided one-year extension to allow time to evaluate performance before deciding on a longer -term agreement o Payment under Amendment No. 4 structured with a base fee of $21,250 per month for certain enumerated tasks o Work outside that scope of work is extra, and billed at different hourly rates depending on the task o To date, the City has not been billed for work above the base fee amount for any month in 2020 • Prosecuting Attorney RFP Process o City advertised RFP in May 2019 and received two submissions Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 7.1.a o Proposals were evaluated by Screening Committee, headed by consultant Marilynne Beard of MMB Consulting, during summer of 2019 (City was without an HR Director at that time) o Committee concluded both proposers were qualified to provide services o At the October 22, 2019 regular City Council meeting, two Councilmembers expressed concerns about Zachor & Thomas, and Council agreed to one-year extension of the current legal services agreement Proposed Areas for Improvement o Feedback from the Court and Police Department had raised the following as areas for improvement for Zachor & Thomas: ■ Communications ■ Quality of work ■ Continuity of the prosecuting attorney appearing on behalf of the City ■ Quality of supervision of newer attorneys o With Amendment No. 4, Zachor & Thomas declined to commit Yelena Stock as the City's named prosecuting attorney, but agreed to assign Ms. Stock and James M. Zachor as the City's two supervising attorneys, who carry an active caseload and supervise newer attorneys Performance Appraisal o City's ability to fully evaluate Zachor & Thomas' performance in 2020 has been limited because the Covid-19 pandemic has limited court appearances this year to just a few months. o City reached out to the following individuals for input on Zachor & Thomas' performance in 2020: ■ Judge Coburn ■ Acting Chief Lawless and Assistant Chief Anderson ■ Bob Boruchowitz, Public Defense Legal Services Assessor, and ■ Kathleen Kyle, Managing Director, Snohomish County Public Defenders Association Feedback on Performance o Based on the somewhat limited opportunity to observe, the following feedback on Zachor & Thomas' performance in 2020 was provided: ■ Yelena Stock has appeared most of the time in court, has been prepared, and appears to be providing good supervision to newer attorneys ■ Communications, case flow, charging and continuity have been smoother ■ Communications with defense counsel is better, and delivery of documents requested during discovery has improved due to Zachor & Thomas' implementation of a new database ■ Improvement could still be made on responsiveness via email ■ Staff turnover and operating short-handed are still a concern Additional Feedback o Feedback provided to the City on its criminal legal services by Ms. Kyle and Mr. Boruchowitz also addressed issues of: ■ Potential for collecting and reporting data on diversity of defendants ■ Potential for changing City's practice of "Direct Filing," which is the filing of charges by Law Enforcement Officers without the Prosecuting Attorney first reviewing those charges ■ Potential for implementing Pre -filing Diversion Program for DWLS 3 (Driving with License Suspended in the third degree) charges, or other possible alternatives to prosecuting these cases o In 2020, some Councilmembers have begun to consider a DWLS 3 diversion program Recommendations for Next Steps o Mayor Nelson's recommendations on next steps are as follows: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 7.1.a ■ Offer Zachor & Thomas another one-year extension to the 2013 Prosecuting Attorney Legal Services Agreement, to allow the City sufficient time to assess the quality of services provided on an ongoing basis; ■ In spring of 2021, advertise another Request for Proposals for Prosecuting Attorney Legal Services to reassess the market for such services; and ■ Allow the City Council the opportunity in 2021, if desired, to discuss the pros and cons of a DWLS 3 diversion program and the City's direct filing practices. Guidance from City Council o DWLS 3 work accounts for approximately 1/3 of Zachor & Thomas' current workload, so a diversion program could reduce these costs by potentially $7,000 per month in base fee work o Zachor & Thomas has stated that, if the City moves away from direct filing, it will require a 40% increase to its base fee (an increase of $8,500 per month) o If the Council decides to implement a DWLS 3 diversion program and/or move away from direct filing, a one-year contract extension will allow the City the opportunity to negotiate for prosecution services that are in line with the Council's possibly changing priorities o We are seeking City Council input and/or approval to move ahead with the Mayor's recommendations Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to performance issues last year that have continued this year particularly with communication. She questioned the recommendation to continue with Zachor & Thomas, whether it was due to COVID-19 and the inability to do an RFP. Ms. Cates answered with regard to the concerns that were shared prior to the RFP process, some have shown improvement, others have not. The addition of Yelena Stock to their rotation has been helpful to the City and a good change, but there is still some employee turnover at Zachor & Thomas so it seems there is not enough information regarding how they will continue to provide good service in the future. Before committing to a longer agreement, the Administration wants to feel more confident the services that are being provided will remain as good as they are now and even better. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the recommendation was to give Zachor & Thomas a year contract and then the City can look at it again. Ms. Cates agreed the recommendation was a one-year extension of the current contract. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for a one-year extension, recalling in the last 11 years she has been on Council, she has heard multiple times about issues with Zachor & Thomas. She supported a more aggressive approach to conducting an RFP. Councilmember Paine asked if staff had inquired with other cities whether they had done an RFP for prosecuting attorney services in the past 6-12 months and what their response rate was. She was comfortable with extending for a year, but was curious if other prosecuting attorneys were responding to RFPs. As the City only had two responses last year, she questioned if there would be more interest in the future. Ms. Neill Hoyson said since she has been with the City, no research had been done regarding other cities' RFP processes for prosecuting attorney services and the responses they received. Staff could certainly research that. Councilmember Paine acknowledged that did not address the problem of poor communication and other issues but it would be nice to have a fulsome set of choices if the City decided to proceed with an RFP. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to information in the presentation that if the City moves away from direct filing, a 40% increase to the base fee (an increase of $8,500 per month) would be required. He asked if that was based on the 100% work they were doing now or the 66% if DWLS 3 was removed. Ms. Cates answered direct filing is handled separately from DWLS 3; a diversion program would reduce Zachor & Thomas' workload by 1/3 and their workload increased by 40% if the City moved away from direct filing, basically evening out the amount of work they would be doing which was the rationale for looking at both topics at the same time. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 7.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the recommendation from the Public Defenders Association to move away from direct filing and asked if there was any more information about that. Ms. Cates answered they mentioned it is costly from the defense and prosecution side anytime charges go into the court system; to the extent some offenses can be moved into a program that does not require as many touches, it can save a lot of money, and save the defense counsel time. The defense counsel has a heavy caseload just like the prosecuting attorney and there are caseload limits, no more than 400 cases per attorney. It would help them with an area that's fairly reliable, they know what to expect with regard to those charges, so it's easier for them to determine how it would affect their bottom line and available time. She noted that was related to DWLS 3. With regard to direct filing, Ms. Cates recalled Kathleen Kyle provided some justification regarding why direct filing was not a great idea and it was mostly to ensure the prosecutor was making the decision about charges to be filed and it makes the defense counsel's job easier because they are working directly with the prosecutor on those cases. She offered to follow-up with Ms. Kyle. Councilmember Olson said she had the same question as Councilmember Distelhorst regarding direct filing, what problems had been identified and what the Administration and/or the prosecuting attorney saw as the value. She hoped and expected there would be a net savings from the prosecuting attorney's contract as there would be fewer add-ons. Ms. Cates answered the contract with the prosecuting attorney has a base rate for a large part of what they do on an ongoing basis and add-ons for different types of things. Their base rate would need to be negotiated down to address either increasing work due to eliminating direct filing or reducing the amount of work due to a DWLS 3 diversion program. Councilmember Olson observed the consequences of currently doing direct filing, is the City would pay more in the base fee by having the prosecuting attorney do it instead of directly filing, but there would savings in the add-ons, and the expectation was a net savings for the City. Ms. Cates agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the Council reviewed this previously, then -Chief Compaan recommended keeping the status -quo. She was glad input had been sought from Judge Coburn, Acting Chief Lawless, Assistant Chief Anderson, Bob Boruchowitz, Public Defense Legal Services Assessor, and Kathleen Kyle, Managing Director, Snohomish County Public Defenders Association because in a legislative role, the Council does not hear much about the prosecuting attorney's services. She supported Mayor Nelson's recommendation for a one-year extension, doing an RFP and the Council discussing the issues that Councilmembers Distelhorst and Olson raised regarding direct filing. With COVID, trying to do an RFP now would be difficult and the City should continue with the status -quo as Mayor Nelson recommended. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to direct filing and asked the implications of allowing law enforcement to file directly versus having the prosecuting attorney review it first and what that means for the individuals that are charged. She sought a fuller understanding of the specific impacts to Edmonds. Ms. Cates said when she spoke with the Police Department, they mentioned not all filing is done directly, direct filing is limited to certain types of charges and her understanding was the prosecuting attorney's office still does some review of charges before they are filed. Defense counsel feels it is beneficial to have the prosecutor always review charges before they are filed to narrow them to what needs to be addressed, and there is a feeling that charges can put people into a spiral they cannot get out of. There is some social justice reasoning in ensuring the prosecutor is involved in making charging decisions. The Police Department has been in favor of direct filing and she could not speak for them why they feel it is a good idea. It could be that it is still a good idea for the City to continue with direct filing on the types of charges that it applies to now. She did not have enough information to provide pros and cons of retaining direct filing, but agreed it was ripe for discussion. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 7.1.a Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not expect the information now but it was an issue she would like to have more specifics on when the Council discusses this again. Councilmember K. Johnson believed the City could have significant savings if the DWLS 3 work were taken out of Zachor & Thomas. It represents 1/3 of their current workload so $84,000/year could be saved in their base fee. She was curious about what Judge Coburn thought of that proposal, but she herself was entirely in support of it. Ms. Cates said as Councilmember L. Johnson mentioned, there needs to be a more robust background on that program to ensure Councilmembers know the pros and cons. The costs could be reduced but she wanted to ensure the Council was aware of all the implications of such a program. Councilmember K. Johnson said it appeared to be a significant savings of 1/3 of Zachor & Thomas's current workload. She asked how a DWLS 3 diversion program could be evaluated in 2021. Ms. Cates answered if the Council provided Zachor & Thomas a one-year extension, that discussion could occur in 2021 including what other jurisdictions have done; there have been at least a couple successful programs implemented in Washington. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed interests in resolving that issue this year while Judge Coburn is still the Municipal Court Judge as a new judge will not have the same experience. Judge Coburn's recommendation would be very valuable to the City. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if that could be done in the remaining two months of 2021. Mayor Nelson said that was a decision for Council to make, not Ms. Cates. Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether it was feasible from a process standpoint. Ms. Cates answered there likely would not be enough time this year. She was certain Judge Coburn would be happy to provide input on that program this year before she leaves, but it was unlikely that issue could be resolved by the end of 2020. Councilmember K. Johnson said she would definitely like to hear Judge Coburn's point of view. Ms. Cates agreed. Councilmember Paine asked how many of the directly filed case were dismissed outright with prejudice. She was hopeful the prosecuting attorney could provide that information. Councilmember Olson commented going back and forth between direct filing and DWLS 3 may be confusing for the public who are listening. What Councilmember K. Johnson seemed to be getting at was the $7,000 was a line item for negotiation in the contract extension so the City has two months to potentially save $7,000 if a decision was made to do that. She noted $7,000 would make a difference in a year when the budget is so tight. Mayor Nelson advised this is a study item and will come back to Council for action. Councilmember Olson supported having that discussion as Councilmember K. Johnson suggested so a decision could be made this year and potentially save $7,000 if it is a good idea. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she spoke with Judge Coburn about this issue and Judge Coburn was willing to provide her opinion about how to move forward to any Councilmember individually. Ms. Cates relayed it sounded like the Council supported the Mayor's recommendations. She understood the desire for more information and will endeavor to provide it in hopes of clearing up any issues this year. Mayor Nelson added Council would like to have that information before renewing Zachor & Thomas's contract. Councilmember Olson observed Mayor Nelson's recommendation would not reduce the $7,000 unless it was returned to Council for discussion. Ms. Cates relayed her understanding that the Council wanted to move ahead with a one-year extension and do an RFP next year and to the extent possible, help the Council make a decision about direct filing between now and the end of the year so that could be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 incorporated into the one-year extension. Councilmember Olson agreed, noting there were other Councilmembers interested in that as well. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he has heard several Councilmembers express support for accelerating the implementation of a diversion program so that could be implemented starting in 2021. He was unclear if it was a majority of Councilmembers and could not promise that that was feasible. If a majority of Councilmembers want to have that happen, he asked for an indication so he and his staff can push hard in that direction very quickly. There is very little time left to accomplish that and it depends somewhat on how many meetings the Council plans to have in December. Councilmember K. Johnson supported completing the analysis and making a decision in 2020 for a diversion program to begin in January 2021. That would save the City approximately 1/3 of the prosecuting attorney's time and save $84,000 which she felt was significant. In response to Mr. Taraday's request, Councilmember L. Johnson expressed interest in accelerating discussions on a pre -filing program, both from a financial standpoint but more from the implications it will have on those who are impacted. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed there was not enough information although the City would save $7,000. She also supported researching direct filing. She agreed a diversion program may be a good way to go. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed Councilmember Paine and he have been working on DWLS 3 for a number of months and have convened meetings with Bob Boruchowitz, Kathleen Kyle, Acting Chief Lawless, Zachor & Thomas, and representatives from Lighthouse Law Group as well as research assistance from Maureen Judge. He was hopeful Councilmember Paine and he could provide information to Council judiciously. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was aware of Councilmember Distelhorst and Paine's efforts. Ms. Cates is trying to negotiate a contact with Zachor & Thomas and the Council is discussing removing 1/3 of their work. The sooner this is resolved the better as it is difficult to move forward without knowing the City's expectations. She recalled an update from Councilmembers Distelhorst and Paine was on next week's Council agenda. 8. ACTION ITEMS 1. EXTENSION OF INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR APPOINTMENT HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson advised this is a request to extend the interim appointment of Dave Turley as the Finance Director. The initial six month appointment period ends November 19, 2020. The City is currently recruiting and getting close to final steps including scheduling Council interview with the three candidates on November 17t''. The final steps may not be concluded prior to the expiration of the six month interim appointment. She requested the Council approve either a six month extension, although she did not anticipate needing that much time, or at the time a hire is made, whichever occurs first. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF DAVE TURLEY AS INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR SIX MONTHS OR UNTIL THE HIRE IS MADE WHICHEVER COMES SOONER. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 Council President Fraley-Monillas said Mr. Turley has been very accessible to Council and has done a very good job. She wanted to ensure there was consistency with the Finance Director until a permanent appointment was made. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSIDERATION OF THE 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 explained the proposal is to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for two undeveloped parcels in the Perrinville Area from "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi -Family Residential - Medium Density. He reviewed: • Process o Type "V" Legislative Decision; o Based on the findings in the Staff Report, staff recommended APPROVAL of the proposal; o Planning Board recommended City Council APPROVE the proposal; o City Council held a public hearing on September 22" d and continued the public hearing until Oct. 6th; o City Council tabled the public hearing during the October 6t' meeting; o During the Oct. 20' meeting, the City Council set November 2" d as the date for consideration of the proposal. Potential Paths to Development (Decision -making authority) and SEPA and SEPA exempt processes o Commercial Development ■ Neighborhood retail/service uses and offices (excludes some uses, such as taverns, theaters, used car lots, etc.) o Single Family Dwellings ■ Detached, developed to RS-6 standards o Multi -family Dwellings ■ Condo, townhomes, apartments, etc. This is the first step of a multi -step process that includes Architectural Design Board, Hearing Examiner and staff decisions later in the process if the proposal moves forward What we heard o Concern about how stormwater will be mitigated and potential impacts to Perrinville watershed ■ Proposed use has maximum lot coverage requirements (45%). The existing BN zoning does not include maximum lot coverage requirements ■ Approval of stormwater facilities occurs later in the process ■ Council will have an opportunity to weigh in on rezone - If property is rezoned, it will be reviewed by ADB for design review, to Hearing Examiner if there is a unit lot subdivision and to staff review for compliance with codes ■ Geotech letter confirms that the soils on the site are suitable for infiltration o Concern about increased traffic ■ The issue is not whether the property remains undeveloped or is developed —the site can be developed today with either commercial or single family development built to RS-6 standards. ■ The preliminary site plan indicates six new townhomes and does not represent an increase in traffic when compared to other development types that are currently allowed. o Concern over potential loss of tree canopy Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 7.1.a ■ Existing trees along western and eastern property boundaries. Center of lot consists primarily of grasses and small shrubs, including invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry. ■ Some trees would be removed along the western portion of the site and replaced with street trees and landscaping. Trees would be added to the northern, southern, and western property boundaries. o Desire for housing affordable to very -low income households ■ Currently, there are no incentives to provide housing for very -low income households in the Perrinville area. ■ Housing for very low-income generally cannot be provided without a sizable grant or other subsidy. o Desire to have a subarea plan for Perrinville o Support for "missing middle" housing Site Constraints o Critical Areas Map ■ Perrinville Creek across the street adjacent to post office (80 feet from property boundary, unlikely stream buffer encroaches onto subject property) ■ Steep slopes - Intent to avoid slopes to avoid damage to slopes and expense of developing on slopes o Parcel sits 8 ft. above the street and is not conducive for commercial development without significant grading due to lack of visibility. o Subject parcels were rezoned for commercial use in 1962 and remain undeveloped ■ Edmonds Comprehensive Plan states: "Parcels of land planned or zoned for commercial use but are identified as inappropriate for commercial use should be rezoned." Review Criteria (ECDC 20.00.050) 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? Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Shipley for the complete packet and the responses from the applicant to emails sent during the public hearing. She asked if a plan had been done for Perrinville that considered how development in Lynnwood would affect the watershed and whether the new houses in Lynnwood would benefit from commercial development on this site. Mr. Shipley restated the question, whether the 42 units in Lynnwood would significantly change the area to make commercial development possible. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the site was zoned commercial in 1962 but there had been no development in the area until recently by Lynnwood. The City has looked at Firdale, Five Corners, and other areas and she wondered if the City has looked at Perrinville as a business area and taken into consideration growth in Lynnwood and whether this site may now be feasible for commercial use. Development Services Director Shane Hope answered a subarea plan has not been done for this area, a process that is quite expensive for the City to undertake. She agreed some additional development has occurred in Lynnwood and she was certain the property owner who proposed this change was well aware of that and had given some thoughts to the opportunities it would create and yet wants to move forward with changing the designation. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for reviewing the Perrinville watershed, particularly the impact of development on that sensitive area. She asked if that would be part of the SEPA process if the Comprehensive Plan designation change was approved and the property was rezoned. Mr. Shipley answered absolutely, stormwater would be reviewed at the appropriate time in the process. The applicant Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 7.1.a would have to show it was infeasible to infiltrate onsite. The geotech has already done soil analysis to determine that infiltration is possible. He assumed if the applicant proceeded with the proposed plan, they would infiltrate and manage stormwater onsite. Ms. Hope added the City would review that with regard to best management practices, the latest applicable stormwater standards, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to an Exhibit A in the appendix that includes ways to avoid best management practices. She recalled Mr. Scordino brought that to the City's attention. She would not support the proposal until there was more information about the tree code and the impact on the business sector and the watershed. Councilmember L. Johnson appreciated Councilmember Buckshnis' perspective about considering the impact from development in Lynnwood and the potential increase in use of businesses; however, this is an opportunity to develop townhomes, and multi -family is recognized by many environmental groups as generally more environmentally friendly housing compared to single family. This proposal in particular preserves the slope which is 40% of the property and contains a majority of the trees. There is an economic lens, but looking at it through the environmental lens, this proposal is the most environmentally friendly or the least environmentally harmful way to develop it. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Shipley and Ms. Hope for the decision -making matrix graph in the presentation. He observed if the site were developed with single family or commercial under the existing designation, there is no maximum lot coverage. Ms. Hope said there is no maximum for commercial and it would be subject to other residential regulations related to lot coverage. The townhomes would result in less lot coverage and less impervious surface than would currently be allowed. Councilmember Distelhorst summarized multi -family has a lower maximum coverage, reducing potential maximum coverage. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Olson observed the Planning Board supported this change and they certainly knew of the development in Lynnwood. She recalled a citizen saying the City should only proceed on City -initiated changes. In a perfect world where there was a lot of staff time and resources to proactive planning she could agree with that, but that is not the mode the City has been in for quite some time. Review and approval by the Planning Board indicates this is an approach or zoning type the City would be happy and comfortable with. The proposed use would result in less environmental impact than the existing authorized uses. She was supportive of less environmental impact and more of a desired housing type. Councilmember Olson relayed to the developer that Edmonds citizens are good stewards of the environment and she hoped he would take that into consideration and include all the green approaches he could such as rainwater collection tanks that residents could use for irrigation, something that she felt consumers would vote with their pocketbook by choosing to live there. Further, even in this tight budget year, addressing the watershed's issues is included in Mayor Nelson's proposed budget and she will support that watershed priority 100% during the upcoming budget process. She summarized the proposal is a good move and she will vote in favor of it. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what the City gains or loses from the proposed change. Ms. Hope answered what is most notable for her is this opportunity would mean better environmental protection for the site in the long term. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what the City loses. Ms. Hope answered the City loses the option for single family homes and gains another option for multi- family, potentially losing one dwelling unit with this proposal based on the information available. Councilmember Paine said this site is on her running route. On side of the street opposite the post office heading north on 76t1i, there is no other vacant parcel for at least a half mile on either side of the street or at least on that side of the street. Mr. Shipley answered he was not entirely sure without looking at a map. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 7.1.a He knew there were some vacant parcels on Olympic View Drive but was uncertain about on 76' Councilmember Paine recalled from her run that that was the last vacant parcel for about half mile from the major intersection of Olympic View Drive & 76'. Mr. Shipley answered she was probably correct, he could not think of another vacant parcel. Councilmember Paine said she liked the project, thought it was compact enough, and if it will be larger than 4,000 square feet, it will go through additional review and SEPA review. She did not want trees to be cut down other than tidying up the front and ensuring it looks nice; the trees on the slope are important for the environment, for the hillside, for preservation of property and the environmental benefits that trees and the understory provide. She was in favor of the project due to its compactness. Councilmember Olson said while it is not relevant to this Comprehensive Plan change, the traffic impact comments from citizens are worth Public Works taking notice of due to development of the nearby project in Lynnwood as well as current intersection volumes. It is possible the signal at that intersection will need to be upgraded. Ms. Hope said that would be considered in the traffic impact fees and mitigation. The developer could be required to pay a share of improvements necessary to address any additional impacts. Councilmember Buckshnis wanted to go on record that this is a Comprehensive Plan change; the project and the zoning has not occurred yet so what will be constructed is unknown. She reiterated that the proposed amendment does not satisfy Review Criteria 4, the proposal is detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the City. She has received numerous comments from citizens regarding this parcel and the fact that Lynnwood is across the street and it is being considered in a silo and does not take the watershed into consideration. Councilmember K. Johnson said there is nothing in this proposal that would prevent construction on this site under the current Comprehensive Plan designation. They could build houses or a neighborhood business. It is unlikely tree removal and development would occur on a 40% grade because it would be very expensive and environmental unsound. Having said that, she believed that the City has three major concerns with development of this site. She was not opposed to the townhouse concept but was very concerned that a comprehensive tree ordinance and a housing plan were several months away and a history of very poor development in the Perrinville Creek Watershed that has resulted in excessive sedimentation and an inappropriate environment for salmon. For those reasons, she supported a pause in the process to be absolutely sure of the environmental impacts and the impacts of the other two studies. She supported a six month moratorium on this project. Councilmember K. Johnson said many people support townhouses due to less impact on trees, but she feared that was just the selling point the developer has proposed. There was nothing to prevent the developer from developing the site as a neighborhood business or with single family homes. For those reasons she did not support the Comprehensive Plan change. Councilmember Olson said there is time, money and effort associated with requesting a Comprehensive Plan change so she did not envision the developer would pursue uses that are already allowed on the site. As Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned, this is just the Comprehensive Plan change, there are several additional steps before a project moves forward. The tree code and some of the other things Councilmember K. Johnson mentioned will be completed prior to this project commencing. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS, THAT CITY COUNCIL UPHOLD THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP CHANGE FROM "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL" TO "MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -MEDIUM Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 DENSITY," NOTING ALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES COME BACK TO COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 17TH. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 3. ORDINANCE IMPOSING MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she brought this up last week. The City Council has done moratoriums in the past; the last one was in 2019 when a building in a BN zone was constructed without parking. This is a short-term emergency moratorium ordinance on subdivisions or short plats. The moratorium will give the City, citizens and Administration a pause to catch up. The tree code and housing code are coming up, both of which are extremely important to the City. It is a good time to put a moratorium in place. A public hearing is scheduled on December 1st so anyone with concerns can provide input. She recognized the builders association was concerned the City would stifle construction although she was unaware of any permits coming online. The Council has the legislative authority to adopt a moratorium and she believed it was appropriate. Councilmember L. Johnson, Ms. Hope, Mr. Lien, Mr. Taraday and she have discussed imposing a moratorium. She looked forward to a robust discussion tonight. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the purpose of a moratorium is to allow for the City's planning efforts to be implemented before new development comes online. Washington State has a vested rights doctrine which means when an application comes in for a subdivision, that application has the right to be reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of the application. What that means is if an application comes in on day one and a new tree code is adopted on day 30, that application will not be reviewed under the new tree, but under the old tree code. Because the new tree code is so close to completion, if the Council wants to ensure that new development is consistent with the new tree code, a moratorium is the tool to do that. If the Council is fine with new development vesting to the existing tree code, then a moratorium would not be necessary. From a big picture standpoint, a moratorium is imposed to ensure new development coming in complies with the forthcoming, not quite yet adopted regulations. Mr. Taraday displayed and read Section 2 of the proposed ordinance: "The City Council hereby imposes an immediate six month moratorium on the acceptance of any subdivision application for any property that contains four or more significant trees per 10,000 square feet of lot area..." He commented this moratorium does not apply to all subdivisions, it only applies to subdivisions that have a certain threshold of trees on them. Mr. Taraday continued reading Section 2: "...PROVIDED THAT trees that are either dead or determined by a certified arborist to be hazardous shall not be included in the significant tree count." He commented if the requisite number of tree existed on a property but were all dead trees and an arborist could confirm that, then the property would not be subject to the moratorium. Section 2 contains a formula that will work for any given lot size and any given number of trees. Number of significant trees on parent parcel X= _--------------------------------------------------- Parcel size in square feet The ratio is derived from the four trees per 10,000 of lot area, but mathematically it can work with any number of trees and any lot area, basically it is a fraction with the number of significant trees in the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 7.1.a numerator and the parcel size in square feet in the denominator and the math produces a decimal and that decimal will either be more or less than .0004. Mr. Taraday read the examples in Section 2: an 18,000 square foot lot with seven significant trees on it would not be subject to the moratorium because X would equal .00038 which is less than the threshold of .0004. In contrast, an 18,000 square foot lot with eight significant trees on it would be subject to the moratorium because X would equal .00044 which is greater than the threshold of .0004. He said that same math could be done with any size lot. Mr. Taraday explained significant trees are trees with a caliper of 16 inches or greater; caliper is defined as diameter of any tree trunk as measured at a height of 4 feet above the ground on the upslope side of the tree. He summarized the moratorium would only apply to properties with the requisite number of significant trees, defined as 6 inches or greater in diameter, and other types of subdivisions would not be subject to the moratorium and could move forward as per usual. There are some other provisions, it is a six-month moratorium although that could be shorter if the tree code is adopted sooner than six months from now. There is a public hearing required to be held on any moratorium the City adopts; the public hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 1, 2020. If five or more Councilmembers vote to adopt the ordinance, it would take effect immediately. Councilmember Buckshnis said the draft tree code is part of the Planning Board packet. She pointed out a significant tree is actually six feet in diameter at breast height as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground, rather than 4 feet. The four trees per 10,000 was chosen as the Sierra Club defines significant trees as 16 per acre. The acre was divided into 10,000 square feet instead of using zoning designations. Mr. Taraday said the moratorium is not intended to pre -adopt the draft tree code. As Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out, there are inconsistencies between the proposed tree code and what is contained in the moratorium ordinance. The moratorium ordinance uses the existing City definition of caliper which is apparently different than the one in the proposed tree code. For the purposes of the moratorium, unless the Council amends it, it uses the existing City code definition of caliper. Councilmember Olson asked if the Council was allowed to amend the proposed ordinance. Mr. Taraday said the Council can amend the ordinance, amendments that are fairly within the way the item was noticed for the special meeting. If someone wanted to change something on a completely different subject, that would have to wait for a regular meeting. Councilmember Olson asked if caliper was the same as diameter. Mr. Taraday answered caliper is defined as the diameter of any tree trunk as measured at a height of four feet above the ground on the upslope side of the tree. Councilmember Olson displayed a rolled eight -inch wide piece of paper, pointing out that width four feet from the ground was not a huge tree. She reduced the side of her rolled paper to six inches, pointing out that is the size that is being discussed. She personally felt that should be expanded to a slightly larger tree for the purposes of the moratorium. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien said it is still the diameter of the tree, the caliper is where you measure the diameter. Per the current definition of caliper, the diameter is measured at four feet above the ground and a significant tree is six inches so it has to be six inches in diameter at four feet above the ground to be considered a tree in this ordinance. Mr. Taraday clarified it is diameter, not circumference. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if a subdivision could proceed if the significant trees on the property would be retained. Development Services Director Shane Hope answered the moratorium would apply and a person could not develop until the moratorium ended even if they wanted to save the trees. Councilmember Distelhorst observed this only applied to subdivisions; if someone wanted to develop single family, multi -family, commercial or other, the moratorium did not apply. Ms. Hope agreed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 7.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst asked if a larger size tree was considered with broader application to address mature trees versus small trees and one type of application. Ms. Hope said there had been some discussion and Councilmember Buckshnis could comment on that. Councilmember Buckshnis said there was discussion about significant trees, confers versus non -conifers, shoreline uses, and an eight inch definition for a significant tree. She recalled the Sierra Club uses ten inches. As Mr. Taraday stated, the moratorium includes the definitions in the existing code. Other cities use larger diameters. The ordinance can be amended if Councilmembers feel six inches is too restrictive. A public hearing is scheduled in a month; the ordinance can be amended at that time as well. She summarized the intent was to make the moratorium as simple as possible. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if was correct that the City received about ten subdivision applications per year. Ms. Hope answered approximately. Mr. Lien said since 2010, the City has received about ten subdivision applications per year and that includes 2-lot short plats up to larger subdivision, 27 was the largest one during that timeframe. Councilmember Distelhorst observed some of the subdivisions are not large enough scale that tree removal is required. Ms. Hope answered it is all site specific. Councilmember Paine asked if a Planned Residential Development would fall into this category. Ms. Hope answered it would because it is a subdivision. Mr. Lien answered it would also apply to unit lot subdivisions which are townhouse subdivisions. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the moratorium included development on Highway 99 if it met the six inches caliper and 10,000 square feet. Mr. Lien answered it would apply on Highway 99 if a subdivision met the density requirements. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if it would apply to developments off Highway 99 such as 2-3 blocks east or west. Mr. Lien answered it applies to a specific type of development, subdivisions, wherever it occurs; a short plat which is 2-4 lots, a formal subdivisions which is 5 or more lots, or unit lot subdivision. It is tied to subdivisions no matter where they are, no matter what zone, it applies to all subdivisions with a certain tree density. Council President Fraley-Monillas said along the Highway 99 corridor, particularly on the west side, more and more subdivisions are being created. Mr. Lien answered there are some larger multi -family developments on Highway 99 but those are not subdivisions. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked about subdivisions on the west side of Highway 99. Mr. Lien said he was not aware of any subdivisions in the Highway 99 corridor right now. There are some in the residential zones in the area outside the Highway 99 corridor. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed concern with a citywide moratorium; one of the reasons was an effort to create housing for all levels. A moratorium will prohibit development in smaller subdivisions that fit on the Highway 99 corridor. This moratorium is probably not the best thing for Edmonds and she was unsure she could support moving forward with a moratorium. Although she understood the reason for the moratorium, there has been an ability to change the codes for the last 5-7 years and that hasn't happened. To impose a citywide moratorium now creates issues related to housing for low income, low - low income, veterans, disabled and seniors. She summarized she had some angst with the proposed moratorium. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was approached with this as a way to protect pocket forests, something she was very interested in. She greatly appreciated being include in at least one planning session. However, as written it is more restrictive than her vision of a pocket forest. Personally, she was interested in considering amendments that would be more in line with what would be considered a pocket forest. Although she wanted to protect four trees on a 10,000 square foot lot, she was unsure that rose to the level of a pocket forest. She had ideas for amendments but wanted to hear other Councilmembers thoughts. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 7.1.a Councilmember Paine appreciated the work that had been done; she wondered how fast the draft tree code could go through the Planning Board and what was the soonest it would come to Council. Ms. Hope answered early January and then it would take whatever number of meetings the Council needed to approve it. Councilmember Paine said her choice would be one meeting. She wanted to have a solid tree code in place and the preservation aspect was very appealing to her. She was not a fan of moratoriums and this isn't the way the Council wants to conduct business. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for moratoriums; the City has had several that were very effective. One was on SR-104 in a fragile area where more information was needed and there was a famous moratorium on crumb rubber. The City needs to use moratoriums judicially, basically a pause until the tree ordinance and housing ordinance are adopted and there is better knowledge about erosion in Perrinville Creek. She expressed support for the moratorium. On a personal note, Councilmember K. Johnson said she has observed at least one company that clear cuts every tree on a site in order to build. Their philosophy is that's what new homeowners want. Her parents' home was sold to that developer and they cut 20 fruit and nut trees and about 50 other trees including many natives and only one tree remained. She has been working with Councilmember Buckshnis and the Tree Board to develop a resolution since last March that would help guide the City in the future. Unfortunately, due to COVID, she was unable to continue working on it until September. There have been several meetings with the Tree Board and a great deal of input. Councilmember K. Johnson recommended the Council adopt the moratorium now to essentially put a pause on rampant clear cutting with development. Everyone has seen it occur in their neighborhood and although the tree work that was done at a master planning level only deals with street trees, Mr. Lien is working on many of the issues including clear cutting and saving specimen trees. Councilmember Olson expressed appreciation for Councilmember Buckshnis and Mr. Taraday and others who worked on this. Some of what prompted this was as the City continues to get applications and then is horrified and saddened by the byproduct of development, there is an ethics issue. The City cannot continue accepting applications it does not intend to process because of concerns with the environment. If the City wants to have this control, this is the tool to provide it. She did not take this decision lightly and was very concerned about the current business climate for all businesses including construction. This is not a blanket moratorium and she agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson's point about tightening the proposed definition. Councilmember Olson said if the Council adopts the moratorium, a public hearing is scheduled on December lst; at that time, the Council could potentially change its mind and withdraw the moratorium if they decided it wasn't appropriate based on the input at the public hearing. She disagreed with the statement made by Mr. Pattison during Audience Comments that the current tree code was adequate. Council President Fraley-Monillas said her issue with this wasn't Perrinville because she understood the City may not have done as thorough a job as has been done in Westgate, Highway 99 and Five Corners. However, a moratorium on development is not just about Perrinville, it is the entire City. She could not support holding up development in the entire City to create a moratorium for one small area of the City. There are people living in the streets who are desperate for affordable housing — seniors, veterans, and the disabled. Arbitrarily putting a moratorium in place when this should have been dealt with years ago was not the best way to protect the City and its citizens. She pointed out the City Council represents people who are homeless living in Edmonds and are living in difficult situations, including seniors, people with disabilities, etc. The moratorium affects a wide group of people Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 7.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis commented this could not be done years ago because there wasn't a comprehensive tree code. A comprehensive tree code has been drafted which she sent out to everyone last Wednesday. The tree code has a tremendous amount of tree retention associated with development activity. She also did not want to be discriminatory and say this was just about Perrinville, it was about all of Edmonds. The moratorium is short term, they have worked with the Administration and the Administration is not aware of any development on the Highway 99 corridor that would be impacted. Mayor Nelson corrected Councilmember Buckshnis, stating she has not worked with this Administration; he learned about the moratorium when she introduced it last Tuesday night. Councilmember Buckshnis said Mayor Nelson had been copied on all the emails and that Ms. Hope and Mr. Lien had met with them. Mayor Nelson said he wanted to be clear because Councilmember Buckshnis was making it sound like there was some agreement among the Administration with regard to support or not supporting the proposed moratorium. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has copied Council President Fraley-Monillas and Mayor Nelson on all her emails since October 13t' when this began. The issue is that over the past four years she has seen seven pocket forests clear cut and it was time to pause. She agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson maybe it shouldn't be four trees, maybe it should be eight trees. It was important to do this now, it is a legislative decision and will allow the Administration to time to work through tree code which she hoped would be passed by February or within six months. If the Council wished, it could be reduced to four months in December. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council had 60 days to hold a public hearing on the moratorium. Mr. Taraday answered that was true by law, but as currently drafted in the ordinance, the intent is to hold a public hearing on December V. Council President Fraley-Monillas was not interested in holding up development for everybody, particularly for one area or even in multiple areas. This has been an issue for quite a while and she took issue with a citywide moratorium, particularly an emergency moratorium because she did not see the emergency. She recalled the Council has done emergency ordinances in the past, but they were based on an actual emergency. This discussion has occurred for multiple weeks and she was not confident or comfortable passing an emergency moratorium for something that could affect people in Edmonds who need housing. Councilmember Distelhorst echoed the appreciation for developing a workable moratorium. He pointed out the Housing Commission will not be delivering a set of ready-made policies, plans, or zoning code amendments. They will give Council recommendations that the Council, Planning Board and other bodies would need to explore which will be a long process. The tree code is in the near term and he would be interested in getting as much advance information from Mr. Lien and Ms. Hope in the next 60 days and doing that work now to hopefully minimize the number of times the Council needs to discuss it in 2021. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed at last week's Alliance for Housing Affordability meeting, a planner from Lake Stevens reported 1,752 houses single family homes and 215 units of multi -family have been built in Lake Stevens. One of the reasons for that booming growth in rural Snohomish County is because denser areas are not adding housing. It is important to remember that when houses are not added in urban areas, they are added in rural areas which often contributes to vehicle miles traveled which is the largest producer of greenhouse gas in the state. Trees are absolutely important to the environment, but it is one slim aspect of all the other environmental aspects that are the dominos of the decision the Council makes. He urged the Council to keep that in mind; a house not built in Edmonds means a house built somewhere else as well as to keep in mind the environmental impacts and downstream impacts that Council decisions have. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 7.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson said the tree moratorium will not affect any commercial or multi -family development in the City. Most senior, low-income, veteran and other special needs housing are multi- family which will not be impacted. What has been observed over the past 6-8 years is clearcutting for development of single family houses. When controls were asked for, the answer was wait for the tree plan and tree ordinances which have been promised by at least three development directors that she was aware of. Trees have been cut left and right and the time has come. Some Councilmembers may not view this as an emergency but all moratoriums are basically an emergency. It is an opportunity to get the codes and regulations finished. If those regulations were in place, there would not be a problem but experience has shown the current regulations are insufficient to preserve trees. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if a tree ordinance could be done in the next 60 days. Ms. Hope answered that would be difficult because it is going through the Planning Board process and their public hearing is not anticipated until December. She said anything is possible, but it would be difficult. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO PASS ORDINANCE NO.4200, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN FOUR SIGNIFICANT TREES PER 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS UPDATED TREE REGULATIONS ADDRESSING THE CLEARING OF SUCH PROPERTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, AND DECLARING AND EMERGENCY. Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated she was definitely interested in protecting pocket forests citywide and to avoid the clearcutting that has been seen over the last few years. She viewed it as a chance to pause to prioritize putting tools in place, but wanted the pause to be as short as possible. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EIGHT TREES, EIGHT INCHES IN DIAMETER AND THAT THE MORATORIUM BE FOR FOUR MONTHS. Councilmember L. Johnson said that would give the Council until March 1st and if the tree code is coming to the Council in January, that provides an incentive to move forward and not have the moratorium be any more restrictive than it needs to be and not to go on any longer than needed. Councilmember Olson said she would have been okay with a six-month moratorium but she agreed with the other two amendments and was willing to accept them all. Councilmember Paine inquired about doing something different than the existing tree code, whether the Council could change the caliper from six inches to eight. Mr. Taraday said that change could be made. He drafted the ordinance consistent with City code for the sake of simplicity, but the Council can make the moratorium as broad or a narrow as they like. Councilmember Paine asked about code enforcement. Ms. Hope answered it would enforced via subdivision applications; anyone applying for a subdivision would be unable to submit an application if their site met the threshold in the moratorium. Councilmember Olson said the current code does not allow cutting trees prior to an application. One of her initial reservations and concerns with the moratorium was that it did not address that, but the current code, which is still in effect, does address it. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 7.1.a Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not support moving forward with an emergency ordinance and will be voting no. She did not understand the emergency and felt it could be detrimental to low income housing in the long run. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION FAILED (3-4) COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND K. JOHNSON VOTING YES. Councilmember K. Johnson said at the risk of repeating herself, she did not think this would have any impact on multi -family housing, low income or low -low income, senior or veterans housing. She asked Ms. Hope to clarify that as there appeared to be a difference of opinion. Mr. Lien said for multi -family development, this would apply to unit lot subdivisions and townhouse -type development, but not to other multi -family type developments. Ms. Hope answered it would apply to any subdivision which could be types of multi -family housing and there may be other types of multi -family housing it does not apply to. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if this affected middle level housing. Ms. Hope said it could affect people in moderate level housing in two ways, 1) developers' perception that a moratorium makes it difficult to build in Edmonds, and 2) development of townhomes in a more affordable category. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented this could affect moderate and low income housing. Ms. Hope said it was possible it would affect low income and it was very possible that it would affect middle and moderate income housing. Council President Fraley-Monillas encouraged the Council to think very carefully about this. This was not something the Council should jump into quickly and perhaps it should have been brought up in the last few years. She understood the principle and the purpose but was interested in assisting people seeking moderate and low income housing. All this does is reduce the ability for people to live in Edmonds. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding that most construction occurs during dry periods such as March through October. She asked if a four -month moratorium would significantly affect the development process. Ms. Hope answered it depends on what "significantly affect" means. While people may not be doing construction during that time, they want to submit their applications. It's possible it would not have a huge impact if there weren't people who wanted to submit, but it would affect projects for which a developer wanted to submit an application. Projects that are already submitted could go forward, moratorium or not. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday displayed a redline version of the ordinance and highlighted changes made by the amendment: • Change "four significant trees per 10,000 square feet" to "eight significant trees per 10,000 square feet" in the ordinance title • Change 6t' WHEREAS to read, ..."WHEREAS the City Council desires to impose an immedia4e si* four -month moratorium... more than €ear eight trees per 10,000...," • Change the definition of significant tree to "...having a caliper of eight inches or greater" • Change "four month moratorium" to "six month moratorium" in Section 2 • Change the math in Section 2. Examples: o Fourteen significant trees on an 18,000 square foot lot would not be subject to the moratorium o Fifteen significant trees on an 18,000 square foot lot be subject to the moratorium • Change duration of moratorium from six to four months in Section 3 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 7.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst asked whether language could be inserted to exempt applicants who were not planning to remove trees. Mr. Taraday answered theoretically that could happen and if the Council wished, language could be developed. He discussed that concept with planning staff and they were concerned that type of qualification would make administration of the moratorium significantly more complicated as it would require obtaining some type of statement from the applicant that they committed to not removing trees and that somehow would become a binding condition of preliminary plat approval. He summarized it was not impossible but it would be fairly complicated. Mr. Lien said with subdivision application, the placement of the house is not necessarily known. The review of a subdivision application is primarily drawing the lines and the utilities. There has to be a buildable site on the lot, but the exact location of the houses is not identified. Trees impacted by house placement are not typically reviewed until the building permit stage. There could be a case where the trees were on the perimeter of the development and could be saved, but like Mr. Taraday said, if the moratorium was in place and the applicant said they would not cut any trees, the City would need some assurance of that, otherwise everyone would just say they weren't removing any trees with the development. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed interest in a long term sustainable tree code. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday noted for the record that because the vote margin was a simple majority and not super majority, the emergency clause in the ordinance does not take effect and the ordinance will take effect pursuant to its normal five days after publication. (Councilmember K. Johnson left meeting at 9:19 p.m.) 4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO MAKE THE MORATORIUM ORDINANCE MORE ENFORCEABLE City Attorney Jeff Taraday displayed the proposed ordinance and explained this is the nuts and bolts that go along with the moratorium ordinance. It does not do much in the way of policy changes, but makes it so the moratorium cannot easily be circumvented. He referred to Section 2, where language related to one of the exemptions from the current tree cutting code. The current tree cutting code would allow an exemption for a 2-lot short plat, so anyone proposing a 2-lot short plat could essentially clear their lot prior to making an application for the subdivision. The language in strike -through removes that exemption from the tree cutting code so even a 2-lot short plat is still subject to the general rule that land cannot be cleared in anticipation of development. Mr. Taraday referred to Section 2.1.13, a non -substantive change that makes the language parallel. The change in Section 3 changes the subdivision application requirements by referencing ECDC 20.75.060 and .060 itself is changed in Section 4. The combination of Sections 3 and 4 together require when a subdivision applicant comes to the counter, they are required to show on their application materials the location of any trees greater than eight inches in diameter. That is necessary because the counter staff cannot enforce the moratorium unless they can see whether the requisite number of trees are present on the application. Basically, this ordinance requires that the application materials show 8 inch and larger trees. That way counter staff can easily determine whether the moratorium applies or does not apply to a particular subdivision. Councilmember Buckshnis said she thought the size was six inches rather than eight inches. Mr. Taraday pointed out the Council approved an amendment in the previous agenda item that changed it to eight inches. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 7.1.a Councilmember Paine asked how the diameter of the trees on the subdivision would be verified to ensure a developer did not just say they were six inches in diameter and then the chainsaws come out. She asked if there would be an application review process where staff would walk the property. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained when the City receives an application, the applicant has to sign stating the application materials are true and accurate. He did not envision staff measuring the diameter of all the trees on a property. When an application is submitted, staff would do a calculation for trees identified on the application based on the moratorium ordinance and then make a determination whether to accept or deny the application based on the moratorium. Councilmember Paine recalled an effort when she was on the Tree Board to develop a canopy map of the City. She asked if there was an actual canopy map for the City that a regular person could come in and find. Development Services Director Shane Hope said a tree canopy analysis was developed as part of the Urban Forestry Management Plan; however, there is not enough detail to determine the exact canopy on individual properties. Councilmember Paine asked about USGS maps. She recalled Snohomish County looks at tree canopy and has a predetermined canopy coverage requirement of 30%. She asked how Snohomish County did that to allow them to see where the largest trees are. Ms. Hope said it was hoped with the proposed new tree code, there would be an opportunity to take a better look at that. Given that the ordinance the Council just passed was not an emergency ordinance, Councilmember Distelhorst asked if it would be inconsistent for this ordinance to be passed as an emergency ordinance and go into effect before the moratorium. Mr. Taraday answered it would be inconsistent and he was unsure the reason for the emergency would be necessary without the moratorium also going into effect immediately. Ms. Hope said it would not be helpful to have this ordinance take effect prior to the moratorium taking effect because staff could not deny an application under the existing regulations. Mr. Lien said Section 2 of this ordinance changed the exemption when a tree cutting permit is required. Currently clearing on an approved lot that is capable of being further subdivided would be exempt so someone could cut trees before the moratorium goes into effect. That would be a reason for adopting this ordinance as an emergency and have it take effect prior to the moratorium. Mr. Taraday agreed. Ms. Hope said that would apply only to 2-unit short plats since the others are already covered. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the number of significant trees was changed to eight per 10,000 square feet, and asked if that needed to be changed via a motion. Mr. Taraday said he will make those changes to the ordinance while the Council is deliberating. Ms. Hope recommended the title also correspond with the amended version of the moratorium ordinance. Councilmember Olson expressed appreciation for staff and how smart and on top of things they were. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4201, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM EMERGENCY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ACCOMPANY THE CITY'S MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN EIGHT SIGNIFICANT TREES PER 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS UPDATED TREE REGULATIONS ADDRESSING THE CLEARING OF SUCH PROPERTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT, SETTING FOUR MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATIONS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PAINE, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 7.1.a 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson commented tomorrow night is Election Night. Washingtonians know a thing or two about mail -in ballots although it seems to be a new thing for the rest of the country. Most everyone is waiting with bated breath for the results. However, if the results are not known nationally tomorrow night, we'll wait because Washingtonians know results can take a while and know how important it is that every vote is counted. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember L. Johnson encouraged the public vote, noting they have less than 24 hours to get their ballots in. Voters can visit VoteWa.gov to look up ballot box locations and download a ballot if they have misplaced theirs. Anyone who needs to register can go to the Snohomish County Elections office in Everett. It is worth it to ensure your voice is heard and your vote is counted. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated the need to be conscientious and calm. She relayed a few people who work in downtown Seattle were told by their employers not to go downtown because they were expecting rioting. She urged everyone to be safe, stay home, and wear a mask. Things are tough now, but treat yourself with kindness, take care of yourself and be calm. Tomorrow's results will be exciting; everyone is waiting. Councilmember Distelhorst urged the public to vote, vote, vote. Over the weekend, Snohomish County had the largest single day of positive case counts, 141 cases on Saturday so Snohomish County residents are not doing enough. He urged those who are not essential workers and have the privilege to stay home to use that privilege to keep all essential workers safe. He urged those who were able to do so to stay home, not see friends, hunker down and take care of the whole community. Councilmember Olson expressed thanks to essential workers, noting everyone appreciated them. She shared a letter published on the front page Everett Herald to Snohomish from Chief Palmer: "Greetings to all of you from your new Police Chief and that greeting extends to the larger Snohomish community that surrounds us. We are all deeply committed to seeing a healthy and safe city and I wanted to express a few thoughts and make some simple requests as we navigate uncertain times. Since assuming this role in early June, I've spent many (some sleepless) hours reflecting on the events that occurred to bring me to this position, and what we can do, together, to avoid unnecessary or negative circumstances in the future. 2020 has been the most challenging year that many of us can remember and sadly, our communities, and our country, have become deeply divided on several significant topics — Political Ideology, Law Enforcement, Economics, and most importantly, Race. Every one of these topics needs and deserves careful consideration, thought, and revision and I want to state that I emphatically support the right of our citizens to peaceably assemble and protest the things that they find wrong in our society. I also categorically stand against racism, bigotry and prejudice in any form, for any reason. As your Police Chief you have my promise that I will do all that I can to facilitate assemblies and maintain a safe environment for them when they are held in the city. It is my sworn duty to protect the rights of our citizens, as expressed in the Bill of Rights, without regard to my own beliefs and equally under the law — I cannot choose sides. I have sworn that oath many times in my service to our country, and to my community, and I take it as seriously as is expected of me. It is also the responsibility of our citizens to follow our laws and actively participate in partnership with their law enforcement to maintain safe communities. We work for you, but we also need to work with you. Violence in any form is counterproductive to a thoughtful and meaningful dialogue about Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 7.1.a effecting change that meets the needs of all of us, not just one side or the other. Even the threat of violence, actual or perceived, creates further division, raises tensions, and erodes the community's sense of safety. It also destroys the validity of the message being sent by the body trying to be heard by the larger audience. My first request is this; if you wish to protest an injustice, seek a redress of wrongs, get your message out to as wide an audience as possible — don't break other people's stuff while you're at it. It doesn't help anything or anyone and most likely harms the livelihoods of exactly the people you are trying to speak for. Please respect the rights of others, as you correctly expect your rights to be respected; assemble peaceably and responsibly and I will do everything within my lawful authority to facilitate you. Conversely, when well-intentioned citizens come to the city to provide community support or security in the face of a serious threat, while visibly armed with semi -automatic weapons and tactical gear, this automatically creates an uncomfortable distraction for my officers who are called to respond to the situation. Please consider how their safety is compromised by such distractions during a critical or rapidly evolving event. The more focus my professionally trained, and legally -authorized team of officers can apply to the complexities of a potential or active threat — without such distractions — the safer they and our community will be. The simple truth is that citizens have no legal authority to stop anyone from doing anything and direct intimidation of otherwise peaceful protesters could subject you to arrest. So my second ask is this; If you hear of a planned protest in the city of Snohomish, even one with a credible threat of violence, please leave your weapons at home or safely and legally stored out of sight, but please don't open carry on the streets as we have seen. It doesn't make my job, or the job of the dedicated officers in Snohomish any easier. In fact, it makes it infinitely harder and creates long- lasting tensions in the community that likely ripple for months afterward. Let me use the legal and lawful resources that I have available to me to maintain order. The remainder of 2020, and likely well into 2021, has every indication of continuing the uncertainty and stress our communities have seen over the last 8 months. I will work with anyone, anytime, to minimize that uncertainty and stress, within my authority to do so, but I simply can't make it all go away. Working together, we can keep a lot of it in check through cooperation and understanding that every American is equally entitled to their Constitutional rights and their own personal views and philosophies. My final ask is this; please do everything you can to keep Snohomish safe, welcoming, racism free and to work with me as we navigate these challenging times as a community — not as antagonists or a divided nation. —Thank you, Chief Rob Palmer, Snohomish Police Department" Councilmember Olson commented that was a letter from a leader in another community, but it was an important message to share. Council President Fraley-Monillas encouraged the public to get out and vote. Snohomish County is doing really well and Edmonds has always been a leader in the number of voters. She advised next week will be Council committee meetings; Maureen will be sending out more information. Councilmembers will continue in the committees they assigned to in January. Council President Fraley-Monillas said although she understands the kindness thing, but she was also interested in change. Change is an important thing in tomorrow night's elections. She wanted to see change in the world, in the city and in neighborhoods. The only way that will happen is to step up and demand change from electeds. Fingers crossed tomorrow's election will result in change for everyone in general. For anyone who hasn't voted, she urged them to vote. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 7.1.a As the parent of an essential worker at QFC, Councilmember Paine said her daughter has been safe all this year which has been a huge relief for her and her daughter's father. With regard to trees and the environment, climate change and the climate crisis is an existential threat; the Council and the community are well aware of that. She was excited about looking at the City's watersheds; Perrinville is an important watershed and the City has a great opportunity to shine a spotlight on things that need to be done now and quickly. She typically preferred to follow regular steps, but appreciated the tree preservation aspects of the moratorium because now is the time to fix this. The Perrinville area and its watershed are very important. The City has talked about it for the past 16 years and it is time to do something and this is the action that was needed to focus on all the watersheds, Lake Ballinger, the Marsh and Perrinville. She also urged the public to vote. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 7.1.a Public Comment for 11/2/20 Council Meeting: From: Bill Phipps Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 5:53 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Resolution to ban all planned development until Tree Code is enacted Greetings Edmonds City Council members; I am writing in support of the resolution to temporarily stop all proposed real estate development until a meaningful City Tree Code is enacted by Council. We have literally lost hundreds of significant trees just since the Urban Forest Management Plan was adopted last summer. In that plan, the City committed to maintaining a 30 percent tree canopy that was measured years ago. We don't even know what our current tree canopy percentage is! We certainly have not been adding to our canopy, only losing it very quickly. It is time to push the "pause" button until we can get a tree code in place. We, like all of our neighboring cities, are facing tremendous housing pressures. It seem that all of Edmonds will be totally developed soon. It will take some creative solutions to figure out how to maintain our 30% forest canopy. It will take time to complete our Tree Code. In the meantime, we should take a deep breath and call a halt to all planned construction until that tree code is in place. We will all be facing difficult times ahead as we grapple with Climate Change. We need to figure out how to maintain our forest canopy, which is the easiest way to mitigate increased Green House Gases in our atmosphere. Thank you for your time and consideration. Bill Phipps Edmonds resident From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, November 2, 2020 4:36 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 24 Packet Pg. 27 7.1.a Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for November 2, 2020 City Council meeting The documentation for AUTO — ENG Review/Activity completed January 16, 2020 (Permit #: DRC2020-0001), shows that City Staff think they can act contrary to the City's laws and ordinances. The following comes from that documentation: "Access to Lot 3 is proposed off Cedar Street. Thank you for making a site visit and providing dimensions of the paved area. As shown in the photo below (and in the attachment provided by Rob), the existing paved road is narrow and bound by an existing Cedar tree on the south side. In consideration of the development history on Cedar Street and a previous determination to protect the cedar trees, the Engineering Division will not require any additional pavement widening in order to access proposed Lot 3. An on -site turn around will, however, be required." Such is not allowed per ECDC 18.80.010 Street Standards. Streets serving 5-9 lots in the RS-6 zone must be a minimum of 30' Right -of -Way Width. There are portions of the Cedar Street R.O.W. where the width is only 25' wide. Cedar Street is not wide enough to allow for even 1 more lot to be accessed to the east of this 25' R.O.W. width area. Furthermore, the pavement width has to be 20' wide minimum. A 25' Right -of -Way Width paved as little as 11 feet wide does not allow access for a new lot. Despite this — City staff claimed that the Engineering Division will not require any additional pavement widening in order to access proposed Lot 3. This is obviously a major problem. It is not enough for Council to adopt our laws and ordinances. We must have Mayors who will perform their duty to see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced, and that law and order is maintained in the City. Please see an email attached from 2012 in which I informed that ECDC 20.75.040.0 contains an error. I informed that: This Code section states that: A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option. The reference should be to ECDC 20.75.060, not ECDC 20.75.050. 1 informed that: I've actually witnessed a developer argue that they don't have to disclose the information required by ECDC 20.75.060 on a preliminary plat due to the mistake in ECDC 20.75.040.C. I said: This must be fixed! Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 25 Packet Pg. 28 7.1.a In April of 2012, 1 had emailed City Attorney Jeff Taraday the same information. It is November 2, 2020 and ECDC 20.75.040.0 still contains the same error. Attachment: Subject: My General Requests of the Tree Board Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:29:18 -0700 To the members of the Tree Board, Thank you very much for allowing me to discuss the City's Code related to trees during last week's meeting. Much was discussed, but I believe the main point is that there is often a conflict between development rights and tree protection under the City's Code. I believe that accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the development application process coupled with proper application and enforcement of the City's Code by Mayor and staff will greatly assist the protection of valuable trees in Edmonds. As such, my general request of the Tree Board is twofold: 1. Please strongly encourage the City Council to closely review the City's tree related Code and make corrections and IMPROVEMENTS where necessary. I believe that the Code needs to be strengthened related to accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the development application process. For example, ECDC 20.75.040.0 contains an error. This Code section states that: A survey map, if required by the community development director, of the exterior boundaries of the land to be subdivided, prepared by, and bearing the seal and signature of, a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. This map can be combined with the preliminary ECDC 20.75.050 plat at the applicant's option. The reference should be to ECDC 20.75.060, not ECDC 20.75.050. I've actually witnessed a developer argue that they don't have to disclose the information required by ECDC 20.75.060 on a preliminary plat due to the mistake in ECDC 20.75.040.C. This must be fixed! A second example is found in ECDC 20.75.060.N. This Code Section states that the following shall be shown on the plat: The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas as requested by the planning director. There are two problems here. First of all, there is no such position as planning director. Secondly, even if there was a planning director, why should the disclosure of the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter in areas be subjective? I believe leaving such an important Code requirement optional and subjective gives the applicant and the City a potential excuse for failure to disclose trees on preliminary plats. I believe the more accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas during the development application process the better! I think accurate, detailed disclosure of trees and tree covered areas on adjoining properties is also very necessary. 2. Petition and respectfully request that the Mayor and his staff be diligent in the application and enforcement of the City's Code related to trees. For example, valuable healthy trees located in critical areas should not be lost to development because the trees weren't disclosed during Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 26 Packet Pg. 29 7.1.a the application process. Vesting is supposed to be based in equity. It is not equitable to gain vested development rights as a reward for not disclosing trees as required under the City's Code. For example, development applcations should be deemed incomplete if the application fails to disclose the required trees and tree covered areas. Thank you very much for your hard work as members of the Tree Board. Please let me know if you have any questions. Ken Reidy From: Wally Danielson Sent: Sunday, November 1, 2020 8:26 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Perrinville Woods - Street Vacation This is a comment is for the November 17, 2020 Edmonds City Council hearing re the "Consideration for the vacation of a portion of 184th Street SW ..." I oppose the proposed street vacation as this will increase housing density in this parcel. These additional and/or larger homes will require the removal of mature trees and the loss of more wildlife habitat. It will make it more difficult for wildlife to between Southwest County Park and Seaview Park. The public good would be best served by making this parcel a bridge between the two parks. If that is not pursued, then reducing the impact is the best public good. I have lived very near this parcel for thirty years and opposed the previous development proposal which would have been disastrous. Wally Danielson Edmonds, WA 98026 From: Douglas Resnick Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020 11:30 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: 184th Street SW Vacation Dear City Council: You have scheduled a hearing on November 17, 2020, for a proposal to vacate a portion of 184th Street SW between 80th Avenue W and Olympic View Drive. This hearing was rescheduled from a meeting on October 6, 2020. 1 read the material concerning this proposal contained in the agenda packet and minutes from the earlier meeting. Those minutes also contained a discussion of another proposal for this part of Edmonds, namely, Perrinville; the other proposal concerned a plan map designation change for two undeveloped parcels. I believe that the following comment from page 30 of the minutes is appropriate not only for the plan map designation change, but also for the street vacation: "Council President Fraley - Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 27 Packet Pg. 30 7.1.a Monillas said until there is process developed for the Perrinville area, she was unwilling to give up something just because someone wanted it." Thank you for considering my comment. Yours, Douglas Resnick Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 28 Packet Pg. 31 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/12/2020 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History Approval of claim checks #244729 through #244830 dated November 4, 2020 for $1,081,902.73. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64468 through #64474 for $614,999.23, benefit checks #64475 through #64479 and wire payments of $615,632.38 for the pay period October 16, 2020 through October 31, 2020. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 11-04-20 payroll summary 11-05-20 payroll benefits 11-05-20 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-04-20 Packet Pg. 32 7.2.a vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244729 11 /4/2020 076040 911 SUPPLY I N C Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account INV-2-6125 INV-2-6125 - EDMONDS PD - SANCI MOCK TURTLENECK 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 BLAUER L/S SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 NAME TAPE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 BLAUER MENS PANTS - 2 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 TRAFFIC SAFETY VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 TRAFFIC VEST HEAT PRESS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 INV-2-6127 INV2-6127 - EDMONDS PD - ARVAN NAMETAPE - ARVAN 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 NAMETAPE - POLICE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2 - VELCRO 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 INV-2-6130 INV-2-6130 - EDMONDS PD - GONZ, CUSTOM JUMPSUIT - GONZALEZ 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 INV-6-6128 INV-6-6128 - EDMONDS PD - TRIMS MOCK TURTLENECK 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 BLAUER L/S SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Page: 1 aD L 3 c �a .y Amoun 0 a aD r U d 29.9� :a N 79.9� m 8.0( u m 169.9E 54.9� �a 20.0( o �a 36.3( E 8.0( ,- 0 8.0( > 0 L Q 10.0( Q 2.6( N 0 360.0( E 36.0( c 29.9� E t 79.9� Q Page: 1 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 244729 11/4/2020 076040 911 SUPPLY INC (Continued) 244730 11/4/2020 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 15-83959 244731 11/4/2020 064246 ALS LABORATORY GROUP 3532-209260 244732 11/4/2020 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 035353-20104 TtiMiZ:1Ki1IiI! 040706-20104-2 244733 11/4/2020 077287 ANDERSON TRANSCRIPTION SOLUTNS 202139 PO # Description/Account NAME TAPE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 BLAUER WMNS PANTS - 2 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 TRAFFIC VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 TRAFFIC VEST - HEAT PRESS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Total INTERPRETER 7Z0811965 INTERPRETER 7Z0811965 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 STORM - METAL ANALYSIS STORM - METAL ANALYSIS 422.000.72.531.40.41.00 Total Total : PLANNING - MEMBERSHIPS American Planning Assoc- 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 PLANNING MEMBERSHIPS Planning Board: APA Membership 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 PLANNING - MEMBERSHIPS APA Membership (Planning Advisory 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 Total TRANSCRIPTION FOR PDA 9Z0937, TRANSCRIPTION FOR PDA 7.2.a Page: 2 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 8.0( u L 169.9E N 54.9� U 20.0( m c 36.3( m 1,223.1( �a 0 L 170.0( a 170.0( U 4- 0 854.0( 0 854.0( 0 L Q a Q 668.0( N v 0 665.0( N E 2 790.0( u 2,123.0( c W E t U �a Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 3 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 244733 11/4/2020 077287 ANDERSON TRANSCRIPTION SOLUTNS (Continued) 0 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 as 277.4( -0 Total: 277.4( u m L_ 244734 11/4/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1991962732 WWTP: 10/21/20 UNIFORMS,TOWE Mats/Towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 51.4E Uniforms: Jeanne - 3 Lab Coats $0.1 U 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.4- 10.4% Sales Tax c 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 5.3E 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.1E Total: 58.35 0 0 244735 11/4/2020 064452 ARMSTRONG SERVICES 3915 WWTP: 10/2020 JANITORIAL & CO%CL ca 10/2020 JANITORIAL SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 880.0( •� 10/2020 COVID DISINFECTANT SEF U 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 520.0( c Total: 1,400.0( ii 244736 11/4/2020 068245 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC 053301 EOFB.TO 20-01.SERVICES THRU 9/; 0 a EOFB.TO 20-01.Services thru 9/30/2C Q- Q 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 5,446.8- Total : 5,446.81 N 244737 11/4/2020 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC S116872 ALERTON SYSTEM-PW - G ALERTON SYSTEM-PW 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 3,555.0( 10.4% Sales Tax M 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 369.7, Total: 3,924.7: W 244738 11/4/2020 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 118460 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS E UB Outsourcing area Printing 1745 t U �a Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244738 11/4/2020 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing area Printing 1745 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area Printing 1745 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area Postage # 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 UB Outsourcing area Postage # 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 118616 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area Printing 2438 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing area Printing 2438 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area Printing 2438 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area Postage 2438 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 UB Outsourcing area Postage 2438 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 Total 7.2.a Page: 4 W L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 112.2� r U d 112.2� 115.7( Y m 339.4� U 339.4f c a� 11.3z �a 11.3z o L �a 11.6� E 156.8E 0 156.8� 0 161.6< a Q 474.5 m, N 474.5E c 15.8E E 15.8E c 16.3, E 2,526.1 F t U �a Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244739 11/4/2020 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 53414 INTERPRETER XZ0540779 INTERPRETER XZ0540779 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 53415 INTERPRETER XZ0127001 INTERPRETER XZ0127001 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 53416 INTERPRETER XZ0636893 INTERPRETER XZ0636893 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 53505 INTERPRETER XZ213347 INTERPRETER XZ213347 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 53675 INTERPRETER XZ0242588 INTERPRETER XZ0242588 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 53818 INTERPRETER 8ZO990564 INTERPRETER 8Z0990564 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 53857 INERPRETER XZ244518 INTERPRETER XZ244518 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 53991 INTERPRETER 8ZO990564 INTERPRETER 8ZO990564 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 54080 INTERPRETER XZ0703370 INTERPRETER XZ0703370 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 54088 INTERPRETER 9Z1166164 INTERPRETER 9Z1166164 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 54288 INTERPRETER 8ZO990564 INTERPRETER 8ZO990564 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 54322 INTERPRETER XZ0363564 INTERPRETER XZ0363564 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 7.2.a Page: 5 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 100.0( U 100.0( m 100.0( m c a� 100.0( �a 0 125.0( `5% M a E 131.9� 'i 0 150.0( 0 L Q a 100.0( Q 0 N 106.9� o 100.0( . �a U 100.0( (D E t U �a 131.9� Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 6 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 244739 11/4/2020 075217 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY (Continued) Total : 1,345.91, 244740 11/4/2020 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 768676 UNIT 42 - PARTS/ SWITCH UNIT 42 - PARTS/ SWITCH 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 11.4� 10.1 % Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.11E Total : 12.6! 244741 11/4/2020 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 1202546 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 603.5 GAL FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 603.5 GAL 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 623.6E Tota I : 623.6E 244742 11/4/2020 072699 BUCHANAN SERVICES INC 10624 CAR LIFT REPAIR & SERVICE CAR LIFT REPAIR & SERVICE 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 340.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 35.3E Total: 375.3E 244743 11/4/2020 077166 CADENA, MICHAEL 244744 11/4/2020 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 07202020 INTERPRETER XZ0540779 INTERPRETER XZ0540779 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 07292020 INTERPRETER XZ0613044 INTERPRETER XZ0613044 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 10132020 INTERPRETER 8Z0990564 INTERPRETER 8Z0990564 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 Total 5718825 ROADWAY - SHEET MIX & ASPHAL- ROADWAY - SHEET MIX & ASPHAL- 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Page: 6 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 244744 11/4/2020 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC (Continued) 5719166 5719513 5719851 244745 11/4/2020 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 94796722 244746 11/4/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 22025852 PO # Description/Account ROADWAY - ASPHALT ROADWAY - ASPHALT 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 ROADWAY - SHEET MIX & ASPHAL- ROADWAY - SHEET MIX & ASPHAL- 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 ROADWAY - SHEET MIX ROADWAY - SHEET MIX 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Total STREET - NON-PUMPABLE CDF SL, STREET - NON-PUMPABLE CDF SL, 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 Total INV 22025852 - EDMONDS PD 9/20- METER CHARGES - 014BW 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 9/20- METER CHARGES - 015CLR 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 9/20- METER CHARGES - 01613W 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 9/20- METER CHARGES - 016CLR 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 7.2.a Page: 7 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 160.1� 16.0- m 484.6� m c 48.4 1 M c �a 262.1( 0 L 26.2- a 1,425.0f U 0 493.4( 0 L 49.3E a 542.75 Q 0 N 0 10.3E 3.0z E 2 10.9z U c a� 69.8, E t U 9.7E Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244746 11/4/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 22025866 WiPA-1.1 ' 22025872 22025873 244747 11/4/2020 003328 CASCADE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA 202001 PO # Description/Account INV 22025866 - EDMONDS PD 10/20 - CONTRACT CHARGE - IRC5 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 9/20 - BW METER USAGE- IRC5550 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 9/20 - CLR METER USAGE- IRC555( 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 INV 22025869 - EDMONDS PD 10/20 -CONTRACT CHARGE-FAXBC 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 INV 22025872 - EDMONDS PD 10/20 - GRAPHICS- IRDXC57401 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10/20 - GRAPHICS- IR525IF11-307 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10/20 - GRAPHICS- IR525IF11-103 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10/20 - GRAPHICS - IRDXC2571F 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 INV 22025873 - EDMONDS PD 10/20- CONTRACT- IRDXC515001 - 2 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10/20 - CONTRACT - IRDX57501 - 25 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 Total TPA CSO 7.2.a Page: 8 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 185.7z 24.8( m 110.0( U 33.3z c c 36.0, 0 3.7E >+ M a E 53.1 z 'ca 53.1 z 0 �a 53.1 z a a 53.1 z Q 0 22.1" 0 173.8" E M 178.1( Z c 36.5E 0 1,120.9( t U �a Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 244747 11/4/2020 003328 CASCADE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA (Continued) 244748 11/4/2020 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 244749 11/4/2020 076718 CHASE, BARBARA 244750 11/4/2020 078133 CITY DRY CLEANERS 244751 11/4/2020 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 2765982 2820938 2961937 BChase 10.29.20 11042020 City Dry 8498310301175175 8498310301175191 PO # Description/Account TPA CSO 123.000.64.573.20.41.00 Total : CISCO ASA 5506-X FIREWALL Cisco ASA 5506-X Security Plus 1 001.000.64.571.21.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.35.00 CISCO SMARTNET EXT SERVICE A 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Cisco SMARTnet extended service 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 MS OFFICE 365 VEEAM BACKUP Al Microsoft Office 365 Veeam Backup - 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total REIMB-TREE BOARD EXPENSES Trees purchased for planting at Edmc 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Total CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Total CEMETERY INTERNET 820 15TH Sl CEMETERY INTERNET 820 15TH S� 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF 7.2.a Page: 9 W L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 720.0( u 720.0( .L N m 918.6, 95.5, a� 36.5E 0 351.7z �a a 2,246.2E 233.6' o 3,882.3E 0 L a a Q 42.9E " 42.9E N 4 0 8,000.0( E 8,000.0( 'ca c a� 140.21 t U �a Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 10 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 244751 11/4/2020 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS (Continued) MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 140.2 Total: 280.5' 244752 11/4/2020 074382 CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS 21602734 STORM - 1/4 TURN-ZPG Freight 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 215.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 140.9, STORM - 1/4 TURN-ZPG 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 1,140.0( Total: 1,495.9, 244753 11/4/2020 069701 CUSTOM TREE SERVICE 09192020 DEV SVCS PROF SVCS Cutting of apple tree and grinding of 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 425.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 44.2( Total : 469.2( 244754 11/4/2020 076577 CWT LLC 35343 GRIGGS.CESCL RE-CERT 11/16/20 Griggs.CESCL Re-Cert. 11/16/20 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 180.0( Total : 180.0( 244755 11/4/2020 078142 DANIELS, ADELE Pops KettleCornRef und REFUND HOLIDAY MARKET APPLIC Refund Holiday Market Application Pc 001.000.347.93.000.00 185.0( Tota I : 185.0( 244756 11/4/2020 078128 DANS BARBERSHOP 11042020 Dans Barber CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 3,000.0( Total: 3,000.0( 244757 11/4/2020 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 INV651872 INV651872 - EDMONDS PD Page: 10 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244757 11/4/2020 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 244758 11/4/2020 078155 DEMETRI'S 244759 11/4/2020 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 244760 11/4/2020 075153 DOPPS, MARIA 244761 11/4/2020 076233 DUDE SOLUTIONS INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) CALIBRATE RADAR - 08723 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 CALIBRATE RADAR - GHD-20126 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 CALIBRATE RADAR - LP03397 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 FUEL SURCHARGE 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 Total 11042020 Demetris CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Tota I : 20-4041 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES city council meeting minutes 10/27 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Tota I : 53506 INTERPRETER XZ0644231 INTERPRETER XZ0644231 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 54060 INTERPRETER XZ0213347 INTERPRETER XZ0213347 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 Tota I : INV-77738 FAC MAINT - MAINTENANCE EDGE FAC MAINT - MAINTENANCE EDGE 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 7.2.a Page: 11 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 70.0( u L 70.0( N 70.0( U 20.0( m c 23.9, m 251% �a 0 L 8,000.0( a 8,000.0( U 4- 0 464.4( 0 464.4( 0 L Q a Q 100.8� N v 0 100.9< 201.8, E 2 U c 5,643.6E E t 586.9z Q Page: 11 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244761 11/4/2020 076233 076233 DUDE SOLUTIONS INC 244762 11/4/2020 007253 DUNN LUMBER 244763 11/4/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 7577909 7-05276 244764 11/4/2020 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR177973 244765 11/4/2020 076231 EMISSION TECHNOLOGIES INC 244766 11/4/2020 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 3792 PO # Description/Account Total ; MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - SUF MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - SUF 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 Total ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 Maintenance 10/21/20 - 11/20/20 Car 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Copier overage 7/21/20 - 10/20/20 12 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 Total WWTP: PO 431 INCINERATOR REP, Incinerator Repair: $260 + Parts: $57: 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total EDH911800 PLANNING ADVERTISING Legal Ad- 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH911827 ORDINANCE 4198 7.2.a Page: 12 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 6,230.55 U d L_ 12.6, N 1.3( 14.0( m c d 218.51 -a 218.5' 0 L �a 307.2( a E 0.9Z 4- 31.9E 0 0 0.1( a 340.1 <, Q 0 N 832.0( c 86.5< 918.5: U c 0 49.0( E U �a Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244766 11/4/2020 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) ordinance 4198 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH911865 PLANNING: ADVERTISING Legal Ad- 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 244767 11/4/2020 071572 EVIDENT CRIME SCENE PRODUCTS 161756B 244768 11/4/2020 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC Total : INV 161756E - CUST 21159 - EDMOI 500 CAP SHURE SWABS - 6"WOOD 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 12 - SMALLADUSTABLE EVID. TUBI 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 12- MEDIUM ADJUSTABLE EVID. TL 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 Total 0917066 WATER - PARTS WATER - PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 0920977 WATER - PARTS/ GATE VALVE WATER - PARTS/ GATE VALVE 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 244769 11/4/2020 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 160430 Total : OCT-2020 SUPPORT SERVICES Oct-20 Support Services 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total 7.2.a Page: 13 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 21.0( u L_ 42.0( 112.0( m c 580.0( 42.0( 0 94.5( 716.5( a E U 1,134.5 0 �a 118.0( p L a a Q 1,632.9E o N 169.8' c 3,055.31 E 425.0( c 44.2( E 469.2( �a Q Page: 13 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 14 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 244770 11/4/2020 071467 GATEWAY PET MEMORIAL WA70014-1-0038 INV WA70014-1-0038 - EDMONDS PI m DISPOSAL OF 2 ANIMAL REMAINS 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 26.3E u Total: 26.3E .`- 244771 11/4/2020 076542 GRANICUS 133177 CIVIC STREAMING, AGENDA & MIN N civic streaming, agenda and minutes 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,417.3� r 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 147.4( Total : 1,564.7< 244772 11/4/2020 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 15620754 WATER - PARTS/ METER BOXES WATER - PARTS/ METER BOXES — 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,298.0E 10.4% Sales Tax a 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 135.0' Total : 1,433.05 •� 244773 11/4/2020 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1053412 WWTP: PO 426 FUEL BLOWER PO 426 FUEL BLOWER 0 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1i 159.0( o 10.2% Sales Tax a 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 16.2, Q 2884629 WWTP: PO 416 SUBMERSIBLE DR .r PO 416 SUBMERSIBLE DR N 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 100.2( 10.4% Sales Tax c 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4, Total: 285.8' E 2 244774 11/4/2020 061013 HONEY BUCKET 0551779186 FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE' U FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE' 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 131.61 E Total : 131.6! t U �a Q Page: 14 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 15 a� L 3 Bank code : usbank c �a Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun N 244775 11/4/2020 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 739651-1 FLEET -SUPPLIES 0 m FLEET - SUPPLIES 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 101.01 U Freight L 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.8( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.6: Total: 123.4° u 244776 11/4/2020 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3406471 OFFICE SUPPLIES c PAPER 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 179.9E -a 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 18.7, o Total: 198.6f j, �a 244777 11/4/2020 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 1905701058031 INV 1905701058031 - EDMONDS PE 9 V WORKAHOLIC BATTERIES 12/13 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 50.8. U 10.4% Sales Tax c 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 5.2� Ta 300-10078761 FLEET - PARTS 0 FLEET - PARTS a 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 587.0E Q 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 61.0E N 300-10078852 FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) c FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) T- 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 -297.5( N 10.4% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 -30.9, f° Total: 375.8( c 244778 11/4/2020 078156 KAFE NEO 11042020 Kafe Neo CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT E CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 8,000.0( Q Page: 15 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 244778 11/4/2020 078156 078156 KAFE NEO (Continued) 244779 11/4/2020 078154 KARA NAILS CORPORATION 11042020 kara nails 244780 11/4/2020 074662 LATITUDE GEOGRAPHICS GROUP INV0014969 244781 11/4/2020 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 186 244782 11/4/2020 076498 LAW OFFICE OF KATE MOGLIA PLLC 220 PO # Description/Account Total ; CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Total GEOCORTEX ESSENTIALS ANNUAI GEOCORTEX ESSENTIALS ANNUAI 001.000.62.558.60.48.00 GEOCORTEX ESSENTIALS ANNUAI 422.000.72.531.90.48.00 GEOCORTEX ESSENTIALS ANNUAI 111.000.68.542.90.48.00 GEOCORTEX ESSENTIALS ANNUAI 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 GEOCORTEX ESSENTIALS ANNUAI 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.558.60.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 Total CONFLICT COUNSEL CONFLICT COUNSEL- 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Total CONFLICT COUNSEL 9Z0028843 7.2.a Page: 16 W L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 8,000.0( 0 U d L_ 8,000.0( 8,000.0( m z 2,652.5( c 663.1 < c �a 663.1 < o 663.1( a 663.1- •� U 275.8E 0 1i 68.9, p L a 68.9, Q 68.9, N 0 68.9E 5,856.7: E M 300.0( c 300.0( E t U �a Q Page: 16 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 244782 11/4/2020 076498 LAW OFFICE OF KATE MOGLIA PLLC (Continued) 244783 11/4/2020 078136 LEE'S HEALING CENTER 11042020 Lee's Heali 244784 11/4/2020 076001 LUCIE R BERNHEIM, ATTYAT LAW 27434 244785 11/4/2020 078126 MARSH USA INC 244786 11/4/2020 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 920054783274 334452 336807 337485 PO # Description/Account CONFLICT COUNSEL 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Total : CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Total CONFLICT COUNSEL XZ0699251 CONFLICT COUNSEL- 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Total STORAGE TANK LIABILITY INSURA Storage Tank Liability Insurance Publ 511.000.77.548.68.46.00 Total WATER - STIHL POWERHEAD & DC WATER - STIHL POWERHEAD & DC 421.000.74.534.80.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.35.00 STREET - FILE FLAT STREET - FILE FLAT 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 PM: CHAINSAW, CHAINS PM: CHAINSAW, CHAINS 001.000.64.576.81.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.35.00 Total 7.2.a Page: 17 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 300.0( u 300.0( .` N m 5,000.0( v 5,000.0( m c a� 452.0( 452.0( — 0 L �a a 2,731.0( .E 2,731.0( 0 Ta 549.7E o a a 57.1 £ Q 0 N 8.7£ c 0.9" E M 446.0' 46.3� t 1,109.0° Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244787 11/4/2020 076264 MONO ROOFTOP SOLUTIONS 244788 11/4/2020 072939 MULTI -CRAFT PLASTICS 244789 11/4/2020 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 244790 11/4/2020 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 25645 1196251 0574243-IN IN 244791 11/4/2020 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0745233-IN 244792 11/4/2020 078134 OPERATION MILITARY FAMILYCARES 11042020 Operation PO # Description/Account FIRE STATION 16 - REPAIRED/ SEA FIRE STATION 16 - REPAIRED/ SEA 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Total TRAFIC - SUPPLIES TRAFIC - SUPPLIES 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Total WATER - HI-VIS RAIN PANT WATER - HI-VIS RAIN PANT 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 Total WILLOW CREEK GRANT WRITING Willow Creek Grant Writing Services 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 Total FLEET - FILTERS FLEET - FILTERS 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 Total CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 7.2.a Page: 18 Page: 18 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 244792 11/4/2020 078134 OPERATION MILITARY FAMILYCARES (Continued) 244793 11/4/2020 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 244794 11/4/2020 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY PO # Description/Account CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Total 3685-100165 UNIT 527 - PARTS/ STARTER UNIT 527 - PARTS/ STARTER 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-100183 UNIT 123 - STRAIGHT KEY UNIT 123 - STRAIGHT KEY 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-499525 UNIT 19 - PARTS/ OIL & FUEL FILTE UNIT 19 - PARTS/ OIL & FUEL FILTE 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 00099492 FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 00099492 FLEET - PARTS RETURNED FLEET - PARTS RETURNED 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 Tota I : 7.2.a Page: 19 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 8,000.0( 8,000.0( N m 178.6E 18.7E a� 4.1� 0 0.4z �a a 27.5E 2.8 1 0 232A4 �a 0 L a a Q 409.9( " 0 N 59.3' c 48.8( N E 2 -409.9( c aD -42.6< E 65.5( U �a Q Page: 19 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 244795 11/4/2020 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY OV64666 CITY HALL - PARTS CITY HALL - PARTS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota I : 244796 11/4/2020 075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC N8550779 QUADIENT LEASE 8/23/20 - 11/22/21 quadient lease 8/23/20 - 11/22/20 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 Tota I : 244797 11/4/2020 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 3962 WWTP: DMRQA2020 REPORT DMRQA 2020 REPORT 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total 244798 11/4/2020 066977 RHOMAR INDUSTRIES INC 97792 ROADWAY - ASPHALT SUPPLIES ROADWAY - ASPHALT SUPPLIES 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Total 244799 11/4/2020 078150 ROGUE LLC 11042020 Rogue CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Tota I : 244800 11/4/2020 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-028458 UNIT 22 - BATTERY UNIT 22 - BATTERY 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.2.a Page: 20 Page: 20 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 21 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 244800 11/4/2020 064769 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC (Continued) Total : 0 225.9: 0 244801 11/4/2020 078153 RUSTY PELICAN CAFE EDMONDS INC 11042020 Rusty Pelic CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT p 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 8,000.0( Total : 8,000.0( 244802 11/4/2020 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2473014 WATER - CONCRETE MIX 60LB z WATER - CONCRETE MIX 60LB v 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 335.2E m 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 34.8, Total: 370.1' 244803 11/4/2020 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO EBFC.Pmt 3 EBFC.PMT 3 THRU 10/31/20 0 EBFC.Pmt 3 thru 10/31/20 >' �a 422.000.72.594.31.65.20 77,686.0( a EBFC.Ret 3 thru 10/31/20 E 422.000.223.400 -3,884.3( 2 Total: 73,801.7( o 244804 11/4/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201610276 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT i fd OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT o 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 8.3( a 201762101 415 5TH AVE S Q 415 5TH AVE S o 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 24.7; 202620415 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA o MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.6( E 204467435 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.6E 222704264 WWTP: 9/25-10/24/20 FLOWMETER aD 9/25-10/24/20 FLOW METER 23219 E t 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 17.1, um Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244804 11/4/2020 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 244805 11/4/2020 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 244806 244807 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2020-6497 2020-6497 11/4/2020 075292 SNOHOMISH COAUDITOR'S OFFICE Lewis/Wan 11/4/2020 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 2999 PO # Description/Account Total INV 2020-6497 - EDMONDS PD 395.33 BASE RT HOUSING @$103., 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 56.5 BOOKINGS @ $126.97 EA 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 101.5 MED HOUSING @ $59.33EA 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 35 MENT HEALTH @ $143.25 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 17.5 VIDEO CT HRS @ $199.29EA 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 JAIL SERVICE REFUND HOUSING - 4 DAYS @ $103.25 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 BOOKING - 1 DAY @ $126.97 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 MEDICAL - 1 DAY @ $59.33 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 S MENTAL - 3 DAYS @ $ 143.25 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 Total LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CORRECT release of lien: lot line adjustment 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 Total NOV-2020 COMMUNICATION DISPA NOV-2020 COMMUNICATION DISPA 001.000.39.528.00.41.50 NOV-2020 COMMUNICATION DISPA 421.000.74.534.80.41.50 NOV-2020 COMMUNICATION DISPA 423.000.75.535.80.41.50 7.2.a Page: 22 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 85.41 0 U d L 40,817.8- N 7,173.8" y U 6,022.0( m c 5,013.7.E � 3,487.5E 0 -413.0( a -126.9 , -59.3 0 0 -429.7E o 61,485.9( a Q 0 N 187.5( c 187.5( E 73,802.9( c 1,942.1 £ E t U 1,942.1 £ Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 244807 11/4/2020 076433 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY911 (Continued) 244808 11/4/2020 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE 20-049 244809 11/4/2020 078135 SPATEN20 11042020 Spa Ten 244810 11/4/2020 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S103224118.001 244811 11/4/2020 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18289660 244812 11/4/2020 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 18290983 18291649 I N V61036 Description/Account Total ; NOV-2020 FIRE SERVICES CONTR) Oct-2020 Fire Services Contract Payr 001.000.39.522.20.41.50 Total CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Total F.A.C. - SUPPLIES F.A.C. - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total : ROADWAY - WHITE UPSIDE DOWN ROADWAY - WHITE UPSIDE DOWN 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ GOOF OFF TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES/ GOOF OFF 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 FLEET - PARTS & SUPPLIES FLEET - PARTS & SUPPLIES 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 Total PUBLIC SAFETY - PARTS 7.2.a Page: 23 aD L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 77,687.2E 0 U d L_ 614,893.1, 614,893.1, m z 8,000.0( m 8,000.0( c �a 18.6( o �a 1.9E a 20.5E E U 4- 0 57.6� > 0 L 6.0( a Q 0 99.8, 0 10.3E V) E M 171.5� Z c 17.8E 0 363.1 t U �a Q Page: 23 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 244812 11/4/2020 027269 THE PART WORKS INC (Continued) PUBLIC SAFETY - PARTS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 545.8( Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.2E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 57.7; Total: 612.75 244813 11/4/2020 066628 THE SUPPLY COMPANY LLC 00215954S FLEET - SUPPLIES/ WINDSHIELD S FLEET - SUPPLIES/ WINDSHIELD S 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 57.5E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.9� Total: 63.5' 244814 11/4/2020 078158 THE TAMIS CORPORATION 55154 TRAFFIC - A -FRAME LEG TRAFFIC - A -FRAME LEG 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 876.6( Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 225.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 114.5, Total: 11,216.111, 244815 11/4/2020 078129 THE TRIKE STOP LLC 11042020 Trike Stop CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 8,000.0( Total: 8,000.0( 244816 11/4/2020 076946 TSERENDAVAA, ARIUNTULGA 10292020 INTERPRETER XZ0745974 INTERPRETER XZ0745974 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 100.0( Total : 100.0( 244817 11/4/2020 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER 114327 E20FC: RAIN GARDEN DISPOSAL Page: 24 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 244817 11/4/2020 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER (Continued) 244818 11/4/2020 062345 URBAN FORESTRY NURSERY 244819 11/4/2020 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 244820 11/4/2020 078141 VARI SALES CORPORATION PO # Description/Account E20FC: RAIN GARDEN DISPOSAL 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 Total REPLACEMENT TREES FOR DOWP, REPLACEMENT STREET TREES: D, 112.000.68.542.30.48.00 REPLACEMENT STREET TREES: D, 125.000.68.542.30.48.00 REPLACEMENT STREET TREES: D, 126.000.68.542.30.48.00 REPLACEMENT STREET TREES: PI 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 112.000.68.542.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 125.000.68.542.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 126.000.68.542.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 383880 SEWER - MANHOLE NET SEWER - MANHOLE NET 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total ; IVC-2-1621930 IVC-2-1621930 - ACCT 500769 - EDP VARIDESK PROPLUS 36 - BLACK 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 7.2.a Page: 25 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 219.7( u 219.7( .L N m 381.8� 380.9, a� 287.1 �a 2,185.0( o L 39.7, a E 39.6, 29.8 � 0 �a 227.2' o 3,571 A' a Q 0 N 185.7( c 12.9E N E 20.6E 2 219m% }; c a� E t U 395.0( Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244820 11/4/2020 078141 VARI SALES CORPORATION 244821 11/4/2020 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) DUAL -MONITOR ARMS 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 Total : 9865484884 C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Comm Svc 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.35.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Dev Svcs 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Park Admin 7.2.a Page: 26 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 195.0( u L 61.3E 651.3E m z v 639.6, d 36.1.E �a 199.2 0 L 397.4< a E 721.81 256.6, 0 �a 320.9E o a a 1,393.7.E Q 0 226.8, 0 72.3( 100.4z •� U 348.0 , c aD 100.4z E U �a Q Page: 26 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244821 11/4/2020 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Rec 001.000.64.571.22.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PD 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 Air cards PD 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/SeWe 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/Sewe 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Storm 7.2.a Page: 27 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 50.2, 'D U d 320.9- 140.4E Y m 1,690.6: v 1,160.2� c d 120.0< �a 26.6E o L �a 7.6, E 26.6E 7.6, 0 7.6( o a a 216.6' Q 0 N 50.2, It 0 95.3, E 95.3< 'M 336.6, aD 436.4 t U co Q Page: 27 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 244821 11/4/2020 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) %i:1•'7�E�'Y�3 244822 11/4/2020 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 66125 244823 11/4/2020 077785 WASHINGTON KIDS IN TRANSITION 10302020 PO # Description/Account 422.000.72.531.90.35.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Disco 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 C/A 772540262-00001 Cradlepoint 1 - Court/IT 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm 421.000.74.534.80.49.20 Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm 423.000.75.535.80.49.20 Trimble 1 - Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 Lake Ballinger monitor 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 Total INV 66125 - EDMONDS PD - CS 20 TOW LEXUS - CS 20-24182- 1.51-11R; 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 Total HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL RE Housing and Supplemental Relief Fur 7.2.a Page: 28 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 397.4< 'D U d 173.5: 240.0E m t 240.0E u 659.9E c aD M 40.0- �a 0 100.0" >% M a 3.3" 3.3" u 0 3.4( 0 L 10.01 a Q 31.7E o 11,505.7E 0 rn 276.0( . R U 28.9E; 304.9F (D E t U �a Q Page: 28 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 29 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 244823 11/4/2020 077785 WASHINGTON KIDS IN TRANSITION (Continued) 0 m 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 76,583.1( -0 Total: 76,583.1( m L_ 244824 11/4/2020 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 11977349 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ GLOVES & FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ GLOVES & 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,350.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 140.4( 11985426 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ MOP c FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ MOP 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 117.6( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.2< o 11989597 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ GLOVES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ GLOVES a 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 218.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.6; U 11989598 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ VACUUM E o FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ VACUUM E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,040.2- o 10.4% Sales Tax L a 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 a 108.1 £ Q Total: 3,009.25 c N 244825 11/4/2020 065936 WESSPUR TREE EQUIPMENT INC IN-2683544 STREET - SUPPLIES c STREET - SUPPLIES 9 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 408.8' N 10.4% Sales Tax E 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 42.5, 2 Total: 451.3° U c 244826 11/4/2020 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000044756 TRAFFIC - CONTROLLER CABINET aD TRAFFIC - CONTROLLER CABINET 111.000.68.542.64.48.00 U 2,058.8, m Q Page: 29 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 244826 11/4/2020 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 244827 11/4/2020 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR 244828 11/4/2020 078137 WIN-911 SOFTWARE 244829 11/4/2020 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 244830 11/4/2020 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 102 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 102 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 7.2.a Page: 30 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun N (Continued) 0 m 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.48.00 214.1- u Total: 2,272.9: 187300 FAC MAINT WORK WEAR - PATRICI N FAC MAINT WORK WEAR - PATRICI 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 98.9� r 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 10.1( Total : 109.05 E9F6E2C2-2020123 WIN-911 SOFTWARE MAINTENANC WIN-911 SOFTWARE MAINTENANC — 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 600.0( Total: 600.0( a 253-012-9189 WWTP: 10/25-11/24/20 AUTO DIALE E 10/25-11/24/20 AUTO DIALER - 1 VC fd U 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 41.5E o 425-771-5553 WWTP: 10/25-11/24/20 AUTO DIALE 0 10/25-11/24/20 AUTO DIALER - 1 Ii > 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 0 129.2, a Total : 170.8! Q 34274 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES o TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES N 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 2,735.0( c Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 50.0( 10.4% Sales Tax M 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 289.6E Total: 3,074.6° aD Bank total : 1,081,902.7: E U Total vouchers : 1,081,902.7; Q Page: 30 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 11 /04/2020 10:33:15AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 7.2.a Page: 31 Amoun Page: 31 Packet Pg. 63 7.2.b Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 979 (10/16/2020 to 10/31/2020) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pav Correction 0.00 -71.28 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 8.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 579.35 22,471.85 122 VACATION VACATION 1,118.50 45,159.60 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 124.00 4,824.98 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 4.00 128.11 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 280.25 10,098.54 130 COMP HOURS Holidav Compensation Used 9.00 372.21 135 SICK WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEY 4.00 69.54 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 27.00 1,352.80 149 KELLY DAY KELLY DAYS BUY BACK 0.00 95.47 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Dav Used 135.00 5,477.94 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 133.52 6,971.43 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 1.00 52.63 170 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY 700.00 9,333.31 174 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY 0.00 300.00 175 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICP 0.00 3,496.07 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 17,994.48 713,383.59 191 REGULAR HOURS FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 4.00 5,126.84 194 SICK Emerqencv Sick Leave 74.50 3,113.80 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 292.75 14,433.06 205 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME .5 3.00 57.26 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 43.50 1,461.94 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,531.05 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 16.00 1,615.29 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 195.25 13,362.69 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 10.00 747.67 400 MISCELLANEOUS MISC PAY 0.00 1,000.00 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 142.46 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,042.18 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 229.84 601 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP .5 7.75 0.00 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 57.25 0.00 11 /04/2020 Packet Pg. 64 7.2.b Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 979 (10/16/2020 to 10/31/2020) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 213.00 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 2.0 0.25 0.00 901 SICK ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 15.38 0.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 64.25 acp MISCELLANEOUS Accreditation 1 % Part Time 0.00 9.85 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 176.12 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 94.50 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 85.37 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 173.90 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 487.04 ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 586.00 deftat MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI 0.00 86.96 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 238.24 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 998.16 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 593.07 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 914.74 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 5,725.83 firear MISCELLANEOUS FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 427.85 fmla ABSENT FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID 103.90 0.00 fmlc COMP HOURS Familv Medical Leave -Comp Use 12.80 434.10 fmis SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 81.25 5,545.79 fmlv VACATION Familv Medical Leave Vacation 47.55 1,612.65 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 244.21 less MISCELLANEOUS LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR 0.00 83.19 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,046.04 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 768.02 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 5,072.33 Ig13 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 7% 0.00 1,548.04 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 1,051.20 Ig15 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 7.5% 0.00 583.73 Igo LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 421.00 Ig5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 732.57 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 345.97 11 /04/2020 Packet Pg. 65 7.2.b Hour Type Hour Class Iq7 LONGEVITY Iq9 LONGEVITY mtc MISCELLANEOUS ooc MISCELLANEOUS nds MISCELLANEOUS pfml ABSENT pfmp ABSENT pfms SICK phv MISCELLANEOUS prof MISCELLANEOUS sdp MISCELLANEOUS sqt MISCELLANEOUS st REGULAR HOURS str MISCELLANEOUS traf MISCELLANEOUS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 979 (10/16/2020 to 10/31/2020) Description Hours Amount Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 223.09 Lonqevitv 3.5% 0.00 193.99 MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 238.24 OUT OF CLASS 0.00 576.08 Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 101.78 Paid Familv Medical Leave 57.86 0.00 Paid Familv Medical Unpaid/Sup 102.62 0.00 Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 19.14 715.90 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,354.47 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 188.98 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 0.00 295.58 ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 188.98 Serqeant Pay 0.00 136.97 STREET CRIMES 0.00 506.62 TRAFFIC 0.00 119.12 22,523.85 $904,371.39 Total Net Pay: $614,999.23 11 /04/2020 Packet Pg. 66 7.2.c Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 979 - 10/16/2020 to 10/31/2020 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 64475 11/05/2020 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 46.00 0.00 64476 11/05/2020 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 619.70 0.00 64477 11/05/2020 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 3,115.32 0.00 64478 11/05/2020 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 6,220.08 0.00 64479 11/05/2020 afscme WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO 2,428.03 0.00 12,429.13 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 3115 11/05/2020 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 335,017.90 0.00 3117 11/05/2020 aflac AFLAC 5,417.76 0.00 3119 11/05/2020 us US BANK 116,471.68 0.00 3120 11/05/2020 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 110,059.87 0.00 3121 11/05/2020 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 29,223.35 0.00 3123 11/05/2020 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,860.69 0.00 3124 11/05/2020 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 1,152.00 0.00 0.00 603,203.25 Grand Totals: 615,632.38 0.00 11 /4/2020 Packet Pg. 67 7.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Proiect Engineering Accounting Proiect vi Funding Proiect Title Number Number STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB E WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 Q. STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC c tv STIR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC r U) STIR2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB m STIR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STIR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB = SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGAlid ui STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC U O WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA t STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA r m c STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB c WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB O WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA tv STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA Q. STIR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA O STIR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC > O L STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB Q- CL STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC Q STIR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21CA N STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB o STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC r N STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC m STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB E STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA ? O STIR76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB a STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA d rn STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC r m STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STIR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB L u_ STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA c m STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB E STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA r r Q STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB Revised 11/4/2020 Packet Pg. 68 7.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Proiect Engineering Accounting Proiect Funding Proiect Title Number Number STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STIR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STIR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA STIR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STIR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E71FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STIR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 EOJB Revised 11/4/2020 Packet Pg. 69 7.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number ProiectTitle i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force STIR i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STIR E21CA i051 2021 Overlay Program 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration 'IW E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station IKSWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring Ir FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab i STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System o STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility SWR ESGB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalizatio STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program Revised 11/4/2020 Packet Pg. 70 7.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number ProiectTitle Stormwater Comp Plan Update SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II NEIV2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects E6JC -loffr2018 Waterline Replacement Project STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIR i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Savinq Salmon) 2019 Waterline Replacement PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) i028 220th Adaptive STIR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212t STIR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Updat PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STIR E9AB i039 2019 Guardrail Install E9AC s021 2019 Downtown Parking Study STIR HAD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STIR E9DB i041 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South Revised 11/4/2020 Packet Pg. 71 7.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR ElCA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System WTR ESKA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP ESHA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South SWR EBGA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM EBFB c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements WTR EBJA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM EBFC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) STM EOFA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR EOGA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements WTR E6,113 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals Revised 11/4/2020 Packet Pg. 72 7.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STIR EBAB i028 220th Adaptive STIR EBCA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STIR EBCC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STIR EBDB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STIR E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program STIR EBDC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STIR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STIR E9AB i039 2019 Guardrail Install STIR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STIR E9DB i041 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STIR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STIR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR EOAA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR EOAC i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EODB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STIR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program STIR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR EOCC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates SWR ESGB s0l l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM EBFA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES EBJB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update STIR E9AC s021 2019 Downtown Parking Study STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update WTR EOJB s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment Revised 11/4/2020 Packet Pg. 73 7.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E91FA STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E71FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC STR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB STR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD STR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA STR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA STR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA STR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC STR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21 CA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA Revised 11/4/2020 Packet Pg. 74 7.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STIR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STIR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB STIR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB STIR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STIR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STIR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6JB WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 EOJB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 11/4/2020 Packet Pg. 75 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/12/2020 Claims for Damages by Colleen Schaffer and Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Staff Lead: Administrative Services Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History n/a Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages by Colleen Schaffer and Edmonds Chamber of Commerce by minute entry. Narrative Michael & Colleen Schaffer ($1,309.34) Edmonds Chamber of Commerce ($738.46) Attachments: CFD - Michael and Colleen Schaffer - for council CFD - Edmonds Chamber of Commerce - for council Packet Pg. 76 7.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form Received by City Please take note tha1 V4 LC ael ,,nA(I, ��C p' j. ,ten d, who currently resides at - mailing address C' home phone #' , work phone # , and who resided at at the time of t e occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages against. jin the sum of�4 _ arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: TIME: Z E V LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: _ p L DESCRIPTION: ° N N E z 1. �,, Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the inju or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. cC OQ r ' i V 2 Gm ] � ' i _ � o i.lCx•�c:,rram+ 3 dlwve w > k3L, - l�C GT,+t VLe"'0, ` i+iv e+x[ Ctx d v -A -w UJ cti& "'411 l rtC r t@ c5 C e C t (attach an extra sheet for addition-alainformation, if needed) 1-i�v �.��. �i:t� �ti'ia �0\'."' Wl� / c�+�LL.� �3�.>! •� ' i{'� �L7 �Z�:t1JL• ..}'i+�L� �1r�+0.� Y= S . �.[C'A..l- F- •I'�p Q� F'rovi Fist of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and ohone numbers. f� ( `� U Cn _ d d 0 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. v c 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes '14 No a� c� If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy M * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY License Plate # Driver License # Type Auto: (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 77 7.3.a * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * I, Coklr� , being first duly swom, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56. x Signature of Claimants) State of Washington County of I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that�c� �in (J'1Q�te [� is the person acknowledged that (help arson who appeared before me, and said fined this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. My appointment expires: Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4,30 p.m. PAP PUIBLIC lo. w",4% I, E 2 U Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 78 7.3.b CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form Received by City Please take note that Edmonds Chamber of C mmerce , who currently resides at 121 5th Ave N. Edmonds WA home phone # mailing address work phone # 42 670-1496, and who resided at 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds WA at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is NA , is claiming damages against City of Edmonds J in the sum of $ 738.46 arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: July 15, 2020 TIME: 6:00 am LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: Edmonds Chamber office at 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds WA 98020 DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. A second floor wate r presaureleak i hours Qff ices of the Edmo n tenant f . Th flood off ice and a number of items' --a-table. chair, banner. marketingg materials, (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. City of Edmonds staff, Larry Lafaive 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? X Yes No E V Fonn Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 79 7.3.b * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * I, Greq Urban , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject isclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56. x State of Wa gton County of 1, r L Signature of Claimant(s) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that&Cq is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument a acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. r) ed-, /e) 2--t-, !Z62-0 Title , q My appointment expires: 2- Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 51" Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E V Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 80 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/12/2020 Presentation of the Proposed 2021-2026 Capital Improvements Program/Capital Facilities Plan Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History None. Staff Recommendation A Public Hearing has been scheduled for November 24, 2020. Narrative The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. The proposed 2021-2026 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2021-2026 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP. The CFP and CIP were presented to the Planning Board on October 14th and a public hearing was held on October 28th. Due to a publication error, the public hearing for the October 28th Planning Board meeting was not properly noticed. A second public hearing is now scheduled for the Planning Board meeting on November 12th. The minutes (draft for October 28th) from the Planning Board meetings are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5. Packet Pg. 81 8.1 Attachments: Exhibit 1: Proposed 2021-2026 CFP Exhibit 2: Proposed CIP 2021-2026 Exhibit 3: CIP-CFP Comparison (2021-2026) Exhibit 4: 10/14/20 Planning Board Minutes CFP-CIP Intro Presentation Exhibit 5: 10/28/20 Draft Planning Board Minutes Packet Pg. 82 8.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2021-2041 � 0F EDP O G �n f DRAFT 1 1 Packet Pg. 83 8.1.a a LL tU d U to N O N N O N d N O om O L O r_ O r r L CL a. LL U co N O N N O N N N O Q O L- a. r r x LU E c.i Y Q Packet Pg. 84 8.1.a CFP GENERAL U d U N O N N O N d N O om O L O O r r L a. LL U co N O N N O N N N O Q O L- a. r r x LU E c.i Y Q Packet Pg. 85 8.1.a a LL tU d U to N O N N O N d N O om O L O r_ O r r L CL a. LL U co N O N N O N N N O Q O L- a. r r x LU E c.i Y Q Packet Pg. 86 8.1.a k\k\ \§cli _ - o §}*\)2 S - t§ ; ° �2 ) a§ \�\2°` " " " " " k Cli vi \ Co \/) )\ \ �o Lu 2oe_, } co 3o r 0 \k /\,/} \ k -:!k] §/ � \/\() \} k\ _f§( }({ -: !§k§7 =moo ±§ \_ o ! 2 ) { )\ D \k �� o )) : E ! o.a. _« Lu - it :! \ \§0 -"Z E `£`°! /§)f202 \ 7 IL LL 0 IL C) q 0 0 C14 � k CL 2 a % § k � IL IL b 0 � q 2 0 CL 2 a � q w k E / 2 Packet Pg. 87 8.1.a a LL U a_ U co N O N N O N a) N O Q O L a O c O m c m am a a LL U co N O N r N O N N O Q O L a r t x w r c m E a Packet Pg. 88 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield I ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 310 6ch Ave. N, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits. 8 acres; zoned Playgrounds & Athletic Areas PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding; $3.7M in bonds and $5.1 M in carryforward funds from previous years. This signature project is slated to go to bid in early 2021 with ground breaking scheduled for second quarter of 2021. This project is expected to take 16 months to complete (8 months in 2021 and 8 months in 2022). Remaining annual expenditures are estimated at $6.03M in 2021 and $6.03M in 2022. Three funds are utilized: Fund 125, Fund 126 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is a multi -year design, land acquisition, fund development and construction project that is a very high priority in the PROS plan. With $3.47M in grant funding to support the effort. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. The design is complete, permits are approved and the project is ready to enter the construction phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Professional $67,620 Service Engineering $45,833 $45,832 Construction $5,872,862 $5,937,381 1 % Art $44,000 $44,000 TOTAL $6,030,315 $6,027,213 7 Packet Pg. 89 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED COST: $6-8 M Complex at the Former Woodway High School PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted or unlighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10M - $12M project for all 3 phases. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and under maintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. Phase 1 was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an additional $6-8M. SCHEDULE: 2021-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027- 2039 Planning/Study Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $6-8M all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts E:3 Packet Pg. 90 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities Maintenance & ESTIMATED COST: $3 - $4M Operations Building Existing Building Outline Yard Fu .��� M111 ILI Lading r New One St Building 1, Da sf 6,600 Sf o i�nveay — 15,80Q� Yard Functlons � 11,101f I I I j Perimeler zone — 4,200 sf PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40+ year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and needs major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. 2021 - 2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2039 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m " all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 9 1 Packet Pg. 91 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements — sub ESTIMATED COST: $5M component of Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Davliahtina) South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, within Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5-acre regional park; Zoned Commercial Waterfront, Marina Beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; protected through Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redefine the park to better serve the community as it accommodates the new alignment of Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches, picnic tables and BBQ's, improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area. The Marina Beach Master Plan includes daylighting Willow Creek which requires removal of a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's and is the only exchange between the Puget Sound and our Freshwater Edmonds Marsh Estuary. Two funds utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. Fund 332 includes park impact fees, donations and grants. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Marina Beach Park is a highly used regional park. Through the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan the community identified the need to restore the adjacent Edmonds Marsh, re- established for salmon habitat. Improvements are intended to retain this site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise and will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design $250,000 $250,000 Engineering Construction $1,750,000 $2,750,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $250,000 $250,000 $1,750,000 $2,750,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 10 1 Packet Pg. 92 8.1.a CFP TRANSPORTATION a U. c.� a v co N O N N O N d N O M O L a 0 c 0 r m c m N O L a a LL Q to N O N Tmm O N d 0 am 0 L a z x w c m E z 0 0 Q 11 Packet Pg. 93 8.1.a a LL tU d U to N O N N O N d N O om O L O r_ O r r L CL a. LL U co N O N N O N N N O Q O L- a. r r x LU E c.i Y Q 12 Packet Pg. 94 a � U u N C N oao." y LL N C O A N O N C a p'0 Co i LL v U A c y m � U 2U EU n n CZ R d d a - LL U IL - - - I N H UN O U Q U U Q N I r N CD d O O IL 4- 0 O 08� 08� a8� e a8� a8 a8� a8� 68� C ya mS„ ms ms ms y ms y y y y a°s a s a s = `9 LL e N- 3 e N--- 3° - IL 3 N o- 3 N- 'S - c N �O - iy v c N S LL iy o= NS LL u' o= NJ.- N LL o /�i IL _ a LL Co N O N I N So CD N N N O m - - Q- OL o U U U U U U U U U a r w L U' a a a a a a a LU EE Zo NoU m Ec �v- a - a vim Gi �m mLa°c m nm 2,09 EEC �yy ' c _ `o E'2 No- ha NM m'vc L^Bi9 wy.n L�3 p�p•� aaU 2 m m m .h E a1 '`2 '`' a .4 N � y y y 3 y 3 E N n s E 3 m U E E E SS mE °iE °'E NC aE g go x3 E 2 E w 13 1 Packet Pg. 95 a a� �$y ��gg anyy anyy 9�y yy�y9y�yyyyyN N 3= N 3.LL O N m LL 0 !n N_ O in �/�j LL N F y LL O N NS 'O O NS LL b NS = 0 NS LL b NS a O r/�j = O N F 10 . N f F F F N F N F N F N F N c F 70 UJ F LL� LL8 g LL� LL� LL� LL�d LL& w N en w . . - - a> » - S en » en » en en » en » U o U U U U U U U U U U -Q 2 -2 a a a a a a �2 dad 10�t c bam a a p rn T E 2" Ey, N= coo curio am� E � E.4 3h Do Z D� Do - �� uWo m'2m a �� T.r2 Ni 3mW NLc B?s IF ym W4 omc cc� 3N m� x� o. oO o.m nN nW r.a23 9a; 52 3Ey E y �m �.o a r. m 9Z '.� 3'w � 2 ,F v` o� 2 c �o 2,c �u 2c "t 'gm € n_ a¢r`n _ i ain Ey Ey E3 E3 a oa O 3 V N m y 3 3 3 3 E 4 Y3 3 N E'2 c C 5 5 Yi C N m E Q m Q N N N N 3 3 N m• ` 3 n` �. a m w E E E E $ - E o 0 UE > 3 UE UE > o Ea12 iu1 N 3 3 N �t a3 a3 N3 N E OS mN N E N E O- yU min N nQ 14 Packet Pg. 96 a ct a& 08� a8� o8�i v8� a8� 0'8 6& 6& a8� a8 v8i d S. ^y m d rX y d rX y api rX H v ^y v v api ui v H W o 3 m O s§ y m 0 3 m O_ m Sio - m O N - N g F m W o= NS - N F N J. W o= - N 8 F N J. W o= - . N f N J. LL b 2 F N `9 - O F J. b . N f Z T T - - - - U U U U U U U U U 0 U U U 12 o i a a a a a a a a o N~ 3 3 o mm �xo °y w Qo 9 m °i uo °5 c xNm pew v o0 mo'Za caw p t 6 3 E= d 6 N yx2 40 o 3 c m an d 'api Ea B 'apirva '� o dt 'S E n 'g E E `@ t o E v Q 3 m i. 3 m U mEl ow El E m d d W p a m cw d m o d Q p m W v Q w d d ?i t x i o H 30 n iE w .cat " °' a0 P �_o 3 E o @ w X p o c rcp E Gy 9 � m N Y Q N� Q41 aN Lo W Eta mN K NF O N N .F E wQ �MN a U- U a 0 to N O N N O N d N O CL O I - a. O O ea C d ^N ^W li a U- V to N O N N O N N N O CL O I - a. r x W d V Q 15 Packet Pg. 97 8.1.a y# ;;a /)J UN \ \ \ \ o /\ \\ }\ \ 2\ - E a a ! | \ \ {2 / !! !: f! Po a U- 0 a 0 q C4 0 C14 'a k CL 2 a % § k � a. a b q Cm d 04 2 0 CL 2 a 2 x w k E / 2 16 Packet Pg. 98 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 2281h St. SW from Hwy. 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,800,000 to 95th PI. W a J r95PERRNCE ,•` PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th PI. W to three lanes (with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve active transportation safety and traffic flows along this corridor. Community Transit would also look into creating a new east -west bus route along 228th St. SW if this project moves forward (connecting Edmonds Transit Station to Mountlake Terrace Transit Station). SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2024 (pending funding). More than half the project is within Esperance / Snohomish County. A Sound Transit System Access grant was submitted in May '19 to fully fund this project. This funding program is available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station (total of $40 Million). Prior to COVID-19, this amount was to be distributed between Edmonds and Mukilteo to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). However due to the current COVID-19 conditions, Sound Transit is evaluating funding impacts and the delivery timelines of their projects. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $10,600,000 Admin., & ROW Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $10,600,000 1 Packet Pg. 99 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $184,000,000 Gateway/Revitalization a LL U d U to N O N N O N d fA O Q O L IL 4- 0 O W L PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access contro and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted N utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape N treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds. N 0 PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. o a SCHEDULE: The conceptual phase began in September 2017 and was completed in December 2018. , a project to install raised medians along the entire corridor from 244t" St. SW to 212t" ST. SW (to address r safety issues along the corridor) is underway. The addition of a HAWK signal between 228t" St. and 238tr St. SW (specific location TBD) and gateway sign on the north and south ends are also included in this x project. The design phase began in August 2020 and scheduled to be competed in November 2021. Thi: w project is being funded through a $10M state allocation from the Connecting Washington transportation program. E COST BREAKDOWN a PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $583,048 $927,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $41,000,OC Administration & ROW Construction $5,755,000 $129,000,OC 1 % for Art TOTAL $538,048 $5,755,000 $927,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 1 $170,000,000 18 Packet Pg. 100 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,885,000 intersection improvements I — — 21 6T Nl' — I w WTEdmonds shgn Shap / a� a— 7 ?P.u.6 M1° 7313 3 Edmonds Fami ly Clin is ei 21 127114A��KENNEL21127109 B212n I sTsw Z2 st M.- 737,er cuPlc a 7303"3' ^ Pbnl offer 7344 "1" 7302 "2" 102 215TH ST 5W PLANT AEGIS yy SWEDISH m MDNnSCAM- ' ALLIED / ROOFING / B&M / CON ST 21414 / 21448 / / NCnONAL�' / 1ALUE / PILLAGE / 16TH STIASw PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300' storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #4). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding).The project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is within Lynnwood. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $178,000 $1,121,000 ROW, & Administration Construction $1,586,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $178,00 $1,121,000 $1,586,000 a u_ c.� a_ t� N O N T N O N d N O rL O a O O R C d fn L a a LL Q to N O N Tmm O N a) O am 0 a x Lu c a� E M 19 1 Packet Pg. 101 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,442,000 intersection improvements 214121412 c'` w 13� 214021408 12> 21405 04 LU N I2{ U 120L< MCDC2i431 un nz 150 215AEGIS 21558 VALUE I W VILLAGE ST ,qw — 216TIJ 21600 {� 21619 KRUGER CLINIC f 01 r 21632 � � - ��I16e 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected -permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $210,000 $340,000 Construction $1,892,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $210,000 $340,000 $1,892,000 a U_ U d U N O N N 0 N a� 0 a 0 a 0 c 0 r c m a� d d a_ U co N 0 N N 0 N aD 0 a 0 L r x w r c E a 20 Packet Pg. 102 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220t" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000 intersection improvements TOP FOODS v �, 99TH sr SW / 21919 STARBU S / / 220TH ST SW I I I I 1221 I I I I I 13 _I � � l4 n III •0. 7301 •H• U O e S C m .M. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220t" St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325' storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275' storage length. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #2). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow and safety. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 COST Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $175,000 $1,085,000 Construction $1,955,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 21 1 Packet Pg. 103 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,300,000 intersection improvements ESPEMNCE FS - 11202 S7ND PL W �• �I� 2f73, F �WAD PLj," 7731 J � 5 � r7tl7 Y]a06■�� DIM 17,7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW 1 provide safer crossing of Hwy. 99 for vehicles and non -motorized transportation (project identified in Hwy.99 Sub Area Plan). A new signal can be installed if MUTCD signal warrants arE met. The warrants under existing and future conditions aren't met at this intersection. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety and pedestrian conditions along the corridor. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding for all phases) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $1,500,OC Construction $1,800,OC 1 % for Art TOTAL $3,300,OC Q. U_ U_ d U N O N N O N d N 0 Q 0 a 0 r_ 0 r r c m a� a a U_ U N 0 N N O N a� 0 a 0 L a. x w c a� E a 22 1 Packet Pg. 104 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 19611 St. SW (SR-524) @ ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $930,000 88t" Ave. W Intersection Improvements I� 3 _ w a_ .~a I m :VEN DAY WENTST :HURCH 4 1eeTM sr sw PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196t" St. SW @ 88t" Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right -turn -only (prohibiting left -turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196t" St. SW. SCHEDULE: All project phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding). In order to allow the installation of a traffic signal, the MUTCD traffic signal warrants must be met and the installation must be approved by WSDOT (since 196t" St. SW is a State Route / SR-524). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & $200,000 $180,000 Administration Construction $550,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $180,000 $550,000 23 Packet Pg. 105 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9'" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $925,000 J __J1 MH BELL ST I - � P MAIN ST WADE DAMES TH EATE R L � W� � a S H oavraN n PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal or mini -roundabout. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015 Transportation Plan. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2024 and construction in 2025. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $125,000 Administration & ROW Construction $800,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $125,000 $800,000 a w c.� a v N O N T N O N d to O IZ 0 a O 1= d N O L a a U_ N O N V_ N O N W N O IZ O L a x w c as E 0 M Q 24 Packet Pg. 106 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 761h Ave. W @ 2201h St. SW ESTIMTED PROJECT COST: $8,326,000 Intersection Improvements TOP FOODS 219ni sr sw __�J _�, STARBU KS 21919 J J , -- ---. / 220Tr1 sr sw ' I I I A W 14 �> I = a ;ST pL SW I LYNWOOD I HONDA I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected -permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D. SCHEDULE: A CMAQ Federal grant was secured for the Design Phase (funds not available until 2021) and an STP Federal grant for the ROW phase (funds not available until 2023). The construction phase is currently unfunded. The design phase and ROW phases are scheduled to be completed in 2023 and construction in 2024 (pending additional grant funds). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW $300,000 $634,000 $775,000 Administration Construction $6,617,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $300,000 $634,000 $775,000 $6,617,000 'All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts d LL U d U to N N N 0 N d N O Q O Ii O _ 0 a� a a LL U N 0 N N 0 N (D U) O a O L a r x w r E a 25 Packet Pg. 107 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 ITS Adaptive ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,174,000 System from 226th St. SW to 236th St. SW -i 226TH ST 5W r shy, � w■.,..a, � i r ", ■ �a rr ill. I �II � a 1,� . k •�� �.■+III C A ■ � a tl ��?�� li � ..... +III �. d -�■ III i �} lw� 1, I +1■ � ■ I F � i ! - 967H ST. SW ,iJirw i 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install ITS Adaptive System along SR-104 from 226th St. SW to 236th St. SW in order to improve traffic flows and intersection delay at all times of day. This system will provide the necessary amount of green time during every signal cycles. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flows along this corridor and improve intersection delay. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 when funding becomes available (secured Federal grant) and the construction phase is scheduled for 2025 (unsecured funding). PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $205,000 $205,000 Construction $1,764,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $205,000 $205,000 $1,764,000 26 1 Packet Pg. 108 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95th PI. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $509,000 Intersection Improvements W H r J a H Ln cn 'H ST SW 1 � I � WESTOA' PARKING m cn WESTGATE CHAPEL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $77,000 Construction $432,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $77,000 $432,000 27 1 Packet Pg. 109 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,378,000 Intersection Improvements ■ ■ To Hwy 99 i 10 239TH ST SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $206,000 Construction $1,172,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $206,000 $1,172,000 IL U. 0 IL v to N O N N O N d N O CL O a 4- 0 r0 M c N L IL IL a_ 0 to N O N 28 1 Packet Pg. 110 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 7611 Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: W Intersection Improvements $1,219,000 N m SEAVIEW PARK 3 PLSW 186TH ST SW m m I I I I I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City's concurrency standards (LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2027 and 2041 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, & ROW $206,000 Construction $1,013,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,219,000 a U- U d U N O N N 0 N m N O Q O L 4- 0 _ O r r _ m a� L d U- U co N O N N 0 N a� O a O L a X W r E a 29 1 Packet Pg. 111 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $16,000,000 to 238th St. SW) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: All project phases are scheduled between 2027 and 2041 (unsecured funding). The project costs would be split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is located within Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering, $2,060,000 Administration, & ROW Construction $13,940,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $16,000,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 30 1 Packet Pg. 112 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 10011 Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 Intersection Improvements / Access Management QFC W z 1 0 ' 228TH Q PL SW r IKy AONQS WAY SR-104 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block pedestrian crossing along 100t" Ave. W, improve safety to access the driveways within proximity to the intersection, and re -striping of 100t" Ave. W with the potential addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2025 (unsecured funding) PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $155,000 Construction $895,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $155,000 $895,000 d LL U d U N O N N O N d N O Q O L IL 4- 0 r_ O R C d N d a a LL U N O N N 0 N a� O a O fi r r t X fL r c a� a 31 1 Packet Pg. 113 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000 Intersection Improvements Ili ar q w: . ..%-i'V 240TA PL SW 'Iwhl I Sw HT -LW Imp � �I iJ2N0 PL SW _ i...r `�, •�' ire ! �.� L d 0 W J � L�,f,ON05 WAY Y78 Rq ` LAKE 8AL C ING[-R WAY_ - _ - -- _ MP EOMONOS WAY _ . _ - ._ - _ . • p N - - - -LILCE gACL.R4GEi�1fVRl' -- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding). The project costs would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds since half the intersection is located within Shoreline. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $467,000 Construction $2,640,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $3,107,000 32 Packet Pg. 114 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174t" St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000 SW Intersection Improvements L+ 4 + — Meadowdale Middle School — — — J—/, Parking L— b ssoi St. Thomas Moore —� a e I Catholic School B Ilfield y sa��arY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50' storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2027 and 2041 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $105,000 Construction $525,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $630,000 d LL U d U N O N CD N 0 0. 0 a 0 c 0 r c 4) U) d d d LL U co N O N N O N a� 0 a 0 L r r x w r c E a 33 Packet Pg. 115 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,050,000 from Bell St to Caspers St. 161 ♦ ♦ �� I■� 11111■0 I ��' IIIIIII :E1■M■1Now ■ NOW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (— 1/2 mile / more recent project). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements were installed in 2017 through striping, in order to evaluate the alignment of the proposed walkway and parking alternatives The design phase is scheduled to be completed in 2024. Construction isn't scheduled to occur until 2025 when utility improvements are scheduled to be completed along this stretch. No grant funding has been secured for the construction phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $295,000 Administration Construction $2,595,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $295,000 $2,595,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. a U- U d U to N 0 N N 0 N d fA O 0. O a 0 r- 0 cu r- a a U- U co N O N N O N aD O a O a X w r c a 34 Packet Pg. 116 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 232"d St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,344,000 from 100t" Ave. W to SR-104 EDMONDS WAY W SAME „A AA mAA n� WARS ' ' LLI a� ! 2 . 1 �i F Al. 10 LOTH ' CHURCH, (jr ■ ■ ■ ■ , LLI 7 , ■ + a F AW �I o �o� - I - 2 a ODL C ' ' I Es AT SAY P_ IL R V a_ 28 \29 Dorn 98 7 6 ' 30 2 15 O ti4 11 3 3 7147, N � 32 9 O 5 1 2 N ■ • p N jr 'a `r O M 7 1 o T.N IL nm (0) O e 2 ■ ■ IN ■ c m N O L PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100t" Ave. W to SR-104. This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATINALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2026 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $206,000 OConstruction $1,138,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $206,000 $1,138,000 a a U- N O N N O N as N O a O L a x w c CD E 0 M 35 1 Packet Pg. 117 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,438,000 from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W. This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2026 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $1,218,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $220,000 $1,218,000 36 Packet Pg. 118 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 84t" Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $590,000 From 238t" St. SW to 234t" ST. SW PARK LL EonnoNos SALGALL APTS m w w LL CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH O PARK & RIDE OFFICE 236:1 4SUHSET 23603 SAFEWAY $23605 WH L KJIHG R23607 23619 O P ���R AURORAS MARKETPLACET N 239TH ST SW W SEOUL 23821 PLAZA 2 23827 TRAVEL LODGE 0" NORTH ry HAVEN z n MANOR w a � R p r~ } n•1L LO'N 13ROCK PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84t" Ave. W from 238t" St .SW to 234t" St. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2026 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $95,000 Construction $495,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $95,000 $495,000 37 1 Packet Pg. 119 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 801" Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,786,000 from 206t" St. SW to 212t" ST. SW I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80t" Ave. W from 206t" St. SW to 212t" St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non -motorized transportation safety (including for school kids due to proximity of several schools). SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (funding unsecured). A Safe Routes to School grant was submitted in Spring 2020 to fund the design and construction phases of the transportation elements (response scheduled for July 2021). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & $405,000 Administration & ROW Construction $2,381,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $405,000 $2,381,000 38 Packet Pg. 120 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 218th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,346,000 from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W MENNEN YEMEN OENT ER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2026 unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $206,000 Construction $1,140,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $206,000 $1,140,000 39 1 Packet Pg. 121 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $216,000 to 7th Ave. S a � M 441-0 4, '2 ALDER 5T :=:5p.�� — - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 7th Ave. S. Install sidewalk on the south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian safety along this stretch. SCHEDULE: Design and construction funding secured). phases are scheduled to be completed in 2024 (no COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $24,000 Construction $192,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $216,000 O N N O N W N O a O L a Z x w c m 0 M 40 1 Packet Pg. 122 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 21611 St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $162,000 Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W 21400 7200 B&M PARK & RIDE CONS E ar- w 21410 21408 0. MAN J � o � 21401 21412 � v M1 2140 U v 214G7 W � �507 w � W / 21511 j 21431 M DONAL6' { IL o Y N 0 21521 N I M STEVEN 21500 E T AEGIS 215587 VALUE VILLAGE 216TH $T Z 120 216 TJ1 :VEN5 21600 { 21619 ci' tILION KRUGER *Aq CLINIC , .01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150' sidewalk on north side of 216t" St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project ranked #3 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2024 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $33,000 Construction $129,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $162,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 41 Packet Pg. 123 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,118,800 8t" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S 4 �^ I 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8t" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S. This project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022; a Decision Package has been submitted as part of 2021 Budget to fund the design of the transportation elements (pending approval / scheduled for December 2020). No funding is secured for construction phase. The stormwater elements would be funded by Fund 422. A Safe Routes to School grant was submitted in Spring 2020 to fund the design and construction phases of the transportation elements (response scheduled for July 2021). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & $150,800 Administration Construction $968,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $150,800 $968,000 42 1 Packet Pg. 124 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,601,000 from Main St. to 200th St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (-- 2,700'). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #18 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non -motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2024 and construction in 2025 (funding unsecured). A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program grant was submitted in Spring 2020 to fund the design and construction phases of the transportation elements (response scheduled for July 2021). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & $390,000 Administration Construction $2,211,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $390,000 $2,211,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 43 Packet Pg. 125 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 9511 PI. W Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $603,000 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95th PI. W from 224' St. SW to 220th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Engineering is scheduled for 2024 and construction in 2025 (funding unsecured) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $103,000 Construction $500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $103,000 $500,000 44 Packet Pg. 126 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Railroad Ave. Sidewalk from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $890,000 Dayton St. to SR-104 Fa Mq�Nsr � s c' a pOS NrT F hJ � 5� a oq P `- �Fq�fi lq ME5 S1 _ _ I_I I_ W DAYTON 5T _ - - D4YTON ST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install new and wider sidewalk along Railroad Ave from Dayton St. to SR-104. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety along Railroad Ave from Dayton St. to SR-104, key stretch since connects to various destination points such as Senior Center, Port of Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds... . SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2024 and 2025 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $165,000 Construction $725,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $165,000 $725,000 45 Packet Pg. 127 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76t" Ave. W non- ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: motorized transportation safety improvements $1,246,000 I %it k6�AGN OS WAY ort'14M. PINY LAKE UtLINGER WAY TmE)FA0N0S WAV r � � LAKL UAL1.INGER WAY - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend bike lanes within proximity of the intersection in northbound and southbound directions. Install APS on all corners and new ADA curb ramps. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety along this section of the Interurban Trail. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2024 and 2025 (unsecured funding for all phases). This intersection is shared with Shoreline and they own the traffic signal. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $231,000 Construction $1,015,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $231,000 $1,015,000 ILL LL U ii U N O N N 0 N d fA 0 Q 0 0 C O R r..r C d fA d L a U_ U co N O N N 0 N aD 0 a 0 a r x w r c a� E a 46 Packet Pg. 128 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Downtown Lighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,638,000 Improvements e 'iHT 7 7 C PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of street lights along various streets within Downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve lighting along various stretches within Downtown where street light poles / PUD poles don't currently exist. Night-time safety for all transportation system will be improved. More users will be encouraged to use active transportation to reach their destination during those hours (Sound Transit Station and many other destinations within Downtown). SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 (pending funding). A Sound Transit System Access grant was submitted in May '19 to fully fund this project. This funding program is available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station (total of $40 Million). Prior to COVID-19, this amount was to be distributed between Edmonds and Mukilteo to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). However due to the current COVID-19 conditions, Sound Transit is currently re-evaluating all their projects and funding situation. No date has yet been provided by Sound Transit in regards to when this step will be completed. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $109,000 $109,000 Administration & ROW Construction $1,420,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $109,000 $109,000 $1,420,000 47 1 Packet Pg. 129 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,169,000 HAWK signal to Pine St. / Pine St. Walkway from SR-104 to 9th Ave. S . rc LU -. r-1�� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of sidewalk with ADA curb ramps along SR-104 from the HAWK signal to Pine St. and along Pine St. from SR-104 to 9th Ave. S PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian connectivity between the residential areas along 3rd Ave. S to Downtown Edmonds and City Park. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2024 (pending funding). A Sound Transit System Access grant was submitted in May '19 to fully fund this project. This funding program is available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station (total of $40 Million). Prior to COVID-19, this amount was to be distributed between Edmonds and Mukilteo to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). However due to the current COVID-19 conditions, Sound Transit is currently re-evaluating all their projects and funding situation. No date has yet been provided by Sound Transit in regards to when this step will be completed. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $317,000 $317,000 Administration & ROW Construction $2,535,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $317,000 $317,000 $2,535,000 48 1 Packet Pg. 130 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Citywide Bicycle ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,850,000 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of bike lanes or sharrows along various stretches as identified on the Proposed Bike Facilities map of 2015 Transportation Plan. As part of the installation scheduled for 2022, bike lanes or sharrows will be added along 100th St. SW / 9th Ave. from 244th St. SW to Walnut St, Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. to 84th Av., 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. to 78th Ave., and 80th Ave. from 228th St. SW to 220th St. SW. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will create new bike connections to various destination points throughout the City (such as schools, parks, Downtown, Sound Transit Station...). The intent of this project is to get more people riding their bikes and feel safer riding their bikes on the roadway. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (secured funding from Sound Transit grant for $1.85 Million) & 2027- 2041 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & $256,000 $750,000 Administration Construction $1,500,000 $4,250,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $256,000 $1,500,000 $5,000,000 49 1 Packet Pg. 131 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $648,000 from 80t" Ave. W to 76t" Ave. W 1� i r 192ND PL 5W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80t" Ave. W to 76t" Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $93,000 Construction $555,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $648,000 50 1 Packet Pg. 132 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 104t" Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,019,000 from 238t" St. SW to 106t" Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104t" Ave. W from 238t" ST. SW to 106tn Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $155,000 Construction $864,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,019,000 51 Packet Pg. 133 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 801" Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $324,000 from 218t" St. SW to 220t" St. SW a L z eq 00 ■ L K a H n n -------�--ITT---------------220THSTSW— PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80t" Ave. W from 218t" ST. SW to 220t" ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $57,000 Construction $267,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $324,000 52 1 Packet Pg. 134 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $323,000 from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW r `T r 5■■ i i .� 44 T'■ F U ti ri 186TH ST W m W ■ 18 TH 5 5W ■ L - � � A 188TH 5T 5W LE P ire ■ P L 7 1 � � WI 1 r L r ■go, J rn r r SFAMF W , PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $62,000 Construction $261,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $323,000 a U- U d U N O N N O N d fA 0 Q 0 d 4- 0 c 0 R a U- U co N O N N 0 N a� 0 a 0 L r r x w r E a 53 1 Packet Pg. 135 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,763,000 from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W VIP ■ i 1 -1a ■ �m N PARK r IRL EDI IONDS BALL E4L ' � ■ � ' APTS � w LL CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH O PARK & RIDE � L i OFFICE 236TH T W J 23609 23603 F SAFEWAY 23605 L KJIHG 23fi07 c�wcor � rn4.�n1, rn �s ■ � ■ 'E FFICE o nvi F ■ ' a N a 3229 h �r r. - . NORTH N HAVEN MANOR w 7I W _I I— a ,M1 � ■I■ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W. This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Design phase scheduled for 2024 and construction scheduled for 2025 (no funding secured). A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program grant was submitted in Spring 2021 to fund the design of the transportation elements for the design and construction phases (response scheduled for July 2021). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2035 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $256,000 Construction $1,507,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $256,000 $1,507,000 54 1 Packet Pg. 136 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,236,000 from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W LJ PARK r NA LN ' , ■ in' EOMONOs APTS BALL BALL Mr Ov NORTH m CH RIST LH THE RAN CHURCH PARK S N & RIDE .ZS � � R — 2 TH T OFFICE r 23667 23663 23606 , SAFEWAY � I 23667 N4N L HJIHG R ' L • . 23679 O SUNSET '•A•1L LO•h: P Q , BROOK R AURORA rotas - . ` S MARKETPLACE T FAMILYPANCAKE 1 L_ H V ' 23$TH 5T 5W ■ seouL L821 PLAZA _ 1 ■ I I`1 ' . 23827 �DG' TRAVEL LOE ST. FRANCIS -MISISON TACOTIM MOTEL . . . - ■ WHSE ■ ■ _+ K&EMOTEL ' 1 ■ •� I, j, II RA Rv III F 1 ■ ■ ■ , IN ■ E r t ;,.�E :yA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $181,000 Construction $1,055,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,236,000 a U. c.i a co N O N T N O N d rn O 0. O a O 0 r M fn L a a U_ 0 to N O N N O N d N O a O L a x w c CD E 0 M Q 55 1 Packet Pg. 137 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave. W / 180th St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,829,000 SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to OVD. This project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $580,000 Construction $2,249,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $580,000 $2,249,000 a U- U W N O N N 0 N (1) 0 a 0 L- a. x w c a� E 0 a 56 Packet Pg. 138 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: 18911 PI. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $606,000 from 80t" Ave. W to 76t" Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 189t" PI. SW from 80t" Ave. W to 76t" Ave. W. This project ranked #14 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $118,000 Construction $488,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $606,000 57 1 Packet Pg. 139 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000 Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle storage for ferry users. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to local driveways. SCHEDULE: 2024 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $50,000 Construction $307,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $357,000 58 Packet Pg. 140 8.1.a CFP STORMWATER U- U d U N O N N O N d N O om O L O O r r a. LL U co N O N N O N N N O Q O L- a. r x W c.i fC a+ Q 59 1 Packet Pg. 141 8.1.a a LL tU d U to N O N N O N d N O om O L O r_ O r r L CL a. LL U co N O N N O N N N O Q O L- a. r r x LU E c.i Y Q 60 1 Packet Pg. 142 E, LL U N N G O d ° N N d N w « N � w = M N O U 3 N LL (j m O QN m U tD N 0 0 0 N N O f0 W N N O N O O O O O O N N O <O Cc N ' y N O O O O O O N N c M N N O O O O O N N O O O O ON1 M N � � N p N O O 0 0 0 CO O O ER ER N O O O N � d � J U N E m 0 0 > O o N � LL N E m N p o o e N N p N u p a a m c L � `a g U c J N 00 W 0 a c d O m a _ p � f0 10 O U a d m C O C E y j N C O N N N o3 a m c o E d o m . r 02 a E o a a amyd�m- y c U N N T 5 y N c p C a. t a o• 0 o 2 E m W L N C y y p a ° m o m U 00 O N C j V O` > -p 6 > ry d o °p a m o m E L U U U� 0) C at S i :E a E E m r t d c 0 `o .. E for m z z •O W IL` E U m N O IL � c y O E � W� N N N � � o � � O O LA � � O O 0 � fA O O L[j � fA O O 8.1.a N M N O N W T N u � � O N � V! o � O N M fA rn A IL LL IL/\/� c > N o r 0 o o o � to N N � u d J y � m�d (n J C d LL 0 r N O Gi N O CL C u) a6 m LL � o U Q a O U o O Q ev iJ UI o r O N N N M C d IL LL V co N O N T- N O N N O CL Q a r s x W C d t V Q 61 Packet Pg. 143 8.1.a a LL U d U co N O N N O N d N O Q O L- a. 4- 0 r_ O Y Y L a. IL LL U CD N O N N O N O N O M O L- a. r Y K LU E a 62 1 Packet Pg. 144 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION Aerial photo of Marsh from 2018 Marsh as it existed in 1941 General Project Location Updated project concept PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This CFP sheet covers a collection of projects proposed and planned around the Edmonds Marsh in an effort to restore the habitat provided by the marsh. The projects below do not include additional follow up vegetation -related improvements to be completed after the daylighting project re-establishes the historic saltwater conditions in the Marsh; additional invasive plant removal, native plantings, and other habitat management projects are anticipated beyond the efforts shown here in. Willow Creek Daylighting: The project will daylight Willow Creek and help begin restoration of historic conditions in the Marsh. The project has three sub -components including (1) daylighting Willow Creek through the existing Unocal property, (2) daylighting of the Willow Creek through Marina Beach Park (top of bank to top of bank), and (3) excavation/reestablishment of tidal channels within the existing Marsh. The project includes significant re -vegetation and mitigation within the Marsh to improve habitat conditions. The current cost estimate for the project includes all flood walls and berms associated with daylighting the creek but does not include Marina Beach park improvements beyond the top of bank. The project is a component of the PROS plan (comprehensive plan) for open space, habitat and fulfills goals #1, #3 and #4. Total project cost is estimated around $16.65 million and future funding sources are yet to be identified; however, grant funding of roughly 50% of the project cost is tentatively planned. Willow Creek Daylighting Channel — Additional Alternate Alignment: This project is a new proposal to conduct public outreach in order to develop an additional alignment for the daylighting project, which can be modelled and compared to existing alignments. The project is estimated $80,000 and would be entirely funded by City stormwater funding. This work can be completed without additional site access rights and the project is proposed to be completed in 2021. Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements Phase 1: This project is a new proposal to treat all runoff from the west side of SR-104 which discharges directly into the Edmonds Marsh. Project total cost is estimated at $418,000 and is proposed to be 75% grant funded and 25% funded by City stormwater funds. Project is proposed to begin design in 2021 pending grant award, with construction scheduled in 2023. 63 1 Packet Pg. 145 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION 8.1.a Marina Beach Park: Additional improvements to Marina Beach Park are planned, consistent with the approved Marina Beach Park master plan. These project costs are not shown below as they would be funded through the Parks Department; see Parks CFP/CIP sheets for project cost and funding information. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek and subsequent redevelopment of Marina Beach park (not included) will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including juvenile Chinook. The project, along with its companion CIP project "Dayton Street Pump Station", will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. This project is a priority in the Edmonds PROS plan. SCHEDULE: The main Willow Creek Daylighting project is on hold until the Unocal/Chevron property is transferred to the State; City cannot secure property access rights until such time. Smaller projects now being proposed by staff, as noted, to try and keep progress moving. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study 0) Eng. & Admin. $450,000' $900,0002 $300,000 VD L y� Construction $7,500,000 $7,500,000 0 1%for Art SUBTOTAL $450,000 $900,000 $300,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 Planning/Study Q Eng. & Admin. $80,000 oE Construction �Q 1%for Art Q SUBTOTAL $80,000 Planning/Study Q EM Eng. & Admin. $40,000 $40,000 Construction $338,000 a 1%for Art SUBTOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $338,000 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $570,000 $40,000 $1,238,000 $300,000 o Construction $7,500,000 $7,500,000 ~ 1 % for Art GRAND TOTAL $570,000 $40,000 $1,238,000 $300,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 ' This value is a carry -forward of the approved 2020 budget for this project. Previously, this funding was held as match for the NFWF grant which has since been rescinded, but staff propose to retain this funding for use in the daylighting project. Design is not anticipated to begin in 2021, but funding could be used to kick off design work quickly if the property transfer unexpectedly proceeds and can also be used for tasks, such as grant application or stake holder outreach efforts, and any remaining funds can be carried forward each year until design is able to begin. 2 This schedule assumes that property ownership may transfer in 2023 based on a 6-year clean-up plan being approved in 2017. 3 Project is dependent on securing grant funding and may not be pursued if a grant is not awarded. a LL U W N 0 N N 0 N N 0 a 0 a r x w c a� E �a Q 64 1 Packet Pg. 146 8.1.a PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Infiltration ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $742,700 Facility Phase 2 �� Talbot t . Frederick Seaview Park N fi ry r 7 -4 L 1 4 00 W tt 185th °O e 87th L 18E 40 Proposed Phase 2 ♦� i72n Y o IP iP � r 173 d Nc w IP t j ati - n- �� rP 175th -4 o rP lP 2 M 77t 1 7 h I i. 4 78th s 79th r a 1 Oth orno 1815 Distribution Chamber ____-_o— r 18 nd Diversion Structure \� rP Inspection Port l© Swirl Concentrator ss` 'E M Well er Gual,ty fnalure) � Modi}y flow - h Limits of Phase 1 exist. diversion structure s r •p Catch Basin ` A sketch of the project provided in grant application materials. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City applied for and received a grant from the Department of Ecology to design and construct an additional stormwater infiltration facility in Seaview Park. The proposal will duplicate the system successfully installed during Phase 1. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low -gradient downstream reaches of the creek. A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was completed in 2015. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. Control of the sediment loads in Perrinville Creek must be achieved before proceeding with additional fish habitat improvement and removal of the sediment collection structure the City currently maintains on the creek near Talbot Road. SCHEDULE: Design is kicking off 2020 with construction planned for 2022 in order to allow ample time to acquire permits and meet grant obligations during the design phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 COST Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $116,100 Construction $495,600 1 % for Art TOTAL $116,100 $495,600 65 1 Packet Pg. 147 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2021-2026 EDP z DRAFT Packet Pg. 148 a a_ U d U N O N N O N d N O Q O L CL 4- 0 r_ O r r L a. N O N N O N d U m O Q O L CL N a+ t K W C N E t ca Q Packet Pg. 149 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2021-2026) Table of Contents GENERAL Building Maintenance Public Works 7 112 Transportation Public Works 9 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 12 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 14 332 Parks Construction Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 15 421 Water Projects Public Works 17 422 Storm Projects Public Works 18 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 20 423.100 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 21 PARKS — PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Capital Parks & Recreation/ 125 Projects Fund Public Works 25 Special Capital / Parks & Recreation/ 126 Parks Acquisition Public Works 35 Parks Construction 332 Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 41 3 1 Packet Pg. 150 a a_ U d U N O N N O N d N O Q O L CL 4- 0 r_ O r r L a. N O N N O N d U m O Q O L CL N a+ t K W C N E t ca Q Packet Pg. 151 Cip GENERAL U- U d U N O N N O N d N O Q O L CL 4- 0 O r r L N O N N O N d U m O Q O L CL N a+ t K W C N E t ca Q Packet Pg. 152 a a_ U d U N O N N O N d N O Q O L CL 4- 0 r_ O r r L a. N O N N O N d U m O Q O L CL N a+ t K W C N E t ca Q Packet Pg. 153 8.1.b N O N N O N O N V N 0 a C 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1p N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3o V3 O V3 V3 V3 V3o V3o O V3 O V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 V3o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O LO LL7 0 0 Lfl LLD O uD 0 0 O O OD O LO OD LLD Lo N Nf-00hN W f-LO0 Lo LP) 7 V3 V3 63 F N C)"TOD V3 V3 69,63 N 77 0 CV U') V3 V3 70 V3 7 N V3 63 m 63 63163 O V3 V3 V3 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O Lo 0 0 0 0 0 O O N p O O Lo V3 N O V3 O V3 Lo 0 V3 Co Lo N to 63 N V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 63 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O N N LLLo LOW) W)U)0 V3 LW)C COO N V3 V3 V3 _O V3 Co 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0000000000 00 00 00 00 O 0 O 0 a LO O CD CD CD O O O O N N0 LO Ln Lo Ln000 CO p N V3 V) 63 (.0316S V3 63 V3 Co V3 V3 V3 63 000 0o000o 0 O O O O O O 0 C o C Cl) N o0 Ln LO Lo o o0oao0 000 LoO o CO N 63 V3 V> V3 LO O CIJ V3 00 64 V3 V3 0000 g o CD oOOo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O N 0 0 C U') 0 O � 0 0 0 p Lo V3 O O cooV3 N V3 V3 V3 V3 V3 CC o00o C CD O O O O O O O O O O O O LOO OLOO U, O Co LO Lo (V p N � O � � W9.64 f- 3 V3 'S� V3 V3 V3 N o ° 0 r) r) r) r) 0 0 0 C. C. C0) L � O) N N N V Uq OIONO N E EN nY O) nQn C C C n C o N LO 6- 3O N UE UUU °c) EEEE¢ij EEE O U O UUUUUUUU U a LL U U N N C N 0 O � U 0 N N p C (D N m 7 U a 0 3^y^� o � " - m5 rn -O E J N - O f6 N (� C O ^ C ' U 3 0> C f0 > C O O) O C C O7 2 Y y 7 N c O) E OS O U "O�N� EU U U C N@ O f0 2 Eq Y CL -- O-0 02 07 N U 2 E p O 6 Co O W fn 3 X O Co U U 'O = N E f6 C O N O) N 7Cu +N+ @ O) Co 03 U -0= Co =i C C N a) OS ¢ U .�.. a U Cu o- N O d O) O C; _ N 0. C O) Cn C¢ O U X L` W _ 'p d U N fA N m N Z > N oY N L= o- �. -Q l6 O) C l6 •LO Y o :) o f 4? C fN a) > .O C C o rn(7 ._ N 0 C U O1 C rnU a) 01 c f0 O) LL fC6 U a cci C .� U O ¢ LL 01 T LL O U L1 W OS .� LL@ n C O�G O > N N O) +.+ i OU'C C T OS NQ I.L O) f0 N O7> Y O LL W U LO >' "6a fn LLI E (� C U d 0 .� N CI .T. O N CO 1 00 •� W Z, f6 > O m .O. i j .� f0 f�6 (L.i i x O Z, _ 'O Q N'O ¢O=y��a>i .'L Cw"O O W V 2U L N wv¢¢UU UU LLy� E 3Uin L`6 W Q�xa x y¢ @U 7 CL o o QCL'm �_ W �_. mCL c 71 �_x�xx W UdUU m CL2 m»¢ W xxLL m LL. mach CL JCL}DULL oxxv) 1:Co ¢ULL2U �._._ VUZ�CLJ�U�U1DU- m m—cna ¢� O a LL V IL v to N O N N O N d N O CL O L a 4- 0 C O R C d d L IL Co N O N N O N IL v d N O Q O L a N r t x LU C cD C t v O Q Packet Pg. 154 a.1.b LS LS CS CS CS CS 69 ( a 2E \£cu )ass |(� f )\/ ALL LLLL } EG 22\a,aSa)< ]¥W-60ma ))e7am23 24 m�G�2v=0 }ƒ)))ƒ§+E$ 04 Ln CM d 04 04 04 CM — I ITTI C, all 0) )ƒm A)m �U a)2°° _]]_� §2\\ \ SJ£LL = L /z§f{5 /LUG //10 �k&&/ 53ƒƒ=uf,g ] �§kk`°°��_=LL -)aC)0a o6�2ca E ca= ---2.8.9 =® I k§3LLgU) 0007®<=]4 _ J)\3§44a45o4 ,< 0 Vw CEO do IL b IL_ _ U CEO tR cm� N _ cm § - o &f 0 IL CEO §� 0 - 0 % c o 64- 2 � _ 2 CEO 110 \\ a q cm d 04 0 (aa OECD v 2 0 CL 2 IL / � � k q w k E / 2 11 Packet Pg. 155 8.1.b E a) O L IL N C d E p Q E to Q U 0� 000 000 C C O O O O O O Ow 00N Co 00)M NN 100� O LOM N M N3 EAM _ to � EA V3 69 H3 EA O O O O O O O O co O 100 Ln O N V3 � O O O O O O O O o 0 O O O O O O 0 0 00 co 020 V Ln CO W N N M1- O a0 I� 00 V EA fA EA fA 0 0 N N o o 0 0 N o U 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 oo D U U0000000 O O at 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �p a a aN —CO N �EHN � N C c C fA EA � EA fA fA . C.9 O O N N N_ N_ O N N_ (.9 0 a5 (a a) a) a5 a) O O O co a)333 o d o NNN (7 0 MOMo) (7 o o >3 3> 0 Ln v n c c c Ln �vvv � o U U C C 0 U C 0p p O N N N O M Lo N o O U U N O U 0 p) ER U U U cl V3 a) N a) O O O. O. O O. N h O) CO oo V CO 0r7 M 69 xxxxxxxx xxx C E m N C m � > w N O C U U O. E E Q c c c CD > EEEtwa EcE - o> o d c E U` o o E > E> E o Q a s o o E E E E> E a C o o a a E2 c o. — E c O N U w D U a) c o 1nc�do>c� o{p E mod 9 o)IJ .a) C C a) x- C aD U N U N C N a) 12 C m>��� W w u) N j C U) �; U) .-, c 0 > U) xtt u)u) U)�� ONE ) j�6: p >`L aS .L. OO .L..�QN a1Qat >.L.. i 00 3N N NNO� fa6�0�)N Q��� o ol r W m O N U 0 0 0 0 0 Nxxxx 02Ih U)wwo 0 0 O 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 OEA00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0EA00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 O 0 0 NfA O O 0111,00 -�r7 O O O LO M 0)M07 O O O CO O CO O O N m CO t0101� O O 0 m O MO Om7MIO O O CO O Cn OOh O) CO OM7 N EA fA Co EA 60 Ln 1-: V3 NM N EA 69 N�OI�� A4 EAR fA ' CA fA co fA 00 N CA S fA CO N� S EAM U7 vgi O C 00 CO 69 O O 00 N EA O O UO � O O O EA O O O O O O LO CO N C I O EA V3 O o O 7 Efl N �O Co EA O O O O O O O CO 1- O 0 0 N ,-: 69 EA O O O O O O O Ln N C O N I--M EA fA 0 O O O V3 0 0 O O O O LO CO v 0 I N CA EA O O O O O c EA O O O O O Ln EA O O O O O O O) CO 0 0 N EA fA O O O I� M EA O O O O I- to O O O O Co fA O O O CO N N fA O O O LO V) V to O O O CO N EA O O O N CO to O O O Ln EA O O O M O EA O O O O O O LO � CO M N to EA O O O O O Cn mI� O In 6f3 CA O O O M CA 0 0 00 Co O LO O ER O to N V M T O O N O O O m V Co m u0D EA ILO ER a fH 60 xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx x U) rn a) Q t � C a) E O V O Q U > 0 I-- O) Co U) . .> O� c Q O O 5j U) En 45 > ?j U) In 0 E EL (,)U) a1 U)U)U)\ _ 2' C >r�io >;;5 a) dQ > ai 0 U) a �d �)U) cQNN000 m.t... >-O QQ O OQ >0 04 C rn C) C 0� m 0 o E o 0 0 0 O y Y N U N L N 0 C Co >LJJ OU)u)U) B .0 U °t Co " U)U)U)<v�torn� . . ai O O -- M V ..: cn 23: " c Q' cn B C,), 2 -0 �C-L.. c c.. � N > � Cad o c i, jL C C O.N. O O C c N c O a) xNN 00 Cl 00 U E EY Co CO E w O O E E E p Lx M O EO m a) OrN0� E w r N O> O E E o0o EE L0>�EEoZOgx E Q mql-N)C-4) >�>�>P> P3oo �°EE 3 N Y y Y a) a7 Y a1 E m Co aS 3> 0 R w Y Co -- m 3 3N ma c-2 3 3�c< m 6U�>�h C.0 �i coi >m> J'O '�Od Q Q C, 0 C pN0>7>.L..0N E s N U U m A N U)0 x U)M m Packet Pg. 156 8.1.b 0 M N Is O M o N MN tOO A A a r 11 49 7 Alk 0 O F rn N CD N N LO CM N O O O OO 7 N CO N En 04 69 69 000 O Ci O Lf) M M CO N rM N N o m 7 0 o O p 0 0 O O O O N 6r9 EO fA � 61) 000 � O W OO O O O O Q m O p Eo`02 Cl) IN r t0 ON N fA V3 V3 N EA O I- CO � QO M W CD O N � CO W N E'O 69 (3i OD �� N o M to c.) 69 IL LL U �O 0 3 m Cl) � U c N o o E E m L cq > a O O (n N O 8 m E m m c a) c NY E U a Q O U CO U 3 U U) _ (n L o) E N occ Cl)L C .L..YO O C g .0.. fn > �Qw� W E CA E>d o� CO£co E E o a� �p N E E c O o y a y E O 'C L_ w O C S L N > U) U a) mm�o >o) c>, N NQ`�N �N N 00� `Ud > a�M25a >xsCOaa) -fro>Ea N > >�>=U O Q >v 'SOU O Q N Y Q Yn CO, Q C.L.. N 0TL Q O N , _ ro� v� r m ' n N 7 CO c C U CD N.....-. N m 00 m .-. _ .-..-..-. m� m.o 00c ���cymv�?0o0 N N T N m m N N N m N O � � W � LL I!L O O 0 Ci Ci O O O O p O O O 1w) M T Myj c00OLn N N V3 _ N to fA 69 fA 69 cc oO 00 O ocl000 000Oo O O o O O OOOOOOOO oOOOOOOO O O O O O O O OOO OOO O O O O O OOO oOo Ln 1lo to N W Co r rOO coc a0o � oNNcwc E00)M r r O o Na0 O!mw 7 o OON OOO ao� N Eo fA 6- q0 _ N 69 0 fA rao� 69 fA oc NN ' 69 r fA 69 MrN 69 O Lnr 69 fo fA H3 69 fA 69 fA En cc cc O O o o O O O O L O O O O r O O O O O O O Oo O O O O cc cc O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 a N I-- OD r Co Eo r O O OLnM O N N N r LO I O I---EO I--o fH N O M MEO N N l n m EO N a 0 N EO Co Co r O M p 69 69 fA � 69 69 EA EA V3 V3 EA V3 EA V3 M O N N O N N N IL c O N N a LL U � 0 E d a U W L N y j > m m N Q m > .Ll E N Um O O o E r N C E N Y> (O > N > L L w N E E r E > D E> 0 0' � V1 a) C Q N L E N 0 U O. N > 'O a C S ~O C O N N N a3 > L C y o L � E T v ° E ° E° E m ai > w wr0 V1 o O aVj E y N a) O C y p N o= o .o. L O O 9 co O En OOj C_y! U7 v 'O R V U @ ?i O o m= .N E c E U p y° C U y O N o 'O m L L> co cq >>� L u) d > a7 (n o L o ald N N N c� f° w a' om EE=NN rL= END C, >> .m. O M (n CC E2 p p 0 E E EO (0 EO w N ? to C L C L> N«> >_ C> w '? O m O w o 2._ 0 W� L Y L@ N> m >. 3 m N � N �r N �r Y N N N a) C4 >T W C S V Q m a3 Y Y . 2@ 2> 1r S' E Y > Y a3 a1 3 �oM�"ornino m >vvvvQminin > > > > >inNin o in 3� m c L Q o 0 0 o d a Y L Q Q Q L L m y a o `Q0_ m��2 �� �fn mfn mfnNN N�aOD W N> >� Nm mir 10 Packet Pg. 157 8.1.b 44 11 Packet Pg. 158 8.1.b O L a E rn � 3 LL a N V N N � E a > 1° 0 Q Q E U N f0 = U Ui 0 fR 0 0 fA V3 0 N V3 O 0 0 V3 V3 0 0 V3 V3 0 0 o V3 0 0 V3 V3 0 0 fA Vi 0 0 Vi Vi 0 0 V3 0 0 fH V3 0 0 0 Vi Vi Vi � N O N o 10 7 N O � � F N � O N N O N N N O N � O O N N y3 O N M N 0 0 N N 0 0 N O N N N V o o O N 0 uoi 7 O N N O N cV a 0 0 O 0 O o O n N c o M o n N E M I- e N N � W IL LL X X X U rn c L rn .T Y C O � 3 o � � a O m N O U w N O 2 y C Y N E> N m O O N. 5 N E U O 12 C m O> m o� as .o E a E m Z`E E O >c o m Y c w o> E a U ° .° m m c a LU C ILL v OJ C O m E'S, j N mvY C N d a cuo E a a> �'2 o m E O U �i rnL O O. Nv Z a c c w c a d m` d 2 `m `m m U1 rn U m 0. E ". .O m m o o o N o m y m m E L•v L m m m m m m m a"i m 0 o a rn U C N` "O C m a= O m m ?i >i d E E m U N C LL >. d 'O Y a m>? V 0 c E o m `m m oa > m t t m m d> L c� o f oo d' a m c a¢m`UUc�wLLo2222acncn��>vUw=o¢ v y o m ami c o u p N M N O M 0 C 0 to rr 0 C 0 to O O O Co 0 C 0 H �o C ro O N 64 <0 L co rr co 12 Packet Pg. 159 8.1.b O N O � n N n rn v ri r w w N 0 � � r N � ER � N u O N EA 00 O ER O O O O O w N r � � C M M of O O l0Y � EA � of N cmN O N EA 0 O O O ER O O O O m W uO O fA fA O to OD n N EA � OD O N N O N EA O O O O ER O O O O O 0 1L N � O 7 O 7 O � 0 N 7 O N O O O O O O EA ER ER � M to 7 0 n � N � tq N � N N ER O ER O to O N ER � r O OD N cli � O O N N N M N M N M ER � M O N ER O O N ER N N V M O M 13 Packet Pg. 160 8.1.b O M w O c0 a r o O> N O 60i 7 C4 O O O N M O O N M 0 0 0 A V O O Cl! 7 fl f0 W N N M Cn N en e» ei Nq Cl) OVk N M N O N M_ O C N r A M GI U) CO N N M 01 N en e» ei Nq M O N M N A N 01 LL� M O N (O O O A N O A N v N W N N M o e»F»ei N� w N m oo �n �n in A O O N O N O N N M M OD A:l N N M N N N M O N EA EA V3 N� N N o� c0 N O O O A orna pl 0 0 N M N W N N m w N N N O m A 01 N O V N N A V 0 m N N M N its cn of N W O N IL 0 N a 3 o N R o N N fMD N � W O O N a LL U U N a — m mUrna d v W O m c CoQ dLLZJ h E Q Z m 0 0 0 (p :v F W U U U 0 (n U) (n U w w a 0M n d U LL a Cl000 O OD O O O O O O O O O O �C1 O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 Lt] O Lt] 0 0 0 o O r O W N m O O EA � H3 o O o O O O O O o 0 0 o 0 O W o M ui � N es 0 0 0 O <p o o 04 O O o o O W o M Fn M N es 0 0 o 0 O 0 o m o 04 O o_o 0 o OOo � O O m. O m W o 0 <Oohon IFT1 � °A'n r �1A 0 am o Au�oo o L 1 A O r N O N M O W OAD A M M N V) fA x xx U N N T N >> > L j U 3 a N N L pL-'E N O mo G 'o ENU — No a E o 'g o L 2 o o o a ` oU) �_ E OO a C C m i cN"' o N U)— c7 U O m N E L ° o � 'oEEo N c l6 0 �_ N c A 20 N c o a v o c o o m o y c 2�om°o'er a f0a`a`'�m 2ELL w 3 U m L o ao E oo m m_ 3 m E 'O '512 a a�D�2NN [LiNHHUUHamH w N d d 76 a U- V IL v to N O N N O N d N O CL O L a 4- 0 C O N d L a to N O N N O N a_ V d N O O. O L a N r t K W C E V O .r Q 14 Packet Pg. 161 8.1.b a LL O N ....0 0 O o 0 (NO W N M M EA EA C EA O N EA o 0 O V EA 7 6, EA EA EA fA EA N O N a7 O H M EA O) EA EA fA fA N N N o N 0 c o W N EA O O 0 r N3 o C C) n N fA N N O O O W EH O O O N EH o C O N EA NN N N N m o m o M V n O V fA K N N M N W � M o � V EA EA N V iv fA a �� co 0 d A E N W O N O N O m � O o o ' M a. U X X X X U C L C L a m m � o U — o d c c a a) In a) 0 L U o u) vi 3 =_ c c 'a M c 'O ` W 76 C C o y o C d N m o a a o U aa)) E a) o cl C) a) o) c as LL LL U d N N E E C o N > 3 a) of`o c 0 F�>> U U U 0 O C N O = W U~ °1 m m>> 3 0 Y 0` m LL N O L N N C W L Q a) - 2 LL LL'o'o a) a) N a) � f6 U d o a) C� N C E2 m m m U= +a) �a)) '� i+ m m Y a `m LL Y y U aci aci UU�t`t`t o 0 0 E m c ooa c°LL o U Q U o°° P E - L m a a` E t d v U U U3� 3: 3� U3: 2 LL LL O U> J W O H O C 0 C H O N N V V 7 00 64 o O O * 64 N a N A N N N r- C a00 fA o O 0 7 V3 N n (0 'A N C, N m a0 O N � o O N c0 N p N C) L' (O NI H3 0 C C)V fA O� m EA N N O N Ln ID W � O o 7 64 o On) u� C Lo o V fA N O N N V Lo W H3 N Vco 7 co M O m V H 00 N A E O M V n (moo oc L O N oho N m W � A O N O N a U o F a1 S m oo N c U w N O ig o 0 W fa 3 l` N C u a E A) m LL g U c w mu m c LL a s m E Co as Cu m E m O n M O cjN mY 0mm E a� a N LL 4) N N C O y a) C m a1 U of LL al �UU a1 C o C C m o O C m E C C L E C m Y C C E .0 Y a) a) a m 0 a a a) O m C o'mmLLmmofULL A a a !`a'f N N N N N 0 N 0 N N N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lo 7 n fA A 0 0 0 0 fA 0 C 0 CO Lo fA o N 0 O Lo a o O O W O R E o N W a W O N O N 64 fl a u. U Y a1 d m o y N C m � U C (D E O E ° LL O o > c � � 0 o N N LL U U O c c L �+ C a) o � F+ ELL c m E o a N L OU "O f C O >R > C C ` m =�(nm>�Y C O N O No > m0° m 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O 'O c o o c LLo c L o ) N a a) a) a) a) a) a) U m C o o C o U ° ° ° ° ° ° m t O = L mn N C C C C C C �! zoo LL LL o LL aS Q U L > U U > > U U > > U > o L) L U C C (6 N -OO LL j 0 U' vUUUUUULLof u) 03� 15 Packet Pg. 162 8.1.b O O O OD r ri O O O O O N O N O O O O O O f7 CD LO LO O C V3 N yj O O O O Lo LO G 64 fA N N O N O O O N O N � 0 N � N O N IL 0 Q d m O e U t� d � w N y) m O Z a6 0 L R H � 01 m N V C y R O. c a N H y R E m y N O a V r C7 y S U 'o f H f7 0 F a 16 1 Packet Pg. 163 8.1.b N O N N N O N N O N a c d O EN O .— N N W a LL U R O a. N rn i a) N O E a` > `m w 0 Q a Z C C , � R v w r Q O R U Ui a O O O O O O O � O CD W I— N N C° 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 63 V3 V3 V)V3M C° 00 O M V 00 V C L) CO I V N V)OO M O O V)V3 O Co O O N CD N O W O FR U) �N�CoO�Min (o N 61,C6 Ch V V V� V) V) V) V) V) V) V) M O N M M CA Co U) C1 V3 V) N M O O Co r— Cn CoLo Lo C 1 V) V) 69 O M O M M O ui Co Lo V) V VJ � 000 N O CO M CLo C6 V) v_ Cfl 00 00 CO N 6cj) V) O O VV O C) O O M C° O C O C2 Co 0 0 r- V) �N V 69 N 6cj� V) vL nvv NO p �C2 COM INN CO O V M MN O N Co O O M V � V �-�T V CH M� V) V) X X 0 0 Cri c h0 O NM V l°CO f� E O O O O O O O O O O N N to O C m corn E E E E E E E E Ea E E N m ai N >> Co Co Co Co @ O @ O a O a1 01 O O a a O O a O 4 C6 C Co padd d d dddddd � aa) c E E m m m m m m m m o 2�22 E E EEEEEE, aCi y O O U Cn U >� Cn U >� U U U U U U aa Co ro� N ro� N Cl Co Co —Cl —Cl Co Co —Cl Cl Co > `—° co Cu J D70)0) Cow> W>W>WWWWWwa m m O 'C t "O M 01 A 3 C O 3 C C O 3 C C 3 3 C C 3 3 C C 3� C CO 3 U C N a) a1 Cp cc C= C= C C C C C C L 3 E o < <¢ 5<<¢¢¢¢a)>° a xs>a°i0) �¢ af 0 m� mNm�Lo(D EQ� m a� of o m m ro C) m ro ro ro ro ro o m U OIL C [n C)[n r [n ........ ...N N (] (n 0 Q Q d N d N d d d d d d E 0 d N U M Io CO Co N fA O N 6A CD M h CN Cl! M N VT (1 M V3 COf1 M W M ONo M V 44 V9 I- O Ih O 0 VT O 00 00 w w a w a_ V a v CNfi Vk Nn C CD r n N w to C) N N O N CD O O Cn N N m T O 0 cl Q En V9 O U. a M 1- O w M rn O 0 0 � O ++ M M (Q V3 Vi ++ C d N Cn O CD V O � V o L a -- o (3 (T V9 N O N T- N L O N a_ V Leirfl n r r N � n a v N O O Q O L a N r t K W C N C)C C E C CD 0 +� + o G. Q J C UL.+ N 06 a) od m E d U E C 0) 5 a. y ¢ (n E Cu o � d ° m E m¢ m F W CL F H 17 1 1 Packet Pg. 47 8.1.b tc N 0 N N O N N N O N N 0 N V m w c 0 p O 0) m O a. a � y N c ' W N L > W N o E g N a o Q Z N ~ C U a r O v U Li a W X 0 Z N in 06 N r Z L N N (L 'o t CO T a 5- 0 LLN .O U M LL O C o C cc m o - E 0 a Y � Y `m m C p d C C E N O O N O 0 C 0 O Co b4 O O LQ N L2 N v Co 'N t a E U `m Co N fn Co o m � R r O O!kN fA y IL LL X U C 0 Q 0 a a a 0 0 N E N O E m m 0 fD N o = V _ � O O N C Z a w 0 o F C9 IL LL V IL v O N O N r N O N d N O O. O L a 4- 0 r_ O i d L IL v Co N O N N O N IL_ V N N O O. O L a N r t K W C d E t U O .r Q 18 Packet Pg. 1 57 a.1.b \ Lo 2co k _ 04 co ■ Lo to Lo \ \ co C-4 � k�lo NE ll�_ (4L \ x x k x x xcc § ) / _ \ E _ o \ )) k ) _ k D k \{ o kc,4 _ ( 2 ) - { co o { \ )< - �) » Z e/ w! / ) 7 R \ �j - \| / } ° J 04 » § A ® co n § ) 2 ( \ | o § ] - k { / #-o !k- k \ ;/) 3/A § �2/ 3 ] ) 2�w IL LL U IL L) q � 0 C14 'a k CL @ a % § 2 � 2 � a q � d C4 IL � 2 0 CL 2 a 2 � \ w k E / 2 19 1 Packet Pg. 166 8.1.b a N R O N O F N O N N O N N O N (D N O N N O N N O N O N N N O O i N N N O N N O N IL G a) O m N E O . N H W IL LL U E R a_ 0 a C +y+ i V N � C E a E > N W 0CL 3 —° a h z Of c � r � W v O 3 a U Li m O O O O M O r OLLiO O Or EA000000 m 0) w 000>r � (O EA 000(00(ONN00 r(O0 OMO(000>(O �(OMM MN OEA (OMWN OOM (D N EA(O EA O>N M"T mM "O �V> EA Eli V>V>V>�� o(o o n_ ui C v M cc N Efi fA E9 O CD 04 00 Lo O M O 7 O Efi N f;? O O Co0) q r v i0 o N (D M V3 O M N (O Yi Eli EA N r N (O V N Co M ON � fR ffl Eli Co Loi (O n O N (O (O N M M 00 Efi Eli 00000 C) M C) 00 O p V O(00� ID M N M (o Eli m 'IT Eli Eli 0NmLO11 - N M r M N v). Eli O 04 N M 7 (O (fl r N N O O N O N N O O N N O O N O N N N N N v N V) V) C C V) V) C C V) C C C N N C m N N E E N N E E N E N N N > > > > > N Cl >> > 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O N N a Cl a 0 0 E E 0 0 E E E Err — IL IL m Co Co r r r r r o . o L -C t N N t N a) a) LL' LL' a) a) LL' LL' a) LL' l0 :- y l0 a a a a a:5 Z m m m M N(D-M m m m m m U 3 3 3 3 3 a cc m a 3 (D (D (D U) Cr. 3 3 Y L Coco >.A --- — — m m U 7 7 O 7 C C C C U C d U m d ° c c> c c c Q Q c c Q Q c a Q a > Q Q U Q U V_ QMr000)0)mU (n ° C N N N N N N N a C 7 m t t (V O t t t t t t C Co aaaNaa a a a aUU N O O in EA u4 N N a v rn rn N N 4'T tR CD CD v v v Co 00 C C M M ow dl CoLM NVO Co W Q1 M M 1A 4MA Co � w CD of CD C) 4 r IA hH Co M r- N Cl! CD v � r M M IA VT Co � w oc oc R 7 R Co N N I& hH V °VT 0 0 N N E9 hH 0 N ER N T Q) r r O O u-, u', � � N N E m N 7 E (D CO ° m ° 3 U o a.0 xf LL 3 m _ y L C', � C C O aN w (n �? C 3 U aci c m .6 E 3 m (n m r C— 01 01 N N Q 7 N od o c c E y avi o ) m m IUD) m �in m m o a a .. a= @ N Of E o 10 10 IL LL V IL v CD N O N r N 0 N d O CL O L- a. 4- 0 C O i d d aCIO N 0 N N O N a v d O Q O L- a. N r B t x W C V O r+ Q 20 Packet Pg. 167 8.1.b 6'�O� N _ O N W H N �? O N K3 O O O O O o O O O C O ^ CDO 0 0 0 LO N N V N O O O O N O Ui VT O V3 63 N V); N 61) 00 O CD O CD O O O C O ^ CDO 0 O o LO N N V N O O O O N N Ui Vt O 613 V3 VT VTN - CD o0 o C 0 0 C O^O 0 ogo C N O O O O LO N LO O LO N O O O G LO N Vt NO TrUi V3 V3 N V3 d) N N 0 N O O O 00 O C O o O C O ^ O 0CD O N CD o CD CD 0 o N 0 LO CD N CD CD N o v 'p o o v> w to to a r r O C 1� O O^ 1- (O lC lD C O O O to O WM N N N O O O (D N f, O N 1- N a)O O N Ui V! N VT N OD V3 V3 N N LO LO O O O CD l0 O O O^LA O C O O C N V N O O O CD CD Ih o CD N I-- N N Ui N N V3 VT LON V3 V Nf rnrn 0 0> o oCD w N N N y C O O N N oC� � NNNN 00 O N N _ Os N N Ui VT V3 W V% 6% W a LL U a u, U °1 a7 y C C a7 R CmW CDU > G a N 0E L Co y .a CDa) NO a C W w L F O .y N O O O d a7 7 U� O N 7 C a1 c 3 = c o O c C -j Co S o w a 7 s o c u > W Ra o _so y> aass � CL c Q Ns c m mdd O O O U d N a7 U Sr 0 d R N U U U O y ayi N W C c y 0 U W 22� au 'con`—°u `0 O aa`a = C 0 N N C C a) a0+ p N > C al cn m N N N N N fa fa U LL m UUD F a am C C�(7 t7 FF W U y a LL c) IL v CD N O N N O N d N O CL O L- a. 4- 0 C O R i d d a` m N O N N O N IL_ V N N O Q O L- a. N r t K W C cd C t V Q 21 Packet Pg. 168 8.1.b a LL U d U co N O N N O N d N O O. O L- a. 4- 0 r_ O Y m Y r_ L a. CD N O N T- N O N a aD N O M O L- a. N r� L X W C d E t O Q 22 1 Packet Pg. 169 CIP a. u- U d U PARKSN N O N d N O Q PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 4- 0 0 L a. N O N N O N d U m O Q O L- a. Q EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 23 1 Packet Pg. 170 a a_ U d U N O N N O N d N O Q O L CL 4- 0 r_ O r r L a. N O N N O N d U m O Q O L CL N a+ t K W C N E t ca Q 24 1 Packet Pg. 171 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 125 - CAPITAL PROJECTS (,-,-:EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 25 1 Packet Pg. 172 a a_ U d U N O N N O N d N O Q O L CL 4- 0 r_ O r r L a. N O N N O N d U m O Q O L CL N a+ t K W C N E t ca Q 26 1 Packet Pg. 173 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield 310 611 Ave. N, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits. 8 acres; zoned Playgrounds & Athletic Areas ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding; $3.7M in bonds and $5.1 M in carryforward funds from previous years. This signature project is slated to go to bid in early 2021 with ground breaking scheduled for second quarter of 2021. This project is expected to take 16 months to complete (8 months in 2021 and 8 months in 2022). Remaining annual expenditures are estimated at $6.03M in 2021 and $6.03M in 2022. Three funds are utilized: Fund 125, Fund 126 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is a multi -year design, land acquisition, fund development and construction project that is a very high priority in the PROS plan. With $3.47M in grant funding to support the effort. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. The design is complete, permits are approved and the project is ready to enter the construction phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design Engineering Construction $652,546 $652,546 1 % Art TOTAL $652,546 $652,546 27 1 Packet Pg. 174 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration ESTIMATED COST: TBD (Willow Creek Daylighting) A portion of this project is not currently owned by the City of Edmonds (labeled Chevron Services Co.) Ownership discussions are ongoing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect the Puget Sound with the Edmonds Marsh restoring the natural tidal exchange. This project will impact the existing Marina Beach Park, renovation of that park, and daylighting of Willow Creek within the park is included as a secondary capital improvement project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project will fulfill the PROS plan goals and support Governor's Inslee's $363MM capital budget for salmon recovery, culvert removal, water quality and water supply projects that will expand and improve salmon habitat. The natural tidal exchange will allow juvenile Chinook salmon and other marine life to utilize the estuary. Similarly, the restoration will allow Chinook salmon to again migrate into Willow Creek for spawning (the Willow Creek Salmon Hatchery is located adjacent to the Marsh). Conditions that support migratory birds and waterfowl will also be improved. The increased volume and rate of saltwater exchange will also allow a natural redistribution of saltwater -freshwater flora and fauna. Likewise, the increased tidal exchange will reduce the accumulation of contaminants and increase oxygenation within the Marsh. The estuarine functions including its role in the aquatic food web and the delivery of nutrients to coastal waters will also be enhanced. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise impacts and enhance natural carbon sequestration (blue carbon offset). Lastly, the project will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. The project has a stormwater component which will require removal of tidal gates and a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's as a connection between the Puget Sound and the Edmonds Marsh. The stormwater project will require cleaning out culverts to improve hydrology and reduce flooding during high flows. SCHEDULE: 2021 - 2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 28 1 Packet Pg. 175 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements I ESTIMATED COST: $5M South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, within Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5-acre regional park; Zoned Commercial Waterfront, Marina Beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; protected through Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redefine the park to better serve the community as it accommodates the new alignment of Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches, picnic tables and BBQ's, improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area. The Marina Beach Master Plan includes daylighting Willow Creek which requires removal of a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's and is the only exchange between the Puget Sound and our Freshwater Edmonds Marsh Estuary. Two funds utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Marina Beach Park is a highly used regional park. Through the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan the community identified the need to restore the adjacent Edmonds Marsh, re- established for salmon habitat. Improvements are intended to retain this site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise and will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design $250,000 $250,000 Engineering Construction $250,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 29 1 Packet Pg. 176 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: 41h Avenue Cultural Corridor ESTIMATED COST: $3,350,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design of 41h Avenue Cultural Corridor to include site design and construction documents for a safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual connection along 41h Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork "Luminous Forest", installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 41h Avenue. Two funds are utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and in the goals and priorities for the State certified Creative District. Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $94,500 $250,000 Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $94,500 $250,000 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 30 1 Packet Pg. 177 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $126,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include flower plantings, irrigation and mulch in multiple areas throughout town for example: outdoor plaza's, corner parks, the library, Frances Anderson Center, streetscapes, gateways and flower baskets. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees. This program is highly supported by volunteers in the community. Baskets and corner parks are sponsored generating revenue to support the program SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Construction $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 31 1 Packet Pg. 178 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Greenhouse Replacement I ESTIMATED COST: $100,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: One of the four greenhouses need to maintain our city-wide beautification and flower program needs to be replaced. The funding for the greenhouse replacement is proposed to come from two areas. 1. $50,000 from the flower program portion of the Parks Trust Fund (136-100); 2. $50,000 from REET 2 (fund 125). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: One of the four greenhouses that enables the growing of the thousands of plants for the flower program (100) needs to be replaced. The wooden foundation is rotting, deteriorating and collapsing which is causing the plastic to rip and allowing climate -controlled air to escape. The continued failing of the foundation will only progress and cause ripping beyond repair. The greenhouse is 20 years old and significantly past its expected life cycle. SCHEDULE: 2021 - 2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Professional Services $50,000 TOTAL $50,000 32 1 Packet Pg. 179 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park Improvements / Capital ESTIMATED COST: $930,000 Replacement Program PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City of Edmonds owns, operates, and maintains 47 parks and open spaces consisting of more than 230 acres and including a mile of Puget Sound beach and shoreline. Funding allocation for major maintenance, replacements and small capital projects for the city-wide parks and recreation amenities including paved and soft -surface trails, bridges, playgrounds, sports courts, athletic fields, skate park, Yost pool, restrooms, pavilion, picnic shelters, fishing pier, lawn areas, parking lots, fencing, lighting, flower poles, monument and interpretative signage and related infrastructure. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Insufficiently maintained parks and related assets lead to higher deferred maintenance costs, increased city liability and decreased level of service and community satisfaction. The 2016 PROS Plan Goal #7 is to provide a high quality and efficient level of maintenance for all parks and related public assets in Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Professional Service $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Construction $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 TOTAL $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 33 1 Packet Pg. 180 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / Playground ESTIMATED COST: $25,000 Partnerships PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring jurisdictions to upgrade youth ballfields, play facilities and playgrounds improving neighborhood park facilities at non -City facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Funding to enter into partnerships in which matching funds could support neighborhood park facility improvement. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Construction $25,000 TOTAL $25,000 34 Packet Pg. 181 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 126 - SPECIAL CAPITAL / PARKS ACQUISITION EDMONDS PAR!(S, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES 35 1 Packet Pg. 182 a a_ U d U N O N N O N d N O Q O L CL 4- 0 r_ O r r L a. N O N N O N d U m O Q O L CL N a+ t K W C N E t ca Q 36 1 Packet Pg. 183 8.1.b I PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved Capital ESTIMATED COST: $2,400,768 Projects R1f 1� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on the following projects: Marina Beach- ends 2031; Edmonds Center for the Arts (PSCC) — ends 2026; the Frances Anderson Center (FAC) Seismic Retrofit — ends 2026 and Civic Park — ends 2039 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN -- PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Principal & Interest— $82,128 $80,178 $83,878 $82,653 $81,393 $80,063 Marina Beach Principal & Interest— $56,598 $60,098 $58,998 $58,035 $57,045 $51,000 PSCC Principal&Interest— $27,092 $26,968 $27,205 $27,007 $27,129 $27,205 FAC Principal & Interest — $234,247 $233,475 $232,225 $235,725 $233,725 $236,475 Civic Park TOTAL $400,292 400,718 $402,305 $403,419 $399,291 $394,743 37 Packet Pg. 184 PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield 310 611 Ave. N, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits. 8 acres; zoned Playgrounds & Athletic Areas ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 YT{ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding; $3.7M in bonds and $5.1 M in carryforward funds from previous years. This signature project is slated to go to bid in early 2021 with ground breaking scheduled for second quarter of 2021. This project is expected to take 16 months to complete (8 months in 2021 and 8 months in 2022). Remaining annual expenditures are estimated at $6.03M in 2021 and $6.03M in 2022. Three funds are utilized: Fund 125, Fund 126 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is a multi -year design, land acquisition, fund development and construction project that is a very high priority in the PROS plan. With $3.47M in grant funding to support the effort. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. The design is complete, permits are approved and the project is ready to enter the construction phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design Engineering Construction $71,816 1 % Art TOTAL $71,816 38 1 Packet Pg. 185 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Park and Open Space Acquisition Program ESTIMATED COST: $1,700,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of land when feasible that will benefit citizens and fit the definitions and needs identified in the PROS plan. $700,000 is currently reserved for park land and open space acquisition. These funds were accumulated 2019, 2020 and 2021. There is no request to purchase land in 2021. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: There are large areas of Edmonds where the Parks level of service is below current standards; particularly on the Hwy 99 corridor. This is a priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2021 - 2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Land $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 39 1 Packet Pg. 186 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration ESTIMATED COST: TBD (Willow Creek Daylighting) A portion of this project is not currently owned by the City of Edmonds (labeled Chevron Services Co.) Ownership discussions are ongoing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect the Puget Sound with the Edmonds Marsh restoring the natural tidal exchange. This project will impact the existing Marina Beach Park, renovation of that park and daylighting of Willow Creek within the park is included as a secondary capital improvement project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project will fulfill the PROS plan goals and support Governor's Inslee's $363MM capital budget for salmon recovery, culvert removal, water quality and water supply projects that will expand and improve salmon habitat. The natural tidal exchange will allow juvenile Chinook salmon and other marine life to utilize the estuary. Similarly, the restoration will allow Chinook salmon to again migrate into Willow Creek for spawning (the Willow Creek Salmon Hatchery is located adjacent to the Marsh). Conditions that support migratory birds and waterfowl will also be improved. The increased volume and rate of saltwater exchange will also allow a natural redistribution of saltwater -freshwater flora and fauna. Likewise, the increased tidal exchange will reduce the accumulation of contaminants and increase oxygenation within the Marsh. The estuarine functions including its role in the aquatic food web and the delivery of nutrients to coastal waters will also be enhanced. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise impacts and enhance natural carbon sequestration (blue carbon offset). Lastly, the project will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. The project has a stormwater component which will require removal of tidal gates and a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's as a connection between the Puget Sound and the Edmonds Marsh. The stormwater project will require cleaning out culverts to improve hydrology and reduce flooding during high flows. SCHEDULE: 2021 - 2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 40 1 Packet Pg. 187 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 332 - PARKS CONSTRUCTION EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 41 1 Packet Pg. 188 a a_ U d U N O N N O N d N O Q O L CL 4- 0 r_ O r r L a. N O N N O N d U m O Q O L CL N a+ t K W C N E t ca Q 42 1 Packet Pg. 189 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: 41h Avenue Cultural Corridor ESTIMATED COST: $3,350,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design of 41h Avenue Cultural Corridor to include site design and construction documents for a safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong visual connection along 41h Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts. Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork "Luminous Forest", installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 41h Avenue. Two funds are utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and in the goals and priorities for the State certified Creative District. Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 $2,500,000 1 % for Art TOTAL all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 43 1 Packet Pg. 190 PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield I ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 310 611 Ave. N, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits. 8 acres; zoned Playgrounds & Athletic Areas PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding; $3.7M in bonds and $5.1 M in carryforward funds from previous years. This signature project is slated to go to bid in early 2021 with ground breaking scheduled for second quarter of 2021. This project is expected to take 16 months to complete (8 months in 2021 and 8 months in 2022). Remaining annual expenditures are estimated at $6.03M in 2021 and $6.03M in 2022. Three funds are utilized: Fund 125, Fund 126 and Fund 332. Fund 332 includes grant, bond, donation, park impact fee and general funding. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is a multi -year design, land acquisition, fund development and construction project that is a very high priority in the PROS plan. With $3.47M in grant funding to support the effort. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. The design is complete, permits are approved and the project is ready to enter the construction phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design $67,620 Engineering $45,833 $45,832 Construction $5,148,500 $5,284,835 1 % Art $44,000 $44,000 TOTAL $5,305,953 $5,374,667 44 1 Packet Pg. 191 PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Walkway Completion — Ebb ESTIMATED COST: $1,250,000 Tide Section ■.� � fir_ �i . Located in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, the City of Edmonds has an easement intended to complete the pathway. The easement and walkway design are currently under legal review. This land is located within the Edmonds City Limits in Snohomish County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing North to Marina Beach Park ensuring all individuals, including those with mobility challenges and those pushing strollers can safely enjoy the entire waterfront. The final missing piece would be constructed in front of the Ebb Tide condominiums. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide public access along the waterfront for all individuals. Completion of the walkway would meet ADA requirements and would support efforts to keep dogs off of the beaches. A top priority in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering Construction $500,000 $750,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $500,000 $750,000 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 45 1 Packet Pg. 192 PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements I ESTIMATED COST: $5M South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, within Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5-acre regional park; Zoned Commercial Waterfront, Marina Beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; protected through Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redefine the park to better serve the community as it accommodates the new alignment of Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches, picnic tables and BBQ's, improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area. The Marina Beach Master Plan includes daylighting Willow Creek which requires removal of a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's and is the only exchange between the Puget Sound and our Freshwater Edmonds Marsh Estuary. Two funds utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. Fund 332 includes park impact fees, donations and grants. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Marina Beach Park is a highly used regional park. Through the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan the community identified the need to restore the adjacent Edmonds Marsh, re- established for salmon habitat. Improvements are intended to retain this site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise and will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design Engineering Construction $1,500,000 $2,750,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,500,000 $2,750,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 46 1 Packet Pg. 193 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier Rehabilitation I ESTIMATED COST: $57,000 LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project located at Olympic Beach, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City Limits. Owned by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Maintained by the City of Edmonds PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Completion of the fishing pier rehabilitation project. There are several cracks under the pier that should be sealed to prevent further cracking and potential corrosion. A repair technique has been identified and the funding is provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Repair is essential to extend the life of the fishing pier which supports both recreational fishing and provides a food source for residents. Maintaining park assets is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Professional Service Construction $54,425 TOTAL $54,425 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 47 1 Packet Pg. 194 8.1.b PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration ESTIMATED COST: TBD (Willow Creek Daylighting) A portion of this project is not currently owned by the City of Edmonds (labeled Chevron Services Co.) Ownership discussions are ongoing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconnect the Puget Sound with the Edmonds Marsh restoring the natural tidal exchange. This project will impact the existing Marina Beach Park, renovation of that park and daylighting of Willow Creek within the park is included as a secondary capital improvement project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project will fulfill the PROS plan goals and support Governor's Inslee's $363MM capital budget for salmon recovery, culvert removal, water quality and water supply projects that will expand and improve salmon habitat. The natural tidal exchange will allow juvenile Chinook salmon and other marine life to utilize the estuary. Similarly, the restoration will allow Chinook salmon to again migrate into Willow Creek for spawning (the Willow Creek Salmon Hatchery is located adjacent to the Marsh). Conditions that support migratory birds and waterfowl will also be improved. The increased volume and rate of saltwater exchange will also allow a natural redistribution of saltwater -freshwater flora and fauna. Likewise, the increased tidal exchange will reduce the accumulation of contaminants and increase oxygenation within the Marsh. The estuarine functions including its role in the aquatic food web and the delivery of nutrients to coastal waters will also be enhanced. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise impacts and enhance natural carbon sequestration (blue carbon offset). Lastly, the project will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. The project has a stormwater component which will require removal of tidal gates and a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's as a connection between the Puget Sound and the Edmonds Marsh. The stormwater project will require cleaning out culverts to improve hydrology and reduce flooding during high flows. SCHEDULE: 2021 - 2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 48 1 Packet Pg. 195 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2020 TO 2021) 8.1.c ADDED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I DESCRIPTION 112 SR-104 Adaptive System Installation of adaptive system along SR-104 from 226th St. SW to 236th St,. SW X in order to improve traffic flows along this corridor. 112 Main St Overlay from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave. Overlay Main St. from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave., along with curb ramp upgrades. 112 Citywide Bicycle Improvements project Addition of bike lanes or sharrows along 100th Ave. from 244th to Walnut, X Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. to 84th, 80th from 220th to 228th, and 228th from 78th to 80th. 112 236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W Addition of sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W / project X ranked #11 in Long Walkway list from 2015 Transportation Plan) 125 1 Greenhouse Replacement I lReplacement of aging greenhouse 421 Phase 17 Annual Replacement Program (2027) 1 lEstimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 2021 Waterline Overlays I lEstimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. 422 Phase 8 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2026) Estimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements 422 175th Slope Repair Repair Slope North of 175th, west of 76th) and roadway repair 422 Willow Creek Daylighting Channel Additional Alternative Alignment X Study of additional daylighting channel alignment 422 Edmonds Marsh WQ Improvements X WQ Improvements near SR 104 & W Dayton 422 Lake Ballinger Regional Facility Design and construct regional stormwater facility at Mathay Ballinger Park 423 Phase 14 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements (2026) lEstimated future costs for sewer line replacements/rehab/impr. 423 2021 SS Overlays lEstimated future costs for road repairs due to sewer line replacements. 423 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 3 lEstimated future costs for sewer project. a u_ U d U to N O N N O N m 0 M 0 L d 4- 0 c 0 r 0 c m N a� d Page 1 of 3 1 Packet Pg. 196 8.1.c UP / CIP COMPARISON (2020 TO 2021) REMOVED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I DESCRIPTION 112 Walnut St. Sidewalk from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S X lCompleted in 2020 112 Dayton St. Walkway from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S X I lCompleted in 2020 112 80th Ave. W Walkway from 216th St. SW to 212th St. SW 10ther higher priority projects were added. 125 Waterfront Re -development X Completed in 2020 125 Community Garden Site no longer available for development 125 Marina Beach Design (30%) Completed 30% design and applied for RCO grants 125 City Park Pedestrian Safety Project Anticipate completion in 2020 125 Gateway Sign I 113roject near completion 126 Waterfront Re -development I X lCompleted in 2020 332 1 Waterfront Re -development I X lCompleted in 2020 None Downtown Waterfront Public Market Land Acquisition I X lRestricted funds for future land acquisition, removed placeholder in CFP 421 Five Corners Reservoir Recoating lCompleted in 2020 421 2020 Waterline Overlays lCompleted in 2020 421 Phase 10 Annual Replacement Program (2020) lCompleted in 2020 422 Northstream Culvert Abandonment Completed 422 Seaview Infiltration Facility Phase 1 Completed 422 City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects Project completed at 71st & 174th; funding for out years revised into individual phased annual replacement projects 422 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Converted to an operating budget; no longer a CIP project 422 2018 Lorian Woods Study Study complete 423 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 2 1 lCompleted in 2020 423 LS#1 Metering and Flow Study I lCompleted in 2020 E, u_ U d U to N 0 N N O N m 0 M 0 L d 0 c 0 r 0 r c m N a� L co N O N N O 04 0 �L E 0 U d u_ U a_ U Cl) r t x w c a� E c� a Page 2 of 3 1 Packet Pg. 197 8.1.c UP / CIP COMPARISON (2020 TO 2021) CHANGED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I CFP I CHANGE 112 Walkway along SR-104 from HAWK signal to Pine St. / Pine St. from X Walkway along SR-104 from HAWK signal to Pine St. / Pine St. from SR-104 to 3rd Ave .S SR-104 to 9th Ave. 5 125 Waterfront Walkway Completion Moved to fund 332 125 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Postponed design completion from 2020-21 to 2022-23 125 Civic Park X Project split into two years 2021 and 2022 125 Multiple Small Park Improvements, Flower Poles & Yost Pool Consolidated into Citywide Park Improvement and Capital Replacement Program 126 Waterfront Walkway Completion Moved to fund 332 126 Civic Park X Project split into two years 2021 and 2022 126 Community Garden Land Acquisition Property no longer available for purchase, funds restricted for future acquisition 332 Civic Park X jProject split into two years 2021 and 2022 332 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor 1 I jPostponed design completion from 2020-21 to 2022-23 332 Outdoor Fitness Zones lConsoliclated into Civic Park Project 422 Seaview Infiltration Facility Phase 2 ISlow start; shifted portion of funding from 2020 to 2021 422 Stormwater Comprehensive Plan IlDeferred for 2022 completion; all funding shifted to 2021 and 2022 422 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects 12020 & 2021 values reduced to provide funding for Seaview Phase 2 E, u_ U d U 0 N 0 N IL 0 N m O M O L O c O M r c m a� L to N O N N O c O �L Q E O U d u_ U a_ U ri r t x w c a� E c� a Page 3 of 3 1 Packet Pg. 198 8.1.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom October 14, 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 Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank, excused READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Angie Feser, Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services VICE CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH BOARD MEMBER MONROE ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Bill Phipps, Edmonds, asked if the Planning Board Members received the email he sent just prior to the meeting regarding the Tree Code Update. The Board confirmed that the letter was received. Mr. Phipps asked that the Board consider the ideas he presented in his email as they discuss the Tree Code Update. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Mr. Chave advised that the Development Services Director Report would be sent to the Board Members shortly. Packet Pg. 199 8.1.d PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2021 — 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP)/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CIP) Mr. Williams explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act to identify long- term capital needs to address the City's growth and ensure the infrastructure that is necessary to support the increased density when the time comes so that service levels can be met. It covers a planning horizon of 20 years with projects to address level of service (LOS), safety and transportation. The CIP is organized by the City's financial funds and includes projects in the next 6-year planning horizon. The CIP includes projects that are necessary because of growth, as well as projects that are maintenance related. The two plans intersect when identifying the projects related to growth that are intended for implementation within the next six years. Mr. Williams explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, which includes the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans. The CIP is tied to the City's budget and several funds make up the overall document: • Fund 112 is a Transportation (Street Construction) Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the gas tax. • Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department and is used to execute park projects. • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. Williams shared the following highlights from the Public Works portion of the plans: • Pavement Preservation Program. The 2020 Pavement Preservation Program accomplished 4 lane miles totaling about $1 million, and the program will continue in 2021. When he came on board in 2010, the City hadn't done any paving projects for quite some time. The results of the annual paving program are visible. However, he suggested the actual need is closer to $2 million per year to keep the streets in a sustainable condition. • Pedestrian Walkway Plan. Quite a number of sidewalk projects were done in 2020. In 2019, the City Council budgeted an extra $300,000 to hire additional people, equipment and supplies that enabled the City to ramp up its in- house capability of executing sidewalk projects. He shared pictures of two projects on Dayton Street and Walnut Street. • The Highway 99 Revitalization Project. This project continued in 2020 utilizing a $10 million state grant, with some money from the 126 Fund. The entire cost of the project is estimated to be $183 million. The first step in implementation will be installation of a center median to control the left -turning traffic on Highway 99, which should reduce the number of accidents that occur each year on this high-speed corridor. Staff will continue its work to secure additional grant funding to move other elements of the project forward. • Bicycle Improvement Project. In 2021, the 112 Fund will fund the design of a citywide bicycle improvement project, with anticipated construction in 2022. There has been a lot of conversation at the City Council level about the impacts of adding bike lanes on 100'h Avenue from Main Street to Westgate, on Bowdoin Way from 9'h Avenue to Five corners, and from Westgate Village south to the City's southern boundary. In some of these locations, the bike lanes will come at the expense of street parking. • Congestion Relief Project. The congestion relief project at the 761h Avenue/2201h Street Intersection will also be in design in 2021. • Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project. This project is funded with federal dollars, with matching funds from the 126 Fund. Two Hawk Signal will be installed in 2021, one on 1961h and another on SR-104 at about 232°d Street. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 200 8.1.d They will also install seven rapid -flashing beacons that are pedestrian activated. These devices are very effective at notifying vehicular traffic when a pedestrian wants to cross. • 76' Street Overlay. The City received a Federal grant to overlay 76' Avenue between Perrinville and 196' Street. This project will be a joint effort with the City of Lynnwood. • Other Transportation Projects. In addition to the Pavement Preservation Program, the REET funds will support a number of other transportation projects. A small amount ($35,000) is earmarked for the Pedestrian Safety Program, which could include a number of solutions such as radar feedback signs, rapid -flashing beacons, bulb outs, etc. The public can recommend where the City might want to take action to improve pedestrian safety. • Traffic Signal Upgrades. Several upgrades will be done in 2021 using REET funding. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) continues to add more features that are necessary and good additions to the system to allow differently-abled people to find and access safe street crossings. • Traffic Calming. REET funding will be used for traffic calming, with the intent of slowing cars down. This also provides pedestrian safety benefits. • Sidewalk Project on Elm Street. Design work will be done for a project on Elm Way from 9' Avenue going west. Children walk to school along this corridor, but there are several places of missing sidewalks. The project will be more complicated because the topography is quite steep in places and retaining walls will likely be involved. Once the design work is done, the City can apply for grant funding. • Guardrail replacement and repair. Several guardrails in the City have questionable structural integrity. The City has spent about $20,000 each year to replace them. • Dayton Street Utility Improvement. This project was substantially completed in 2020. All of the watermain, storm infrastructure and sewer lines on Dayton Avenue from 91 Avenue to 31 Avenue have been replaced. The street was repaved, and a new sidewalk section (funded by a State grant) was installed. • Utility Infrastructure Replacement. In 2020, approximately 4,000 feet of watermain, 1,600 feet of storm pipe and 2,400 feet of sewer main have been replaced. Another 3,500 feet of sewer main was rehabilitated with a fiberglass liner, which is a less costly option than total replacement. It strengthens the pipe without compromising its capacity. About 2,000 feet of sewer main replacement is planned for 2021, along with about 2,000 feet of sewer main rehabilitation. • The Dayton Street Pump Station. This project at Beach Place is designed to reduce and virtually eliminate the flooding that occurs at the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104 during heavy storm events. It will also take stormwater from Harbor Square, which currently flows into the Edmonds Marsh. The pumps have been installed, and the project is in the startup and commission phase now. In 2021 the City will replace about 6,200 feet of new watermain, which will also require overlaying about .75 miles of street. About 2,400 feet of storm pipe will also be replaced. • Storm -Related Projects. The City will work on other storm -related projects, including the 2nd phase of the infiltration facility at Sea View Park. It will be the same size as the first one, and will take the load off of Perrinville Creek. Over the years, with climate change and development, any significant rain storm creates a very rapid response in flows in Perrinville Creek, and erosion is a huge problem. The project will help reduce the peak flows. • Regional Infiltration Facility. The City is looking into adding a regional infiltration facility at Lake Ballinger that would take a lot of the runoff from Highway 99, which currently flows to Lake Ballinger. The water would be treated, so Lake Ballinger would benefit from a quality and quantity standpoint. • Perrinville Flow Management Projects. These projects are yet to be identified, but they are looking for some additional project sites. • Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study. This study is in progress, with the goal of figuring out the best way to rehabilitate the gravity sewer main on the west side of Lake Ballinger. He believes the actual cost of the rehabilitation will be less than the $10 million estimate. • Waste Water Treatment Facility. A new gasification system will be installed at the Wastewater Treatment Facility to replace the current incinerator. The total cost of this project will be over $26 million, and will be shared with all partners. A variety of options were considered, and it was determined that the gasification system will be more compatible with the City's aggressive carbon -emission goals. The system will be able to capture the energy that is inherently in the biosolid and use it as an energy source to keep the process going to the point that the rest of the biosolids end up in the form of biochar. The market for biochar is growing rapidly, as it increases soil tilth and provides key nutrients in agricultural applications. The City Council recently approved the sale of over $14 million in bonds to pay the City's share of the project. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 201 8.1.d • Trial Project. Trials are underway currently to figure out how the City can remove nitrogen from the discharge that goes into Puget Sound. They are trying promising technology at this time. Board Member Rubenkonig observed the staff presentation provided a good overview, but the actual proposed 2021 — 2026 CFP and CIP includes a lot more information. She asked if all the improvement projects were mapped, would she see 1) the usage of the facility in relation to cost to maintain or 2) an equitable apportionment of funding for citywide facilities? She said she is interested in equity throughout the entire City rather than concentrating improvements in one area. Mr. Williams said staff views the plans from an equity standpoint, as well. While the plans do not calculate the distribution of dollars, they do provide maps showing the location of the past and planned improvements. He explained that it is difficult to completely spread out investments into every part of the City because the needs are different. For example, the downtown is older, so the need for utility infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement is greater in that location. In 2021, the majority of the utility dollars will be focused on the Wastewater Treatment Plant Project, but the utility line replacement and rehabilitation projects are spread throughout the City. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how walkway improvement projects are prioritized. Mr. Williams explained that a complete inventory of pedestrian facilities is included in the City's Transportation Plan. The inventory identifies the location of existing sidewalks, locations where sidewalks are needed, locations where ADA ramps need to be installed or replaced, etc. The projects have all been ranked based on certain criteria. Board Member Rubenkonig asked how the City prioritizes walkway projects that are identified by citizens for certain neighborhoods. Mr. Williams said they don't prioritize sidewalks based on request. However, staff will explore a prioritization plan for ADA improvements to identify locations where they are needed most. Student Representative Bryan asked the difference between a pedestrian -controlled, rapid -flashing -light crosswalk and a Hawk Signal. Mr. Williams answered that they are similar in concept. They are both pedestrian -activated, but the Hawk Signal is used for busier streets and the cost is significantly greater. The rapid -flashing lights aren't as tall and are far less costly, but they are not visible enough to be successful applications for busy streets. Board Member Cloutier asked how many miles the City should be doing every year to properly keep up with maintenance of the existing roads and utility lines. Does the proposed program represent an optimal rate, an average rate, or a below average rate? Mr. Williams answered that the proposed programs are not the optimum, but they may be close to average as far as utility line replacement. The targets that were set several years ago were based on utility lines lasting 100 years, which means the City's replacement rate would need to be 1% per year. Prior to that time, the lines were only replaced when they failed. He expressed his belief that a more aggressive program will eventually be needed, since the remaining older cast iron pipes are brittle and any seismic or freezing activity can cause them to break. On the other hand, the City's Pavement Preservation Program comes up short. Board Member Cloutier commented that it would be helpful if the report provided more detailed information on the amount of existing infrastructure and its condition. Providing these metrics would help people understand the need, and any additional funding that comes available could then be earmarked to address these infrastructure situations. Board Member Monroe requested clarification about how the Edmonds Marsh Project would be funded. Mr. Williams explained that it doesn't really matter whether funding for environmental projects comes from funds that are managed by the Public Works Department or the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department, since the two departments work well together. The real problem is that, while the City qualifies for grant funding, it has been unable to secure the dollars because it doesn't own the property. They haven't been able to reach an arrangement with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), who will eventually own the property, because they cannot assume the title until the Department of Ecology has certified that the cleanup is finished. Board Member Monroe suggested that allocating the expense to Fund 422 as opposed to a park fund might matter to the rate payers. The Edmonds Marsh Project seems like more of a park project. Mr. Williams answered that a significant amount of stormwater runoff comes down through Shellebarger Creek, which drains a very large portion of Edmonds via piped channels. To date, most of these projects have been funded via the stormwater fund and some grants. Board Member Monroe asked Mr. Williams to share his thoughts on why the funding source has been a concern for some citizens. Mr. Williams said he has had several conversations with key voices from Save Our Marsh, and he doesn't fully understand the Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 202 8.1.d concern. The Public Works Department wants to get the project going as soon as possible, and the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is also excited about the project. They will work together to get it done. Board Member Monroe commented that opening the creek has very little to do with stormwater management and more to do with the marsh. Mr. Williams commented that most of the stormwater from the City goes into the marsh, which serves a lot of function. While it needs to become a better wildlife management area, it also will continue to take in stormwater. They must get the stormwater through the marsh and out the other side. Including stormwater as part of the project opens up more opportunities for funding. He explained that the Engineering Division is part of the Public Works Department and is responsible for delivering capital projects. In the end, the Edmonds Marsh Project will be an approximately $17 million capital project, and he can almost guarantee that the project management and administration of the contracts will be done by the Engineering Division and Public Works Department. They will work closely with the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. Board Member Monroe commented that working together does not require the two departments to share funding. Board Member Monroe summarized Mr. William's position that opening Willow Creek is a stormwater project that affects stormwater issues. However, from his perspective, it is a park project. Mr. Williams pointed out that the existing tide gate regulates the flow of water leaving the marsh, which isn't an ideal situation from a saltwater exchange standpoint. The pump station allows the City to solve the flooding problems so they don't need to be quite as concerned about the water level in the marsh. Once the pump station is turned on, they can not only open the tide gate during the winter, but also consider projects to remove the tide gate and piping system completely. Because this is stormwater infrastructure, it will be funded by Fund 422. The Willow Creek channel could be constructed as part of that project, as well. Board Member Monroe asked if the stormwater work would be just a portion of the total cost of the project. Mr. Williams explained that even if the property issue is resolved and the City is very successful in securing state and federal grants, it is very likely the City will still need to fund a sizeable amount of the project, whether it comes from stormwater rates, the bond issue, or a levy. Board Member Monroe agreed that this project needs to get done. Vice Chair Rosen agreed that it would be helpful for the report to identify the net unmet need and the gap. These metrics would could help advance a sense of urgency for funding. He asked Mr. Williams to explain how the CIP and CFP intersect with the City Council's budgeting process. Mr. Williams said the City Council, using their wisdom and goals and policies in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan, will make the ultimate decision on priorities. The budget is the short-term planning document and expresses the City Council's current belief about what is most important. Given the pandemic, he anticipates the City Council will be very careful with investments in 2021 until they have a better idea of where revenues are headed. Quite a few things have been cut from the 2021 budget, including some infrastructure projects. Vice Chair Rosen asked if the CIP would be amended as needed after the City Council adopts the final 2021 Budget. Mr. Williams answered that the CIP represent staff s best guess of what will be included in the 2021 budget, but it is a 6-year plan. If the City Council decides not to fund something that is identified in the CIP for 2021, next year's CIP would need to be adjusted accordingly. They do not typically make modifications to the CIP throughout the year. It's difficult to keep it totally current, but it provides a good indication of the City Council's general direction. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the Planning Board reviews the CIP and CFP every year and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. In years past, they have grappled with the issue of transparency and making sure the average citizen can understand the report. There needs to be some explanation for how the priority list is established, and she agreed that metrics showing the current state of the infrastructure would also be helpful. In years past, she has asked that the length of walkways be sited so the Board could compare costs for different projects throughout the City. She has also requested that the plans make note when projects are identified by a specific group (i.e. staff, citizens, or other community groups). She appreciates the additional language that was provided to call out not only the projects identified by staff, but those identified by citizens, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that the 2021 plans are even better than the 2020 plans as far as transparency. She appreciates that a table of contents was provided in the CIP. She suggested the CIP/CFP Comparison that was provided on Page 49 of the report should be moved to the beginning of the report. The comparison provided her with a filter as she reviewed the remainder of the data. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 203 8.1.d Ms. Feser explained that the park -related projects contained in the draft CIP and CFP are based on the seven goals in the adopted Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The goals talk about: • Assessing existing resources and capacity, identifying community needs and desires, and working to bridge the gap. • Embracing opportunities via grants, partnerships, donations, working with other jurisdictions and entities. • Connecting and expanding recreational opportunities for the community. • Enhancing the City's unique identify. • Advancing big ideas for the future of Edmonds. • Activating and working stewardships of key community assets. • Maximizing all of the park resources. Ms. Feser explained that projects for 2021 will focus on finishing large projects, maintaining and upgrading the current assets, and preparing for future projects and opportunities. She and Ms. Burley shared the following highlights: Waterfront Redevelopment. Ms. Burley shared pictures of the Waterfront Redevelopment Project that is slated for completion mid -November. She reported that while the Community Center is coming along well, so is the park portion of the project. The City is quite proud that a bulkhead and creosote pier have been removed from the beachfront park. This allowed them to reintroduce more sand and beach habitat. However, the project ran into a few snags. They had to remove nearly 50 creosote pilings that were buried under the site, and they had to address some soil contamination as a result of the pilings. Several pockets of sawdust were discovered under the stairs, as well. The project has only been paused twice for historical findings in the ground, many of which were deemed nonsignificant. Most were large piles of bricks from old kilns and shingle mills. The project is currently running on budget. Yost Pool. Ms. Burley reported that the City was able to conduct the repairs that were slated for Yost Pool despite it being closed for the pandemic. The slats were replaced and the CO2 injector has been ordered and will be installed soon. The pool cover has also been replaced. Marina Beach Park. Ms. Feser announced that the City's grant application to the Washington Recreation and Conservation (RCO) Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Program ranked 1 st, and the request was for $500,000. The City's grant application for the Local Park Category scored 19t' out of 80 projects, and the request is also for $500,000. They are hopeful, but not relying on the funding for the Local Park Category. Due to the pandemic, some projects may withdraw and there may still be an opportunity for the City to receive the funds. The total current cost estimate for the project is about $5 million and it is a critical piece to supporting the marsh restoration and daylighting Willow Creek. The tide gate and pipe that currently run underground through the park would be removed, and the water would be brought to the surface. This will allow the fluctuation and mixture of salt and fresh waters back into the marsh. They anticipate continued design and development in 2022 and 2023, with potential construction in 2024 and 2025. City Park Walkway. Ms. Feser advised that a 5 to 6-foot walkway is planned for the righthand side of the drive aisle. A crosswalk from the street is located at the very top of drive aisle, and the natural progression is for people heading to the spray pad is to go right from the crosswalk to the drive aisle. This results in one-way car traffic with not a lot of room for pedestrians. The project will be done in house over the winter, with the goal of having it ready next spring. Gateway Sign. Ms. Burley announced that the Gateway Sign on SR-104 is in production and is scheduled for installation before the end of the year. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) approval, which was required to move the sign slightly, has been completed and authorization was received. Civic Park. Ms. Feser said $12.1 million will be split over 2021 and 2022. The design is complete, the construction documents are finished, and the permits are nearly ready. The goal is to rebid the project in early 2021 and break ground soon after. The project would be completed in the fall of 2022. Ms. Burley said funding for the project has been secured, and it will roll over into 2021. Grant funding is still available in its complete amount, and the $3.7 million in bonds that were issued to the City in late 2019 remain available, as well. They will draw from the Park Impact Fees, as well as Funds 125 and 126. Some general fund allocation will be carried over to 2021, too. Lastly, they received $400,000 in donations, and the community continues to raise dollars to provide the inclusive playground improvements that were beyond the original scope and design of the project. The Rotary Club is leading this fundraising effort. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 204 8.1.d Greenhouse Replacement. Ms. Feser said the CIP identifies replacement of the City's primary greenhouse at the shop at an estimated cost of $100,000. The funding for the project is proposed to come from two areas: $50,000 from the flower program portion of the Parks Trust Fund (Fund 136) and $50,000 from the REET Account (Fund 125). The foundation of the current greenhouse is rotting away and settling, causing the plastic covering to tear. It is the only climate -controlled greenhouse and is where the City staff starts and grows the thousands of plants for the flower baskets and corner parks. If the greenhouse fails in the middle of winter, they could lose all of the resources of those plants. The current greenhouse is at least 10 years past its lifecycle. General Park Fund. Ms. Feser explained that the CIP was cleaned up to create an overall fund ($155,000) that addresses general park improvements and basic capital improvements (lifecycle projects that are continuous and help prolong the use or increase capacity). Examples include resurfacing sport courts and parking lots, replacing bridges on trails, upgrading irrigation systems, etc. She pointed out that the previous budget identified $50,000 professional services, $105,000 for capital replacement, and then a number of smaller amounts earmarked for certain parks. They decided it would be more effective to collapse all of the smaller amounts together into a single account. This will give the department more flexibility to address improvements throughout the coming year. Park Acquisition. Ms. Burley advised that $700,000 would be allocated within Fund 126 and held available in the event that an appropriate open space or park land becomes available. She spoke last year about the potential of purchasing a one -acre lot near Yost Park for a community garden. Unfortunately, that land is no longer available for purchase. It remains a part of the owners will, but is not something she is interested in doing now. The City retained this funding, as well as the funding from 2019 that was allocated for open space. An additional $200,000 would be allocated in 2021 and each year beyond. The goal is to continue to grow the funding needed for acquisition should the appropriate parcel of land become available. Fishing Pier. Ms. Burley reported that the Fishing Pier was repaired, but it failed some of its final testing. There are a few cracks running along the underside of the pier. While they do not provide a structure challenge at the moment, they could reduce the life of the pier if they continue to allow salt water intrusion. A solution to repair the underside of the pier was identified, but it presented a challenge in getting staff under the pier to do the work. The department went out to bid in the spring to look for a scaffolding contractor that specializes in overwater work, but the bids were not within the City's budget and there were some challenges with being fully responsive. They are currently in conversations with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and it looks as if they may have identified a new method for reaching under the pier called a bridge walker. They are eager to explore this solution further in the spring. All of the funding allocated to repair the pier comes from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and will remain in Fund 332 until the proper solution is found to finalize the repairs. Ms. Burley reviewed the list of future projects that extend beyond the 2021 budget as follows: • Phase 2 of Civic Park Implementation. • Design and construction of Marina Beach Park. • Completion of design and construction of 4' Avenue Cultural Corridor. • Acquiring land and open space as approved by the City Council. • Edmonds Marsh restoration and Willow Creek daylighting. These two projects will require coordination between the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department and Public Works Department. It will be a significant project with many pieces, including both stormwater and park components. The intent is to start with Marina Beach Park, which is the land the City already owns. • Completion of the waterfront walkway (the one section in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium). • Trail development. Ms. Feser has a lot of experience in trail development, and her lens on the park system has highlighted some opportunities for trail development. • Sport fields and playground partnerships. Ms. Burley reviewed that the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments begin conversations and start to develop the capital budgets in July, and proposals are submitted to the Finance Department in August. The draft CFP and CIP updates are then prepared for City Council consideration. The draft CFP and CIP are typically presented to the Planning Board in October for review and a public hearing, followed by a recommendation to the City Council. A public hearing is scheduled for October 28'. The two documents will be presented to the City Council for the first time on Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 205 8.1.d November 101. The City Council will hold a public hearing, as well, and the goal is for them to be adopted along with the budget. Board Member Cheung asked if the City has considered providing power outlets on the fishing pier. Ms. Feser answered that there are power outlets and lighting on the pier. However, the system can be tripped by large number of squidders on the pier with powerful lights and heaters. There is limited capacity and access to the outlets, so people do bring small generators. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that the Planning Board spent a lot of time contributing to the Civic Park Master Plan. She expressed her belief that the plan is good. However, she asked why the "rain garden" was changed to a "stormwater garden." Ms. Burley answered that it was simply a designer's interpretation of how the area would function to filter stormwater. There was no change to the plan. Board Member Rubenkonig said she loves that the view terraces are still part of the plan for the hillside. This area will provide a nice, long perspective of being able to look out on Edmonds. However, she asked when the scramble wall was added. Ms. Burley said the scramble wall was part of the originally -approved master plan. Given that it is one of the more costly elements of the plan, it is being bid as an alternate to ensure the park can be developed with or without it. Board Member Pence asked if the City has done a survey of which areas are short of parkland. A survey would allow the City to target future land acquisitions to address these shortfalls. Ms. Feser said they would use the current PROS Plan as a guide. There is information in this plan that reflects the community's priorities for land acquisition. She has also proposed that the City adopt a Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan to further identify the community's priorities for land acquisition. The plan would provide criteria and outline an evaluation process for consideration of potential land acquisitions. Geographic distribution of resources should be a key piece of the plan. Edmonds is primarily built out, so there is a lot less opportunity to purchase additional parkland and/or open space. Board Member Pence asked how long it would take to get the Land Acquisition Strategy Study and Implementation Plan in place. Ms. Feser said a chunk of the project could be done in house, but statistically -valid community engagement will be a key piece of the project. The community engagement piece for the Land Acquisition Strategy could be done concurrently with the PROS Plan update. She estimated it could take up to a year to complete the community engagement work. Board Member Cheung voiced concern that a budget of $200,000 per year for land acquisition isn't a lot given the high cost of land. Ms. Feser agreed. She explained that funding is needed for site surveys, appraisals, and other projects that are part of the City's due diligence process. The funding could also be used as leverage for grants. TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Mr. Lien reviewed that the City last worked on a Tree Code update in 2014 and 2015, and it drew a lot of public interest when it was presented to the Planning Board. Rather than forwarding a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Board recommended the City develop an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that established policies and goals to guide the Tree Code update. The UFMP was adopted in July of 2019, and implementation of the plan is underway. Implementation includes updating the Tree Code, updating the Street Tree Plan, and completing an inventory of existing street trees in the downtown. Mr. Lien said the goals for the Tree Code Update are to focus on private property, improve tree retention with new development, implement low -impact development principles, and establish a Tree Fund. Other updates included in the process include reviewing the definitions, existing permitting process and penalties. Currently, there is a disparity between the cost associated with tree -cutting permits required for single-family development versus multi -family and commercial development. Mr. Lien referred to UFMP Goal 1, which calls for maintaining or enhancing citywide canopy coverage. Actions related to this goal include: • Update the tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 206 • Adopt a policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the PROS Plan. • Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. • Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. • Use any penalty fees for tree cutting violations to fund tree programs. Mr. Lien referred to the draft Tree Code (Attachment 3). He explained that, currently, the tree regulations are in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.45 (Public Works), and staff is proposing to move the bulk of these regulations to a new chapter ECDC 23.10 (Natural Resources). This new chapter would address exemptions, permit processes, definitions, tree retention, tree protection, tree replacement and violations. A new section would also be added to ECDC 20.75 (Subdivisions) titled, "Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility." The new section would use the low -impact development principles as a way to retain more trees with development. Lastly, a new chapter would be added in Edmonds City Code (ECC) 3.95 (Funding) that would establish the Tree Fund. Mr. Lien said the Tree Code is scheduled for review at every Planning Board meeting through the end of 2021. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 9'. His goal is for the Board to focus on two or three sections of the code at each of the meetings. Board Member Monroe asked if the intent of the code is to effect only new development or to address how people manage trees on their own property. He suggested there should be a distinction between a developer who wants to clear cut a parcel versus a private property owner wanting to cut down a tree he/she doesn't like. Mr. Lien said one of the main purposes of the Tree Code is to address tree retention associated with development activity. The code would apply to new subdivisions, multi -family development, new single-family development on large lots, and tree removal on developed sites that are not specifically exempted. The intent of the code is to retain more trees when development occurs. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled an issue that came up years ago with the Architectural Design Board. A property owner on Olympic View Drive wished to harvest a forested property that she owned, and there was nothing in the code to prevent that from occurring. Eventually, the entire property was developed, but no plans were in place when the property was clear cut. She asked if the draft Tree Code would address situations of this type. Mr. Lien said forest practices are allowed by the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources. However, you do not typically see forest management in the City of Edmonds. Provisions in both the current code and proposed code would prohibit clearing of a site for the sake of sale or future development. Board Member Cheung asked how the public would be informed about the potential changes prior to the public hearing. Mr. Lien said staff would work with the City's new Public Information Officer to get the news out. The issue could also be raised at Mayor Nelson's upcoming neighborhood meetings. Board Member Cheung suggested that the City Council should be advised that the Planning Board will be working on the Tree Code in coming weeks. Mr. Lien said he made a presentation to the City Council on the broad update and mentioned that the issue would be on the Planning Board's agendas through the end of the year. Mr. Chave noted the extensive amount of material that was provided to the Board. He suggested the Board Members could forward comments and questions they want addressed at the next meeting to staff via individual emails to Ms. Martin and Mr. Lien. Chair Robles asked if the Board's discussions should follow the matrix of high-level issues that was provided by staff or the start by reviewing the highlights and changes to the code. Mr. Lien said the matrix he presented at the Board's September 9fl' meeting identifies the broad topics that are included in the Tree Code. Moving forward, he would rather focus on the actual draft code language. Chair Robles suggested that the Board should review the draft code language and be prepared to start discussions at their next meeting. Mr. Lien commented that the Board's October 28' meeting will include a public hearing on the CFP and CIP, so their work on the Tree Code will be limited. However, their November meeting would focus solely on the Tree Code. He noted that November I I' is Veteran's Day, so it is likely that the Board would need to hold a special meeting on November 18'k'. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for December 91h Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 207 8.1.d Mr. Lien said the City Council is anxious to start their review of the Tree Code. The December 9' public hearing could be an opportunity to solicit initial comments and ideas from the public, and the Board may want to have another hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council in early 2021. Chair Robles said he anticipates a great deal of public participation at the hearings, and he is concerned that there won't be enough time to disseminate the draft code to the public prior to the hearing. He asked if staff anticipates a lot of opposition from the public. Mr. Lien said he tried to draft a balanced Tree Code that implements the goals and policies in the UFMP. He was present at the public hearing for the previous draft Tree Code and heard the comments and concerns that were presented by the public. He suggested that the first public hearing in December could focus on the concepts in the Tree Code to make sure the Board is heading in the right direction. Board Member Cheung suggested that staff prepare a summary of the topics and potential changes that are discussed at each of the Board's study sessions. This would provide helpful information for the public to review prior to the public hearings. Given that the public hearings will be virtual, he suggested that publishing summaries of the proposed language and the Board's discussions and soliciting written comments from the public before the hearings would be appropriate. Alan Mearns, Edmonds, suggested that the City publish articles in the local newspapers to introduce the UFMP goals and polices and the long-term vision the Board will be working on. The next step could be to publish summaries of the Board's discussions as they study the issue and prepare for the public hearing. This approach would essentially warm the community up to the subject, with a big focus on the goals and objectives. Chair Robles commented that having an adopted UFMP with clear goals and policies in place will be a significant benefit as the process moves forward. All of the controversial issues that were raised regarding the previous draft Tree Code have been settled by the UFMP. The only argument that remains is the issue of view versus forest. He supports Mr. Lien's recommendation to break the discussion into sections. Mr. Lien agreed to meet with the Chair and Vice Chair to establish a schedule for the upcoming discussions. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the public hearing on the previous draft Tree Code was very productive. The outpouring of concern was made very clear to the Planning Board. The community was listened to, and the Planning Board learned a lot. The UFMP, which was eventually adopted by the City Council, took form from that engagement. Chair Robles agreed that the UFMP was the correct outcome of the previous public process. Mr. Lien noted that the UFMP was included in the Board's October 141h meeting packet and he doesn't plan to attach it to future packets. The actual code language will be the focus of discussions going forward. Chair Robles encouraged the Board Members to download the UFMP to their files for future reference as the process continues. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles reviewed that the extended agenda for the remainder of the year will focus on the Tree Code. However, a public hearing on the draft CIP/CFP is scheduled for October 281h. The Board agreed to reschedule their November 11`h meeting to November 18'. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Pence voiced concern with what happened with the Planning Board recommendations on the Comprehensive Plan amendments related to properties on 9th Avenue North and in Perrinville. The Planning Board went through a thorough process and made recommendations that were different from the staff recommendations, and he assumed that staff would present the Planning Board's recommendations to the City Council. Subsequent to the staff's presentation to the City Council, a letter to the editor was published in My Edmonds News on October 31 pertaining to the proposed amendments. There were numerous comments, several of which took the City to task for only presenting the staff s recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Board recommendations were downplayed or not discussed at all. He reviewed the agenda Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 208 8.1.d packet that was provided to the City Council, which included the same Staff Report that Mr. Shipley presented to the Planning Board. Attached to the Staff Report was a copy of the Planning Board's minutes, and that was the sum total of the information the City Council received concerning the Board's recommendations. He watched the video of the City Council presentation and was shocked to see that Mr. Shipley provided the same presentation that was made to the Planning Board, with the staff recommendations but no mention of the Planning Board's differing recommendations. He said he assumed that staff would make sure that the Planning Board's recommendations were clearly presented to the City Council. Board Member Pence suggested the Board take up this topic at a future meeting and provide direction to staff about how differences between the staff and Planning Board recommendations should be presented to the City Council. He doesn't ever want to see another presentation where the staff recommendations get the full floor of the presentation and City Council discussion, with the Board's recommendations presented as a mere footnote. The Planning Board's work needs to be fully presented to the City Council. Chair Robles agreed with Board Member Pence's concern. He said he has presented the Board as a knowledge endowment and encouraged the City Council to use them as such. In many ways, the Board is fighting for relevancy among many new forces beyond their control. The Board needs to stand up and voice their concerns. Mr. Chave said he wasn't present at that particular City Council meeting. However, based on communications from the City Council, they were clearly aware of the Planning Board's recommendations. Board Member Pence commented that, if the City Council was aware of the Planning Board's recommendations, it was only because they individually reviewed the minutes. Mr. Chave said the Board's recommendations were also included in the titles of the agenda items. Board Member Pence commented that Mr. Shipley provided the staff presentation only, and there was no discussion about why the Board made its recommendations. He respects Mr. Shipley and understands that he was following policy. However, that policy needs to change. When there are differences of opinion between the staff and Planning Board, the City Council needs to hear both positions. Mr. Chave said that, from his experience, when he has presented Planning Board recommendations to the City Council, he has always presented the Planning Board recommendation. If there is anything to be said about the staff recommendation, it usually comes up in questions but it isn't the focus of his presentation. He agreed to clarify the process with Mr. Shipley and other staff members. Board Member Pence suggested it is important to develop a written policy to address the issue. Chair Robles suggested there is a middle road. The Board wants the City Council to listen to everything they have to say, and part of their job is to distill the issues into an actual set of conditions. While the City Council doesn't need to listen to everything the Board has to say on an issue, a simple "approve or deny" may be to simplistic. Again, Mr. Chave summarized that the City Council was well aware of the Planning Board's recommendations and thought processes. Board Member Cheung said that, at the end of the day, the burden is on the City Council Members to research and read the Planning Board minutes. If they are doing their job, they should have a clear understanding of the Board's position without having staff present what is clearly outlined in the minutes. Mr. Chave agreed that is true to a degree. However, it is important that staff represent the Planning Board at City Council meetings. He said the City Council absolutely does read the Planning Board minutes, even if they don't always agree with the Board's position. I:� IaL� 1Ii�lu I �I`►� The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 14, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 209 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) & i; , 0 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) P_ 41111pp` City Council — November 10, 2020 I CIP � 6-year maintenance projects w/funding sources 6-year capital projects w/ funding sources CFP Long-range (20-year) capital project needs 0 Components found only in the CIP 0 Components found only in the CFP 0 Components found in both the CIP & CFP 8.1.e Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (PROS) Transportation Plan Utilities Plan Community Sustainability Plan Comprehensive Plan Land Use Housing Plan Plan Economic Development Plan City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Community Culture & Urban Design Plan �rp.e�.ya,mi� iynrporr v. mii Packet Pg. 212 Comprehensive Plan Elements Establish goals and policies Assessment of future needs based on land use and modeling Identifies infrastructure and services to support future needs Public participation Establish priorities Develop project list for capital improvements Develop programs for maintenance / preservation Planning Board review / public hearing / recommendation City Council review / public hearing / approval 0 2016 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (PROS) • Collaborative efforts to meet recreation and cultural needs • Interconnected park system that includes cultural identity and natural environment • Preserve and expand shoreline • Natural resource land for habitat conservation, recreation & environmental education • Promote a healthy, active and engaged community through recreation • Provide an engaged and vibrant community through arts and cultural opportunities • High quality maintenance of parks and related amenities 5 Parks 2021=2026 CIP/CFP Methodology: Finish Big Projects Waterfront Re -Development • Civic Park Maintain Current Assets • Playgrounds • Trails & Bridges Athletic Fields • Greenhouse Replacement Prepare for Future Large Projects • Marsh Restoration • Marina Beach Park • 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor • Land Acquisition y� exer�=a=ra�oi / MEADOWS sprag�e pro r,aae future B&G slk—p.,k a footprint _ m��r, �=e awn • P�nYgro�nr� J. fenrare GREAT LAWN re�srroopovil'ioon I. PLAZA & r rage pe nqu grove _ Transportation Plan (2015) Comprehensive Transportation Plan Moo. ,S W�ow F 4 O O • Walkway Plan • Bicycle Plan • ADATransition Plan (2017) • Pavement Preservation Rating Study (2017) • Priority list of projects • Financial Plan(Impact fees) 7 8.1.e City of Edmonds ftAnk STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAC'EMENT COMPREHENSM PLAN City of Edmonds C"vv of Edrnands Pu61iu W:nl:x ��pgaomnl'Fnyi�nreri:� ilive�im r\grmvM hr Ciry [nwciJ m luty 6, 2tl10 roComprehensive Water System Plan �� October 2017 oduha�200 murraysrrrRh I august 2013 CO-. SL•7 68, Packet Pg. 217 8.1.e a Comprehensive Plan Priority Grant Sources & Competitiveness Maintenance Issue 01[:4"lws1: 00e Mayor & City Council Project Selection :4"1[• Project Delivery Capacity Available Funding Concurrency Safety Packet Pg. 218 ,July CIPICFP Schedule • City staff begins development of capital budgets August/September • Submit proposed Capital budget to Finance • Prepare draft CFP and CIP October • Planning Board; Public Hearing (October 14th & 28th) November/December • City Council Presentation (November 10th) • Public Hearing Planning Board (November 12th) • Public Hearing City Council (November 24th) • Adopt CFP w/ Budget into the Comprehensive Plan 10 8.1.e D I I tc, 0 a a_ U d U to N O N T— N Co N d fA O Q O L. IL 4- 0 r_ O L O r L IL O L S IL U a U- U r c a� E t c,> to r a Packet Pg. 220 8.1.f CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom October 28, 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 Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence Conner Bryan, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank, excused READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Rob English, City Engineer Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Angie Feser, Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services VICE CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no public comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Vice Chair Rosen said he was curious about why the Architectural Design Board hasn't met since August. Mr. Chave pointed out that larger projects that require Architectural Design Board approval tend to come in during the summer months. There haven't been any large projects for them to review in recent months. Packet Pg. 221 8.1.f Chair Robles noted that, as per the report, the deadline for applications for the student positions on the City Council, Youth Commission and Arts Commission was September 18'. He asked if that date was extended, and Mr. Chave said he couldn't answer that question. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2021 — 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP)/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CIP) Board Member Pence asked what public notice was given for the public hearing. He said his search did not find record of any public notice. Mr. Chave said that, typically, the Planning Board agendas are published online and public notices are placed on the City's website and in the local newspapers. Board Member Pence responded that no public notice was posted on the website. The Public Information Officer sent out her regular newsletter on October 271, but it did not include notice of the hearing. Mr. Chave said they don't normally do press releases for public hearings. Board Member Cloutier pointed out that notifications are done according to law. These legal notices are published in the newspaper of record, which for the City of Edmonds is The Everett Herald. The City doesn't have the flexibility to start publishing notices in other places without officially changing the rules, particularly advertising that costs money. Mr. Chave said he would check with the Public Information Officer to learn the schedule for her newsletters, which would be a relatively easy way to notify the public. Board Member Pence recalled that the Board hard a long discussion at their earlier retreat about the need to do better outreach and civic engagement to get the public involved in the work of the Planning Board. There are few things more basic to the work of the Board than holding public hearings on important matter of City business. The City hired a Public Information Officer with the intent of having her provide public information, and it sounds like she isn't even in the loop when it comes to advertising public hearings. If it were his decision, he would change the title of this item from "public hearing" to "staff presentation." Vice Chair Rosen observed that there is a public meeting notice page on the City's website, but the hearing was not included. He assumes the laws referenced by Board Member Cloutier are the minimum required rather than the maximum. He agreed with Board Member Pence that, if there was not adequate public notice, the hearing should be postponed. Board Member Pence said the only notice he found on the City's website was buried in the middle of the Planning Board's agenda packet. As someone who has done community outreach in his professional life, while the notice may meet the legal requirement, it does not adequately inform members of the public of the hearing. Chair Robles noted that no members of the public have joined the Zoom meeting to participate in the hearing. How money is spent for public outreach is an important topic for the Board to consider. The specificity of the CFP and CIP drills down into the very neighborhoods where people live. He would think the subject warrants postponing the hearing to provide better public outreach. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if reference was made to the public hearing before the Planning Board when the CIP and CFP were presented to the City Council on October 27t1i. Ms. Feser said she presented the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services portion of the CIP and CFP to the City Council, and she does not recall that the Planning Board hearing was specifically mentioned. The presentation lasted well over an hour, and it may have been mentioned at the beginning. She suggested there are two issues for the Board to consider. The first is making sure that the City meets the legal requirements of a public hearing. Beyond the minimum requirements, it would be nice to promote the hearing additionally. However, she noted that the Public Information Officer is only part-time, and they are in the middle of a pandemic. A lot of issues come up quickly every day, especially with the case numbers increasing. Unfortunately, she has limited time, and a lot of priority communication needs to be done in a very short turn around. Board Member Monroe asked how postponing the hearing would impact the process. Mr. English said the initial presentation of the CIP/CFP is scheduled on the City Council's November 10t1i agenda, and the public hearing would follow on November 24r''. Mr. Chave noted that the Planning Board's next meeting isn't until November 18t''. Ms. Feser said there are some timing implications related to the Council's public hearing on the CIP/CFP and final adoption of the 2021 budget. Board Member Cheung said he empathizes with the concerns. It would have been nice if there had been more public notice of the hearing. However, the City has fulfilled its legal requirement for posting notices. He voiced concern about changing Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 222 8.1.f the public notice process for this one hearing. Postponing the hearing would disrupt the City Council's process and create confusion. He noted that, even when the Board met in person, very few people typically participate in public hearings on more general issues such as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the CIP/CFP. He agreed that a discussion is warranted at some point about how public notice could be improved without costing additional money. For example, the Public Information Officer could send a notice to The Edmonds Beacon and My Edmonds News, recognizing it would be up to the local newspapers whether or not to publish it. While they might be willing to publish an announcement about the tree code amendments, he doesn't imagine that many citizens have a strong interest in reviewing and commenting on the CIP/CFP. He noted that one comment letter was received regarding the subject of the hearing. Chair Robles explained that the Board's role is to forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the CIP/CFP. The truth is, the City is in the middle of a pandemic, and no one has joined the Zoom meeting to participate in the hearing. The City is understaffed, as well. He suggested that the Board's statement going forward to the City Council could be that they tried, but were unable to formulate a recommendation due to these factors. Therefore, the City Council should act as it sees fit. Board Member Cloutier summarized that the public hearing notices followed the same procedure that has been used previously. Deciding to postpone the hearing at the hearing is not good public process. If the Board is dissatisfied with the process, they can have a discussion with staff about how to change it going forward. However, the Board cannot just demand by fiat that the process be changed on game day. He agreed that staff could do a better job of pushing information, and they should have a discussion at a future meeting about what changes would be reasonable. Again, he said staff met the legal requirement for public notice, and the Board has an obligation to conduct the hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Cheung agreed. He suggested that, in their recommendation, the Board could make the point that there wasn't any public input during the hearing. Mr. Chave reviewed, that historically, people tend to show up for issues that directly affect them. Things like comprehensive plans, general polices, CIP's and CFP's are hard for many people to understand and they tend not to participate in the hearing process. On the other hand, amendments to the tree codes or specific development code amendments, which strike closer to home, tend to have greater public participation. That being said, he felt it would be worthwhile to work with the Public Information Officer to possibly include announcements in the periodic newsletters regarding topics of interest and public hearings. This would be another avenue of public notice beyond the legal requirement. Chair Robles felt that more people would have shown up for the hearing if it had been better advertised. That being said, he suggested they let the minutes stand as the public record for the hearing. The Board could forward a recommendation to the City Council, with reservations, and then let the City Council read the minutes to learn more about what the Board discussed. Mr. Chave agreed that the Board's comments (minutes) would be included in the information that is forwarded to the City Council along with the Planning Board's recommendation. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that the Board Members all had aspirations at the beginning of the year for better relations, and the Planning Board took on a certain amount of responsibility that hasn't been met because of the pandemic. She summarized that the point has been strongly made, and it needed to be made. It was difficult to find any notice of the hearing outside of the usual protocol. The Board has discussed the problem, and staff needs to act upon the Planning Board's interest. She said she would prefer to conduct the public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council without postponement. The issue of public notice could be a topic of discussion at the Board's next meeting to follow up and ensure that appropriate action is taken moving forward. Chair Robles observed that staff has been very responsive to Planning Board requests. He believes that they will step up and take notice of the discussion and come back with a reasonable solution. Mr. Chave advised that information is already being disseminated regarding the tree code amendments and the tentative public hearing that is scheduled for December 9'. Because this issue will more directly impact citizens, there will likely be more public interest at the hearing. Chair Robles briefly reviewed the rules and procedures and then opened the hearing. Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is tied to the Comprehensive Plan and is required by the Growth Management Act to identify long-term capital needs to address the City's growth. It covers a planning horizon of 6 and 20 Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 223 years with projects to address level of service (LOS), safety and transportation. The CIP is tied to the City's budget and is organized by the City's financial funds. It includes not only projects that are budgeted for the upcoming year, but also identifies projects anticipated over the next 6-year planning horizon. It matches expenses against the anticipated revenues for the upcoming years. The two plans intersect when identifying the 6-year capital projects with funding sources. The CIP includes capital maintenance projects for maintaining the City's infrastructure, which is significant. These projects are not identified in the CFP. Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and a description of each project was included. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utility Plans all go through extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The CIP is tied to the City's budget and several funds make up the overall document: • Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the gas tax. • Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REST). • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. It is funded by grants. • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. English shared the following Public Works related highlights: Pavement Preservation Program. The 2020 Pavement Preservation Program accomplished 4.7 lane miles at a project cost of about $1 million. The bulk of the funding was provided by REET revenue, with a smaller contribution from the General Fund and Fund 112. In 2021, $800,000 is budgeted for the program, and the plan is to pave 2.9 lane miles. Pedestrian Walkway Plan. Quite a number of sidewalk projects were done in 2020. The Transportation Plan includes both a short and long-term list of walkway projects, which was developed through public input in 2015 when the plan was updated. A committee scored and prioritized the projects, and two high -priority projects were accomplished in 2020 (Dayton Street from 71 Avenue to 81 Avenue and Walnut Street from 3rd Avenue to 41 Avenue). Both projects were funded via a State Complete Streets Grant with no local dollars required. The Highway 99 Revitalization Project. This project continued in 2020 utilizing a $10 million state grant, with some money from the 126 Fund. The entire cost of the project is estimated to be $183 million. The corridor study was completed a few years ago, and the City has been working on a plan for improvements on the corridor since that time. Earlier this year, the City Council agreed to move forward a safety beautification project, the installation of a center median to control the left -turning traffic on Highway 99. There are a high number of accidents along the corridor, which is directly tied to the 2-way left turn lane in the center of the roadway. These lanes will be replaced with a median and isolated left turn pockets to control access. This should bring the accident history down. Another big component is a Hawk signal just north of 2341 Street to improve pedestrian safety in crossing the highway. Gateway signs will also be added. Design will continue in 2021, with the goal to start construction in 2022. Bicycle Improvement Project. In 2021, the 112 Fund will fund the design of a citywide bicycle improvement project, with anticipated construction in 2022. There has been a lot of conversation at the City Council level about the impacts of adding bike lanes or sharrows on key streets: 100' Street Southwest/9' Avenue from 244' Street Southwest to Walnut Street; Bowdoin Way from 9' Avenue to 84' Avenue, 228' Street Southwest from 80" Avenue to 78' Avenue, and 80' Avenue from 228' Street Southwest to 220' Street Southwest. These projects will all be funded by a Sound Transit grant. Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project. This project is funded with federal dollars, with matching funds from the 126 Fund. A request for construction bids for this project were just advertised this week, and bids will be opened on Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 224 8.1.f November 19'. The City is hopeful it will receive good bids so that project can move forward in 2021. The project includes 2 Hawk signals (one on 196' Street near 80' Avenue and another on SR-104 at about 232nd Street) and 7 rapid -flashing beacons at nine different intersection. It also includes Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements to crosswalks at different locations within the City. • 761' Street Overlay. The City received a Federal grant to overlay 76t1i Avenue between Perrinville and 196' Street. This project will be a joint effort with the City of Lynnwood. He commended Mr. Hauss, the City's Transportation Engineer, who has done an excellent job securing grant funding for City transportation projects. • Other Transportation Projects. In addition to the Pavement Preservation Program, the REET funds will support a number of other transportation projects. A small amount ($35,000) is earmarked in 2021 for the Pedestrian Safety Program (i.e. radar feedback signs, rapid -flashing beacons, bulb outs, etc.). The public can recommend where the City might want to take action to improve pedestrian safety. • Traffic Signal Upgrades. Several upgrades will be done in 2021 using REET funding. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) continues to add more features that are necessary and good additions to the system to allow differently-abled people to find and access safe street crossings. • Sidewalk Capital Maintenance Program. A few years ago, the City staffed a crew that builds small segments of sidewalk or ramps, and the 2021 CIP identifies REET funding to continue that program. • Traffic Calming. REET funding will be used for traffic calming, with the intent of slowing cars down. This also provides pedestrian safety benefits. The City Council will be considering a decision package that will increase the funding for this program from $18,000 to as much as $33,000 in 2021. • Sidewalk Project on Elm Street. Design work will be done for a project on Elm Way from 91 Avenue going west. Children walk to school along this corridor, but there are several places of missing sidewalks. The project will be more complicated because the topography is quite steep in places and retaining walls will likely be involved. Once the design work is done, the City can apply for grant funding. • Guardrail replacement and repair. Several guardrails in the City have questionable structural integrity. The City has spent, and will continue to spend $20,000 each year to replace them as needed. • Dayton Street Utility Improvement. This project was substantially completed in 2020. All of the water, storm and sewer infrastructure on Dayton Avenue from 9r' Avenue to 3' Avenue have been replaced. The street was repaved, and a new sidewalk section (funded by a State grant) was installed. • Utility Infrastructure Replacement. At the end of 2020, approximately 4,000 feet of watermain, 1,600 feet of storm pipe and 2,400 feet of sewer main will have been replaced. Another 3,546 feet of sewer main was rehabilitated with a fiberglass liner, which is a less costly option than total replacement. About 2,000 feet of sewer main replacement is planned for 2021, along with about 2,000 feet of sewer main rehabilitation. • The Dayton Street Pump Station. This project at Beach Place was designed to reduce and virtually eliminate the flooding that occurs at the intersection of Dayton Street and SR-104 during heavy storm events. It will also take stormwater from Harbor Square, which currently flows into the Edmonds Marsh. The project is now complete, and they are currently working out the programming. The project was funded via the stormwater fund, a State grant and a loan from Snohomish County. • Utility Projects in 2021. In 2021 the City will replace about 6,200 feet of new watermain, which will also require overlaying about .75 miles of street. About 2,400 feet of storm pipe will also be replaced. • Storm -Related Projects. The City will work on other storm -related projects, including the 2nd phase of the infiltration facility at Sea View Park. It will be the same size as the first one, and will take the load off of Perrinville Creek. Over the years, with climate change and development, any significant rain storm creates a very rapid response in flows in Perrinville Creek, and erosion is a huge problem. The project will help reduce the peak flows. • Ballinger Regional Infiltration Facility. The City is looking into adding a regional infiltration facility at Lake Ballinger that would take a lot of the runoff from Highway 99, which currently flows to Lake Ballinger. The water would be treated, so Lake Ballinger would benefit from goth a quality and quantity standpoint. The project will enter into the design phase in 2021. • Comprehensive Stormwater Plan Update. The plan was last updated in 2010. Staff will be reviewing the City's capital and operational needs and do some basic modeling to identify the high -priority capital needs. • Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Related Projects. A few projects are identified in 2021. One is tied to doing water treatment along the catch basins on the west side of SR-104 that are adjacent to the marsh. Another is a potential alternative interim plan until the Unocal property is sold to the Washington State Department of Transportation and the larger project can move forward. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 225 8.1.f • Perrinville Flow Management Projects. These projects are yet to be identified, but they are looking for some additional project sites to install infiltration facilities, rain gardens, etc. to reduce the runoff into Perrinville Creek. • Sewer Utility Projects. About 2,000 feet of sewer main is planned for replacement in 2021, as well as 3,000 feet of cured -in -place work. These projects will include an overlay program. • Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study. This study is in progress, with the goal of figuring out the best way to rehabilitate the gravity sewer main on the west side of Lake Ballinger. • Waste Water Treatment Facility. A new gasification system will be installed at the Wastewater Treatment Facility to replace the current incinerator. The total cost of this project will be over $26 million, and will be shared with all partners. Ms. Feser explained that the park -related projects contained in the draft CIP and CFP are based on the seven goals in the adopted Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. She explained that projects for 2021 will focus on finishing large projects, maintaining and upgrading the City's current assets, and preparing for future projects and opportunities. She and Ms. Burley shared the following highlights: Waterfront Redevelopment. Ms. Burley shared pictures of the Waterfront Redevelopment Project that is slated for completion on November 24t' and will open in conjunction with the Waterfront Center. The City is quite proud that a bulkhead and creosote pier have been removed from the beachfront park, allowing the introduction of more sand and beach habitat. However, the project ran into a few snags. They had to remove nearly 50 creosote pilings that were buried under the site, and they had to address some soil contamination as a result of the pilings. Several pockets of sawdust were discovered under the stairs, as well. Yost Pool. Ms. Burley reported that the City was able to conduct the repairs that were slated in 2021 for Yost Pool despite it being closed for the pandemic. The pool grates, CO2 injector and pool cover were all replaced. Funds are programmed in the draft CIP for ongoing maintenance of the pool facility. Marina Beach Park. Ms. Feser announced that Marina Beach Park designs are at about 30%. This work and cost estimates were used to submit for two grant applications through the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). The City's Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Program application ranked I't, and the request was for $500,000. The City's grant application for the Local Park Category scored 19t' out of 80 projects, and the request was also for $500,000. They are hopeful but not relying on the funding for the Local Park Category. Due to the pandemic, some projects may withdraw and there may still be an opportunity for the City to receive the funds. The total current cost estimate for the project is about $5 million. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is working with the Public Works Department to support the Greater Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project, and daylighting Willow Creek is a major part of that project. City Park Walkway. Ms. Feser advised that a 5 to 6-foot walkway is planned for the righthand side of the drive aisle. A crosswalk from the street is located at the very top of the drive aisle, and the natural progression for people heading to the spray pad is to go right from the crosswalk to the drive aisle. This results in a lot of congestion and not much room for clearance. The project will be done in house over the winter, with the goal of having it ready next spring. The 6-foot-wide crushed rock path will require a small amount of cutting into hillside, a retaining wall, and transplanting a few of the smaller trees. Gateway Sign. Ms. Burley announced that the Gateway Sign on SR-104 is in production and is scheduled for installation before the end of the year. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) approval, which was required to move the sign slightly, has been obtained and permits have been secured. Civic Park. Ms. Burley said the $12.1 million budget for this project was be split over 2021 and 2022. The design is complete, the construction documents are finished, and the permits are nearly ready. The project went out to bid, but the results were not favorable to the City. Changes were made, and the project will be rebid in early 2021, with ground breaking anticipated for the spring. The project will take 16 months to complete. The funding for the project has been secured, and it will roll over into 2021. Grant funding is still available in its complete amount, and the $3.7 million in bonds that were issued to the City in late 2019 remain available, as well. They will also draw from the Park Impact Fees, as well as Funds 125 and 126. Some general fund allocation will be carried over to 2021, too. Lastly, they received $400,000 in donations, and the community continues to raise dollars to provide the inclusive playground improvements that were beyond the original scope and design of the project. The Rotary Club is leading this fundraising effort. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 226 Greenhouse Replacement. Ms. Feser said the CIP identifies replacement of the City's primary greenhouse at the shop at an estimated cost of $100,000. The funding for the project is proposed to come from two areas: $50,000 from the flower program portion of the Parks Trust Fund (Fund 136) and $50,000 from the REET Account (Fund 125). The foundation of the current greenhouse is rotting away and settling, causing the plastic covering to tear. It is the only climate -controlled greenhouse and is where the City staff starts and grows the thousands of plants for the flower baskets and corner parks. The current greenhouse is at least 10 years past its lifecycle. General Park Fund. Ms. Feser explained that the City owns and maintains 47 parks and open spaces and consists of more than 230 acres. The City also maintains more than 1 mile of beach and shoreline amenities. The General Park Fund supports major maintenance and in-house small capital projects that prolong the life and usage, as well as increase capacity of the existing amenities. Examples of this work include resurfacing sport courts and parking lots, trail reconstruction, bridge replacements, upgrading irrigation and mechanical systems at Yost Pool, etc. It also includes a line item of $50,000 for professional services and $105,000 for capital replacement and repair. In prior budgets, $55,000 was allocated to small projects in specific park sites in increments of $5,000. The draft CFP was reorganized to simplify by combining all of the small, individual project allocations into one line item. Park Acquisition. Ms. Burley advised that an additional $200,000 will be allocated to Fund 126 in 2021 for park acquisition. This will be added to the $200,000 that was allocated in 2019 and the $300,000 that was allocated in 2020. The funds will be held available in the event that an appropriate open space or park land becomes available. She spoke last year about the potential of purchasing a one -acre lot near Yost Park for a community garden. Unfortunately, that land is no longer available for purchase. It remains a part of the owners will, but is not something she is interested in doing now. The goal is to continue to grow the funding needed for acquisition should the appropriate parcel of land become available. Fishing Pier. Ms. Burley reported that the Fishing Pier was repaired, but it failed some of its final testing. There are a few cracks running along the underside of the pier. While they do not provide a structural challenge at the moment, they could reduce the life of the pier if they continue to allow salt water intrusion. They are currently in conversations with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and it looks as if they may have identified a creative solution for reaching the underside of the pier to complete the work. They are eager to explore this solution further in the spring. All of the funding allocated to repair the pier comes from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and will remain in Fund 332 until the proper solution is found to finalize the repairs. Ms. Burley reviewed the list of future projects that extend beyond the 2021 budget as follows: • Phase 2 of Civic Park Implementation. • Design and construction of Marina Beach Park. • Completion of design and construction of 41 Avenue Cultural Corridor. • Acquiring land and open space as approved by the City Council. • Edmonds Marsh restoration and Willow Creek daylighting. Currently, no dollars have been allocated for these projects, but it simply a function of not knowing when or what the solution will be. These two projects will require coordination between the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department and Public Works Department. • Completion of the waterfront walkway (the one section in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium). • Ongoing trail development. • Sport fields and playground partnerships. Ms. Burley reviewed that the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments begin conversations and start to develop the capital budgets in July, and proposals are submitted to the Finance Department in August. The draft CFP and CIP updates are then prepared for City Council consideration. The draft CFP and CIP are typically presented to the Planning Board in October for review and a public hearing, followed by a recommendation to the City Council. Following a recommendation from the Planning Board, the two documents will be presented to the City Council for the first time on November loth. The City Council will hold a public hearing, as well, and the goal is for them to be adopted along with the budget. Board Member Rubenkonig asked why the new office building that is proposed for City Park is proposed to be one story as opposed to a two-story building. She said it seems shortsighted to build a one-story building. Ms. Feser said she hasn't been briefed on that project yet. Being that being relatively new to the City, she doesn't know the history and reasoning behind the Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 227 8.1.f decision to build a one-story building, but she agreed it makes sense to go vertical to double the space. Ms. Burley said the project has been included in the CFP for many years, and she isn't sure whether it would remain a one-story building if the City is able to secure the funding to move the project forward. Board Member Monroe asked for more information about the problems with the fishing pier project. Ms. Burley said the City entered into a financial settlement with the contractor, which allowed the City to vacate the contract. Mr. English added that the contractor did not perform the work in the area that still needs to be repaired according to the plan and specifications, and that is one of the reasons the City terminated the contract and reached a settlement. Now the City is working to find a different solution to address the problem. Board Member Monroe asked if the settlement amount would cover the cost of the repair work, and Ms. Burley answered that $54,000 in grant funding is available to complete the project. Board Member Monroe noted that the CIP identifies a $17 million storm project at the Edmonds Marsh, as well as a multi- million -dollar parks component. Mr. English responded that the estuary/marsh project is identified in both the CFP and CIP under the Stormwater Fund. He explained that the City has received some criticism about the project funding was split in too many places. After discussions amongst the Public Works Department, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department and the Mayor, they reached the conclusion that the marsh restoration projects should all be consolidated into one place, and that is why it is now in the Stormwater Fund. Currently, the Stormwater Fund is the only funding available for the project. Board Member Monroe recommended they either put the stormwater component into the 422 Fund and the remainder of the project into the 332 Fund or put the entire project into the 332 Fund. He noted that the vast majority of the project is park -related, with ancillary stormwater projects. He explained that the stormwater fund is supported by the rate payers and the park funds are supported by the entire region. By putting the entire project in the stormwater fund, the City is denying the ability to spread the tax burden throughout the region. That doesn't seem fair to Edmonds citizens when the entire region will benefit. Chair Robles opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. There was no one present to participate, and the hearing was closed. Mr. English referred to Board Member Monroe's recommendation and advised that the administration's position is that the project can stay in the stormwater fund, and he expects there will be more discussion at the City Council level. At this point, he doesn't plan to change the funding allocation until a discussion is had at the City Council level. Ms. Feser pointed out that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is very limited as far as project management staff. As the director, she is a landscape architect, but there are no other project managers or park planners on staff. The Public Works Department has an entire crew of engineers and project managers. The work related to the marsh, even design, planning and small capital projects, will more than likely have to be managed by the Public Works Department. It doesn't make sense to house and earmark the dollars in the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department when it isn't capable of managing the projects. The projects will end up shifting back to the Public Works Department anyway. That being said, she doesn't have a problem working with the Public Works Department. The property within the marsh that is owned by the City is open space and inventoried under parks, but she sees it more as a cooperative project between the two departments. Earmarking dollars into certain funds and categories will not likely change the City's approach that much. She said she doesn't believe storm funds can cross over into the park funds, and opportunities for park funding is limited. Stormwater, on the other, has more ability to have the funds available to support projects that are related to water quality. Board Member Monroe said he understands staff s point, but he is concerned about the City's track record (Civic Park) of passing off projects to the Public Works Department without changing funding, which is not something they can't overcome just because it is budgeted that way. He suggested that, on a regional basis, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department has access to more and larger grants, and the Marina Beach Project is a great project for grant funding. He expressed his belief that identifying it as a stormwater project may make it less appealing to funding partners. Ms. Feser clarified that Civic Park was housed in the park funds all the way up through construction documents. The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department does a lot of the planning work up through design, which is a heavy work impact that the Public Works Department could help with. She explained that, because the marsh is so unique, it has a lot of different approaches for grant funding and opportunities: salmon habitat, park habitat, stormwater, etc. Parks is limited to the grant programs within RCO, which typically have $500,000 limits. There are more grants available related to stormwater for which the Public Works Department would need to be the applicant based on expertise. Mr. English said funding for the Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 228 8.1.f project will require a group of grants and other funding sources. To amass the large amount of funding needed for the project, the Public Works Department will need to work alongside the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department to find whatever funding sources are available. They are all on the same team. Board Member Monroe summarized that, as per staff s response, he shouldn't be concerned that the $17 million cost of the project has been allocated to the stormwater fund. Staff will spread the cost out to include regional funding rather than relying primarily on the stormwater rate payers to foot the bill. Mr. English clarified that it is not the intent that the project be funded solely by the stormwater fund. While it is a stormwater project, the CFP notes there is unsecured revenue for the project. This unsecured revenue will come from grant sources, and the project will be funded by multiple sources. Board Member Rubenkonig concurred with Board Member Monroe's concern about adding burden to the stormwater fees that the citizens of Edmonds pay for. Board Member Monroe is the point person on the Board when it comes to looking for budget items for capital projects. She hopes the City Council will consider his comments and particularly look at the burden that is being placed on the citizens via their stormwater management fees. She understands the staffs point of view, and she trusts the City staff will continue to pursue grants. But Board Member Monroe's point is well taken and should be carefully considered. She recalled that the City Council has considered funding options for this project in years past, including whether or not to float a bond issue. Board Member Cheung asked staff to respond to the comment letter that was submitted by Mr. Phipps, a representative of Save Our Marsh. Mr. English said one of the suggestions was to move the project from the stormwater fund to the park funds. The other comment was to stop work on the project until the ownership issue is resolved. He explained that the two projects scheduled for 2021 are small, and there is no proposal to move the design forward in 2021 other than potentially looking at another alternative alignment. There has been a lot of input from the community about the alternatives that have been considered in the past and that perhaps a hybrid alternative would be a better fit. Ms. Feser added that the Marina Beach Park and Daylighting of Willow Creek Projects support the marsh restoration project. It will definitely be beneficial for improving the water quality and restoring the ability for saltwater to come back into the marsh. She would hesitate to pause the project when they are at 30% design and have secured a $500,000 grant with the possibility of another $500,000 grant. The Marina Beach Project can progress independently of the marsh project. Vice Chair Rosen said his understanding is the original concept for the 4t1r Avenue Cultural Corridor extended from Main Street to 3rd Avenue. However, it now terminates at Daley Street. He asked why this was changed. He said he would prefer that the corridor terminate at 3rd Avenue. Ms. Feser suggested there might be some misinformation. She believes the project will extend to 31 Avenue, but there was some conversation at the City Council level that it should go further. She agreed to provide the Board with background information about the project by the end of the week. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2021 — 2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT/CAPITAL FACILITIES PLANS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY THE DIRECTORS AND STAFF OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENTS. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Chair Robles commented that the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) is brilliant in its ability to glean input from the citizens, the limitations and constraints of staff, and where the City wants to go. It does exactly what the Board was hoping it would, which is to provide guidance for the Tree Code. He said Mr. Lien did a great job synthesizing the information in the UFMP into the draft Tree Code. Mr. Lien explained that the draft Tree Code update focuses primarily on private property, with a goal of improving tree retention with new development through the implementation of low -impact development principles and an established tree fund, as well as improving the existing permitting process and penalties. The update also clarifies a number of definitions. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are addressed in the draft update include: Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 229