The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-12-01 City Council - Full Agenda-2735O� LDIVO �o Agenda Edmonds City Council REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 DECEMBER 1, 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/99903343431 OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 999 0334 3431 PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE 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/FLAG SALUTE 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Agenda December 1, 2020 Page 1 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of claim and payroll checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 2. Edmonds Downtown Alliance 2021 Work Plan and Budget 3. A Resolution to Recommend Suspending the Issuance of Driving While License Suspended in the Third De 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Presentation and Public Hearing of the Proposed 2021-2026 Capital Improvements Program/Capital Facilities Plan (60 min) 2. Public Hearing on Ordinance #4200 Establishing A Moratorium on Subdivision Applications (30 min) 3. Public Hearing on Ordinance #4201 Establishing Emergency Regulations to Accompany the Subdivision Moratorium (30 min) 8. NEW BUSINESS 1. Modifications to the Contingent Loan Agreement with the Edmonds Public Facilities District (20 min) 2. Intent to confirm Municipal Judge Appointment (10 min) 3. Finance Director Confirmation of Appointment (10 min) 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Emergency Ordinance Providing Mayor Temporary Authority to Use Tools to Address Economic Emergency (15 min) 2. Budget Deliberation and Opportunity to Discuss Changes to the Proposed Budget (45 min) 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda December 1, 2020 Page 2 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 Approval of claim and payroll checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #245053 through #245117 dated November 25, 2020 for $1,702,178.51 and wire payments of $21,853.74 & $26,385.75. Approval of payroll checks #64491 through #64548 for Law Enforcement Officers and Support Employees' Holiday buy back in the amount of $169,084.08. 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 11-25-20 wire 11-20-20 wire 11-25-20 FrequentlyUsedProjN umbers 11-25-20 payroll holiday buy back Packet Pg. 3 6.1.a vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245053 11/25/2020 076040 911 SUPPLY INC INV-2-6129 INV-2-6129 - EDMONDS PD - INVEN 3 BIANCHI OPEN O/C POUCHES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 3 BIANCHI CLOSED O/C POUCHES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 Tota I : 245054 11/25/2020 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 137131283 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 137131284 ALARM MONITORING - FIRE STATIC ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 137131285 ALARM MONITORING - FIRE STATIC ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 137131286 ALARM MONITORING - HISTORIC N ALARM MONITORING FOR Historica 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 137131287 ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT ALARM MONITORING FOR wastewa 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 137131288 ALARM MONITORING - PUBLIC SAF ALARM MONITORING FOR Public & 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Page 1 vi c aD E �a a m L Amoun '3 c �a 80.2E o a 88.5( U a� 16.8E •= 185.6: U m t U 27.5E o 27.5E a c �a 34.1, E U 78.3' o m 0 L CL 116.9( Q 12.1E N LO N 45.9E 0 4.7E Page: 1 Packet Pg. 4 6.1.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 11/25/2020 9:09:41AM City of Edmonds c Q Bank code : usbank E� �a a Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245054 11/25/2020 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL (Continued) L 3 137131289 ALARM MONITORING - FS #17, MU: Fire Inspection - Fire Station #17, 27E 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 55.4, .0 Fire Inspection - Hist. Museum - 120 a 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 35.0, -o Fire Inspection - Public Safety U 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 153.3z .� Total : 703.7f 245055 11/25/2020 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 10718 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl- U MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl- U 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 134,720.6z — Total: 134,720.6z 245056 11/25/2020 065568 ALLWATER INC 033020036 PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE R Q- PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE c 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 �a 8.0( E 10.4% Sales Tax M 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 0.8' 042220018 PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE o PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE m 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 8.0( o L 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 0.& Q 050520021 PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE c PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE N 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 8.0( N 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 0.8( 062920038 PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE E PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE fd U 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 8.0(; 10.4% Sales Tax y 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 0.& E 073020015 PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE U Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 5 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245056 11/25/2020 065568 ALLWATER INC (Continued) 091620020 [Well-WiPi[I 111820036 245057 11/25/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1991990848 1991990850 PO # Description/Account PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 FINANCE DEPT WATER Finance dept water 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 Total WWTP: 11/11/20 UNIFORMSJOWEI Mats/Towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Uniforms: Jeanne - 3 Lab Coats $0.1' 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 6.1.a Page: 3 vi c Q E �a a Amoun L 3 c 8.0( 0 0.& 0 U 8.0( .Q 0.8( � U m U 42.7E o 4.4E a c �a 56.6E E m 5.8E � 162.7: 51.4E Q 5.3E 0.1E c 29.5E E t 3.0, Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 6 vchlist 11 /25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245057 11/25/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 19920000236 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1992005514 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1992005515 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 FLEET DIVISION MATS 6.1.a Page: 4 vi c a� E �a a Amoun L 3 c �a r 29.5E o a 3.0, U p L 1.6' -0 6.1 a E 6.0E 2 w 0.1 i m 0.6z a a 0.6z Q 0 N 0.6< <n N 0.6z N E 0.6' .� Page: 4 Packet Pg. 7 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245057 11/25/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 245058 11/25/2020 068245 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC 053579 245059 11/25/2020 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 245060 11/25/2020 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 245061 11/25/2020 065565 BUD CLARY CHEVROLET 245062 11/25/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 0012842 9263 9266 YOGA 9269 YOGA 13725 22140425 PO # Description/Account 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 Tota EOFB.TO 20-01.SERVICES THRU EOFB.TO 20-01.Services thru 10/3 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 Tota PLANNING - PROF SERVICES Parklet Research- 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 Tota 9263 9266 YOGA INSTRUCTION 9263 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 9266 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 9269 YOGA/PILATES ONLINE CL 9269 YOGA/PILATES FUSTION O 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Tota E176PO - 2020 12 PASSENGER V E176PO - 2020 12 PASSENGER V 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Tota PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CO PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CO 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 6.1.a Page: 5 vi c Q E �a a Amoun - L 3 19.1( �a r 1.0, o a 1.9� 1 : 191.0E a� L 1C -a 0/� Y 4,122.7, U 1 : 4,122.7: mu 0 L �a 3,695.7,' 3,695.7° E AP m U 157.5( c m 780.0( o AS N L Q' Q 13).0( 1 : 1,072.5( N m N A� 36,231.01 E I : 36,231.0, 'M N' N' 0 318.2� �a Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 8 vchlist 11 /25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245062 11/25/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 22140429 BLDG-COPIER MONTHLY CONTRA( Building copier (SNQNR12044)- 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 22140430 PLANNING -COPIER MONTHLY CON Planning Copier (SNQNR11863)- 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 22140431 P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC' P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC' 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 22140432 PARK MAINT IRC2501F COPIER COI PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 22140435 COUNCIL CANON COPIER USAGE, Monthly contract 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 B/W Meter usage 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 Color Meter usage 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 22140439 INV 22140439 - EDMONDS PD 11/20 CONTRACT - FAXBOARD 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 6.1.a Page: 6 vi c Q E �a a Amoun L 3 c 33.0� 0 a 37.1 E U 3.8E .� U) 49.2' y t U 5.1, o �a a 82.8z o �a 8.6( E U w 79.8E m 8.3' a a a 26.4z N LO 2.1E N 12.5E E 4.2c v c a� 36.0, t U 0 a Page: 6 Packet Pg. 9 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245062 11/25/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 Tota 245063 11/25/2020 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC 012 STATE LOBBYIST NOVEMBER 20 STATE LOBBYIST NOVEMBER 20 001.000.61.511.70.41.00 Tota 245064 11/25/2020 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 120005989 120005989 - EDMONDS PD 2020 SHARE OF TRAINING COST 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 Tota 245065 11/25/2020 076321 CM HEATING INC BL:D2020-1090 REFUND Refund of Permit Fees- 001.000.257.620 BLD2020-1101 REFUND Refund of permit fees- 001.000.257.620 BLD2020-1219 REFUND Refund of Permit fees (Job cancelle 001.000.257.620 Tota 245066 11/25/2020 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING OCT 2020 OCT 2020 DRY CLEANING- EDMO OCT 2020 DRY CLEANING CHAR 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Tota 245067 11/25/2020 075727 CORT, TODD 11/17/2020 CLAIM FOR EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT FOR PURCHA 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 Tota 245068 11/25/2020 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3362745 E7DC.INVITATION TO BID ADVER 6.1.a Page: 7 T Page: 7 Packet Pg. 10 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245068 11/25/2020 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 245069 11/25/2020 064531 DINES, JEANNIE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 20-4045 245070 11/25/2020 078201 EDM LUTHERAN CHURCH LEARN CTR 11252020 Lutheran 245071 11/25/2020 073540 EDMONDS CHAMBER FOUNDATION 1041 245072 11/25/2020 077589 EDMONDS FOOD BANK 245073 11/25/2020 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 245074 11/25/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1007 7 6-00025 11 1 0exiff PO # Description/Account E7DC.Invitation to Bid Advertiseme 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Tota COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 11/1 meeting minutes for council, finance 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Tota CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPO CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPO 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Tota REIMBURSEMENT WISH FUND F REIMBURSEMENT WISH FUND F 001.000.39.565.10.41.00 Tota REIMBURSEMENT WISH FUND F REIMBURSEMENT WISH FUND F 001.000.39.565.10.41.00 Tota REIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR 001.000.39.565.10.41.00 REIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR SENIOR 001.000.39.565.10.41.00 Tota MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLE MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS 6.1.a Page: 8 Rl O1 Of Of Of vi c Q E �a a Amoun - L 3 nt c 735.0( I : 735.0( .o a 2 U 712.8( _2- 1 : 712.8( vi Rl U t 8,000.0( I: 8,000.0( o R Q- � c 9,795.0( fd 1 : 9,795.0( •E w m 26,343.7, o I: 26,343.7 a Q. CC Q CC CD N 5,500.0( ,n CC N CC 5,500.0( 1 : 11,000.0( v c a� 572.3 -, E �a a Page: 8 Packet Pg. 11 vchlist 11 /25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245074 11/25/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-00475 ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT CITY PARK PARKING LOT 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-01280 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK CITY PARK SPRAY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02727 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02736 FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A� FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A� 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02737 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6.1.a Page: 9 vi c Q E �a a Amoun L 3 c 1,369.01 0 a 507.9E U a� L 1,152.4E vi U m 881.9, U 0 1,627.9" a c �a 309.2.E E U 472.3E m 0 321.7, a Q 0 303.5, N 2,620.7, Page: 9 Packet Pg. 12 vchlist 11 /25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245074 11/25/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02745 VETERANS PLAZA VETERANS PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02825 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / P 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02875 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-02885 DOWNTOWN RESTROOM DOWNTOWN RESTROOM 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02900 FAC SPRINKLER FAC SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-02925 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-03575 MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 6-04127 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6-04128 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF 6.1.a Page: 10 vi c Q E �a a Amoun L �3 c �a r 631.2E .o a 444.3E a� L 3,688.2E Y U m t U 24.3< o �a a 446.7' m c �a E 695.0' m U 4- 0 2,025.7� > 0 L Q Q. 593.1 , Q 0 N LO 199.0E N N 362.5( Page: 10 Packet Pg. 13 vchlist 11 /25/2020 9:09:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245074 11/25/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 6-04400 6-04425 It 1.111 17i] 6-05155 6-05156 PO # Description/Account 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 SEAVIEW PARK SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.1.a Page: 11 vi c Q E �a a Amoun L 3 13.9' �a r 1,154.7� a0a� U 646.0' _L- Y) 691.6E y t U 271.2E R a 1,030.8E c �a 1,030.8� E 1,030.8� ,- 0 1,030.8� > 0 L Q 1,030.8E Q 0 N 1.7z ,n N 6.6( E 6.6( 6.6( a� 6.6( t �a Q Page: 11 Packet Pg. 14 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245074 11/25/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 6-06040 6-07775 6-08500 6-08525 245075 11/25/2020 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR179368 245076 11/25/2020 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 245077 11/25/2020 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC PO # Description/Account PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRI 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 YOST PARK SPRINKLER YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Tota ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600 Maintenance 11/21/20 - 12/20/20 C 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 EDH912437 ORDINANCE 4199 ordinance 4199 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH912894 ORDINANCE 4200 & 4201 ordinace 4200 and 4201 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 0858686-1 WATER - VALVE PARTS WATER - VALVE PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 6.1.a Page: 12 21 GF vi c Q E �a a Amoun - L 3 � 6.5f GF o a 271.3� U P L 1,030.2( U m 1,769.3� U 0 309.2E a I : 32,457.0E m c �a 02 E ar M 307.2( w 0 31.9E > Total: 339.1' o Tota a Q. Q 0 23.8( N W) N 47.6( N 71.4( .E �a U c a� 3.7,' E t �a Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 15 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245077 11/25/2020 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) 0933262 245078 11/25/2020 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 44592 245079 11/25/2020 078198 GRIFFITH, CAITLIN 2005670.009 245080 11/25/2020 074804 HARLES, JANINE 527293 245081 11/25/2020 076188 HELENAGARCIA 9286 PAINTING 245082 11/25/2020 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2019-232 PO # Description/Account 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 WATER INVENTORY PARTS/ METE WATER INVENTORY PARTS/ METE 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 Tota EBGA.SERVICES THRU 10/25/20 EBGA.Services thru 10/25/20 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 Tota REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION 001.000.239.200 Tota PHOTOGRAPHY-NOVEMBER20 PHOTOGRAPHY-NOVEMBER20 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Tota 9286 A NIGHT OF PAINTING CLAS 9286 A NIGHT OF PAINTING CLAS 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Tota TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKE Tourism promotion & marketing for 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 Tourism website maintenance Octo 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 Reimbursement for Edmonds Holid 120.000.31.575.42.49.00 6.1.a Page: 13 vi c Q E �a a Amoun L �3 0.3� R r 2,666.0z 0M a� 277.2 , 2,947.4; U) U m 3,827.6( mu 1 : 3,827.6( = 0 / L . 1 �a 365.9( c 1 : 365.9( 2C U 2C c 200.0( m 1 : 200.0( o L Q S Q S- 63.7E N I : 63.7.' LO N TI 1,666.0( be 200.0( ay 19.81 t U a Page: 13 Packet Pg. 16 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.1.a Page: 14 W Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account c a� E� �a a Amoun 245082 11/25/2020 074966 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC (Continued) Total : L 1,885.81 3 245083 11/25/2020 078046 HOMAGE SENIOR SERVICES EHS113020 HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL RE R HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL RE N 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 107,471.2, Q. Total : 107,471.2: 245084 11/25/2020 061013 HONEY BUCKET 0551624054 BRACKETTS LANDING NORTH HOP p L BRACKETTS LANDING NORTH HOP T3 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 975.4( vi 0551628152 SEAVIEW PARK HONEY BUCKET U SEAVIEW PARK HONEY BUCKET t 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 405.E 0551638860 BRACKETTS LANDING NORTH HOP o BRACKETTS LANDING NORTH HOP �a 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -592.2' m 0551638861 ANWAY PARK HONEY BUCKET CR c ANWAY PARK HONEY BUCKET CRE fd 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -1,352.0( •@ 0551638862 OLYMPIC BEACH HONEY BUCKET i U OLYMPIC BEACH HONEY BUCKET 1 p 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -286.7E m 0551638863 SEAVIEW PARK HONEY BUCKET C o SEAVIEW PARK HONEY BUCKET C 0- 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -20.0� Q 0551641246 CITY HALL HONEY BUCKET CITY HALL HONEY BUCKET CD N 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,185.5( N Total: 315.45 245085 11/25/2020 078116 HYDROMANTIS ENVIRONMENTAL 2020-10022 WWTP: PO 441 SIMUWORKS OPTC N E PO 441 SIMUWORKS OPTOOL LICE ca 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 2,595.0( Total: 2,595.0( c W 245086 11/25/2020 078182 JOYLAND KIDS ACADEMY LLC 11252020 Joyland CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT �a Q Page: 14 Packet Pg. 17 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245086 11/25/2020 078182 JOYLAND KIDS ACADEMY LLC (Continued) 245087 11/25/2020 075265 KBA INC 3005629 245088 11/25/2020 078200 KITTY KORNER 11252020 Kitty Korne 245089 11/25/2020 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 11112020-01 245090 11/25/2020 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER December Cigna 245091 11/25/2020 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC Nov-2020 245092 11/25/2020 077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC TE42537 PO # Description/Account CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPO 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Tota E7MA.SERVICES THRU 10/31/20 E7MA.Services thru 10/31/20 332.000.64.594.76.41.00 E7MA.Services thru 10/31/20 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 E7MA.Services thru 10/31/20 125.000.64.594.76.41.00 Tota CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPO CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPO 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Tota INV 11112020-01 - EDMONDS PD OCTOBER 2020 CAR WASH CHA 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 Tota DECEMBER CIGNA PREMIUMS December Cigna premiums 811.000.231.550 11-2020 LEGALS FEES 11-2020 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 Tota 6.1.a Page: 15 Rl Rl Rl R vi c Q E �a a Amoun - L 3 � 8,000.0( 1 : 8,000.0( .o a U 9,921.1( .a 5,590.6< Y U m 8,400.3( � I : 23,912.0: o L �a 8,000.0( I: 81000.0( E U '~ C 0 60.81 I : 60.8' c L Q Q. Q 13,339.31 N I : 13,339.31 N N E 49,883.0( 'M Total: 49,883.0( u E7MA.SERVICES THRU 11/7/20 (D E7MA.Services thru 11/7/20 E t 332.000.64.594.76.41.00 415.9� a Page: 15 Packet Pg. 18 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245092 11/25/2020 077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC (Continued) 245093 11/25/2020 078199 MODA HAIR CAFE & DAY SPA INC 11252020 MODA 245094 11/25/2020 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 15-1715.00-51 245095 11/25/2020 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S010496449.002 245096 11/25/2020 025690 NOYES, KARIN 245097 11/25/2020 026015 OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE 245098 11/25/2020 077808 OSBORN CONSULTING INC 000 00 761 PO # Description/Account E7MA.Services thru 11/7/20 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 E7MA.Services thru 11/7/20 125.000.64.594.76.41.00 Tota CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPO CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPO 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Tota ESKA.SERVICES THRU 10/31/20 ESKA.Services thru 10/31/20 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 Tota WWTP: PO 442 POWERFLEX MO PO 442 POWERFLEX MODULE 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Tota 6.1.a Page: 16 Rl Rl vi c Q E �a a Amoun - L 3 c 234.3E 0 352.1 E Om1 : 1,002.5( U � 8,000.0( Y I: 8,000.0( y t U 0 L 2,684.0( 1 : 2,684.0( c D I fd E 2 346.2E U 4- 0 36.0" m 1 : 382.21 p L Q Q. Q 342.0( N Total : 342.0( Ln N 11252020 OBT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 8,000.0( Total: 8,000.0( 5667 EOFB.SERVICES THRU 10/31/20 EOFB.Services thru 10/31/20 E t 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 10,043.7E a Page: 16 Packet Pg. 19 PLANNING - PROF SVCS Planning Board Minutes- 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 245098 11/25/2020 077808 077808 OSBORN CONSULTING INC (Continued) 245099 11/25/2020 027450 PAWS SEPT 2020 245100 11/25/2020 069633 PET PROS 245101 11/25/2020 073885 RANDOLPH, PAMELA 245102 11/25/2020 078204 RIDE LLC 245103 11/25/2020 032666 ROTO ROOTER 245104 11/25/2020 071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP 792 PRandolph11.11.20 11252020 RIDE 217-22362037 B12600193 Description/Account Tota SEPT 2020 - EDMONDS PD 10 ANIMALS @ $205. - $35 RCLM 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 Tota INV 792 - EDMONDS PD - HOBBS HOBBS DOG FOOD -GOV DISCO WWTP: PRANDOLPH-11/11/20 ME 11/11/20 Business Lunch w/Bravo E 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 Tota CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPO CITY PARK RESTROOM DRAIN CITY PARK RESTROOM DRAIN 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 Tota OCT-2020 CLOUD SERVICE CHAR Oct-2020 Cloud Service Charges 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 6.1.a Page: 17 U� 99.5, 99.5, fd E Rl Rl w 8,000.0( m I: 8,000.0( o L Q Q. 962.5( N 100.1( N 1 : 1,062.6( N C E a U 641.4< a� 66.7- E �a Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 20 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245104 11/25/2020 071655 071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP 245105 11/25/2020 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) EBGA.Pmt 4 PO # Description/Account EBGA.PMT 4 THRU 10/31/20 EBGA.Pmt 4 thru 10/31/20 423.000.75.594.35.65.30 EBGA.Pmt 4 thru 10/31/20 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 Total Total 245106 11/25/2020 071725 SKAGIT HORTICULTURE LLC INV00019099 FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS FREIGHT CHARGE 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 245107 11/25/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200398956 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST; FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200496834 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 200611317 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 200650851 CITY PARK RESTROOMS CITY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 200651644 PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 200723021 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 6.1.a Page: 18 c Q E �a a Amoun L 708.1 3 c R r 236,563.0, a a� 187,367.2E U 423,930mZ �a vi U 98.4E t U 1,641.2E o �a 170.6E a 1,91OA4 E 2 U 527.3z c m 0 104.6E a om Q 137.6E N LO N 20.9" N E 2 483.6' c a� E 28.1E u a Page: 18 Packet Pg. 21 vchlist 11 /25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245107 11/25/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 201383270 CITY PARK GAZEBO CITY PARK GAZEBO 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 201431236 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 201431244 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 201441755 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 201453057 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 201551744 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 201942489 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 202114484 CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 202289450 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME 6.1.a Page: 19 vi c aD E �a a Amoun L 3 c �a r 20.0< o a a� 22.3, a� L 18.3, Y U m t U 189.4( o �a a 153.5z c �a E 2,406.0( .T U 4- 0 88.7E > 0 L 337.2z a Q 337.2z N LO 337.2z N 337.2z E 337.2, c a� 68.2E t a Page: 19 Packet Pg. 22 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245107 11/25/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 202291662 202439246 202540647 203652151 220216386 221732084 222704280 245108 11/25/2020 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Johannessen Plat 245109 11/25/2020 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE 20-052 PO # Description/Account TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1, CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1, 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 19, SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 19, 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597 VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 WWTP: 10/15-11/13/20 METER 100C 10/15-11/13/20 200 2ND AVE S / ME 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 Total SHORT PLAT JOHANNESSEN FOR short plat johannessen for planning 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 Total DEC-2020 FIRE SERVICES CONTR/ Dec-2020 Fire Services Contract Pay 001.000.39.522.20.41.50 Total 6.1.a Page: 20 c Q E �a a Amoun L 3 c 75.8z 0 a 5,668.4E U a� L 2,458.51 U m 18.3, U 0 283.9- a c �a 84.5� E U 111.1 m 0 L CL 29,691.9< 44,348.0, Q 0 N N 188.5( 188.5( a U 614,893.1 y 614,893.1 , E t �a Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 23 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245110 11/25/2020 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 245111 11/25/2020 070774 ULINE INC 245112 11/25/2020 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 8360 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR NO' SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR NO' 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 Total 126276888 INV 126276888 - CUST 2634605 - El 1 CS TYVEK SUITS - XL 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 126498314 INV 126498314 - EDMONDS PD ULINE SURGICAL MASK 50/BOX 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 ULINE 6MIL BLACK NITRILE GLOVE 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 Total 9866927074 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 6.1.a Page: 21 vi c aD E �a a Amoun L 3 c 550.0( 550.0( .o a U 185.0( E �a 13.0, Y U m 20.6( r- 0 102.0( Q 88.0( E 13.0z n U w 21.1, G 442.8( 0 L a Q. Q 105.8� o N 317.4, N 20.2E E 20.2E 20.2E (D E t 40.5( Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 24 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245112 11/25/2020 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.1.a Page: 22 vi c Q E �a a Amoun L 3 c 20.2E Total : 544.81 .o a 245113 11/25/2020 078202 WALDIE, JACK 11/02/2020 CLAIM FOR EXPENSES Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 REIMBURSEMENT FOR PURCHASE 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 52.8� 'L-D Total : 52.W 245114 11/25/2020 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7906 INV 7906 - EDMONDS PD vi U 20 BOOKS OF CORRECTION NOTI( a) 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 535.6E 10.4% Sales Tax o 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 55.7- ca 7908 WELCO BUS. CARDS FOR PARKS bus cards for parks lindsay & curran 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 95.5E E 10.4% Sales Tax M 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.9Z 7910 #10 WINDOW ENVELOPES FOR FII o #10 Window Envelopes - Qty 5000 m 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 353.0( o 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 36.7- a Total : 1,086.6( c N 245115 11/25/2020 078053 WELLSPRING FAMILY SERVICES Edmonds 2016 HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENT RELIT N HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENT RELIT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 53,300.0, N Edmonds 2016 HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENT RELIT E HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENT RELIT a 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 15,751.2z U Total: 69,051.31 E 245116 11/25/2020 073739 WH PACIFIC INC 179702 EBCC.SERVICES THRU 9/19/20 a Page: 22 Packet Pg. 25 vchlist 11/25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245116 11/25/2020 073739 WH PACIFIC INC (Continued) EBCC.Services thru 9/19/20 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 EBCC.Services thru 9/19/20 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 EBCC.Services thru 9/19/20 422.000.72.542.30.41.00 Total: 245117 11/25/2020 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 425-697-6502 MUSEUM ALARM LINES - 118 5TH A Museum Alarm Lines - 118 5th Ave N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 425-775-1344 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5 CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Total: 6.1.a Page: 23 vi c Q E �a a Amoun L 3 c 1,168.6E 0 452.6, O 773.5, 2,394.8( .Q U) U m 108.1E r- 0 36.2< a 36.2, E M 17.1%U 0 85.9E > 0 L CL 72.2( Q Q 72.2( N LO 96.2,1 c� 74.7E c 68.2( 0 667.3f �a Q Page: 23 Packet Pg. 26 vchlist 11 /25/2020 9:09:41 AM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 65 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 65 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account Bank total Total vouchers 6.1.a Page: 24 Amoun , 1,702,178.51 1,702,178.51 0 N LO N N E a V C E t V a+ a Page: 24 Packet Pg. 27 6.1.b vchlist 11 /24/2020 9:25:03AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11202020 11/20/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 0747 PUBLIC WORKS CC 11/06/2020 ITUNES - ICLOUD STORAGE FOR F 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 AMAZON - OFFICE SUPPLIES 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 ITUNES - ICLOUD STORAGE FOR F 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 AMAZON - WATER/ SEWER/ STREE 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 AMAZON - WATER/ SEWER/ STREE 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 AMAZON - WATER/ SEWER/ STREE 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 AMAZON - WATER/ SEWER/ STREE 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 WA DOL - CHRIS SHAW'S CDL SKIL 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 AMAZON - SPEAKERS & WEBCAM 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 AED SUPERSTORE - MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 BEST BUY- POWER SUPPLY FOR 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 PNWS-AWWA- FALL TRAINING FOI 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 PNWS-AWWA- FALL TRAINING FOI 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 1558 SERVER SWITCH, BLUEBEAM, RED ServerSupply.com - Power Injector 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 Markertek - Blackmagic CONVMCAU 001.000.25.514.30.35.00 Amazon - Blackmagic Design Mini 001.000.25.514.30.35.00 Page: 1 Amoun I) �3 c �a 0.9� N 0 Q. 40.4, -0a U 0.9� L IM, 22.7E Y U m 22.7E 22.7E o �a a 22.7E c �a 255.2.E E M 199.7E U 0 1,435.11 > 0 L 66.2E a Q 60.0( o N 60.0( N L 444.0( 3 c 215.2E t 215.2E a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist 11 /24/2020 9:25:03AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11202020 11/20/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Amazon - Connectors, cables & adap 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 Zoom - Cloud Recording and webinar 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 BulkRegister.com - Doman Name 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 BulkRegister.com - Domain Name 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 21.5" f 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 Rev.com - Zoom Live Captions add o 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 ServerSupply.com - Cisco 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 Remote PC - Enterprise for 100 comp 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Bluebeam - Annual Subscription for 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Rev.com - Zoom Live Captions add o 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1885 PD 2 -1885 11/6/20 FUEL CITY VEH - SWAT TRAINING 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 2519 PD 1 -2519 11/6/20 SHIP TO WSP CRIME LAB 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 SHIP TO WSP TOX LAB 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 FUEL FOR CITY VEH - SWAT TRAIN 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 SHIP TO WSP PRINT LAB 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 SHIP TO WSP CRIME LAB 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 6.1.b Page: 2 -71 vi c m E ra Amoun Q- L 3 121.3� 287.0z 0 am aD 30.1 P 16.1E =a ui 1,114.8', m t 20.0( 0 8,653.4( a 499.5( E 180. I 14.7, G El 0 21.2, c N 20.1 ' L 43.0E '3 15.2z E t 21.9z a Page: 2 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 11 /24/2020 9:25:03AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11202020 11/20/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 3048 -3048 THOMPSON 11/6/20 COMPUTER SPEAKER - DETECTIVI 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 HALF MASK RESPIRATORS (10) 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 OSHA - WORKER RIGHT TO KNOW 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 PROMOTION CERT - ROBINSON 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 ANIM. CONTROL POCKET LAW BO( 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 2 CELLULAR TRAIL CAMS 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 LAPTOP TRAVEL HUB, UTIL KNIVE; 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 ENGRAVE RADAR GUN 001.000.41.521.71.48.00 CR123A BATTERIES (121) 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 IPHONE CASES (2) 001.000.41.521.21.31.00 DOORBELL, MOUSE FOR PROP RC 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 PLAQUE OF K9 KIRA FOR HALLWA 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 3314 LAWLESS -3314 11 /6/20 WOOD & HARDWARE - SWAT TRNI 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 TRAIL CAM MONTHLY DATA PLAN 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 3915 SHOPE-US BANK Book: Bending the Curve Cost- 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Webinar Registration (SHope)- 6.1.b Page: 3 vi c m E �a Amoun Q- L 3 c �a 14.2, N 0 am 441.0( r 49.6, L �a 193.9( ui U 20.4f t U 264.9, LOM �a 49.11 C c �a 9.9z E 164.9 , 0 35.2E > 0 L 43.0( a Q 72.8E o N 0 N 595.4' L 9.9, '3 r c m 23.0E E Page: 3 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 11 /24/2020 9:25:03AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11202020 11/20/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 4171 MCCLURE -4171 11/6/20 FOOD FOR INMATE WHILE AT TRIA 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 APPLE ICLOUD STORAGE - MONTF 001.000.41.521.40.41.40 CANVAANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 4697 CRUZ RETIREMENT caution tape -- Holiday Market 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 stake frames -- Holiday Market 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 caution tape -- Holiday Market 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 Cruz retirment cupcakes 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 bandages -- Holiday Market 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 mouse pad 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 adjstable backgorund stand backdrop 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 4929 DEV SVCS-US BANK SquareSpace - Annual Subscription 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 6.1.b Page: 4 vi c m E �a Amoun Q- L 3 35.0( M c �a 2.4( N 0 Q. aD 9.91 U m L 0.9� :a ui 119.4( U m t U 8.9� o �a 18.5( c 18.0( 40.0( 0 6.9� �a 0 L 1.9� a a 43.3� c N 5.4E N 4.1( m 3 4.7, }; c m E t 216.0( c.) a Page: 4 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 11 /24/2020 9:25:03AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11202020 11/20/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Beacon Publishing- 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Teresa Wippel Communications- 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Dev Svcs Office Supplies- 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Amazon: Supplies- 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Teresa Wippel Communications- 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Zoom membership (Dev Svcs)- 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Adobe Creative Cloud - monthly 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Amazon: Dev Svcs Supplies 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 Law Seminars Int'I- 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 Seattle Times- 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 5639 BUDGET IN BRIEF DOCUMENTS, R Alphagraphics - Budget in Brief report 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 Payflow payment processor service 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 Payflow payment processor service 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 Payflow payment processor service 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 5923 COM. SRVCS & ECO DEV OCTOBEI 6.1.b Page: 5 -71 vi c m E �a Amoun Q- L 3 99.0( N 49.3( 0 am 52.5E P 45.8� =a ui 32.8( u m t 199.9( 0 59.9E ca a 51.8, E 470.0( 50.5( G �a 49.5( o a a 15.6' Q 0 N 472.5( N 14.6( L 3 14.6( m 14.6( E R a Page: 5 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 11 /24/2020 9:25:03AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11202020 11/20/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Herald Annual Digital Subscription 001.000.61.557.20.49.00 DJC Annual Subscription 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 MailChimp for issuing bulletins for 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 Holiday Market Supplies- 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 OfficeSpace website listing for Noven 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Holiday Market Signage 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 6654 BLACKHAWK INDUSTRIAL PAYMEN BLACKHAWK INDUSTRIAL PAYMEN 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7565 STRUM -7565 11/6/20 M/C FUEL - BASIC MOTORS TRAINI 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 7573 SMITH -7573 11/6/20 WAPRO CONF REG - D. SMITH 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 8017 ENG CREDIT CARD OCTOBER 202( Hawkins.Gaiters 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 Carlock. Bookshelf 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 8349 ANDERSON -8349 11/6/20 FOOD - SGT. ASSESSMENT CENTE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 8842 WFOA WEBINAR FOR D SHARP WFOA - Ethics for CPAs Meets State 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 9573 GARS SUBSCRIPTION, GFOA MEMI GASB - GARS subscription 6.1.b Page: 6 -71 vi c m E �a Amoun 0- L 3 99.9E 220.0( 0 am 29.8( P 63.8z =a ui 100.0( U m t 110.4( 0 �a 1,344.5" C c �a E 258.7E 'ii U 4- 0 25.0( �a 0 L a 0_ 111.2( Q 0 99.3E N 0 N 14.7� L Page: 6 Packet Pg. 33 3 vchlist 11 /24/2020 9:25:03AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11202020 11/20/2020 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 GFOA - PAFR review fee 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 9821 GREENMUN -9821 11/6/20 BLEEDING CONTROL STATIONS (8) 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 ONLINE TRAINING K9 OFFICERS (2 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 COMMAND PICTURE HANGING STI 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 PEER SUPPORT BUSINESS CARD, 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 DE-ESCALATION TRAINING - HWA� 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 DUTY TO INTERVENE TRAIN.-HWAI 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 ICLOUD MONTHLY STORAGE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 RECHARGE. BATTERY DOCK 001.000.41.521.71.31.00 RECHARGE. BATTERIES - RADARS 001.000.41.521.71.31.00 DECISIONS @ SPEED OF LIGHT TF 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 TLO SEARCHES OCT 2020 CHARGI 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 WHITEBOARD ACCESSORIES 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 PHONE CASES (3) 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers 6.1.b Page: 7 -71 vi c m E �a Amoun Q- L 3 573.0( M c �a 250.0( N 0 Q. W 1,622.3E W 398.0( :a ui 73.9£ U m t 40.0E 0 L 99.0( a 129.0( C E 0.9E 29.8E o �a 42.01 o a a 129.0( a 0 125.6z N 0 N 39.0E L_ 18.1£ 3 21,853.7z }; c m 21,853.7z E t 21,853.7z a Page: 7 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 11 /24/2020 9:25:03AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 6.1.b Page: 8 Amoun Page: 8 Packet Pg. 35 6.1.c vchlist 11 /25/2020 10:10:21 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11252020 11/25/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 1522 1522 SHANNON BURLEY CREDIT C WRPA: VIRTUAL FALL SUMMIT REC 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 GLOBAL INDUSTRIES: OFFICE FUF 001.000.64.571.21.35.00 ISSUU: DIGITAL CRAZE 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 1880 1880 PARKS CREDIT CARD AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: LIGHTS, 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: DRY ER) 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: POWER 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: COPY PE 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: HEADPF 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE: RE( 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: ADMIN SUPPLIES: PENS, 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: TAPE 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 GENESIS EDUCATION PELLET: REC 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE: RE( 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: ADMIN SUPPLIES: SHARI 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 AMAZON: ADMIN SUPPLIES: PAPEF 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 Page: 1 Amoun .� 3 c �a 350.0( N 0 a 1,366.5' -0a U 39.0< L T3 N 41.6( U t U 3.8', = 0 L 9.5E ca a 46.3E E 66.1 E 'M 19.8E 0 �a 71.1E o a a 31.2E Q 0 52.8, N 7.7, L 16.3E 3 r c 24.1 t 19.4, a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 11 /25/2020 10:10:21 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11252020 11/25/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: PRE! 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: PRE; 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: EXTENS 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: SURGE 1 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: PRIVACI 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: EXTENS 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: HEADPF 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: LAMINAI 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: CARDST 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE: RE( 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: WHITEB 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 COSTCO: REC SUPPLIES: SMALL F 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: CRAFT F 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: CRAFT F 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: ADMIN SUPPLIES: INK C) 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 PAYPAL: EAC: SHAWGUIDES 117.100.64.573.20.41.40 6.1.c Page: 2 -71 vi c m E �a Amoun Q- L 3 81.3( N 64.9( 0 aD 17.2- p 66.1 E =a ui 77.4', u m t 47.4E 0 L 44.1 , ca a 45.6E E 111.2, G �a 29.9E o a a 13.2( a 0 276.2( N 6.2( L_ 184.3< 3 13.6, m E t 500.0( a Page: 2 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 11 /25/2020 10:10:21 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11252020 11/25/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: BATTERI 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: LUNCH £ 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: TEN BLC 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 1880 CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM - AN CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM: AM. 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM: AM. 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 1937 FLEET CC 11/06/2020 SEATING MIND - OFFICE CHAIR 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 USPS - UNIT 113 SHIPPING 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 AMAZON - UNIT 121 PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WA DOL - UNIT 411 REPORT OF SA 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 UPS - FLEET SHIPPING 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 WISE LOCKSMITH - UNIT 891 NEW 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WA DOL - E182PO VEHICLE REGIS' 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 HOME DEPOT - FLEET CORDLESS 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 AMAZON - UNIT 113 GREASE CAP,' 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 EMERALD CITY HARLEY - UNIT 96C 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 EMERALD CITY HARLEY - UNIT 928 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 6.1.c Page: 3 -71 vi c m E �a Amoun 0- L 3 37.6E N 4.3, 0 a� 58.0z p T3 -24.1 z ui U -9.5£ t U 0 L 399.0( a 89.9( E 16.5( 'ii U 13.6E o �a 24.7' o a a 12.4, Q 0 64.0( N W) N 164.5( m L 9.11 '3 529.6( a0i E t 730.6z a Page: 3 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 11 /25/2020 10:10:21 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11252020 11/25/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) JET CITY HARLEY - UNIT 928 CLUT 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 MUCK TRUCK - SEWER SNOW PLC 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 MUCK TRUCK - SEWER SNOW PLC 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 EMERALD CITY HARLEY - UNIT 96C 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WA DOL - UNIT 120 REPORT OF SA 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 WEATHER TECH - UNIT 827 & 537 F 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 EMERALD CITY HARLEY - UNIT 904 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 EMERALD CITY HARLEY - UNIT 904 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 EMERALD CITY HARLEY - UNIT 904 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WA DOL - E175PO & E179SD REGIc 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 UPS - UNIT 120 SHIPPING 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 AMAZON - UNIT 120 STREAMLIGHT 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 AMAZON - FLEET FRAME 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 AMAZON - UNIT 904 MIRROR EXTE 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 ACE HARDWARE - BATTERY 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 CANOPY WORLD - E175PO 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 AMAZON - E178FM 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 6.1.c Page: 4 -71 vi c m E �a Amoun Q- L 3 396.E 1 N 552.0( 0 am aD 3,752.5( 1,590.6, =a ui 13.6E u m t 262.6E 0 L 342.5z ca a 55.2< E 463.5E 127.2 - G �a 18.1- o a a 103.8� Q 0 14.31 '1 N 18.7, L_ 19.8E 3 3,371.8z E t 79.6, a Page: 4 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 11 /25/2020 10:10:21 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11252020 11/25/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 2985 WWTP: SARAH'S TRAINING, MARK Amazon: PO 412: Markers, Frame, FI 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Sarah Brinkley Training: Safety, Begir 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 Amazon: PO 420 Hoists, Mini -Puller F 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 2985 AMAZON CREDIT MEMO ON ACCOI Amazon - credit memo on account 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 4474 COUNCIL VISA CHARGES FOR SUF Office Depot Supplies - shipment #1 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 Office Depot supplies - shipment #2 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 Office Depot supplies - shipment #3 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 Amazon - extension cords for Council 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 Best Buy - extension cord for iPad 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 5593 CITY CLERK'S CC PAYMENT WAPRO Training Conference - Nick F 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 Professional Association Membership 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 amazon office supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 amazon - tv monitor 001.000.25.514.30.35.00 5919 5919 FRANCES CHAPIN CREDIT C/ AMAZON: ARTS COMMISSION SUP 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 6654 SULLIVAN CC 11/06/2020 6.1.c Page: 5 443.5, N 0 0. 130.0( 890.9z L IL,4 ng -17.6" U m t U 13.3E o �a c 42.4� 35.3, 0 24.3( 1i 0 L a a 25.0( Q 0 150.0( N W) N 89.8E m L 143.5' '3 c m 140.2, E t U Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 11 /25/2020 10:10:21 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11252020 11/25/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) MICHAELS- COURT- CUSTOM FRAI 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 DISPLAY & COSTUME - COURT - W 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 BLINDS.COM - CITY HALL BLINDS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 BLINDS.COM - CITY HALL 1/2 FIRSI 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8474 8474 JESSE CURRAN CREDIT CAR AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: STAPLES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 GO NATIVES NURSERY: PM SUPPL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 GO NATIVES NURSERY: MEADOW[ 111.000.68.542.71.31.00 GO NATIVES NURSERY: YOST PAR 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: IPHONE C 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HOLIDAY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HOLIDAY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: BOOTS, F 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: COPY PAI 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: BINDER C 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: SPEAKER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 B I D-1 687/0907 BID/ED! CREDIT CARD OCTOBER 2 BID/Ed! Invisible Spray 2. 140.000.61.558.70.31.00 6.1.c Page: 6 -71 vi c m E �a Amoun 0- L 3 33.1( N 25.3" 0 am aD 3,415.0< P 1,167.9, =a ui U 15.7' t U 119.0- o �a 154.2E C c �a 803.8( E 44.1 , 0 430.4( > 0 L 59.5E a Q 112.5, c N W) 32.5E N 24.0< L 3 375.31 m E t 30.4- a Page: 6 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 11 /25/2020 10:10:21 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11252020 11/25/2020 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) BID/Ed! Facebook Advertising 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 BID/Ed! Zoom Standard Pro Monthly 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers 6.1.c Page: 7 -71 vi c m E �a Amoun Q- L 3 339.8- N 16.5z 0 am 26,385.7° -(Da r 26,385.7° u L 26,385.7° N U m t U 0 L Q E a V 4- 0 0 L CD Q Q N W) N L 3 c m E U 0 a Page: 7 Packet Pg. 42 6.1.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Proiect Engineering Accounting Proiect Funding Proiect Title Number Number _ STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB rn c WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 E STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA coo >Z SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC L WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC 3 STIR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC tv STIR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB N O STIR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA m STIR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB c� SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC N WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA c� STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD G L UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB c WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA to E STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA STIR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA O STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA - o L STIR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC Q Q STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB 0 STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC N LO STIR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21CA N STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB y L STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC Z STIR238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB 0 L STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA d STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB vi STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA 2' STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA r 3 STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC L STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD u_ STIR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB y STIRAdmiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA t v STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB t>: r Q STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB Revised 11/25/2020 Packet Pg. 43 6.1.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 11/25/2020 Packet Pg. 44 6.1.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 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 11/25/2020 Packet Pg. 45 6.1.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 I WTR E6JB i014 -loffr2018 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects E6JC Waterline Replacement Project STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIR i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements I 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 11/25/2020 Packet Pg. 46 6.1.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 E6JB 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 11/25/2020 Packet Pg. 47 6.1.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 11/25/2020 Packet Pg. 48 6.1.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 11/25/2020 Packet Pg. 49 6.1.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 11/25/2020 Packet Pg. 50 6.1.e Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,031 (11 /20/2020 to 11 /25/2020) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 3 c 149 KELLY DAY KELLY DAYS BUY BACK 1.70 81.78 153 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY BUY BACK 4,775.00 227,978.42 a a� 4,776.70 $228,060.20 a� L_ Total Net Pay: $169,084.08 U t V O L Q M I_ .2 c,> O i O L Q Q Q U f4 3 f4 .O t O i R Q 11 /25/2020 Packet Pg. 51 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 Edmonds Downtown Alliance 2021 Work Plan and Budget Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Economic Development Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History The Edmonds Downtown Alliance (aka Business Improvement District) is required by ECC 3.75.120 to submit an annual work plan and budget by October 31st of each year for the following year. Accordingly, the Downtown Alliance submitted its proposed 2021 work plan and budget (attached here) on 10/28/20, which was presented at the 11/24/20 City Council meeting. Staff Recommendation Approve Ed! 2021 Work Plan and Budget as part of the 12/1/20 Consent Agenda. Council approval of the 2021 Budget will be incorporated into the final 2021 City Budget. Narrative The 2021 proposed Work Plan (attached) includes programmatic work and supporting expenditures in the following areas, as detailed in the attached Work Plan: - Administration - Communication and Outreach - Marketing/Advertising - Appearance and Environment - Ed! Grants Program As can be seen in the attached budget spreadsheet, the 2021 expenditures total $76,340. The projected 2021 starting Fund Balance will be $10,347. 2021 projected revenue will be $79,209. This would leave a projected 2021 ending Fund Balance of $13,216 (16.7% of fund annual revenue). This item was presented and discussed at the 11/24/20 City Council meeting, who voted to forward the item to the 12/1/20 Consent Agenda for approval. Attachments: 2021_Ed_Proposed_Budget_FINAL (002) EdmondsDowntownAlliance_2021_Workplan_FINAL Packet Pg. 52 6.2.a 2021 Ed! Proposed Budget REVENUES 2020 Approved Budget 2020 Projected Budget 2021 Proposed Budget Beginning Fund Balance $11,546 $11,546 $10,347 Projected Revenue $79,209 $67,209 $79,209 PROJECTED AVAILABLE FUNDS $90,755 $78,755 $89,556 EXPENSES • . . 1 1 Operating Expenses (domain reg, hosting, Gsuite, PO Box fees, tax filing, nonprofit filing) $625 $755 $755 Misc Supplies $300 $100 $150 Program Management 40 hrs/month $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 Subtotal 1 $24,925 1 $24,855 1 $24,905 1 1 Digital Advertising -Articles $5,500 $5,500 $5,500 Edmonds Theater Advertising $360 $0 $360 Holiday Website Updates $500 $500 $500 Holiday Advertising $3,500 $2,000 $3,500 Holiday Events $4,845 $1,000 $4,845 Photography (articles, social media) $7,200 $6,600 $7,200 Copywriting $6,600 $4,200 $6,600 Program Management 10 hrs/month $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 Holiday PM (20 hrs) $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Website Design/Updates $2,000 $2,000 $3,500 Summer Marketing Campaign $3,500 Subtotal $37,505 $28,800 $42,505 Annual Meeting $1,200 $623 $1,000 City Events (4th, Taste) $500 $0 $500 c M c �a a Y L 0 N 0 N 0 U c R a c 3 0 c 3 0 0 N c 0 E M w N O O G Packet Pg. 53 6.2.a My Edmonds News Outreach $330 $330 $330 New Member Communications $400 $100 $300 Semi -Annual Update $500 $550 $600 Main St Conference $0 $0 $0 Program Management 20 hrs $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Subtotal $3,930 $2,603 $3,730 Grant Program $1,500 $1,500 $0 Subtotal $1,500 $1,500 $0 Umbrella Program $9,450 $9,450 $0 After Hours Parking Signage $0 $0 $3,000 Program Management 2 hrs/month $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 Creative Messaging $0 $0 $1,000 Trolley Support ($0 if $11,000 in sponsorships secured) $2,000 $0 $0 Subtotal $12,650 $10,650 $5,200 TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES $80,510 $68,408 $76,340 TOTAL REVENUE $90,755 $78,755 $89,556 • $10,245 $10,347 $13,216 As Percentage of On -Going Revenue 12.9% 15.4% 16.7% 1:1111"A1&111:1 ITiIAnMITel V EXPENDITURES FROM FUND BALANCE Grant Progra Audio Clip fo RevitalizeWA Co Packet Pg. 54 6.2.b EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE PROPOSED 2021 WORK PROGRAM & PLAN Edmonds, Washington Prepared pursuant to Edmonds City Ordinance 3909, Section 3.75.120 r a Packet Pg. 55 6.2.b Page 2 of 8 The mission of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance is to encourage, promote and participate in activities enhancing the general economic conditions of the district for the mutual benefit of its businesses and the City of Edmonds. We are a focused, funded organization that supports and improves business conditions in Downtown Edmonds. Our goal is to ensure our downtown stays lively, attractive, prosperous and welcoming to everyone. Per Ordinance 3909, the scope of work includes the following Items: A. Marketing & Hospitality: may include maps/brochures/kiosks/directories, website, social media, marketing/advertising campaigns, holiday decorations, street performers/artists, historic education/heritage advocacy, special public events B. Safety & Cleanliness: may include maintenance, security, pedestrian environment enhancements C. Appearance & Environment: may include design enhancements, neighborhood advocacy & communication, streetscapes/lighting/furniture D. Transportation: may include transportation alternatives, directional signage, parking management & mitigation E. Business Recruitment & Retention: may include education/seminars, market research, business recruitment F. Organization: may include contract staff & professional services, administration costs INTRODUCTION Ed! - Edmonds Downtown Alliance (the "Alliance"), was approved on January 15, c 2013 under Ordinance 3909. The following is the eighth year work program and plan 'D w for the district, effective from approval by Edmonds City Council through December 31, 2021. It includes a description of the Alliance, proposed services, sources of E M funding, annual budget and allocations. a Approved by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board for Submittal to City Council 10/31/20 Packet Pg. 56 Page 3 of 8 6.2.b I. PROPOSED 2021 SERVICES The services to be provided in this plan include items required for the promotion and enhancement of the Alliance and to meet the needs identified by members of the Alliance. The services are not intended to take the place of, but rather add to or supplement, those services provided by the City and/or other Edmonds -based organizations. The services will be executed under the direction of the Alliance Members Advisory Board. A. Administration (Per Ordinance 3909, Item F) Program Management. The Alliance Board will contract with an individual(s) to provide program management and support for the operation and maintenance of the Alliance. Program management and administrative support for implementation of specific committee projects will be covered by the budget available for those programs. ii. Operating Expenses. Operating expenses will include, but are not limited to, supplies and insurance, post office box rental, mailings to members, Zoom subscription and website domain and hosting fees. Legal, accounting and professional services will be contracted on an as - needed basis. When appropriate and available, pro-bono services will be used. iii. Assessment and Evaluation. The Alliance recognizes the important responsibility it has to its members to demonstrate effective and efficient use of Alliance resources. As such, the Alliance will include reasonable and appropriate program assessment and evaluation efforts within its work plans. This may include internal and external initiatives such as member surveys, market research, third party or independent impact analysis, etc. B. Marketing/Advertising (Per Ordinance 3909, Item A); c as E i. Advertising. Our 2020 advertising plan has resulted in more than a cc 21 % increase in traffic and new users on EdmondsDowntown.org, a Approved by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board for Submittal to City Council 10/31/20 Packet Pg. 57 Page 4 of 8 6.2.b which is informing our recommendation for 2021. The Alliance will continue to implement a robust 2021 digital effort throughout the year. This may include contracting professional services for design and execution. The 2021 social media advertising plan will be managed by Ed!'s program manager. In addition, ads at The Edmonds Theater will be produced and placed throughout the year. Ed! will also help support the holiday digital advertising campaign in partnership with the City. ii. Website. The Alliance will continue to execute on the Ed! content strategy to increase awareness of Edmonds as a day trip destination for shopping and dining and historic downtown experiences. This will include publishing stories on the website to highlight local businesses and events, written by a contract copywriter and illustrated with photos by a contract photographer. Ed! will also continue the Business Spotlight series, which focuses on promoting individual businesses in Downtown Edmonds. iii. Social Media. The Alliance's social media presence continues to grow, and is a good branding tool, keeping Downtown Edmonds top of mind. Photography will continue to be produced by a contractor for both social media and website use. iv. Summer Campaign. The Alliance will add a summer campaign aimed at promoting Downtown Edmonds during the summer months, promoting downtown happenings and highlighting our unique local businesses, making it a desirable day trip destination. v. Holiday Events. The Alliance will continue to make Downtown Edmonds a destination for shoppers and visitors during the holiday season. We intend to run the holiday trolley in 2021 with sponsor donations and promote holiday events with marketing collateral around town. A holiday elf will be contracted for a fourth year to make the c a) holiday trolley festive and run smoothly. E ns C.Communication and Outreach (Per Ordinance 3909, Items A and E) a Approved by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board for Submittal to City Council 10/31/20 Packet Pg. 58 6.2.b Page 5 of 8 Member Engagement. The Alliance wishes to focus on productive member engagement in 2021 and will encourage committee and board -wide involvement to better galvanize local business relationships and increase member involvement. To minimize cost, communication will continue primarily via email and the e-newsletter, with a printed update to be mailed to members once a year. A simple welcome kit will be assembled using the welcome brochure and additional informational materials for use with in -person new member outreach. Annual Member meeting will be held in April with notifications and ballots sent via post. ii. Public Relations. To increase community visibility, inspire member involvement, and strengthen the Ed! identity, the Alliance will continue to publish a sponsored -content bimonthly column in My Edmonds News. The Alliance will continue to promote bringing new businesses to Downtown Edmonds and build a continually improving business district. Partnering with existing organizations such as Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and DEMA will help to strengthen the mission of the Alliance and the shared objectives of our partner organizations. The Alliance will continue to partner with such organizations to further community priorities. iii. Events. The Alliance will continue to sponsor local events as appropriate, such as the Fourth of July, Taste Edmonds, or the Tree Lighting. D. Ed! Grant Program (Per Ordinance 3909, Items A, B, C, D, E and F) The Alliance will not be considering new grant requests due to budget 3 0 constraints in 2021, and the program's viability will be reviewed. In past years, the Alliance's Grant Program has helped harness the power of our local c business community. The program utilizes a grassroots approach to identifying w projects and allocating funds for approved grants as long as they fall within the c as Alliance's mission and scope of work provided in Ordinance 3909. Each E proposed grant will be reviewed by City staff for compliance with RCW 35.87A.010 and Edmonds City Code 3.75.030 prior to award of a grant. a Approved by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board for Submittal to City Council 10/31/20 Packet Pg. 59 Page 6 of 8 6.2.b E. Appearance and Environment (Per Ordinance 3909, Items B, C and D) i. Umbrella Program. The Alliance will maintain the existing umbrella program throughout Downtown Edmonds, but umbrellas will not require replenishment in 2021. As determined by business member feedback as well as member survey responses, the Alliance will maintain the program by providing umbrellas and umbrella stands in locations throughout the district, as well as maintenance, coordination and redistribution when it's safe to do so. ii. Parking. Members will continue working in concert with City efforts related to enhancing parking in Downtown Edmonds. In 2021 the Alliance will explore and consider ways to expand the existing After Hours parking program. The group will consider expenditures for design and installation of signage to improve parking location awareness, as well as other potential expenditure for identified parking - related improvements. Potential future funding for a larger capital expenditure related to parking improvements will be explored. iii. Creative Signage. Evaluate and implement creative signage to unify downtown messaging and encourage shopping local. II. PROPOSED SOURCES OF FUNDING A. Assessments Assessments will be collected in accordance with Ordinance 3909. B. Grants and Donations The 501(c)(3) organization formed by the Alliance may pursue and accept grants and donations from private institutions, the City, other public entities or individuals and other non-profit organizations, in accordance with State and Federal law. III. ANNUAL BUDGET A. Budgeted Revenue and Projected Fund Balance Approved by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board for Submittal to City Council 10/31/20 a Packet Pg. 60 Page 7 of 8 6.2.b The projected assessments collected for 2021 will be approximately $79,209. Together with the carry -forward of a projected 2020 year-end balance of $10,347, the result is an estimated $89,556 in projected available funds for expenditures in 2021. After budgeted expenditures, the projected 2021 fund balance should be $13,216 (16.7% of on -going revenue). Annual reserves are necessary for operating capital in each future year. The Alliance must have an annual reserve available to pay for ongoing programs and costs in advance of revenue. A detailed budget summary accompanies this Work Plan. B. Budgeted Expenditures In accordance with the scope of work as approved in Ordinance 3909, it is anticipated that the budgeted expenditures for the 2021 operating year of the Alliance will total $76,340 and are detailed as follows: Administration $24,905 Operating Expenses $905 Program Management $24,000 Marketing $42,505 Advertising/Social Media $5,500 Content Creation $13,800 Website $3,500 Holiday Events and Advertising $8,845 Summer Marketing Campaign $3,500 Theater Ads $360 Program Management $7,000 Communication and Outreach $3,730 Annual Meeting $1,000 Event Support $500 Member Communications $900 Approved by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board for Submittal to City Council 10/31/20 a Packet Pg. 61 Page 8 of 8 6.2.b My Edmonds News Outreach $330 Program Management $1,000 Appearance & Environment $5,200 After Hours Parking $3,000 Creative Messaging $1,000 Program Management $1,200 TOTAL BUDGETED EXPENDITURES $76,340 A. Unallocated Funds An unallocated fund balance of $10,347 is projected to be carried forward from 2020. The Alliance must submit a budget amendment to City of Edmonds Council for approval to use any unallocated funds not otherwise identified in this Work Plan and proposed Budget. B. General Provisions i. The Alliance shall make no expenditures other than in accordance with and pursuant to a Budget for which a total Annual Budget amount has been approved by the City. ii. In the event that in any given fiscal year the sources of funding and/or reserves held over from the previous year do not equal the total annual budget amount, the Alliance may choose to eliminate some expenditure in order to balance the budget. iii. The Alliance, at the conclusion of the fiscal year, will provide a detailed financial report in accordance with Ordinance 3909, as amended. Approved by Edmonds Downtown Alliance Board for Submittal to City Council 10/31/20 a Packet Pg. 62 6.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 A Resolution to Recommend Suspending the Issuance of Driving While License Suspended in the Third De Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History The Council discussed this resolution at the 11/24/20 meeting and voted to move it to the 12/1/20 Consent Agenda. This year, Councilmembers Paine and Distelhorst began gathering information from relevant stakeholders to determine if continuing to cite drivers with driving while license is suspended 3rd degree (DWLS III) was meeting social justice goals and to investigate opportunities for starting an Edmonds based relicensing program. This work included working with our Court, the City Prosecutor and Public Defender, and Acting Chief Lawless on program considerations and desired outcomes. Distelhorst and Paine presented their findings and recommendations to Mayor Nelson who expressed his full support. On November 5th, Mayor Nelson announced a General Order issued by Acting Chief Lawless to all Edmonds Police Department personnel stating that as a general practice, officers will no longer file a criminal case for the sole offense of Driving While License Suspended in the Third Degree. Instead, officers will cite and release the offender with the civil infraction of No Valid Operator's License with ID. Several exceptions were listed such as prior convictions for hit and run or vehicular homicide. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Council is asked to approve this resolution on the Consent Agenda. Attachments: 2020-11-05 DRAFT RESOLUTION DWLS3 final Packet Pg. 63 6.3.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DWLS III DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED THIRD DEGREE PROGRAM UTILIZING THE USE OF PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND OTHER METHODS PROMOTING SOCIAL EQUITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY. WHEREAS, Council acknowledges there are various reasons a person may have their license suspended in the third degree (DWLS III), ranging from failure to comply with the terms of a traffic infraction to more serious reasons such as failure to comply with state law provisions relating to uninsured accidents; and WHEREAS, Council recognizes that DWLS III is considered a "crime of poverty" that disproportionately impacts communities of color and lower -income drivers, therefore significantly harming vulnerable populations experiencing economic insecurity; and WHEREAS, Washington taxpayers have spent an estimated $1.3 billion plus enforcing this crime between 1994 and 2015 according to a 2017 report conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (ACLU), with each case costing an estimated $924; and WHEREAS, in 2019 the City of Edmonds spent an estimated $150,000 on prosecution, defense, and jail costs related to DWLS III; and WHEREAS, in 2019 DWLS III prosecution in the City of Edmonds accounted for approximately 25% of the public defender's case load, 59 nights in jail, and approximately doubled the case load of the Edmonds Municipal Court; and WHEREAS, DWLS III studies comparing Washington with states that do not treat DWLS III as a crime do not show increased road safety in Washington, indicating added prosecutorial resources have not resulted in improved public safety; and WHEREAS, the cities of Vancouver, Lynnwood, Yakima, Spokane, Seattle, and the counties of Snohomish, King, Spokane, and Clark are currently addressing incidents of persons driving with a suspended license third degree (DWLS III) through the issuance of the No Valid Operator's License II (NVOL II) infraction and through other criminal diversion or deferral processes; and WHEREAS, based on statewide research and statistics from Edmonds Municipal Court, the diversion of some DWLS III cases out of the criminal system would have positive benefits to community members, the city, and relevant justice stakeholders; and Packet Pg. 64 6.3.a WHEREAS, in 2020 Councilmembers Paine and Distelhorst began gathering information from relevant stakeholders to determine if continuing to cite drivers with DWLS III was meeting the city's goals of public safety and social justice, and whether it is the best use of limited city resources; and WHEREAS, Councilmembers Paine and Distelhorst approached Mayor Nelson explaining some of the concerns outlined above; and WHEREAS, Mayor Nelson and Acting Chief Lawless have since implemented a policy of issuing a citation for DWLS III only in certain circumstances in order to better balance social justice and equity, public safety, and effectively allocating limited city resources; and WHEREAS, Council believes this policy change maintains public safety and will contribute to the following goals: Goal 1. Social justice and equity Goal 2. Assisting eligible drivers in getting relicensed Goal 3. Effective allocation of limited City resources WHEREAS, the Council supports the use of City resources to be redirected toward a program supporting the relicensing of eligible drivers in appropriate circumstances; and WHEREAS, with the above goals in mind, the Council joins the Mayor in identifying this as an unmet need in our community and promoting work toward equitable and effective treatment of instances of DWLS III in the city; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council formally requests the Executive and Judicial departments and city prosecutor and public defense work together to design and implement a DWLS III Relicensing program to include the following elements: (1) The exercise of prosecutorial discretion to divert drivers who are struggling to pay traffic fines through the issuance of a No Valid Operator's License II (NVOL II) infraction and assisted in entering the Relicensing program; and then to ensure that drivers who present an immediate threat to public safety are prosecuted; (2) Our municipal court's participation in a program with other courts, such as the Unified Payment Program in order to assist relicensing efforts, or referrals to a nonprofit entity assisting drivers in becoming relicensed; (3) Continued utilization and promotion of the Court's existing Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs) petition; 2 Packet Pg. 65 6.3.a (4) Follow up to promote license reinstatement progress; (5) Data tracking and management to know whether and to what extent the program is achieving the desired effect of getting drivers relicensed. (6) Ongoing assessment of whether the program goals are being achieved and a report of program outcomes delivered to City Council annually. 2. Council envisions that prosecutorial discretion will include consideration of. (i) the basis for the underlying suspension and evaluation of its seriousness; (ii) an offender's criminal history, if any, (iii) any companion charge arising out of the same incident and the factual circumstances of that incident; (iv) whether the offender has pending charges in this court or other courts and the type of pending charge(s). RESOLVED this day of CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MICHAEL NELSON ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 66 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 Presentation and Public Hearing of the Proposed 2021-2026 Capital Improvements Program/Capital Facilities Plan Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On November 12, 2020, staff presented this item to the City Council. Staff Recommendation Consider public comment and discuss possible changes and/or forward both documents for adoption (with 2021 Budget) at the December 8th City Council Meeting. 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, removed 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 at the Planning Board meeting was held on November 12th. The minutes (draft for November 12th) from the Planning Board meetings are attached Packet Pg. 67 7.1 as Exhibits 4, 5 and 6. Letters from Save Our Marsh to the City Council and Planning Board are included as Exhibits 7 and 8. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Proposed 2021-2026 CFP Exhibit 2: Proposed 2021-2026 CIP Exhibit 3: CIP-CFP Comparison (2021-2026) Exhibit 4: 10/14/20 Planning Board Minutes Exhibit 5: 10/28/20 Planning Board Minutes Exhibit 6: 11/12/20 Draft Planning Board Minutes Exhibit 7 - SOM Letter to Council CFP-CIP Exhibit 8 - SOM Letter to Planning Board Nov 12th CFP-CIP Intro Presentation December 1st CFP-CIP Presentation Packet Pg. 68 7.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2021-2041 � 0F EDP O G �n f DRAFT 1 1 Packet Pg. 69 7.1.a El LL U U co N O N N O N O N O 0. O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L :i IL a- U-� ♦ V w N O N r N O N N N O O_ O L- E t v 2 r a Packet Pg. 70 7.1.a CFP GENERAL El U- U U m N 0 N N O N O N O am O L IL 4- 0 a� c �L :i Q. Q. U-� ♦ V w N O N r N O N N N O O_ O L- E t v 2 r a Packet Pg. 71 7.1.a El LL U U co N O N N O N O N O 0. O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L :i IL a- U-� ♦ V w N O N r N O N N N O O_ O L- E t v 2 r a Packet Pg. 72 kCi § ( �} � ;k - § }�\)2 S - t§ ; ° �2 ) a§ \�\2°` IL rz " " " " " Co \/) )\ \ �0 !§ C) Lu 2oe_, } Co 30 r 0 \k /\,/} \ k -:!k] §/ � CL \/\() \} k\ _f§( }0 -: !§k§7 =�0 ±§ \_ ! 2 ) { )\ D \k �� )) : E ! o.a. _« Lu - it :! \ \§0 -"Z E `£`°! /§)f`02 \ 7 a LL Q IL � CD C14 d 'o 0 0 (L 0 _ : CD _ � a IL b CD 2 k k 0 0 a � \ w k E / 2 Packet Pg. 73 7.1.a a LL t) a v CD N O N N O N d N O CL O L O _ �L CD IL a LL v co N O N N O N d N O om O L a s x w m E m a Packet Pg. 74 7.1.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. 75 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION 7.1.a 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 ttiis project may quality for 1 % for the Arts 8 Packet Pg. 76 7.1.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. 77 7.1.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. 78 7.1.a CFP TRANSPORTATION El U- U a_ U co N O N N O N O N O om O a O a� c m m x a a U- U co N O N N O N d N O Q. O L a z x w c m E z c� Q 11 Packet Pg. 79 7.1.a El LL U U co N O N N O N O N O 0. O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L :i IL a- U-� ♦ V w N O N r N O N N N O O_ O L- E t v 2 r a 12 Packet Pg. 80 7.1.a 0 N O N H Q 9 44 Q � O N O N e w � N O N w w C7 C7 C7 � K K K IL A� N NeS m me w VLL♦ a x m x m x mS ♦♦ S 8(p N CD U U U N a` a` a` � N 0 0 o X N N w N N Q oq G N � O L N ay8 ay8 p w w H u H c m m m -a�m." (O O LL O (q LL O LL O 41S LL O O1 LL O mgo 41 S LL O 4JS O (q iS LL O N LL O N LL O = — F tq F 41 F o 41 F 41 F N F N F — . N F tq H N H N f ^ li J m v N J ILL LL u LL Bi LL Bi d LL 8i � .y .yww N V N O N N o� 'e e o n ; O L 0o c c < < c c c I 1 C IL IL U U U U U U U U U U L w r O W a� 3cBi� �E� - ' o1W i FL U m v Ear, A N N N; N w. o a c�4 Yes m c PH P `v2m °' ^' 9N oY = 3 ' f EU cE 2rmc 2ro 2r 2r r+ SNP �wE 3 U�iE ¢ l2E`m U a'1° E m �5 A L o E U � N N � N L r Q ; RmN Q 30 3 30 3 13 1 Packet Pg. 81 7.1.a N N to N O N w as d' $ vi N N N N N N N N LL O °' ' 3 A" u' O LL O LL O_ O LL O N- O N a O LL O m N 41 F 41 F 41 F 41 F tq O F 41 F 41 u~ N H N c F 41 F li LL& �BLL, LL & LLE LL& LL� LL� LL� LL8i �i8i �i8id LL8i NN c a a e N V N F w 2 a w w w w w w S w S e u m m m Co - - - - - a m a - a - - - ot o a s U U U U U U U U U U U H 4 A 9' 2 A C9 00 a° o 1 1 y H 1 O a° a° o a° a° a° a° a° -- d E¢ do v$�—° 03 N c e� ge �E �`0 co,o Am m °a 3y Frn Fd �' Fo io FL d & WE 3 H 33OE 3 3o t �a Sa3 IC ,p 52 0 E.r c m �.." 9'`v'`Tv' v �.o m A�j�� 3't Qc 29 �n3E �; 2,c Q�a`m� 2 c Q�i €a_ 0 'a in _ actin €rn EyP E3 E3 aoa L o o N ' � 8 C C N c ro i W N N N I E`no w w F Q o 0 3 E N 3 O e2 N_ O � � 3 joc i=y NU ng m rv$ m41 �41 rvQ a LL V IL _ V CD N CD IL O N 4) O Q. O L 4- 0 •L CD IL IL LL v co N O N N 0 N CD N O 0. O aL x W C d m t� a 14 1 Packet Pg. 82 Nw r- N N w w N O N w w N N N w w » v o N - - N N N 0 N » w N N a So m eE aE sE sE sE aE eE sE s� sE aE sE s� N 3 @ 3 � 3S S S N 3 " °' °' S— O S LL O S o 0 9 S LL O m "" N LL O u' 3" S— O 3" S LL O u' 3 3 S — m O m LL 9 N— O N— O LL N O iS LL _ 41 o f 41 F 41 LL F tq f N F 41 f o 41 u F o f N ~ V N f 6 N F tq o H N H N H li LL LL u J u ii LL LL u ii LL LL LL LL LL N o N V N F «a «na w w «n w w w N - 2 - - -ZK 2 2 2 2 O N s o a` a C5 do a u I I I u u I u u 4 A U 4 (7 4 2U' y [7 g, n 1. a° a° a° a° a° a° a° a° a° y O o - O- ca oz N c c S°8 m a m N3c 3y o 0 d H _ cc 12 �� xN —� xNd o= o Y �a 33 d- a3�E azl .z9 2 0 xa, x�, c�c xin. c. xr'n 33 E 3No� . 9 m = Em 3£ E r B m YQ BS o E YN 9"+ ; 1 x c m m c y o p, Y E,� Y E,� YN a 3�5 ym g Ea g&o gE ry ImooE a` w H K E c 'c a m e d c Y o a 3 a _ S.gU�� a aai '3 a`Q amp a,co �= o:m w�� a '¢ maw .�° '¢ Ep° 5" a�� a`¢� a3� 19 a3 N I N 3 y O Y 3 J N N R Z N .F N N E O Z E x S o a S E N 3 0 > 2 a o N .O c Q > N Q d a a c y 8 g W y Y o y 3 Q N 6 m Q 7 ?i n W EN rn41 K $ NF O N 41 .F U E �Q 41 m41 E LL t) IL _ V CD N CD IL O N 4) N O Q. Q a O 0) �L Cp .a a IL �LL♦ V to N O N N O N 4) N O Q O aL �u W W� d m a 15 1 Packet Pg. 83 Cp to § \ \� \ ell ell ell eyiz ;7 yiz e7 of 18. a;!.w! 1.2 ƒf{} /{} {ƒ {{ IMO / k0 - - o !F |! /0 {! 0 {( z:! !!# ■` /; \k \k 2 |) 2 )K !* $a§ !! {{/ / E |: Z{ { \ �\ \!I !; - IN! .0 a b IL 0 CD 7 k k 0 0 � 0 _ � CD _ 2 � a a LL Q q q d 04 CD 0 a � \ w k E / 2 ffe, Packet Pg. 8 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: 2281h St. SW from Hwy. 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,800,000 to 95th PI. W a J r-5PERANCE ,•' _ 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. 85 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $184,000,000 Gateway/Revitalization a U- U a_ U N O N T- N O N d N O 0- 0 L. IL 4- 0 a� c •L R a� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement a sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access contro and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted U utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape o treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds. r N PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access N management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. y O SCHEDULE: The conceptual phase began in September 2017 and was completed in December 2018. , P project to install raised medians along the entire corridor from 244th St. SW to 212th ST. SW (to address a safety issues along the corridor) is underway. The addition of a HAWK signal between 228th St. and 238tr St. SW (specific location TBD) and gateway sign on the north and south ends are also included in this project. The design phase began in August 2020 and scheduled to be competed in November 2021. Thi: u, project is being funded through a $10M state allocation from the Connecting Washington transportation program. E COST BREAKDOWN r PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 a COST Planning/Study Engineering & $873,048 $927,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $41,000,OC Administration & ROW Construction $5,755,000 $129,000,0C 1 % for Art TOTAL $538,048 $5,755,000 $927,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $170,0001000 18 Packet Pg. 86 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,885,000 intersection improvements 21 g sw:T I i w W Paalung sign Shop / ? M1° 7313 P.u.6 3 Edmonds Edmonds / W Family Clinic ei ADD Publm%Torks KENNEL 21 1 27114 / f Arbor Apt. Q 27� / Nlla of 27109 / n lle Box / 212TH sr sw Z2 St M.- 7307,.5�• MIPIC a �' 7303"3' ^ n n Pool 7W4 "1" 7302 "2" PARK & RIDE 215TH W ST SW U o: W 0 a PLANT AEGIS yy SWEDISH m MDNnSCAM- ' ALLIED / ROOFING / / / / B&M / CON ST 21414 / 21448 / / / NCnONAL�' / 01 1ALUE / PILLAGE / 16 TH 5T/S W 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- U a U N O N IL O N N 0 0- 0 a O i .L R 1.� d LL U N O N r N O N a� to 0 0- 0 a r t X w a� r Q 19 1 Packet Pg. 87 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,442,000 intersection improvements 214121412 w 13� 214021408 12> 21405 04 LU N I{ U 120L< MCDC2i431 Ln zLn 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 1 $340,000 $1,892,000 a U_ U a U N O N N O N O 0- 0 IL 0 a� c a� 2 3 d d LL U to N O N r N O N a� N O a O L r x w r a� E r Q 20 1 Packet Pg. 88 7.1.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. 89 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,300,000 intersection improvements ESPEMNCE y :it'i ,i�1Y FS - 11202 S7ND PL W �• �I� 2f731 F �WAD PLj," 7731 -oi ra:xn Ik o5...-... J � D All 5 � �� r7tl7 i� � Y]406■�� i.l i'S 1717 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 a U_ U a_ U W N O N N O N N O Q 0 a 0 a� c �L :i a a U_ U W N O N V_ N O N N N O a O L a r Z x w r c as E U 2 a 22 1 Packet Pg. 90 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: 19611 St. SW (SR-524) @ ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $930,000 88t" Ave. W Intersection Improvements �r 3 _ w a_ .~a I m :VEN DAY WENTIST :HURCH 4 19eTM 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 1 Packet Pg. 91 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9'" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $925,000 N Q x J __J1 MH__JI __�, BELL ST UJ a I - � P MAIN ST WADE DAMES � TH EATE R L � W� a r H oavraN n PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal or mini -roundabout. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015 Transportation Plan. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 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 24 1 Packet Pg. 92 7.1.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 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 a LL U IL_ U N N N O N d N 0 0- 0 L IL 0 si a a LL U N O N r N O N a� N 0 a 0 a r x w r a� E r r Q 25 1 Packet Pg. 93 7.1.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. 94 7.1.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. 95 7.1.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 a U- U IL_ U co N O N N 0 N 0 0 0M 0 IL 0 a� 0 m x a IL U- U co N O N N 0 N as 0 am 0 a x w E 0 Q 28 1 Packet Pg. 96 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 7611 Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: W Intersection Improvements $1,219,000 F N SEAVIEW PARK 3 PLSW 186TH ST SW m m I I I I I 1 . 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 a_ U N O N T- N O N a� N O 0- 0 L. IL 4- 0 a� c •L R a� 3 d iL - U N O N N O N a� N O a O a r x w r r- 0 U r a 29 1 Packet Pg. 97 7.1.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. 98 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 10011 Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 Intersection Improvements / Access Management QFC 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 a LL U a U N O N IL N d N O 0- 0 ILL. 4- 0 a� c •L R d 2 3 d U_ U N 0 N N O N a� N O a O a r a� t X w r c 0 E r r Q 31 1 Packet Pg. 99 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000 Intersection Improvements ILI 1 w: .W..%-ar l' i'V 240TA PL SW 'Iwhl I Sw HT -LW 242HIQ� '1"'r" -r i42N0 PL SW _ i ... r ` �, • �' ire i ! .� L so d 0 W J � L�,f,ON05 WAY Y78 Rq ` LAKE 8AL C ING[-R WAY_ - _ - -- _ MP EOMONOS WAY _ . _ - ._ - _ . • p N - - - -LILCE gACLJ14GEi�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. 100 7.1.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 6WI St. Thomas Moore —� a e I Catholic School B Ilfield � 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 a U- U a U N N T" N O N O 0- 0 a 0 a� c a� ci 3 d d U N O N r N O N a� N O a O L a r x w r r- d E r r a 33 1 Packet Pg. 101 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,050,000 from Bell St to Caspers St. WMAL ♦ ♦ �� I■� 11111■0 I ��' IIIIIII 1■S■milli 1 ■ 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 LL U a_ U N O N N O N d N O 0- 0 a 0 •L 3 a a U- U to N O N N O N N O Q O L a r x w a� E r r Q 34 1 Packet Pg. 102 7.1.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,A AA mAA n� iwnRs LLI �a� ! 2 . 1 �i IF Al. 10 UUT H ' CHURCH R:t + a �' ■ AW �I o �a - 1 zLL ODWa ' ' I ESTATES AY PARK d I 29 q Dorn 9 8 7 622 5 V • ' ti 39 23 71 14 7• O J 432 45 11 32 N ■ ■ � N N ,r a `r 0. 7 1 - ■ ■ T- ■ 73373 733,E 0 sssostM is 1 � ■ i e ■ �LL ■ a x M 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 3 a IL w U co N O N N O N d N 0 0M 0 L a x w c a� E 0 Q 35 1 Packet Pg. 103 7.1.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. 104 7.1.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. 105 7.1.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. 106 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: 21811 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,346,000 from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W MENNEN YEMEN ■� ' N ■��4 11 •l■ �' ''� ' ■■E N 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. 107 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. from 6t" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $216,000 to 7t" Ave. S ALDER 5T Ma, 12 In M 04 a LA _ %.,..... .- rT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 7tn Ave. S. Install sidewalk on the south side of Walnut St. from 6t" 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 a U- U a U N O N T" N O N a) N O 0- 0 L. IL 4- 0 a� c •L R a� 3 d d U- U to N 0 N r N 0 N a) N 0 a O a r x w r c E r r Q 40 1 Packet Pg. 108 7.1.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. 109 7.1.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. 110 7.1.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. 111 7.1.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. 112 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: Railroad Ave. Sidewalk from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $890,000 Dayton St. to SR-104 Fa Mq�Nsr � s c' o pOS F hJ � 5� a oq P `- �Fq�fi lq ME5 S1 41P ` 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. 113 7.1.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 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 E U_ U a U N O N N 0 N O 0- 0 IL O C �L R 2 3 d a U_ U to N O N r N O N a� N O Q O ILL_ r x w r c d r r Q 46 Packet Pg. 114 7.1.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. 115 7.1.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. 116 7.1.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. 117 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $648,000 from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W 1� i r 192ND PL 5W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 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. 118 7.1.a PROJECT NAME: 104th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,019,000 from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 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. 119 7.1.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 -------�--�T T---------------220TH STSW— 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. 120 7.1.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 ' G r ri 186TH ST W m i ■-d6 WF-` ' ,7 -I ■ w L i M—m mm m d r■ ■ 18 TH 5 5W ■ 188TH 5T 5W ~M 4E L I 1 ` IL WI 1 WJL.. 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 a U N O N N N d N O 0- 0 a 0 a� c �L R x 3 d U- U N 0 N N 0 N a� N O 0- 0 L r Z x w E r r Q 53 1 Packet Pg. 121 7.1.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. 122 7.1.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•X LO •h: P Q , BROOK R AURORA rotas - . ` S MARKETPLACE T FAMILYPANCAKE 1 L_ r H V :� -j ' I 238TH ST SW seouL L821 ■ ■ PLAZA _ 1 ■ f I`1 ' . 23827 �DG' TRAVEL LOE ST. FRANCIS -MISISON TACOTIM MOTEL . . . - ■ WHSE ■ ■ _+ K&EMOTEL ' 1 ■ AI, hil TA RVII I F 1 ■ ■ ■ , IN ■ ■ 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 LL U a_ U N O N Tmm 0 N 0 a 0 a` 0 M a) V a IL U- U ra N 0 N N 0 N d 0 Q. 0 L IL Z x w c a� E Q 55 1 Packet Pg. 123 7.1.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 O N a� N O a O L r a+ x w r a� E U 2 a 56 Packet Pg. 124 7.1.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. 125 7.1.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. 126 7.1.a CFP STORMWATER e z� El LL U U co N O N N O N O N O 0. O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L :i Q. Q. U-� ♦ V w N O N r N O N N N O O_ O L Q. r t X W r C d t u 2 a+ a 59 1 Packet Pg. 127 7.1.a El LL U U co N O N N O N O N O 0. O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L :i IL a- U-� ♦ V w N O N r N O N N N O O_ O L- E t v 2 r a 60 1 Packet Pg. 128 E, LL U N N U O d ° N N d N w « N � w = M N O U 3 N LL (j m O QN m U a N 0 0 0 ' N N O O O O O O N N O Iq W N � EA Ay y N O O e O O O N N c N N O O O O O N N O ON1 M N � � p N O O O O o ER ER N 0 o e N N � U O N E lV c j to (n H � O ILL N E m N p o 0o e N N p u p O N ry � L U C C c d 00 m 0 a c O m a _ p � f0 10 O a d m .L.. C O C E y j N or 3 o.2 m c od°mom r E�aa E`oa 4E y UI C 'O a l�1 d C 0 `Q E2 y Sm-p m N 6 O O F L Y 6 -o E2> o E E? o E m W L O N C y y p a ° m o N U "00 O N C U 2>'O 6 > -0 d o '1°p amomEyt a N N U U d m C C 0 r aL S i :E a E E m N C O `o .J E for m z z O •O W aL E U m N O IL � c y O E W� o 0 O A � O N O M O c W O N N N o N M N T fR O o N � O LA N O N fA `O N O 0 A � O L[j O � `O O O 7.1.a LL to J O p N O R M M ONl ER M N N £ N A MM N ILA I , j N O N N n N O o o y o 0 o CD m > A o m N N N N O d m d d N Gi (I//�.% y j N F 2 O j >i LL (n lL Q .• E O ON U p N .6 m o a yO~ 0 m d m m a C c d y p Q a% �L O H C1�^, W o O N n N A V SON tMo M m A IL c d m LL o V CD a N O c LL04 U � m m O r GOT ~ o N V W N O � d U O IL � o r U N m y+ N d U W m c C �= m a dC Q c G y � C L O U E � N O � � O C d � N N N l6 L EL T U 0 l6 3 d N Packet Pg. 129 61 7.1.a El LL U d U N O N N O N d N O 0. O L. a 4- 0 a) c �L d ci 3 d a a_ U to N O N N O N O N O O_ O L- a. r a+ L X W r C d E L v R r Q 62 1 Packet Pg. 130 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. 131 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION 7.1.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 :=M Eng. & Admin. $40,000 $40,000 Construction $338,000 In 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 O N N O N CD N O a 0 a r x w r c as E U M a 64 1 Packet Pg. 132 7.1.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 W 87th • 18f ._ . 4O.P 1- Proposed Phase 2 ♦� i72n � � Y o IP iP � • r 173 d Nc w IP t j t. n ip o - 175th -4 o rP l p � + 1 = 2 M 77t 1 7 h I i. 4 78th s 79th r a 1 Oth orno 1815 Distribution Chamber _-_-__-_o— e 18 rid Diversion Structure \� rP Inspection Port l© Swirl Concentrator ss` 'E Well er Gual,ty rnalure) � Modi}y flow -"yt� M r` Limits Phase 1 exist. diversion structure s h 0 : of i4r 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. 133 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2021-2026 EDP z DRAFT Packet Pg. 134 7.1.b a a_ U d U N O N N O N d fA O 0. O L. IL 4- 0 a� c •L a� IL IL_ U N O N r N O N N O CL O L IL N L X W r C d E t v R r .r Q Packet Pg. 135 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. 136 7.1.b a a_ U d U N O N N O N d fA O 0. O L. IL 4- 0 a� c •L a� IL IL_ U N O N r N O N N O CL O L IL N L X W r C d E t v R r .r Q Packet Pg. 137 Cip GENERAL El U. V a_ U co N 0 N N O N d N O 0. O L. a 4- 0 a� c �L :i a IL v w N O N T- N O N N N O 0. O L a N t X W r C d E t v .r a Packet Pg. 138 7.1.b a a_ U d U N O N N O N d fA O 0. O L. IL 4- 0 a� c •L a� IL IL_ U N O N r N O N N O CL O L IL N L X W r C d E t v R r .r Q Packet Pg. 139 7.1.b N O N N O N w N V d 0 a 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Lp N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O LO LL7 O O Lfl LLD O LO G O O O OD GOOD LLDO N Nf-00hN W C• LO0 Lo Lfl 7 V)V3 V) F N Co "T V> V3 Co 69,63 N 7 O CV 7 U'7 V) V3 7 0 V) 7 N V) V) co V) 69163 O Vi V3 V3 N 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O C) O O O C,O O O C,O O O C,O O O O O O O C O O O O Lo 0 0 0 0 0 (D O N p O O Lo V) N O Q4 O V) Lo 0 V) Co Lo N to V) N IS V3 V3 V3 V) V) 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 O Ln N N LOo 0LW) W)10A C, LW)O COO N 2 Va En _o 69 Co V) 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 CD CD 0 0 0000o00O00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 a LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N NLO Lo LL7 Lo LO Ln000 CO p N V> V3 V) V3 6s V3 6s V3 Co V) V3 V) V) O O O O O CD 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o _ O Cl) N O O LO LO O LA C,O 0C,0 C,o 0 0 0 LoO O CO N V> V3 V) LO O � V) ( V) V) V) 000o gCD CD 0000 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O O U') p Lo COO O o00 V) N V) V3 V) Z (.031 V) V) V3 Oo Coco 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 00 O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O LO O O LO O L17 O t0 O LO Lo LV p N O LO 69 V! 61 V3 V) V) V3 CO N a G o ° Co r' r' r' r' 0 0 Co 0 o °30 orn ?� a ?� ?� o°�O�O�rnrnrnrn o CD 0 U LON0 N E Va E nY a) E E E E o aa . Ln n VO N_ UE EUUUU EEEEQij `O� EEE o UUUUUU U ULD a LL U U N N C m (A Cl C U 0 N N p C (D m U m a 3^y^� - m O J C 3UCc 0> >m CD C N a> E C6 O UUCm C O m m E YCm LLUN O2 D, (V U 2 E d m= 0"O M o 2 O m@ O d 6 CO Cl y O O U o U N a) i1 C O i1 O p �. N C N +CS Cn ` N C C6 W m fn 3 _7 X O Co U U 'O = N E m C O N a) N 7Cu +N+ @ a7 Co 03 U -0= CO =i C C N �. m C� ¢ CO? O U Cu 0- N O d a1 D❑ O C; _ N 0. C a) Ca) C¢ O o U X C` W _ 'O d U N W fA N m "6 N 3 C z > N oY>o- N t 2 �. -O l6 al C l6 •CO Y o d od y 4? C N0��0 > .O C C ._ N C �C U O rnU N 01 c a) LL CC6 O dc�a C .� U O ¢ LL 01 T U LL2mc3w O U L1 O W- m U 01 .� LL@ n C O G N m U O U j > N N 0 N .0 a) a) Q r i a) O C U 'C T m m N Q IL a) m N m> Y LL W U m ZL > "6 a fn LLIE (� C U d 0 .2 N CI .T. O N O (� a "O 0 C) •l W Z, C6 � > O m .O. i � j .� f0 f�6 (L.i x O Z, (n m � � Z,'� w 'O y�..L ¢O=y'�a�mo=�a>i cwa W V 2U L N wv¢¢Ua UU LL ` mU..2LLL� n € wLL y� y� E 3Ucn W Q�xa x y¢ LLU 7 IL o 0 ¢ dM 7_ W O_. M LL c 5 c d Co a) .2 In W U d U U m d m»¢ 2 W x 2 m LL LL mach LL J oxxcn LL} U U LL main ¢ U �._._ LL Z- U U m m-cna U z 2 LL � U U 3 ¢� O LL d U) IL a_ V IL v Co N O N T- N O N d N O Q O L a O Im L d V 7 a a_ U to N O N N O N d N O Q. O L a N t x W d E t t,1 m a Packet Pg. 140 7.1.b www o 0 LS fA O O O CS fA O O O O Ln C O O O O O O LL70 (N eO C O O O O O O LL70 r� Lnr� CSS9 O O O LO rnrno 0 N a) N N l0 V) O. Cl 0 U U N tll C @ m Cl (D d E C _ a) C N N U C @ U a) E LL d 0 0 C C C 7 O N a O @ .CO ' $ 2 a m a �� fpaLLLL E o `o O mU N LL 'E N o�U U a N c 'a w 60 O 6 C@ a O L 6 3 a�i E LL 3iitq Y a a a aaN i>-LL'aLL.2Ld C C N O eR O C N 0 LO w 0 0 R C co W w N O N Ln N O N V N N M N N N N N N N N N 0 Cn O 0 N c N o N d a) N C N L O (D L (D N Cc N LL U o@ N m N_N_ n a LL Cl `p C,C(n O m C l0 C LL O LL C @ LL E � N 7 m c W W 0 y O N LL w @ E s m a)ww U K 2' 0" >c aC E EU O y @ c UEEE'aoO O °0=LL 0 -c o o o� W 0 :3 a LL C C C C LL C)a)LL- oU C O O O d O otS N@ 2 d C°.�@. 322 N 0 LL � V% N 0.'0005�: O O O C a a) @— K�:EU @ a O fH w CEO oo a M M LL � � V IL wgo w O N M CD`> O �? N � � � r N O N woo w 70 O C d o� N O v_ fn '^ O L a w O wgo 0� cO � �L 64 w V woo O O O a 00 q 7 �00 a a_ U co N O N w o w o N v1 Ln V :2 N N N N O Q. O L a 3 C N @ t K LU C d E t a 11 Packet Pg. 141 7.1.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 2 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. 142 7.1.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 fA 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 `Qd m��2 �� fn mfn mfnNN N�aOD W N> >� Nm mir 10 Packet Pg. 143 7.1.b 44 11 Packet Pg. 144 7.1.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 "LmOmmm 12 CO marn> E E O >ca YoE aUm vpOa.o LU vLLC C E 'd°: vN da>omEO oa c Ov N2 Z d m`m Ydvmo` m ". m o o mm E m` CL� • m m0om U C ` "O a =O U LL Cf ' Y m> E mc> t> odo a c ¢U LLo2222 om ma a � wo¢m� 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. 145 7.1.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 � O1 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. 146 7.1.b O M w O c0 a r o O> N O 60i 7 C4 O O O N 0 0 0 A V O O Cl! 7 fl f0 W N N M al G N ev e» ei Nq my O N M N O N M_ O C N r A M GI U) CO N N M 01 N ev e» ei Nq my O N M N A N OI LL� M O N (O O O A m v N A N N W N N M o EA EA EA N� � O N m oo �n �n vl A O O N O N O N N M M OD A N N M N N N M O N EA EA V3 N� O N O O A O m ,I P 0 0 N M N CD N N N m w N N N O m A OI N O V N N A V 0 m N N M N its cn of N W O N IL 0 y O 730 0 @ a N E o N N m N � W 0 N O N ILL) U U a N N a - U E m mUrna d v W O m c U)Q d LL ZJ 0. U)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 fA 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� 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 O O p o p O <p p o O O o o O N O Fn H3 N es O O O O o O o m o Cl o O O Lt] O LL] W O Co Ln 0 o O r O M W w M OO)M NN EA H3 d3 H3 fA x H x U N N T N > > L j U 3 a N N L l6 % U (~AO N OL-'E N O Mo G 'o ENO - No � a m E m o 'g 2L> O o a `m o U) E t0 OO a C C i cN o N U)— c7 U O m N E L ° o � 'oEEo N c l6 0 N a6 v) c A 20 N c o a o°�E cy oc oc o �ww ad oo 0a- d LoL 3 U m �— m cY 3U a— c>m mO l6 (nO"' L ic; o ao E oo 3 EO a a�D�2NN W NHHUUHamH _ w A N N M N d d 76 IL U. V IL v to N O N N O N d N O Q O L a 4- 0 Im C •L 2 V IL IL _ U to N O N 1 N O N d N O am O L a N t K W d E V cv WI a 14 Packet Pg. 147 7.1.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. 148 7.1.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 � 61 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. 149 7.1.b N O N N N O N N O N a G d O m N E 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 O R U Ui a O O O O O O O � O CD m r N N C° CD O CD CD O O O O Vi Vi Vi V)ViM C o 00 O M V 00 V C f) CD r V N V)OO M O O V)Vi O Co O O N CD N O W O Fla V) �N�CoO�Min (o N 61, Ch Ch V V V EA V) V) V) V) V) V) M O N M M CA Co U) C1 V3 V) N M O O Co r uS CoLO LO C 1 V) V) Vi O M O M M O C° Co C° V) V) &�, VJ � Co W r� O CD Co CLO C6 V) � v_ CO Cfl Co Co O V N V) V) O O O O O O M CC) - O A O O CoO O r Vi V) ��i N V N V) v� nvv 0 NO p- CCo OM r N CO O V M ilzC2 M N O N Co O O M V � V r� V CA M� V) V) X X 0 0 Cri c E O O O O O O O O O O N to O C Eww E E EEEEEE a E E E Co Co — aa) U m Co Co CoCo @ O @ O @ O C n CT O O @ @ O O @ O 4 C O> pad- d d dddddd O c L m Co c E E E ro ro m m m m m m o � a E E EEEEEE� aci y 7 O O U Cn U >� Cn U >� U U U U U U N aa) dd N m N m N m Co Co m m Co Co m m Co ° >'m JMQ)aQi aai a�U y d 'C t "O M cc m 3 C O 3 C C O 3 C C 3 3 C C 3 3 C C 3 C m a) C N a) a1 CD r 1'-006 L 3 E o ¢�¢�¢¢¢¢¢¢a)>m a > �¢�� a°i m� m��`°� E¢� Co a) of o7 m m ro o m m m m m m o m U m m d G 7 C o c O CCj o C o CC o o CC o o Cq Cn CO o CNJ (no¢¢ d N d N d dddd dLL Cn d NU M O M r N r CO Vi CN Cl! Co M N N Vi Vi CD (1 M Vi COf1 M vq W M w M V V Vi 60) r O O Vi r O of Co cc Co a 00 w a_ r r V a v LO to LO r Vk r N C to N to N N V Fri V Fri � ON N CD to 09 � (A (T CIi uS W p W W Q. 0 Vk a M O M 4- C r 0 Vi 1- 0 = M Vi M Vi V r O OW r V O V 3 CD (P � o CT a 04 C a_ U co N LO C N to 04 Le Va n Fy N G N v a to v 'o d Vk 41) O Q O L a N t K W C N O d �N.. E m C O` a ++ 3� J °0 N a) .6 w_ L m E d U ECa' D a. y ¢ cn E m E �¢ m m F d' d F H 17 1 0 Packet Pg. 7.1.b tc N 0 N N N O N N N O N N O N V d w c 0 p p 0) m O a. a � y N c ' W N L > W N O E 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 r (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 Co 'N a E U `m Co N fn Co rn o m � R r o £ LO O!kN fA y IL LL X U 0 Q 0 a a Q d N 0 E N O m m 0 fD N o = V _ � O O N C Z a w 0 o F C9 IL LL V IL v co N CD T- N O N d N O Q O L a 4- 0 am C �L d V IL IL_ U to N O N N O N d N O Q O L a N t X W y.i C d E t U cv a 18 Packet Pg. 1 1771 7.1.b \ Lo 2co k _ 04 co ■ Lo to � \ Go 04 04 k� NE - "w / 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 § FLU 3 ] ) 2w IL b IL a CD 7 \ 13 0 0 IL 0 Im _ 4) _ v � IL a Q CD C� d q 0 0 0 a � \ w k E / 2 19 1 Packet Pg. 15 7.1.b a N R O N O F N O N 0 N O N LO N O N 0 N O N N O N N 0 N O N U M N N O O N N N O N N O N IL G m o EN o. N H W IL LL U E R a_ 0 a i N � C E a E > N W 0CL 3 —° a h Z Of Ec y W v O 3 a U ri in O O O O M O h OuiO OOh Efl000000 m 0) w 000>I� � (O Vi (OO 000(00(ONN00 IS OMO(000>(O �(OMM MN OVi (OMWN OOM (D N Vi(O Vi O>N M"T mM "O �V> Vi ViV>V>V>�� o� n_ ui C v M cc N 4i Efl 44 O CD O M O 7 O Cq Vi N 4i O o Co Co o r-v 0) (0 0 N V3 O M N (O � 4i Eli Efl N Il- N (O u') O O Co V O mL 4i Lo (O n O LO N (O (O N M Co Vi Vi 0 CD O CoC.OD O 0 0 O (OO cD CD N h CD O m 44 MV3 � 4i 4i O N M (n (O n Lo Co Cq M N M 00 Eli N N O O N O N N O O N N O O N O N N N ��,� 21L N N v N V) V) C C V) V) C C V) C C C C N N E E N N E E N E E E E > > > > > N Cl >> > 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O N N as aEEEEErr 0 0 0 0 0 E E E — — — — m Co r r r r r o o L tt N N t NLL' m m m m LL' m _: LL' l0 l0 aD a a a a c.:5 Z U m (D(D 033333 a 3 a3i a3i a0U)U)U))U)U) 3 3a Y L Co Co >.Co----- O) O) U 7 7 O 7 C C C C U C d U m d ° c c> c c c c c c a a > ¢ ¢ 0 Q QMr-a0Ua> 2:7 N mU U ° C N N N N N N N N C 7 N t t (V O t t t t t t C UoaaNaMMMMM v¢ N O O N Vi u4 N N a v rn rn N N VT 49 CD CD v v v Co Co C C M Cl) 40 Vi CoNVO ONO oc Q1 M M Ib& 4MA Co0°V> 000 rn rn W 000 40 � IA V) r °V> � N Cl! O O CoN°VT W oc Cc R 7 Co OD R 7 N N EA V) V °V) V O O N N Vi V) O N V) N rn rn r-r- 0 0 LQ u', � � N C N E m N N 7 E CO = W d ° 3 U o a.0 xf LL 3 xS L O U aci c Q? m .6 E F 3 a)F U m F C � 01 01 N N Q 7 N od o c c E y avi o m m m m m din o N a o Ot a Of E o 01 01 C J J J ID F � F F IL LL V IL V CD N O N r N O N d N O Q 0 a 4- 0 Im C 'L d V IL IL _ U to N O N N O N d N O Q O L a N x W y.+ _ d E t t,1 a 20 Packet Pg. 153 7.1.b 6'�O� N _ N W H N �? O N EA 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 EA fA O V9 6f 1 N �; 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 to O 613 '-' Vk� - , O o o0 O C O O C O^ O 0 ogo C N O LO N N O V N N O O O O N O EA fR V3 V3 N 43 fR N N 0 N 0 CD CD C O o CD o 00 o O O^O O 0 y o O N CD CD CD 0o N 0 LO CD CD CD Oi Ov 'O O o O fA N N! L V9 » aCD r r O O 1� O CD O^ 1- (D lC lD C O O O to O WM N (O N N �O N O O O O N f, CDN 1- N a)O O N EA Q9! N d'T N OD V3 V3 N � �- N � N Lo O O O O O O CD O C O O O N N O O O Ih GCD N -q N N Ui N N V3 Qk N N V3 ER fA fA � to o � o rn rn 0 a> o 0 -- M rnCD w N N N y C O O N N N W W W N E 0 CD C4 CD w N 0 N O N N O is N y di If) �? W 61� 61� W a LL U a y U °1 y n C R N CD W T E a N U O) L Co N y a O NO a) a C W w O L F O w N � O O O d a7 7 U O N 7 C a1 c 3 = c o O cc C S o w 42 2 a 7 s o c u > W o Co _smo Ccdda> aass � 0 c Q a N c 3 m O O N a7 U Sr V N d N U U U O y ayi I. N W C URO W - u con2 ' O = C 0 N N C C a) a0+ p N > C al cn m N N N N N f6 f6 U LL m UUD F a am C C�(7 y FF W U y IL a_ C) IL v CD N O N IL Q N d N O Q O L a 4- 0 Im C �L 4) U 7 IL a_ U co N O N N O N d N O 0. O L a N t K W y.+ _ d E t a 21 Packet Pg. 154 7.1.b a a_ U a U co N O N N O N d N O 0. O L 4- 0 �L d ci 3 a IL_ U m N O N N O N d N O O_ O L- a. N t X W r C d E t v R r Q 22 1 Packet Pg. 155 CIP El U. V a_ U co PARKS N O N d N O 0. 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONSL. 0 �L :i a a v w N O N T- N O N N N O O. O L a N t X W r C d t v .r a EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION EATION & CULTURAL SERVICES 23 1 Packet Pg. 156 El LL v a_ U co N O N N O N d N O 0. O L. a 4- 0 a� c �L :i IL IL v m N O N T- N O N N N O 0. O L a N t X W r C d E t v .r a 24 1 Packet Pg. 157 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 125 - CAPITAL PROJECTS (,-,-:EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 25 1 Packet Pg. 158 El LL v a_ U co N O N N O N d N O 0. O L. a 4- 0 a� c �L :i IL IL v m N O N T- N O N N N O 0. O L a N t X W r C d E t v .r a 26 1 Packet Pg. 159 7.1.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. 160 7.1.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. 161 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. 162 7.1.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. 163 7.1.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. 164 7.1.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. 165 7.1.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. 166 7.1.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. 167 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 126 - SPECIAL CAPITAL / PARKS ACQUISITION EDMONDS PAR!(S, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES 35 1 Packet Pg. 168 El LL v a_ U co N O N N O N d N O 0. O L. a 4- 0 a� c �L :i IL IL v m N O N T- N O N N N O 0. O L a N t X W r C d E t v .r a 36 1 Packet Pg. 169 7.1.b I PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved Capital ESTIMATED COST: $2,400,768 Projects ---------- �~ 41f !- 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. 170 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. 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. 171 7.1.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. 172 7.1.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. 173 CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 332 - PARKS CONSTRUCTION EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 41 1 Packet Pg. 174 El LL v a_ U co N O N N O N d N O 0. O L. a 4- 0 a� c �L :i IL IL v m N O N T- N O N N N O 0. O L a N t X W r C d E t v .r a 42 1 Packet Pg. 175 7.1.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. 176 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. 177 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. 178 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. 179 7.1.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. 180 7.1.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. 181 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2020 TO 2021) 7.1.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 Greenhouse Replacement I lReplacement of aging greenhouse 421 Phase 17 Annual Replacement Program (2027) Estimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 2021 Waterline Overlays 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 LL U a_ U co N O N r N O N a� N 0 0_ 0 L a 4- 0 c �L a� 2 v 0 d m N 0 N rr N 0 N c 0 �L Q E 0 U d u_ U d U ai t K W a+ C d E t v r Q Page 1 of 3 1 Packet Pg. 182 7.1.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 Project near completion 126 Waterfront Re -development I X lCompleted in 2020 332 1 Waterfront Re -development I X lCompleted in 2020 None I 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 U co N O N r N O N a� N O 0- 0 a 4- 0 c �L c� a� 2 v d co N O N r N O N C O �L E O U d u_ U d U ai t K W a+ C d E t v O r Q Page 2 of 3 1 Packet Pg. 183 7.1.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 El u_ U U co N O N r N O N a� N 0 0_ 0 a 4- 0 a� c �L c� a� 2 U 0 d co N 0 N r N O N c 0 �L Q E 0 U d u_ U d U ri t K W r-� C d E t v r Q Page 3 of 3 1 Packet Pg. 184 7.1.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. 185 7.1.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. 186 7.1.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. 187 7.1.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. 188 7.1.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. 189 7.1.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. 190 7.1.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. 191 7.1.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. 192 • 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. 193 7.1.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. 194 7.1.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. 195 7.1.e 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. 196 7.1.e 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 181. 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 27'. 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 10 ' agenda, and the public hearing would follow on November 24t''. Mr. Chave noted that the Planning Board's next meeting isn't until November 18th. 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 the public notice process for this one hearing. Postponing the hearing would disrupt the City Council's process and create Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 197 7.1.e 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 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 Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 198 7.1.e 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 (REET). • Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET. • Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. It is funded by grants. • Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. Mr. English shared 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 7' Avenue to 8' 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 234' 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 78th Avenue, and 80' Avenue from 228' Street Southwest to 2201h 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 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 801h Avenue and another on SR-104 at about 2321 Street) and 7 Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 199 7.1.e rapid -flashing beacons at nine different intersection. It also includes Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements to crosswalks at different locations within the City. • 76" Street Overlay. The City received a Federal grant to overlay 76t' 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 91h 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 9' 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. 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 2" d 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. • 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. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 200 7.1.e 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 24' 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 11t, and the request was for $500,000. The City's grant application for the Local Park Category scored 19' 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. 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). Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 201 7.1.e 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 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. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 202 7.1.e 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 ratepayers 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 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. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 203 7.1.e Board Member Monroe summarized that, as per staffs 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 staff s 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 4t' 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 3rd 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: • Goal LA — 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. The draft regulations are intended to accomplish this goal. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 204 7.1.e Goal LB — Adopt a policy of o net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. The draft regulations do not specifically adopt that policy, but it was taken into consideration when they were written. Goal 1. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. Goal LD — Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. This goal specifically notes to include tree penalties in the code. Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10. There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC). Mr. Lien advised that there is some urgency associated with the Tree Code. A development moratorium for subdivisions and short plats was proposed to be placed on the City Council's October 27t' agenda, but it was postponed to their first meeting in November. The proposal would place a moratorium on subdivisions until the Tree Code is done. He reviewed the schedule for the Board's work on the draft Tree Code, which will involve two work session on October 28t' and November 18t'', and a public hearing on December 9th. He is also scheduled to present the draft Tree code to the Tree Board the first week of November, and the City's Tree Team will continue to review the draft and provide input, as well. • ECDC 23.10.000 — Intent and Purpose. Mr. Lien explained that he reviewed tree codes from a number of jurisdictions and picked pieces of each one that he felt would fit with the City of Edmonds and then tweaked them as needed. He noted that Items E and F in this section are in the current tree regulations. He expressed his belief that the 9 items in the section outline the purpose and intent of the Tree Code and match up with the goals in the UFMP. They focus on: • Retaining trees with development, preserving the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate. • Promoting site planning and building development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation. • Avoiding unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural environment. • Providing landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas. • Encouraging tree retention by providing flexibility with respect to certain development requirements. • Retaining as many viable trees as possible. • Mitigating the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy throughout the City. • Implementing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. • Implementing the goals and objectives of the UFMP. Board Member Rubenkonig said she will submit some edits to staff. In addition, she suggested that the term "aesthetic character of the City," which is used in Item A, should be defined. She referred to the term, "realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property," which is used in Item F. While this is likely a legal phrase that the City and developers would use to allow room for flexibility, she felt it should be clarified. Mr. Lien invited the Board Members to send their comments related to topographical errors to him so they can be incorporated into future versions of the Tree Code. He said he would provide underline/strike out versions to illustrate where changes were made. Mr. Lien reminded them that the Intent and Purpose Section is intended to explain the philosophy behind the regulations and the definition section primarily focuses on the regulated terms that are within the code. He suggested that it might be difficult to define "aesthetic character of the City." Vice Chair Rosen suggested that, because the intent of the Tree Code is to avoid loss of canopy and, in the best of all worlds, the canopy would be enhanced, it would be appropriate to add "enhance" to the list provided in the opening sentence of ECDC Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 205 7.1.e 20.10.000. This would reinforce that the goal is more than just maintaining the current tree canopy. Also, because Item A talks about the advantages of trees, it might be worth adding the words "biodiversity" and "environmental health" after the word "safety." Vice Chair Rosen asked where the draft provisions address trees that impact neighbors. If they are addressed, he suggested it might be worthwhile to weave the concept into the Intent and Purpose Section, as well. He understands that view is an important topic and a leading cause of many neighborhood conflicts. He also asked where this issue is addressed in the draft code. Mr. Lien answered that none of the provisions in the draft code specifically address neighbor impact and views. These are private property issues that are difficult to regulate. Some people love trees, but others do not. Some people think trees block views, and others consider the trees to be the view. Regulating neighbor impact and views is not a role he would suggest the City be involved in. Public views are mentioned in the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and Comprehensive Plan, but the City doesn't have any regulations that specifically deal with views. Vice Chair Rosen said he understands the City's position, but he suggested that it might be worthwhile to find a place to state this position somewhere in the draft Tree Code. Board Member Rubenkonig requested that a definition should be provided for "aesthetic consequences," which is used in Item G. She also suggested that Items H and I should be moved to the beginning of the list. She said she would prefer that implementing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and UFMP are listed first. Board Member Cheung suggested that Item E could be changed to also promote planting of new trees on developing sites. Mr. Lien referred to Item G, which talks about mitigating the consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve the goal of no net loss. Board Member Cheung said he is suggesting going beyond tree replacement for trees that are removed by providing some incentive for developers to plant additional trees beyond what is required. Board Member Cloutier reminded them of the City's goals to reduce CO2 emissions and have all operations be carbon free. While trees remove CO2, they could also hinder the City's goals. He referred to the concept of "solar easement" where a property owner establishes a solar array and enters into an agreement with neighbors that their access to light will not be blocked so they can continue to produce power. He asked if the draft Tree Code addresses this issue. Mr. Lien answered that it is not addressed in the Tree Code or elsewhere in the ECDC. Board Member Cloutier referred to a concept the Board discussed earlier that trees are good, but they must be planted in the right place. Mr. Lien said "right tree in the right place" is mentioned in the UFMP, but not everything in the UFMP will be implemented via regulations. Some aspects of the plan will be addressed via education and outreach. Board Member Cloutier concluded that it is important than none of the provisions in the draft Tree Code hinder the ability to have solar easements, since this would interfere with the City's ability to generate power, etc. Board Member Monroe pointed out that the draft provisions exempt a number of things, such as routine maintenance and the removal of trees on unimproved single-family lots. He suggested that these issues should be addressed in the Intent and Purpose Section. The more they can define the document in the opening statement, the better. Mr. Lien suggested that these issues are addressed in Item F that speaks to the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property, which may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover. The draft provisions do not prohibit tree cutting on private property, and a number of exemptions are included. Again, Board Member Monroe suggested that this should be stated upfront in plain language. • ECDC 23.10.020 — Definitions Mr. Lien said it is important to make it clear when a tree is large enough to be subject to the Tree Code. As proposed: A. Significant Tree. A "significant tree" is one that is at least 6 inches in diameter at breast height as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. K. Protected Tree. A "protected tree" is one that is identified for retention and protection on an approved tree replacement and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by an easement, tract, or covenant restriction. Protected trees are not eligible for an exception to the tree regulations. M. Specimen Tree. A "specimen tree" is a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the City's Tree Protection Professional. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 206 7.1.e Mr. Lien explained that, currently, the City defines "tree" as a "living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches having a caliper of 6 inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown." In this definition, the word "caliper" is used in the wrong place. The term is typical used to identify the diameter at breast height (DBH). Currently, the new definition does not include the part about a multi -stemmed trunk system, but it is something the City's Tree Team and Tree Protection Professional will work to include. The issue is about how big a tree must be before it is regulated. Redmond might drop it down to 4 inches if it is determined to be a significant tree. Kirkland, Lynnwood and Issaquah all start at 6 inches, but Issaquah bumps it up to 8 inches for Alder and Cottonwood trees. Lynnwood specifically lists nonsignificant species that are not subject to their tree regulations. Shoreline has an 8-inch DBH requirement for conifers and 12-inch for non -conifers. The 6-inch caliper at DBH is consistent with the City's current code and with what most other jurisdictions do. He invited the Board Members to provide feedback about when a tree is significant enough to be subject to the regulations. Board Member Cheung asked if staff collect information from other Snohomish County cities such as Marysville and Everett. Mr. Lien said Everett does not define a significant tree. Instead, they rely on the subdivision code. Snohomish County doesn't define the term, either. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Lynnwood is a bit more progressive by providing a list of nonsignificant trees that are exempted from their tree regulations. Her interpretation is that there would be no tree replacement requirement for the nonsignificant trees that are removed. In effect, they are trying to get rid of them. Mr. Lien clarified that Lynnwood defines nonsignificant trees that are unsuitable for urban or formal settings. Board Member Rubenkonig said it appears the intent is to encourage the removal of nonsignificant trees. Mr. Lien said he placed Alder and Cottonwood trees lower on the priority list of trees that should be retained. While they serve an ecological function, they probably are not desirable in residential settings. Board Member Rubenkonig added that these trees are more suited to critical environment areas rather than residential yards. Chair Robles asked why the code uses "diameter" instead of "circumference" to measure the size of a tree. Mr. Lien answered that DBH is the standard way to measure. Board Member Monroe suggested it would be appropriate to provide definitions for "tree topping" and "tree pruning." These distinctions could matter to some people. It would also make sense to provide a definition for "tree retention plan." Mr. Lien responded that anything that is mentioned in the code in a regulatory sense should be defined. He agreed that these three definitions should be added. He also invited the Board Members to identify additional terms that need to be defined. • ECDC 23.10.030 — Permits. Vice Chair Rosen referred to Item A and suggested the term "excessively prune" is too vague and subjective. Mr. Lien said cities frequently reference the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards when it comes to tree maintenance. However, he agreed that a definition for "maintenance" needs to be added to ECDC 23.10.020, and maintenance does not generally include topping. • ECDC 23.10.040 — Exemptions Mr. Lien emphasized that the Tree Code would generally apply to short subdivision applications, subdivision applications, new multifamily development and new single-family development. However, similar to the current tree code, some exemptions would apply. As proposed, the following activities would be exempt: A. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means (i.e. protected trees in critical areas). B. Removal of trees in association with rights -of -way and easements (parks, utility easements, etc.). C. Routine maintenance. A definition is needed, as discussed earlier. D. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot or on a partially improved single-family lot, which is capable of being divided into not more than one additional lot, except for that portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. This is an exemption in the current code, as well. E. Removal of nuisance and hazardous trees with supporting documentation. A permit would not be required but documentation would be required. This exemption for nuisance trees is not in the current code, but staff is recommending it be included. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 207 7.1.e Board Member Monroe referred to Item A and suggested the phrase "any other means" should be changed to "this code." Mr. Lien agreed to consider this change. Chair Robles asked if the City has a map of its critical areas, and Mr. Lien referred to the City's website (www.maps.edmondswa.gov) that provides a variety of information such as zoning, planning, locations of utilities, critical areas, etc. However, he cautioned that the map does not show the exact location of all critical areas within the City. It provides a rough idea of where the critical areas are, and when development is proposed in those areas, the City does a site visit to determine the exact location of the critical area. Board Member Cheung requested clarification of Item D. Mr. Lien explained that an erosion hazard (15% to 40% slope) is considered a critical area. He used the 25% slope that is mentioned in the current tree code, since that is when slopes start to get steep enough that the exemption would no longer be appropriate. The language is similar to a provision in the SMP. Board Member Monroe suggested that the list in Item B should include WIFI. Mr. Lien suggested that WIFI would be covered as a communication line. Board Member Monroe suggested they could keep the language vague to say that any franchise utility could do what is necessary to maintain their facilities. They don't need to be listed out. Mr. Lien said he prefers to list them. If they want to include maintenance for cell towers, the language could be changed from "communication lines" to "communication facilities." Ms. Feser also referred to Item B and asked if it would be more appropriate to say "city -owned properties" instead of "city - owned rights -of -way." This would make it clear that the exemption includes maintenance in parks, as well. Mr. Lien said the exemption was written specifically for utility purposes and not necessarily a park exemption. However, a park exemption could be added. ECDC 23.10.050 — Tree Removal Prohibited. Mr. Lien advised that, as proposed, tree removal would be prohibited for the following: A. Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.(E) (Hazard and Nuisance Trees) or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. B. Vacant lots. Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(E) (Hazard and Nuisance Trees). This is similar to a provision in the existing code. C. Demolitions. Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement may be required for removed trees. D. Critical Areas. In critical areas, critical area buffers and in all -natural growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapter 23.40 Board Member Monroe referred to Item B and asked if using the term "prior to" would be difficult to enforce. It can mean different things to different people. Mr. Lien reviewed that the current code states that, "There shall be no clearing a site for the sake of preparing the site for sale or future development. Trees may only be removed pursuant to a clearing permit, which has been approved by the City." He expressed his belief that the new language in Item D is intended to accomplish the same thing, and he doesn't foresee an enforcement problem. He explained that the Tree Code is not intended to address forest practice applications, which isn't something that typically occurs in Edmonds anyway. As proposed, the code would prohibit someone from clearing a vacant property unless the trees were deemed hazardous or nuisances. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if there is a minimum lot size requirement for tree harvesting permits from the State of Washington. She pointed that developers can assemble properties to create larger areas for development and then take down trees years before submitting a development proposal. She suggested that Item B be changed by replacing "vacant lot" with "vacant parcel." If the parcel is of a certain size, it could require a state permit for harvesting timber. This would meet her concern that clear cutting be addressed. Mr. Lien explained that Item B is intended to prevent vacant properties from being clear cut, but he could look into including language specifically related to forest practices. He explained that the other sections of the code provide definitions for both "lot" and "parcel," and they are used interchangeably throughout the code. The definition could be added to this section of code, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig said she tends to think of "parcel" when Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 208 7.1.e she thinks of clear cutting because they are looking at creating lots out of the parcel. She would prefer the word "parcel," because it extends the image of what they are looking at. Because the two terms are interchangeable, the exception in Item B could also apply to a lot. Mr. Lien said he prefers "lot" because "parcel" refers to a tax parcel. He advised that the County will draw tax parcel lines anywhere, and it doesn't necessarily mean a developable lot. Vice Chair Rosen referred to the last sentence in Item C, which states that replacement trees may be required. He commented that when a very large tree is removed, the replacement tree does not contribute at the same level. If the overall objective is to be neutral or even enhance the canopy, it is important to recognize there will be a gap. To address this gap, he suggested the City create a tree credit program that requires applicants to close the gap by supporting the tree fund, which would be used to replace the canopy in other ways. This concept could advance and fund the objective of making sure the canopy is maintained and even enhanced. Mr. Lien said they will discuss this idea further when they talk about the proposed language related specifically to tree replacement and a tree fund. Student Representative Bryan voiced concern with Item B. The idea of allowing the Director to decide what is reasonably needed to conduct demolition activities allows too much wiggle room. He suggested that "Director" should be changed to "qualified arborist." Mr. Lien explained that the Director may require documentation from a certified arborist to justify the removal, but it would still be the Director's responsibility to approve any tree removal associated with a demolition permit. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that it would be the Development Services Director, and not the developer, who would make the decision as to what tree removal is reasonable needed. She suggested the language should be amended to provide this clarification. • ECDC 23.10.060 — Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity. Mr. Lien explained that, as proposed, an approved tree retention plan would be required in conjunction with all new single- family, short plats, subdivisions or multifamily developments. He noted that Item C requires that for new single family, short plat or subdivision development, at least 30% of all significant trees on a developable site must be retained. "Developable site" is defined and does not include such things as critical areas. This is consistent with a provision in the Critical Area Ordinance that development in RS-12 and RS-20 zones that are associated with steep slopes, streams or wetlands must have a 30% native vegetation area. He reduced the number to 25% for multifamily development because it is a denser type of development. Mr. Lien advised that, as per Item CA, if a certain retention percentage cannot be achieved, the applicant would be required to pay a certain amount into the tree fund for each significant tree below the required retention. Vice Chair Rosen suggested that, in addition to requiring applicants to retain 30% of the significant trees on the developable site, the City should also require applicants to pay a certain amount into the tree fund equal to 100% or even 110% of the total number of trees that were removed from the site. The intent is to enhance the tree canopy. Board Member Monroe suggested they go even further and require a 2:1 replacement ratio. Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the 30% retention requirement is likely lower than what most other jurisdictions require, and it sure doesn't help the City maintain its tree canopy. It equates to a 70% reduction in tree canopy. She said she also believes the 1:1 replacement requirement is low compared to surrounding jurisdictions. This replacement ratio won't help the City maintain its tree canopy, either. Board Member Monroe said he can understand the intent of the 25% and 30% retention requirement because they need to allow developers enough area to build projects. Requiring 100% retention would be unreasonable. However, developers should be required to plant a certain number of trees elsewhere in the City for each significant tree that is removed. Vice Chair Rosen said this would be consistent with his recommendation that developers be required to pay a certain amount into a tree fund for each significant tree that is removed. This would give the power to the City to decide how to replenish the canopy. The replacement requirement should be equal to the value of the significant trees that are removed. Ms. Feser reminded the Board that the tree fund would be used to plant trees on City properties, primarily in the parks. She voiced concern about leaving it up to a landowner to decide where and what types of tree would be planted. She would prefer that developers be required to pay into a tree fund. That way, the City would have the ability to plant the right trees in the right places. Board Member Monroe said he works for Sound Transit. For their projects in Federal Way and Kent, they have removed 15,000 to 20,000 trees and will be required to replant 45,000 more trees, and they are required to purchase property to plant the Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 209 7.1.e trees on. They would prefer to pay into a fund, since that is the easiest solution. However, they have found ways to accomplish the more stringent requirement. The City should ask no less of developers than is being asked of Sound Transit. Board Member Rubenkonig said there are options for accomplishing a greater tree retention requirement than 1:1 while still allowing for development. The best way to meet the requirement should be left to the person creating the landscape plan. If the requirement is too onerous, a developer could approach the City with a request for mitigation. If mitigation cannot be adequately addressed, and applicant could pay into tree fund. However, the tree fund should be the last option. Applicant's should be encouraged to do what they can to replace the trees on -site. Board Member Rubenkonig said that cities often have a minimum height requirement for replacement trees, which results in more mature trees. Vice Chair Rosen said he is concerned about the gap (value and loss) between a mature tree and an immature replacement tree. The City's code should require applicants to cover this gap. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that there are methods for getting more mature replacement trees, but the replacements would not be equal in value to larger significant trees. She suggested the Board should look in-depth at how other cities regulate tree replacement. Again, she said allowing applicants to pay into a tree fund should be the last resort. Vice Chair Rosen commented that there needs to be a variety of options in the toolbox. The end goal should be to require developers to make the City whole when a significant tree is taken down. This can be done via replacement and/or funding. The funding could be used to offer grants to residents to encourage tree planting elsewhere. Mr. Lien suggested that rather than the minimum tree retention requirement in the current draft, another option would be to base the requirement on zone. A 30% requirement in an RS-6 zone could be very different than the same requirement in an RS-20 zone. Board Member Cheung suggested that if they make the requirement so onerous, developers will simply decide to pay into the tree fund and build the cost into the price of the homes. This could have an impact on the cost of housing in the community. Board Member Monroe agreed with Board Member Rubenkonig that the preferred option would tree retention, followed by planting replacement trees on site. The last option should be paying into a tree fund. Rather than putting all of the replacement trees in parks, the trees should be replaced in zones that are similar to where trees were removed or at least equitably distributed throughout the City. Mr. Lien said the Tree Board has discussed taking a more global approach. If there isn't space to plant more trees in the parks and open spaces, the City could partner with other organizations, such as the Mountain to Sound Greenway, to use the tree funds to purchase additional open space in other areas. Also, he suggested that if the tree fund requires a high dollar value for each tree that is removed, developers will be encouraged to consider options for either retaining more trees or planting the replacement trees on site. However, at this time, he doesn't have a suggestion as to what the dollar value should be. Board Member Monroe asked how the proposed 25% and 30% tree retention requirement compares to neighboring cities. Mr. Lien said only one other jurisdiction he reviewed used a percentage requirement. However, he would conduct further research and report back with additional information. Board Member Cheung referred to Vice Chair Rosen's point that some trees are more valuable than others. There is nothing in the 30% requirement that differentiates between the different sizes of significant trees. Mr. Lien reviewed that the tree retention provisions are broken out based on priority. Priority trees to focus on for retention include specimen trees, significant trees that form a continuous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than 15%, significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers, and significant trees over 60 feet tall or greater than 18 inches in DBH. The intent of prioritization is to make sure developers try to save the more significant trees. Board Member Cheung asked if the priorities are recommendations or if developers are required to follow the priorities. Mr. Lien said there is some flexibility. If the only 60- foot tall tree happens to be right in the middle of the only buildable site on the lot, the City can't require a developer to retain it. • ECDC 23.10.080 — Tree Replacement. Mr. Lien summarized that, as currently proposed, a developer would be required to retain at least 30% of the significant trees, and replacement trees would be required for those that are removed at a ratio of 1:1. If the trees cannot be replaced on site, a Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 210 7.1.e developer could pay a certain amount per tree into the tree fund. At the next meeting, staff will be prepared to have a discussion with the Board about what the appropriate tree replacement might be. It could be based on tree size, requiring a higher replacement ratio when larger trees are removed. He reminded the Board that the last time a draft Tree Code was presented for public hearing, there was a lot of controversy regarding the idea of basing the replacement requirement on the type of zone (density). He said he would research what other jurisdictions are doing in preparation for the Board's more in-depth discussion. Board Member Rubenkonig thanked Mr. Lien for creating the topic matrix, which helped her organize her thoughts. She felt it helps ensure the Board addresses all of the items. Mr. Lien encouraged the Board Members to submit their comments, suggestions and typographical corrections to him via email. • ECDC 20.75.XXX — Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility. Mr. Lien explained shared an example of a subdivision to illustrate why trees are often clear cut. Although there might be a number of substantial trees on the site, once all of the development standards (access requirements, utility easements, setbacks, etc.) were applied, only a few trees were left intact. The remaining trees might be exposed and spindly and not necessarily the trees that you want to retain. At the next meeting, the Board will discuss how to provide flexibility within Development Code that allows houses to be grouped to one side a bit so more trees can be saved. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles announced that, due to Veteran's Day, the Board's November 11I meeting was rescheduled to a special meeting on November 181. The agenda for that meeting will focus solely on the draft Tree Code. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code amendments is tentatively scheduled for December 91 PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Pence observed that this has been a very different kind of year for the Planning Board. Due to the pandemic, the Board missed a number of meetings prior to starting the Zoom format. The Chair and Vice Chair haven't had an opportunity to put their stamp on the Board's activities like previous leaders have. It occurred to him that they should re-elected them both for another year. Chair Robles said they have been able to put a pretty big stamp down, and he believes that Board Member Rosen will carry forward quite effectively as the chair next year. Board Member Pence commented that he didn't mean to diminish their efforts, just note that they could have shined even brighter with a regular routine. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 28, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 211 7.1.f CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Special Meeting Via Zoom November 12, 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 Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cheung (excused) Conner Bryan, Student Rep. (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Program Manager Phil Williams, Public Works Director 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 28, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. Board Member Crank pointed out that the Planning Board's public hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) will take place the same time that staff will be presenting the two plans to the City Council. Per a conversation she had with Council Member Paine, the City Council will discuss the plans at the November 17t' meeting, as well. She asked if minutes from the Planning Board's discussion would be included in the City Council's agenda packet for that meeting. Mr. English answered that the public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for November 24t' rather than November 17t'', and the minutes from the Planning Board's public hearing will be included in the packet that is provided for that meeting. Packet Pg. 212 Board Member Pence voiced concern that the agenda was unclear that the Tree Code Regulations Update would be discussed. In the future, he suggested it would be appropriate to highlight that item rather than simply listing it as a "Generic Agenda Item." Mr. Chave commented that the software that is used to create the agendas has limitations about how items can be named. Board Member Rubenkonig said her understanding was that tonight's meeting would only be a public hearing on the CIP and CFP. She thought that the schedule that was agreed to at the last meeting would stand, and the Board would continue its review of the Tree Code Regulations on November 18'. Mr. Lien responded that, because the Board had to add another meeting for the CIP/CFP public hearing, he thought it would be a good idea for them to also continue their review of the tree code regulations. However, they do not need to redo their discussion from the last meeting. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Anna West, Edmonds, suggested that some verbiage regarding protecting water views should be included in the intent and purpose section of the revised Tree Code. It hasn't been included in the draft yet, and the City would be remiss not to include it. Puget Sound helps define the City of Edmonds, and the water is one of the reasons that new residents purchase homes, current residents stay, and visitors spend money in the City. Adding verbiage in the Tree Code to protect water views is important because trees have the potential to block those cherished views. She is hoping the City can work with the citizens to come up with language that protects both trees and the water. Chair Robles emphasize that this is a Tree Code and not a View Code. View will not likely be specifically mentioned in the Tree Code, since it is a different category of regulation. Mr. Chave added that the City has had a number of discussions about views in its history of policy and codes. Up to this point in time, the City has chosen not to regulate private views. Ms. West commented that it seems the City is spending a lot of time regulating private trees, and she thought it might be a good segway into a piece that really defines the City. The City has a symbiotic relationship with the trees and the water. She supports tree retention, but there needs to be some guidance for residents. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if Ms. West is requesting that some reference to the City's stance on private view protection be incorporated into the Tree Code. Ms. West said she would actually like the City's stance to change from what it has been for the past three decades. She is cognizant it will be an uphill battle, but it needs to be addressed, as water views play a huge role in the City. She asked that the City have dialogue with the community on the best way to maintain that piece of the City as it continues to thrive and grow. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that Ms. West is suggesting that the City consider options for protecting private views. Mr. Chave suggested the Board consider this request as they review the draft Tree Code later on the agenda. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said he serves on the City's Citizens Tree Board. He asked that the Board Members consider his written comments from two letters he submitted prior to the meeting as they review the draft Tree Code. He invited them to reach out to him with questions and comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Robles referred to the written Development Services Director Report and noted that it appears to be outdated. There were no other questions or comments regarding the report. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2021 — 2026 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP)/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CIP) 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 projects related to addressing growth and demand. It covers planning horizons of 6 and 20 years. The Capital Improvement Plan (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 the maintenance and capital projects anticipated over the next 6-year planning horizon. The two plans intersect when identifying the 6-year capital projects with funding sources. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 213 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 (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 BEET. • 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. Ms. Feser explained that the park -related projects contained in the draft CIP and CFP are based on the seven primary 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 shared the following highlights: Waterfront Redevelopment. This project will be completed by the end of the month, with the Certificate of Occupancy for the Waterfront Center Building slated for December 7'. There was a bit of a delay with the concrete exterior work as a result of the pandemic, but the project is still on track. The parking lot and beach front restoration work dealt with the discovery of some soil contamination and more than 50 creosote pilings that were buried underground were removed the site. Yost Pool. 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. This year, $30,000 was used to bring the park renovation design up to 30% and assist in grant application development. The City submitted for two $500,000 grants from the State of Washington through the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) programs. The City's Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) Program application ranked 111, and the request was for $500,000. The City's grant application for the Local Park Category scored 191 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 and will require additional grant funding, park -related funding (REET and park impact fees) and some General Fund dollars. Design development and permitting is programmed for 2022 and 2023, with construction in 2024 and 2025 if all goes well. 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. A 6-foot walkway parallel to the drive aisle is planned at City Park. This has become a safety issue after the spray pad was built and a crosswalk was installed on 3r1 Avenue where the drive aisle meets the street. The project will include some transplanting of some small trees, as well as a short retaining wall to deal with the slope. Design details are being finalized and staff hopes to complete the work in late winter before the busy spring season starts. Gateway Sign. The Gateway Sign on SR-104 has been fabricated, and staff is working on the best approach for installation, using a combination of in-house labor and contracted services. The project will require relocation of the sign, which incorporates earthwork, rock placement, irrigation modifications and plantings. Civic Park. The $12.1 million budget for this project was be split over 2021 and 2022. The design is complete, the construction documents and permits are finished. They are currently conducting additional peat and soil testing on site and modifying the approach of the bid for more accurate submittals in the first quarter bid process. The goal is to Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 214 7.1.f start construction in the spring of 2021, with estimated completion in late fall of 2022. 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 and Funds 125 and 126. The City has received a commitment from the Edmonds Rotary club for $400,000 to construct the inclusive playground improvements that were beyond the original scope and design of the project. Greenhouse Replacement. 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. The City owns, operates and maintains 47 parks and open spaces that consist 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 facilities. Examples of this work include resurfacing sport courts and parking lots, trail reconstruction, bridge replacements, upgrading irrigation and mechanical components 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 at specific park sites in increments of $5,000. The draft CFP was reorganized to combine all of the small, individual project allocations into one line item. Park Acquisition. An additional $200,000 will be allocated to Fund 126 in 2021 for park and open space acquisition. Previously, there was an allocation of $300,000 for a community garden adjacent to Yost Park, but the negotiations have stopped at the request of the owner. This money was set aside, as well as an additional $200,000 allocated in both 2019 and 2021. The total amount in this fund will be $700,000. Moving forward, an additional $200,000 will be allocated per year starting in 2022, and the funds will continue to accumulate. Fishing Pier. The Fishing Pier repair will continue into 2021, using a carry forward of unused funds (about $54,000) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The amount was insufficient this year to contract out the services needed to repair cracks underneath the concrete decking of the pier, and the City is working with the state to determine the next steps and how to most effectively use the remaining funds to complete the work, possibly in house. Ms. Feser 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. • Completion of the waterfront walkway (the one section in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium). • Ongoing trail development. • Sport fields and playground partnerships. Vice Chair Rosen recalled his question at the last meeting about the extent of the 4r' Avenue Cultural Corridor. He had thought it would extend past Daley Street and connect to 3rd Avenue, and now it appears it will terminate at Daley Street. Ms. Feser explained that the project will extend beyond Daley Street, past the Edmonds Center for the Arts, and up to 3rd Avenue. Board Member Pence asked how important the acquisition of park land near Yost Park is to the future vision of the PROS Plan. Ms. Feser said it is always good to try to expand existing facilities by acquiring adjacent properties because access is already available. The property is heavily treed and no significant development would need to be maintained or removed. The land is a significant parcel that would be a good addition to Yost Park. Board Member Pence asked if it is important enough for the City to consider imminent domain. Ms. Feser said it is her understanding that the owner is planning to donate the parcel to the City in her will. The City was negotiating with the owner to gain access to the property sooner, but the negotiations have since been stopped. However, the City is still in a position to accept the property at some point in the future. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 215 7.1.f Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed that, at the last meeting, she asked why the proposed new Park Maintenance Building at City Park was proposed to be only 1 story. Ms. Feser said her understanding is that the design is very preliminary at this point and was intended to identify a potential footprint. When the project moves forward, there will be a discussion about what the actual building should look like, and a 2-story building will more than likely be a better solution. Mr. English shared the following highlights on the public works and utility projects: • 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. This allocation is lower than in past years. • Pedestrian Walkway Plan. Two high -priority sidewalk projects were accomplished in 2020 (Dayton Street from 7' Avenue to 81 Avenue and Walnut Street from 31 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 with the installation of a center median to control the left -turning traffic on Highway 99 to reduce the number of accidents. Another big project is a Hawk signal just north of 2341 Street to improve pedestrian safety in crossing the highway. Gateway signs will also be added at the southern and northern edges of the City. Design work 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: 1001 Street Southwest/91 Avenue from 2441 Street Southwest to Walnut Street; Bowdoin Way from 91 Avenue to 84r' Avenue, 2281 Street Southwest from 80r' Avenue to 781 Avenue, and 80' Avenue from 228' Street Southwest to 220' Street Southwest. These projects will all be funded by a Sound Transit grant to help improve access to the stations, and design work started last week. • 76' Avenue/220th Project. This project was identified as a priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. The City has been working to obtain grant funding over the last several years, and the project has scored well for both planning and right-of-way funds. Design will kickoff in 2021, but it is not likely the project will go to construction until 2024 or 2025. • Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project. This project is funded with federal dollars, with matching funds from the 126 Fund. The project is currently out to bid for construction, and bids will be opened on November 191. It is anticipated the project will start in late spring of 2021. The project includes 2 Hawk signals (one on 1961 Street near 801 Avenue and another on SR-104 at about 232nd Street) and 7 rapid -flashing beacons at 7 different intersection. It also includes Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements to crosswalks at different locations within the City. • 76m Street Overlay. The City received a Federal grant to overlay 76t' Avenue between Perrinville and 196' Street. This project will be a joint effort with the City of Lynnwood. Design work will begin in 2021, with an anticipated construction start in 2022. • Other Transportation Projects. In addition to the Pavement Preservation Program, the REET funds will support a number of other transportation projects. A small amount is earmarked in 2021 for the Pedestrian Safety Program (i.e. radar feedback signs, rapid -flashing beacons, bulb outs, etc.), and 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. In addition, instead of cameras, pucks could be installed in the pavement to identify when traffic approaches an intersection. • 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 $100,000 in REET funding to continue that program. The funding will provide the tools, equipment and supplies needed for the crew to perform the work. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 216 7.1.f • Traffic Calming. REET funding will be used for traffic calming, with the intent of slowing cars down. Each year, citizens are invited to identify problem areas. The City studies these areas and ranks the requests. The top two or three requests get funded. • Sidewalk Project on Elm Street. Design work will be done for a project on Elm Way from 9r' Avenue going west. 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 and add guardrail 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 91 Avenue to 3rd 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 2,300 feet of sewer main will 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. • 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 2,000 feet of sewer main replacement is planned for 2021, along with about 2,000 feet of sewer main rehabilitation. About 2,300 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 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. The project is on track to start in 2021 and be completed in 2022. • Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Related Projects. A few projects are identified in the 2021 budget. 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 identifying an alternative alignment for the creek until the Unocal property is sold to the Washington State Department of Transportation and the larger project can move forward. • 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. He provided a map identifying the location of the proposed utility projects. • 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 in 2021 to replace the current incinerator. The total cost of this project will be over $26 million, and will be shared with all partners. Mr. English concluded his presentation by explaining 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 for review and a public hearing, followed by a recommendation to the City Council. The two documents are currently being presented to the City Council for the first time tonight. Following the Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 217 0 Planning Board's recommendation, the City Council will hold a public hearing on November 241. The goal is for them to be adopted along with the budget in early December. Chair Robles noted that electric bicycles are getting faster and quieter. He asked if the City's effort to create bike lanes will accommodate this new technology. At what point will they become electric scooter lanes and alternative bicycle routes will need to be created elsewhere? Mr. English agreed that electric bicycles are becoming more popular, and they can be used in the bike lanes. Chair Robles asked if the City's Bicycle Plan would accommodate this increased demand. Mr. English answered that the current Transportation Plan includes a facility map showing where the existing and proposed bike lanes are located. It also shows where sharrows are needed in locations that are too tight to accommodate a bike lane. The Transportation Plan will be updated again in 2022, and some changes might need to be considered as electric bike usage grows. Chair Robles asked if the City is planning on the assumption that pandemics are temporary, or if consideration is being given for future pandemics. For example, wider sidewalks are needed to accommodate the currently required 6-foot separation. Mr. English said that, for planning purposes, the City views the pandemic as more of a temporary situation. The standards are not being changed in response to the pandemic. Chair Robles opened the hearing for public comment. No one indicated a desire to participate, and Chair Robles closed the public hearing. Board Member Monroe referred to the comments he made at the last meeting regarding the equitable and accurate taxing for the Edmonds Marsh and Stormwater Projects. He felt the Board and staff had a good conversation about this issue, and it should not be lost as the plans are forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and final approval. Board Member Monroe said he read the letters that were submitted by Mr. Phipps, who represents the group, Save Our Marsh. Mr. Phipps raised some interesting and good points that should also be incorporated into the record. Mr. Chave said all of the minutes from the Planning Board's discussion on the CIP/CFP will be forwarded to the City Council along with their recommendation. 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 CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER MONROE VOTING IN OPPOSITION. BOARD MEMBER PENCE (ALTERNATE) DID NOT VOTE. TREE CODE REGULATIONS UPDATE Mr. Lien announced that the City Council adopted a 4-month moratorium on new subdivision applications in the City (Ordinance No. 4200). The intent of the moratorium is to allow the City time to work through the Tree Code update. The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the moratorium on December 1st Mr. Lien announced that the City is hosting a new website for the Tree Code (www.treecode.edmonds.wa.gov). The website will provide links to all of the Planning Board's agendas, minutes and videos as they become available. He advised that all written comments the City receives pertaining to the Tree Code will be attached to the Planning Board's future agendas. 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 definitions, permitting process and penalties. He said some of the goals in the UFMP that are addressed in the draft update include: • Goal LA — 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. • Goal LB — Adopt a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy and continue to enhance canopy in parks according to the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 218 • Goal I. C — Ensure protection of tree resources in environmentally critical areas. • Goal LD —Establish a tree bank or fund to which donations can be made for tree planting and other tree programs. Mr. Lien referred to Ms. West's comment, made earlier in the meeting, regarding protection of views. He advised that none of the goals and policies in the Urban Forest Management Plan specifically address views, but views were discussed as they relate to planting the right trees in the right places. Mr. Lien explained that the current tree regulations are located in ECDC 18.45. As proposed, the draft Tree Code has been broken into three parts, and the majority will be located in the new Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.10. There will also be a new section in ECDC 20.75 (Conservation Subdivision Design Flexibility), and the provisions for a tree fund will be in the Edmonds City Code (ECC). Mr. Lien reviewed that the Board started its review of the draft Tree Code on October 281. Following tonight's work, the Board will continue its discussion at a special meeting on November 181. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is tentatively scheduled for December 9r''. He advised that the draft proposal will be updated to incorporate the Planning Board's feedback following the special meeting on November 18' • ECDC 23.10.060(C) — Tree Retention Requirements Mr. Lien reviewed that, as proposed, for new single-family short plats or subdivisions, 30% of all significant trees on the developable site must be retained. This mirrors the requirement in the Critical Areas Ordinance for tree retention on RS-12 and RS-20 sites in critical areas. For multifamily sites, the requirement is 25%. For replacement, the proposed language would require a 1:1 ratio for tree replacement. He recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board requested information about how other jurisdictions address tree retention and replacement requirements, as well as how they determine the appropriate dollar amount per tree. They also raised a concern that the replacement requirement might not be sufficient. He referred to the memorandum he sent to the Board prior to the meeting, outlining the results of his research that focused specifically on what other jurisdictions require for tree retention with development. Some of the jurisdictions have general density requirements, which isn't something the City is considering as part of the Tree Code update. He briefly reviewed the results as follows: o Lynnwood does not have a specific tree retention requirement, but they do require trees that are removed to be replaced based on the number of tree units, which is derived from the diameter of the trees that are cut. If applicants choose not to plant trees for the required tree units, they can pay a fee into the city's tree fund at a rate of $187 per tree. If a site cannot support the required number of replacement trees, the applicant would be required to pay $106 per tree into the fund. o Shoreline requires that 20% of significant trees be retained if there aren't any critical areas on the site and 30% if critical areas are present. They require replacement if more trees are removed than what is allowed by the retention requirement. The replacement requirement of up to 3 trees is based on the size of the trees that are removed. They don't have neither a tree fund nor a fee -in -lieu option. o Redmond requires that 30% of significant trees be retained, and the replacement ratio is 1:1 for each significant tree that is removed, except landmark trees, which must be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. They do not have a tree fund, but they do have a fee -in -lieu program to cover the cost of tree replacement. They don't specify a specific dollar value for each tree, but just a cost that covers tree replacement. o Kirkland has a tree -density requirement based on a tree -credit system. Developments are required to have 30 tree credits per acre, and larger trees are worth more tree credits. They have a fee -in -lieu program that is paid into a City Forestry Account if trees cannot be planted on site. The dollar amount is based on the current market value. o Issaquah requires retention based on zone. In single-family zones, 30% of the total caliper of all significant trees must be retained. In multifamily zones, the requirement is 25%. While Edmonds calculates percentage based on the total number of trees on the site, Issaquah calculates based on the total caliper of all of the trees on the site. Replacement is required if the retention standard is not met, and they have a fee -in -lieu program that doesn't identify a specific dollar value for each tree. o Medina has a fee -in -lieu program that is based on the size of the tree, and the dollar value is based on the diameter of the tree at breast height (DBH). They require $200 per inch for trees with a DBH up to 20 inches, which would equate to $4,000 for a 20-inch tree. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 219 7.1.f Mr. Lien commented that, while Medina's dollar values might be too much, he likes the way their program is structured. He recalled that, at the last meeting, the Board discussed that larger trees should be valued greater than small trees. He suggested that Edmonds could consider a similar approach, but lower the dollar value. Chair Robles agreed that Medina's approach is creative, and he suggested the dollar values are not really out of line when you attach them to the increase in property value associated with improved view. Mr. Lien commented that not all properties in Edmonds have potential views, so he cautioned against attaching that high dollar value to all properties in Edmonds. Again, he said he likes the structure, but the dollar values seem excessive. Board Member Rubenkonig said the principle found in Issaquah's code stands out to her as a clear approach. It requires replacement if the retention standard is not met, which makes it clear that the goal is retention. She suggested that Edmonds should also identify a specific principle that underscores its approach. She said she didn't find the other examples to be as clear. Mr. Lien noted that Shoreline also requires replacement if the retention standard is not met. The current proposal simply requires a 1:1 replacement, but it could be changed to incorporate this concept. Board Member Rubenkonig said she likes that Issaquah's replacement requirement is based on caliper (DBH) of the tree. Mr. Lien said Shoreline's approach, which is based on "significant trees," would be the easiest to implement. Rather than having to measure the size of each tree, it counts the number of trees that are at or greater than a specific size. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that would be an acceptable approach, but she still wants language that makes the intended principle clear. Board Member Monroe asked if Board Member Rubenkonig is suggesting the best thing to do is retain the existing trees, and the next best option would be to replace the trees. If you can't do that, you should pay a fee -in -lieu. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that the best approach is to require tree retention as a first priority. Board Member Monroe agreed, as well. He said replacement should be an option, but it should be the second choice. Replacement should be more difficult than retention, and it should be more costly still to pay an in -lieu fee. Board Member Rubenkonig agreed that the first option should be retention, followed by replacement, recognizing there is a lot of innovation available when it comes to planting trees. She also supports having a tree bank or fee -in -lieu program in place. Mr. Lien summarized that, as per the Board's direction, the tree retention should remain at 30% and 25%, and replacement would be required if the retention requirement is not met. He will consider options for what the appropriate replacement ratio should be. As the tree gets larger, the replacement ratio should increase, too. The Board indicated support for these changes. Chair Robles suggested they consider the scenario of a tree that is blocking the view of the sound. If the tree is cut down, the property value would increase substantially. Would the property owner be able to purchase the extinction of the tree for the property value benefit? Mr. Lien reminded them that, as currently drafted, the Tree Code would apply to certain new development applications: short subdivision, subdivision, new multifamily and new single-family. The requirements would not apply to a developed single-family site with no critical areas. Board Member Monroe suggested that the Purpose and Intent Section should clearly explain when the requirements apply. • ECDC 20.75.XXX — Subdivision Design Flexibility Mr. Lien shared a diagram of a sample subdivision application, pointing out how the development requirements (utility easements, access easements, setbacks, etc.) reduce the buildable area and impact a developer's ability to retain existing trees. He explained that the purpose of this new section is to promote retention of significant and specimen trees and natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in order to preserve and provide for low -impact development. The priority of tree retention, which was discussed at the last meeting, would be applied to this section, as well, and the flexibility would be administratively reviewed as part of a subdivision application. The following flexibility is proposed: 1. Setbacks may be reduced up to 20% in all residential zones provided that no side setback is less than 5%. The required front setback may not be reduced more than 5 feet, but an additional 5-foot reduction may be allowed for covered entry porches. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 220 7.1.f 2. Lot sizes may be reduced to allow clustering so dwelling units can be shifted to the most suitable locations, but the overall density cannot be increased. 3. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots provided the overall coverage of the buildable lots do not exceed the lot coverage allowed by the zone. 4. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variation would be consistent with the intent of City policies and codes. Mr. Lien advised that, prior to the public hearing, he will create a drawing that illustrates how these flexible options might be applied on a property that is being subdivided. Board Member Monroe said he supports the proposed flexibility, but he questioned how the City would ensure that the protected trees are retained after the properties are developed and sold? Mr. Lien said that, as proposed, trees that are required to be retained with development would be classified as "protected trees, and the term is defined in the Tree Code (ECDC 23). Chair Robles asked about the administrative cost of keeping a track of protected trees. Mr. Lien explained that a tree plan would be required when flexibility is granted, and the City would use that plan to track the trees. There are some other ideas for addressing the issue via the permit process, too. Chair Robles summarized that, when purchasing a home in Edmonds, due diligence may include going to the City to research the property's tree liability. Mr. Lien said that if a tree is retained as part of a subdivision, the condition could be specifically listed on the face of a plat. For multifamily development, a landscape plan would be required. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would be possible to record a tree plan as part of a subdivision plan. She agreed that it is important that subsequent owners be required to maintain the protected trees per the approved tree plan. However, without proper documentation, it would be difficult for the City to identify problems. Mr. Lien explained that, typically, subdivision approval is based on certain conditions that are listed in the staff report and on file with the City of Edmonds. The tree plan could be recorded as one of the conditions, and someone doing due diligence would be able to contact the City to find the list of conditions that apply to the property. Board Member Rubenkonig shared an example of a new development that tied into a regional stormwater system. The water flowed a certain way, and the individual yards were designed to assist with the flow. However, the homeowners landscaped their yards in a way that interfered with the programmed flow. She summarized that, oftentimes, plans look good on paper, but they need to consider what the City needs to do to make sure that the plans are maintained and enforced. Mr. Lien agreed that, if the City does allow design flexibility to retain trees, it makes sense to ensure that the conditions are documented, either by recording the tree plan or specifically calling the requirements out on the plat plan. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that many people are looking for accountability with the tree code, and accountability is a big part of making a program successful. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the City has made a case for the priority of tree plantings the City prefers. In addition to planting the right tree in the right place, do the regulations stipulate a preference for a grove of trees versus stand-alone trees. Mr. Lien said that, for retention, this is specifically called out in the proposed language. He referred to the priority list that was discussed at the last meeting, noting that the grove environment is priority one. Similar language is also included in the replacement section. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that this is important to get the best return for the environment. Mr. Lien said the current proposal does not include a preferred tree list, but it could be added. The Tree Board is currently working on a list that could be provided to property owners to educate them on the right tree for the right place. Board Member Rubenkonig said it is important that the list include trees that support habitat. Mr. Lien summarized that the Board is interested in adding language to ensure that the protected trees are documented when this section is applied to a new development. • ECDC 23.10.060(B) — Tree Retention Plan Mr. Lien explained that a tree retention plan must be submitted as part of an application for new development. As proposed, the tree retention plan must include a tree inventory that contains a numbering system of all existing significant trees on the property and identify the size of all the trees, the proposed tree status (retained or removed), the general health or condition rating, and tree types or species. The tree retention plan must also include a site plan that shows the location of Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 221 7.1.f all proposed improvements, the accurate location of significant trees, and the location of tree protection measures. Trees must be labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system, and the limits of disturbance must be drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances. The proposed tree status must be identified, as well as the proposed locations of any supplemental replacement trees as needed. Board Member Rubenkonig said it isn't clear as to which professionals can do each part of the Tree Retention Plan. Mr. Lien responded that, as proposed, a qualified tree professional may be required to prepare certain components of the tree plan. For example, an arborist will need to make a determination on the health of the trees, but a surveyor will identify the location of trees. Like with all development applications, a team of consultants will put together the plan. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that some jurisdictions are tightening their requirements and specifically calling out who is qualified enough to develop the tree plan. The Board should discuss how exacting it wants the requirement to be. Chair Robles said he would be reluctant to get too particular, since it could result in a barrier. He asked if there is any incentive for a property owner to submit a tree plan for his/her property, thereby adding to the tree inventory the City can possess without having to produce. Ultimately, a City's tree inventory will provide the information to make the bigger decisions about the canopy going forward. The barrier to this is the resources to count all of the trees. It isn't so much of a problem if individual property owners submit tree plans. Mr. Lien said this concept is not in the proposed Tree Code. The City is currently doing a partial inventory of the street trees, and the Urban Forest Management Plan talks about a canopy assessment. However, he doesn't know if it would be possible to conduct an inventory of all of the trees in the City. Again, he reminded the Board that the proposed Tree Code would only apply to new development. He doesn't know what the City would do with tree inventories submitted by random private property owners. When they discuss permits, he will highlight some ideas that have come forward that could get to the tracking of trees, what has been planted, and what has been removed. He summarized that a tree inventory is required with new development because there will be a retention requirement. The City will need to know what trees are on the site, so they know how many have to be retained to meet the retention requirement. Chair Robles pointed out that 90% of the trees in Edmonds are on private property. He questioned the scope of the tree plan if it only accounts for a small number of trees (10%). Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the proposed language is not intended to be a tree plan. Instead, it provides regulations that deal with trees that are associated with development. The Urban Forest Management Plan is a tree plan that talks about canopy assessment, coverage, tree inventories, etc. However, this information is outside of the tree code, itself. Mr. Lien advised that the tree retention plan must also include an arborist report that provides a complete description of each tree's health, condition and viability, a description of the methods used to determine the limits of disturbance, etc. Board Member Monroe pointed out that some trees may not be viable for retention because they are in the way of the proposed development. He asked if these situations are adequately addressed in the proposed code. Mr. Lien referred back to the priorities for tree retention. There is also language in the code that talks about working in good faith with the applicant and the City. Obviously, a tree cannot be retained if it is located where a building is proposed. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that, as proposed, an applicant would be required to provide an arborist report to support this claim. He suggested that staff review the language and decide if clarification is needed. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that the proposed design flexibility that allows structures to be grouped differently on a site would relieve some of the pressure when it comes to deciding which trees can be retained. She concluded that, if they allow more flexibility in the design standards, the approach will not be as rigid. Mr. Lien explained that, oftentimes, when subdivision applications are reviewed, applicants don't know where the actual buildings will go. This makes it more difficult to do a tree retention plan. As proposed, they can do an initial version of a tree retention plan as part of the subdivision submittal, and a more detailed plan when the project reaches the building phase. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles reviewed that the Board would continue its work session on the draft Tree Code at their November 18 special meeting. A public hearing on the draft Tree Code is tentatively scheduled for December 9r''. He reminded them that they will also need to elect new officers for 2021 at their December 9t' meeting. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 222 7.1.f PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crank announced that she was elected to serve as Chair of the Snohomish County Airport Commission, just in time for the big project the Commission has been assigned, which is the Airport Master Plan. Landrum & Brown has been hired as the consultant for this project, and a special virtual meeting is scheduled for November 19' at 6 p.m. She invited those interested to tune in. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Planning Board Minutes November 12, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 223 7.1.g Save.the.Edmonds.Marsh@gmail.com November 10, 2020 Council Members, Save Our Marsh is a local community group concerned about the health of the Edmonds Marsh - Estuary and the wildlife it supports. As much as we would like to see the Edmonds Marsh restored with an open tidal channel connecting it to Puget Sound, our meetings with WSDOT have made it clear that is not going to happen in the short term. Thus, we are asking the City and the Council to cease unproductive budget planning that involves the old Unocal property until such time that the City actually knows what the cost, conditions, and timelines will be for placing a tidal channel across the old Unocal site. Instead, the City should be paving the way for use of the old Unocal property for Marsh restoration by modifying the City's Comprehensive Plan and initiating a Master Plan development for the Unocal property in concert with Marsh restoration and enhancement. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan still states that the (now defunct) Ferry Terminal relocation and Edmonds Crossing project "remains the City's stated preference" for the old Unocal property; and this needs to be fixed. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the old Unocal property is "Master Plan Development," and the public process for developing a Master Plan, in conjunction with WSDOT if possible, should commence now. We are concerned that the 2021 CFP/CIP continues the "stormwater" centric approach to Marsh restoration that is counterproductive to restoring a healthy ecosystem. This is evidenced by the continued cut-off of tidal exchange by the tidegate, the lack of ecologically functional buffers in the previously proposed final design for the daylighted channel, and the admonishment by grant technical reviewers that the City's grant application lacked a comprehensive approach to estuary restoration. The Marsh Restoration project could qualify (once the Unocal property is resolved) for numerous federal and state grant programs for nearshore, estuary, and recreation funding if it is designed as a comprehensive tidal wetland and salmon restoration project with public recreational opportunities (e.g., salmon/wildlife viewing). Packet Pg. 224 7.1.g Our specific comments on the CFP/CIP are as follows. The 2021-2026 CFP for Marsh Restoration on page 63 needs to be revised. As mentioned above, the daylighted channel CANNOT proceed in the near term and there is no reason to include it in the CFP until the Unocal property issue is resolved. We don't know how much a property purchase might add to the project cost, nor what an ecological restoration approach (rather than "stormwater" approach) may cost. At this point in time, the restoration costs should be noted as TBD (to be determined) as it is in the CIP. Further, it is inappropriate to use Fund 422 (stormwater) for the invalid $17M estimate in the CFP since most of the Marsh Restoration costs will be for estuary restoration, NOT stormwater. Within the 2021-2026 CFP for Marsh Restoration are three 2021 Budget Decision Packages; DP #56, DP #61, and DP #62. We do not support the $80K for DP #56 for another channel design because the City can't know where the tidal channel might be placed until the property issue is resolved. We cannot comment on the $40K for DP #61 because we cannot tell by the description if/how it will improve water quality in the Marsh — it is titled Phase 1 of something that has not been presented to the public. We recommend that the $450K carryover in DP #63 NOT be funded, but instead transfer the $450K to the Marsh Restoration Fund (Fund 017) so that it can be used for future grant matching costs. Instead of $80K for DP #56, we suggest the Council use a portion of those funds to cover the City's Planning Department's costs for fixing the Comprehensive Plan in 2021 (as described above) and initiating the Master Plan development process. The table on page 18 of the CIP needs to be revised to delete the Fund 422 costs for everything except the "true" stormwater activities (i.e., storm -drain water quality). If the City is intent on spending stormwater funds for the Marsh, it should be for actual stormwater projects that benefit water quality and circulation in the Marsh such as retro-fitting the Harbor Square stormwater system so that it drains to Dayton Street (rather than into the Marsh), and infiltrating the polluted stormwater in street storm drains. The City should also work with WSDOT to remove the passage -blocking fences in the Marsh on each side of Highway 104. During the interim period of resolving use of the Unocal property, we recommend the CIP `Parks' Plan include 1) vegetation enhancement in the deteriorating portions of the Edmonds Marsh; 2) extending the boardwalk along the western edge of the Marsh to enhance wildlife viewing with concurrent planting of trees and vegetation between the extended boardwalk and the RR tracks; and 3) bringing in an experienced wetland geomorphologist to assess how the years of sediment buildup and altered circulation (due to tidegate closings in winter) can be resolved to restore ecological functions in the Marsh. cc: Mayor Mike Nelson Packet Pg. 225 7.1.h Save.the.Edmonds.Marsh@gmail.com October 14, 2020 Planning Board Members, Save Our Marsh is a community group concerned about the well being of the wildlife and the environs of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary. We track and provide input on City, WSDOT, Chevron (Unocal) and WA Dept. Ecology activities as they affect the conservation, enhancement and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary. Thus, we are writing to the Planning Board to help inform you on aspects of your Agenda Item on the City's 2021-26 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). The chief factor affecting the ecological functions of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary is the "disconnect" with open tidal exchange with Puget Sound. When the Port of Edmonds Marina was built in the 1960's, the saltwater marsh's outlet to Puget Sound was placed in a long pipe with a tidegate that restricted/prevented daily tidal exchange and eliminated spawning salmon returns to the Marsh's tributary streams. The only "fix" available now to restore the estuary is to place an open tidal channel across the old Unocal property on the south edge of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary. The proposed "fix" for this long standing problem is in both the Capital Improvement Plan and Capital Facilities Plan under the heading "Edmonds Marsh -Estuary Restoration." Unfortunately, the planning of the Marsh -Estuary Restoration project to install a tidal channel across the Unocal property cannot proceed until the final disposition of the old Unocal property is resolved. The City has been unsuccessful in obtaining grant funds for this project due to the property issue. The City should cease spending staff time and funding to design and/or attempt to obtain grant funding to design or construct the tidal channel until such time that WSDOT formally announces its plans for the Unocal property and notifies the City on what it will cost the City to use that property for Marsh restoration. There are other procedural aspects that need to be worked on - such as changing the land use priorities in the City's Comprehensive Plan for the old Unocal property, and either rezoning or commencing development of a Master Plan for the old Unocal property in combination with enhancing the Edmonds Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary. As you know, WSDOT purchased the old Unocal property with the intent to relocate the Edmonds ferry terminal (the old "Edmonds Crossing" project). However, WSDOT has Packet Pg. 226 7.1.h abandoned that plan and have not declared future use of the old Unocal property. In spite of abandoning the ferry terminal plan back in 2007-2009, WSDOT was still telling the City that they preferred the tidal channel effectively be a ditch against the RR tracks (which is the worst possible design) resulting in the City wasting grant funds attempting to appease WSDOT for land use approval. Further, title for the property has not been transferred to WSDOT pending WA Dept. Of Ecology certifying that Chevron's cleanup of the property has been completed. Although we expected the cleanup to be completed over a year ago, additional contaminants have been found on the site and it is now uncertain when cleanup may be completed (maybe as long as 6 years out). Nonetheless, WSDOT has refused to commit to allowing a tidal channel across the property when they take ownership and have indicated they want "fair market value" payment for non -ferry use of that property which was purchased for about $8M in 2005. In conclusion, we ask that the Planning Board join us in recommending to the Council that the CIP and CFP be revised to stop staff from wasting time and funding to contractors for further design until the Unocal property disposition is known. Further, the CIP and CFP need to be revised to recast Marsh -Estuary Restoration as a PROS Plan project (since the Marsh, deeded as a wildlife reserve, is under Parks) rather than as a stormwater project (Fund 422) that would inappropriately use utility tax funds on non-stormwater activities. The City should now focus its effort on revising the Comprehensive Plan (which still refers to the defunct "Edmonds Crossing" project) and developing a Master Plan in conjunction with a WSDOT public process to resolve future use of the old Unocal property for an open tidal connection to Puget Sound and enhancement of the Edmonds Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary. cc: Mayor Mike Nelson Edmonds City Council Packet Pg. 227 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) & i; Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 9P, __ 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 7.1.i 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. mi, Packet Pg. 230 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 / MEADOWS sprag�e pro r,aae future B&G slk—p.,k a footprint - -' m it e lawn pl,gr— J .. fenrare GREAT LAWN e°r,00p��on few PLAZA m & srornge I, pe nqu grove r IPw' _ 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 7.1.i 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. 235 7.1.i ■ Comprehensive Plan Priority Grant Sources & Competitiveness Maintenance Issue 01 [ :404 �-7: 00e Mayor & City Council Project Selection :404110 Project Delivery Capacity Available Funding Concurrency Safety Packet Pg. 236 ,July CIP/CFP 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 14t" & 28th) November/December • City Council Presentation (November 10th) • Public Hearing Planning Board (November 12tn) • Public Hearing City Council (November 24th) • Adopt CFP w/ Budget into the Comprehensive Plan 10 7.1.i 1311c, a a_ U d U co N Co N r N O N O N O Q O L CL 4- 0 �L V Z O r r N d L IL O L CL U CL LL U t N O Z C O E t v R .r r Q Packet Pg. 238 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) & Capital Improvement Program (CIP) x: d � A 9 -got City Council — December 1, 2020 V 7.1.j a LL U d U to N O N N O N d U) O Q O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L d :i IL c O c m a� L a a_ U d U- U L d c,> C a) E t :i R a Packet Pg. 240 City Fund Numbers (CIP) Fund Description Department GF Building Maintenance Public Works 112 Street Construction Fund Public Works 125 Capital Projects Fund (REET 2) Parks & Recreation/Public Works 126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition (REET 1) Parks & Recreation/Public Works 332 Parks- Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 421 Water Projects Public Works 422 Storm Projects Public Works 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 423 Wastewater Treatment Plant Public Works v 7.1.j a LL U d U to N O N N O N d U) O Q O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L d :i IL c O c m a� L a a_ U d U- U L d c,> C a) E t :i R a Packet Pg. 242 Public Works & Utilities 5 Ivilo w a pIAX a Packet Pg. 244 2020 - Sidewalk Projects Dayton St. (7th Ave - 8th Ave) #1 Short Walkway 2015 Transportation Plan Walnut St. (3rdAve — 4th Ave) #3 Short Walkway 2015 Transportation Plan t 7.1.j a LL U d U to N O N N O N d U) O Q O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L d :i IL c O c m a� L a a_ U d U- U L d c,> C a) E t :i R a Packet Pg. 246 112 Street Capital Fund 2021 Protects: • *Pavement Preservation Program (Cons) DP#68 • 76m/220m Intersection Improvements (Design) DP#69 • *76t" Ave Overlay Project (Design) DP#70 • *Hwy 99 Revitalization Project (Design/ROW) DP#72 • Citywide Bicycle Improvements (Design) DP#73 • *Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project (Cons) DP#74 *BEET Contribution 9 Transportation - 125 Fund 2021 Projects: • Pavement Preservation Program (Cons) DP#68 • Pedestrian Safety Program (Cons) DP#75 • Traffic Signal Upgrades (Cons) DP#76 • Sidewalk Capital & Maint Program (Cons) DP#77 10 Transportation - 126 Fund 2021 Projects: • Elm Way Walkway (Design) DP#58 • 76t" Ave Overlay (Design) DP#70 • Hwy 99 Revitalization Project (Design/ROW) DP#72 • Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project (Cons) DP#74 • Guardrail Installation (Cons) DP#78 • Traffic Calming (Cons) DP#79 Ah 7.1.j a LL U d s to N O N N O N d U1 O Q O IL 0 C d 2 gyp + r , Xw ^ �Y ✓� x� 1 Y �� J • a Packet Pg. 250 2020 - Dayton St. Utility Improvement Project DAYTON STREET UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS z 1 ` 31950 ft Watermain Replacement 31990 ft Storm pipe Replacement • 11990 ft Sewer pipe Replacement • 11930 ft Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation • New pavement Section y 1: 13 7.1.j a LL U d U to N O N N O N d U) O Q O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L d :i IL c O c m a� L a a_ U d U- U L d c,> C a) E t :i R a Packet Pg. 252 7.1.j a a_ U d U to N O N N O N d U) O Q O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L d :i IL c O c m a� L a a_ U d U- U L d c,> C a) E t :i R a Packet Pg. 253 Utility Funds 2021 Projects Water Utility: • 2022 Waterline Replacement Program (Desgn) DP#47 Overlay 0.7 lane miles affected by waterline replacements DP#48 2021 Watermain Replacement 6,200 ft (Cons) DP#51 i Storm Utility Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update DP#42 • 2021 Storm pipe replacement 2,360 ft (Cons) DP#53 2022 Storm pipe replacement (Design) DP#54 175t" St. Slope Repair (Design) DP#55 • Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Related Projects DP#56,61,62 • Overlay 0.25 lane miles affected by storm replacements DP#57 • Seaview Phase 2 Infiltration Facility DP#59 • Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects DP#60 16 Utility Funds 2021 Projects Sewer Utility • 2021 sewermain replacement program 2,000 ft (Cons) DP#63 • Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study D P#64 • Overlay 0.1 lane miles affected by sewermain replacements DP#65 • 3,000 ft of sewer pipe rehabilitation b cured -in place pipe method DP#66 • 2022 sewermain replacement (Design) DP#67 Utility Funds 2021 Projects • WWTP — $26,121,000 Gasification System to replace our incinerator will reduce energy consumption, reduce carbon emissions, and reduce operational costs. Negotiated contract for delivery as an ESCO D P#43 — Started Trials of a new Nitrogen removal system to improve water quality in Puget Sound flu 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 19 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 =rye°��o�, � exera=e =rar�an, amble , - / MEADOWS fl... - - Spra9�e promenade •. future B&G Ik—p.,k a footprint _ ,.- � ', � multi use lawn , PloYground� J s fenrare GREAT LAWN - Bade pavilion I. PLAZA ,rraam & storage pe nque grove Parks CIP/CFP 2019=2020 Waterfront Re -development— In Progress Lin M i-. �� a • - ---- _ ' _ A ` elfIF - -6 _ 7 ' �\M- 4 Parks CIP 2019 & 2020 Yost Pool Repairs - Complete Pool Grates, CO2 Injector & Pool Cover 22 7.1.j a LL U d U to N O N N O N d U) O Q O L. IL 4- 0 a� c �L d :i IL c O c m a� L a a_ U d U- U L d c,> C a) E t :i R a Packet Pg. 261 Parks CIP 2020 City Park Walkway - In Progress L �F Parks CIP 2020 Gateway Sign - In Progress k CCC •c yl' fir+ t.�,h�{f3'. S•.-.�I' _ 'i F f 1 ` WT Tj 0-1 - D O W N T O W N -: =� kti � � T 1, s _ t+aA' �, , "iFF"—: ".t's�-'I'�=�.. ,1,� • I � r t�. •� � — � A � � �•' " r - ]� 'h �y� ..� �e 25 Parks CIP/CFP 2019=2020 Civic Park (Funds 125, 126, 332) -------------- ' future B&G skatepark ; j footprint J �4 GREAT LAWN • DP #82 • $12.1 M split between 2021 & 2022 • Design Complete • Permit Review Complete • Re -bid in January 2021 • Ground Breaking Spring 2021 • 16 Months to Complete Funding Sources: • $3.47M in Grant Funding • $3.7M Bonds • $1.35M Park Impact Fee's • $1.38M REET Funding • $1.86 GF Carryforward • $400K Donations 26 LL U d _ _ _ _ • U •to N O N N O N d U) O ' 1 O L IL 01 _ .2 O _ d L d CL LL RF lie M' d Packet Pg. 265 Parks CIP 2021 Park Improvement & Capital Replacement Program (Fund 125) ];..=01 i. - - - - Alp Life -cycle major maintenance to prolong usage and/or increase capacity: • Resurfacing • Replacement • Upgrading DP#81 $155,000 Annually V W: Parks CIP 2021 Park Land and Open Space Acquisition Program (Fund 126) 0 • $700,000 Reserved • $200,000 from previous years & $500,000 in 2021 • Programmed $200,000 per year in future years 29 Parks CIP 2021 Fishing Pier Repair (Fund 332) DP#83 $54,425 Carryforward Funds from WDFW Bid Spring 2020 New plan for Spring/Summer 2021 30 Parks CIP 2022= 2026 Future Improvements: • Civic Park Continuation in 2022 • Marina Beach Design & Construction • 4t" Avenue Cultural Corridor • Park Land and Open Space Acquisition Program • Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting) . Waterfront Walkway Connection —Ebb Tide Section . Trail Development • Sports Field/Playground Partnership 31 July CIP/CFP 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 • Planning Board; Public Hearing (November 12t") • City Council Presentation (November 12th) • City Council Public Hearing (December 1st) • Adopt CFP w/ Budget into the Comprehensive Plan 32 7.1.j a a U d U co N O N N a N d N O 0. O L a 4- 0 �L d :.% IL c O c m as L a a_ U a U- U L d :i i E t Q Packet Pg. 271 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 Public Hearing on Ordinance #4200 Establishing A Moratorium on Subdivision Applications Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History The City Council adopted Ordinance #4200 on November 2, 2020. This is the public hearing required within 60 days of the ordinance being adopted. The adopted ordinance and Council minutes are attached. Staff Recommendation Hold the public hearing and direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact for Council to adopt at its next regular meeting. Narrative The City Council adopted Ordinance #4200 on November 2, 2020, establishing a four -month moratorium on the acceptance of any subdivision application for any property that contains eight or more significant trees per 10,000 square feet of lot area. Section 5 of the ordinance provides for a public hearing: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on a moratorium within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on December 1, 2020 unless the City Council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium. This is the public hearing required by Ordinance #4200. At the close of the public hearing the Council will need to direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact for Council to adopt at its next regular meeting. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Ordinance 4200 Exhibit 2: City Council Minutes 11-02-2020 Packet Pg. 272 7.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.4200 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN EMERGENCY 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 MORATORIUM, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, ECDC 18.45.040.Q defines "tree" as "any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown;" and WHEREAS, ECDC 18.45.040.A defines "caliper" 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;" and WHEREAS, the city's tree regulations are in the process of being updated; and WHEREAS, there is concern that the existing tree regulations do not adequately protect existing trees that are not in critical areas from being cleared during subdivision development; and WHEREAS, Section 36.70A.390 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes the City Council to adopt an immediate moratorium for a period of up to six months without holding a public hearing on the proposal provided that a public hearing is held within at least sixty days of its adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to impose a four -month moratorium on the acceptance of any subdivision application for any property that contains more than eight trees per 10,000 square feet of lot area; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this moratorium is to allow the City adequate time to complete review of and adopt updated tree regulations and to preserve existing significant trees during that review period. The City's goal is to ultimately draft and adopt tree regulations that better protect existing significant trees from being cleared by subdivision Packet Pg. 273 7.2.a development. For the purposes of this ordinance, the phrase "significant tree" shall be defined as "any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of eight inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown." Section 2. Moratorium Imposed. The City Council hereby imposes a four -month moratorium on the acceptance of any subdivision application for any property that contains eight or more significant trees per 10,000 square feet of lot area, 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. More precisely, the applicability of the moratorium to a particular property shall be determined through the following formula where x must be greater than or equal to .0008 for the moratorium to apply: x= Number of significant trees on parent parcel Parcel size in square feet For example, an 18,000 square foot lot with fourteen significant trees on it would not be subject to the moratorium because X would equal .00077, which is less than .0008. In contrast, an 18,000 square foot lot with fifteen significant trees on it would be subject to the moratorium because X would equal .00083, which is greater than .0008. Section 3. Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the moratorium and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as 2 Packet Pg. 274 7.2.a contemplated by Section 4 herein), the moratorium shall not terminate until four (4) months after the date of adoption, unless it is repealed sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have occurred. Section 4. Public Hearing on Moratorium. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on a moratorium within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on December 1, 2020 unless the City Council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 6. Declaration of Emergency. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum (RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate moratorium on the City's acceptance of subdivision applications, such applications could become vested, leading to the possible removal of existing trees. Therefore, the moratorium must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the submission of Packet Pg. 275 7.2.a applications to the City in an attempt to vest rights for an indefinite period of time. This Ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 7. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Section 8. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: M OR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Z�;; - LER ,SCOTTP SEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARAI3A FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: November 2, 2020 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: November 2, 2020 PUBLISHED: November 5, 2020 EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 2020 ORDINANCE NO. 4200 M Packet Pg. 276 7.2.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4200 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 2nd day of November, 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4200. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: 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 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 MORATORIUM, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 2nd day of November, 2020. Y CLERK, SCO - ASSEY 5 Packet Pg. 277 7.2.b 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. 278 7.2.b 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. 279 7.2.b 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. 280 7.2.b 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. 281 7.2.b 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. 282 7.2.b 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. 283 7.2.b 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. 284 7.2.b 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. 285 7.2.b 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. 286 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 Public Hearing on Ordinance #4201 Establishing Emergency Regulations to Accompany the Subdivision Moratorium Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History The City Council adopted Ordinance #4201 on November 2, 2020. This is the public hearing required to be held within 60 days of the ordinance. The adopted ordinance and Council minutes are attached. Staff Recommendation Hold the public hearing and direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact for Council to adopt at its next regular meeting. Narrative The City Council adopted Ordinance #4201 on November 2, 2020, with the purpose of adopting interim regulations to support the moratorium that has been imposed by Ordinance #4200. These regulations are intended to allow the City adequate time to complete the review and adoption of updated tree regulations and to preserve existing significant trees during that review period. The City's goal is to ultimately draft and adopt tree regulations that better protect existing significant trees from being cleared by subdivision development. Section 6 of the ordinance provides for a public hearing: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on these interim regulations within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on December 1, 2020 unless the City Council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim regulations and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the interim regulations. This is the public hearing required by Ordinance #4201. At the close of the public hearing the Council will need to direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact for Council to adopt at its next regular meeting. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Ordinance 4201 Exhibit 2: City Council Minutes 11-02-2020 Packet Pg. 287 7.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 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. WHEREAS, ECDC 18.45.040.Q defines "tree" as "any living woody plant characterized by one main stem or trunk and many branches and having a caliper of six inches or greater, or a multi -stemmed trunk system with a definitely formed crown;" and WHEREAS, ECDC 18.45.040.A defines "caliper" 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;" and WHEREAS, the city's tree regulations are in the process of being updated; and WHEREAS, there is concern that the existing tree regulations do not adequately protect existing trees that are not in critical areas from being cleared during subdivision development; and WHEREAS, Section 36.70A.390 of the Revised Code of Washington authorizes the City Council to adopt an immediate moratorium for a period of up to six months without holding a public hearing on the proposal provided that a public hearing is held within at least sixty days of its adoption; and WHEREAS, the City Council imposed a four -month moratorium on the acceptance of any subdivision application for any property that contains more than eight trees per 10,000 square feet of lot area; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the following interim regulations to allow the moratorium to be enforced more effectively; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of these interim regulations is to support the moratorium that has been imposed to allow the City adequate time to complete review of and Packet Pg. 288 7.3.a adopt updated tree regulations and to preserve existing significant trees during that review period. The City's goal is to ultimately draft and adopt tree regulations that better protect existing significant trees from being cleared by subdivision development. Section 2. Tree Cutting Exemption Modified. ECDC 18.45.030, entitled "Exemptions," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in strike through): The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: A. Clearing on an improved single-family lot that is not capable of being subdivided er elear-ing on a pai4ially iWr-eved single family let, whieh is eapable ef being divided inte one additional ^*, except for: 1. That portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally sensitive area; 2. That portion of the lot that is located within 25 feet of any stream or wetland; 3. That portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent; B. Clearing on Uunimproved lots that •eh are not capable of being ftlAhe subdivided, except for: 1. That portion of the lot that is located in a designated environmentally sensitive area; 2. That portion of the lot that is located within 25 feet of any stream or wetland; 3. That portion of the lot that has slopes exceeding 25 percent; C. Routine landscape maintenance and gardening; D. Removal of trees and/or ground cover by the public works department, parks department, fire department and/or public or private utility in situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility; E. Installation and maintenance of public utilities, after approval of the route by the planning division manager or his or her designee, except in parks or environmentally sensitive areas; 2 Packet Pg. 289 7.3.a F. Emergency situations on private property involving danger to life or property or substantial fire hazards. Section 3. ECDC 20.75.040, entitled "Application," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in stfike thfo tg ): Applications for subdivisions shall be made to the development services director on forms provided by the development services department. A subdivision application will be processed concurrently with any applications for rezones, variances, planned unit developments, site plan approvals and other similar approvals, that relate to the proposed subdivision, unless the applicant expressly requests sequential processing. The application shall contain the following items in addition to those specified in ECDC 20.02.002: A. A reproducible copy of the preliminary plat containing all of the information required by ECDC 20.75.060 and the number of prints required by the development services department; B. Title report; C. A survey map, if required by the development services 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; D. The application fee as set in Chapter 15.00 ECDC; E. A proposal for dedication of park land rather than payment of in -lieu fees, if desired by the applicant; F. Source of water supply and name of supplier; G. Method of sewage disposal, and name of municipal system if applicable. Percolation rates and other information required by the public works department shall be submitted if septic tanks are to be used; H. Other information that may be required by the development services director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. Packet Pg. 290 7.3.a Section 4. ECDC 20.75.060, entitled "Required information on preliminary plats," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in stfike- A preliminary plat is a neat and approximate drawing to scale of a proposed division of land, showing the existing conditions and the general proposed layouts of streets, lots and other information needed to properly review the proposal. The preliminary plat of a short subdivision may be referred to as a short plat. A preliminary plat shall be prepared by a professional land surveyor registered in the state of Washington. The scale used shall be sufficient to show clearly all details of the proposal. A scale of 50 feet to the inch is preferred; other engineering scales may be used, if necessary. Preliminary plats for formal subdivisions shall not exceed a size of 24 inches by 36 inches. Short plats shall be on an eight -and -one -half -by -I I -inch page. The following information shall be shown on the plat: A. The name, if any, of the proposed subdivision; B. Sufficient description to define the location and boundaries of the proposed subdivision; C. Name, address, seal and signature of the land surveyor who prepared the map; D. A vicinity sketch; E. Date prepared or revised, scale, north point, quarter section, section, township and range number; F. Total acreage of the land to be divided, and area in square feet of each proposed lot; G. Existing zoning, and zoning boundaries, if any; H. Lot dimensions and numbers; I. Setback lines required by the existing or proposed zoning, if the proposed lot has an unusual shape, steep topography, or other unusual limitations on its building site; J. Any existing property lines within, or adjacent to, the proposed subdivision, and the names of the owners of adjacent property; K. Contour lines in areas to be developed shall be at five-foot intervals, or as specified by the development services director. Ten -foot intervals may be used in areas not to be developed. All contour lines shall be extended into adjacent property a sufficient distance to show the topographical relationship of adjacent property to the proposed subdivision; 2 Packet Pg. 291 7.3.a L. The location, name and width of all existing and proposed street rights -of -way, or easements within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, the grade or proposed streets and the pavement location of existing and proposed streets; M. The location of all existing structures within the proposed subdivision and within 25 feet of the proposed subdivision. Public area or areas to be owned in common by the lot owners, if any; N. The location of tree -covered areas, with the location of individual trees over eight inches in diameter ' ; O. A preliminary grading plan or profile of proposed roads if more than 500 cubic yards of earth is to be removed; P. A preliminary drainage proposal as specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC, showing existing and proposed drainage facilities for the site and the adjacent areas; Q. A statement of improvements to be installed; R. The location of known or suspected soil or geological hazard areas, water bodies, creeks and areas subject to flooding; S. Possible future lot lines if any is large enough to allow future division; T. Location of existing underground utility lines, sewer and water mains adjacent to or within the proposed subdivision; U. Other information that may be required by the development services director in order to properly review the proposed subdivision, including information needed to determine the environmental impact of the proposal. Section 5. Duration of Interim Regulations. The interim regulations imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the interim regulations and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the interim regulations (as contemplated by Section 6 herein), the interim regulations shall not terminate until four (4) months after the date of adoption, unless it is repealed sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the interim regulations by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have occurred. 5 Packet Pg. 292 7.3.a Section 6. Public Hearing on Interim regulations. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on these interim regulations within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on December 1, 2020 unless the City Council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim regulations and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the interim regulations. Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8. Declaration of Emergency. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum (RCW 35A.12.130). Without the immediate adoption of these interim regulations, the city's moratorium would be less effective, leading to the possible removal of existing trees. Therefore, the interim regulations must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the submission of applications to the City in an attempt to vest rights for an indefinite period of time. This Ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 9. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. 0 Packet Pg. 293 7.3.a Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: M6#OR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CI LERK, SCOTT PA EY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADA FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: November 2, 2020 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: November 2, 2020 PUBLISHED: November 5, 2020 EFFECTIVE DATE: November 10, 2020 ORDINANCE NO. 4201 Packet Pg. 294 7.3.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4201 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 2nd day of November, 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4201. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: 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 The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 2nd day of November, 2020. TY LE , SCOTT P SSEY Packet Pg. 295 7.3.b 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. 296 7.3.b 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. 297 7.3.b 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. 298 7.3.b 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. 299 7.3.b 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. 300 7.3.b 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. 301 7.3.b 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. 302 7.3.b 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. 303 7.3.b 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. 304 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 Modifications to the Contingent Loan Agreement with the Edmonds Public Facilities District Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Dave Turley Background/History In 2008, the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) issued $4,000,000 of Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds (The Bonds). The Bonds proceed were used to pay off a line of credit the District opened to finance a portion of the construction of the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA). When the PFD issued the bonds, the City of Edmonds (City) and the PFD entered into a Contingent Loan Agreement (CLA) for the purpose of providing credit support for the PFD. In 2018 in order to take advantage of lower interest rates, the PFD refinanced these bonds by issuing a Note to First Financial Northwest Bank (FFNWB). The PFD and the City signed a Contingent Loan Agreement whereby the City agreed to purchase Certificates of Deposit which FFNWB would then hold as collateral for the Note between the PFD and FFNWB. These certificates of deposit currently bear interest at 2.1%. The ECA has been unable to host performances, meetings and events in their facility since early March 2020 due to mandates issued by the State of Washington in response to the current Coronavirus Pandemic. The financial impact to the organization has been staggering, with an estimated loss of nearly $1.75 million in revenue from ticket sales, rental events, and concessions and merchandise. They have responded by laying off more than 50% of their staff, and reducing all remaining staff members' hours and compensation by 50%. Despite these actions, they continue to face an operating deficit and cash flow challenge. The PFD asked FFNWB for a modification to their loan agreement, where the PFD would make interest - only payments in 2020, defer their December 31, 2020 principal payment to December 31, 2021, and extend the maturity date for the loan out for one additional year to 2029. Attached is a draft copy of the PFD Resolution, which was originally passed in November 2018. Amended language is highlighted in yellow and can be found on the Title Page, and on pages 1, 5, and 7 of the document. This Resolution was approved on November 20, 2020. Also attached is the "Second Amendment to the Contingent Loan Agreement" between the City and the PFD. The final attachment is the "City of Edmonds Amending Ordinance," prepared on our behalf by Foster Garvey, Bond Counsel. Packet Pg. 305 8.1 Staff Recommendation Staff recommendation is for Council tonight to pass two separate motions. The first motion would be to authorize the Mayor to sign the Second Amendment to the Contingent Loan Agreement as updated and included in tonight's packet. The second motion would be to pass an Ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington, authorizing the execution and delivery of amendments to certain documents in connection with extending the maturity of a promissory note issued by the Edmonds Public Facilities District to First Financial Northwest Bank; authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith; and fixing a time when the same shall be effective. Narrative: Included in tonight's packet are 1) a copy of the PFD's Resolution, 2) a draft Second Amendment to the Contingent Loan Agreement, and 3) a draft Amending Ordinance. Attachments: 1 PFD Resolution 2018-03 - Amended 11-20-20 2 Edmonds PFD Bond_ CLA second amendment 3 Edmonds PFD Bond _amending ordinance Packet Pg. 306 8.1.a RESOLUTION NO.2018-03 (Amended, November 20, 2020) A RESOLUTION OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTE IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $3,000,000, TO PROVIDE FUNDS WITH WHICH TO REPAY AND REDEEM IN A CURRENT REFUNDING ITS OUTSTANDING SALES TAX OBLIGATION AND REFUNDING BONDS, 2008, AND PAY THE COSTS OF ISSUANCE OF THE NOTE AND ADMINISTERING THE REFUNDING PLAN; FIXING THE DATE, FORM, MATURITY, INTEREST RATE, TERMS AND COVENANTS OF THE NOTE; ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FUNDS AND PROVIDING FOR DEPOSITS THEREIN; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A TERM SHEET WITH FIRST FINANCIAL NORTHWEST BANK; COVENANTING TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN FEDERAL TAX LAWS; APPROVING THE FORM OF A CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO Packet Pg. 307 8.1.a TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1. Definitions............................................................................................................... Section 2. Authorization and Description of the Note.............................................................. Section 3. Registration and Transfer of the Note...................................................................... Section 4. Payment of the Note................................................................................................. Section5. Prepayment.............................................................................................................. Section 6. Form and Execution of the Note.............................................................................. Section7. Note Registrar......................................................................................................... Section 8. Preservation of Tax -Exemption for Interest on the Note ......................................... Section 9. Designation of the Note as a "Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligation" .......................... Section 10. Pledges of General Revenue and Sales and Use Tax Revenue .............................. Section 11. Funds and Accounts............................................................................................... Section 12. Deposit of Note Proceeds; Refunding Plan........................................................... Section 13. Refunding of the Refunded Bonds......................................................................... Section 14. District Findings With Respect to Refunding........................................................ Section 15. Additional Covenants............................................................................................ Section16. Additional Bonds................................................................................................... Section 17. Supplements and Amendments.............................................................................. Section 18. Default and Remedies............................................................................................ Section 19. Approval of Sale of the Note................................................................................. Section 20. Financial Reporting................................................................................................ Section 21. Approval of Contingent Loan Agreement............................................................. Section 22. Parties Interested Herein........................................................................................ Section 23. Ratification and Confirmation............................................................................... Section24. Repealer................................................................................................................. Section25. Effective Date........................................................................................................ Exhibit A: Form of Contingent Loan Agreement Exhibit B: Form of Term Sheet 3 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 .. 11 .. 11 .. 12 .. 12 .. 13 .. 14 .. 15 .. 15 .. 16 .. 16 .. 16 .. 16 .. 16 .. 16 0 N 0 N d C d E Q M O O r O N C O 3 O N O LL a r C E t V IC a+ a+ Q 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 308 8.1.a RESOLUTION NO. 2018-03 (Amended November 20, 2020) A RESOLUTION OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A NOTE IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $3,000,000, TO PROVIDE FUNDS WITH WHICH TO REPAY AND REDEEM IN A CURRENT REFUNDING ITS OUTSTANDING SALES TAX OBLIGATION AND REFUNDING BONDS, 2008, AND PAY THE COSTS OF ISSUANCE OF THE NOTE AND ADMINISTERING THE REFUNDING PLAN; FIXING THE DATE, FORM, MATURITY, INTEREST RATE, TERMS AND COVENANTS OF THE NOTE; ESTABLISHING CERTAIN FUNDS AND PROVIDING FOR DEPOSITS THEREIN; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A TERM SHEET WITH FIRST FINANCIAL NORTHWEST BANK; COVENANTING TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN FEDERAL TAX LAWS; APPROVING THE FORM OF A CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING THERETO EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT NOTE, 2018 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 3358, adopted on April 24, 2001, the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), created the Edmonds Public Facilities District (the "District") pursuant to chapter 35.57 RCW to acquire, construct, own, remodel, maintain, equip, repair, finance, and operate one or more regional centers, including the Edmonds Center for the Arts (the "Regional Center"); WHEREAS, pursuant to chapters 35.57 and 67.28 RCW, the District is authorized to acquire, design, construct, own, finance, operate and maintain various facilities and improvements constituting a regional center, including related parking facilities (as defined in RCW 35.57.020) serving a regional population, and to provide for the joint use or joint financing of all or any part of tourism -related facilities (as defined in RCW 67.28.080) on such terms as may be fixed by agreement between the respective legislative bodies; WHEREAS, as authorized by RCW 35.57.040(1)(d) and RCW 82.14.390, the District has since 2001 imposed and collected a 0.033% sales and use tax to assist in financing the design, development, acquisition, construction, operation and management of the Regional Center, which taxing authority will expire when bonds issued to finance or refinance the construction of the Regional Center and related parking facilities are retired, but not later than 2041, which is 40 years after the tax was first collected; WHEREAS, pursuant to chapters 35.57, 36.100, 39.34 and 67.28 RCW, the City, the District, the o Snohomish County Public Facilities District, and Snohomish County previously entered into an Interlocal a T Agreement for Development of the Edmonds Centre for the Arts dated November 4, 2002, as amended (the "County PFD Agreement"); c� a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 309 8.1.a WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 27 adopted on June 25, 2008 (the "Refunded Bonds Resolution"), the District previously issued $4,000,000 of its Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2008 (the "Refunded Bonds"), pledging in addition to its full faith and credit, certain revenues from intergovernmental payments received under the Original Contingent Loan Agreement (as hereinafter defined); WHEREAS, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 3676, passed January 15, 2008, as amended by Ordinance No. 3687, passed on June 3, 2008, the City authorized the execution of a contingent loan agreement (the "Original Contingent Loan Agreement") relating to the obligation of the City to make loans to the District if and as necessary to pay debt service on the Refunded Bonds; WHEREAS, the District is authorized by RCW 35.57.030 to issue general obligation bonds not to exceed an amount, together with any outstanding nonvoter -approved general obligation indebtedness, equal to one-half of one percent of the value of the taxable property within the District; WHEREAS, the assessed valuation of the taxable property within the District as ascertained by the last preceding assessment for District purposes for the calendar year 2018 is $9,107,284,679, and the District has outstanding general indebtedness evidenced by nonvoter -approved obligations, including bonds, notes, financing leases and conditional sales contracts in the amount of $7,549,066 (including the Refunded Bonds to be refunded with the proceeds of the Note) incurred within the limit of up to one-half of one percent of the value of the taxable property within the District permitted for general District purposes without a vote of the qualified voters therein; WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 39.46.020 a "bond" means any agreement, including "notes," that evidences an indebtedness of a local government, where the local government agrees to pay a specified amount of money, with or without interest, at a designated time or times to either registered owners or bearers; WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the District (the "Board") desires to provide for the issuance of its Edmonds Public Facilities District Note, 2018 in the principal amount of not to exceed $3,000,000 as authorized herein (the "Note"), which is within the limit of up to one-half of one percent of the assessed value of the taxable property within the District to provide funds with which to repay and redeem in a current refunding the Refunded Bonds and pay the costs of issuance of the Note and administering the Refunding Plan. WHEREAS, prior to the Closing Date (as hereinafter defined), the City will adopt an ordinance to authorize the amendment and restatement of the Original Contingent Loan Agreement relating to the obligation of the City to make loans to the District if and as necessary to pay debt service on the Note (as amended and restated, the "Contingent Loan Agreement"); WHEREAS, First Financial Northwest Bank, Renton, Washington (the "Bank"), has offered to W purchase the Note under the terms and conditions set forth hereafter and in the Term Sheet (as hereinafter o defined); a T WHEREAS, the District has agreed to transfer all of its banking accounts to the Bank within six a months from the date hereof as one of the conditions set forth in the Term Sheet; and c� 2 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 310 8.1.a WHEREAS, the Board has determined it to be in the best interest of the District to authorize the Executive Director to accept and execute the Term Sheet and establish the principal amount of the Note in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT as follows: Section 1. Definitions The words and phrases set forth herein with initial capitalization shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such words and phrases in the recitals hereto and in this Section 1, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Additional Bonds means any bonds that the District may hereafter issue pursuant to Section 16 of this Resolution that are secured by a pledge of Sales and Use Tax Revenue or General Revenue. Approved Institutional Buyer means: (a) a "qualified institutional buyer" as defined in Rule 144A promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as in effect on the date hereof (the "Securities Act"); (b) an "accredited investor" as defined in Sections 501(a)(1) through (3) of Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act; (c) an entity that is directly or indirectly wholly owned or controlled by the purchaser/bondholder representative (being a qualified institutional buyer described in (a) above); (d) an entity all of the investors in which are described in (a), (b) or (c) above; or (e) a custodian or trustee for a party described in (a), (b) or (c) above. Bank means First Financial Northwest Bank, of Renton, Washington, or its successor and/or assigns. Board means the Board of Directors of the District. Business Day means any day other than (a) a Saturday or Sunday, (b) a day on which commercial banks in the State are authorized or required by law or executive order to close, or (c) a day on which the offices of the City are closed. City means the City of Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation of the State. Closing Date means the date on which the Note authorized by this Resolution is delivered to the r Bank, in exchange for the proceeds representing the purchase price of the Note. as E c� 3 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 311 8.1.a Code means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, together with corresponding and applicable final, temporary or proposed regulations and revenue rulings issued or amended by the United States Treasury Department. Contingent Loan Agreement means the Original Contingent Loan Agreement between the City and the District, dated as of July 14, 2008, as such agreement shall be amended and restated prior to the Closing Date pursuant to a City ordinance relating to the obligation of the City to make loans to the District if and as necessary to pay debt service on the Note, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A." County means Snohomish County, Washington. County PFD means the Snohomish County Public Facilities District, Snohomish County, Washington. County PFD Agreement means the Interlocal Agreement for Development of the Edmonds Center for the Arts, by and among the City, the District, the County PFD and the County, dated November 4, 2002, as the same may be amended from time to time. Debt Service Payment Date means any date on which the principal of and/or interest on the Note is due and payable as provided in this Resolution. District means the Edmonds Public Facilities District, Snohomish County, Washington. District Treasurer means the Administrative Services Director of the City, as ex officio Treasurer of the District, or his successor in this role as designated by the Board from time to time. Executive Director means the Executive Director of the District (or the successor officer to the Executive Director). General Revenue means all revenue of the District from any source, including, without limitation, donations, grants, rents and operating revenues, but excluding the Sales and Use Tax Revenue. Note means the herein -authorized note, designated as the "Edmonds Public Facilities District Note, 2018" or such other designation as the Executive Director shall determine. Note Fund means the District's Note Fund created pursuant to Section 11 of this Resolution. Note Register means the books or records maintained by the Note Registrar on which are recorded the name and address of the owner of the Note. Note Registrar means the District Treasurer, or his successor in functions, acting in the capacity as registrar, authenticating agent, paying agent and transfer agent of the Note. T Refunded Bonds means the District's Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2008, authorized by the Refunded Bonds Resolution in the original principal amount of $4,000,000. c� 4 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 312 8.1.a Refunded Bonds Resolution means Resolution No. 27 of the District, adopted by the Board on June 25, 2008, authorizing the Refunded Bonds. Refunding Plan means the payment or prepayment of all outstanding principal of the Refunded Bonds, together with all interest and fees due thereon, if any, as provided in Section 13 of this Resolution. Refunding Trustee means the refunding trustee or escrow agent, or any successor refunding trustee or escrow agent, appointed by the Executive Director. Regional Center means the Edmonds Center for the Arts, a "regional center" within the meaning of RCW 35.57.020 and a "tourism -related facility" within the meaning of RCW 67.28.080, along with any other such facilities that may in the future be owned or operated by the District. Registered Owner means the person named as the registered owner of the Note on the Note Register. Sales and Use Tax Revenue means the money received by the District from the Washington State Department of Revenue on account of the sales and use tax imposed by and collected for the District pursuant to RCW 82.14.390, as the same may be amended from time to time, or any successor statute, and any amounts received from the County PFD under the County PFD Agreement. Secretary means the Secretary of the District, or other officer of the District who is the custodian of the records of the proceedings of the Board, or his/her successor in functions, if any. State means the state of Washington. Term Sheet means the term sheet presented by the Bank, offering to purchase the Note under certain terms and conditions, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit `B." Section 2. Authorization and Description of the Note The District shall issue the Note in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $3,000,000: (a) to repay and redeem the Refunded Bonds in accordance with the Refunding Plan; and (b) to pay the costs of issuance and sale of the Note and administering the Refunding Plan. The Note shall be designated the Edmonds Public Facilities District Note, 2018; shall be dated as of the Closing Date; shall be issued in the form of a single, fully -registered Note; and shall be numbered in such manner and with any additional designation as the Note Registrar deems necessary for purposes of identification. The Note shall bear interest on the unpaid balance from the Closing Date or from the most recent interest payment date to which interest has been fully paid or duly provided for, whichever occurs later, o at the rate of three percent (3.00%) per annum computed on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of a twelve 30-day months, payable quarterly on each March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31, commencing December 31, 2018, up to and including December 31,2029, or the date the Note is fully prepaid, whichever occurs first. c� 5 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 313 8.1.a The District understands that the Bank will make a loan by purchasing the Note under the following additional conditions: (a) the Note is not being registered under the Securities Act and is not being registered or otherwise qualified for sale under the "Blue Sky" laws and regulations of any state; (b) the Bank will hold the Note as one single debt instrument; (c) no CUSIP number will be obtained for the Note; (d) no official statement has been or will be prepared in connection with the private placement of the Note with the Bank; (e) the Note will not close through The Depository Trust Company or any similar repository and will not be in book -entry form; and (f) the Note is not listed on any stock or other securities exchange. The Note shall be a negotiable instrument to the extent provided by chapter 62A.3 RCW Section 3. Registration and Transfer of the Note The Note shall be issued only in registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on the Note Register. The Note Register shall contain the name and mailing address of the Registered Owner of the Note and the principal amount of the Note held by the Registered Owner. The Note surrendered to the Note Registrar may be exchanged for a Note of an equal aggregate principal amount and of the same interest rate and maturity. The Note may be transferred only with the written consent of the District unless: (a) the Bank's corporate name is changed and the transfer is necessary to reflect such change; (b) the transferee is a successor in interest of the Bank by means of a corporate merger, an exchange of stock, or a sale of assets, or (c) the transferee is an Approved Institutional Buyer. In the event of such transfer, the Note must be endorsed in the manner provided thereon and surrendered to the Note Registrar. Any exchange or transfer shall be without cost to the Registered Owner or transferee, except that the Note Registrar may require any Registered Owner requesting such exchange or transfer to pay any related tax or other governmental charge required to be paid. The Note Registrar shall not be obligated to exchange or transfer the Note during the 15 days preceding any Debt Service Payment Date. Section 4. Payment of the Note Both principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Payment of each installment of principal of and interest on the Note, except the final installment thereof, shall be paid by check, wire or draft of the Note Registrar sent on the Debt Service Payment Date to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Note Register on the 15th day of the month preceding the Debt Service Payment Date, or at such other address as may be furnished in writing by such Registered Owner to the Note Registrar. Upon payment of the final installment of principal of and interest on the Note, the Registered Owner shall present and surrender the Note at the office of the Note Registrar for cancellation in accordance with law. The District and the Note Registrar may deem and treat the Registered Owner of the Note as the absolute owner of the Note for the purpose of receiving payments of principal of and interest due on the Note and for all other purposes, and neither the District nor the Note Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. 0 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 314 8.1.a Section 5. Prepayment (a) The District hereby reserves the right to prepay, without penalty, at the District's discretion, the outstanding amount of the Note, in whole or part, at any time prior to the maturity of the Note, at the price of par plus accrued interest to the date of prepayment, if any. The District shall provide the Bank with written notice of any prepayment at least 10 days prior to such prepayment date. In the event of a partial prepayment, the Bank shall recalculate the remaining quarterly installments of interest as mutually agreed upon, in writing, by the District and the Bank in order to reflect a reduction in the quarterly installments of interest. Within seven business days of each such prepayment, the Bank shall provide to the Registrar a recalculated payment schedule. No partial prepayment shall extend or postpone the due date of any subsequent installment. Notice of any such intended prepayment shall be given by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the Bank at the address appearing on the Note Register at least 10 days prior to the prepayment date. Such notice may also be given in electronic format. In the event the written notice is given in electronic format, copies of such notice shall be kept in the appropriate records of the District. (b) The Note shall be subject to mandatory prepayment in the principal amount of one -tenth (1/1oth) of the original principal amount of the Note per annum on each December 31, commencing December 31, 2019, up to and including December 31, 2029, or the date the Note is fully prepaid in accordance with this Section 5, whichever occurs first; provided, that no principal payment shall be required on December 31, 2020. Section 6. Form and Execution of the Note The Note shall be printed or lithographed on good paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this Resolution and State law and shall be signed by the Executive Director and District Treasurer, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile. The Note shall substantially include the recitals in Section 10. Only the Note bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Note Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this Resolution: CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Note is the fully registered Edmonds Public Facilities District Note, 2018, described in the Resolution. EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT District Treasurer, as Note Registrar The authorized signing of a Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Note so authenticated has been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this Resolution. 7 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 315 8.1.a If any officer whose facsimile signature appears on the Note ceases to be an officer of the District authorized to sign notes before the Note bearing his or her facsimile signature is authenticated or delivered by the Note Registrar or issued by the District, the Note nevertheless may be authenticated, issued and delivered and, when authenticated, issued and delivered, shall be as binding on the District as though that person had continued to be an officer of the District authorized to sign notes. Any Note also may be signed on behalf of the District by any person who, on the actual date of signing of the Note, is an officer of the District authorized to sign notes, although he or she did not hold the required office on the Closing Date. Section 7. Note Registrar The District Treasurer is hereby appointed as the Note Registrar. The Note Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Note, which shall be open to inspection by the District and City at all times. The Note Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the District, to authenticate and deliver a Note transferred or exchanged in accordance with the provisions of the Note and this Resolution, to serve as the District's paying agent for the Note and to carry out all of the Note Registrar's powers and duties under this Resolution. The Note Registrar shall be responsible for its representations contained in the Note Registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Note. Section 8. Preservation of Tax -Exemption for Interest on the Note The District covenants that it will take all actions necessary to prevent interest on the Note from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes and that it will neither take any action nor make or permit any use of proceeds of the Note or other funds of the District treated as proceeds of the Note at any time during the term of the Note that would cause interest on the Note to be included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. The District also covenants that it will, to the extent the arbitrage rebate requirement of Section 148 of the Code is applicable to the Note, take all actions necessary to comply (or to be treated as having complied) with that requirement in connection with the Note, including the calculation and payment of any penalties that the District has elected to pay as an alternative to calculating rebatable arbitrage, and the payment of any other penalties if required under Section 148 of the Code to prevent interest on the Note from being included in gross income for federal income tax purposes. Section 9. Designation of the Note as a "Qualified Tax -Exempt Obligation" The District has determined and certifies that: (a) the Note is not a "private activity bond" withinWo the meaning of Section 141 of the Code; (b) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations o (other than private activity bonds and other obligations not required to be included in such calculation) that a the District and any entity subordinate to the District (including any entity that the District controls, that r derives its authority to issue tax-exempt obligations from the District, or that issues tax-exempt obligations on behalf of the District) will issue during the calendar year in which the Note is issued will not exceed E 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 316 8.1.a $10,000,000; and (c) the amount of tax-exempt obligations, including the Note, designated by the District as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code during the calendar year in which the Note is issued does not exceed $10,000,000. The District designates the Note as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" for the purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code. Section 10. Pledges of General Revenue and Sales and Use Tax Revenue (a) The Note is a limited tax general obligation of the District. For as long as the Note is outstanding, the District irrevocably pledges: (i) to budget and appropriate from the District's General Revenue and from other money legally available therefor, and (ii) the full faith, credit and resources of the District, for the prompt payment of the principal of and interest on the Note within the appropriate constitutional and statutory limitations pertaining to nonvoted general obligations. The District also irrevocably pledges to levy and collect the Sales and Use Tax Revenue at the rate of 0.033 percent, or such higher rate as may be permitted by law, and pledges such revenue to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note when due, consistent with the provisions of the County PFD Agreement permitting the application of such amounts to this purpose. The District does not have general ad valorem taxing authority. The District also irrevocably pledges, for the equal and ratable benefit of the Registered Owner from time to time of the Note, proceeds of any loans made by the City to the District pursuant to the Contingent Loan Agreement to pay debt service on the Note. (b) The Note shall not be a debt of the City, the County, the State or any political subdivision thereof other than the District, and the Note shall so state on its face. None of the City, the County, the State or any political subdivision thereof other than the District shall be liable for payment of the Note. Neither the directors nor any of the officers or employees of the District shall be personally liable for the payment of the Note. The Note and any disclosure document shall recite substantially the following: The City, the County and the County PFD are political subdivisions of the State separate from the District. This Note is an indebtedness of the District, payable from the sources pledged in the Resolution to meet the principal and interest requirements. This Note is not an obligation of the City (except to the extent of the City's obligation to make loans under the Contingent Loan Agreement), Snohomish County, the County PFD or the State, and the Registered Owner of this Note shall not have any claim against any of these parties arising from this Note. All liabilities incurred by the District shall be satisfied exclusively from the assets, credit, and property of the District and no creditor or other person shall have any right of action against or recourse to the City, Snohomish County, the County PFD or any of their respective assets, credit or services on account of any debts, obligations, liabilities or omissions of the District. Section 11. Funds and Accounts (a) Note Fund. The Note Fund is created and established as a special fund of the District designated the Note Fund, Series 2018 (the "Note Fund"), for the purpose of paying principal of and interest on the Note. All General Revenue and Sales and Use Tax Revenue collected for and allocated to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note shall be deposited into the Note Fund, together with any other money available and to be used therefor. (b) General Revenue Fund. T 9 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 317 8.1.a (i) General Revenue Account. The District shall deposit all revenues collected by or on behalf of the District from any admission and parking taxes imposed by the District, from interest earnings thereon, and from all other sources other than Sales and Use Tax Revenue, into the General Revenue Fund. Amounts received by the District as donated proceeds of its capital fundraising campaign shall be deposited into a special capital account within the General Revenue Fund. General Revenue, except for amounts deposited into that donations capital account, shall be allocated and applied by the District in the priority set forth below: Center; (1) Payment of the costs of operating and maintaining the Regional (2) Payment of principal of and interest on the Note; (3) Payment of intergovernmental project payments due to the City under the County PFD Agreement for deposit into the City's Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Fund, 2012, in amounts sufficient, together with any money available after payment is made from the Regional Center Agency Fund, to make the scheduled payments of the principal of, interest on and any redemption premium with respect to such City bonds; (4) Payment into any reasonable reserve account hereafter created by the Board for operation, repair and replacement (if any); (5) Payment of additional costs of Developing (as defined in the County PFD Agreement, including but not limited to the acquisition of, construction of, ownership of, remodeling, maintaining, equipping, re -equipping, repairing, financing, and operating) the Regional Center, and for other District purposes, in no particular order of preference; and (6) Payment of amounts due, if any, pursuant to the Contingent Loan Agreement. (ii) Donations Capital Account. The District shall deposit all amounts received as o donated proceeds of its capital fundraising campaign in a special capital account within the General ob Revenue Fund. When the balance in this special account exceeds $150,000, such excess funds may N be used for any proper District capital purpose, consistent with any applicable donor restrictions, r- at the discretion of the Board. The District may not make any expenditure or transfer out of the W account that would cause the balance to drop below $150,000, unless (a) it provides written notice y to the City Director of Administrative Services at least 10 days prior to the proposed expenditure W and (b) if the purpose is other than to make a transfer into the Note Fund, obtain the written consent o of the City Director of Administrative Services. a T (c) Regional Center Agency Fund. In accordance with Resolution No. 2 of the District, all a Sales and Use Tax Revenue, including all revenues collected by or on behalf of the District from the sales M c� 10 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 318 8.1.a and use tax imposed by the District under RCW 82.14.390 and including but not limited to payments received under the County PFD Agreement, shall be deposited into the Regional Center Agency Fund. Amounts in the Regional Center Agency Fund shall be allocated and applied by the District in the priority set forth below: (i) Payment of intergovernmental project payments due to the City under the County PFD Agreement for deposit into the City's Limited Tax General Obligation Bond Fund, 2012 in amounts sufficient, together with any money transferred from the General Revenue Fund for this purpose, to make the scheduled payments of the principal of, interest on and any redemption premium with respect to such City bonds; (ii) Payment of the costs of Developing (as defined in the County PFD Agreement, including but not limited to the acquisition of, construction of, ownership of, remodeling, maintaining, equipping, re -equipping, repairing, financing, and operating) the Regional Center, and for other District purposes, in no particular order of preference; (iii) Payment of principal of and interest on the Note; and (iv) Payment of amounts due, if any, pursuant to the Contingent Loan Agreement. Section 12. Deposit of Note Proceeds; Refunding Plan Proceeds of the sale of the Note received by the District shall be applied as follows (the amounts to be determined by the District Treasurer prior to the issuance of the Note): (a) an amount sufficient to carry out the Refunding Plan (including Note proceeds and other money of the District, if necessary) shall be used to prepay and redeem all outstanding principal of and all interest and fees due with respect to the Refunded Bonds; and (b) the balance of the Note proceeds shall be used to pay the costs of issuing the Note and administering the Refunding Plan. Section 13. Refunding of the Refunded Bonds The Board hereby authorizes the Executive Director and such other appropriate District officers to approve the refunding of the Refunded Bonds, appoint a Refunding Trustee, establish the terms for the refunding and redemption of the Refunded Bonds, including the redemption price and the redemption date, and set forth other provisions for such refunding (collectively, the "Refunding Plan"). A sufficient amount of proceeds of the sale of the Note and available District funds, if necessary, shall be deposited immediately upon receipt thereof with the Refunding Trustee and used to discharge the obligations of the District relating to the Refunded Bonds under the Refunded Bonds Resolution by providing for the payment of the amounts required to be paid under the Refunding Plan. If there are any Note proceeds or other money deposited with the Refunding Trustee that are not needed to refund the Refunded Bonds, such money shall be returned to the District and shall be deposited in the Note Fund to pay interest on the Note coming due on the next Debt Service Payment Date. T :.i 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 319 8.1.a The District shall call for redemption on such date as determined by the Executive Director, all of the Refunded Bonds at the price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. Such call for redemption shall be irrevocable after the delivery of the Note to the Bank. The proper District officials are authorized and directed to give or cause to be given such notices as required, at the times and in the manner required, pursuant to the Refunded Bonds Resolution in order to effect the redemption prior to the maturity of the Refunded Bonds. Section 14. District Findings With Respect to Refunding The District finds that the issuance and sale of the Note and the subsequent refunding of the Refunded Bonds will effect a savings to the District. In making such determination, the District has given consideration to the scheduled mandatory prepayments of the Note and redemption of the Refunded Bonds, the costs of issuance of the Note, and the known earned income from the investment of the proceeds of the issuance and sale of the Note and other money of the District, if any, used in the Refunding Plan. The District further finds that the redemption of the Refunded Bonds will discharge and satisfy the obligations of the District with respect to the Refunded Bonds under the Refunded Bonds Resolution and the pledges, charges, trusts, covenants and agreements of the District therein, and that the Refunded Bonds shall be deemed to no longer be outstanding. Section 15. Additional Covenants (a) Operation of Regional Center. The District shall cause the Regional Center to be operated and maintained in a business -like fashion (including the maintenance of proper and customary property and liability insurance with respect to the Regional Center) as both a "tourism -related facility" (within the meaning of RCW 67.28.080(7)) and a "regional center" (within the meaning of RCW 35.57.020) and shall cause all books and records to be maintained with respect thereto. (b) Reporting. The District shall provide the City Council Finance Committee with, (i) each quarter, a report summarizing actual financial activity, (ii) each November, a report summarizing financial expectations for the following year, and (iii) within nine months after the end of each year, complete financial statements for the year. (c) No Liens. Neither the City nor the District shall grant or permit any lien (other than consensual liens such as contractors' liens) against the Regional Center or its interest therein which, if unpaid, might become a lien or charge upon the Sales and Use Tax Revenue, or any part thereof, prior to or superior to the lien of the Note and any Additional Bonds, or which might impair the security of the Note and any Additional Bonds. (d) Enforcement of Obligations. The District shall take all reasonable measures permitted by o law to enforce payment to it of all Sales and Use Tax Revenue and any payments due to it under the County PFD Agreement, and shall at all times, to the extent permitted by law, defend, preserve and protect o the rights, benefits and privileges of the District and of the Registered Owner under or with respect to this a Resolution. r c as E c� a 12 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 320 8.1.a (e) Ownership, Sale, Transfer or Disposition of the Regional Center. The District shall be the owner of the Regional Center except to the extent the City acquires any interest therein pursuant to Section 3.3 of the Contingent Loan Agreement. Except pursuant to that section, the District will not sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any facilities or property (real or personal) comprising a part of the Regional Center, except upon approval by resolution of the Board and only consistent with one or more of the following: (i) The District in its discretion may sell, transfer or dispose (each, as used in this subparagraph, a "transfer") of facilities or property that is not material to the operation of the Regional Center, or which has become unserviceable, inadequate, obsolete or unfit to be used in the operation of the Regional Center or is no longer necessary, material or useful to the operation of the Regional Center; or (ii) The District in its discretion may transfer facilities or property if the District receives from the transferee in a bona fide, arm's length transaction an amount equal to the fair market value of the facilities or property so transferred. As used herein, "fair market value" means the most probable price that a property would bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the willing buyer and willing seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably. The proceeds of any transfer under this subparagraph (ii) shall be used: (1) to promptly redeem, or irrevocably set aside for the prepayment or redemption of, such portion of the District's outstanding Note and Additional Bonds as are allocable to the property so transferred, and/or (2) to provide for all or part of the cost of capital improvements and/or additions to or expansions of the Regional Center. Nothing in the foregoing is intended to restrict the transfer of the facilities or property to the City pursuant to the County PFD Agreement or to permit transfers not permitted under the County PFD Agreement. Section 16. Additional Bonds (a) So long as the Note remains outstanding, the District may not incur any additional indebtedness (including Additional Bonds) other than in the ordinary course of business, unless the following conditions are met at the time the additional indebtedness is incurred and the written consent of the City Director of Administrative Services has been obtained: (i) The District is not currently in default under the Contingent Loan Agreement, the Note or this Resolution; (ii) The proceeds of such Additional Bonds (or additional indebtedness) will be used to fund or refund capital expenditures relating to the Regional Center; (iii) The Additional Bonds (or additional indebtedness) will not cause the District to exceed its non -voted debt capacity under RCW 35.57.030(1); and T :.i 13 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 321 8.1.a (iv) No ownership interest in the Regional Center has been transferred to the City under Section 3.3(3) of the Contingent Loan Agreement that has not been transferred back to the District under Section 3.3(4) of the Contingent Loan Agreement. (b) Additional Bonds may be issued on a parity of lien with the Note only if the above conditions are met at the time of issuance of the Additional Bonds, and the City's written consent has been obtained, acknowledging that the Additional Bonds are to be secured by District receipts under the Contingent Loan Agreement. Section 17. Supplements and Amendments (a) Without Consent. The District from time to time and at any time may supplement or amend this Resolution without the consent of the Registered Owner of the Note, for one or more (or all) of the following purposes: (i) To add to the covenants and agreements of the District contained in this Resolution and other covenants and agreements thereafter to be observed, which shall not adversely affect in any material respect the interests of the Registered Owner of the Note, or to surrender any rights or power herein reserved to or conferred upon the District. (ii) To cure, correct or supplement any ambiguous or defective provision contained in this Resolution in regard to matters or questions arising under this Resolution as the Board may deem necessary or desirable and not inconsistent with this Resolution and which shall not adversely affect the interests of the Registered Owner of the Note in any material respect. (iii) To make any other change that does not have a materially adverse effect on the City or the Registered Owner of the Note. (b) With Consent. With the consent of the City (for so long as the Contingent Loan Agreement remains in effect) and the Registered Owner of the Note, the Board may adopt supplemental or amendatory resolutions for the purpose of adding any provisions to, changing in any manner, or eliminating any of the provisions of this Resolution or of any supplemental resolution. However, no such supplemental or amendatory resolution shall extend the fixed maturity of the Note, reduce the rate of interest thereon, extend the time of payments of interest from their due date, reduce the amount of the principal thereof, or reduce any premium payable on the redemption thereof without the consent of the Registered Owner of the Note. The requirements of this section are satisfied by consent to the substance of any proposed amendment or supplement by the Registered Owner, and approval of the particular form of a proposed resolution is not necessary. (c) Effective Date of Modification. Upon the adoption of any supplemental or amendatory o resolution, this Resolution shall be deemed to be modified and amended in accordance therewith, and the respective rights, duties and obligations of the District under this Resolution shall thereafter be o determined, exercised and enforced under the resolution so modified or amended, and all the terms and a conditions of any such supplemental or amendatory resolution shall be deemed to be part of the terms and conditions of this Resolution for any and all purposes. A copy of each supplemental or amendatory resolution shall be provided to the Registered Owner of the Note upon request. 14 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 322 8.1.a Section 18. Default and Remedies (a) The District hereby finds and determines that the operation of the Regional Center as a regional center and the deposit and disbursement of Sales and Use Tax Revenue are essential to the payment and security of the Note and the failure or refusal of the District or any of its officers to perform the covenants and obligations of this Resolution may endanger the application of Sales and Use Tax Revenue and such other money, funds and securities to the purposes herein set forth. Accordingly, the provisions of this section are specified and adopted for the additional protection of the Registered Owner from time to time of the Note. Any one or more of the following events shall constitute a "Default" under this Resolution: (i) The District shall fail to make payment of the principal of the Note or any Additional Bond issued on a parity with the Note when the same shall become due and payable whether by maturity or scheduled prepayment prior to maturity; (ii) The District shall fail to make payments of any installment of interest on the Note or any Additional Bond issued on a parity with the Note when the same shall become due and payable; or (iii) The District shall fail in the observance or performance of any other covenants, conditions, or agreements on the part of the District contained in this Resolution, and such failure shall have continued for a period of 90 days. Upon the occurrence of a default, the Registered Owner may proceed to protect and enforce its rights in equity or at law, either in mandamus or for the specific performance of any covenant or agreement contained herein, or for the enforcement of any other appropriate legal or equitable remedy, as the Registered Owner may deem most effectual to protect and enforce any of its rights or interests hereunder or in the Note. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the remedy of acceleration is expressly denied. No delay or omission of the Registered Owner to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver of any such default or acquiescence therein. Upon any such waiver, such default shall cease to exist, and any Default arising therefrom shall be deemed to have been cured, for every purpose of this Resolution; but no such waiver shall extend to any subsequent or other default or impair any right consequent thereon. Nothing contained in this section shall in any manner prevent the City from exercising any of its rights under the Contingent Loan Agreement so long as the City is not in default in its obligations thereunder. Section 19. Approval of Sale of the Note The Bank has presented the Term Sheet to the District offering to purchase the Note under the o terms and conditions provided in the Term Sheet, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit `B." The a Board finds that accepting the terms of the Term Sheet is in the best interest of the District and, therefore, accepts the terms contained in the Term Sheet and authorizes the execution of the Term Sheet by the E c� 15 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 323 8.1.a Executive Director. The Board further authorizes the Executive Director to establish the principal amount of the Note in an amount not to exceed $3,000,000. The Note will be printed at the District's expense and will be delivered to the Bank, with the approving legal opinion of Kutak Rock LLP, note counsel to the District. The Executive Director, the District Treasurer and other proper District officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Note to the purchaser and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof. Section 20. Financial Reporting As long as the Bank is the Registered Owner of the Note, the District shall provide its annual financial report to the Bank within nine months after the close of each fiscal year. Section 21. Approval of Contingent Loan Agreement The Contingent Loan Agreement, in the form presented to the Board with this Resolution and attached hereto as Exhibit "A," is hereby approved, with such changes as the Executive Director deems necessary or appropriate. Section 22. Parties Interested Herein Nothing expressed or implied in this Resolution is intended or shall be construed to confer upon, or to give or grant to, any person or entity, other than the District and the Registered Owner of the Note, any right, remedy, claim under or by reason of this Resolution or any covenant, condition or stipulation hereof, and all covenants, stipulations, promises and agreements in this Resolution contained by and on behalf of the District shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the District and the Registered Owner of the Note. Section 23. Ratification and Confirmation Any actions of the District or its officers prior to the date hereof and consistent with the terms of this Resolution are ratified and confirmed. Section 24. Repealer All ordinances or resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed, and shall have no further force or effect. Further, the Board hereby expressly repeals Resolution No. [] of the District, adopted by the Board on October 9, 2018, which resolution shall have no further force or effect. Section 25. Effective Date T This Resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage as permitted by law. as E c� 16 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 324 8.1.a ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Edmonds Public Facilities District at a special open public meeting thereof held this day of October, 2018, the following Directors being present and voting in favor of the Resolution. EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT President and Board Member Treasurer and ex officio Board Member Secretary and Board Member Board Member Board Member Attest: Secretary T :.i Q 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 325 8.1.a CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, as Secretary of the Edmonds Public Facilities District (the "District"), hereby certify as follows: 1. The foregoing Resolution No. (the "Resolution") is a full, true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted at a special meeting of the District's Board of Directors held at the regular meeting place thereof on October , 2018, as that Resolution appears on the minute book of the District; 2. At least 24 hours prior to the special meeting, written notice specifying the time and place of the special meeting and noting the business to be transacted was provided as follows: (a) given to all members of the Board of Directors by mail, fax, electronic mail or personal delivery; (b) prominently displayed at the main entrance of the District's principal location; and (c) posted on the District's website. 3. Written notice of the special meeting was given to each local radio or television station and to each newspaper of general circulation that has on file with the District a written request to be notified of special meetings, or to which such notice customarily is given. 4. A quorum was present throughout the meeting and a sufficient number of members of the Board of Directors voted in the proper manner for the adoption of the Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of October, 2018 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT Secretary 18 T :.i Q 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 326 8.1.a EXHIBIT "A" FORM OF CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT r a+ 19 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 327 8.1.a EXHIBIT "B" FORM OF TERM SHEET r a+ 20 a 4836-1826-2110.8 Packet Pg. 328 8.1.b SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE $2,803,516.08 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT PROMISSORY NOTE, 2018 (TAXABLE) This SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is dated as of December , 2020, and amends the FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT dated as of November 15, 2018 (the "Agreement"), by and between THE CITY OF EDMONDS (the "City"), a code city organized under the laws of the State of Washington, and the EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT (the "District"), a municipal corporation established by the City of Edmonds and duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington. The City and the District entered into the Agreement solely for the purpose of providing credit support for the Edmonds Public Facilities District Promissory Note, 2018 (Taxable) (the "Note"), issued in the principal amount of $2,803,516.08 pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-03 adopted by the Board of Directors of the District (the "Board") on October 25, 2018 (the "Note Resolution"), and enter into this Amendment to permit the maturity of the Note to be extended from December 31, 2028, to December 31, 2029. Section 3.3(1) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows (deletions are str-uek th and additions are double -underlined): The District covenants that: (a) the final maturity of the Note shall not be later than December 31, 2&U 2029; and (b) in each year that the Refunded Bonds were scheduled to be outstanding (other than in 2029), the debt service payable on the Note shall be less than the debt service that would be payable on the Refunded Bonds if they were not refunded. Section 3.4(3) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows (deletions are str-ue-leg# and additions are double -underlined): Maturity. Unless paid earlier pursuant to subsection (1) of this Section, all loans hereunder shall mature on December 31, 2OU 2029. If any loan has not been repaid under this Agreement on the loan maturity date described in this Section 3.4(3), the City shall acquire an ownership interest in the Regional Center equal to the unpaid principal and interest due to the City on that loan maturity date, and the District shall execute and deliver a quitclaim deed and such other documents as may be necessary to convey this interest to the City as described in Section 3.3, and the District's obligation to repay the loan under this Agreement shall be discharged. The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, is and remains in full force and effect. FG:54076318.1 Packet Pg. 329 8.1.b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the District have caused this Amendment to be executed in their respective names by their duly authorized officers, and have caused this Amendment to be dated as of the date set forth on the first page hereof. CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2 FG:54076318.1 EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT President, Board of Directors Attest: Secretary, Board of Directors Packet Pg. 330 8.1.b STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Mike Nelson and Scott Passey are the persons who appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that said persons signed this instrument, on oath stated that said persons were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, to be the free and voluntary act of such municipal corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this day of December, 2020. (Signature of Notary) (Legibly Print or Stamp Name of Notary) Notary public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires FG:54076318.1 Packet Pg. 331 8.1.b STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that and are the persons who appeared before me, and said persons acknowledged that said persons signed this instrument, on oath stated that said persons were authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President and Secretary, respectively, of the Board of Directors of the EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, to be the free and voluntary act of such municipal corporation for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated this day of December, 2020. (Signature of Notary) (Legibly Print or Stamp Name of Notary) Notary public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires FG:54076318.1 Packet Pg. 332 8.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Edmonds, Washington, authorizing the execution and delivery of amendments to certain documents in connection with extending the maturity of a promissory note issued by the Edmonds Public Facilities District to First Financial Northwest Bank; authorizing certain other actions in connection therewith; and fixing a time when the same shall be effective. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Determinations. The City Council makes the following findings and determinations: 1.1 Pursuant to chapter 67.28 RCW, the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City"), is authorized to acquire and operate "tourism -related facilities." 1.2 RCW 67.28.130 authorizes the City and the Edmonds Public Facilities District (the "District") to participate in the financing of all or any part of a tourism -related facility on such terms as may be fixed by agreement between the respective legislative bodies without submitting the matter to a vote of the electors thereof, unless the provisions of the general laws of the State of Washington applicable to the incurring of indebtedness require such submission. 1.3 Pursuant to RCW 67.28.130, Ordinance No. 3676, adopted by the City Council on January 15, 2008, and Ordinance No. 3687, adopted by the City Council on June 3, 2008, the City authorized the execution and delivery of a Contingent Loan Agreement (the "Original Contingent Loan Agreement") with the District to provide credit support for $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds, 2008, issued by the District (the "Bonds"). 1.4 The District issued its Edmonds Public Facilities District Promissory Note, 2018 (the "Note") in the principal amount of not to exceed $3,000,000 to repay and redeem the Bonds and to pay costs of issuance and sale of the Note. 1.5 In connection with the issuance of the Note by the District, the City and the District amended and restated the Original Contingent Loan Agreement to provide credit support for the Note (as so amended, the "Contingent Loan Agreement"), and the City entered into an assignment of deposit account (the "Collateral Agreement") with First Financial Bank (the "Bank") setting forth the terms and conditions upon which the City purchased a certificate of deposit from the Bank in an amount equal to the principal amount of the Note to secure payment by the District of the principal of the Note. 1.6 The District authorized the issuance of the Note pursuant to District Resolution No. 2018-03 (the "District Resolution"). Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the District Resolution, the consent of the City is required for certain amendments to the PFD Resolution, including any amendment authorizing the extension of maturity of the Note. FG:54076310.1 Packet Pg. 333 8.1.c 1.7 The District has informed the City that the District and the Bank have agreed to modify the terms of the Note to extend the maturity of the Note, and the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to authorize the amendment of certain documents required in connection with the extension of the maturity of the Note. Section 2. Approval of Amendment to Contingent Loan Agreement. The Mayor is authorized and directed, on the City's behalf, to execute and deliver an amendment to the Contingent Loan Agreement that permits the maturity of the Note to be extended from December 31, 2028, to December 31, 2029, and that extends the maturity of loans made under the Contingent Loan Agreement from December 31, 2028, to December 31, 2029. Section 3. Approval of Amendment to Collateral Agreement. The Mayor is authorized and directed, on the City's behalf, to execute and deliver an amendment to the Collateral Agreement that extends the maturity of the Collateral Agreement from December 31, 2028, to December 31, 2029. Section 4. Consent to Amendment of District Resolution. The Mayor is authorized and directed, on the City's behalf, to execute and deliver a consent to amendment of the District Resolution that permits the maturity of the Note to be extended from December 31, 2028, to December 31, 2029, and that permits no principal payment to be made on the Note on December 31, 2020. Section 5. Authorization and Ratification. The Administrative Services Director, the Mayor, and the other appropriate officers of the City are authorized and directed to take any actions and to execute such documents as in their judgment may be necessary or desirable to carry out the terms of, and complete the transactions contemplated in connection with, this ordinance, the Contingent Loan Agreement, the Collateral Agreement, and the District Resolution. All actions previously taken in furtherance of and not inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects. FG:54076310.1 Packet Pg. 334 8.1.c Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and five days following its publication as required by law. This ordinance is the exercise of a power delegated to the City Council and is not subject to referendum. PASSED by the City Council at a regular open public meeting thereof this day of December, 2020. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Foster Garvey P.C., Bond Counsel Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: FG:54076310.1 Packet Pg. 335 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 Intent to confirm Municipal Judge Appointment Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History Judge Linda Coburn has been elected to the Washington appellate court. Due to this it is necessary to appoint a new Municipal Judge to serve the remainder of Judge Coburn's term (ending 12.31.21). The City undertook the process to solicit applications for the appointment to the Municipal Judge position. City staff have conducted the required solicitation process and, on November 12, 2020, oversaw the initial interview process of five candidates. The interview panel consisted of judicial, law enforcement, public defense, Diversity Commission and human resources representatives. Three of the five were forwarded for interview with the Mayor. Subsequently one of the three withdrew their application due to concerns about the time required for the position and managing children at home. Two applicants were then interviewed by Council and Council then provided feedback to the Mayor on the candidates. The Mayor then made his selection of Whitney Rivera and it is the intent to appoint her at the time the position is vacated. Staff Recommendation Approve the resolution confirming the intent to appoint Whitney Rivera as Municipal Judge once the position is vacant after January 10, 2021. Narrative As the new Municipal Judge cannot be appointed until after the current position is vacated, the attached resolution addresses the intent to appoint Whitney Rivera on consent agenda on January 12, 2021. She would then be sworn in at that same meeting. Whitney Rivera will be serving as a pro-tem Judge prior to her appointment so will be covering the bench for the time between when it is vacated by the current Municipal Judge, and the appointment of Ms. Rivera. Attachments: Resolution of Intent to Confirm Whitney Rivera Packet Pg. 336 8.2.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXPRESSING INTENT TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF WHITNEY RIVERA AS THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE, WHICH POSITION IS EXPECTED TO BECOME VACANT ON JANUARY 1, 2021, WHEN JUDGE COBURN'S RESIGNATION BECOMES EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the City operates a municipal court under chapter 3.50 RCW; and WHEREAS, the duly elected judge of that court, the Honorable Linda Coburn, has announced that she intends to resign her position effective January 10, 2021; and WHEREAS, that resignation will create a vacancy that is filled through city council confirmation of a mayoral appointment; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to have the position of judge vacant for as short a period as possible; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to have an orderly transition from one judge to the next; and WHEREAS, an orderly transition would be facilitated if the city were able to have the future appointee observe the court's operations while Judge Coburn is still in office; and WHEREAS, an orderly transition would be facilitated by giving the future appointee a reasonable basis to begin winding up her other business affairs now to ensure that she has the capacity to assume the responsibilities of the office immediately upon her appointment as judge; and WHEREAS, Mayor Nelson has conducted a recruiting process with five candidates for the expected vacancy and, after careful consideration, has decided that he will be appointing Whitney Rivera to fill the vacancy, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council intends to confirm the mayor's appointment of Whitney Rivera to fill the vacancy that will be created upon the effective date of Judge Coburn's resignation from office. Section 2. The city council intends to actually confirm the mayor's appointment of Whitney Rivera on the consent calendar for the meeting of January 12, 2021, and have the new judge sworn into office at that meeting. Packet Pg. 337 8.2.a RESOLVED this day of November, 2020. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 338 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 Finance Director Confirmation of Appointment Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History The City received 46 applications for the position of Finance Director. The Finance Director applicants were first screened for minimum qualifications and 28 passed that review. Those that passed minimum qualifications were then screened by the HR Director to determine if they met the specific skill sets the City was looking for. Of those, 7 candidates were selected to be reviewed by the Mayor. Of the 7, 5 were notified that they would be moved on in the process, at that time, one of the candidates withdrew. 4 candidates then received an initial zoom screening with the HR Director. All four passed initial screening and were moved on to the panel interview. After notifying the candidates that they were moving on, another candidate withdrew. Three candidates were then interviewed by a panel consisting of HR, Public Works, Parks, and a local municipal Finance Officer. The Mayor then interviewed the three candidates and all three were forwarded to the Council for interview. After feedback from Council the Mayor then selected Dave Turley as his appointment. Staff Recommendation Approve the appointment of and employment contract for Dave Turley as Finance Director. Narrative The employment contract presented is the standard department Director contract. This contract includes a severance clause of 3 months' salary should Mr. Turley be let go, not for cause. This has been provided in the last two Director employment contracts. The Finance Director position is at a Range 20 on the salary schedule. Mr. Turley has been at step 4 on Range 20 during his acting assignment. Per policy, this is 5% higher than his rate of pay as Deputy Director. Mr. Turley's contract as Finance Director provides for a Salary at Range 20 step 5. This is a 10% increase over Mr. Turley's salary as Deputy Director. Attachments: Turley David - Employment Agreement Packet Pg. 339 8.3.a EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between David Turley ("Employee") and the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City") to describe the terms and conditions of Employee's appointment to the position of, and employment as, the City's Director of Finance. WHEREAS, the City desires to employ the services of Employee as the Director of Finance of the City of Edmonds, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and as provided by the Edmonds Municipal Code ("EMC"); and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City to provide certain benefits, establish certain conditions of employment, and to set working conditions of Employee; and WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge that Employee is appointed by the Mayor, subject to City Council approval; that Employee shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor; and that nothing herein is intended to modify Employee's at -will status; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of Employee to accept employment as the Director of Finance under the terms provided herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. Appointment and Effective Date In accordance with RCW 35A.12.090 and ECC 2.10.010, the Mayor appoints, and the City Council confirms, Employee as the Director of Finance for an indefinite term commencing December 2, 2020. 2. Qualifications Employee affirms that they possess the education, training and experience which are an essential condition of Employee's appointment and employment. 3. Duties and Authority The Director of Finance is a department head position with executive management responsibility for Finance, Information Technology and GIS. As the Director of Finance, Employee will devote their full time and attention to faithfully perform the duties thereof, which include but are not limited to management of all activities related to the following: Under administrative direction, directs and administers the planning, organizing, controlling and directing the operations and activities of the Finance Department including: purchasing, investments, risk management/claims administration, revenue forecasting and budgeting, auditing, debt and collection of past due accounts; information technology Initials Packet Pg. 340 8.3.a functions and GIS; supervises and manages staff and evaluates work of assigned personnel. Serves as the City's Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Directors are responsible for the operations of the departments and may delegate signing authority except as limited by the provisions of Edmonds City Code or state or federal law. In addition, this position will perform such other duties as may be assigned by the Mayor. Employee's position is FLSA-exempt and not eligible for overtime. It is recognized that Employee must devote time outside the normal office hours to the business of the City. 4. Salary Employee shall be paid at a Range 20 Step 5 which is an annual salary of $148,969, which shall be pro -rated and paid in periodic installments consistent with the City's normal payroll procedures. This salary may be subject to step adjustments, market adjustments, and/or annual COLA adjustments, as determined by City Policy, City Code, the City Council and/or the Mayor. 5. Benefits Holidays and Leaves Employee shall be granted or accrue holidays, vacation, sick leave and other leave as provided in Chapter 2.35 EMC and City policy. Insurance Employee will be provided the same medical, dental, disability, life insurance and other insurance benefits as other management level employees. Retirement Employee may elect to participate in one of the City's deferred compensation programs, and is required to participate in the Municipal Employees Benefit Trust (which is provided in lieu of federal Social Security) on the same terms as other City employees. These programs are in addition to the mandatory DRS-managed retirement plan, if any, applicable to Employee's position. Automobile and Travel Employee will be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary travel and business expenses in accordance with the City's reimbursable expense policy and state and federal law. Professional Organization and Development Within departmental budget limitations, the City will pay Employee's annual dues for membership with GFOA and GOA and for attendance at professional conferences and training related to Employee's duties and responsibilities as Director of Finance. 2 Initials Packet Pg. 341 8.3.a 6. Performance Appraisals The Mayor shall review Employee's performance in July and each subsequent December thereafter. 7. Termination and Severance Pay Employee is employed at -will, and the Mayor may remove them from the position of Director of Finance and terminate their appointment at any time, with or without cause. In the event Employee is removed from office and their employment is terminated other than for cause, they shall receive severance pay equal to: three months' salary and payment for any accrued but unused leave as per Chapter 2.35 of the EMC. Employees removed and terminated for cause, including but not limited to malfeasance in office or conviction of a felony, shall not be eligible for severance pay. The Employee shall be subject to a six-month probationary period. During which probationary period, should the Mayor terminate the Employee without cause, his severance pay shall be limited to the amount of salary up to three (3) months and all leave earned by him during the term of this Agreement. After the probationary period has expired, in the event the Employee is removed from office and his employment is terminated other than for cause, he will receive severance pay equal to: three (3) months' salary and payment for any accrued but unused leave as per Chapter 2.35 of the EMC. Employees removed and terminated for cause, including but not limited to malfeasance in office or conviction of a felony, will not be eligible for severance pay 8. Indemnification Employer shall defend, save harmless and indemnify Employee as set forth in EMC 2.06, or any amendment thereof, with respect to claims and/or litigation resulting from any conduct, acts or omissions arising from the scope or course of Employee's service or employment with the City. 9. Entire Agreement/Modification/Severability This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any other agreements, oral or written. This Agreement may be amended or modified only with the written concurrence of both parties. If any clause, section, sentence or provision of this Agreement is ultimately held invalid by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation shall not affect the validity of any other clause, section, sentence or provision. 10. Notices Notices pursuant to this Agreement shall be given, by deposit in the custody of the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Initials Packet Pg. 342 8.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS: Office of the Mayor City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 4 Initials Packet Pg. 343 8.3.a EMPLOYEE: David Turley 11037 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98125 11.Opportunity to Confer with Independent Counsel In signing below, Employee expressly represents and affirms that the City Attorney was not acting as Employee's counsel in drafting this Agreement and that Employee had the opportunity to consult with independent counsel in reviewing and deciding to execute this Agreement. DATED this _day of , 2020. CITY OF EDMONDS EMPLOYEE Mike Nelson, Mayor David Turley ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 5 Packet Pg. 344 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 Emergency Ordinance Providing Mayor Temporary Authority to Use Tools to Address Economic Emergency Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: City Council Preparer: Debbie Rothfus Background/History COVID-19 has caused great harm and concerns. To address this fact, Governor Inslee has been proactive in finding solutions, in part by issuing statewide orders that set new restrictions or prohibitions on various activities. Furthermore, given the recent surge in COVID-19 cases, the Governor announced a new order on November 15, 2020 that included again limiting the number of customers allowed indoors at retail businesses and prohibiting all indoor dining and beverage service. At the November 24, 2020 meeting, an emergency ordinance was proposed to provide temporary authority to the Mayor to address our city's economic crisis under COVID. The Council decided to table the issue until the next meeting when it could review revisions to the proposed emergency ordinance. Revisions have been made. (See first attachment, showing revisions, in tracked changes, to the original proposed ordinance.) Staff Recommendation Adopt the emergency ordinance, as provided. Narrative The latest order from the Governor prohibiting indoor dining and restricting retail is part of a commendable and comprehensive effort to limit the spread of COVID-19. Unfortunately, it also has a significant impact on many local businesses and the public that they serve, increasing the economic emergency that our community faces. To reduce those impacts --but still fully comply with statewide restrictions --quick action at the local level may make a difference. For example, if authorized by an emergency ordinance from Council, the Mayor could act quickly in providing tailored local relief, such as allowing additional outdoor dining, in a fast -paced manner rather than through a normal code update or permitting process, which could take weeks or even months. Longer -term actions would still be subject to the regular code update and permitting processes. A revised ordinance (second attachment) has been drafted to provide the Mayor with temporary authority --up to 90 days or until another ordinance repeals or replaces this one --to suspend, if needed, certain parts of the municipal code to mitigate the current economic emergency in as limited a way as possible. Since it is hard to know, in advance, the exact codes that could be affected, staff has taken a prudent approach and identified a list of all that might possibly relate, even in small part, to reasonable short-term actions for supporting the economic conditions we face at an important time of the year. Note: The list below may include titles that will not, in actuality, be suspended at all. Furthermore, Packet Pg. 345 9.1 any suspension would only apply to the part of the code title that is just enough to deal with the economic emergency under COVID-19. Again, the intent is to use the Mayor's authority for limited assistance and faster action only to avoid unnecessary economic harm related to the current COVID crisis. Potential code titles that may relate in some part to implementing temporary economic relief are as follows: Title 8 (Traffic) Title 17 (General Zoning) Title 18 (Public Works Requirements) Title 19 (Building Codes) Title 20 (Review Criteria and Procedures) Note: The above list differs from the original version of the ordinance by removing four titles: Title 3 (Revenues), Title 4 (Licenses), Title 6 (Health and Sanitation), and Title 9 (Sidewalks). These four titles have been removed after careful consideration to ensure as narrow a focus as possible. It also requires that the Mayor notify the City Council regarding any code suspensions within five (5) business days of such action (rather than the 30 days originally proposed). It adds an additional phrase to the body of the ordinance that any action must be related to the economic emergency under COVID-19. As always, the City Council has the authority to repeal or replace this ordinance at any time. Attachments: 2020-11-19 emergency suspension ordinance.11.25.20.edits 2020-11-19 emergency suspension ordinance.11.25.20.v.2 Packet Pg. 346 9.1.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, SUSPENDING CERTAIN CITY CODES THAT COULD HAMPER THE CITY' S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC RESPONSE, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO USE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND OTHER PUBLIC REAL PROPERTY TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC RESPONSE, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING A SUNSET CLAUSE. WHEREAS, on approximately November 15, 2020, Governor Inslee issued new restrictions on the operation of restaurants and other businesses to curb the spike of new COVID- 19 cases; and WHEREAS, these new restrictions are expected to harm restaurants and other businesses that have already suffered significantly and disproportionately as a result of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, many of these restaurants and other businesses rely upon holiday season sales to make up a significant portion of their annual revenues, making the need for a timely response during this season even greater than it would be during another time of the year; and WHEREAS, the administration would like, on a temporary basis, as much authority and flexibility as the city council is willing to delegate to the administration to allow it to respond to the economic emergency within the city; and WHEREAS, certain city codes that would be considered to advance the public interest in normal times might, during these unusual circumstances, actually cause, on balance, more harm than good; and WHEREAS, it is not possible to state in advance with specificity each city code that could thwart a local businesses ability to survive in these difficult times; and WHEREAS, this ordinance would suspend certain codes that the administration deems necessary to be suspended, on a temporary basis, to allow the administration to respond to the economic emergency on a site -specific basis, as swiftly as possible; Packet Pg. 347 9.1.a NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council hereby suspends, on a temporary emergency basis, any portions of Titles 3 ( e o o and F;,,anee), n (; o es), 6 (14ea th and Saff t tie*�, 8 (Traffic), 9 (Sidewalksalks , 17 (General Zoning Regulations), 18 (Public Works Requirements), 19 (Building Codes), and 20 (Review Criteria and Procedures) of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code that the administration deems necessary to suspend in order to respond to the economic emergency from COVID-19 impacts within the city, PROVIDED THAT the administration shall report to the city council off -all such suspensions within five business days of the suspension. Nothing in this section should be read to authorize the administration to violate state law in order to respond to the economic emergency. This section supplements the authority that the mayor already has to issue emergency orders. Section 2. The administration is hereby authorized to utilize, on a temporary emergency basis, any rights -of -way or other real estate owned by the city to respond to the economic emergency, PROVIDED THAT the administration shall report to the city council on all such uses within thirty days of authorizing such use. Nothing in this section should be read to authorize the administration to violate state law in order to respond to the economic emergency. Section 3. Sunset. This ordinance shall remain in effect for ninety days from the effective date or until it is repealed or replaced with another ordinance, after which point it shall have no further effect. Section 4. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the council, and that the same is not subject to a Packet Pg. 348 9.1.a referendum (RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate adoption of this ordinance, the administration's efforts to respond to the economic emergency would be hampered. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 4, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. I.\»Mel,FAa�7i MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: Packet Pg. 349 9.1.a PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. a+ a Packet Pg. 350 9.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, SUSPENDING CERTAIN CITY CODES THAT COULD HAMPER THE CITY'S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC RESPONSE, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO USE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND OTHER PUBLIC REAL PROPERTY TO SUPPORT THE CITY' S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC RESPONSE, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING A SUNSET CLAUSE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2020. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 5 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 351 9.1.b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, SUSPENDING CERTAIN CITY CODES THAT COULD HAMPER THE CITY'S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC RESPONSE, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO USE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND OTHER PUBLIC REAL PROPERTY TO SUPPORT THE CITY'S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC RESPONSE, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING A SUNSET CLAUSE. WHEREAS, on approximately November 15, 2020, Governor Inslee issued new restrictions on the operation of restaurants and other businesses to curb the spike of new COVID-19 cases; and WHEREAS, these new restrictions are expected to harm restaurants and other businesses that have already suffered significantly and disproportionately as a result of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, many of these restaurants and other businesses rely upon holiday season sales to make up a significant portion of their annual revenues, making the need for a timely response during this season even greater than it would be during another time of the year; and WHEREAS, the administration would like, on a temporary basis, as much authority and flexibility as the city council is willing to delegate to the administration to allow it to respond to the economic emergency within the city; and WHEREAS, certain city codes that would be considered to advance the public interest in normal times might, during these unusual circumstances, actually cause, on balance, more harm than good; and WHEREAS, it is not possible to state in advance with specificity each city code that could thwart a local businesses ability to survive in these difficult times; and 1 Packet Pg. 352 9.1.b WHEREAS, this ordinance would suspend certain codes that the administration deems necessary to be suspended, on a temporary basis, to allow the administration to respond to the economic emergency on a site -specific basis, as swiftly as possible; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The city council hereby suspends, on a temporary emergency basis, any portions of Titles 8 (Traffic), 17 (General Zoning Regulations), 18 (Public Works Requirements), 19 (Building Codes), and 20 (Review Criteria and Procedures) of the Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code that the administration deems necessary to suspend in order to respond to the economic emergency from COVID-19 impacts within the city, PROVIDED THAT the administration shall report to the city council all such suspensions within five business days of the suspension. Nothing in this section should be read to authorize the administration to violate state law in order to respond to the economic emergency. This section supplements the authority that the mayor already has to issue emergency orders. Section 2. The administration is hereby authorized to utilize, on a temporary emergency basis, any rights -of -way or other real estate owned by the city to respond to the economic emergency, PROVIDED THAT the administration shall report to the city council on all such uses within thirty days of authorizing such use. Nothing in this section should be read to authorize the administration to violate state law in order to respond to the economic emergency. Section 3. Sunset. This ordinance shall remain in effect for ninety days from the effective date or until it is repealed or replaced with another ordinance, after which point it shall have no further effect. 2 Packet Pg. 353 9.1.b Section 4. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum (RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate adoption of this ordinance, the administration's efforts to respond to the economic emergency would be hampered. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 4, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: 3 APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON Packet Pg. 354 9.1.b JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, SUSPENDING CERTAIN CITY CODES THAT COULD HAMPER THE CITY'S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC RESPONSE, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO USE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY AND OTHER PUBLIC REAL PROPERTY TO SUPPORT THE CITY' S EMERGENCY ECONOMIC RESPONSE, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING A SUNSET CLAUSE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 92020. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 2 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 355 9.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/1/2020 Budget Deliberation and Opportunity to Discuss Changes to the Proposed Budget Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Dave Turley Background/History Mayor Nelson presented his 2021 Proposed Budget to the Council on October 5, 2020. Budget books were provided to Councilmembers, and the budget has been made available to the public online, on the City's website, and two Public Hearings have been held on the budget. Staff Recommendation None Narrative: Attached are questions and answers received from November 20 through November 24, and changes that were proposed by Council during the November 24 meeting. Upcoming schedule of budget -related items: Tonight Council deliberation and opportunity to propose changes to the budget December 1 Continued deliberation and potential adoption December 8 Deliberation and adoption of the budget (if not already adopted) December 15 Deliberation and adoption of the budget (if not already adopted) Attachments: 1 Questions and Answers Nov 20 thru 24 2 Changes proposed by Council members during the November 24 meeting Packet Pg. 356 9.2.a 2021 City of Edmonds Budget Questions: • P. 4 (and P 91, 93): Human Service Program: Why was $500k chosen as the funding level for the new Human Services program for 2021? Where are the details of how the $500k will be allocated? This item is related to Decision Packet 22, which also has no detail as to this program and on page 93 it looks like its going to be all professional services? Where is the detail to support the FTE as it looks like it is budgeted as professional services? How will this be leveraged with neighboring cities to leverage our resources? How can work with the faith community? How can work with Verdant, etc. to efficiently address the need? Please provide the details to support this program and how % million was determined instead of say $200K or $2500 Answered by Director Doherty in separate emails; this is too extensive a question to answer here. Director Doherty gave a very good explanation during the November 24 council meeting, starting somewhere around 3:10. • P. 4: Police Body Cam Project: Why the pilot project before we proceed since the Mayor already made this statement? Why is there no estimate as to the cost to implement police body cameras? Its not a best practice to run a trial and not add any type of estimate in the budget? Was it missed in a decision packet? From Acting Police Chief Lawless: The pilot program that I am working on is basically cost neutral, as the vendor will be providing us the equipment and access to the software/storage during the pilot. We have had really good preliminary negotiations with the company and already have a good relationship with them as they also produce our ERD's (TASER's). I would anticipate the pilot going for at least 4 - 6 months in order to provide us the data and refine processes, not just in the utilization, but the records/disclosure processes. Only after we have a good handle on that will be able to spec out the number of units and ancillary support equipment for a full program. We are modeling our pilot after Everett's. They started almost a year ago and are just now working toward funding and implementation. Right now, I am still in the process and policy stage. • P. 5 (and 169): Park Land Acquisition: Why $500k for park land purchases as there is already $300K set aside in 169? Page 169 shows a ending balance of $1.1MM so technical the City could use REET money to purchase land if a prime opportunity arises or is REET money specified solely for CIVIC since last year it was basically used for the Waterfront Center frontage? The intention with the open space money is to build a reserve that will be available when an opportunity to purchase open space comes up. Note that this money is not part of the expenditure budget, it is reserved in the REET fund balance. The ending balance of $1.1 million you reference is already spoken for in future budget years for capital projects. • P. 13 Strategic Outlook was a snapshot as of July, the City's latest financials show that underbudget for expenses is outpacing and is more than double the decrease in revenue. Can you provide what the anticipated under - expenditure is going to be? I can work on that. I'll need some clarification as to what Council is looking for. • P. 14 and 58: LEOFF has decreased approximately 38% to a level not seen in years? Is this accurate based on the number of LEOFF remaining? Yes we believe 2021 will show a reduction, this is due to a change in the number of retirees who are on long-term care. • P. 14: Are you collapsing the fund 018 and 019 and are those funds returning to the General Fund? Will you be removing those fund numbers via an ordinance and on page 16 no reporting of those funds? We do not have any plan to close funds 018 and 019 at this time. • P. 21: Natural and Economic Environment budget for 2020 was $1,214,750 and this years budget shows 2020 estimate of $1,910,682 or substantially higher — cause? Also with the large discrepancy between 2020 budget and actually, is the 2021 estimate of $1,614,540? The bulk of this increase comes from the new Human Services department that is being proposed. 3 m Packet Pg. 357 9.2.a • P. 23: Why no depreciation expense shown for 2020 and 2021 as depreciation can have a tremendous impact on the financials? Our budget is prepared under the budgetary basis of accounting, which is more similar to cash basis. We budget for money we plan to spend or can reasonable estimate to spend, and depreciation is not a cash expense. • P. 24: Based on the 9/30 quarterly, can updated estimates be obtained? Yes, I can work on that. • P. 57: Fire Contract analysis seems inconsistent with prior years, can you provide the fire contract percentage increases over the past five years? Also, I recall that there was a large increase when the contract settled in 2016 and the City used its Contingency Reserve Funds to pay the balance or it was paid in two steps, hard to recall. So, can you provide a matrix? For 2016 the fire contract was $7,470,130. From 2017 through to the current year it has been at $7,378,718. When their last contract was settled we spread the retro amount out over several months. It was paid through the same BARS account as the regular contract payments, and in 2015 $800,000 was transferred from the Contingency Reserve fund to help cover the retro amount. • P 57: Is Prisoner Care adequate based on what's been stated? We will be bringing forward a staff proposed change to increase the expenditure authority to this budget. • P 57: Why is there no Civic Field Bond interest identified in 2021 as bonds are issued? Civic Field bond payments will be made out of REET Fund 126. • P 57: Student Savings Salmon seems to have a bizarre amount created — why not keep it at $12.51K This was due to a keypunch error that we will correct. The planned budget for this account for 2021 is $5,000, which is more in line with what actually gets spent here. Also, please note that Decision Package 29 includes $32,000 for the Salmon Safe Program. • P. 71: The traffic budget for police for 2020 is way off the trend line created for 2020 Why? The estimate for 2020 is lower than 2019 actual and the 2021 budget. The dip in 2020 was due to some vacancies that we experienced then. • P. 88: Where is the $165k in "miscellaneous revenue" coming from? Revenue in this fund comes from the proceeds from the sale of property seized during drug investigations. Because of this, it is understandably very difficult to guess what the revenues in this fund will be from year to year. • P 111: Park Maintenance is significantly down whereas parks need to be maintained and when combined with salary decrease of $94K and benefits of $60K — is there some position that is being froze or is it being moved to a new cost center found in page 115? Please explain both? Park Maintenance was down two FTE's at the beginning of the year (one was a backfill for the new Arborist position and the other was due to a retirement in December 2019). Early in the pandemic we froze all hiring, but have since authorized the hiring of one FTE and seasonal parks staff. One full-time position remains unfilled and is part of the ongoing hiring freeze. I am not aware of a new parks cost center, page 115 reflects the recreation staff budget as explained on page 114. • P. 119 Gymnastics — I believe these are frozen positions? correct, these are for positions that are frozen. It is important to point out that while we kept $119,608 in gymnastics expenses in the budget we also kept $150,000 in revenue. Reductions in gymnastics expenses would need to result in a subsequent reduction in the revenue projection. • P. 143: Why is 2021 repair/maintenance up nearly $400k over the 2020 budget? For this and the next question, please note that we included roughly $1.5 million in last year's budget for facilities maintenance more than what we were able to include in the 2021 budget. This is more apparent if you look at the total expenditure line rather than reconciling individual lines. • P. 143: Why the significant decrease in professional services 91% decrease? See answer to previous question. • P. 147: We have a deferred maintenance backlog of nearly $9m; largely driven from maintenance deferrals from the last recession in 2008. What is the path in 2021 to catch up? How to pay for this maintenance backlog is a policy question that needs to be discussed. Since this is virtually all general fund money, and we don't know what to predict for general fund revenues in 2021 due to COVID, the building maintenance budget was unfortunately reduced from the 2020 budget. 2 3 m Packet Pg. 358 9.2.a • P. 149: Why the significant increase in professional services? For the answer here, please see the Q&A related to pages 143 and 147, as they are all the same question. • P. 158: Is the Construction Project the Gasification Project? Yes Are the bonds also included in the debt section? Yes There is a decrease in interfund transfer out — what is that? Actually this account increases, perhaps you were looking at a different account. • For 161: The rental charge fund B seems off? Please see decision package 46 which answers this question. Also interest income is down — why? Interest rates are at historical lows, and the amount we estimate we will earn from interest on our investments is correspondingly lower than 2020. What was the $1.5MM interfund transfer in 2020? In 2020 it was determined that fund 511 had become over -funded, and this money was transferred back to the general fund. • P. 165: Professional Services significant increased is that because of the grants and the citywide bike lanes and ped crossing projects? Yes • P. 167 REET fund 125 is the construction projects change because of the completion of the Waterfront and Civic 3 coming on line? The decline here is largely due to the reduction in spending on the Waterfront Redevelopment m from 2020 to 2021. Significant decrease in professional services why? Most of this difference is from professional services related to Civic Field that were incurred in 2020. • P. 169 See comments about the $300K already set aside from prior years, so technically the Mayor's budget is a� only increasing by $200K? Note that this money is not part of the expenditure budget, it is reserved in the REET m fund balance. When the 2020 budget year ends the expenditure authority in that budget does not roll forward, o so going into 2021 there was nothing set aside for open space. So the amount being reserved in the Mayor's v proposed budget increases the reserve from $0 to $500,000. N • Construction projects way down 61% - why? Reductions in the budgeted amount for the Waterfront Redevelopment, and the budget for Civic Field only includes the amount planned for 2021. If Civic goes as r N planned, the project will span 2021— 2022. o • P. 171: Why is the Construction Projects so varying between budget and 2020 estimate? Did the City complete Z most of the EWC in 2020? Also is the 2020 estimates for grant a causality of COVID? The difference in this fund 3 is due to Civic Park being moved out of 2020 and split between 2021 and 2022. Along with the expenses being c move the grants have also been moved. Grant revenue is allocated in the years we expect to collect it. In the Q case of Civic Park we expect to collect it in 2022. _ 3 Packet Pg. 359 9.2.b Changes proposed by Council members during the November 24 meeting: Councilmember Laura Johnson: • Add a temporary 0.5 FTE Human Services Administrative Assistant — Expense increase of $48,956 • Increase funding for Decision Package 1— Professional Services for equity, diversity, and inclusion — Expense increase of $25,000 Councilmember Vivian Olson: • Change Decision Package 11 to take the $210,222 currently in Fund 016 and add it to the facilities maintenance expenditure budget. Expense increase of $210,222 • Remove Decision Package 37, Employee Incentive for Commuter Trip Reduction. Expense reduction of ($36,000) 3 m m m m N 0 54 Packet Pg. 360