Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2020-12-08 City Council - Full S Agenda-2742
O� LDIVO �o Agenda Edmonds City Council SPECIAL MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 DECEMBER 8, 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/95798484261 OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 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 8, 2020 Page 1 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2020 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2020 3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 4. Findings of Fact for continuance of Ordinances Nos. 4200 and 4201 Establishing a Moratorium on Subdivision Applications and Associate Interim Development Regulations 5. WWTP Chief Operator Job Description 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Confirmation of Chief of Police Appointment (30 min) 2. Adoption of the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program/Capital Improvement Plan (30 min) 3. Budget Deliberations and Opportunity for Budget Adoption (120 min) 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda December 8, 2020 Page 2 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/8/2020 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 24, 2020 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 11-24-2020 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 6.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES November 24, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Acting Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Dave Turley, Acting Finance Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Distelhorst read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. PRESENTATION 1. SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY PROCLAMATION Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming November 28, 2020 as Small Business Saturday, and urging the residents of our community, and communities across the country, to support small businesses and merchants on Small Business Saturday and throughout the year. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 6.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson said Small Business Saturday is very important to the City and small businesses, especially during COVID-19. She pointed out people do not have to shop in person, they can shop online at many businesses and can also purchase gift cards for later use, both help the small business community. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO CHANGE ACTION ITEMS 10.1 AND 10.2 TO STUDY ITEMS. Councilmember K. Johnson explained Item 10. 1, Emergency Ordinance Providing Mayor Temporary Authority to Use Tools to Address Economic Emergency, is on the agenda for the first time and she believed the Council would benefit from it being a study item. If necessary, it could be an emergency ordinance, but it should first be a study item. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented most emergency ordinances are just that, an emergency. She encouraged the Council not to support the motion until they heard about the emergency ordinance and the reasoning behind it. The Council could always not take action or vote no, but she was unaware of other instances where an emergency ordinance was not addressed because it was on the agenda for the first time. She encouraged Council to at least hear the ordinance out. Councilmember Distelhorst raised a point of clarification, asking whether the intent was to vote on the items separately or as one motion. Mayor Nelson suggested for logistical reasons the Council vote on each one separately. Councilmember K. Johnson said the emergency nature of the proposed ordinance is if it is adopted by a majority plus one, there is not a five day delay prior to implementation. The Council has never seen this ordinance before, it directly affects the Council, and it should be a study item rather than an action item so the Council could hear from citizens and the community about this major change in the authority of the Council. Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated she had never seen an emergency ordinance delayed because it was on the agenda for the first time. She was contacted by several businesses today who plan to speak about ordinance and how it affects them during the pandemic and the process of continuing to stay open which is a benefit to the City. She encouraged Councilmembers not to approve the motion, to hear out the emergency ordinance and vote against it if they did not wish to proceed. Councilmember Olson said normally she was the person pushing for good process; because this was being presented by the Administration for immediate action, she was willing to hear it out and have the opportunity to take action. It was her understanding that even if it was an action item, the Council had the option of not taking action. She supported this item remaining as an action item. Mayor Nelson restated the motion TO MOVE ITEM 10.1 FROM AN ACTION ITEM TO A STUDY ITEM. MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT ITEM 10.2 (BUDGET DELIBERATION AND OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET) BE RENAMED AS A STUDY ITEM. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 6.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson commented whatever the Council does tonight is only temporary in nature because the Council needs to evaluate and consider the numerous components of the budget. In the past, the Council then had one general adoption of the entire budget. She saw this as a series of study items where Councilmembers can make proposals, discuss and vote on them, but it was not an action item in the truest sense of the word. Councilmember Olson said she liked that philosophy, pointing out Councilmembers could not add a bunch of things without removing other things; therefore, consideration of any proposal is part of the greater conglomerate of other items that Councilmembers either support or do not support. Having discussions and getting a read from Councilmembers regarding their position on items would be helpful to see how the entire budget comes together. She expressed support for the motion. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council could propose amendments if this item was moved to a study item. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered that was a fair question; the Council has not established a strict rule regarding whether no motions whatsoever can be made during a study item. In the past, he has heard the Council make motions during study items that were preliminary in nature such as a motion to forward something to the Consent Agenda. He did not necessarily interpret a study item to mean that no motions could be made. Ultimately it was up to the Council to establish that rule so the Council had the ability to determine what a study items means and whether it meant absolutely no voting of any kind or whether it meant preliminary voting was okay. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested if the Council could make a determination whether to vote during study items, why not leave it under action items. The agenda item is Budget Deliberation and Opportunity to Discuss Changes to the Proposed Budget and she did not understand the need to move it from the action items. Mr. Taraday said there was no procedural or legal significance to the motion in this particular instance. Councilmember Paine expressed support for retaining this item as an action item. There are a lot of questions and a few action items that will be suggested and be addressed early in process and that would not disrupt the process. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her interpretation of Mayor Nelson's comments last week; Councilmembers can propose amendments which is an action, but that does not mean the Council will vote on that action until all the Council amendments have been proposed. For example, she has not prepared all her amendments because she is still going through the questions and answers she submitted. She did not want to vote on amendments until she could see how all the amendments affected the budget. It was her understanding Councilmembers would make preliminary amendments but not final amendments. Mayor Nelson said was up to the Council; he was trying to manage time as there are only so many meetings left. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed time needed to be managed but there was still a lot of Q&A and she liked to see all the proposed amendments before voting on them. She recalled in the past, all Councilmembers' amendments were submitted for review and consideration. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not have a problem with the process Councilmember Buckshnis described, but there needed to be some agreement regarding voting on amendments; perhaps Councilmembers could present amendments and provide an explanation but the Council would not vote on them. She agreed with Councilmember Paine to leave it as an action item and for Councilmembers to present their amendments so other Councilmembers can think about them for a week or so. She encouraged the Council to retain this as an action item. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 6.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson offered to withdraw the motion given the understanding expressed by Councilmember Buckshnis and Council President Fraley-Monillas, but said she would object if there was any voting on individual proposals as that would not be in spirit of proposal. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. He advised there is a public hearing later on the agenda. Audience Comments are for topics not related to the public hearing. Mike Shaw, Edmonds, said not enough thanks and appreciation has been shown the Mayor and Councilmembers. This is most environmentally conscious and proactive administration that Edmonds has had in a long time, perhaps ever. He admired the Mayor and Council's diligence and actions on behalf of Edmonds nature and wildlife and relayed his heartfelt thanks for all they have done and will do. Shubert Ho, Edmonds, Feedme Hospitality & Restaurant Group, commented on the emergency ordinance that gives the City temporary administrative power to help save businesses, restaurants in particular. As the owner of five brick and mortar restaurants in Edmonds, he has a big stake in the restaurant industry in this area. They try their best to stay relevant and charitable to the community as they provide their $5 daily school lunches to the Edmonds School District's for stay-at-home learning. He urged Councilmembers to approve the emergency ordnance as time is ticking and it was needed yesterday, not tomorrow, not next week, and not next month. Every day they wait for something like streateries or closing the street for distance dining hurts them and every day the City takes action helps. He begged the Council to give the Mayor, who has been very supporting of the industry, some emergency power so they can get through the next 90 days and see what happens. With any luck, there will be a vaccine and life can return to some normalcy and they can continue to support the community in the way they have. John Lane, Director of Local Affairs for the Washington Hospitality Association, the largest private employer in Washington representing 15,000 locations and over 200,000 employees, said as Mr. Ho mentioned, the impact of the pandemic on restaurants has been particularly stark. He estimated up to 35% of small, locally owned, independent restaurants will go out of business permanently, noting that estimate was made before the governor's most recent shut down announcement. Based on March, he estimated the four week shutdown will cost restaurants approximately $800 million. Restaurants are barely profitable at 50% indoor occupancy and lose money at 25%, and outdoor only plus take-out/delivery is a very big challenge. He relayed full support for the emergency ordinance to give the City the ability to move as fast as possible, as fast as restaurants had to react to the 48-hour notice of the governor's closure. Restauranteurs across the state and in Edmonds are doing everything they can moving into the tenth month of the pandemic which has been crippling to the industry. He appreciated the support that Edmonds has provided local restaurants and hoped the Council would take this action so they can continue to work in partnership and restaurants, the lifeblood of the community, will still be open when the other end of the pandemic is reached. He appreciated the Council's willingness to consider the emergency ordinance tonight. Louise Favier, Daphne's, agreed with the first speaker regarding how forward thinking Edmonds is with regard to conservation and an environmentally healthy viewpoint. She appreciate the Council's actions related to disposables and compostables, and even though it may cost business owners more, she was Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 6.1.a proud Edmonds was at the forefront of that effort. She expressed support for the unusual ordinance, recognizing the importance of due process and although she generally appreciated that, she would appreciate the Council making an accommodation to help businesses stay afloat during the challenging months ahead. Outside dining has meant everything to them including the wonderful steps the City took already such as the weekend streateries and the extended sidewalk cafes that have allowed them to stay in business. Although it is challenging to stay in business outside during the winter months, without this support, they will have to close for the next six months. With the City's support, they will do their best to stay open and she believed they could. She thanked the Council in advance for their support. Kate Guthrie, Edmonds, Glazed and Amazed, commented on the proposal to make streateries a permanent fixture in downtown. She reiterated concerns she expressed in a letter sent to the Mayor and Council; although she thoroughly supported the extra measures for restaurants to be successful in downtown Edmonds, she preferred the streateries be a temporary measure rather than permanent because in the long term, they cause some negative effects for non -restaurant retailers especially Glazed and Amazed. Her store is on Main Street and there are over eight restaurants on that street; streateries would result in the potential loss of 20+ parking spaces on Main Street which negatively affects her store by eliminating parking for her customers. She recommended the discussion include how streateries affect non -restaurant business owners. She supported any and all measures to temporarily help restaurants during the COVID crisis, but wanted to hear more discussion about how permanent streateries affect all downtown businesses. Richard Bologna, Edmonds, owner and managing partner of a local accounting firm, Edmonds resident since 2001, and active chamber member, offered congratulations to Mayor Nelson in his role during this challenging time for the City. During his soon approaching retirement, he would like to become more involved in City affairs, perhaps with the Economic Development Committee in a role to assist commercial businesses during this time. He also has a strong interest in law enforcement and criminal justice matters. Sheila Cloney, President of Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, thanked the Council for acknowledging Small Business Saturday and helping them navigate these challenging times leading up to the November 28' event and beyond. For many businesses, Small Business Saturday is one of the biggest days of the year and is a great time to reflect on what it means to be an entrepreneur. It is also an opportunity to recognize the impact that working together has on making Edmonds extra special. On behalf of DEMA, she thanked Mayor Nelson and the Council for their ongoing support of DEMA. She acknowledged how proud she was to be working jointly with Patrick Doherty, ED! and the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce to make this holiday season safe and festive. She looked forward to seeing everyone this weekend in their festive masks from a safe distance. She reported more than 30 downtown restaurants and retailers will be participating in First Dibs from November 27' through Dec 6t1i. She looked forward to seeing everyone downtown and assured they have gone to great lengths to ensure it is very safe and festive. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Council President Fraley-Monillas requested Item 7.7 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 6.1.a 7. REGULAR PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE FOR 2021 TAX LEVY AND EMS LEVY ORDINANCE Council President Fraley-Monillas said she wanted to vote no on this item as she was not interested in banking a tax increase or the increase in the EMS levy as she viewed it as regressive taxation. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2020 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 2020 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 2020 4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2020 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM CARLOS RODRIGUEZ ($1,163.24) 8. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DENYING 184TH ST SW STREET VACATION AND OFFICIAL STREET MAP CHANGE 8. PUBLIC HEARING SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE2021 PROPOSED BUDGET Mayor Nelson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Neil Tibbott, Edmonds, applauded the Council and Mayor for the budget and difficult decisions, especially funding for improvements on Highway 99, emergency short term grants for businesses and families, and the decision to retain essential staff while freezing new hires. He relayed concerns about funding for building maintenance. While reviewing the budget, he was puzzled why Building Maintenance Fund 016 was removed from the budget. He understood there were no direct revenue sources for those projects, unlike parks or transportation, but building maintenance must be adequately funded. DP #35 provides for renewal for facilities and maintenance, but that items lacks transparency. As a citizen, he wanted to know what parts of the City's aging infrastructure would be improved. There is a severe lack of transparency on that item and he urged the Council to do a better job of letting citizens know what to expect with regard to the aging infrastructure. Mr. Tibbott described the importance of facility maintenance; it preserves older buildings that are part of the City's remarkable history, facilities provide safe meeting spaces for programs and people of all ages, and maintenance replaces outdated systems with more efficient ones that reduce energy consumption and even the carbon footprint. By underfunding maintenance and replacement, this budget creates a greater financial burden for future taxpayers. He provided the following suggestions for revising the budget to accommodate a proper commitment to maintenance, 1) continue to provide funding for social services but Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 6.1.a not new, unmandated services and instead utilize the safety net that taxpayers pay for like Verdant, Edmonds School District and the parks, 2) improve Highway 99 but use the safety improvement plan developed by Public Works last year as it is far less expensive, and 3) refuse to fund any new, long term programs and instead prioritize short term programs that are essential to helping the City through the pandemic. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, Save Our Marsh, expressed her gratitude for a City Council that is supportive of restoring the marsh to a fully functioning estuary and for the Mayor who is a long-time champion of the Marsh. She suspected most viewers were unclear why marsh supporters were so concerned about which parts of the City budget are listed for marsh restoration and she acknowledged that reading the budget can be overwhelming and she was impressed with the Council for informing themselves on this complex issue as well as other issues. The Save Our Marsh group's concern about budget categories was related to oversight and direction of the marsh restoration project. They want to ensure plans are based on best available science regarding the creation of salmon -friendly habitat as well as meeting the needs of birds and other wildlife dependent on the marsh. Though some stormwater engineers will likely be involved, the overall direction needs to come from biologists and geomorphologists, those who have experience with restoring disconnected tidal wetlands. Citizens who pay Edmonds utilities should be concerned about the impact on utility rates if marsh restoration is under the stormwater budget. She trusted that the Mayor and City Council will would whatever changes were needed to ensure marsh restoration was done in a responsible, cost effective and timely manner. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, recommended the City stop spending money at this time on any marsh restoration planning and remove items from the current budget that pertain to marsh restoration because the Unocal property issues have not been resolved and that property is critical to determining how, if and when restoration of the Edmonds Marsh can occur. It makes no sense to continue spending money when the full and final disposition of that property is unknown. For example, cost estimates currently include huge amounts for removal and disposal of soil from the property. If much of the property is available for restoration, that soil could be kept on site, eliminating that cost, and allowing a plan for restoration that includes wetland development, wildlife areas and recreational opportunities on the site. It is critical to know exactly what is going on prior to beginning a planning process, design and moving forward on how to best restore the marsh utilizing the Unocal property. The City should be looking at what obstacles might prevent utilization of the Unocal property. Mr. Scordino pointed out the Comprehensive Plan current states the Unocal property is prioritized for a multimodal transportation site, moving the ferry terminal, which WSDOT has stated publicly planning to pursue. Therefore the Comprehensive Plan needs to be changed so it does not serve as an obstacle. The Comprehensive Plan also states master planning development is necessary to do anything on that property and it is zoned master planning development. He hoped the Council would provide funding so Shane Hope could commence the process of modifying the Comprehensive Plan and begin development of a master plan and place the $450,000 carryover that was intended for marsh restoration in Fund 017 so it will be available in the future. Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. 9. STUDY ITEMS EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE 2021 WORK PLAN AND BUDGET Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty introduced Pam Stuller, President, Edmonds Downtown Alliance (Ed!) and explained the code requires the Alliance present the following year's work plan and budget by October 31 "; it was provided to the City on October 28, 2020. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 6.1.a Ms. Stuller reviewed: Member Advisory Board o Pam Stuller, President, (Walnut Street Coffee) o Kimberly Koenig, VP (Rogue) o Cheryl Farris, Secretary (Certa Law Group) o Kali Kelnero, Treasurer (Kelnero) o Matt McCulloch (People Bank) o Mark VonGunten (Ten Gun Design) o Jenny Shore (The Wooden Spoon) o Carol Sheldon (Carol Sheldon Hair Design) o Deandra Peterson (Edward Jones) o Jen Lawson (Crow) History o Why Ed!? ■ To create a stable and predictable fund so we could plan and execute downtown -wide marketing ■ To come together to create something bigger and better than any one of our businesses could accomplish on our own ■ To bring a new level of professionalism in our look and feel for promoting downtown ■ The Chamber and the City both have a bigger constituent base and we wanted to just focus on our downtown core o Mission Statement ■ Ed! is a focused, funded organization that supports and improves business conditions in Edmonds. Our goal is to ensure our downtown stays lively, attractive, prosperous and welcoming to everyone Committees o Committees ■ Administration ■ Communication & Outreach ■ Marketing ■ Appearance & Environment ■ Grant Program Ongoing programs o Marketing Strategy ■ Continue to build Ed! messaging to increase awareness of Edmonds as a local and day trip destination ■ Create compelling content on EdmondsDowntown.org to highlight Ed! businesses, including services ■ Promote "support local" campaign ■ Increase exposure with a robust digital campaign ■ Build social media audience, keeping Edmonds top of mind ■ Our Program Manager drives our strategies, and we contract with a local writer and amazing photographer to create high -quality content o Feature Articles ■ For the 3rd year, Ed! published articles highlighting Edmonds businesses, events and the unique qualities of downtown. ■ Innovative way to utilize compelling content to promote downtown. ■ So far this year 57 different businesses have been highlighted. ■ During COVID, utilized articles to support local businesses as they pivoted o Business Spotlights ■ Began highlighting individual businesses in September ■ 17 published YTD Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 6.1.a o Social Media Ad Campaign Jan -Oct ■ Promoted articles and Spotlights via social ads ■ Campaigns delivered: ■ 406,300 impressions ■ 8,623 landing page views ■ 2.5% clickthrough rate (industry average is .9%) o EdmondsDowntown.org Traffic ■ Year over year increases (Jan -Oct 2020): - Users up 23% - Sessions up 23% o Social Media ■ Facebook l/I/20 11/19/20 2,226 followers 2,481 followers - 11 % increase in page followers ■ Insta am l/1/20 11/19/20 1,986 followers 3,383 followers - 70% increase in followers o Edmonds Holiday Campaign ■ Emily the Elf arrive on Edmonds Museum historic fire truck ■ Window vinyl decals - 13 sayings and _ images ■ Character cutouts at 8 different stops - selfie stations ■ Nightly Tree Lighting ■ Edmondsholidays.com o Grant program ■ No new grants were considered in 20202 ■ Grant funds approved for AWE for murals in 2019 was honored o Umbrella program ■ Program paused during COVID ■ New supply purchased in 2020 will be used when it's safe o Parking - After Hours Parking Program ■ 100 After Hours spots available ■ 4locations: - Bank of America (becoming private lot) - Sound Credit Union - WA Federal - US Bank o Member Outreach ■ Regular communication with members via annual meeting, Year in Review Brochure, email newsletter, new member information Support during COVID o Marketing Support ■ Articles to support businesses ■ Safety Pledge: assure the public that businesses are taking the necessary precautions to maintain a healthy community - Website - "Safety Pledge Certified" and guidelines posters - Ads on social and MEN ■ Share businesses social media posts o Communication Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 6.1.a ■ Participation in the Recovery Task Force and DEMA meetings to help facilitate communication between the city and our members ■ Advocate for CARES Act funds to be used for small business grants ■ Regularly share COVID-19 information with members via email and social media ■ Focus on being responsive to business needs with fast turnaround Work Plan & Budget o Budget Year to Date ■ Due to COVID-19, assessment due dates have been delayed and there are no late fees for 2020. ■ Year to date assessment revenue is down 6.5% ■ Budgeted items have so far been reduced by $12,000 (15%) - $8,705 in marketing - $2,000 in summer trolley support - $1,377 for communication & outreach ■ As the year progresses, we'll keep revisiting the budget as needed. 0 2021 Proposed Work Plan ■ Administration ■ Communication and Outreach ■ Marketing/Advertising ■ Appearance and Environment 0 2021 Proposed Budget ■ Administration $24,905 ■ Marketing $42,505 ■ Communication and Outreach $3,730 ■ Appearance and Environment $5,200 ■ Total Budgeted Expenditures $76,340 0 2021 Budgeted Revenue & Expenditures Revenues 2020 Approved Budget 2020 Projected Budget 2021 Proposed Budget Beg. Fund Bal. $11,546 $11,546 $10,347 Projected Revenue $79,209 $67,209 $79,209 Total Budgeted Expenditures $80,510 $68,408 $76,340 Total Revenue $90,75 $78,755 $89,556 Projected End of Year Fund Balance (Projected Available Funds Minus All Expenditures) $10,245 $10,347 $13,216 As Percentage of Ongoing Revenue 12.9% 15.4% 16.7% o 2013-2020 Budget Summary ■ Very good track record of staying within or under budget ■ Board members are members too Councilmember Olson commented a lot of great work has been done by the Business Improvement District (BID) and she has been privy to those insights and information. She acknowledged much of it is advertising related which is difficult to tie to results, but the BID definitely adds to the dynamic nature of the City's downtown core. She relayed a citizen's suggestion to explore afterhours parking at the First Church -Christ Scientist at 551 Maple. She relayed that most of the new Councilmembers were in the audience at this time last year when the Ed! issue was on the Council agenda and she felt it would be appropriate to have more expansive and inclusive conversations with businesses in the context of the BID and whether it was working for everyone, if some tweaks were needed, etc. She requested that be on the agenda in the first quarter of 2021. She was committed to looking at that and has done a lot of research, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 6.1.a but with everything else going on, has not made it to the top of the priority list although she acknowledged it was a priority for some. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for Ed!'s stable financials, recalling Ed! even contributed $20,000 for the public restroom. She commended Ed! for doing a great job, especially during these tough times. She asked how Ed! interacts with the Creative District and how they leverage the Creative District. Ms. Stuller answered one of Ed!'s board members is on a Creative District committee so that is Ed!'s primary link at this time. The Creative District is so new, Ed! did not want to create duplicative programs so they are promoting and sharing any content from the Creative District and look forward to partnering with the District and other organizations in Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ed!'s budget is consistent with the City's projections. She asked if there were more delinquencies this year. Ms. Stuller answered a decision was made early on not to charge delinquency fees this year. Assessments are done quarterly and half the business community was closed on March 17t1i so assessments were delayed for several months. Since then all the assessments have been sent and so far the delinquency rate has not been bad but complete information will not be available until the end of the year. Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo to Ed! and all who work on it. She recognized Ms. Stuller was the first president and now is president again. She looked forward to working with Ed! in the future. Councilmember Paine thanked Ms. Stuller and Mr. Doherty for answering her questions. She asked when the next annual membership meeting will be held. Ms. Stuller answered the bylaws require the annual meeting be held in April; the date will be selected closer to April to avoid conflicts with community events. Recognizing that Ed! is well tuned to the business community, Councilmember Paine asked about discussions related to streateries versus parking parity. Ms. Stuller answered the early street closures were a bit of a surprise for some members of the business community and in the past Ed! had been involved in creating forums to allow broader communication to occur and ensure the business community was working together. She recognized Ms. Guthrie's frustration as she has only one parking space in front of her business, yet wants her neighbors to stay in business. Anecdotally, businesses appreciate others more than ever and recognize they are an ecosystem and it takes all the office space, by -appointment and service based businesses, restaurants and retailers to create the vibrant space in downtown Edmonds. She noted the importance of communication and recognized there may not always be a perfect solution for everyone, but hopeful reasonable solutions can be developed that work well for most businesses. Councilmember Paine expressed support for Councilmember Olson's request for a fuller discussion about the BID for educational and support purposes. Ms. Stuller said Ed! is more than happy to do that, but as volunteer board members, they are involved for the benefit of the community. If businesses are not finding it beneficial, that would be helpful to know; the idea is for it to work for everyone. Mr. Doherty advised this is on the agenda for potential action, to approve the 2021 work plan and budget. Once it is approved, it will be incorporated into the 2021 budget. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE 2021 WORK PLAN AND BUDGET AS PRESENTED. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the Council was voting on a presentation or a discussion item. Mayor Nelson advised there had been a motion to approve during a study item. Councilmember K. Johnson said process reasons the motion was inappropriate. It was not on the agenda for action and it was intended to brief the Council and give the community an opportunity for input. For Mayor Nelson said the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 6.1.a Council can make a motion at any time to take action. He relayed Councilmember K. Johnson's point was not taken. Councilmember Olson suggested scheduling it on the Consent Agenda to provide an interval for comment from the public. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO SCHEDULE IT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to Mr. Doherty's statement and as stated in the packet, the motion is preliminary approval and it is then incorporated into the budget where it would be approved by the Council's approval of the budget. Mr. Doherty advised the Council accepts the work program; he did not recall a time when the Council had made a change to the work program. This is a two part approval, accepting/approving the work program, but the major action is approving the budget which is the first step and the second step is taken during approval of the budget. Councilmember Distelhorst said he was comfortable voting to approve the work plan and budget, knowing there will be a second vote with the budget. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. [Note: This vote was retaken below.] Mr. Taraday advised the Council needed to make a motion to place approval of the Ed! budget and work plan on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that Councilmember Olson's amendment was to place both the budget and work plan on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Olson agreed that was her intent. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she thought she was only voting on the one item. Councilmember Distelhorst said the main motion was to approve the work plan and the budget. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that the amendment was to move the work plan to next week's Consent Agenda. Observing that the motion had not been restated and everyone seemed to have a different recollection, Councilmember K. Johnson suggested the motion be restated and the vote retaken. Mr. Taraday said that would be appropriate since there was some confusion about the final vote. Councilmember Distelhorst restated the motion, incorporating Councilmember Olson's amendment: TO HAVE THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE PROPOSED 2021 WORK PLAN AND BUDGET PLACED ON NEXT WEEK'S CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PRESENTATION OF CODE CONCEPTS FOR STREATERIES AND OTHER OUTDOOR DINING Development Services Director Shane Hope reviewed: 0 COVID 19 has changed the way we live Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 6.1.a Examples of Quick City Action under COVID o Outreach to businesses o Outreach to construction industry o Expedited online permitting o Coordination with governor's office and agencies o Site inspection program for businesses (re: COVID protection standards) o Main Street area for pedestrians (program now closed) o Short-term parking signage to allow take-out/pick-up Special Event Permit — Temporary Mitigation o A special event permit was authorized in August to allow dining in designated vehicle parking spaces ■ Originally through Oct 11 ■ Extended through Nov 8 ■ Extended through Dec 31 or Council adoption of streateries ordinance, whichever sooner o Liked by many people ■ Helps keep small businesses alive ■ Brings festive atmosphere to community ■ Allows users to dine in public place, but still have fresh air and spacing Governor's Orders o Numerous orders issued during 2020 to help protect public health during pandemic o Newest order affecting restaurants issued November 15 ■ Prohibits indoor services for restaurants and taverns • Cities can take actions to make easier to eat outdoors if choose Two concepts are proposed for code updates this year 1. Streateries (parklets allowing dining/beverage service in designated vehicle parking spaces within ROW) o Applicable citywide, adjacent to commercial uses where street parking spaces are available o Subject to individual permits for up to one year with 6-months extensions possible o Dining on raised platforms, flush with sidewalk, to provide ADA accessibility o Maximum 2 parking spaces per use o Safety standards (e.g., fire and structural safety) to apply o Insurance and "hold harmless" agreements by applications required o Some aesthetic guidelines preferred o Limitation on total number of parking spaces; process being worked out o Must meet state and health district standards (incl for social distancing( o Must have reflective lights for night-time o Applicants to pay cost of platforms, safety barriers, liability insurance, etc. o Staff has been checking what other cities are doing for streateries 2. On -Site Outdoor Dining (allowing more opportunities for outdoor dining on private property, not in ROW) o Allow under simple permit process, without going thru a conditional use permit process o Allow on business property, such as on deck or patio or in parking lot o One-year time period but could be extended o Allow some on -site parking spaces to be used for outdoor dining without requiring new parking spaces o May include canopy or awning o Ensure safety standards (e.g., for heaters) are met o Must have ADA access o Must meet building setback standards Next Steps Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 6.1.a o Emergency ordinance being prepared for Council consideration ASAP to provide for streateries as 1-2 year pilot project ■ Planning Board review not required because the ordinance would amend Title 18, which is mostly is not under Planning Board purview o Emergency interim ordinance (short term) being prepared for Council consideration ASAP to provide a simpler process for on -site outdoor dining ■ Planning Board review would occur after the interim ordinance adoption ■ Options could then be recommended for longer -term change to codes affecting on -site outdoor dining Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Paine asked if sidewalk cafes were envisioned along with streateries. Ms. Hope said that might work in areas where there were only a small amount of sidewalk cafes and there was space for a limited number of streateries. Councilmember Olson asked if Bend, Oregon, had been vetted as a model; she has heard good things about what Bend is doing. Ms. Hope said staff had also heard about Bend but had not looked at many cities other than Portland, Vancouver and Seattle; Bend may be a good one to consider. Councilmember L. Johnson anticipated there would be increased need for parking for restaurant takeout under the current conditions. She recommended finding a balance and asked if a business would be allowed to have both, two parking spaces for a streatery and parking for takeout/pickup, or would there be a per business limit. Ms. Hope answered the recommendation has not yet been finalized but the thinking was that one single business would not need both. Scattered parking would remain for pickup/takeout for restaurants and other stores. She did not envision individual businesses with a streatery would have dedicated parking for pickup/takeout. Councilmember K. Johnson commented this is a very interesting regulation. As previously mentioned, consideration needs to be given to how many parking spaces will be used for parklets as well as whether a restaurant has sidewalk dining, pickup parking or other off-street dining opportunity; those issues need to be balanced and addressed. She asked how parking spaces translated into social distanced dining, how to ensure people eating outside were not in the spray of COVID. She also requested staff consider the environmental impacts of using outdoor gas heaters in the wintertime which have been identified as very environmentally negative. She concluded there was a lot to consider and she welcomed the opportunity to look at this again. Ms. Hope said those are exactly the questions staff has been working on and hopes to come back to Council with a balanced approach, especially taking into account the gas heaters. She assured the proposal regarding gas heaters will be carefully considered by staff. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Ms. Hope for answering her questions. With regard to legalities, she recalled interim ordinances were typically no longer than six months. She asked if this was technically vacating the right-of-way to the restaurateur and if so, could that result in a lawsuit. She felt it was a great concept but those were her issues. Ms. Hope answered other cities have done this and it seems to work. The concept is not to give up the spaces permanently, but to allow them for public use that favors the businesses. It is not a permanent donation to a private business and the business would also pay for a permit as well as the required equipment and be required to remove equipment at the City discretion. This is a pilot project proposed as an emergency ordinance that would sunset. The proposal for onsite dining is an interim ordinance while a more permanent ordinance is worked out. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if staff knew about any lawsuits. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he had not heard of any. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 6.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Ms. Hope for including the ADA and Snohomish Health District and other health guidelines, recalling those both arose in the Recovery Taskforce meeting. With regard to jersey barriers, he asked if there would be a requirement for the water filled jersey barriers to be filled versus empty. Ms. Hope relayed her understanding that some of the water -filled jersey barriers were filled when placed and had leaked. Other barrier options include sturdy structures that contain safe plantings. She assured inspections would also be conducted to ensure it remains the way it was intended. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled a restaurant this summer that blocked off the sidewalks with rope, causing pedestrians to leave the sidewalk to go around. She had brought this to Ms. Hope's attention and assumed that had been taken care of. Ms. Hope assured it was never allowed and had been removed and not replaced. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled roping off the sidewalk from the edge of the building through the parklet made it uncomfortable for people walking on the sidewalk. With regard to aesthetic issues, Councilmember Olson recalled preferred colors would be recommended. She supported that idea although she preferred dark green and burgundy in addition to white. If the proposal is somewhat temporary and intended to help businesses, she suggested allowing those who have already purchased items to use of what they have as long as they meet the other requirements, and when the items are replaced, they should be the preferred colors. Councilmember K. Johnson said a pilot project for 1-2 years is excessive. She did not expect the COVID situation to last two years so anything that was done should be on a short term basis. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why there was a rush to get this done by year end when there was the option for a special event permit. Ms. Hope said the thought was that businesses were affected right now; the option for a special use permit was extended, but that could not be done indefinitely. The idea was, before businesses go to the trouble of building a platform, moving equipment outside, etc., to give them some assurance that it would be allowed for more than a couple weeks or a month Council President Fraley-Monillas commented whatever can be done to assist businesses in staying open is the responsible thing for Council to pursue for a number of reasons. She looked forward to seeing the finished version. Councilmember Olson said businesses do not always have the capability of building platforms, etc. She suggested the City compile a team of handymen/women who would be willing and able to help with the construction, even on a volunteer basis, noting she has one of those people in her family who would be willing and able to help. Councilmember Olson asked if the ordinance could be crafted to sunset with state emergency order for the pandemic instead establishing an arbitrary period that may need to be altered. Ms. Hope said that could be considered; she proposed bringing back an ordinance with choices for Council consideration. Councilmember Olson said whatever number of spaces is determined, at least two spaces should be left between barriers because leaving one spot makes it awkward and difficult to park so it is not used. When/if the City wants to offer this as a longer term solution instead of in response to the pandemic, she suggested the footprint of the additional square footage be included in the business' BID assessment. She did not recommend that in the short term when businesses are trying to survive. She suggested the businesses who benefit from the use of the right-of-way think about ways to help their neighbors such as a coupon in to -go orders or marketing neighboring businesses so they realize some benefit as well. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with looking out for restaurateurs, noting some streateries/parklets have been done nicely, for example Chanterelles. She asked if they would be required to rebuild theirs or Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 6.1.a could they continue with a special event permit. Ms. Hope answered they would need to put up a platform because that provides ADA accessibility and keeps people off the wet street. If they are otherwise meeting the requirements, they would not have to redo their streatery although they would need insurance, etc. 3. A RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND SUSPENDING THE ISSUANCE OF DRIVING WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED IN THE THIRD DEGREE (DWLS III) CITATIONS Councilmember K. Johnson asked if she could make a statement. Mayor Nelson answered no because the meeting was running behind. Councilmember K. Johnson said she would make her statement later. Councilmember Distelhorst explained last spring Councilmember Paine and he looked at what other counties and cities in Washington were doing to see if there was a way Edmonds could handle DWLS III cases in a more equitable manner. The overall goal was to get people relicensed; however, that approach over the last 27 years since DWLS III was passed as a criminal offense had not occurred. It has become the most charged crime in Washington State while traffic crash data has not materially improved. He reviewed: Three main goals of moving on from DWLS III o Equity ■ DWLS III disproportionately impacts lower -income and communities of color ■ Unnecessary exposure to the criminal justice system further harming those with less economic security o Reprioritizing to crimes related to public safety ■ All court stakeholders can focus on more important public safety issues o Potential for significant cost savings ■ Public Defender Contract ■ Prosecutor Contract ■ Jail costs Councilmember Paine reviewed: • DWLS III vs NVOL II flowchart Unpaid infraction/failure to appear 4 License suspended 4 DWLS III criminal citation y y NVOL II, civil Potential Jail Time infraction, payment plan established Relicensing E E Councilmember Paine explained other jurisdictions have moved to this via a diversion or deferment program. As part of this proposal, the Public Defender and the City Prosecutor would present a program that would work best for them. The ultimate goal is to get people relicensed. Programs such as UP (unified payment) allow people to have all their matters, including from other jurisdictions, pulled out of collections, establish payment plans and get relicensed. The ticket for a NVOL II is a serious ticket (similar to speeding in a school zone or driving without insurance) and can cost $500-$550. Councilmember Distelhorst reviewed: Various examples in Washington State o Lynnwood: moved to NVOL II —3 years ago; maintains DWLS III option for instances of DUI, Reckless Driving, other criminal offences o Snohomish County, Seattle, & King County: diversion and relicensing programs Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 6.1.a o Vancouver & Clark County: diversion and license restoration programs o Spokane area: relicensing program covers City of Spokane, County of Spokane, Pend Oreille County, Medical Lake, Airway Heights and Cheney o The Washington legislature has tried to address this but their efforts have not yet been successful. High probability it will be considered again in the 2021 session. o The ACLU recently sued the Washington State Department of Licensing over the criminal DWLS III infraction. Councilmember Paine reviewed: Recommendations in the resolution: o The resolution is consistent with the action taken by Mayor Nelson and Acting Chief Lawless on Nov. 5, 2020 o Short-term: ■ Utilize No Valid Operator's License (NVOL I1) civil infraction in lieu of charging for DWLS III o Long-term recommendations: ■ Utilize NVOL II when appropriate and guide toward relicensing program ■ Justice stakeholders encourage utilization of the existing Legal Financial Obligations (LFOs) relief petition and consider joining a suitable payments system such as the Unified Payment (UP) Program ■ Justice stakeholders establish benchmark goals related to addressing LFOs and subsequent relicensing, and the City Prosecutor and Public Defender Association provides an annual report on the results ■ This would make a significant improvement in equity in the City's criminal justice system and reflects that people drive everywhere and their license can be suspended in other cities/counties. It is not just Edmonds tickets that will suspend a license so a broader, community approach is necessary and will be addressed via the UP program. Councilmember Paine hoped to have the resolution on next week's Consent Agenda. Councilmember Olson thanked the City Prosecutor for bringing this to the City's attention this spring. She also thanked Councilmembers Distelhorst and Paine for their work. She was excited about this change and appreciated the very complete information they brought forward which made her comfortable with the concept. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Councilmembers Distelhorst and Paine for taking the initiative. This is one element of rethinking how criminal justice can be more equitable and how to stop the unnecessary "hamster wheel" that leads to people getting wrapped up in system and not having justice in the end. This is the perfect type of undertaking and thinking that is needed going forward. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed appreciation for this proposal and for Councilmembers Distelhorst and Paine taking the time to explain it. She asked if the resolution simply supported what Mayor Nelson put in place or did it do something else. Councilmember Paine answered it synchronizes what Mayor Nelson put in place and requests data collection for providers. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed it established policy direction that further reinforces the action Mayor Nelson has already taken and provides guidance to court stakeholders. Councilmember K. Johnson read a statement: "Based on the advice of legal counsel, I have a personal interest in this subject manner and therefore I will not attempt to influence the discussion and I will not vote on this matter. This is in order to recuse myself." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 6.1.a COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO PUT ON CONSENT NEXT WEEK 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. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson for his support and for the court stakeholders' support, recognizing that putting this together took a lot of work. Councilmember Paine expressed her thanks to Mayor Nelson for his actions that got this rolling in the right direction. It has been an interesting project working with all three branches and included a lot of moving parts. She appreciated everyone hanging in there and participating and all the work done by everybody, particularly the Administration. MOTION CARRIED (6-0), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON RECUSED HERSELF FROM THE VOTE. Mayor Nelson announced the time was 9:05 p.m. and the next agenda item may eat into the time allotted for budget deliberation. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order; this is the Council's meeting and if the Council exceeded the time allotted, that was what happened. She respected that Mayor Nelson was keeping track of the time, but wanted to ensure Councilmembers got all their questions answered. Mayor Nelson said he was trying to keep stay on track and to manage the meeting as productively as possible to maximize everybody's time. He agreed it required Councilmembers to be okay with that. Council President Fraley-Monillas hoped Councilmember were getting their questions answered offline and not waiting until the Council meeting to ask questions. If the Council plans to deliberate, they will need all the time they can get and do not need to waste time with a billion questions that can be dealt with offline. She encouraged the Council to do that so the process can occur in a collaborate way. 10. ACTION ITEMS 1. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE PROVIDING MAYOR TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TO USE TOOLS TO ADDRESS ECONOMIC EMERGENCY Development Services Director Shane Hope explained this is a draft emergency ordinance recognizing that sometimes the City does not have all the answers or information about what is going to happen, particularly with COVID and the economic crisis that it can generate. The intent is to manage the health crisis as well as the economic crisis. Instead of just managing via emergency orders when something happens, the draft emergency ordinance would facilitate being ready for it, not knowing exactly what would happen. Mayor Nelson offered context, stating he realized some people get excited when there was an ordinance referencing the Mayor's powers. The purpose of the ordinance is to help save businesses so they do not go under and to keep residents safe during a pandemic. He met virtually with small businesses immediately following the latest restrictions which, although they were put in place to save lives, also directly impact businesses. He has listened to their cries for help, heard their frustration with the City not being able to process permits or other things fast enough and the hurdles they face because the City is following the code and the law. These are unprecedented times and there needs to be an unprecedented Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 6.1.a response. Business as usual will not save businesses; the normal processes were never designed for operating during a pandemic or a prolonged national emergency. Mayor Nelson pointed out the Council is a deliberative body and have a wonderful reputation for getting into the finer details which is great during normal times. During normal times picking the right design for a welcome sign is a reflection of the deep interest in the community. These are not normal times; City staff are responding to an economic crisis and their hands are tied. This is a critical opportunity to give City staff the ability to appropriately respond to this moment when it matters most. Options are running out for containing the virus and to save the local economy. A lot of people talk about what is happening in Seattle where block after block of businesses are boarded; Edmonds is getting there. The numbers in this wave are so much worse than in the past; hospitals will fill up and there will be more restrictions. Mayor Nelson said some people want examples of what the ordinance will allow; right now the restrictions affect restaurants and gyms. Next week, it could be the closure of all retail; he did not have a crystal ball. The streateries are an example of the deliberative process and that has taken months. Some of the restaurants that will benefit from streateries will not be in existence because the process is taking too long. Restaurants are left to function week -by -week and they cannot survive. This action can make a difference and help them. He provided an example of a restaurant that wants a permit approved, he has heard that it is taking three months. If there are 50 seeking permit approval at the same, it is not practical to hold 50 emergency meetings, that is not how the City operates. Mayor Nelson summarized that is the intent behind this ordinance. Although he would have loved to meet with each Councilmember and spend an hour with each one explaining why this is necessary, he does not have the time right now. The governor is changing the COVID response every day and staff is adapting in addition to everything else. At the end of the day, this is really about saving businesses, keeping them afloat and keeping citizens safe. The Council can make that difference and he hoped they would take that advantage. Councilmember Olson referred to Mayor Nelson's comment about 50 permits, suggesting if they were all for same kinds of things, could the Council have one Zoom meeting to review them and then vote. She recalled earlier this year the Council was contacted regarding an emergency meeting at noon on a Sunday and that meeting was held at 2 p.m. the same day. The Council is willing and able to do their jobs and can recognize the difference between things that are emergencies and need an emergency response for the sake of businesses. The Council just wants to be part of that process and the oversight. There is a reason there is more than one branch of government and the extra eyes are part of that oversight responsibility and value. Mayor Nelson asked Ms. Hope to describe how Council would be informed. Ms. Hope said one of the challenges is staff does not always know what will come up; sometimes it happens piecemeal or because of an immediate order and there are only 24 or 48 hours before it goes into effect so the City needs to be able to respond quickly. The example of something taking three months is probably a conditional use permit (CUP) process that is required for some outdoor activities. An ordinance has been proposed to address that, but Council consideration of that ordinance has also taken time. The idea was to provide limited ability for the Mayor to act only for an economic crisis related to COVID, not a broad branch thing, and then report to Council regarding any actions taken. The Council could remove that authority if it seemed unreasonable. She said that was one example of something happened, but there could be plenty of other things that come up and over the holidays it would be even harder. Mayor Nelson said what he heard from the restaurants was not just one thing; every restaurant, every business had a different problem. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 6.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating Mayor Nelson was beginning to testify and he had already been given an opportunity to speak. He is presenting this to the Council for deliberation. Mayor Nelson advised point taken. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the way the ordinance is written, it is only up to 90 days. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed that was correct. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if the Council could pull it back at any time. Mr. Taraday agreed the Council could repeal the ordinance sooner than 90 days if they became dissatisfied. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed if something happened on a Sunday, technically the Council could withdraw the ordinance on a Tuesday. Mr. Taraday agreed that could be done. Council President Fraley-Monillas said a few Councilmembers have called her to discuss this. She has a great deal of passion about this issue and has grave concerns about businesses in the City. She has spoken to multiple businesses who all say the same thing, they need to be able to move very quickly. With regard to the Council's process, there is a perception that the Council "cannot move if our life depended on it." For example, tonight it took the Council 20 minutes to approve the agenda. She absolutely believed that this needed to be done for 90 days, pointing out it only affected COVID-related issues, not other issues. Council President Fraley-Monillas expressed support for Edmonds businesses; whatever the Council wants to do is up to them but she very much supports the businesses and they are asking for help before they have to shutter their doors. She also had faith in Mayor Nelson that he would not use this as opportunity to build a bridge on the beach or do anything that was abnormal or outside the realm of possibility. Mayor Nelson has been honest and true with the Council during the past year. She acknowledged he has moved too fast on occasion and has had to back up, but that was a learning experience. She believed in Mayor Nelson fully and that he would do the right thing to protect Edmonds businesses for the next 90 days. If Council believes this is problematic, the power could be pulled back. This isn't giving Mayor Nelson total authority to do whatever he wants in the City, it is only related to COVID type issues. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how reports would be made to Council. Ms. Hope answered reports would be provided both in writing and at a Council meeting regarding anything that was done. For example, if standards needed to be quickened up, that would be reported back to the Council and the Council could take action or consider it. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested reports could be provided the week after something was done. Ms. Hope answered absolutely. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has been reading all the citizen emails and many are from the same people who weigh in on multiple issues. None of them are actually from business owners affected by COVID. They are from citizens that are perhaps armchair quarterbacking to determine what should or should not happen or people who have never liked the current administration and are looking for a hole to punch in it. If Councilmembers really support Edmonds businesses, they will give the City the flexibility to use funding or things they have available within their toolbox to help the City and the businesses. She noted this is not just businesses downtown, a lot of businesses on Highway 99 have shuttered and will continue to shutter even more than downtown businesses. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for Mayor Nelson's work on behalf of businesses and the City. As the Council liaison to the Recovery Taskforce, Ms. Hope and Mr. Doherty can attest to the fact that he has been at every Recovery Taskforce meeting for the last eight months. He assured there were Councilmembers who share the level of concern and desire to act on behalf of small businesses and would welcome virtual hand -in -hand collaboration to ensure businesses and residents are taken care of. He asked what powers were available for issues like suspending Title 3 related to revenue and finance, how could budget items be used. Mr. Taraday responded his understanding was there was no intent in the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 6.1.a ordinance to give the Mayor unilateral budget authority. Councilmember Distelhorst asked whether it granted that power, intent versus authority. Mr. Taraday said as far as he was concerned, it did not grant that power. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had sent a lot of questions to Ms. Hope but had not gotten any answers so did not have enough information. She has also spoken to businesses. Emergency ordinance 6.60 gives the Mayor plenty of responsibility and action which he has already taken without Council oversight. In her opinion, the ordinance was way too broad and gives away too much responsibility. She did not like to be shamed by saying if she did not vote for the ordinance she was not supporting Edmonds businesses. She supports a comprehensive action where there is an administrative branch and a legislative branch. With Zoom, the Council can easily meet during the holiday season. For example, she participated in Council meetings via Zoom when she was in Virginia. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not have enough information to support this drastic measure; she did not believe in hearsay and would like to have statistics. With regard to the 50 permits, she asked what they were for. There is already an emergency ordinance in place as well as the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that has never come back to Council. She recalled when the Council met in March to establish emergency ordinance 6.60, the Council was told it would come back in six weeks, but it never did. She suggested calming down and figuring out exact what the issues were and what the ordinance attempted to achieve. She agreed the City wants to save businesses; the BID presentation said things were going fine. She knew everything was not going fine because she was downtown a lot, but restaurants seem to be doing alright now with the outside streateries. She reiterated she needed more information, needed to understand the issue more completely and have her questions answered, not just a response that they would be discussed at the meeting. Now the Council is being put on the spot and expected to provide a yes or no answer when they have insufficient data to support the request. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support approving the ordinance now without sufficient information to understand what 50 permits were needed, commenting if they were CUPS, those did not go to Council anyway unless they were a Type IV or V. She did not have enough information to understand why the Council would give the Mayor complete control over seven titles for 90 days. She assured Mayor Nelson that she thought he was doing a great job and her comments were not intended as criticism. She has had more citizens call her than she has in the last ten years so she knows everybody is anxious and concerned. She could not approve this broad an ordinance at this juncture. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers refrain from making personal remarks. He asked Ms. Hope to explain how and why these titles were selected. Ms. Hope answered for example the streateries and outdoor dining impacted about four titles. There could also be things that come up related to fees that would be related to the revenue title so a broad approach was taken to consider which titles could possibly be affected. Again, not giving the Mayor the authority to do anything other than deal with economic issues, the crisis created by COVID. Some of the titles may never be used even if the Council approves the ordinance but the intent was to identify provisions in the codes that may be needed that could not be predicted at this moment. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed the ordinance was written to say that it would apply to 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. She asked for a fuller picture of what "other public real property" this was talking about. Mr. Taraday said he did not have anything specific in mind except the possibility that a City owned parking lot could be used for something but he was unaware of any proposal to do that. The intent was to create a vehicle that would allow for quick response as needed. Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said there is other property the City owns such as parking lots or maybe a portion of a park. Right now there are greater restrictions for Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 6.1.a restaurants, gyms and bars and future restrictions are unknown, for example next week there could be restrictions on all retail and only grocery stores and pharmacies allowed to remain open. The intent is to be nimble and able to respond with orders that could come from the City. The governor issues orders as conditions change and the City needs to respond them at the City level as conditions change, sometimes changing twice a week. Public property could include allow gyms to hold classes in parks which is allowed to the extent possible now, but more flexibility may be needed in the future. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what four codes were impacted by streateries. Ms. Hope answered 17 (general zoning), 18 (public works), 19 (building), and 20 (procedures). Councilmember Paine referred to Section 1 of the ordinance which contains references to economic emergency, but it is not specific to the current COVID emergency. She understood it was intended to be limited to COVID, but it does not reference COVID. She said an economic emergency could be something that is not specific to COVID, and someone else's idea of an emergency. If this is an emergency and emergency is action taken, the ordinance states Council will be informed within 30 days, which she said seemed like Council was a bit of an afterthought. She was certain that was not the intent but if everyone is on the same team, she wanted that recognized in the ordinance. Mr. Taraday said whereas clauses set the context for the phrase economic emergency and certainly do mention COVID and emergency orders issued by the governor. Ms. Hope said there are 1-2 things that could be amended such as the number of days for reporting to Council. Councilmember Paine asked if there was a reason for selecting 30 days. Mr. Taraday responded no. Councilmember K. Johnson offered to put this in context by citing the RCW for Edmonds as a second class city. The Mayor is the CEO and administrative officer. He shall see that all the law and ordinances are enforced and that law and order is maintained. He is also to report to the City Council concerning the affairs of the City and its financials and ordinances and shall make recommendations for City Council consideration and action. She said what troubled her most about the emergency ordinance was a pattern of action and decision making in 2020. Mayor Nelson has used public announcements as the main tool for advising the City Council. He did this for the appointment of the acting director for finance and police. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating the comments were getting off topic. Councilmember K. Johnson disagreed. Council President Fraley-Monillas said giving a laundry list of prospective problems was off topic. Mayor Nelson said Councilmembers will refrain from making personal remarks about members of the body. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if Mayor Nelson wanted her to continue or to skip that part. Mayor Nelson suggested if it was a continuation of personal remarks about people on the body that she should move on. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized from her perspective, there had been very poor communication between the City Council and the Mayor's Office. Councilmember K. Johnson said the City Council has met with the Mayor several times this year without the benefit of an agenda and at unusual times and places which shows the Council's flexibility to meet with the Mayor and obviates the need for emergency measures. The City Council holds the authority and may delegate certain powers to the Mayor such as purchasing power up to a certain dollar amount. The Mayor does not inherently have these powers, but in an atmosphere of trust and respect, the Council may grant these powers to the Mayor. She was aware of several instances where trust and respect were lacking. She strongly objected to giving Mayor Nelson unlimited and unspecified powers either on an emergency or non -emergency basis. Instead, she respectfully requested the Mayor work more closely with the City Council on matters that require Council action. She pointed out Mayor Nelson is not the chief legislator of the City, he is the chief executive and the City Council is the executive body. She paraphrased key points from citizen comments sent to all Councilmembers: it is ill advised to give the Mayor the power to basically do whatever he wants, to grant him the right to spend funding and do Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 6.1.a whatever is just too far. He ignored the rules for replacing the police chief and has not replaced the finance director and has not shown any reason... Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order about Councilmember K. Johnson's comments. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmember K. Johnson refrain from repeating personal remarks on behalf of someone else on this body. He was trying to follow Roberts Rules of Order and she was continually violating them and disrupting the body. Councilmember K. Johnson apologized and offered to relay comments that were acceptable. One citizen said the City Council is very agile and has met virtually every week so there is no reason that the experience, expertise, and analytical ability of each Councilmember should be diminished. It is an illogical assertion that one elected official can govern more effectively than the group of eight that can work as a team. Language in the proposal already grants oversight to the mayor and staff. This is exactly what the safeguards of power are supposed to avoid. If approved, the Council is rendered ineffective and this is disturbing because the Council are the eyes and ears of the City. Councilmembers look to the citizens of Edmonds, not the Mayor. To inform Council about a decision 30 days after it happens is difficult to reconcile and is insulting to the Council, citizens and already too late. Councilmember K. Johnson summarized it was not a question of whether the Council supported an individual, but the correct roles and responsibilities between the three branches of government. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Taraday to respond to Councilmember K. Johnson's comments about the City's classification and whether the Council was a legislative body or executive body. Mr. Taraday said the statute Councilmember K. Johnson quoted was regarding a second class city, Edmonds is a code city. Many of the statues are phrased similarly and he would need to compare them side -by -side. Under normal circumstances, the Council is the legislative body and the ordinance would not be proposed if the City were operating under normal circumstances. The policy question for the Council is really to what extent does the Council want to deviate from normal operations in order to act in a swifter way than normal. Council President Fraley-Monillas said in speaking with the businesses, meeting once a week may not be enough because things may need to occur between meetings. For example, the Council meets on Tuesday, on Wednesday there is an order from the governor or the health district and they have to move quickly. A week is a long time for a restaurant, store or service in Edmonds and the Council is not able to provide the instant movement they may need. With regard to the comment about everybody just needs to calm down and relax and do this in an organized manner, she did not disagree with that, but somebody needs to tell the businesses to calm down while they are losing their business, going to lose their house, losing their staff, etc., all because of COVID. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she serves on the Snohomish Health Board, Snohomish County has more cases now than there have been during the whole pandemic and it has become a very serious situation. To say this will be over in a year, she was glad someone had a crystal ball because the doctors don't even know what will happen. She suggested Councilmembers put themselves in the shoes of the businesses, restaurants, and services in Edmonds and understand that this is their livelihood. She said it seemed so silly, the Council would not approve an emergency ordinance for this but were willing to approve an emergency moratorium three weeks ago related to building and trees. The proposed ordinance is related to people and survival. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating the Council did not approve an emergency moratorium on trees. Council President Fraley-Monillas said an emergency ordinance was passed on whatever recently. She encouraged Councilmembers to speak to store and restaurant owners. To those who say they spoke with businesses, she offered to provide names of business owners they needed to speak to and tell them to calm down and don't worry about it. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 6.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst said in his research on COVID-19 related emergency declarations and authority on MSRC he did not find anything similar to the proposed ordinance. Most of the actions that municipalities have taken have been more consistent with what the Council did earlier in the pandemic. He asked if staff had any examples where municipalities in Washington or other states had taken action like this that MSRC did not capture. Ms. Hope answered staff did not research what other cities might have done. This was in response to the awareness that emergency conditions may arise and the desire to provide the Mayor the opportunity to act quickly and then bring that back to Council as quickly as possible. She said there were likely examples than were not found on the MSRC website. As small business owner herself, Councilmember L. Johnson fully appreciated the circumstances that small businesses are facing. She was not a restaurant owner so in that regard she was fortunate, but she was definitely keeping their needs in the forefront. As a legislator, this is broad and is asking a lot of Council. She would like to see something written into this that would require if any action was taken, the Council receives immediate notification and the Council has the option of calling an emergency meeting to discuss the action or say they are comfortable waiting until a presentation is provided at the next immediate following meeting. The ordinance needs to be tightened up so that Councilmembers are comfortable on both ends, serving businesses while ensuring as elected officials they are not giving up more powers than they should. Councilmember Olson said her thoughts were very similar to Councilmember L. Johnson. There are multiple branches of government for a reason and Councilmembers are willing and able to do their jobs. This is not a matter of supporting businesses and residents, she is willing to do the job for businesses and residents every day. She supported the Administration asking the Council what needs to be done and the Council will say yes or no on the spot. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated what had been said regarding the Zoom format, the Council has met on a Sunday and on a Friday. She referred to the original ordinance approved in March, Section 6.60.090, subsections F and H which give the Mayor the ability to close public rights -of -way, parks, beaches, amusement areas, etc. and said she did not have enough information regarding why the current emergency code was insufficient. The proposed emergency ordinance gives all the Council's responsibilities and legislative abilities away. She already had concerns with the original 6.60 which has not yet been returned to Council. The Council needs to have more information about what is actually happening. It appears the governor's current restrictions are in place until December 18t''. If the governor says something else tomorrow, the Council can have a special meeting which she assured Councilmembers were willing to do. The Council needs to know why this was brought up, because on the surface there was a disconnect. The Council needs to maintain its legislative capabilities and oversight. Councilmember Paine asked if the permitting process itself was daunting or was there a staffing problem that could be remedied that was creating the three month delay to get a permit. She also asked whether any information had been provided by the governor's office about future restrictions. She understood the COVID-19 numbers have never been worse. Ms. Hope answered while staff is stretched and everyone is trying their best, the issue is primarily code procedures and the ability to waive some procedures so decisions can be made more quickly with regard to streateries, etc. For example requiring a CUP for a canopy during an emergency time seems unnecessary as long as other standards are in place. A CUP requires about three months and the Hearing Examiner process is fairly expensive and it is a one-off decision; each one is currently required to go through a CUP process. It would be very helpful if the code were relaxed enough to allow those to go forward more quickly via a temporary process. There may be other things that arise; operating during a pandemic requires learning as you go. The issue is primarily the process and things that arise such as materials, options, etc. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 24 Packet Pg. 27 6.1.a With regard to the governor's orders, Ms. Hope said the current restrictions are for four weeks, but in the past those orders have been extended for long periods, sometimes reduced and then reinstated. The four week period is highly likely to continue for an indefinite period. The governor's office itself does not know how long the order will last; it depends on the conditions, number of cases, etc. The intent is to recognize and deal with the unknown, primarily with regard to regulatory procedures that could make it unnecessarily difficult for businesses. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Ms. Hope's comment about the governor potentially extending the restrictions as he did with the restrictions imposed in March. The belief in the public health community was that was done to avoid mass panic. Some of what will occur in a month or so will depend on whether people wear masks and practice social distancing or do they get together for the holidays. She asked the number of votes needed to pass an emergency ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered an emergency ordinance requires five Councilmembers if the goal is for it to take immediate effect. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she hears three very clear no's at this point so questioned why the Council was continuing to debate this when it was 9:45 p.m. and the Council had another 60 minute agenda item regarding the budget unless the Council wanted to hold another meeting on the budget. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance could pass on a non -emergency basis with four votes and not take immediate effect. Councilmember Distelhorst commented the ordinance is a first draft, Governor Inslee had a news availability today and did not announce any new restrictions. There was a holiday weekend upcoming and it was unlikely there would be massive restrictions between now and next Tuesday. He expressed interested in having a tightened up version provided to Council next Tuesday with a much shorter timeline to notify Council as well as added clarity regarding the affected titles. Ms. Hope mentioned four titles but in questions he asked over the weekend the only example he heard was related to the streatery permitting process. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO TABLE THIS UNTIL NEXT WEEK AND COME BACK WITH A TIGHTENED UP VERSION AND CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS THEN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. BUDGET DELIBERATION AND OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND TO 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Acting Finance Director Dave Turley relayed this is an opportunity for Council to propose changes to the 2021 budget. It was his understanding from the previous discussion that Councilmembers plan to bring forward their ideas and discuss them, but not approve amendments tonight. He will take notes and develop a list of proposed amendments to provide context for next Tuesday's deliberations. Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Olson proposed consolidating DP #11 and DP #35 for building maintenance with the justification that closing out the Building Maintenance Fund, DP #11, and moving the remainder, $210,222 to the General Fund for spending on anything suggests that the maintenance intended in those past years using those funds was completed. In fact, there is a $9 million backlog in building maintenance; DP #35 dedicated only $500,000 of 2021 money to building maintenance which was less than 6% of the need. The funds from dissolving the Building Maintenance Fund need to be retained for building maintenance and need to be moved to the Repair and Maintenance Project Fund within the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 25 Packet Pg. 28 6.1.a General Fund, bringing the total available for 2021 expenditure to $710,222. She will provide the amendment to Mr. Turley via email. Councilmember L. Johnson said she provided her proposed amendments via email. Councilmember Buckshnis she had not had a chance read all the answers to the questions and asked if the Q&A would be included in next week's packet. Mr. Turley advised it would be added to the packet and posted online. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the list of Q&A would be cumulative. Mr. Turley answered it would. Councilmember K. Johnson said she had received comments about the budget from individual citizens who have chosen not to speak at a public hearing. She asked if there was a process for inviting more citizens to participate in the budget review and/or to have another public hearing or a series of public hearing so people sending emails have an opportunity to speak to their issues. She asked whether staff responded when a residents sends an email. Mr. Turley said he tries to respond directly to any questions that come to him. He was uncertain what Councilmember K. Johnson was referring to in her first question, whether she was suggesting an open house be scheduled. The Council has had public hearings where the public has an opportunity to comment. If the suggestion was an opportunity for a dialogue, Mr. Turley suggested she be more specific. Councilmember K. Johnson said there is never a lot of public comment regarding the budget, yet in her opinion it was the most important thing the Council does. Residents will talk to the Council informally but there is never a good public dialogue. She suggested Mr. Turley brainstorm with the new public information person and return to Council with suggestions about how to better involve individual businesses and citizens in the budget process. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to DP #76, traffic signal upgrades, noting that one of the intersections, 100't'/220't', will soon be part of the connected bike network with existing bike lanes on 220' and in the future on 100'. He asked if tearing up the asphalt to install detection loops would include installation of bike detection loops similar to neighboring jurisdictions. Public Works Director Phil Williams said the design has not gotten to that level of detail yet. He will pass that suggestion on, noting detection loops for the bike lanes would be a nice feature. Councilmember Paine asked if staff had heard from Snohomish County Corrections about their proposed changes to prisoner care. Acting Chief Jim Lawless said their response has not changed and he was not overly confident there would be any change to their current proposal. Mayor Nelson advised this issue arose in a Snohomish County Mayors meeting and mayors were asked to express their concern to the Snohomish County Council. Councilmember Olson proposed consolidating DP #19, DP #22 and the Human Social Services administrative assistant proposed by Councilmember L. Johnson into one Human Resources DP #22 which would bring the total for those three human services related items to $596,902. Her justification for that change was transparency. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has received numerous emails and calls about the Human Services Department. She was not saying that people disagreed it, but she wanted to know if Mr. Doherty planned to make a presentation or provide data. She referred to questions she has submitted and the answer was that Mr. Doherty had answered the questions in several different emails. She has received several emails but specifics regarding the needs of the homeless, etc. have not been provided. She relayed questions such as what social services in Snohomish County do you intend to work with and how are will the Human Services Department identify citizens at risk? With all the questions she has submitted, she has not seen Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 26 Packet Pg. 29 6.1.a data or support to help her understand the magnitude of the department and the need for the $500,000 funding request. She asked if there were plans to provide any data to support the request. Mr. Doherty said his response will likely not be the data based response Councilmember Buckshnis was seeking. Irrespective of whether those three decision packages are combined, the principle of DP #22 is to create a Human Services program. Other cities between 25,000 and 100,000 population were analyzed and the average was about $11.90/capita, some higher, some lower. Calculating that per capita amount for Edmonds's population of 42,000 equals $500,000. It is important to understand that this proposal is approval of budget authorization to establish the program and several other steps to implement the program will come to Council for review and approval. If the Council approves the program and its other components, staff will first present the social worker position including the job description and information about the position in other cities such as how it relates to the Police Department, etc. to Council for review and approval. Mr. Doherty explained the next step would be to make contact with partnering agencies, three of whom the Council is already partnering with on the household and supplementary support grants. Mayor Nelson hosted a meeting with 20 agencies who provide assistance in the region to discuss the needs. There would be meetings and/or information sharing with the agencies that serve Edmonds to help identify and characterize human services needs and conditions in and around Edmonds including which needs and conditions may already be served by existing agencies. The City obviously does not want to overlap with existing agencies' work. There are service gaps; that was apparent in the meeting that Mayor Nelson hosted and that information would be presented to Council. The next step would be to present the Council a draft of human services goals and outcomes based on the service needs that were identified. That would be accompanied by a public hearing to get the public's input. The final step would be for the Council to adopt its 2021 human service goals and outcomes based on public input, identification of need and the Council's own input. Mr. Doherty said once that is adopted, which could be done relatively quickly such as in the first couple months of the year, a notice of funds would be provided to the various human services agencies in the region that serve Edmonds and they would provide proposals to serve the needs identified in the approved 2021 goals and outcomes. The Council would also identify a percentage weight for each of the goals and outcomes. Once the social worker position is funded from the $500,000, it leaves about $400,000 in direct services funds. The Council could identify a percentage based on the priority of its goals so agencies would have an idea of approximately how much money could be available for each of the goals and outcomes. Staff would review the proposals, present them to Council and Council would approve the contracts for direct service. Quarterly reports and a yearend report from the agencies would be required. There is nothing in the approval of the budget authority that requires $400,000 be spent. The total disbursed may be less than $400,000 if that is the level of need. The need may also be more, but it is not required that all the funds be disbursed. He summarized all those steps will happen through a review and approval process with Council once the program is approved. Councilmember Buckshnis said she submitted a lot of questions from citizens and some still needed to be answered; it would be very helpful to have them included in the packet. She thanked Mayor Nelson and staff for assisting with the questions she submitted. Councilmember Olson referred to DP #36, 2021 Commute Trip Reduction Employee Incentive, suggesting a one year pause on the program, a decrease of $36,000. The justification was that due to the pandemic the employees who can work from home are encouraged to do so. Other who need to work onsite may opt to avoid public transportation for safety reasons. Due to minimized benefits to employees and the environment, she suggested using the $36,000 to provide $18,000 to the Chamber of Commerce and $18,000 to the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 27 Packet Pg. 30 6.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst referred to DP #1 to which Councilmember L. Johnson has proposed adding $25,000 for a total of $75,000. The description appears to indicate this is an internal EDI, an assessment of employees and training for employees. He asked if the additional $25,000 would provide flexibility to do an assessment of EDI need in the community. HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson answered the EDI work that the Equity and Justice Taskforce is working on is all focused externally. The proposed decision package would be to address internal training; possibly a portion could be used to address things the takforce identifies and recommends to the Mayor for action. Additional funds would allow focus on more of an external program as well. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 2. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported COVID numbers are exceptionally high and unfortunately hospital beds are starting to fill up. People may be confused by what ICU beds means; ICU beds are used for people who suffered a heart attack, involved in a car crash, have a head injury or are recovering from a serious surgery. Those ICU beds are running out. Eighty beds are filled in Snohomish County; once those beds are filled, there are no beds for someone with any other complication. It is not just people with COVID who are affected or die from the pandemic getting out of control; there will be no hospital beds for those without COVID who have some other emergency. In the past, cities and counties could rely on nurses in other states; those nurses are no longer available because there are staffing shortages everywhere. When there are reports that 46 Swedish employees have COVID or are out due to exposure they had outside the workplace, there are no replacements for them due to staffing shortages everywhere. Unfortunately, it will get worse; there is a lag between the number of positive cases and hospitalizations. That is the reason for the recommendation to avoid gatherings and to practice physical distancing. Mayor Nelson urged the public to keep that in mind, recognizing there are many messengers who should be saying this. He urged the public to look out for each other. He was thankful he lived in Edmonds during this time, that he works for Edmonds, for the dedicated City employees who serve the community, that he lives in a community that cares, and for residents stepping up to help their neighbors and complete strangers by volunteering at the food bank, the senior center and other places. He was thankful for his family whom, like everyone else, he wished he could see more of. He wished everyone a safe and healthy Thanksgiving. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Fraley-Monillas hoped everyone has a nice Thanksgiving. She was thankful for her health, for her family and her family's health and she looked forward to getting the budget finished up in the next few weeks. Although she had been hopeful the Council would not have a meeting on December 15', she was no longer sure that would happen. The holidays are the only time the Council has for a vacation during the year. She anticipated the Council would not meet on December 22" d or 29t' and then would begin meeting again on January 5t''. However, if the Council could get its work done in an organized fashion as was done last year, the Council could be out by December 15t''. She urged Councilmembers to keep that in mind that this is their opportunity to have a couple weeks off to do something with their family or whatever they chose to do. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 28 Packet Pg. 31 6.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis said she was thankful for the citizens of Edmonds, for the beautiful City and for residents who look out for one another. She hoped everyone has a good, safe Thanksgiving. She recognized the numbers are spiking and urged everyone to wear a mask and be contentious. She concluded we will get through this, we're all in this together. Councilmember L. Johnson was very thankful for the caring and engaged Edmonds community, for the dedicated City staff and for her fellow hardworking elected officials. She urged everyone to stay safe and be well. Councilmember K. Johnson corrected her earlier testimony, advising Mayor Nelson was correct, Edmonds is a code city, not a second class city. In her earlier comments, she was listing examples of what she perceived as poor communication between the Mayor and Council as branches of government. In the interest of improving communication, she will contact the Mayor directly with her concerns and offer suggestions for improvement. She respects the office of the Mayor, more importantly, she serves the citizens and business of Edmonds and endeavors to represent them on the City Council. This Thanksgiving she was grateful for her wonderful friends and family and she wished everyone a wonderful, safe Thanksgiving. Councilmember Olson said there were comments about vacation, yet earlier discussion about how the Council needs to be available for emergency meetings. She reiterated she was committed to being present for residents and businesses and anyone who needed her. She suggested there could be a rotation of Councilmembers available on any given day to ensure there was a quorum to do business and support the Administration and the businesses. She wished everyone a wonderful Thanksgiving and to remember Small Business Saturday and to shop in Edmonds. Councilmember Distelhorst said his older brother lives in Canada in a province that has gone back into full lockdown. Their rate per 100,000 is less than 1/3 of our rate per 100,000. Their full lockdown includes shutting down outdoor dining, which is still allowed in Snohomish County with almost a 3.5 case positivity rate. Businesses need to be supported, but the health and safety of the community comes first. If people are sick and dying, they will not be able to support businesses. If essential workers and business employees are sick, they cannot support themselves. Keeping everyone healthy and safe is by far the best thing that can be done. He urged the public not to meet with anyone they were not already in contact with, not to expand their social circles, and to be responsible. For those in a position to financially to help others, he suggested they consider doing so and provide support to their neighbors. Councilmember Paine was thankful for her friends and family whom she adores and sustain her. She was grateful for everyone on Zoom and others who keep the City going. She appreciated the City's residents and businesses who were nimble and scrambling and doing their best in the worst situation. She worried about everyone including a friend in congregate care in Canada who is elderly who had a COVID scare. Like Councilmember Distelhorst said, don't expand your social circle. There will be a lot of fun times ahead when social circles can be expanded. She wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and encouraged them to enjoy Small Business Saturday. She extended her congratulations to new Judge Riviera Student Representative Roberts reminded of the opening on the Youth Commission and encouraged youth to apply. He thanked the medical staff from Medical Teams International as well as staff from the City and the Verdant Health Commission for offering free COVID testing yesterday. He thanked all the frontline workers and all the people putting their lives on the line to fight this disease. Heading into this holiday weekend, we face an immensely dangerous situation with regard to COVID numbers. He reminded the public to wear a mask and stay safe and said this is not the year for a mass Thanksgiving gathering. During this immensely stressful time, he suggested reaching out to friends and family. The Snohomish Health District recently issued an increased suicide risk public health advisory, a reminder to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 29 Packet Pg. 32 6.1.a understand and watch for the signs of potential suicide risk and to reach out to friends you have not talked to in a while. He was thankful for the hardworking City employees, front line workers and residents working to get this virus under control and doing their best. He wished the public a safe and enjoyable Thanksgiving and to shop local this Saturday. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 30 Packet Pg. 33 6.1.a Public Comment for 11/24/20 City Council Meeting: From: louise favier Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 5:27 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Brian �5 Taylor <bptnyc@hotmail.com> Subject: Thank you for helping Edmonds Restaurants survive the pandemic Dear Edmonds City Council, Daphne's is deeply grateful for all the support we have received so far from the city of Edmonds during this difficult time. Expanded sidewalk seating, combined with street seating has given us the chance to survive this pandemic. As we enter the winter months with no indoor seating allowed, it is more important than ever that we have the opportunity to continue the wonderful outdoor seating programs Covered outdoor seating on the street will give us the chance to stay open in the coming months. Without this we will be forced to shutter our doors until the spring, jeopardizing our capacity to survive, and hopefully thrive again in better times. We feel blessed to be doing business in downtown Edmonds, lucky to be in a city with a city Council, Mayor, and residents that care so deeply about the businesses and the vitality of the city we all love so much. Thank you in advance for your support Louise Favier Brian Taylor Daphne's 415 1/2 Main Street Edmonds From: Kathleen Sears Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 4:53 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment on the City's 2021 Budget November 24th, 2020 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 31 Packet Pg. 34 6.1.a Dear Councilmembers, I am writing to urge you, as part of your 2021 budget deliberations, to remove the $450,000 for the Edmonds Marsh that is currently listed under Public Works/Stormwater and place it where it logically belongs, under Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces. This is essential for communicating that the Marsh restoration goal is not limited to stormwater management, but rather to returning the Marsh to a fully functioning marine estuary. Stormwater is but one aspect of the restoration. Another reason for lodging this money in the Parks budget is to bring in public input and review when the clean-up of the Unocal property is completed and the City can begin exploring restoration options with WSDOT. As one of the few urban saltwater estuaries remaining in the entire Puget Sound Area, we have an obligation to get this restoration right. Involving the public is an important aspect of the process. Thank you for your continued stewardship of this complex ecosystem and important environmental asset to our city. Sincerely, Kathleen Sears, Edmonds resident From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 6:13 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for November 24, 2020 City Council meeting Please disclose to the public why some Emergency Ordinances indicate that they are an Emergency Ordinance in the Ordinance title and others do not. For example, see Ordinances 4176 and 4177 passed within days of each other in March 2020. Both were Emergency Ordinances but only Ordinance 4176 says so in its title. Why the inconsistency in the title of each Ordinance? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 32 Packet Pg. 35 6.1.a Please reject the new Emergency Ordinance proposed by Shane Hope and send a strong message that Council will not delegate its broad police powers to the Mayor. Why would you do so when Mayor Nelson refuses to do basic things like respond to a citizen question: "Have not the actions taken over the last 30 days been dependent on your March 5th Proclamation of Local Emergency being ratified by the City Council as soon as practical following the emergency?" Why is a new Emergency Ordinance proposed prior to addressing the issues with Ordinance 4177 and ECC 6.60? Ordinance 4177 is the Emergency Ordinance rushed into on Sunday, March 22, 2020. At that March 22nd Council meeting, Councilmember Paine suggested that there be a more comprehensive review of ECC 6.60, to occur six weeks from that date. Instead of 6 weeks later, a proposed Ordinance was brought before Council on September 15, 2020. That proposed Ordinance was flawed. Mayor Nelson said the code update for the City's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) item was not yet ready for council discussion, so Council agreed to postpone the study item. If the Mayor cannot even get something involving the CEMP ready for Council review after months have passed, why would you delegate broad police powers to the Mayor? The City's CEMP is a big deal. ECC 6.60 is the related City Code —the Code that defines what an emergency is. Per Resolution 1386, the CEMP adopted by Council in April of 2017 had to be reviewed and updated at least once every two calendar years. If Resolution 1386 is correct, we have been violating State Law for some time now. This may impact our eligibility for funding. The September 15th Council Agenda Packet represents the CEMP is due to be updated this year, which is different than what Resolution 1386 states. An update to the CEMP is nowhere to be found on the Council's extended agenda. I hope City Council rejects the proposed new Emergency Ordinance, fixes ECC 6.60 and makes sure we have a solid CEMP in place by year end. Also, please make sure all questions asked by citizens during the related public hearings are answered before adopting Findings and Conclusions denying 184th St SW Street Vacation and Official Street Map Change. Thank you. From: Rick Megenity Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 8:52 PM To: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 33 Packet Pg. 36 6.1.a Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Public Comment on the City's 2021 Budget Well said Joe. Convincing and influencial. Rick Megenity From: joe scordino Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 6:25 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Save Our Marsh <save.the.edmonds.marsh@gmail.com> Subject: Public Comment on the City's 2021 Budget Council Members; RE: Council's November 24, 2020 Public Hearing on 2021 Budget We should not be spending any more money on planning Marsh Restoration until the Unocal property issue is resolved. State and national granting agencies have said repeatedly they will not provide grant funds unless property ownership is resolved. Almost $200,000 was previously wasted for consultants to provide ineffective restoration design that falsely assumed property use restrictions. Further, the huge costs for transport and disposal of excavated soil could be avoided dependent on whether such soil can be kept on the Unocal site and designed for wetland development, wildlife enhancement, and recreational opportunities. I share the Community desire to restore the Edmonds Marsh, but the project needs to be planned correctly and cost effective, and that is not possible until WSDOT resolves how much of the Unocal property will be available to the City and at what cost/conditions. I know Mayor Nelson shares this view. What we should be doing now is removing any/all obstacles that might prevent use of the old Unocal property for Marsh restoration and enhancement. This means fixing outdated land use language in the City's Comp Plan ASAP and beginning a Master Plan Development process. Decision Package #56 for $80,000 for further Marsh design work should be deleted from the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 34 Packet Pg. 37 6.1.a 2021 budget for the reasons mentioned above. Instead, 2021 funds should be budgeted for Shane's shop to get moving on fixing the Comp Plan and commencing Master Plan Development for the old Unocal property. Decision Package #60 for the $450,000 carryover also should not be spent in 2021. Instead, the $450,000 carryover should be placed in the Marsh Restoration Fund (Fund 017) so that it can be used in the future as matching for state/federal restoration grant funds for the Marsh -Estuary. I'd be pleased to discuss these comments further with Council members and/or answer any questions via my E-Mail at joe.scordino@yahoo.com. Joe Scordino Edmonds Resident From: Joan Bloom Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 2:48 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Doherty, Patrick <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov> Subject: My comments for November 24 Public hearing on the budget Council, My comments are regarding "Decision package #22 added $500,000 for the human services program" Creating a new department should not be taken lightly, especially during these difficult economic times. Throwing money at problems never works, and given how little information Patrick Doherty is providing to Council, that appears to be what he proposes to do. The following questions are for Mr. Doherty. I urge you to obtain answers to ALL of these questions to inform your deliberation on allocating $500,000 of taxpayer money to create this proposed city department. Mr. Doherty, You are asking Council to set up a Human Services department at a cost of $500,000 to the taxpayers. Please answer the second question in my November 17 public comment on this budget item: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 35 Packet Pg. 38 6.1.a (2) What are the specific needs (in addition to homelessness and housing insecurity) that you are hoping to meet with the human services program? Your November 20 email reply to Council was forwarded to me and I now have additional questions: (1) What social services agencies in Snohomish County do you plan to work with, and direct funds to, for citizens in need? Knowing the agencies you propose to contract with will also help identify the needs you hope to meet. (2) How will this new department identify citizens that are most at risk? Typically, agencies do outreach to identify at risk individuals. Which leads to my next question. (3) Given the pandemic, and severely reduced in person contact, how will in need/at risk citizens be identified by Human Services staff. In other words, what is your outreach plan? (4) How, and what, services will be provided? I suspect that citizens will be referred elsewhere to receive direct services. Please correct me if I am wrong. Mr. Doherty and Mayor Nelson, Myedmondsnews reported that Mayor Nelson said other cities have created human service departments. I did a quick search of Lynnwood and Shoreline and found resources listed on their website, as on Edmonds website, but nothing further. Which leads to more questions: (1) If other cities have Human Service departments such as you are proposing, why don't you obtain answers to the questions I've asked from their model? (2) If other cities have a social worker on staff, it would be simple to obtain a copy of their social work job description for Council's reference in their decision making process. Why hasn't this been done? Regards, Joan Bloom Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 36 Packet Pg. 39 6.1.a From: Ken Reidy Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 4:59 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for Second Public Hearing on the 2021 Proposed City Budget A December, 2018 Edmonds Beacon included a Letter from former Mayor Earling which concluded: "And as your mayor and chief executive of this city, together with my staff, I will diligently execute the council's adopted 2019 budget. That's my job, and I take it seriously." What happens when a budgeted item is not executed? What happens if something budgeted for on multiple occasions fails to get executed over and over again? Is there ever any accountability? Mayor Earling's 2015 Budget Message stated: "We will also continue updating our City Code". The 2015 budget included $85,000 for the development code update. On March 5, 2015, a City Press Release announced an Open House to "Kick Off Major Update of City's Development Code". The Press Release stated, "The City Council directed that the code get a major update". It was called a "Kick Off', but the Code Rewrite had been budgeted for before: 1. City Council Meeting Minutes for January 24,2006 include: "Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled the Council allocated $140,000 in the 2006 budget for a rewrite of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) which staff projected would be a two -year process. The original code was adopted in 1981, had been amended piecemeal over time and needed to be updated." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 37 Packet Pg. 40 6.1.a 2. The 2009-2010 Budget included the following: "Completion of the City's Shoreline Master Plan update and the Edmonds Community Development Code rewrite will occur in 2009-2010." 3. The 2013 Budget provided $75,000 for the beginning of a re -write of the City's code. It is many years since anything has been added to the City's "Edmonds Community Development Code Updates" website page. Code amendments have passed since March, 2015, but it is unknown if the amendments are part of the major update directed by City Council or if the City is back on the piecemeal amendment path. On December 10, 2018, 1 emailed Council, cc'd Mayor Earling and requested they budget for the completion of the Code Rewrite. I requested disclosure of public funds spent on the Code Rewrite since 2006 and asked them to make sure all citizens know what percentage of the Code Rewrite has been completed. I've asked for this information several times since December 10, 2018 and my request has not been responded to. Hopefully, information will be provided, and the execution of the Code Rewrite will be completed. As Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas stated in the March 5, 2015 Press Release: Please budget to complete the long overdue Code Rewrite from start to finish."Edmonds is a great community, it's really important that our code is updated to guide what happens here and that it is written in a way that's user friendly." Please finish the Code Rewrite - including the ECC which is also flawed. The Code Rewrite was supposed to be the top priority over a decade ago! Please budget to complete the long overdue Code Rewrite from start to finish. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 38 Packet Pg. 41 6.1.a Thank you. From: Claire O'Neil Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 11:06 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Homeless & Runaway Resource Good Afternoon, Hope this email finds you well. My name is Claire O'Neill and I work for Sunshine Behavioral Health. I was reviewing your page, http://www.yost.edmondswa.gov/community-links.html and see you've compiled a great list of resources. I shared it with my manager, and we were thinking that your page could benefit from our Homeless and Runaway Youth guide since it discusses a similar subject. Here is a list of subjects that this guide discusses: Hotlines and More Resources Rates of Homeless and Runaway Youth Situations That Drive Teenage Homelessness Daily Challenges Homeless Teenagers Face As you know this is a really important issue because everyone deserves a safe environment to grow up, and flourish in. Please take a moment to review the guide for your own resource page when you get the chance. https://www.sunshinebehavioralhealth.com/resources/resources-for-homeless-and-runaway- outh Thank you so much for your time and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week. Best, Claire O'Neill Digital PR Specialist Claireo@sunshinebh.com Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 39 Packet Pg. 42 6.1.a (313) 909-9717 SunshineBehavoiraIHealth.com Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 24, 2020 Page 40 a+ a Packet Pg. 43 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/8/2020 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of December 1, 2020 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 12-01-2020 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 44 6.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES December 1, 2020 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Acting Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks & Recreation Dir Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Dave Turley, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Council President Fraley-Monillas read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 45 6.2.a Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. There are also three public hearings on the agenda; Audience Comments are for topics not related to the public hearings. Stephen Hearn, Edmonds, a resident on 3' Avenue South, advised Ralph Adams and others will speak regarding the sewer odor problem in their neighborhood. He attached several years of emails regarding this ongoing issue which the City has not addressed. The City has tried sewer plugs, cleaning wet wells, changing pump schedules, taking readings, but none of that has made a difference and unfortunately, there has not been a long term sustainable solution. In fact, the sewer smell is becoming even worse and now is consistently present in their yard, so much so that they have to go inside, close doors and windows to keep the smell out. In addition to the detrimental impact this was having on their quality of life, he was concerned about potential health and economic impacts. He was confident there was a long term solution to this issue and he asked the Council to act quickly on citizens' behalf. Council President Fraley-Monillas advised a Councilmember is reporting they can see, but not hear the meeting. She suggested a brief recess to contact David Rhode to have him address the issue. Mayor Nelson suggested the Councilmember call in to 253-215-8782. Mr. Taraday advised one of the requirements for holding public meetings in this manner is all Councilmembers need to be able to see and hear each other, particularly hear each other so that issue needs to be resolved before proceeding. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. The issue with Councilmember Olson's audio was resolved and the meeting was reconvened. Ralph Adams, Edmonds, a resident on 21 Avenue South, said for the last several years their neighborhood has become engulfed in noxious sewer gas each afternoon and throughout the evening. Several neighbors indicated to him that they have also been affected and have complained to the City but the problem remains unresolved. He has been told by Public Works personnel that there is an agreement whereby affluent is pumped up from Ronald Sewer District in King County each afternoon to the Edmonds wastewater facility. Apparently the system becomes overwhelmed to the degree where positive pressure pushes sewer gas up to the street level, engulfing the neighborhood in noxious fumes. This is severely impacting the residents of this Edmonds neighborhood in terms of public health, property values and quality of life. The smell is so strong that it is sometimes noticeable inside the house with the windows closed and on more than one occasion, he has been driven away from his property with burning eyes, headache and nausea. His neighbor across street has also indicated that members of his family have complained of symptoms related to long term exposure to sewer gas. He spoke to Public Works Director Phil Williams on November 18t' and there was a discussion about changing the pumping schedule. For the next 2-3 days, the pumping stopped and the smell was abated, confirming that was the cause of the problem. Pumping has resumed along with the daily stench that accompanies it. Mr. Adams relayed his understanding that there were tentative plans to install an odor scrubber near City Park which will draw air from the system and run it through a filter, but that solution appears to be many months away. He questioned whether that project had been funded and when it would be completed. In the meantime, he and his neighbors suffer from the daily stench of sewer odor courtesy of King County. Surely there must be a more immediate solution available. This has a detrimental impact on the health of the residents in the neighborhood, their quality of life and the value of their properties. The neighborhood stinks and the problem seems to be getting worse. He asked the Council to get involved to fix the problem and direct staff to resolve this issue and allocate budget to fix it. In the meantime, he requested short term relief be implemented until a long term solution is in place. Jennifer Baltich, Edmonds, a resident on 2" a Avenue South, spoke regarding the sewer issue. She and her husband purchased their house two months ago and were excited to join the neighborhood but not the sewer smell. Before making an offer on the house, they toured it in the early morning and did not smell the sewer odor. They are very happy with the house but if they had visited the house in the evening and experienced the smell, she was certain that would have influenced their decision to purchase the house. Although they Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 46 6.2.a have not suffered with the issue as long as other neighbors, she wanted to speak regarding the prevalence of the odor in the area. Jim McQueen, Edmonds, a resident on 2nd Avenue South, said he just became aware of the problem this evening and was very concerned that Edmonds was allowing this to happen. He was aware of sewer problems in the past where neighbors had to be sent to a hotel for several evenings. It seemed obvious to him that the line was being overused or had a blockage and that the City needed to take immediate action to reduce the flow, clean the line or other action rather than continuing to use an inadequate line. Tommy Kelly, Edmonds, a resident on 2nd Avenue South, said he moved into the neighborhood two months ago and did not notice the odor when looking at the house. The day after the house closed, they smelled the sewer odor and thought the problem was within the house. After talking with the neighbors and walking around the block, they found the majority of the smell came from the corner of 2' Avenue and Elm Street. The smell is so bad that their 7-year old son doesn't want to go outside to play in the afternoon. It has become a bigger issue because residents are home 24/7 due to working from home. He was unsure if there was an immediate solution, and assumed the initial solution had been to pump during the day when most residents were not home. It is a public health issue that needs to be resolved or at least an interim fix while a long term fix is identified. It may be as simple as changing the pump schedule or reducing the flow amount. He summarized like his neighbors, they are all very concerned. Neil Tibbott, Edmonds, said he became familiar with the sewage problem on 2' Avenue South a couple weeks ago as a friend lives on the street and his kids' babysitter used to live on that street. In addition to the odors, he was also concerned about other factors, 1) the neighborhood is very close to Deer Creek and if there were ever an overflow of effluent from the sewer system, it would enter the creek and then the marsh, and 2) this part of the City's infrastructure is obviously overused and is evidence of what can happen when maintenance of the system is neglected. He expressed concern that not enough attention was given to maintaining essential City infrastructure and citizens want transparency with regard to City facilities, the facilities that keep them safe and healthy. As the Council considers the budget, he urged them to prioritize maintenance of the facilities and assure citizens that leaders are paying attention, understand the importance and will prioritize taking care of City systems that protect residents. Heather Maiefski, Edmonds, a resident on Elm Street, relayed the same concern as her neighbors with the sewer odor. They bought their house in 2011 and moved into it in 2013. She did not recall exactly when they noticed the sewer odor, but it has been occurring for several years. She has young children and worries about health effects of these toxic odors. It is also embarrassing to have company over and everyone smells the obnoxious sewer odor. She echoed the comments her neighbors shared, advised she only realized tonight that the neighbors were getting together to express their concerns to the Council so she wanted to join. She had not realized until recently that everyone was smelling the odor. Mike Schularick, Edmonds, a resident on 2' Avenue South, said he and his wife are healthcare workers, working on the frontline with COVID. They have lived in their house for three years and have smelled the sewer odor, but it seems to have gotten more pronounced in the last 3-4 months, possibly because use of the sewer has increased because people are staying home. He and his wife both wear PPE at work to protect themselves and others, but the City is not doing its part to protect citizens or neighbors from the sewer fumes. He said it was easy to provide online sources that indicate sewer gases are toxic and noxious. Their two-year old and the neighbors' kids refuse to go outside to play when the smells waft through the area. It is particularly difficult with COVID that their child cannot go outside to play. He expressed appreciation for all that Councilmembers do for the community and asked that this be addressed as soon as possible. Julie Pusztai, Edmonds, a resident on 2' Avenue South, said they live further north on the street so they do not experience the profound smell in their yard but walking in that direction during those times, it is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 47 absolutely overwhelming. There is a constant more subtle smell further down their street by the mailboxes as well as a constant, faint sewer smell at the north end of City Park by the condominiums on 3' Street. She was uncertain those were related but assumed they were; more areas than just their street are impacted and Deer Creek runs behind their house. The sewer odor is a concern for the wellbeing of the community, beyond just their street given that there are odors near the park as well. Lillie Compte, Edmonds, a resident on 3rd Avenue South since 1998 and previously on Bella Coola Road, said Edmonds often has a sewer stench. On a warm day in the summer when the breeze blows up the hill, there is an odor. Something changed in the last nine months and the smell is unbearable. She often knocks on sewer plant's door and in the past they passed out plugs to plug the sewer holes but that is no longer done. Something definitely changed in last 9-12 months and the smell is overwhelming and unbelievably bad. She did not know about this effort and received a letter in the mail saying it would be taken care of which placated her as a neighbor. She was disheartened and disappointed to learn it was not being taken care of. She begged the Council to support their small neighborhood. If it wasn't for COVID and the parks were open, people in the park would have been complaining about the overwhelming smell. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. As she stated last week, Councilmember K. Johnson recused herself from the vote on Item 3, A Resolution to Recommend Suspending the Issuance of Driving While License Suspended in the Third Degree. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON RECUSED HERSELF FROM THE VOTE ON ITEM 3. The agenda items approved are as follows: 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 DEGREE 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC HEARING OF THE PROPOSED 2021-2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM/CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN City Engineer Rob English advised Public Works Director Phil Williams; Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Angie Feser; and Deputy Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Shannon Burley were also present. He provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in the CFP and components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CIP contains 6-year maintenance projects with funding sources, the CFP contains long range (20-year) capital project needs, and both contain 6-year capital projects with funding sources. Mr. English provided a summary of CIP fund numbers and the department managing each fund: Fund Description Department GF Building Maintenance Public Works Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 48 6.2.a 112 Street Construction Public Works 125 Capital Projects Fund (BEET 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 Mr. English referenced the column in the CIP that lists the decision package number. He reviewed the following: Public Works & Utilities • 2020 Pavement Preservation 0 4.7 lane miles o $1.0M project cost • 2020 - Sidewalk Projects o Dayton St. (7th Ave - 8th Ave) ■ #1 priority Short Walkway 2015 Transportation Plan - Funded by State grant o Walnut St. (3rd Ave - 4th Ave) ■ #3 priority Short Walkway 2015 Transportation Plan - Completed by City concrete crew - Funded by State grant • 2020 - Highway 99 Revitalization Project o Design Phase ■ 2.25 miles of landscaped center median/c-curb for vehicle safety ■ HAWK Signal to improve pedestrian safety ■ Gateway Signs • 112 Street Capital Fund o 2021 Projects: ■ *Pavement Preservation Program (Cons) DP#68 ■ 76th/220th Intersection Improvements (Design) DP#69 ■ *76th 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 *Received REET Contribution Transportation - 125 REET Fund o 2021 Projects: ■ Pavement Preservation Program (Cons) DP#68 ■ Pedestrian Safety Program (Cons) DP#75 ■ Traffic Signal Upgrades (Cons) DP#76 ■ Sidewalk Capital & Maintenance Program (Cons) DP#77 - Continues City concrete crew Transportation - 126 REET Fund o 2021 Projects: ■ Elm Way Walkway (Design) DP#58 - 6th priority on short walkway list ■ 76th Ave Overlay (Design) DP#70 ■ Hwy 99 Revitalization Project (Design/ROW) DP#72 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 49 6.2.a ■ Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project (Cons) DP#74 ■ Guardrail Installation (Cons) DP#78 ■ Traffic Calming (Cons) DP#79 Utilities — Sewer, Water & Storm • 2020 — Dayton St. Utility Improvement Project 0 3,950 ft watermain replacement 0 3,990 ft storm pipe replacement 0 1,990 ft sewer pipe replacement 0 1,930 ft sewer pipe rehabilitation o New pavement section • 2020 — Utility Replacement Programs 0 3,990 ft waterline replacement 0 1,580 ft storm pipe replacement 0 2,360 ft sewermain replacement 0 3,540 ft sewermain rehab • 2020 Dayton St. Stormwater Pump Station 0 4,233 gpm pump capacity o $2.1M project cost o Funded by: ■ State Grant ■ County Loan ■ Stormwater Funds o Installed 2 pumps in new structure to pump stormwater during high tides to reduce flooding at Dayton & SR 104 Utility Funds — 2021 Projects o Water Utility: ■ 2022 Waterline Replacement Program (Design) DP#47 ■ Overlay 0.7 lane miles affected by waterline replacements DP#48 ■ 2021 Watermain Replacement 6,200 ft (Cons) DP#51 o 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 ■ 175th 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 o Sewer Utility ■ 2021 sewermain replacement program 2,000 ft (Cons) DP#63 ■ Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study DP#64 ■ Overlay 0.1 lane miles affected by sewermain replacements DP#65 ■ 3,000 ft of sewer pipe rehabilitation by cured -in place pipe method DP#66 ■ 2022 sewermain replacement (Design) DP#67 o 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 DP#43 ■ Started Trials of a new Nitrogen removal system to improve water quality in Puget Sound Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 50 6.2.a Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Angie Feser explained the department's selection and prioritization are founded in the 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 Ms. Feser reviewed: Parks 2021-2026 CIP/CFP Priorities • Methodology o Finish big projects ■ Waterfront Redevelopment ■ Civic Park o Maintain Current Assets ■ Playground ■ Trails and bridges ■ Athletic fields ■ Greenhouse replacement o Prepare for future large projects ■ Marsh restoration ■ Marina Beach Park ■ 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor ■ Land acquisition Parks CIP/CFP 2019 & 2020 o Waterfront Redevelopment - in progress Parks CIP 2019 & 2020 o Yost Pool Repairs - complete ■ Pool deck grates, CO2 injector and pool cover Parks CIP 2020 o Marina Beach Park Design / Grant - complete ■ Designed to 30% ■ Two grant applications submitted - Scored #1 for ALEA ($500,000) - Scored #19 of 80 for Local Parks ($500,000) ■ Total Project $5M ■ Willow Creek Daylighting / Supporting Marsh Restoration o City Park Walkway - in progress o Gateway sign - in progress Parks CIP/CFP 2019-2020 o Civic Park (Funds 125, 126, 332) ■ 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: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 51 6.2.a - $3.47M in Grant Funding - $3.7M Bonds - $1.35M Park Impact Fee's - $1.38M REET Funding - $1.86 GF Carryforward - $400K Donations Parks CIP 2021 o Greenhouse Replacement (Fund 136 & 125) ■ DP#80 ■ $50,000 Fund 136 (Parks Trust) ■ $50,000 Fund 125 (BEET) o Park Improvement & Capital Replacement Program (Fund 125) ■ Life -cycle major maintenance to prolong usage and/or increase capacity: - Resurfacing - Replacement - Upgrading ■ DP#81 ■ $155,000 Annually o Park Land and Open Space Acquisition Program (Fund 126) ■ $700,000 Reserved ■ $200,000 from previous years & $500,000 in 2021 ■ Programmed $200,000 per year in future years o Fishing Pier Repair (Fund 332) ■ DP#83 ■ $54,425 Carryforward ■ Funds from WDFW ■ Bid Spring 2020 ■ New plan for spring/summer 2021 Parks CIP 2022-2026 o Future Improvements: ■ Civic Park Continuation in 2022 ■ Marina Beach Design & Construction ■ 4th 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 Mr. English reviewed: 0 CIP/CFP Schedule o July ■ City staff begins development of capital budgets o August/September ■ Submit proposed Capital budget to Finance ■ Prepare draft CFP and CIP o October ■ Planning Board; Public Hearing (October 14th & 28th) o November/December ■ Planning Board; Public Hearing (November 12th) ■ City Council Presentation (November 12th) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 52 6.2.a ■ City Council Public Hearing (December 1 st) ■ Adopt CFP w/ Budget into the Comprehensive Plan Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, speaking on behalf of Save Our Marsh community group, said the group previously submitted letters about the marsh restoration project in the draft CFP and today send the Council a follow-up letter with specific recommendations for changes to the 2021 CFP. Specifically, the group urges the Council to delete the marsh restoration related projects on pages 63 and 64 of the draft CFP. It is a disservice to the public and taxpayers to have CFP suggest any estuary restoration costs in plans until the disposition of the old Unocal property is resolved. There is no way of knowing costs or how the project might be structured. Further, the draft CFP puts the marsh restoration project incorrectly under a stormwater heading, further basis for totally deleting that project. Once the Unocal property issue is resolved, a new marsh restoration project could be placed in a future CFP, perhaps in 2022 or 2023 under a parks heading since the marsh is a wildlife reserve not a storm basin. The Save Our Marsh group acknowledges stormwater related projects are needed to preserve the Edmonds Marsh such as removing stormwater pollutants that drain directly into the marsh from SR 104 and Harbor Square. Save Our Marsh suggests after deleting the current projects on pages 63 and 64 of the CFP, the Council consider a stormwater project at significant less cost and a suggested description of this project was provided in the letter the group submitted to Council today. He thanked the Council in advance for getting the marsh restoration project back on track to actually benefit salmon, wildlife and future generations of Edmonds citizens. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Olson [portion of her comment was inaudible] post office property as one of the abatement opportunities for dealing with the stormwater runoff into Perrinville Creek; she offered information she obtained from PCC on that subject. She was unaware of what the City would have access to do on the post office property, but with the amount of concrete in that location, it seems like an opportunity. Mr. Williams suggested she repeat the beginning of her comment. Councilmember Olson said it was in regard to DP #60 and whether a stormwater collection and storage tank similar to the one at PCC could be incorporated into that project. Mr. Williams answered staff has looked at that site and has approached the post office, but it is very difficult to get answers from the federal government. There is some flat area there and if they would agree to allow the City to construct a vault under the parking lot, a significant amount of stormwater could be directed to the vault, delaying entry into Perrinville Creek. He agreed it was a location for possible project and others have also been identified in the Perrinville basin. The Seaview project that is currently underway, also in the Perrinville basin, includes distributed and cluster rain gardens. Councilmember Olson suggested it may be less expensive to do an above ground storage tank like PCC's. Mr. Williams said most property owners, whether the federal government or a successor, would likely not want the interference that would represent to development of the property. He could easily see a vault under a paved area which would be easy for the City to maintain. All the projects in recent years have been underground. Councilmember Olson said she was glad staff was thinking about that. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled discussions about curb cuts and the $30-40 million cost to be in compliance, commenting she did not see much of that work in 2021. Mr. Williams answered the cost was $146 million; a lot of the transportation projects will include curb ramps as ADA compliance in general is a huge part of any project. In addition, as private properties are redeveloped, depending on the location and the project, they also contribute to the inventory of compliant walkways and curb ramps. The City's Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 53 6.2.a concrete crew is also repairing existing sidewalks as well as building new short sidewalk segments. Any long sidewalk segment is unlikely to be done inhouse; staff seeks grant funding for those such as Safe Routes to Schools or other state funds that can be matched with local dollars such as gas tax. He summarized a lot has been accomplished in 2020 and a lot will be done in 2021. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding of Mr. Williams' response that a lot of the ADA improvements will be done via redevelopment or other transportation projects, not specifically to provide ADA accessibility. Mr. Williams said that requires funding. The sidewalk crew is included in the budget and there is a request for additional funding primarily for concrete which he hoped the Council would approve. As much as possible is being done inhouse as well as transportation projects to improve deficits over time. Councilmember Distelhorst asked Ms. Feser if she received his questions yesterday via email. Ms. Feser answered she did not. Councilmember Distelhorst asked where potential local funds come from if the marsh is in Parks and grants for the marsh require local match, whether it would it be from the General Fund. He also asked whether the local match come from utility rate funds if the marsh was in Public Works. Ms. Feser answered City match for those grants could be park impact fees, REET, General Fund or other grants. Mr. Williams said the answer was the same for Public Works, a grant can be used to match another grant. In the end, there will be local funding and both Parks and Public Works would use REET funds to match grants. As the entire system handles a tremendous amount of urban runoff, it is appropriate for stormwater to be involved in projects that will accomplish better stormwater management and treatment. He saw stormwater as a player in matching grants for the marsh restoration. Ms. Feser added it is important to have the marsh project identification and allocation in the adopted CFP and CIP in order to be eligible for grant applicants. Even if the funding is not secured, those projects must be in the CFP and CIP. Mr. Williams said stormwater fund cannot be used for everything related to the marsh; for example stormwater would not be appropriate to match grants for redoing Marina Park or plantings on the edge of marsh. Stormwater would be involved in solving the hydrologic problems that the marsh has represented over time; the daylighting project is probably the best example where stormwater could play a significant role. Councilmember Buckshnis said she plans to have the Salmon Recovery Council speak to the Council next year as a lot of opportunities are not being addressed related to salmon recovery. She referred to a Q&A on the decision package related to non -departmental regarding the City making the bond payment for Civic from Fund 126. She asked if there was a debt service fund, recalling there were plans to develop a policy. She was concerned making the bond payment from Fund 126 might limit funding available for potential purchases, noting Fund 125 and 126 were drawn down by work on the Waterfront Center. She asked if there was a dedicated fund prior to this year. Mayor Nelson advised Finance Director Dave Turley was not present to answer that question. With regard to funding for the marsh, Councilmember Olson said after talking to people who have historically been involved in decision about funding, it seemed to her what would make sense was to have some in Public Works for the things related to stormwater and more in Parks so that the Parks Director was not supervising Public Works jobs and vice versa. She referred to past Planning Board minutes where a staff member said it had historically been in multiple funds in different areas, but that had been criticized so it was consolidated into one place. Now citizens are saying most of it should be in Parks. Mr. Williams said stormwater has a significant role, primarily the daylighting of Willow Creek and Public Works has been working on that for over decade. That is the hydrologic piece which is the most expensive part of the overall restoration. The daylighting project, solving the hydrologic piece and creating a daylighted, open channel to Puget Sound, may be two-thirds to three -fourths of the cost of the overall marsh Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 54 6.2.a estuary restoration project. Ms. Feser added there is a lot of technical expertise found in Public Works that is not found in Parks related to this project. To have funding in Public Works, for example for the daylighting of Willow Creek, is important. The money can be put in the Parks column, but Parks will rely on Public Works to help with that work. Parks will definitely play a role in some of the Parks components such as environmental education, public access, etc., but it all goes hand -in -hand. Ms. Feser pointed out there will be numerous grant sources for that project including federal and state; some could be led by Parks and some by Public Works depending on the nature of the grant application and the related work. This is a very complex project that requires a team approach. Mr. Williams anticipated private foundation support as well as possibly federal grants. It will be interesting to see how the new federal administration embraces estuary restoration and how much funding they will make available as that came to a screeching halt a few years ago. In terms of this year's budget, CFP and CIP, Councilmember Olson asked where the $450,000 carryover which is unlikely to be used this year because the land transfer will not happen, will be placed and how does that correlate with the Save Our March group's recommendation. Mr. Williams responded the $450,000 was a carryover from the 2020 budget that was not spent because the land ownership issue prevented the project from proceeding into a more detailed design, new alignment, etc. The thought was to carry that forward as placeholder and wait to see what happens in 2021. In recent meetings with Ecology, it appears Ecology is getting closer to the point of having a final cleanup action plan in place and may even make an announcement in the first couple months of next year. It would then go out for public comment and Ecology would develop a final cleanup action plan possibly by mid -year 2021. How much longer it would take depends on what is in the action plan. Some of the things they are looking at may be relatively straightforward. Recognizing the site is approximately 98% cleaned up based on volume or total contaminants, additional work may not be necessary depending on the future land use. From Edmonds' perspective, the future land use should be habitat and restoring the Edmonds Marsh and not development or commercial use of the property. If that is the case, there may be opportunities to get started much more quickly than anticipated, it could even happen in 2021. When applying for grants, it is good to show there is money in the budget set aside for a project. Grant applications always ask if funds are set aside for a match and to pursue the project. Councilmember Olson asked once the funds are in the budget, does staff come back to Council before the funds are spent. Mr. Williams answered of course; not a penny would be spent without getting explicit Council approval regarding how would be spent to further marsh restoration. The proposal is to include the funds as a placeholder, see what happens in 2021 and if there is an opportunity to get started, staff will come back to Council and describe the opportunity and the cost. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was uncomfortable with the Council determining which department should/shouldn't do work and asked if that was the Council's responsibility. Mr. Taraday answered it depends, a decision regarding how to fund something and which funding sources to use for a project is certainly an appropriate endeavor for the City Council. Assigning certain staff to do particularly things would not be appropriate. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the marsh is part of the overall watershed hydrological function. Public Works currently oversees stormwater management and restoration of areas like Lake Ballinger, Perrinville Creek and other key areas. It makes sense that Public Works would be directly involved in overseeing marsh function as well. She had difficulty with the thought of separating it from Public Works because it seems appropriate that Public Works would be directly involved. Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed, pointing out marsh restoration has been in Parks Fund 125, 126 and 332 for years. When Parks Director Carrie Hite left, it was moved to Fund 422 which is paid via utility rates Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 55 6.2.a which were increased by 9.5% last year. She reiterated her plans to have the Salmon Recovery Council talk to the Council. This is a very complex project, Public Works runs the project but funding goes through the RCO process. Combining the Marina Beach project and showing salmon recovery from Puget Sound into the marsh, it becomes a holistic project which is basically what Save Our Marsh is saying. There is no reason to include a dollar amount because that is unknown. She referred to comments she made last year when the project was included in stormwater. She agreed things like sediment were related to stormwater, but she did not support a cost of $17 million for the marsh restoration because the cost was unknown. The Council controls the budget and fund numbers; she offered to review information with any Councilmember. As Ms. Feser stated, there need to be placeholders in the different funds. There are millions available in state and federal grants for salmon recovery via RCO or PROS Plan, not stormwater. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that the Edmonds Marsh estuary restoration Fund 017 could be accessed by Public Works for the stormwater projects as well as Parks and could be used to store funds. Mr. Williams said that is probably generally correct, the only restriction is that stormwater funds, which is an enterprise fund, need to fund things related to stormwater needs and priorities. If the work that will eventually be done with that funding meets that criteria, it could be included in a project fund like the marsh fund or any other fund for a capital project as long as money goes toward things that are eligible for stormwater expenditures. Whoever provides funding will want to know how their funds will be used in the project and that has to be tracked. Whether it is stormwater, the 332 fund or the 017 fund is what the City does from an accounting standpoint and is not the key issue. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE #4200 ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS Environment Program Manager Kernen Lien explained the Council adopted Ordinance 4200 on November 2' which established a 4-month moratorium on the acceptance of any subdivision applications for properties that contained 8 or more significant trees per 10,000 square feet of lot area. Significant tree was defined as a tree with an 8-inch diameter. Pursuant to state law, when the City Council adopts a moratorium, they must hold a public hearing within 60 days of the adoption of the ordinance. Ordinance 4200 set the public hearing for December 1st. No later than the next regular Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the Council shall adopt findings on the subject of the moratorium and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the moratorium. There are two public hearings tonight, the first is on the moratorium and the other is regarding corresponding code changes. Both the moratorium and code changes were done to allow the City adequate time to complete the tree code update that is currently underway. Mayor Nelson opened public hearing. Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, a general contractor, builder and land developer, said he has reviewed all the information regarding the moratorium. There is a track of education that comes from staff to the Planning Board and eventually to City Council. A lot of information has to be provided to make decision like this, to have a moratorium, what is being done with land, lots and trees so it will be supported by public. He was surprised to learn that no survey was done, recalling surveys were often done after the work was done and find that the public did not support it. Not enough information has been provided by planning staff. He realized planning staff's limitations, they are not aware of all the disciplines involved in developing land. No information regarding the best tree science has been provided to show how much area is need to protect a tree based on diameter. Mr. Lien provided some site plans, identifying what land would usually be taken up in development process by impermeable areas, water, sewer, etc. However, he failed to mention when developing an RM (residential multiple) property, nearly all the land is taken up including the setback after the storm drainage system is included. That is important to understanding the survivability of a tree. He did not support the moratorium as a lot more work needed to be done and more time was necessary for it to be successful. He encouraged the planning department to seek assistance from the other disciplines who know Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 56 exactly what happens when a property is developed, what land is available and whether the trees will survive. He summarized several cities have tried this including Lynnwood and they have given up. Andy Ball, Edmonds, explained he is a property owner who would like to remove trees on his property, something he has been planning since he purchased the property two years ago. He lives in the house, is not a developer and has no plans to develop. He does not have 8 significant trees per 10,000 square feet on his lot, yet he is being told he cannot take trees down. Apparently his lot is subdividable, but he is not applying to subdivide and does not have 8 significant trees per 10,000 square feet. He did not understand why he not able to take the trees down. He has planning to take down the trees for a long time, it is very expensive and he finally has the money to do it and now is being told he cannot. He has been talking with the City for over a year about removing the trees and now he is not allowed to proceed. The trees he would like to take down are fairly close to his house and are in the middle of his yard. He asked why he was not able to take down the trees. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the moratorium affected a property that is zoned single family and over 10,000 square feet. Mr. Lien answered Mr. Ball's comments were actually related to the second public hearing. Ordinance 4201 includes two zoning code changes, one related to information on a subdivision application and the other related to exemptions from tree cutting permits. Before Ordinance 4200 was passed, developed single family properties that were not subdividable into more than one additional lot and had no critical areas were exempt from permitting requirements. With the adoption of Ordinance 4201, the subdividable portion was removed so in order to be exempt, it must be a developed single family property that is not subdividable. In Mr. Ball's case, there is no critical area, but there is enough area to subdivide the property so he does not fall under the exemption. If the trees were hazard trees, they could be removed under the exemption, but if they are not hazard trees, Ordinance 4201 removed the exemption for developed single family properties that are subdividable. As Mayor Nelson began to move onto the next agenda item, Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, whether the Council needed to take action. Mr. Taraday said a resolution needs to be prepared that supports the moratorium if that is the Council's direction. Unless the Council expressed otherwise, he assumed the Council wanted resolutions prepared related to Ordinances 4200 and 4201 to justify the continuance of the moratorium and the interim regulations. Those resolutions are not in the packet and will be prepared for the next regular meeting. Councilmember Paine raised a point of order, asking if the Council should discuss findings of fact after the public hearings. Mr. Taraday said unless the Council wanted to give specific direction regarding particular findings of fact that they would like to find, he will work with staff to draft a resolution to incorporate the appropriate finding of fact, put them on a future meeting agenda, and Council could amend if they saw fit. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO CONTINUE THE MORATORIUM ORDINANCE 4200 AND DIRECT THE ATTORNEY AND STAFF TO DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A FUTURE MEETING. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO, AND NO RESPONSE FROM COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 57 6.2.a 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE #4201 ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY REGULATIONS TO ACCOMPANY THE SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM Environment Program Manager Kernen Lien explained this is the accompanying ordinance. There are two parts to the ordinance, 1) requiring information on a complete application for a subdivision to determine whether a property met the density requirement for trees (8 significant trees on a 10,000 square foot lot), and 2) the change to the exemptions. He explained the exemption was changed because if a site was exempt under the existing exemptions, the existing trees could be cut down and then an application for a subdivision submitted and not meet the density requirements. To Mr. Ball's comment, while that property no longer meets the exemption, he could either apply for a tree cutting permit or if the trees were documented as hazard trees, they could be removed. Councilmember Distelhorst raised a point of order and requested staff reach out to Councilmember K. Johnson to ensure she was okay. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. Mayor Nelson advised Councilmember K. Johnson was unreachable by phone so he contacted Acting Chief Lawless to have officers do a welfare check. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Andy Ball, Edmonds, relayed his understanding that he needs to contact Mr. Lien about the process for applying for a permit to take the trees down. He asked if the trees were allowed to be taken down, permitted or not, during the moratorium. He said this is an infringement on his property rights. He bought the home two years ago and the difficulty to take trees down would have influenced his decision. He summarized the permitting process for someone like him may be cost prohibitive and that is not right. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. With regard to Mr. Ball's inquiry, Councilmember Olson asked for confirmation that the moratorium ordinance and this ordinance were four months in duration. Mr. Lien confirmed they were both four month ordinances. When the moratorium sunsets and the new tree code is in place, Councilmember Olson asked if someone in Mr. Ball's circumstance, a private citizen who does not intend to subdivide, would be restricted under the new tree code, assuming it was approved in its draft from, in the same way he was restricted by the moratorium. Mr. Lien said the exemption in the draft tree code for developed single family properties was modified similar to Ordinance 4201 for similar reasons. The draft tree code is applicable to subdivisions, short subdivisions, and multifamily and other properties are not exempt from the tree code. The exemption was modified to apply to developed single family properties that were not subdividable. If the draft tree code is approved in its current form, it will have the same impact on Mr. Ball's property. The permitting process would be changed under the draft tree code. A tree cutting permit is currently a Type II decision which is $1000 plus application fee; in the draft tree code it would be a Type I decision which is a $300 permit application. He summarized the exemption would still apply but the permitting process would be different if the draft tree code were adopted in its current form. Councilmember Olson observed a private citizen who does not intend to subdivide will still be affected. Mr. Lien answered yes, under the draft tree code. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO CONTINUE WITH THE MORATORIUM BECAUSE IT IS STILL IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO MAINTAIN THE MORATORIUM FOR THE FULL FOUR MONTHS AND/OR UNTIL WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A NEW TREE CODE. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not support the ordinance due to her concerns about slowing up housing. She understood this could affect private property, single family and multifamily homes and she Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 58 did not believe it was in the public's interest to shut down development across Edmonds when there were initially concerns about one area. Mayor Nelson announced Councilmember K. Johnson had returned to the meeting. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. 8. NEW BUSINESS 1. MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT WITH THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT Finance Director Dave Turley explained in 2008, the Edmonds Public Facilities District (PFD) issued $4,000,000 of Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds. 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 (CLA) whereby the City agreed to purchase Certificates of Deposit which FFNWB would then hold as collateral for the note between the PFD and FFNWB. Due to the pandemic, the ECA has been unable to host performances, meetings and events in their facility since early March 2020 which has had a devastating financial impact to the organization. They have responded by laying off more than 50% of their staff, and reducing all remaining staff members' hours by 50%. Despite these actions, they continue to face an operating deficit and cash flow challenge. To assist with their cash flow problems, The PFD asked FFNWB for a modification to their loan agreement, where the PFD 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. Mr. Turley explained as the City is a party to the loan agreement, two motions are needed in order to move forward with the loan modification. First, authorizing the Mayor to sign the second amendment to the CLA as updated and included in the packet and second, pass an ordinance authorizing the amendments to documents related to extending the maturity of the promissory note. Council President Fraley-Monillas, Council liaison to the PFD, said she has been following this very closely and it is needed to keep the ECA alive. The ECA has had some success with fundraising, but not enough to keep moving forward as usual. As Mr. Turley mentioned, they have laid off a great majority of their staff and cut all staff s hours. Some small events are occurring occasionally but there is very little activity. Extending the loan does not cost the City anything and she encouraged Council to support the ECA as it is an integral part of the City. Councilmember Olson commented this is a great opportunity and she thanked FFNWB for offering this. She hoped people who were in a similar predicament with their mortgages and businesses who need financial assistance would pursue something similar. This is a lifeline for the ECA and she will support it. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support. She asked Mr. McIalwain to explain the mathematics, relaying some people asked her if the PFD planned to double up on principal payments or extend the loan a year. Executive Director Joe Mclalwain explained the 2020 principal payment will be added to the end of the term. The loan is structured so the interest charged each year is only charged on the remaining principal. Unlike a bond issue where interest payments stay equal or grow over time, in this case the interest payment greatly diminishes at the end of the term. In the final year, the PFD would only pay approximately $20,000 or less in interest, which is the total cost to the PFD for the loan modification. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 59 CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT AS UPDATED AND INCLUDED IN THE PACKET TONIGHT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, 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. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. INTENT TO CONFIRM MUNICIPAL JUDGE APPOINTMENT HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this is a resolution of intent to confirm the municipal judge appointment. The City has gone through a recruitment process including interviews with Council and Mayor Nelson has indicated his intent to appoint Whitney Rivera. The actual appointment cannot be made until the judicial seat is vacated by the current judge. The resolution confirms the Council's approval of the intent to confirm; confirmation will occur at the January 12t' meeting on Consent and Ms. Rivera will be sworn in. Councilmember K. Johnson asked why the confirmation would be done on January 12t' instead of the first meeting in January. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the position is not vacated until January 10' which is Judge Coburn's last official day as the judge. The conformation will occur at the next meeting, January 12t''. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised "November" in the resolved statement will be changed to December. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1461, 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 11, 2021, WHEN JUDGE COBURN'S RESIGNATION BECOMES EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. FINANCE DIRECTOR CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson advised the City conducted a recruitment process, Council interviewed three candidates and provided feedback to Mayor Nelson. Mayor Nelson selected Dave Turley for appointment. 9. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF DAVE TURLEY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE PROVIDING MAYOR TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TO USE TOOLS TO ADDRESS ECONOMIC EMERGENCY Development Services Director Shane Hope advised this subject was discussed this at a prior City Council meeting and some of the specifics were reviewed. The discussion revolved around the City dealing with COVID since February and different things that evolve over time including significant economic impacts. Sometimes there are surprises that require quick decisions and possibly suspension of procedural matters. An emergency ordinance to suspend certain code titles was introduced at the Council's last meeting. During Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 60 6.2.a discussion, there was interest in revisiting this tool to allow suspension if needed during COVID, strictly related to economic crises, in a timely manner by the Mayor. Ms. Hope explained the revised ordinance reduced the number of affected titles in an attempt to be as narrow as possible but still recognizing things that may need quick action and may not need to go through a full code process in an emergency situation. Instead of the nine titles included in the original version of the ordinance, there are only five titles, and even though the whereas clauses address economic crises and COVID, language was added to the body of the ordinance. The 30 day notice to Council in the original ordinance of any suspension or waiver of code seconds was changed to a 5 day maximum notification. If the Council approves the ordinance, it can be repealed or changed at any time. The ordinance sunsets after 90 days and is intended to be an emergency interim response to provide Mayor Nelson with tools in the event they are needed. The tools may not be needed, but this ordinance was proposed to be on safe side. Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if staff could address the questions he emailed yesterday. Ms. Hope suggested he remind her of the questions. Councilmember Distelhorst said he will find them and ask in the next round. Councilmember Buckshnis said she would also locate the questions she emailed to staff. Councilmember Olson said she felt very strongly that there was more than enough technology at the Council's disposal and more than enough willingness among Councilmembers to meet on an emergency basis to move forward anything should be moved forward. Staff and the Mayor are in the best position to know what those things are, but there is a lot of value for things to come to Council for that actual approval, the checks and balances of the different arms of government. The Council has responsibility for how money is spent whether they delegate that authority now to say the Mayor can take action without involving the Council or whether the Council hears and weighs in. To the point of being there for the businesses and citizens, she assured the Council was full committed, willing and able. She supported having specifics presented to Council; it takes four Councilmembers to have a quorum and hold an emergency meeting and take action. The codes that would be waived in the ordinance were put in place by past Councils or this Council so it should be the Council that decides whether they are waived and under what circumstances. Councilmember K. Johnson made the following statement: "I strongly oppose granting the mayor legislative powers during the COVID-19 pandemic. I am opposed because it is un-American, it puts too much power into one individual and finally because the mayor may ask but can only gain these powers if the Council grants him the powers. Americans have elections every four years to select our president, governors and mayors, all of which are the chief executive officer of their political jurisdiction. This is our treasured American way of governing. It does not matter that Mayor Nelson wants these powers or that Council President Fraley-Monillas agrees with him. The mayor does not have a vote and the council president only has one vote. It would require four votes to reassign Council authority to the mayor and five votes to enact an emergency ordinance. I ask each councilmember to consider your oath of office and continue to do your duty to the City of Edmonds. We should not shirk our duty or give away our powers to make it easier for the mayor to run the city. The mayor's job is to execute the laws and regulations of the city. The council's job is to legislate polices, regulation and make all financial decisions. The municipal judge's job is to interpret and carry out the law. Together these represent the balance of powers which our founding fathers felt were essential to our American form of democracy. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 17 Packet Pg. 61 6.2.a I urge citizens and business owners to write to the city council or provide testimony at the Tuesday City Council to share your opinion. Send your emails to council@edmondswa.gov. I think that the city council has demonstrated that we can meet with the mayor any time and any day at his request to solve problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic. What I hope we are unwillingly to do is abdicate our roles and responsibilities as the legislative branch of the Edmonds city government." Councilmember L. Johnson said given the language in the ordinance, passing the ordinance would ordain the Council as unable to be nimble and flexible enough to act expediently in a time of emergency. She referred to the narrative of the Council being limited to moving at a tempo that is best suited to actions such as welcome sign design deliberations, kind of a bureaucratic equivalent of a slow waltz. The fact is, in the early days of the pandemic, the Council demonstrated its ability to quick -step when called on in a time of crisis, convening and acting within a matter of days, not the weeks or months stated in the agenda memo. That willingness to serve at a moment's notice has not changed. Councilmember Distelhorst said he was very supportive of many of the steps the City was taking including the streateries ordinance which he hoped would return to Council as soon as possible so there were no gaps in outdoor dining for businesses who were able to partake. Since August, the Recovery Taskforce has been meeting monthly so if Mr. Doherty would like to reinstate weekly meetings, he was more than happy to attend weekly meetings with the City's directors to ensure everything was happening in a nimble fashion. He thanked the business owners that he spoke with over the past week, many of them supplying specific examples of things that would help them. He passed those suggestions on to Mayor Nelson; some are outside the realm of the City's authority such as federal funding and grants the City does not have but others, like today's announcement about the City providing compostable containers was a specific request he heard from businesses and he was very supportive of the City taking those actions. He remains dedicated to working collaborative in the best interests of the City and using the energy to get positive benefits for residents and business owners. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked business owners in many areas including downtown, Perrinville and Highway 99 who spoke to her, noting she was surprised to learn some were not aware of the proposed emergency ordinance. She continues to be committed to the City and business owners and believed the Council could pivot on a dime and do what needs to be done. The special event permit is currently in place and she did not know why some businesses would not just do pop tents knowing the streateries ordinance was coming. Like Councilmember L. Johnson said, the Council did a quick -step, meeting on a Sunday to pass ordinance 6.60, an emergency ordinance that still needs to come back to Council, which contains sufficient powers for the Mayor. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she would support the ordinance for the same reasons she stated last week, recognizing it would be a 6-1 vote. She also met with business owners and firmly believed this temporary, 90-day ordinance for COVID-related issues was not harmful to the Council process, but will acquiesce to the other six Councilmembers' wishes. Councilmember Paine said an emergency ordinance is best when it is specific regarding what needs to be addressed as well as limited in scope. The entire Council has expressed interest and desire to do what they can and provide information to the Administration in response to this health crisis. No one has a crystal ball; the measures that the planning department is putting into place are really the right steps and those will come to Council fairly quickly. She looked forward to seeing those as soon as possible. She expressed appreciation for all the work that has been done to be as flexible and creative as possible in addressing the problem, particularly related to compostables which are better for the environment. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, SUSPENDING CERTAIN CITY CODES THAT Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 18 Packet Pg. 62 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. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO SET THIS ASIDE INDEFINITELY Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, asking how could something be set aside indefinitely if there was no motion on the floor. Mr. Taraday agreed, advising subsidiary motions are typically applied to a main motion that is pending and in this case, there is no motion pending. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION. 2. BUDGET DELIBERATION AND OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET Finance Director Dave Turley advised this is Council's opportunity to propose and discuss changes to the preliminary budget. Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Paine restated the following amendment: Include in the budget a 3-year long term temporary position for the purpose of working on a code rewrite of the land use code, a long standing project for the Council. The cost is $140,000 for the first year and would be funded from the ending fund balance Council President Fraley-Monillas requested when Councilmembers were referring to specific decision packages, they describe the item and not just provide the decision package number. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the approximately 10 citizens who contacted her and said their questions are summarized on packet pages 357 - 359. She referred to the question she asked above when Mr. Turley was not present regarding Fund 126 on page 57, paying the Civic Field bond from Fund 126, noting utility bonds are paid by utility rates. She was concerned that paying the Civic Field bond from Fund 126 would hinder the ability to purchase property using funds in Fund 126. Mr. Turley answered there were 2-3 different reason this was done. There is a debt service fund, the utility bond payments are transferred out of the utility fund into a debt service fund to make the bond payment. With regard to Civic Field bonds, the principal and interest came from the General Fund last year. That was changed for policy reasons and there are a few reasons to make the payments out of the REET fund. First, as a general rule, capital projects should not be paid for out of the General Fund if at all possible. Streets are funded from the General Fund, but things like parks or buildings should not be funded with General Fund money if at all possible. Second, it is always better policy to use restricted funds before unrestricted funds. REET funds are designed to pay for something like Civic Field, so it makes more sense for that to be the source of the funds that go into the debt service fund. Third, every year Parks and Public Works negotiates how to spend REET funds; if $275,000 in Civic Field bond payments are paid out of the General Fund, it is not as transparent as having it come out of the REET fund. For example, if REET funds are divided 50150 between Parks and Public Works, the amount paid from the General Fund would need to be included. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Marina Beach was paid out of Fund 126. Ms. Feser answered the Marina Beach bond is paid out of Fund 126; there are four things paid out of Fund 126 related to park Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 19 Packet Pg. 63 6.2.a bonds. Mr. Turley summarized it makes more sense to pay for Civic Field out of REET instead of the General Fund. Councilmember Olson suggest decreasing the human service program by $25,000 and add that to the support of the senior center. The justification is this returns the level of support to 2020 levels. In 2020 the senior center has experienced a surge in the provision of free services and a grossly diminished revenue stream from paid services. This is an identified need in the community that the senior center is already positioned to respond to and is responding to as their finances allow. These social services are better provided by the entity that has been providing them in the past rather than a not -yet -defined new social services department. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if amendments that had already been submitted needed to be officially announced or were they worked into the budget. Mr. Turley said the process is up to the Council. At some point all the proposals need to be outlined and voted on individually. It is up to the Council whether to discuss them tonight. He could summarize everything discussed tonight so they could easily be voted on next week or the Council could vote tonight. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES TO 10:13 P.M. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested that will not get the Council far, an extension should be for an hour Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested continuing to outline decision package changes until 10:15 p.m. and following committee meetings next week, have a meeting to discuss the budget. If the Council has not heard everyone's decision packages or changes to the budget by tonight, it will be difficult to discuss them in future. Councilmember Paine raised a point of order, that Council President Fraley-Monillas' comments were not related to the motion. Mayor Nelson allowed Council President Fraley-Monillas to finish briefly. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested a two-hour hour block on the Council agenda next week after committee meetings to work on the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis said she still has people contacting her and she will not be able to have all her decision packages in tonight. She agreed all the decision packages needed to be submitted before the Council began voting. If the intent was to submit all the decision packages tonight, the meeting would be much longer than 10:15 p.m. She is helping a lot citizens get through the Q&A process. She suggested Councilmembers ask questions tonight and block out time at next week's meeting. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson suggested the Council continue introducing amendments. Councilmember Paine provided her second amendment: Fund the PROS Plan update to allow the City to be eligible for RCO grants for the purpose of the Park & Recreation programs and land acquisition projects. The cost is $120,000 for the next year and would be funded from ending fund balance. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested having the amendments on the screen like has been done in the past so citizens can see them. With regard to the police body cam project, she asked why there were no funds in the budget for the project. Acting Chief Lawless said an agreement has been worked out with vendor for a pilot project to secure equipment and software and evaluate during the testing process. The City of Everett's pilot project took about six months to determine what level of equipment needed to be issued to officers Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 20 Packet Pg. 64 6.2.a and just as important, the staff time required to adhere to storage requirements and redaction issues. Not knowing exactly what will be involved in the pilot project, an amount cannot be determined. The vendor, whom the City uses for other services, is working with staff to evaluate the need in order to provide an appropriate request. Mayor Nelson asked if the City was being charged by the vendor. Chief Lawless answered not for the body - worn camera project; they are utilized for other equipment within the department that can integrate with the body cameras. Councilmember Olson asked if she made a proposal about vehicle replacement DP #45 last week. Mayor Nelson advised she had. If the Council plans to set aside two hours at the next meeting to identify all the decision packages, Councilmember K. Johnson said they need to be in a spreadsheet or some format this week in order to include them in the Council packet. She asked when they needed to be submitted and who did they need to be submitted to. Mr. Turley answered he planned to relisten to the Council meetings and put everything that sounded like a proposal in a summary that would be included in the packet for next week, making it easy to review each proposal. Councilmember K. Johnson said Mr. Turley had not heard any of her proposals and asked how she should provide them to him. Mr. Turley suggested that was being done tonight. Councilmember K. Johnson noted there was only eight minutes remaining for Councilmembers to introduce their amendments. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested emailing them. Mr. Turley requested Councilmember email amendments to him by tomorrow afternoon. Councilmember Buckshnis said she will not be able to get all her information to Mr. Turley by tomorrow. She just got her questions answered and is still getting discussion topics from citizens. Mr. Turley said to be included in the packet, amendments need to be submitted to him by Thursday morning at the very latest. Anything sent to him after that can be added to the summary for the Council meeting next Tuesday, but it will not be in the Council packet. Mayor Nelson summarized if Councilmembers wanted their proposals included in the packet, the cutoff was Thursday morning; after Thursday, the proposals could be included in the summary Tuesday night but would not be in the agenda packet. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Councilmembers were to provide the decision packages and rational and copy Councilmembers and the Mayor if they were unable to submit them to Mr. Turley by Thursday morning. Councilmember K. Johnson said she would not be able to get all her information to Mr. Turley by tomorrow, but could provide it in time for the Council meeting and will copy all Councilmembers and Mr. Turley. Councilmember Olson referred to the essential point made by Mr. Tibbott at last week's meeting as well as today about deferred facilities maintenance. She suggested Councilmembers look at the amounts identified for the human services department; besides the $25,000 she suggested be moved to the senior center, the amount set aside for the new department including the half-time existing program manager is still approximately $500,000. She wondered whether in such a tight budget year and without having a full plan, funding a full-time social worker plus the program manager at approximately $150,000 and increasing that by $100,0004200,00 totaling $250,000-$350,000 would be sufficient. Budgeting $500,000 seems like a very large amount as a portion of the total budget. She asked Councilmembers to think about that during the coming week. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the Council to look at the original notes about building maintenance estimates. She attended that meeting and heard exactly what the company who did the facilities assessment said. She recalled very little work needed to be done soon; the assessment included a plan for Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 21 Packet Pg. 65 the next 10-15 years. She suggested looking at the report prepared by that outside consultant before speaking about the urgency of building maintenance as there were some misnomers quoted about building maintenance. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND TO 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Olson asked where to find that report and what it was called. Council President Fraley- Monillas suggested asking Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams offered to email the report to Council. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Williams advised the report was prepared by McKinstry. He offered to provide a summary as well as the report. Councilmember Buckshnis said a citizen had provided her that report. Mayor Nelson summarized there will be two-hour agenda item next week. Councilmembers can submit amendments to Mr. Turley by Thursday morning for inclusion in the packet; otherwise they will be summarized at the Council meeting. He urged Councilmembers not to submit amendments Tuesday at 5 p.m. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson said due to the significant responsibilities of the Police Chief position, due diligence is being conducted. He hoped to announce his appointment later this week. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis hoped everyone had great Thanksgiving and she looked forward to next year. Councilmember K. Johnson assured all the businesses in the City that the Council supports them and will do their very best to work with them. She has been a member of the Chamber of Commerce since 2011 and joined because she does not have a business background and wanted to keep in touch with the businesses. She supports the businesses and pledged to work with them and the Mayor to do whatever possible to make them successful. Councilmember Olson said her message was similar to Councilmember K. Johnson's, the proposal brought to the forefront how important it is that the Council do what it can to support business owners as well as the City's economic base which are very intertwined. She is not very far removed from business, her own business and her affiliation with her husband's brick and mortar in the past. [The first part of this comment was inaudible] staff and Mayor to be able to do what they want without involving Council is for sure a fact, but it doesn't have to be faster and it definitely is not better. The job of the executive is to follow and enforce the laws and she personally felt it was reckless for the Council to hand over their role to make, alter and suspend City law that this and past Councils have put in place. There is important and valuable judgment and oversight from the body of the Council and having those applied to the waivers that arise as a system of checks and balances on the executive branch is good business for a government. She assured it was not at all personal and had nothing to do with this Mayor, it was about good government. The Council is willing and able to do their part to move things forward on an emergency basis, knowing that time is money and sometimes a day or two can make a difference. Council President Fraley-Monillas said good government moves to help out citizens and businesses and the people connected to the City. She referred to a letter in the papers by Councilmember K. Johnson that definitely took some difficult swings at the Mayor and her because they believed they were standing forward for the citizens of Edmonds. She thought there had been some acknowledgement that going to the papers Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 22 Packet Pg. 66 6.2.a was not a good way to communicate with each other. She found it perhaps immature in nature and expressed concern with the statement that the Council could stop what they were doing and meet. Council President Fraley-Monillas said there are problems with doing that when a Councilmember can only meet two day a week and the last time an emergency meeting was scheduled on the second day of the week, they did not show up. She was disturbed that a Councilmember used the media to undermine her and others. She did not think that was where the Council wanted to go with its interactions but said perhaps she was in error. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the many citizens who have reach out with their concerns. Over the past week there have been a lot of them and it takes time to respond to emails but she greatly appreciated them. She expressed her deep appreciation to the small business owners who took the time to share their struggles and needs with her. She reiterated her ongoing commitment to meet and act with expedience to help assist the small business community, specifically brick and mortar businesses who are bearing the brunt of the financial fallout from the ongoing crisis. She urged the public to stay home if they can, social distance and please wear a mask. Councilmember Distelhorst announced The Washington State Department of Health launched WA Notify yesterday. The public can enroll in the tracking system and turn on notification if they have had a potential exposure. It is quick to do, takes approximately 30 seconds. Like Councilmember L. Johnson said, please stay home. When the county was in full lockdown in March, the peak was 129 cases/100,000 residents in Snohomish County. The current rate is 368/100,000 residents, almost 3 times the rate when in full lockdown. Everyone needs to stay home; get takeout and support local businesses but go home and not hang out without a mask because that is not safe and your neighbors, businesses and the City will suffer. Two weeks ago there were about 180 active cases in Edmonds; there are now about 400, more than double in 2 weeks. He urged everyone to take this seriously because the higher the numbers go, the more restrictions will be put on busines and on cities and the more everyone will suffer. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation to the multitude of people who have taken time out of their day to write to the Council, noting the information is coming in hot and fast. With regard to the neighborhood on 2' Avenue with the odor issue; she heard about it a couple months ago and made some inquiries. She hoped to find a way to resolve that issue in the coming year, noting an odor issue is inescapable particularly when staying at home. Being outside provides an opportunity to air out your thoughts and check on your mood. When going outside it is important to stay physically distanced from neighbors and always wearing a mask even outside. She installed WA Notify on her phone; that is important but it is after the fact. She suggested the City look at options for residents to go outside and walk around, it is mood lifter and something physical that people can do. She agreed with other Councilmembers, stay home, and if going out, get takeout and go home. Student Representative Roberts hoped everyone had a safe and enjoyable Thanksgiving. The Youth Commission has an opening; he urged youth to apply or for adults to encourage an interested student to apply. As the holiday season continues, it is crucial to wear masks, socially distance ourselves and stay home if possible, and download the WA Notify app. Moving into 2021 does not mean the virus will somehow disappear. He has seen too many people in person and over social media blatantly ignoring the guidelines set forth by the governor and the CDC which is the reason for the third wave. He encouraged the public to make wise choices and to be aware how their individual actions affect the most vulnerable population of the City and struggling businesses. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 23 Packet Pg. 67 6.2.a Public Comment for 12/1/20 Council Meeting: From: stephen hearn Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 5:27 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: 1140 3rd Avenue South - sewer order problem Good evening Edmonds City Council, My name is Stephen Hearn and I reside at 1140 3rd Avenue South in Edmonds. I know Ralph Adams and several other of my neighbors will be speaking tonight about the sewer odor problem in our area. I've attached several years worth of communication I've had with the city to try and resolve this manner. Sewer plugs, cleaning wet wells, changing pumping schedules, taking reading have NOT made a difference. Unfortunately, there's never be a long term, sustainable solution. In fact, the sewer smell is becoming even worse and is now consistently present when we are in our yard. So much so that we have to go inside, shut our doors and windows to keep the smell out. This is not only having a detrimental impact on our quality of life, but we are getting concerned it may have potential health/economic impacts for our family. I'm confident there is a long term solution to this very real issue and I'm asking the council to act quickly on their citizens behalf. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 5:17 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Public Comments for Public Hearing on Ordinance 4201 The motion made and seconded related to what became Ordinance 4201 failed 4-2. Please make full disclosure to the public that Ordinance 4201 was not properly adopted. When the vote on the emergency declaration related to Ordinance 4201 failed 4-2, a new motion could have been made to pass the Moratorium just as a regular Ordinance. That didn't happen. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 24 Packet Pg. 68 6.2.a City Council may want to start over and see if somebody wants to make a motion that does not declare an emergency. The meeting minutes clearly indicate that all thought that an emergency ordinance had just been passed. Nobody pointed out that 5 votes were required. Also - Ordinance 4201 contains an incorrect RCW reference related to referendums. If Council tries again, please correct in any future ordinances adopted. In general, it would also be best if our emergency Ordinances indicated in the first 2-3 words of the Ordinance Title whether an ordinance is an Emergency Ordinance or not. Some Emergency Ordinances do, others don't, which makes it very hard to search our Ordinance table for emergency Ordinances. Thank you. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 5:14 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Public Comments for Public Hearing on Ordinance 4200 The motion made and seconded related to what became Ordinance 4200 failed 4-3. Please make full disclosure to the public that Ordinance 4200 was not properly adopted. When the vote on the emergency declaration related to Ordinance 4200 failed 4-3, a new motion could have been made to pass the Moratorium just as a regular Ordinance. That didn't happen. City Council may want to start over and see if somebody wants to make a motion that does not declare an emergency. Also - Ordinance 4200 contains an incorrect RCW reference related to referendums. If Council tries again, please correct in any future ordinances adopted. In general, it would also be best if our emergency Ordinances indicated in the first 2-3 words of the Ordinance Title whether an ordinance is an Emergency Ordinance or not. Some Emergency Ordinances do, others don't, which makes it very hard to search our Ordinance table for emergency Ordinances. Thank you. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 25 Packet Pg. 69 6.2.a From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 5:00 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov>; Williams, Phil <Phil.Wllliams@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for December 1, 2020 City Council meeting Please budget funds to return funds to Westgate Chapel related to the following: History shows that City of Edmonds government chose to act contrary to the City's Street Vacation laws and charge Westgate Chapel $92,610 PLUS make Westgate Chapel grant multiple easements to 3rd parties. City Staff and the City Attorney subsequently initiated a legislative effort to change our street vacation laws, a legislative effort that I believe needs to be investigated. City of Edmonds government chose to charge Westgate Chapel $92,610 PLUS made Westgate Chapel grant multiple easements to 3rd parties even after I stated the following during the November 1, 2016 Public Hearing: 1. "Why should an applicant have to pay for and provide an appraisal with the application BEFORE the City Council has even discussed granting the petition and/or whether or not to require compensation? Perhaps the applicant should be REIMBURSED for this expense." 2. "1 strongly support NOT charging the applicant $92,610 related to this street vacation. I think it would be WRONG to do so." 3. "Why charge the property owner now when staff has FOUND that the vacation of those same easement rights is in the PUBLIC INTEREST?" 4. "Please treat this applicant fairly. The vacation is already in the PUBLIC INTEREST and that should be PLENTY without the need for $92,610 more." 5. "Conditions include the provision of easements to Olympic View Water and Sewer District as well as to other vague, unidentified entities. I'M NOT SURE WHY WE ARE DOING IT THIS WAY instead of just simply following State law by the City itself RETAINING an easement or the right to exercise and grant easements in respect to the vacated land for the construction, repair, and maintenance of public utilities and services?" Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 26 Packet Pg. 70 6.2.a Regarding item 1 above, my request that the applicant be reimbursed for the appraisal expense was reasonable considering Ordinance No. 3647. Ordinance No. 3647 deducted the cost of the related appraisal ($3,750) from the compensation required. Why was Westgate Chapel treated differently? The approved November 1, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes show that not one citizen showed up to the Public Hearing to ask City Council to charge a penny of compensation for this street vacation, let alone the full tilt price of $92,610. Furthermore, not one citizen showed up to support requiring Westgate Chapel to grant easements to third parties. As such, why did City Council charge Westgate Chapel $92,610 PLUS make Westgate Chapel grant multiple easements to 3rd parties? ECDC 20.70.140.A.3. clearly says that it is Either:OR. Edmonds City Government had no legal right to require BOTH — the law is clearly Either:OR Making all of this even worse, efforts have been made from outside the legislative branch of our City Government to remove the Either:OR law from our Code. The Either:OR law reflects the legislative intent of the elected officials who adopted it. The people from outside the legislative branch of our City Government tried this even though Planning Board recommended keeping the Either:OR law. Contrary to the Planning Board's recommendation and previously adopted POLICY, City Staff recommended an amendment to City Code allowing City Council to require BOTH monetary compensation AND the retention of easements (i.e. utility easements) as conditions to a Street Vacation. The current City Code allows Either compensation: OR the retention of easements. City Staff and the City Attorney are NOT our Policy Makers. As such, why did they recommend action different than what Policy Makers previously adopted and different than what the Planning Board recommended? Please review the following comments made by City Attorney Jeff Taraday during the August 14, 2019 Planning Board Meeting. His comments relate to another proposed amendment, doubling of compensation in certain situations, but I think the comments provide a window into one view of the fundamental purpose of local government: Taraday - 1:23:10 mark of Planning Board Meeting: "I represent the City of Edmonds. I'm here to advance the interest of the City of Edmonds, not individual property owners." Taraday - 1:23:18 mark of Planning Board Meeting: "So, if I see that State Law allows the City of Edmonds to collect more money for a street vacation than it is currently collecting, it is my job as the City Attorney to make that option available to the Policy Makers and let them decide Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 27 Packet Pg. 71 6.2.a whether they want to adopt that into their Code or not .... but we are leaving money on the table right now ... that is the bottom line. Now, Policy Makers may decide that it is good to leave money on the table — that's a policy decision — but I'm telling you we are leaving money on the table. So, I feel an obligation to bring that forward and let the Policy Makers make a decision about whether that is a good thing or not." PLEASE NOTE: Policy Makers already decided long ago what were good things. State Law has not changed, yet the City Attorney and City Staff recommended changes. Again, please appreciate, we do not elect the City Attorney or City Staff to make Policy. Just think of the good Westgate Chapel could have done with their $92,610 plus all the money they had to spend preparing the multiple 3rd Party easements required by City of Edmonds Government, etc. Westgate Chapel Emergency Services is wholly funded by donations of the Westgate Chapel family and the greater Edmonds, Washington community and is a member of the Snohomish County Food Bank Coalition which is made up of twenty food banks in our county. Westgate Chapel Emergency Services is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Each week Westgate Chapel Emergency Services operates a food and clothing bank for the less fortunate in the greater Edmonds community. The food Westgate Chapel Emergency Services distributes is donated by Northwest Harvest, Food Lifeline and the United States Federal Commodities Program. In addition, food, clothing and household items are donated by the Westgate Chapel congregation and the greater Edmonds community. Westgate Chapel Emergency Services also purchases food when donations are not enough. In addition to food and clothing, Westgate Chapel Emergency Services also provides some financial assistance, gasoline and community transit vouchers for appointments or job searches and/or grocery vouchers for specialized needs. I find it disingenuous that Edmonds City Government would profess care for the elderly, infirm and lower -income residents and households after what the City Government did to Westgate Chapel. Westgate Chapel has been aiding those less fortunate for decades. Westgate Chapel did not need to create a NEW "Community and Economic Relief Fund". Westgate Chapel had its first worship service on June 7, 1959 and has been providing relief in our community for decades! Thank you. From: Bill Phipps Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:24 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Citizens Planning Board <citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen. Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Feser, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 28 Packet Pg. 72 6.2.a Angie <Angie.Feser@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Moratorium on Subdivision Applications Greetings Edmonds City Council! I'm submitting a public comment on the moratorium on subdivision applications. I know I am speaking for thousands of Edmonds residents when I say: I wish there was a permanent ban on subdivision applications. Isn't the City nearly built out already? Someone said we are 95% built out, is that correct? Isn't that enough? When is enough enough? Once our last remaining open spaces and pocket forests are gone, they are gone for good. We need those open spaces more than we need more subdivisions. I propose the City acquire all remaining undeveloped lots/parcels in the City and turn them into public parks. Now that would be in the "public interest" ! If you insist on developing every last square foot of undeveloped land in Edmonds, we at least need a strong and meaningful Tree Code. As the draft Tree Code is currently written, only 30% of trees on undeveloped lots would be saved. It doesn't take into account the 70% of trees that will be lost on these parcels. It also doesn't take into account the trees on already developed lots, Shouldn't the trees on developed lots get some protections as well ? Please see my e-mail that I sent to you (cc'd) on October 14, 2020 for more on the Tree Code. If we are going to "maintain or enhance" our forest canopy, as stated in the Urban Forest Management Plan, we are going to need a stronger Tree Code. It's simple math. If we allow 70 % of the trees to be cut on new subdivisions and we continue to let property owners cut as many trees as they want on developed lots, how are we ever going to "maintain or enhance" our urban forest canopy? The math just doesn't add up. We need to think along the lines of tree replacement. We recognize housing pressures and property rights. But we still need to replace all those trees that we are losing. In my neighborhood, we just lost 6 large conifer trees on two different properties in the last two weeks. Even with a strong Tree Code those losses would be permissible. Neither of those folks are replanting conifer trees. The City should require tree plantings for every tree lost to development or property rights. We should truly show a commitment to our urban forest by instituting a massive tree planting program. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 29 Packet Pg. 73 6.2.a Our mantra should be: New trees planted for every tree lost . For any reason, any place, at any time; new trees should be planted for every tree lost. Thank you for your time; Bill Phipps Edmonds resident From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 3:06 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public hearing on Ordinance #4201 Establishing a Moratorium on subdivision applications Council, I support this moratorium for reasons too numerous to list, and not enough time to list them. Suffice to say that this is an important moratorium and I fully support it. I would have preferred a 6 month moratorium, but 4 months will have to do. Regards, Joan Bloom From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 2:57 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public hearing CFP/CIP Council, I agree completely with Save Our Marsh. Please consider the following changes in the CFP/CIP (1) DELETE the "Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Related Projects" from the 2021-2026 CFP/CIP. (2) Remove the Edmonds Marsh from a "Storm Water" heading, and place it instead in "Parks" or a new "Habitat Restoration" heading. (3) Consider adding a new project "Stormwater retrofits and pollution abatement for Edmonds Marsh conservation". Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 30 Packet Pg. 74 6.2.a All of these changes are necessary for the future restoration of the Marsh. These changes will also ensure that restoration will be as cost effective as possible for the taxpayers of Edmonds. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Joan Bloom From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 2:40 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: "Emergency Ordinance Providing Mayor Temporary Authority to use tools to address Economic Emergency" Council, The title of this agenda item should be "Emergency Ordinance Providing Mayor Temporary Authority to SUSPEND CODE to address Economic Emergency", as the ordinance does not simply allow the office of the Mayor to "use tools." Please do not grant emergency authority to the Mayor to suspend code, titles 8 (Traffic), Title 17 (General Zoning), Title 18 (Public Works Requirements), Title 19 (Building Codes), Title 20 (Review Criteria and Procedures). I agree with Councilmember Kristiana Johnson's 11-30-2020 letter to MyEdmondsNews. Council is the legislative body and can be consulted quickly when needed. The executive branch, ie: office of the Mayor, is responsible for enforcing code, and should not be given the authority to suspend code, even on a temporary basis. I also agree with Gerald Bernstein, MD, in his 11-30-2020 letter to MyEdmondsNews. Dr. Bernstein said: "We have a system of checks and balances for a reason; that reason is we do not want one person to be in complete control of our government. The city council should unanimously and unequivocally refuse to abdicate their authority to the mayor for any period of time." Regards, Joan Bloom From: Save Our Marsh Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 12:37 PM Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 31 Packet Pg. 75 6.2.a To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Hearing on CFP/CIP Attached is a Save Our Marsh letter regarding the City Council's "Public Hearing on the Proposed 2021- 2026 Capital Improvements Program/Capital Facilities Plan" tonight (12/01/2020). From: edmondskar Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 7:17 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Comments for tonight's City Council meeting I would like to submit a comment for tonight's City Council Meeting, which is to express my opposition to the Mayor's request for emergency powers. The citizens of Edmonds have elected a city council to represent them, and those council members should be engaged in any decisions made on behalf of the City. While the Mayor has concerns about having to make immediate decisions during the pandemic, I do not believe that a pandemic that has been on going for over 9 months will at this stage create a situation in which an emergency decision must be made. Looking forward there are many decisions that will be before our City during the continuation of the pandemic - our CoVid case numbers continue to rise which will mean possible decisions about implementing further closures or restrictions, and hopefully with a vaccine on the way, its distribution may involve the City as well. But these are all scenarios which should be thought out and planned for well in advance, not as an "emergency" and will generally be decided at a State level or by other agencies. Further, given our current ease of communications with Zoom, cell phones, social distancing protocols already in place, it seems hard to imagine that given a true emergency situation, that the Council could not meet in some virtual form. Let's keep democracy alive and well in Edmonds. And let's not set a precedent for future mayoral inappropriate seizures of power. Making my comments heard at the City Council meeting allows me to participate in our City government's democratic process. The City Council should fully participate also and be involved in all decisions. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 32 Packet Pg. 76 6.2.a And thank you to everyone working on behalf of the City of Edmonds, to keep the City running during this difficult time Kathleen Ryan From: Joan Bloom Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 1:45 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Doherty, Patrick <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov> Subject: 2021 Budget: $500,000 for Human Services Program Council, Here are my comments for your budget discussion on Tuesday, December 1, 2020. 1 have also submitted these comments to Myedmondsnews and to the Edmonds Beacon. Spend where it's most needed In 2020, the City of Edmonds Human Services Program was created, under Patrick Doherty, Director of Community Services. A program manager and program coordinator were hired. Mayor Nelson has included in his 2021 budget an additional $500,000 for this program. There is no indication how the funds are to be spent, so in public comments to Council on November 17 and November 23, 1 asked how the half -million would be used. None of my questions have been answered. Two of these questions are • How will the Human Services Department identify Edmonds residents who are most at risk? What is your outreach plan? • Given the pandemic, and limited in -person contact, how will identified residents be served? In my 45 years, in three states, practicing as a social worker, I have learned the following: social services are usually underfunded; ambitious outreach programs often fail because of lack of teamwork within each agency; it is difficult to identify those at risk. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 33 Packet Pg. 77 6.2.a The Human Services Program will not be able to meet the need for social services in Edmonds. The likely scenario is the program will continue to refer to Snohomish County agencies that are better equipped to address needs. If the City of Edmonds has an extra $500,000, why not use it for those at risk of going hungry? As the pandemic continues, Council could allocate funds towards non-profit agencies that focus on hunger, such as the Edmonds Food Bank, EastWest Food Rescue, and the Nourishing Network. Throwing money at problems never works, especially when a poorly planned program is doing the throwing. Those in need should be served, but by County agencies that are better equipped, and will do a better job. I implore Council, don't waste $500,000 of taxpayer money by expanding the Human Services Program. Instead, feed the hungry. Regards, Joan Bloom From: Julie Stuller Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 9:58 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Restaurants and sidewalks Dear City Council, As I was walking with my elderly father up Dayton Street, between 5th and 6th, on November 29 in the afternoon, Salish Sea Brewing (which I dearly love) was packed. Yes, the patrons were outside, on both sides of the sidewalk, maskless obviously, drinking and eating with waiters running back and forth, but the six feet apart rule was not in effect. It was a party atmosphere, which in normal times would be great, but it was very depressing. I moved my dad off the sidewalk and we proceeded up the middle of the road until we were well past. That was a dangerous situation obviously (traffic stopped in both lanes for us) another elderly person may not have been able to maneuver unaccompanied and would have had to walk through the crowded sidewalk. As we all know, if we're reading the paper or listening to the news, this is very dangerous for our elderly, let alone anyone young or aged with immune compromised systems. I do have complete sympathy for business owners at this time, so I'm asking you to please help business owners understand the rules we have and why they need to be enforced so we Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 34 Packet Pg. 78 6.2.a hopefully won't be in complete shutdown and my father and neighbors will be alive for Christmas. Thank you, Julie Stuller From: Sally Barringer Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 11:28 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Hearing on Ordinance #4200 Public Hearing on Ordinance #4201 Hello Council Members, I encourage the council approve a 4 month moratorium that will effectively delay any action on any new subdivision applications until the completion of the update of the city's Tree Code. It is important the city council approves the moratorium to allow sufficient time to work through the tree code update before the Seaview Woods development is submitted so it will conform to the new tree code. Since I have large trees above and close to the city's proposed 184th street I am very concerned they will be further damaged. In the past the proposed 184th street was bulldozed up to the toe of my 20 to 30 foot bank and this has caused the bank to slide and is undercut. Sally Barringer Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 1, 2020 Page 35 Packet Pg. 79 6.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/8/2020 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #245118 through #245208 dated December 3, 2020 for $613,448.88 and wire payment of $417.67. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64549 through #64555 for $639,933.04, benefit checks #64556 through #64560 and wire payments of $695,187.74 for the pay period November 16, 2020 through November 30, 2020. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 12-03-20 wire 12-01-20 FrequentlyUsedProjN umbers 12-03-20 payroll summary 12.05.20 payroll benefits 12.05.20 Packet Pg. 80 6.3.a vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36:25AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245118 12/3/2020 001528 AM TEST INC 245119 12/3/2020 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 245120 12/3/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 118570 WWTP: SAMPLE #S 20-AO017473-7 SAMPLE #S 20-AO017473-7474 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total 27321 FLOWER POLE PLAQUE FLOWER POLE PLAQUE 127.200.64.573.20.49.00 10.4% Sales Tax 127.200.64.573.20.49.00 Total 1991971992 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 1991990849 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 1992000234 WWTP: 11/18/20 UNIFORMSJOWE 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 1992000235 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax Page a� L 3 c .y Amoun 0 a m U m 140.0( 140.0( ui m U 151.8� m c 15.8( M' 167.65 -0 c �a 0 61.1E a 6.3E 0 61.1E 0 L 6.3( a El 51.4E N Cl) 0 1.4- cN V) 5.3E E ii U 0.1E c aD E 61.1E U M Q Page: 1 Packet Pg. 81 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245120 12/3/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 1992009589 1992014837 1992014838 PO # Description/Account 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 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 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 6.3.a Page: 2 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a aD 6.3E 'D U d 61.1E N 6.3E v 1.6' (D a� 6.1' �a 6.1' o L 6.1' a E 6.1 - 'ca 6.0£ 0 �a 0.1 m, o a a 0.6, Q 0 0.6, Cl) 0 0.6z 0.6z 9 0.6' a� E t 9.2� Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 82 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.3.a Page: 3 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245120 12/3/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.9 1 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.9E Total: 395.2f 245121 12/3/2020 064452 ARMSTRONG SERVICES 3975 WWTP: 11/2020 JANITORIAL & COV 11/2020 JANITORIAL SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 880.0( 12 COVID DISINFECTANT SERVICE 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 480.0( Tota I : 1,360.0( 245122 12/3/2020 075523 ART WALK EDMONDS TPAAWE TPA ART WALK EDMONDS TPA ART WALK EDMONDS 123.000.64.573.20.41.40 1,064.9z Total : 1,064.9z 245123 12/3/2020 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 83487 E175PO - MODIFY PATROL CAR GR E175PO - MODIFY PATROL CAR GR 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,250.5( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 130.0E Total : 1,380.5E 245124 12/3/2020 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 769963 FLEET - PARTS FLEET - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1,661.7z 10.1 % Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 167.8z Total : 1,829.5E 245125 12/3/2020 074587 BOURNE, CHRISTINE WOTS CONTRACT WOTS PRESENTATION SERVICES Page: 3 Packet Pg. 83 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245125 12/3/2020 074587 BOURNE, CHRISTINE (Continued) 245126 12/3/2020 072158 BRAVO ENVIRONMENTAL NW INC 65558 245127 12/3/2020 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1067328 245128 12/3/2020 078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J 9274 9277 TRAINING 245129 12/3/2020 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 94737620 94798844 94831056 PO # Description/Account WOTS PRESENTATION SERVICES 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Total WWTP: PO 450 VACUUM OUT TANK 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 PO 450 Vacuum tank 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total E7DC.PUBLISH PROJECT ONLINE E7DC.Publish Project Online 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Total 9274 9277 PERSONAL TRAINING OI 9274 PERSONAL TRAINING ONLINE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 9277 PERSONAL TRAINING ONLINE 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Total STREET - 5.0 EXTRUDED CURB & E STREET - 5.0 EXTRUDED CURB & E 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- 6.3.a Page: 4 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 155.0( u 155.0( .L N m 418.6( 4,025.0( 4,443.6( c �a 138.7E 138.7E a E U 16.5( o Ta 16.5( o 33.0( a a Q 0 N 512.8( M 0 51.2E V) E M 409.5( c 40.9 m E t U �a Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 84 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245129 12/3/2020 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 245130 12/3/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 Tota I : 22140424 CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USAC contract usage/meter charge 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 22140433 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 22140434 CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USAC contract charge/meter usage 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 22140436 INV 22140436 - EDMONDS PD 11/20 -CONTRACT CHARGE - IRCSE 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10/20 -BW METER CHARGE - IRCSE 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10/20 -CLR METER CHARGE-IRC55 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 22140437 WATER SEWER COPIER Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 6.3.a Page: 5 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 251.9< 'D U m 25.1 E .L 1,291.6E y m 590.6- c 61.4' c �a 45.1 o 4.7- a E 27.4( U 4- 0 2.8E 0 L a a 185.7z Q 0 21.3, N Cl) 0 142.1( N 36.3- . �a U 78.7E y E t 78.7E Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 85 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.3.a Page: 6 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 245130 12/3/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 0 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 as 8.1 � 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 m 8.1 f .L 22140438 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier for11/01/20 - 11/30/ 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 92.3" PW Office Copier fora 1 /01 /20 - 11/30/ 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 52.3' PW Office Copier fora 1 /01 /20 - 11/30/ 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 52.3' PW Office Copier fora 1 /01 /20 - 11/30/ 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 36.9, PW Office Copier for11/01/20 - 11/30/ o 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 36.9, >+ PW Office Copier for11/01/20 - 11/30/ a 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 36.9, 10.4% Sales Tax ca 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 9.6( u 10.4% Sales Tax 0 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 5.4z > 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 5.4z a 10.4% Sales Tax Q 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 3.8z o 10.4% Sales Tax N Cl) 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 3.8z c 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.& 22140442 INV 22140442 - EDMONDS PD ii 11/20- GRAPH ICS-IRDXC57401 U 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 53.1 z 11/20 - GRAPHICS-IR525IF11-30 0 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 53.1 z t 11/20-GRAPHICS-IR5251F11-10 Q Page: 6 Packet Pg. 86 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245130 12/3/2020 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 245131 245132 245133 245134 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 22140443 12/3/2020 078205 CENTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY MGMT 1834 12/3/2020 073249 CG ENGINEERING, PLLC 12/3/2020 068358 COLUMBIA CASCADE COMPANY 12/3/2020 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 43503 41963-66 8498310300732547 PO # Description/Account 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 11 /20-GRAPHICS-IRDXC2571F 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 INV 22140443 - EDMONDS PD 11/20 - CONTRACT- IRDXC57501-57 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 11/20- CONTRACT- IRDXC57501-53 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 Total CONSULTING PROFESSIONAL SEF Consulting Professional Services per 001.000.39.513.40.41.00 Total TO 20-02.KISAN STORMWATER VAI TO 20-02.KISAN STORMWATER VAI 001.000.245.963 Total PM: PLAYGROUND SWING PARTS PM: PLAYGROUND SWING PARTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total PUBLIC WRKS - DIGITAL CABLE Public Works - 7110 210th S SW 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 Public Works - 7110 210th S SW 6.3.a Page: 7 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 53.1 z 'D r U d 53.1 z 22.1 m z U 173.8' m c 178.1( M c 36.5� m 2,254.41 0 L a 26,472.0( 26,472.0( 0 Ta 0 1,220.0( Q 1,220.0( Q 0 N Cl) 580.0( N 60.3, E 640.3: 'M c 1.9' t U �a Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 87 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245134 12/3/2020 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS (Continued) 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 Public Works - 7110 210th S SW 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 Public Works - 7110 210th S SW 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 Public Works - 7110 210th S SW 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 Total 245135 12/3/2020 074382 CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS 21776054 STORM - RETURN FREIGHT STORM - RETURN FREIGHT 422.000.72.531.40.48.00 Total 245136 12/3/2020 074818 CTS COMBINED SYSTEMS INC INV2000865 INV2000865 REPAIR PENN LAUNCHER- M0379 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 INV2002390 INV2002390 - EDMONDS PD SAGE MULTILAUNCHER REPAIR-M 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 Total 245137 12/3/2020 077297 DERRICK, MICHAEL WW-BOOTS WWTP: MDERRICK BOOTS BOUGF MDERRICK BOOTS BOUGHT FROM 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 10.2% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 Total 245138 12/3/2020 076172 DK SYSTEMS 27278 CITY HALL - SERVICE & REPAIR CITY HALL - SERVICE & REPAIR 6.3.a Page: 8 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a a� 9.1 U d 9.1� 9.1( m t 8.8- U 3&Z 45 m c 195.0( 195.0( o L �a a 400.0( •� U 41.6( 0 �a 0 250.0( a a Q 26.0( " 717.6( N A 0 N 104.9� E 10.7- 115.7( c a� E t U �a Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 88 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245138 12/3/2020 076172 DK SYSTEMS (Continued) 27346 27357 245139 12/3/2020 007253 DUNN LUMBER 7590753 245140 12/3/2020 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 20-39908 245141 12/3/2020 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 1913 1917 PO # Description/Account 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 FIRE STATION 17 - CHECKED BOILI FIRE STATION 17 - CHECKED BOILI 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 FIRE STATION 16 - REPAIRS TO BL( FIRE STATION 16 - REPAIRS TO BL( 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Total FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ SCREWS FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ SCREWS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMPLE WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMPLE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 Total PM SUPPLIES: WRENCH PM SUPPLIES: WRENCH 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.3.a Page: 9 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a aD 562.5( 'D r U d 58.5( N 562.5( 58.5( m c a� 411.4E �a 42.8( 0 1,696.21 a E 93.8E U 0 9.5 �a 103.4' o L Q Q Q 1,170.0( N 1,170.0( m N V) E 27.9E 'M 2.9' c a� E t U 4.9E Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 89 6.3.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 12/03/2020 10:36:25AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 245141 12/3/2020 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued) 0 m 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.5, u 1920 PM SUPPLIES: AXES L PM SUPPLIES: AXES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 50.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5.3( v Total : 92.6E m c 245142 12/3/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 52.8E 3-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL o 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 414.2, a 3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 57.4' U 3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S 14- o LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 52.8E o 3-09350 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i L a LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i Q" Q 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 107.6E c 3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R N LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R c 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 84.7. cm 3-29875 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 57.4< 2 Total: 827.3( }; c 245143 12/3/2020 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0155153-IN INV 0155153-IN - EDMONDS PD E REBURBISH BADGE #2378 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 60.0( 2 Q Page: 10 Packet Pg. 90 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245143 12/3/2020 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 245144 12/3/2020 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) REFURBISH BADGE #3178 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 REFURBISH BADGE #3909 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 16 PLAIN BOOKS CASES 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 FINISH BADGE #3909 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 REBURBISH BADGES #807 & #2291 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 REFURBISH BADGES #2443 & #249 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 PACKAGING @ HANDLING FEES 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Total EDH913947 ORDINANCE 4200 & 4201 ordinance 4200 and 4201 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH913948 CID CFD CID CFD 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH914060 ORDINANCE 4202 & 4203 ordinance 4202 and 4203 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH914219 PLANNING: LEGAL AD Everett Daily Herald: Legal Ad- 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH914318 PLANNING: LEGAL AD Everett Herald: Legal Ad- 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 Total 6.3.a Page: 11 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 60.0( u 40.0( N 30.0( U 40.0( m c 80.0( m c 100.0( f° 0 L 5.9( a 16.5( 432.4( 0 �a 61.6( o a a Q 50.4( o N Cl) 0 29.4( E 50.4( u c a� 51.8( E 243.6( u Q Page: 11 Packet Pg. 91 6.3.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 12/03/2020 10:36:25AM City of Edmonds a� L 3 Bank code : usbank c �a Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun N 245145 12/3/2020 073133 EVERGREEN RURAL WATER OF WA 42300 JOHNSON & NELSON - WATER DIS 0 m JOHNSON & NELSON - WATER DIS 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 600.0( u 42345 DANIELS - CROSS CONNECTION C L DANIELS - CROSS CONNECTION C 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 250.0( Total: 850.0( 245146 12/3/2020 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 160560 ADDITIONAL LICENSING MAINTEN) Additional licensing maintenance for c 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,035.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 107.61 Total: 1,142.6' o 0 245147 12/3/2020 071998 FOSTER, KELSEY 8431 VISIT EDMONDS EDITING/REVISIOI a VISIT EDMONDS EDITING/REVISIOI 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 150.0( •� BID 8430 BID/ED! COPYWRITING FOR OCT/N U BID/ED! COPYWRITING FOR OCT/N o 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 900.0( ii Total: 1,050.0( c L 245148 12/3/2020 012199 GRAINGER 9700351225 PM SUPPLIES: HOT/COLD CARTRII Q a PM SUPPLIES: HOT/COLD CARTRII Q 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 164.2z N 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.0� N 9710687493 FIRE STATION 17 - HOT SURFACE FIRE STATION 17 - HOT SURFACE N E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 63.3z 'M 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 6.5� c 9711344714 FIRE STATION 17 - PARTS/ CIRCUL, E FIRE STATION 17 - PARTS/ CIRCUL, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 U 1,566.0( m Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 92 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245148 12/3/2020 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) 9714914448 245149 12/3/2020 012900 HARRIS FORD INC FOCS527378 245150 12/3/2020 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC FOCS528002 FOCS528114 FOCS528323 PO # Description/Account 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ BARRICAC FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ BARRICAC 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total UNIT 105 - SERVICE REPAIRS UNIT 105 - SERVICE REPAIRS 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 E173PO - SERVICE & REPAIRS E173PO - SERVICE & REPAIRS 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 10.5% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 UNIT 286 - INSPECTION/ WATER P( UNIT 286 - INSPECTION/ WATER P( 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 UNIT 286 - ALIGNMENT UNIT 286 - ALIGNMENT 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Total 15633951 WATER - TEST PARTS WATER - TEST PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 6.3.a Page: 13 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 162.8E u 106.6( Y m t 11.0� U 2,097.81 c a� 1,714.3� 0 180.0" �a a 840.5( 88.2E o Ta 0 L 172.0E Q Q 18.0, o N Cl) 0 453.9, N 47.6E . 3,514.8, c aD E 326.6E U Q Page: 13 Packet Pg. 93 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245150 12/3/2020 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 245151 12/3/2020 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Tota I : 1022758 PM SUPPLIES: SAW BLADES, TOTE PM SUPPLIES: SAW BLADES, TOTE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1050145 PM SUPPLIES: MORTAR MIX PM SUPPLIES: MORTAR MIX 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13193 PM SUPPLIES: LOCK, GEL PM SUPPLIES: LOCK, GEL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2075844 PM SUPPLIES: METAL HANDLES, D PM SUPPLIES: METAL HANDLES, D 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2514752 PM SUPPLIES: PVC BUSHING PM SUPPLIES: PVC BUSHING 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 3014211 PM SUPPLIES: HOLIDAY LIGHTS PM SUPPLIES: HOLIDAY LIGHTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3070719 PM SUPPLIES: HOLIDAY LIGHTS PM SUPPLIES: HOLIDAY LIGHTS 6.3.a Page: 14 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 33.91 -0 360.6: m L_ N 152.9� t U 15.6( m c d 12.6E c �a 1.2� o �a a 15.9z E 1.6' U 0 �a 26.3< o L a a 2.6� Q 0 N 3.3( c N 0.3z E 2 U 196.8( c aD 20.0 -, E t U �a Q Page: 14 Packet Pg. 94 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245151 12/3/2020 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5022249 PM SUPPLIES: COVID PLAYGROUN PM SUPPLIES: COVID PLAYGROUN 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5054107 PM SUPPLIES: DEHUMIDIFIER, GL( PM SUPPLIES: DEHUMIDIFIER, GL( 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 5611136 PM SUPPLIES: UNDERLAYMENT PM SUPPLIES: UNDERLAYMENT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 7627019 PM SUPPLIES: DRINKING FOUNTAI PM SUPPLIES: DRINKING FOUNTAI 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8616399 PM SUPPLIES: RUST DISSOLVER PM SUPPLIES: RUST DISSOLVER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 245152 12/3/2020 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 50320 WWTP: PO 436 SPILL ABSORBER PO 436 SPILLABSORBER- picked L 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.3.a Page: 15 W L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a (D 195.0 1 r U d 19.9( N 113.5� 4) z U 11.5� m c a� 238.6, �a 24.3z o L �a a 27.9E 2.8E U 4- 0 �a 16.4, o a a 0 N Cl) 16.9E c N 1.7( E 1,120.3E •� U c a� 104.7( _ U 10.6E Q Page: 15 Packet Pg. 95 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245152 12/3/2020 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 245153 12/3/2020 061013 HONEY BUCKET Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 6071755 WWTP: WRECKIN & PINCH BARS Wrecking & Pinch Bars - picked up at 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.2% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 94743 WWTP: PO 436 SPILLABSORBERS PO 436 - Soap & Poly Sheeting - picl 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total 0551579264 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0551579265 YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0551579266 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0551579267 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0551579268 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0551579269 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0551579270 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY Bl CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY Bl 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 0551579271 MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED 6.3.a Page: 16 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 52.9E 5.4( Y m 217.4- c 22.1 £ M 411% �a 0 644.9£ a E 499.6( U 4- 0 �a 246.0( o L a a Q 120.4E o N Cl) 0 120.4E cm W E 221.6E c aD 120.4E E t U M Q Page: 16 Packet Pg. 96 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.3.a Page: 17 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 245153 12/3/2020 061013 HONEY BUCKET (Continued) 0 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,514.1, -0 0551579272 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY U CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY L 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.4E 0551579273 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON d 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 118.2E U 0551608912 FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE' FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE' 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 131.6E 0551641247 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET: VOLI YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET: VOLI 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 211.5( p 0551813889 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC L-, FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC a 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 240.3E E Total : 4,309.91 'jj z 245154 12/3/2020 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE BID-11302020 BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGER NOS c BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGER NO\ 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,766.6, 0 Total: 2,766.61, La. 245155 12/3/2020 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG BID-ED2020-11xs BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY FOR NOVI Q BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY FOR NOVI c N 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 600.0( M Total: 600.0( N 245156 12/3/2020 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3416750 WALL CALENDAR Wall calendar - returned for credit - 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 18.4, 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.9, 3418074 WALL CALENDAR t Wall calendar - returned for credit - Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 97 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.3.a Page: 18 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245156 12/3/2020 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 -18.4z 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 -1.91 3422975 HEATER Heater 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 59.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 6.2z Total : 66.2: 245157 12/3/2020 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10079858 FLEET - HEADLAMP FLEET - HEADLAMP 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 15.9( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.6E 300-10079895 FLEET - PARTS FLEET - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 207.0E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 21.5' Tota I : 246.1: 245158 12/3/2020 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 6213 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC Dec-2020 Fiber Optics Internet 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 590.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 61.3E Total: 651.3E 245159 12/3/2020 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 11112020-02 OCTOBER 2020 CAR WASHES OCTOBER 2020 CAR WASHES 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 20.2£ Total : 20.2E 245160 12/3/2020 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 46924 TO 20-09.LARSEN ESLHA BLD2020- Page: 18 Packet Pg. 98 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245160 12/3/2020 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 245161 245162 245163 245164 12/3/2020 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC 12/3/2020 067235 MARYS TOWING INC 12/3/2020 076177 MCKINSTRY LOCKBOX Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) TO 20-09.1-arsen ESLHA BLD2020-0! 001.000.245.965 Tota I : E0130763 PM: HOLIDAY MUSIC HOUSE SUPP PM: HOLIDAY MUSIC HOUSE SUPP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 89549 UNIT 436 TOWING UNIT 436 TOWING 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Total 2020-157A FACILITIES - CITY ENERGY UPGRA FACILITIES - CITY ENERGY UPGRA 001.000.66.518.30.41.10 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.41.10 2020-157G FACILITIES - CITY ENERGY UPGRA FACILITIES - CITY ENERGY UPGRA 001.000.66.518.30.48.10 FACILITIES - ROOF REPLACEMENT 001.000.66.518.30.48.10 FACILITIES - CITY ENERGY UPGRA 001.000.66.518.30.48.10 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.10 Total 12/3/2020 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC 0252021 E182PO - PARTS 6.3.a Page: 19 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 489.0( u 489.0( .` N m 82.9E 8.6' 91.5E c �a 184.0( �a a 19.1z 203.1 z •� 0 �a 62,454.4E o a 6,495.2E Q 0 N 153,401.7- c N 57,285.5E N E 48,535.0( .M 26,959.11 c 355,131 Al E t U �a Q Page: 19 Packet Pg. 99 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245164 12/3/2020 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC (Continued) 245165 12/3/2020 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 245166 12/3/2020 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC PO # Description/Account E182PO - PARTS 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Freight 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 339475 PM SUPPLIES: PRUNERS PM SUPPLIES: PRUNERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20-2775.00-8 245167 12/3/2020 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 5944640 245168 12/3/2020 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM Total : Total EOGA.SERVICES THRU 10/31/20 EOGA.Services thru 10/31/20 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 Total PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 Total 0747016-IN FLEET - FILTERS FLEET - FILTERS 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 0747027-IN UNIT 121 DIESEL EX FLUID UNIT 121 DIESEL EX FLUID 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.3.a Page: 20 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 2,124.8( u 304.4, N 252.61 2,681.91 v m c a� 299.9( �a 31.1� o 331.OS '5, M a E 13,201.0E U 13,201.0E c Ta 0 a 218.8E Q 22.7E N 241.61 Cl) 0 N V) E 'M 1.8E W E t 194.1E Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 100 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245168 12/3/2020 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 245169 12/3/2020 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S010496449.001 245170 12/3/2020 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER October, 2020 PO # Description/Account 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total : WWTP: PO 442 POWERFLEXS & H( PO 442 POWERFLEXS & HOFFS 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI` Emergency Medical Services & Traun 001.000.237.120 PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.237.180 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.237.290 Multi -Model Transportation 001.000.237.300 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 WSP Hwy Acct 6.3.a Page: 21 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 20.1 £ u 234.0, •`— N m 3,375.7.E 351.0E 3,726.8: c �a 572.9( �a a 12,018.4E 515.5( U 4- 0 54.2, 0 2,780.2E m Q 1,147.8E c N 507.3( c N 108.81 E 108.8� 2 255.2.E a0i E 1.8( Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 101 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245170 12/3/2020 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER (Continued) 245171 245172 245173 245174 12/3/2020 077191 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK 90325186 12/3/2020 026015 OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE 12/3/2020 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 12/3/2020 075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT TPA OBT PO # Description/Account 001.000.237.340 Total INV 90325186 CLIENT MATTER 07T INTERNAL INVESTIGATION FEES 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 INTERNAL INVEST. EXPENSES 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 Total TPA OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE TPA OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE 123.000.64.573.20.41.40 Total 44026 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total ARBR1454 ABR145 - EDMONDS PD 10/18- 10/23/20 - 5 NIGHTS 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 10/16- 10/23/20 - 7 NIGHTS 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 10/18- 10/23/20 - CLASSRM 7023 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 10/18- 10/23/20 - O'CLUB 7302 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 10/18- 1022/20 - SHOOT HOUSE 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 10/18- 10/23/20 - MOUT SITE 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 6.3.a Page: 22 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a m 307.9< 'D 18,379Z m L_ N 9,176.0( t U 143.7E 9,319.7E c d c �a 2,600.0( — 2,600.0( �a a E 1,588.3, 4- 165.1� 1,753.51 c 0 Q a Q 3,450.0( N 4,130.0( N 250.0( M 1,000.0( c 1,174.0( E t 935.0( Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 102 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.3.a Page: 23 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245174 12/3/2020 075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT (Continued) TRAINING 1,2,3 & 4 10/18-10/22/20 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,025.0( Total: 11,964.0( 245175 12/3/2020 075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT ARD21001 INV ARD21001 74 BREAKFAST MEALS @ $9.75 EA 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 721.5( 148 LUNCHES @ $9.75 EA 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,443.0( 111 DINNERS @ $9.75 EA 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 1,082.2E Total: 3,246.7E 245176 12/3/2020 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 3685-101174 UNIT 527 - CORE RETURN UNIT 527 - CORE RETURN 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -40.0( 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -4.2( 3685-102951 UNIT 286 - TIE ROD UNIT 286 - TIE ROD 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 128.21 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.3z Total: 97.3f 245177 12/3/2020 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 122945 INV 122945 - EDMONDS PD- CS 20- TOW SILVER HONDA - CS 20-25857 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 184.0( 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 19.3, Tota I : 203.3, 245178 12/3/2020 027450 PAWS OCT 2020 OCT 2020 - EDMONDS PD 7 ANIMALS @ $205EA -$35 RECLM 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1,030.0( Page: 23 Packet Pg. 103 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245178 12/3/2020 027450 027450 PAWS 245179 12/3/2020 062296 PETTY CASH 245180 245181 245182 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) PC2020.6-11 12/3/2020 070431 PITNEYBOWES EASYPERMIT POSTAGE 8000-9090-0618-6873 PO # Description/Account Total ; WWTP: PETTY CASH DIST3/9-11/2/ #6-10 PC Receipts: Edmonds Auo: E 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 #11 Amata Restaurant - Business Lur 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 Total PITNEY BOWES BULK MAILING bulk mailing 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 Total 12/3/2020 064167 POLLARD WATER 0178385 WATER - PARTS WATER - PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total 12/3/2020 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 200009595790 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6.3.a Page: 24 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 1,030.0( U d L_ 96.4( N 37.3( 133.7< m c a� 4,467.2E -a 4,467.21 0 L �a 64.9E a E 6.7E 71.7( o �a 0 1,390.2. a Q 0 135.4( Cl) 0 N 281.3- 792.4E a� E t 69.1( L) Q Page: 24 Packet Pg. 104 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245182 12/3/2020 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 200016558856 200016815843 200017676343 200019375639 200019895354 200020415911 aIPllyziVi110011 l 245183 12/3/2020 075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC N8561422a PO # Description/Account CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 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 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 Total UB FOLDING MACHINE LEASE UB FOLDING MACHINE LEASE 6.3.a Page: 25 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 1,356.9� N 671.3< v 417.7- c (D M 331.8E 0 L 236.9" a E 32.6' u 0 123.9E 0 L 123.9E 0- Q 123.9E c N Cl) 123.9E c N 123.9, 2 U 348.0E: 6,683.9E E t U �a Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 105 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245183 12/3/2020 075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC 245184 12/3/2020 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 UB FOLDING MACHINE LEASE 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 UB FOLDING MACHINE LEASE 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 Total 28163 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-ANDERSO� MARKER/INSCRIPTION-ANDERSO� 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 28385 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-VAN HEE MARKER/INSCRIPTION-VAN HEE 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 28386 INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-DX INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-DA 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 28387 INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-LEI INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-LEI 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 28388 INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-GO INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-GO 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 28389 INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-GO INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-GO 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 28390 MARKER/INSCRIPTION-COLE MARKER/INSCRIPTION-COLE 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 28770 INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-RE' 6.3.a Page: 26 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 193.5E 'D r U d 193.5E 193.5E Y m z 20.1 < U 20.1' c 20.1 641.1 z 0 �a a 575.0( U 384.0( o �a 0 L 150.0( a Q 0 150.0( N Cl) 0 N 150.0( E 2 U 150.0( c a� E 150.0( U �a Q Page: 26 Packet Pg. 106 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245184 12/3/2020 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 245185 245186 245187 12/3/2020 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 0000054116 54142 12/3/2020 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA 23406 12/3/2020 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 23409 PO # Description/Account INSCRIPTION SHUTTER/NICHE-RE' 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 Total STORM - STREET SWEEPINGS STORM - STREET SWEEPINGS 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 E7MA.CONTAMINATED SOIL REMO' E7MA.Contaminated Soil Removal 332.000.64.594.76.41.00 E7MA.Contaminated Soil Removal 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 E7MA.Contaminated Soil Removal 125.000.64.594.76.41.00 Total MAXXESS SOFTWARE SUPPORT N Maxxess Software Support- 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 FAC MAINT - FLEXCARDS FAC MAINT - FLEXCARDS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total 5-029375 UNIT 17 - BATTERY UNIT 17 - BATTERY 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.3.a Page: 27 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 150.0( u 1,859.0( N m 1,803.0( m c 1,366.8E 770.2E 0 1,157.3E ->% 5,097.4E a E U 884.3' c 7a 91.9, p L a a Q 255.0( " 0 N 17.3E c N 28.3, N 1,276.9E E U c 65.8' E t U 6.8E Q Page: 27 Packet Pg. 107 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245187 12/3/2020 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC (Continued) 5-029474 245188 12/3/2020 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 217944-1 245189 12/3/2020 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 53918 245190 12/3/2020 036955 SKY NURSERY T-1683157 245191 12/3/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 200260271 200348233 PO # Description/Account UNIT 57 - BATTERY UNIT 57 - BATTERY 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total : UNIT 47 - LOW PRESSURE WASHD UNIT 47 - LOW PRESSURE WASHD 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total REMOTE COMPUTER SUPPORT Remote computer support - 10/13/20, 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 Total CEMETERY COLUMBARIUM POTS CEMETERY COLUMBARIUM POTS 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 Total PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 6.3.a Page: 28 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 197.0, 20.4( Y 290.1 v m c 244.9E 25.4, 270.4: o 0 �a a 315.0( •E 315.0( U 4- 0 Ta 74.3E a a 7.5� Q 81.9F N Cl) 0 N 18.8E E 1,245.9E a� E t 46.7E M Q Page: 28 Packet Pg. 108 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245191 12/3/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 200386456 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200468593 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 200638609 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 200739845 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 200865202 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 201184538 HICKMAN PARK HICKMAN PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 201265980 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 201374964 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 201572898 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 201594488 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 201611951 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 201751476 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW 6.3.a Page: 29 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 67.6E N 302.5< 235.6E c d M 20.4< 0 L 71.5E a E 33.3( u 4- 0 �a 133.5, o a a Q 17.2E o N Cl) 0 51.0( 04 V) E 16.6, u c aD 36.8- E t U �a Q Page: 29 Packet Pg. 109 6.3.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 12/03/2020 10:36:25AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 245191 12/3/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 0 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 as 53.1 201782646 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � U TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � L 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 19.4E 201907862 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW d 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 34.3" U 202250627 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.8E 202579520 WWTP: 11/1-11/30/20 ENERGY MGN 11/1-11/30/20 ENERGY MANAGEME 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.4E p 202807632 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW L-, TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW a 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 20.4, 204425847 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / U 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 94.3, 0 Total: 2,548.1, 0 245192 12/3/2020 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2020-6537 INV 2020-6537- OCT 2020 - EDMON a 511.83 BASE RT @ $103.25EA Q 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 52,846.4z " 61.5 BOOKINGS @ $126.97EA N 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 7,808.6E c 106.67 MED HOUSING @ $59.33 c14 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 6,328.7E 52.5 MENT HOUSING @ $143.25EA E 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 7,520.6< 2 15.5 VIDEO CT HRS @ $199.29EA 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 3,089.0( y Total: 77,593.4E E t 245193 12/3/2020 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 1000543486 INV 1000543486 - EDMONDS PD U Q Page: 30 Packet Pg. 110 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.3.a Page: 31 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245193 12/3/2020 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE (Continued) JULY-DEC 2020 CITY JAG 001.000.41.521.10.41.50 5,879.0( Total: 5,879.0( 245194 12/3/2020 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER October 2020 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 288.1 Total : 288.1; 245195 12/3/2020 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 96370/4 FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR SARAH FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR SARAH 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 40.3, 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 4.1 Total : 44.51 245196 12/3/2020 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 55288 PUBLIC SAFETY - LABOR & MATER PUBLIC SAFETY - LABOR & MATER 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 751.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 78.1( Total : 829.1( 245197 12/3/2020 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S103255099.001 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES CITY HALL - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 86.7E 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.1- Tota I : 95.8E 245198 12/3/2020 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18292852 FLEET - SUPPLIES FLEET - SUPPLIES 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 129.8z 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 13.5( Page: 31 Packet Pg. 111 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245198 12/3/2020 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC (Continued) 18292853 18292854 245199 12/3/2020 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 5001396993 5001397367 245200 12/3/2020 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC 60074 245201 12/3/2020 073310 UNISAFE INC 709809 PO # Description/Account STORM - WHITE MARKING PAINT STORM - WHITE MARKING PAINT 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 STORM - GREEN MARKING PAINT E STORM - GREEN MARKING PAINT E 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 Total PUBLIC SAFETY - ELEVATOR MAIN PUBLIC SAFETY - ELEVATOR MAIN 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 PUBLIC SAFETY - ELEVATOR MAIN PUBLIC SAFETY - ELEVATOR MAIN 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Total STREET - PARTS FOR ACCIDENT R STREET - PARTS FOR ACCIDENT R 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 Total WWTP: PO 443 MED/LRG/X-LRG NI PO 443 MED/LRG/X-LRG NITRILE G 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.3.a Page: 32 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m U m 115.3� 12.0( m z U 364.1 £ m c 37.8E 672.8( �a 0 540.0( a 56.1 E 0 540.0( Ta 0 L 56.1 E a 1,192.3, Q 0 N Cl) 0 553.3 1 CM V) 58.1( E 611.4 , 2 U c aD E 1,309.4. �a Q Page: 32 Packet Pg. 112 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245201 12/3/2020 073310 073310 UNISAFE INC 245202 12/3/2020 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER 245203 12/3/2020 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Total 114914 PARKS - DUMP FEES PARKS - DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 115597 STORM & PARKS DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 PARKS - DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 116758 STORM - DUMP FEES STORM - DUMP FEES 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 66326 245204 12/3/2020 077785 WASHINGTON KIDS IN TRANSITION 11302020-CARES 245205 12/3/2020 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 245206 12/3/2020 078207 WIGGINS, KAREN 12010273 2005674.009 Total : INV 66323 - EDMONDS PD - CS 20 TOW WHITE VAN - 20-27514 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 Total HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL RE HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL RE 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Total FAC MAINT - COVID/ DISINFECTANT FAC MAINT - COVID/ DISINFECTAN' 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION: REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION: 001.000.239.200 6.3.a Page: 33 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 1,309.4E 0 U d L_ 1,380.0( N m 240.0( 450.0( c d 2,230.7E 4,300.7' o 0 �a a 184.0( . �a U 19.3, o 203.3, 0 a a 2,172.5( Q 2,172.5( N Cl) 0 N 686.4( M 71.3� Z 757.7< aD E t U �a 150.0( Q Page: 33 Packet Pg. 113 vchlist 12/03/2020 10 :36 :25 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245206 12/3/2020 078207 078207 WIGGINS, KAREN 245207 12/3/2020 078206 WILCOX, ROBIN 245208 12/3/2020 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 91 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 91 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Total 2005673.009 REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION: REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION: 001.000.239.200 Total 253-012-9189 WWTP: 11-25 - 12-24-20 AUTO DIAL 11-25 - 12-24-20 AUTO DIALER - 1 \ 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 425-771-5553 WWTP: 11/25-12/24/20 AUTO DIALE AUTO DIALER - 1 BUSINESS LINE 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL, FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 425-776-6829 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH P CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION A 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 509-022-0049 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers 6.3.a Page: 34 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 150.0( 0 U d L_ 100.0( T3 100.0( tf m z 41.5E m c d 129.1� 0 279.8, ca a E 279.8, u 0 1i 26.4, o 756.& a a 613,448.81 Q 0 613,448.81 Cl) 0 N N E 2 V a 0 E t V f6 Q Page: 34 Packet Pg. 114 6.3.b vchlist 12/02/2020 10 :38:05AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 12012020 12/1/2020 076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account Dec 2020 ACCT #00397358 4TH AVE PARKIN( 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - Decerr 001.000.39.542.64.45.00 Total Bank total : Total vouchers : Page: 1 (D L 3 c ea Amoun 00 a 0 0 417.E , m 417.6 , 15 N 417.61 c 0 L Q G 2 V 4- 0 El 3 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 115 6.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Proiect Engineering Accounting Proiect vi Funding Proiect Title Number Number STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB E WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 Q. STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC c tv STIR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC r U) STIR2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB m STIR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STIR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB = SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGAlid ui STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC U O WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA t STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA r m c STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB c WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB O WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA tv STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA Q. STIR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA O STIR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC > O L STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB Q- CL STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC Q STIR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21CA N STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB M o N STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC N STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC m STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB E STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA ? O STIR76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB a STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA d rn STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC r m STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STIR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB L u_ STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA c m STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB E STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA r r Q STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB Revised 12/3/2020 Packet Pg. 116 6.3.c 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 12/3/2020 Packet Pg. 117 6.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number ProiectTitle i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force STIR i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STIR E21CA i051 2021 Overlay Program 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration 'IW E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station IKSWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring Ir FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab i STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System o STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility SWR ESGB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalizatio STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) aw STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program Revised 12/3/2020 Packet Pg. 118 6.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number ProiectTitle Stormwater Comp Plan Update SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II NEIV2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects E6JC -loffr2018 Waterline Replacement Project STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIR i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Savinq Salmon) 2019 Waterline Replacement PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) i028 220th Adaptive STIR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212t STIR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Updat PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STIR E9AB i039 2019 Guardrail Install E9AC s021 2019 Downtown Parking Study STIR HAD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades E9CA i036 2019 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STIR E9DB i041 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South Revised 12/3/2020 Packet Pg. 119 6.3.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR ElCA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System WTR ESKA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP ESHA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South SWR EBGA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM EBFB c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements WTR EBJA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM EBFC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) STM EOFA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR EOGA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements WTR E6,113 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals Revised 12/3/2020 Packet Pg. 120 6.3.c 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 12/3/2020 Packet Pg. 121 6.3.c 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 12/3/2020 Packet Pg. 122 6.3.c 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 12/3/2020 Packet Pg. 123 6.3.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 981 (11/16/2020 to 11/30/2020) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pav Correction 0.00 -71.28 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 512.50 21,070.18 122 VACATION VACATION 1,034.00 43,022.85 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 124.00 4,842.58 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 32.00 1,144.55 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 134.25 5,488.39 130 COMP HOURS Holidav Compensation Used 9.00 368.79 135 SICK WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEA 5.00 103.21 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 27.00 1,172.65 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Dav Used 247.00 10,664.92 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 0.89 37.41 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 165.90 8,055.80 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 209.32 8,798.33 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 235.10 9,881.94 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 26.00 2,038.14 170 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY 640.59 9,333.31 174 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY 0.00 300.00 175 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICP 0.00 3,496.07 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,906.55 627,024.90 191 REGULAR HOURS FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 4.00 5,126.84 194 SICK Emerqencv Sick Leave 153.00 5,729.76 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 130.00 6,332.75 201 SICK SICK LEAVE/COVID ADVANCE 40.00 1,052.95 205 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME .5 3.00 57.26 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 259.75 12,282.61 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,793.69 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 13.00 1,235.07 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 273.25 15,872.19 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 3.50 295.25 400 MISCELLANEOUS MISC PAY 0.00 300.00 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,036.78 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 501.92 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 106.00 0.00 12/03/2020 Packet Pg. 124 6.3.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 981 (11/16/2020 to 11/30/2020) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 603 COMP HOURS Holidav Comp 1.0 54.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 98.50 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 2.0 3.00 0.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 79.75 acp MISCELLANEOUS Accreditation 1 % Part Time 0.00 9.85 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 176.12 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 94.50 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 85.37 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 173.90 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 487.04 ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 1.00 deftat MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI 0.00 86.96 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 238.24 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 998.16 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 672.48 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 914.74 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 5,741.01 firear MISCELLANEOUS FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 427.85 fmla ABSENT FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID 176.00 0.00 fmis SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 2.00 148.14 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 2,608.40 104,438.69 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 244.21 less MISCELLANEOUS LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR 0.00 83.19 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,046.04 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 768.02 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 5,072.33 Ig13 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 7% 0.00 1,548.04 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 1,051.20 Ig15 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 7.5% 0.00 583.73 Iq4 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 391.15 Iq5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 851.69 Ici6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 358.92 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 223.09 12/03/2020 Packet Pg. 125 6.3.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 981 (11/16/2020 to 11/30/2020) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount Iq9 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3.5% 0.00 193.99 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 119.12 ooc MISCELLANEOUS OUT OF CLASS 0.00 576.08 pds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 101.78 pfmp ABSENT Paid Familv Medical Unpaid/Sup 30.00 0.00 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,358.26 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 188.98 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 0.00 295.58 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 188.98 st REGULAR HOURS Serqeant Pav 0.00 136.97 str MISCELLANEOUS STREET CRIMES 0.00 506.62 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 119.12 23,314.50 $941,170.70 Total Net Pay: $639,933.04 12/03/2020 Packet Pg. 126 6.3.e Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 981 - 11/16/2020 to 11/30/2020 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 64556 12/04/2020 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 46.00 0.00 64557 12/04/2020 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 486.46 0.00 64558 12/04/2020 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 3,115.32 0.00 64559 12/04/2020 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 6,220.08 0.00 64560 12/04/2020 afscme WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO 2,279.16 0.00 12,147.02 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 3128 12/04/2020 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 362,858.40 0.00 3130 12/04/2020 aflac AFLAC 5,656.32 0.00 3132 12/04/2020 us US BANK 149,323.14 0.00 3133 12/04/2020 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 125,231.25 0.00 3134 12/04/2020 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 29,710.67 0.00 3136 12/04/2020 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 9,108.94 0.00 3137 12/04/2020 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 1,152.00 0.00 0.00 683,040.72 Grand Totals: 695,187.74 0.00 12/3/2020 Packet Pg. 127 6.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/8/2020 Findings of Fact for continuance of Ordinances Nos. 4200 and 4201 Establishing a Moratorium on Subdivision Applications and Associate Interim Development Regulations Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 4200 and 4201 on November 2, 2020. Two separate public hearings were held on the ordinances on December 1, 2020. Staff Recommendation Adopt the findings of fact to support the adoption of Ordinance Nos. 4200 and 4201 as provided in the attached resolution. Narrative The City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 4200 and 4201 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 and interim regulations to support the moratorium. These ordinances 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 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. Public hearings were held on December Vt after which the Council directed the city attorney and staff to prepare findings of fact to continue the imposition of the moratorium and associated interim regulations. The attached resolution provides the findings of fact for continuation of these ordinances. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Resolution - Findings of Fact for Ordinances 4200 and 4201 Exhibit 2: Ordinance 4200 Packet Pg. 128 6.4 Exhibit 3: Ordinance 4201 Exhibit 4: November 2, 2020 Council Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 129 6.4.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4200, WHICH ESTABLISHED A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS, AND ORDINANCE 4201, WHICH ADOPTED CERTAIN INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT MAKE THE MORATORIUM EASIER TO ENFORCE. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Ordinances 4200 and 4201 on November 2, 2020; and WHEREAS, because Ordinances 4200 and 4201 were adopted by a simple majority, not a super majority, those ordinances did not go into effect until November 10, 2020; and WHEREAS, the city council held public hearings on Ordinances 4200 and 4201 on December 1, 2020 to determine whether the moratorium and interim development regulations adopted by those ordinances were justified and should continue for the remainder of their respective four -month terms; and WHEREAS, only two people spoke at the above -referenced public hearing, neither of whom offered testimony that convinced the city council to shorten the four -month duration of the two ordinances, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS. The city council hereby adopts as its findings of fact to support the adoption and continuing effectiveness of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 the Whereas clauses contained in Ordinances 4200 and 4201. Section 2. CONTINUANCE OF MORATORIUM. In light of the findings of fact adopted in Section 1, above, the effectiveness of the moratorium adopted by Ordinance 4200 and the interim development regulations adopted by Ordinance 4201 shall each continue and not terminate until March 10, 2021, or until the City's forthcoming tree code update has taken effect, whichever is sooner. RESOLVED this day of 32020. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON Packet Pg. 130 6.4.a ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. 0 0 N Packet Pg. 131 6.4.b 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 c 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 c REGULATIONS ADDRESSING THE CLEARING OF SUCH N 14 PROPERTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT, SETTING FOUR MONTHS AS v; THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, AND Z 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 1 Packet Pg. 132 6.4.b 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 0 crown." le c Section 2. Moratorium Imposed. The City Council hereby imposes a four -month o 0 N I* moratorium on the acceptance of any subdivision application for any property that contains eight v; 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 0 0 N d V C For example, an 18,000 square foot lot with fourteen significant trees on it would not be subject L to the moratorium because X would equal .00077, which is less than .0008. In contrast, an 0 N r� 18,000 square foot lot with fifteen significant trees on it would be subject to the moratorium z x w because X would equal .00083, which is greater than .0008. c as Section 3. Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance M shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public Q hearing on the moratorium and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as 2 Packet Pg. 133 6.4.b 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 0 occurred. c Section 4. Public Hearing on Moratorium. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW o 0 N I* 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on a moratorium within sixty (60) days v; 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. 0 0 CM Section 6. Declaration of Emergency. The City Council hereby declares that an as c emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a L majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject 0 N r� to a referendum (RCW 35A.12.130). Without an immediate moratorium on the City's z x w acceptance of subdivision applications, such applications could become vested, leading to the a CD possible removal of existing trees. Therefore, the moratorium must be imposed as an emergency M measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the submission of Q Packet Pg. 134 6.4.b 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 0 N c cc 0 0 N Iq a Packet Pg. 135 6.4.b 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 0 N c cc 0 0 N e a 5 Packet Pg. 136 6.4.c 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. 137 6.4.c 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. 138 6.4.c 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. 139 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. 140 6.4.c 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. 141 6.4.c 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. 142 6.4.c 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. 143 6.4.c 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. 144 6.4.d 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 x w The ratio is derived from the four trees per 10,000 of lot area, but mathematically it can work with any c number of trees and any lot area, basically it is a fraction with the number of significant trees in the E Q Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 145 6.4.d 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 4 would be retained. Development Services Director Shane Hope answered the moratorium would apply z and a person could not develop until the moratorium ended even if they wanted to save the trees. w 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. m E Q Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 146 6.4.d 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, 4 something she was very interested in. She greatly appreciated being include in at least one planning e session. However, as written it is more restrictive than her vision of a pocket forest. Personally, she was z interested in considering amendments that would be more in line with what would be considered a pocket w 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. a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 147 6.4.d 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 N answered early January and then it would take whatever number of meetings the Council needed to V approve it. Councilmember Paine said her choice would be one meeting. She wanted to have a solid tree 13 code in place and the preservation aspect was very appealing to her. She was not a fan of moratoriums c and this isn't the way the Council wants to conduct business. N Councilmember K. Johnson expressed support for moratoriums; the City has had several that were very vi Z 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 c Perrinville Creek. She expressed support for the moratorium. L O On a personal note, Councilmember K. Johnson said she has observed at least one company that clear 4- 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 M 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 c the future. Unfortunately, due to COVID, she was unable to continue working on it until September. L 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 M U- pause on rampant clear cutting with development. Everyone has seen it occur in their neighborhood and 4- ° although the tree work that was done at a master planning level only deals with street trees, Mr. Lien is w c working on many of the issues including clear cutting and saving specimen trees. �a c Councilmember Olson expressed appreciation for Councilmember Buckshnis and Mr. Taraday and others U- 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 w 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. c Councilmember Olson said if the Council adopts the moratorium, a public hearing is scheduled on v December lst; at that time, the Council could potentially change its mind and withdraw the moratorium if N they decided it wasn't appropriate based on the input at the public hearing. She disagreed with the N statement made by Mr. Pattison during Audience Comments that the current tree code was adequate. ci Council President Fraley-Monillas said her issue with this wasn't Perrinville because she understood the L. m E City may not have done as thorough a job as has been done in Westgate, Highway 99 and Five Corners. c However, a moratorium on development is not just about Perrinville, it is the entire City. She could not z 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 z not the best way to protect the City and its citizens. She pointed out the City Council represents people w 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 m E Q Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 148 6.4.d 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 ci 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 E 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 Z producer of greenhouse gas in the state. Trees are absolutely important to the environment, but it is one 4 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 z else as well as to keep in mind the environmental impacts and downstream impacts that Council decisions w have. c m E Q Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 149 6.4.d 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 Z their site met the threshold in the moratorium. 4 Councilmember Olson said the current code does not allow cutting trees prior to an application. One of z her initial reservations and concerns with the moratorium was that it did not address that, but the current w code, which is still in effect, does address it. m COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. .r Q Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 17 Packet Pg. 150 6.4.d 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 N square feet" in the ordinance title N • Change 6t' WHEREAS to read, ..."WHEREAS the City Council desires to impose an immedime `m si* four -month moratorium... more than €ear eight trees per 10,000...," E • 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 z • Change the math in Section 2. Examples: 4 o Fourteen significant trees on an 18,000 square foot lot would not be subject to the moratorium z o Fifteen significant trees on an 18,000 square foot lot be subject to the moratorium w • Change duration of moratorium from six to four months in Section 3 m E a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 18 Packet Pg. 151 6.4.d 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 `V 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 d 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 z 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. w 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 E inches. a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 19 Packet Pg. 152 6.4.d 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 N APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4201, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, N WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTERIM EMERGENCY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS `- TO ACCOMPANY THE CITY'S MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ANY .0 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT CONTAINS MORE THAN EIGHT d SIGNIFICANT TREES PER 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL p THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS UPDATED TREE REGULATIONS ADDRESSING THE Z CLEARING OF SUCH PROPERTIES FOR DEVELOPMENT, SETTING FOUR MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATIONS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. z k w UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PAINE, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS E AND COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST VOTING NO. t .r Q Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 2, 2020 Page 20 Packet Pg. 153 6.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/8/2020 WWTP Chief Operator Job Description Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Pamela Randolph Background/History On 11/10/10 The Parks and Public Works Committee approved the DRAFT WWTP Chief Operator Job Description and approved HR to begin any required process with the Union. Once the Union was notified of the City intent to fill the position and willingness to discuss any impacts the Union feels exist, the item could be moved to consent. On August 11, 2020 Council was presented with WWTP request for position reclassification's and organizational restructure to better support current and future equipment changes, processes, operational needs, and other necessary functions in support of the WWTP. The item was approved in theory and approved to move to consent once the Chief Operatorjob description had formal HR review and notification to the Union. Staff Recommendation Approve the Chief Operator Job Description. Narrative Edmonds provides wastewater treatment not only to the City of Edmonds but also to the City of Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water/Sewer District, Ronald Wastewater District (soon to be fully assumed by the City of Shoreline), as well as other areas adjacent to the City of Edmonds. The needs of the treatment plant are changing. These changes include changes in available treatment technologies, changes in requirements for receiving water quality, changes in biosolids management regulations, and changes in IT systems for control of treatment processes. To effectively adapt to these on -going changes will require us to build a workforce with the correct size and skills to be successful and efficient in delivering service. These human resource needs are the most critical. Well trained and experienced personnel are crucial to the operation of the plant and the City's continued ability to provide excellent treatment services to our citizens and partners. Although the WWTP is highly automated, and soon to become even more sophisticated, competent operators and mechanics are essential to ensure the continued day-to-day smooth functioning of the treatment processes and the equipment. The Chief Operators' role is to create a coordinated approach between operations and maintenance activities and will help to create a leadership team approach for the WWTP. At this time the Chief Operator JD has had formal HR review and Labor has been notified of the City intent to fill the newly formed position. Labor has indicated their interest in bargaining the impacts. In the past the City operated the treatment plant with a staffing structure that included two Lead Packet Pg. 154 6.5 positions; and Operations Lead and a Maintenance Lead, both were Union positions. Both of these positions are currently vacant. This proposal would combine these two functions into the recommended Chief Operator position. The Operations Lead and Maintenance Lead positions would be used on an as needed/as assigned project specific basis for training purposes. Attachments: WWTP Chief Operator Nov 5 2020 Packet Pg. 155 6.5.a City of EDMONDS Washington WWTP CHIEF OPERATOR Department: Public Works — Wastewater Treatment Pay Grade: N Bargaining Unit: Teamsters FLSA Status: Non -Exempt Revised Date: Nov 2020 Reports To: WWTP Manager POSITION PURPOSE: Under general supervision, the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Chief Operator assigns, coordinates and oversees the work of Operations and Maintenance team, works routinely as an Operator, as needed with Maintenance and coordinates equipment outages and operational activities that effect plant performance. The Chief Operator works closely with the leadership team to ensure compliance with all Federal, State and Local laws; evaluates plant operations and performance; makes appropriate adjustments to ensure the process is within established parameters and in compliance with all Federal and State effluent limits and trains and provides work direction to assigned staff. Makes daily updates to the maintenance management system and may be assigned to backfill for Plant Manager as needed. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties. Representative duties and responsibilities 20% of the time: • Coordinates and assigns daily work activities and schedules based on established priorities and verifies work is completed to standards with effective resource utilization. Keeps Management informed of staffing needs, concerns and issues that affect personnel performance. • Provides input to Management for the development of the Division Budget, CIP and long term staffing and training plans. • Ensures open lines of communication exist between staff on various shifts. Representative duties and responsibilities 40% of the time: • Trains Operators and Maintenance staff on responsibilities. • Ensures all that all staff follows appropriate safety regulations; maintains SIDS system as assigned • Provide backup for Plant Manager. • Monitors Laboratory results and operating parameters of the treatment system to identify trends or variances. Prepares various other reports that summarize process and treatment performance. Recommends strategies that achieve permit compliance and ensure economic performance. Areas of focus include: electrical usage, chemical usage and treatment performance. • Develop and write standard operating procedures for equipment process control and safety to ensure optimum operations and safety at all times. • Responsible for effective communication to staff that provides appropriate information and education in order to promote an environment which creates an engaged and motivated workforce. Representative duties and responsibilities 40% of the time: • Performs a variety of semi -skilled work in the maintenance and repair of the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant facilities and equipment including: scrubbing, steam cleaning, painting, basic carpentry and mechanical repair, changing oil and HVAC filters to ensure a safe working environment. Wastewater Treatment Plant Chief Operator No Packet Pg. 156 6.5.a JOB DESCRIPTION WWTP Chief Operator • Makes periodic rounds to monitor, adjust and maintain wastewater treatment plant equipment to achieve desired process control objectives. • Inspects and cleans equipment; removing obstructions and debris in traps, pumps and sewage wet wells. • Enters empty tanks and other confined spaces in order to perform inspections, cleaning and maintenance. • Assures proper equipment operations and conducts initial troubleshooting evaluation; monitors variable drives, various pumps, motors and drive units for proper operation. May perform or assist with required maintenance, repair or replacement as needed. • Collects lab samples according to established operating procedures to ensure permit compliance and process control; sets up, programs and maintains remote samplers. • Performs laboratory sampling for permit compliance according to established procedures. Completes related lab records and charts as required. Reports any abnormalities as they arise and takes corrective action as indicated. • Operates, monitors and adjusts Screw Presses and associated equipment according to established procedures; adjusts belt speed and hydraulic pressure; controls and monitors sludge and polymer feed rate(s). • Monitors and controls disinfection and dechlorination systems; inspects, troubleshoots and operates chemical feed pumps. • Monitors SCADA system to ensure process is within established parameters; monitors flows, dissolved oxygen levels, instrument calibrations and proper flows, temperatures and pressures. • Operates, monitors and adjusts ash collection and disposal systems; ensures proper lubrication, verifies proper seal water flows; inspects belts and sleeves of pumps. • Conducts tours of plant for the general public as assigned, • Performs a variety of custodial and grounds work; cleans and maintains work areas and restroom facilities and performs related work as assigned. • Works swing and graveyard shifts, weekends and holidays as scheduled and responds to emergency 24 hour calls as assigned. • May be tasked with performing related duties. Related duties as required are duties that may not be specifically listed in the position description, but are within the general occupational series and responsibility level typically associated with the employee's classification of work. Required Knowledge of: • Basic mechanical equipment maintenance and repair. • Operation and use of hand and power tools and equipment. • Methods, equipment and materials used in grounds keeping, maintaining building and facilities in good repair. • Current practices in secondary wastewater treatment operations. • Laboratory procedures and analysis. • Screw press theory and operations. • Solids handling and disposal regulations related to EPA 503 regulations. • Hazardous chemicals handling and disposal requirements related to SIDS. • Various types of Wastewater Treatment Plant instrumentation and automated controls strategies. • Chemistry and microbiology related to pumping and chemical tests. • Health and safety regulations related to plant operation and maintenance. • Requirements of maintaining a wastewater treatment plant and related facilities in a safe and proper working condition. • Principles and practices of training and providing work direction. Wastewater Treatment Plant Chief Operator Packet Pg. 157 6.5.a JOB DESCRIPTION WWTP Chief Operator • Effective oral and written communication principles and practices. • Technical record keeping and report preparation techniques and practices. • Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications sufficient to perform work assignments. • English usage, spelling, grammar, and punctuation. • Training principles, methods and techniques. Required Skill in: • Operating and maintaining the Wastewater Treatment Plant and ensuring plant processes are in compliance with local, state and federal discharge limits. • Protecting the health and safety of personnel, the public and the environment. • Operating variety of hand tools, machinery, vehicles and equipment. • Recognizing and responding quickly to operational emergencies. • Performing plant maintenance and housekeeping work. • Interpreting, analyzing and applying new technical information. • Working independently with little direction and determine appropriate action within clearly defined guidelines. • Maintaining current knowledge of technological advances in the field. • Observing health and safety regulations and procedures and wearing appropriate and required Personal Protective Equipment. • Planning and organizing work and meeting schedules and time lines. • Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work. • Establishing and maintaining cooperative and effective working relationships with others. • Maintaining accurate log readings, operating information and a variety of records, logs, files and reports. • Communicating technical information clearly and concisely both orally and in writing. • Leading, training, and providing work direction to others. • Maintain regular, predictable and punctual attendance during regularly scheduled work hours at assigned worksite. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: Individual must have two (2) years of formal education at a college or technical school with major course emphasis in water/wastewater, environmental science, engineering, or related field is required. A minimum of six (6) years of experience, two (2) of which must be in a lead capacity required. Experience should include being in responsible charge of maintaining and operating wastewater systems, and performing lead oversight of projects, programs and/or staff. Equivalent combination of education, training and experience may be considered. Required Licenses or Certifications: Valid State of Washington Driver's License. WWTP Operator Group IV License is required within1 year. At time of hire WWTP Group III is required. Valid CPR, First Aid, AED, and Bloodborne Pathogen Cards. Forklift license with 6 months of date of hire. Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check. Mandatory drug test subject to conditional job offer. Wastewater Treatment Plant Chief Operator Packet Pg. 158 6.5.a JOB DESCRIPTION WWTP Chief Operator WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Exposure to extreme temperatures and adverse weather conditions. • Driving a vehicle to conduct work. • Working in a confined or classified space. Physical Abilities: • Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone. • Operating a variety of grounds equipment and power and hand tools. • Operating a computer keyboard or other office equipment. • Reading a variety of materials and instruments and possess close vision, far vision, side vision, depth perception, night vision and color vision. • Ascending/descending ladders • Lifting/ carrying or otherwise moving or transporting heavy objects frequently up to 50lbs. • Sitting/standing or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time • Walking or otherwise moving over rough or uneven surfaces while performing inspections and investigations. • Performing repetitive motions, including: balancing, stooping, kneeling, bending, crouching, crawling, reaching overhead, above the shoulders and horizontally, and standing, pushing, pulling and using stairs • Working in tight spaces. • Ability to wear appropriate personal protective equipment based on required City Policy.. Hazards: • Exposure to chemicals, used in Wastewater treatment such as: Sodium Hypochlorite, Caustic Soda, Bisulfate, Polymers, Clay, Lime and Carbon. • Exposure to raw and treated sewage, odors associated with sewage treatment, high heat and moving equipment. • Exposure to cleaning chemicals, herbicides and dust. • Working at heights using ladders and structures • Working around and with sometimes noisy machinery having moving parts. • Exposure to slippery surfaces, damp spaces while cleaning in and around equipment. • Exposure to electrical power supply. Incumbent Signature: Department Head: Date: Date: Wastewater Treatment Plant Chief Operator Packet Pg. 159 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/8/2020 Confirmation of Chief of Police Appointment Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History After a rigorous recruitment and vetting process Mayor Mike Nelson has selected Sherman Pruitt for appointment to the position of Chief of Police. The candidate assessment process included interviews with : law enforcement personnel, Edmonds community members, interviews with the Mayor and interviews with the Council. A public forum was also conducted and feedback from the public was solicited. A complete background check was done on Mr. Pruitt. This included completion of a personal history statement, criminal background check, education verification, financial background check, employment verification, review of past personnel files, extensive reference checks which included supervisors, co- workers, subordinates, and personal references, a polygraph, and a psychological assessment. It has also been confirmed that Mr. Pruitt meets the qualifications for Chief of Police as provided in RCW 35.21.333 and that he attended and graduated from the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission Equivalency Academy in 2007. Additionally, both Tulalip and Sauk-Suiattle, the agencies where Mr. Pruitt has worked, have met the requirements of RCW 10.92 and their officers are considered general authority law enforcement officers, as is Mr. Pruitt. Lastly, Mr. Pruitt had previously passed an FBI background investigation in order to be cross - commissioned with the FBI and the US Marshalls, which occurred in 2009, this was renewed every three years. Mr. Pruitt's employment contract contains the following provisions: -Compensation at Range 22 Step 4 which is an annual salary on the 2020 non -represented salary schedule of $156,417. -Severance clause which provides Mr. Pruitt with 3 month's severance if let go, not for cause. -A bank of 40 hours of sick leave and 40 hours of vacation at hire. This is consistent with what was provided to the last two external Director hires. Staff Recommendation Packet Pg. 160 7.1 Approve the confirmation of Sherman Pruitt to Chief of Police and approve the corresponding employment contract. Narrative Employment contract is attached. Attachments: Pruitt Sherman - Employment Agreement Packet Pg. 161 7.1.a EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Sherman Pruitt ("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 Chief of Police. WHEREAS, the City desires to employ the services of Employee as the Chief of Police 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 Chief of Police 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 Chief of Police for an indefinite term commencing December 28, 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 Chief of Police is a department head position with executive management responsibility for the Police Department. As the Chief of Police, 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 direction of the Mayor the Police Chief, plans, evaluates, organizes, controls and directs activities and operations of the Police Department including law enforcement activities and the protection of life and property; employs strategies for reducing and preventing crime; ensures efficient deployment of personnel and equipment resources; actively engages with the public and citizen organizations to establish 1 Initials Packet Pg. 162 7.1.a relationships, plans and directs strategic planning and goal development, departmental budgeting and human resource functions including staff supervision and evaluation; enforces appropriate federal, state and city laws and ordinances; serves as official representative of the Department. 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 22 Step 4 which is an annual salary of $156,417, 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. In addition, Employee will be granted a bank of five days (40 hours) of vacation leave and five days (40 hours) of sick leave at the beginning of his employment. Employee will be eligible to use vacation and sick leave banks at the start of his employment. Employee shall thereafter accrue vacation and sick leave as provided in Chapter 2.35 EMC. 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. 2 Initials Packet Pg. 163 7.1.a Professional Organization and Development Within departmental budget limitations, the City will pay Employee's annual dues for membership with WASPC and IACP, and for attendance at professional conferences and training related to Employee's duties and responsibilities as Chief of Police. 6. Performance Appraisals The Mayor shall review Employee's performance in June 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 Chief of Police 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. 3 Initials Packet Pg. 164 7.1.a 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: CITY OF EDMONDS: EMPLOYEE: Office of the Mayor City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Sherman Pruitt 17301 79th DR NE Arlington, WA 98223 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 12020. CITY OF EDMONDS EMPLOYEE Mike Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Sherman Pruitt 59 Initials Packet Pg. 165 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/8/2020 Adoption of the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program/Capital Improvement Plan Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On November 12, 2020, staff presented this item to the City Council. On December 1, 2020, a Public Hearing was held for this item. Staff Recommendation 1. Approve Ordinance adopting the 2021-2026 Capital Facilities Plan concurrently with the adoption of the City's 2021 budget. 2. Approve the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program. 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 Packet Pg. 166 7.2 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 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 6: 11/12/20 Draft Planning Board Minutes Exhibit 7 - SOM Letter to Council CFP-CIP Exhibit 8 - SOM Letter to Planning Board Exhibit 5: 10/28/20 Planning Board Minutes December 1st CFP-CIP Presentation Nov 12th CFP-CIP Intro Presentation CFP Ordinance Packet Pg. 167 7.2.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2021-2041 EDP DRAFT z Packet Pg. 168 7.2.a a_ U d LL U CD N O N N O N d t r O C O r M O a a a_ U co N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L. IL x w c m E z u a r r Q Packet Pg. 169 7.2.a CFP GENERAL d U- U m N O N N O N d t r O C O r M O a a a_ U co N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L. IL x w c m E z u a r r Q Packet Pg. 170 7.2.a a_ U d LL U CD N O N N O N d t r O C O r M O a a a_ U co N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L. IL x w c m E z u a r r Q Packet Pg. 171 7.2.a k\k\ c§ Cli \��( �\ � _ - o §}�\)2 S ° �2 ) a§ \�\2 " " " " " \/) )) \ �oco 3o 0 \k /\,/} \ k -:!k] §/ � \/\() \} k\ _f§( -��k° }({ -: !§k§7 =moo ±§ \_ o ! 2 ) { )\ «E \ko )) : E ! o.a. _« Lu - it :! \ \§0 -"Z E `£`°! /§)f202 )\+�\f! ��!#m!| \ 7 E U IL LL U q q d C14 2 0 0 . CL � a b \ 9 Q C14 2 0 0 a 2 \ w £ § / Q Packet Pg. 172 7.2.a a U a LL U m N O N N O N d L O C O O Q d LL U co N O N N O N d N O 0. O L r x uj r_ O E u Y Q Packet Pg. 173 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield 310 6ch 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 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 d U d U_ U co N O N r N O N d t r 4- 0 C 0 a 0 Q a w U N O N N O N d fA 0 0. 0 L a r x w c a� t 0 Q 7 Packet Pg. 174 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED COST: $6-8 M Complex at the Former Woodway High School PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted or unlighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10M - $12M project for all 3 phases. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and under maintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. Phase 1 was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an additional $6-8M. SCHEDULE: 2021-2039 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027- 2039 Planning/Study Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $6-8M all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts E:3 Packet Pg. 175 7.2.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. 176 7.2.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 Packet Pg. 177 I 1 INS- 'i'- I i3w AMOW *Von- !� !' 3 Or r.—moo I 7.2.a a_ U d LL U CD N O N N O N d t r O C O r M O a a a_ U co N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L. IL x w c m E z u a r r Q 12 Packet Pg. 179 7.2.a 0 N O N H Q 9 44 Q � O N O N e w � N O N w w C7 C7 C7 � ¢ ¢ ¢ 7 Iz w N w w - - - v > ; IL N N U U U LL V C So a` a` a` N N N o N N O N O N �+ 0 C 0 Q 0 3 N o ff=����m.�� y AWLL� j0 � LL �" � LL --�"d§�v � LL LL 9 �v � LL O 41 S LL O 4JS iS LL N� LL U LL LL _ _ O F O tq F go (q O 41 o f o o O 41 F 41S O 41 F O1 N g F N F — O . N o F (q O T o H O N H N O N f U v li LL u LL Bi LL Bi d LL 8i CN _ N IL O N N m 'e e N� c-z 0 Nc1l IL O IL IL U U U U U U U U U U t P15LU CD 0 (i a ml vrn a a� p H 9N; s os` o a c c, — 5 3 u o m N J m 0 W Ear, A N w O a O p Y 0 0. P t 3 W IL �-64 E a w� Yes a� w a� E P H P `v 2 m v `v 9 N o V = 3 ' i' f EU cE 2rmc 2ro 2r 2r r+ SNP �wE 3 U�iE ¢ El1° `m U a'P 3 L lo� U � N � N r Q ; RmN Q c �«12 D! D! 13 1 Packet Pg. 180 7.2.a N N to N O N w as d' $ vi N N N N N N N N LL O LL O LL O_ O 0 3' " i3" O LL O N— O N a O 9 LL O m N 41 F 41 F 41 F 41 F 9 tq O F m_ 41 F 41 u~ N H 8 6 N c F 41 F li LL& �BLL, LL & LLE LL& LL� LL� LL� LL8i �i8i �i8id LL8i N p 0.o 0 G N V O O N F .» w «n w w .» w w w wd » e 75m - o� o a s U U U U U U U U U 1 U •= e e v 5 � e e `e `e e A C9 a° o 0 0 y H 0 0 a° a° -0a0 a° a° a° a° a=° d -- N c FL ge �E �`0 co,o Am m °a 3y Frn Fd �' Fo Sm 6 d & WE 3 H 33o OE IC 3 3 t �a Sa3 ,p 52 0 E.r c m �.." 9'`v'`Tv' v �.o 0 m A� 3't E Qc jq 2n3 j.2 2n3E �; 2,9 Q�`m 2 .0 Q�i €a_ 'a in _ actin €rn EyP E3 E3 aoa L o o N ' � 8 N c ro Q i W N N 3 N I E`no w w Q o 0 I e2 d 3 d d 9 rc i " m N_ O� O mtq N_ N_ O NU ng rv$ m4141 rvQ IL U 'a LL U to N O N 1 r N O N d t 0 C 0 Q 0 Q IL LL U N O N N O N 0 0 Q 0 a t K W d E t V r Q 14 1 Packet Pg. 181 Nw r- N N So w w N O N w w N N N w w » v N N _ as vi _ 16 vi r» » vi vi w w N N N 0 N » w N O N - LL S - y- B - A 2N - .2 LL- 3O N _ 4S1 FO 4S1 FO 4S1 FO LL tqLLf N F 41'F 41F 41'F N ~ f N F tq H N H N H C de deJ w oo deJ de de de de de de de de de de" li LL LL u J u ii LL LL u ii LL LL LL LL LL N So O So So N F — 2 — — — 2 2 2 2 O s o a` a o o I o u o o o u u o u u 0 ° ° 0 y c 3 a a ` o C= cQ z N c y°8 O1 ^__ 3y d H xOm'.. xN L.E o= "�. Y 1 33 d- a3gE aD9 .z9 2 . xa, x�, o�c x.A o� xr'n 33E 3 9m 3 E r B m YQ o Bo o 1� E YN ; m m c y o p, Y E,� Y � Z£ YN a 305 ym g E p g&o gE ry ImooE a` w H K E c E 'c a a S c d c Y o a 3 a _ S. a of o a aai '3 a`Q am2 a,o$ �= o:m w�� a '¢ maw .�° '¢ Ep° 5" 41 a� a`¢� 23� a3 Is Rm 3 d ¢ o o a o s N I N 3 N O Y 3 J N N R Z N F N N O Z O S U U Q O Q S N 3 0 > ° a a m a o N .O c Q _> N Q d a c g o 8 g W y Y o y 3 Q N 6 m Q a OEO ?i n W EN rn41 K $ NF O N 41 .F U E �Q 41 m41 IL v 'a LL U to N O N N O N d t 0 C 0 Q 0 Q a LL CoV N O N N O N d y 0 Q 0 a Z t K W C CD E m 0 Q 15 1 Packet Pg. 182 Cp to § \ \� \ ell �2 ell ell eyiz ;7 yiz e7 of &!§7 |§� ! a;�w! ��k! )�� ƒf{} /{ /{} {ƒ {{ ;\j / / \ \ kk - - o !F |! /)f {! o {( z:! - !{I !!. ■` /; \k \k 2 |) 2mm )K !* $a§ !! {{/ / E ! f |: / �{ : \2\! �\ !; - N I IN! .0 E U IL LL U q q d C14 2 0 0 . CL � a b K q Q q 2 0 0 a 2 \ w k E 2 a Q M, Packet Pg. 183 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: 2281h St. SW from Hwy. 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,800,000 to 95th PI. W a J r95PERRNCE ,•` PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th PI. W to three lanes (with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve active transportation safety and traffic flows along this corridor. Community Transit would also look into creating a new east -west bus route along 228th St. SW if this project moves forward (connecting Edmonds Transit Station to Mountlake Terrace Transit Station). SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2024 (pending funding). More than half the project is within Esperance / Snohomish County. A Sound Transit System Access grant was submitted in May '19 to fully fund this project. This funding program is available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit Station (total of $40 Million). Prior to COVID-19, this amount was to be distributed between Edmonds and Mukilteo to complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). However due to the current COVID-19 conditions, Sound Transit is evaluating funding impacts and the delivery timelines of their projects. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $10,600,000 Admin., & ROW Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $10,600,000 17 Packet Pg. 184 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $184,000,000 Gateway/Revitalization d U d LL U co N O N r N O N d t r 4- 0 C O r Q O Q IL 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement U to sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access contro 0 and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape N treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access a management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. a SCHEDULE: The conceptual phase began in September 2017 and was completed in December 2018. , project to install raised medians along the entire corridor from 244th St. SW to 212th ST. SW (to address safety issues along the corridor) is underway. The addition of a HAWK signal between 228th St. and 238t' w 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: project is being funded through a $10M state allocation from the Connecting Washington transportation program. r Q COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 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 1 $170,0001000 18 Packet Pg. 185 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,885,000 intersection improvements I — — 21 ST Nl' — I w WTEdmonds shgn Shap / a� a— 7 ?P.u.6 M1° 7313 3 Edmonds Fami ly Clin is ei 21 127114A��KENNEL211 27109 B212n I sTsw Z2 st M.- 737,er cuPlc a 7303"3' ^ n M Pbnl 7344"1" 7302 "2" PARE( & RIDE 215TH N ST 5W � o: 0 a PLANT AEGIS yy SWEDISH m MDNnSCAM- ' ALLIED / ROOFING / / B&M / CON ST 21414 / 21448 / / NCnONAL�' / 1ALUE / PILLAGE / 16TH ST/SW 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 a a_ U m N O N N O N i 0 a 0 Q. 0 Q a LL U 19 N O N TMM O N O 0 a 0 L a T x w c a� E U a 19 1 Packet Pg. 186 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,442,000 intersection improvements 214121412 O'` w 13� 214021408 12> 21405 04 LU N I2{ U 120L< MCDC2i431 un nz 150 215AEGIS 21558 VALUE I VILLAGE ST ,qw -me • 216TH 21600 {� 21619 KRUGER CLINIC f 21632 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected -permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $210,000 $340,000 Construction $1,892,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $210,000 $340,000 $1,892,000 d U d U_ U co N O N N O N a� 0 c 0 a 0 Q IL a_ U CD N O N T_ N O N a� W 0 0. 0 L. IL r x w c a� E r a 20 Packet Pg. 187 7.2.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. 188 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,300,000 intersection improvements ESPEMNCE FS - 11202 S7ND PL W �• �I� 2f73, F 1 �WAD PLj," ra:xn Ik ia 1A.o, 7731 Y"i J 5 � r7tl1 Y]406■�� DIM 17,7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW 1 provide safer crossing of Hwy. 99 for vehicles and non -motorized transportation (project identified in Hwy.99 Sub Area Plan). A new signal can be installed if MUTCD signal warrants arE met. The warrants under existing and future conditions aren't met at this intersection. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety and pedestrian conditions along the corridor. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding for all phases) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $1,500,OC Construction $1,800,OC 1 % for Art TOTAL $3,300,OC a- U_ U W N O N N O N d t 0 0 r a 0 a a w U �o N O N r N O N a� 0 0. 0 L a x w a� E U 0 r r Q 22 1 Packet Pg. 189 7.2.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 Packet Pg. 190 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9'" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $925,000 J __J1 MH BELL ST I - � P MAIN ST 0:1 WADE DAMES TH EATE R L � W� � a S a oavraN n PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal or mini -roundabout. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015 Transportation Plan. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2024 and construction in 2025. (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $125,000 Administration & ROW Construction $800,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $125,000 $800,000 a c� a U_ N O N N O N z 0 c 0 0 Q a LL U cc N O N N O N a� 0 0M 0 a` T X w c as E U 0 a 24 Packet Pg. 191 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: 761h Ave. W @ 2201h St. SW ESTIMTED PROJECT COST: $8,326,000 Intersection Improvements TOP FOODS 219ni sr sw __�J _�, STARBU KS 21919 J J , -- ---. 220Tr1 sr sw ' I I I A W 14 �> I = a ;ST pL SW I LYNWOOD I HONDA I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected -permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D. SCHEDULE: A CMAQ Federal grant was secured for the Design Phase (funds not available until 2021) and an STP Federal grant for the ROW phase (funds not available until 2023). The construction phase is currently unfunded. The design phase and ROW phases are scheduled to be completed in 2023 and construction in 2024 (pending additional grant funds). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW $300,000 $634,000 $775,000 Administration Construction $6,617,000 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $300,000 $634,000 $775,000 $6,617,000 'All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts d U IL LL U to N O N N 0 N d t 0 r_ 0 CL 0 a IL LL U CD N O N N 0 N a� 0 0. 0 L IL x w aD E r a 25 Packet Pg. 192 7.2.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. 193 7.2.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. 194 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,378,000 Intersection Improvements i 10 ■ To Hwy 99 41� 239TH ST SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 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 c� IL U- c� m N O N N O N O t w 0 C 0 Q. 0 Q IL U. t� N O N TMM O N a 28 1 Packet Pg. 195 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 7611 Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: W Intersection Improvements $1,219,000 N m SEAVIEW PARK 3 PLSW 186TH ST SW m m I I I I I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City's concurrency standards (LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2027 and 2041 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, & ROW $206,000 Construction $1,013,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,219,000 a U d LL U co N 0 N r N 0 N d t 4- 0 r- 0 CL 0 Q IL LL U CD 0 N T- N 0 N a� W 0 0. 0 ILL. r x Lu aD 0 r a 29 1 Packet Pg. 196 7.2.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. 197 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 10011 Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 Intersection Improvements / Access Management QFC W 7 1 0 ' 228TH Q PL SW r IKy AONQS WAY SR-104 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block pedestrian crossing along 100t" Ave. W, improve safety to access the driveways within proximity to the intersection, and re -striping of 100t" Ave. W with the potential addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2025 (unsecured funding) PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $155,000 Construction $895,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $155,000 $895,000 E U d U_ U N O N N O N d t r 4- 0 C 0 r Q O Q IL LL U CD N O N N O N a� 0 Q. 0 ILL. x LU c aD E a 31 1 Packet Pg. 198 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000 Intersection Improvements Ili ar q w: . ..%-i'V 240TA PL SW 'Iwhl I Sw HT -LW Imp � �I iJ2N0 PL SW _ i...r `�, •�' ire ! �.� L d 0 W J � L�,f,ON05 WAY Y78 Rq ` LAKE 8AL C ING[-R WAY_ - _ - -- _ MP EOMONOS WAY _ . _ - ._ - _ . • p N - - - -LILCE gACL.R4GEi�1fVRl' -- - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding). The project costs would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds since half the intersection is located within Shoreline. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $467,000 Construction $2,640,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $3,107,000 32 Packet Pg. 199 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174t" St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000 SW Intersection Improvements L+ 4 + — Meadowdale Middle School — — — J—/, Parking L— / 7 b 6WI St. Thomas Moore —/ a e / Catholic School B Ilfield y / sa��ary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50' storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2027 and 2041 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $105,000 Construction $525,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $630,000 d U d U- U N O N r N O N d t 4- 0 r Q O Q a LL U N O N T- N O N d fA O a 0 L. a r x w E r Q 33 Packet Pg. 200 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,050,000 from Bell St to Caspers St. ♦ ♦ �� I■� 11111■0 I � ���' IIIIIII :�1■�■1 ■ ♦ �14 ♦11 �♦ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (— 1/2 mile / more recent project). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements were installed in 2017 through striping, in order to evaluate the alignment of the proposed walkway and parking alternatives The design phase is scheduled to be completed in 2024. Construction isn't scheduled to occur until 2025 when utility improvements are scheduled to be completed along this stretch. No grant funding has been secured for the construction phase. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $295,000 Administration Construction $2,595,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $295,000 $2,595,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. a U a U- U W N 0 N r N O N 0 r- 0 CL 0 a a U- U N O N N 0 N a� 0 0. 0 L a r x w aD E Q 34 Packet Pg. 201 7.2.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 JX ■ OT MCHURCHLLI 7 , ■ °�' ■ Jr AW �I o �0 c� 2 ODW' ' I ESTATES AY OLy I _ PR RK I 2 REC ' 79g ROOM 98 7 6 5 (� YY 2 75 � • 37 3 1 14 t a J 432 45 17� 3LL Z V co ■ • • ■ 04 O N r O ■ N 7 1 �■ �'■ 0 �ss�s sss,s :ssos ic, c ■ i e 0 �LL ■ a IL 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 N O N N O N 0 a 0 L a T x w c as E U 2 r r a 35 1 Packet Pg. 202 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: 23611 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,438,000 from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W 4 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. 203 PROJECT NAME: 84t" Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $590,000 From 238t" St. SW to 234t" ST. SW PARK EonnoNos SAL GALLL APTS m w w LL CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH O PARK & RIDE OFFICE 236:1 ,4SUHSET 23603 SAFEWAY 6 23605 WH L KJIHG R 23607 SUNSET 23619 O P Q ��� R AURORA S MARKETPLACE T N 239TH ST SW W SEOUL Q 23821 PLAZA ff 23827 TRAVEL Z 0" NORTH ry HAVEN z n MANOR w 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 d U d LL U co N O N N O N d t a+ O C O O a a U- U to N O N N O N a� O Q. O L a x w c E U Q 37 1 Packet Pg. 204 7.2.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. 205 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: 218th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,346,000 from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W MENNEN YEMEN OENT ER PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2025-2026 unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $206,000 Construction $1,140,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $206,000 $1,140,000 39 1 Packet Pg. 206 PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. from 6t" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $216,000 to 7t" Ave. S 714 I � 120Fm In alON@ l#� ALDER S7 F. �p.��� 1 ' Emmn i m A - 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 d LL U W N O N V- N O N d t r 4- 0 C O r Q O Q a a_ U CD N O N N 0 N a� 0 0. 0 L a x w c aD E a 40 1 Packet Pg. 207 7.2.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 216TH :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. 208 7.2.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. 209 7.2.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. 210 7.2.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. 211 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Railroad Ave. Sidewalk from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $890,000 Dayton St. to SR-104 Fa MglNsr � s c' a �pOS ZZ NrT F hJ � 5� a W DAYTON 5T _ - - D4YTON ST 0 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 d U d LL U N O N r N O N d t 4- 0 C 0 Q O a a a_ U CD N O N N O N a� 0 0. 0 L a r x w a� r a 45 Packet Pg. 212 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76t" Ave. W non- ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: motorized transportation safety improvements $1,246,000 24., 711 ST S.": L �4,#4541, r I f J 'J vj 41 In T ffia 4 %it k.-011NOS WAY 0"14 .. W LAKE UtLINGER WAIT- - - - - - - TiEWONOS WAV IN LAKL iiAL1.IN GERrA'AY- 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 a U d LL U CD N CD r N O N d t 0 C 0 Q 0 Q IL a_ U N 0 N N O N a� 0 0. 0 L. IL Z x w aD E r a 46 1 Packet Pg. 213 7.2.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. 214 7.2.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. 215 7.2.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. 216 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $648,000 from 80t" Ave. W to 76t" Ave. W 1� i r 192ND PL 5W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80t" Ave. W to 76t" Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $93,000 Construction $555,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $648,000 a U d U- U m N O N N O N d t r O C O M O a a. LL U W N O N N O N a� O Q. O L. IL x w c CD E U a Q 50 1 Packet Pg. 217 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: 104t" Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,019,000 from 238t" St. SW to 106t" Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104t" Ave. W from 238t" ST. SW to 106tn Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $155,000 Construction $864,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,019,000 51 Packet Pg. 218 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: 801" Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $324,000 from 218t" St. SW to 220t" St. SW -------�--77T---------------220THSTSW— PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80t" Ave. W from 218t" ST. SW to 220t" ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $57,000 Construction $267,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $324,000 52 1 Packet Pg. 219 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $323,000 from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW r `T r 5■■ i i .� 44 T'■ F U ti ri 186TH ST W m i ■-d6 WF-` ' ,7 -I ■ w L i M—m mm m d r■ ■ 18 TH 5 5W ■ L ■ 1 �' '� A 188rN sr 5w m 1 L � W , 1 a III• .; _ L r U � ■ o J rn °° r 1 r SFAMF W A , 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- U N O N r N O N d t 0 r- 0 Q a a_ U to N O N N 0 N a� 0 0. 0 a r x w a� E r r a 53 1 Packet Pg. 220 7.2.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. 221 7.2.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 :�-' ' 238TH ST SW seouL L821 PLAZA _ 1 ■ f Ll ' . 23827 �DG' TRAVEL LOE ST. FRANCIS -MISISON TACOTIM MOTEL . . . - ■ WHSE ■ ■ _+ K&EMOTEL ' 1 ■ AI, hil TA RVII I F 1 ■ ■ ■ , IN ■ E r t ;,.�E :yA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $181,000 Construction $1,055,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,236,000 E: a LL V �O N O N N O N t 0 C 0 0 Q IL LL t) cc N O N N O N a� 0 a 0 L. IL T x w c as E U 2 a 55 1 Packet Pg. 222 7.2.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 a U co N O N r N O N a� 0 0. 0 a` x w r- aD E U 0 Q 56 Packet Pg. 223 7.2.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. 224 7.2.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. 225 7.2.a CFP STORMWATER d U- U m N O N N O N d t r O C O r M O a a a_ U co N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L. IL w c m E z u a r Q 59 1 Packet Pg. 226 7.2.a a_ U d LL U CD N O N N O N d t r O C O r M O a a a_ U co N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L. IL x w c m E z u a r r Q 60 1 Packet Pg. 227 E, LL U N N G O d ° N N d N w = m N O U 3 N LL (j m O QN m U tD N 0 0 0 N N O f0 W N N O N O O O O O O N N O <O Cc N ' y N O O O O O O N N c M N N O O O O O N N O O O O ON1 M N � � N p N O O O O o M y ER ER N 0 o e w N � d U N E m 0 0 c j O to (n H o N � LL N E m N p o o e N N p u p O N ry a a` m c L � `a g U c 42 c d O in m (7 o. c d O m a _ p � f0 10 O U a :E C O C E C O N N N 3 a m c o.r oEdo-c6� 02 a E a a a a m y d m t y c U N T 4E y . a C o• 0 o E E a p m d m W L N C y y o a ° m o m U 00 O N C j U O` > -O 6 > ry d o -oo a m o m E y t O. y N U U d m C C 0 at S i :E a E E m r t d c 0 `o .. E for m z z •O W IL` E U m N O IL � c y O E � W� N N � N � � o � � O O LA N � � O O 0 � fA O O L[j n � fA O O 7.2.a N M N O N W N } T E N N u � n MM � O N � V! M � O N M fA M N IL v > > N o n 0 o 0 m � 'a V N u d m m d n J LL ° 0 O N r O N CD u) 1 u- mo o ~ US+ o O m m o n O O M O N N n O CL TO! V Q v p M LL U w N O N N O N d O Q O L a T K W r+ CD s V r Q 61 Packet Pg. 228 7.2.a a U a LL U m N O N N O N d L O C O O Q d LL U co N O N N O N d N O 0. O L r x uj r_ O E u Y Q 62 1 Packet Pg. 229 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. 230 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION 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 :=M Eng. & Admin. $40,000 $40,000 Construction $338,000 a 1%for Art SUBTOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $338,000 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $570,000 $40,000 $1,238,000 $300,000 o Construction $7,500,000 $7,500,000 ~ 1 % for Art GRAND TOTAL $570,000 $40,000 $1,238,000 $300,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 ' This value is a carry -forward of the approved 2020 budget for this project. Previously, this funding was held as match for the NFWF grant which has since been rescinded, but staff propose to retain this funding for use in the daylighting project. Design is not anticipated to begin in 2021, but funding could be used to kick off design work quickly if the property transfer unexpectedly proceeds and can also be used for tasks, such as grant application or stake holder outreach efforts, and any remaining funds can be carried forward each year until design is able to begin. 2 This schedule assumes that property ownership may transfer in 2023 based on a 6-year clean-up plan being approved in 2017. 3 Project is dependent on securing grant funding and may not be pursued if a grant is not awarded. 64 1 Packet Pg. 231 7.2.a PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Infiltration ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $742,700 Facility Phase 2 �� Talbot t . Frederick Seaview Park N fi ry r 7 -4 L 1 4 00 W tt 185th °O e 87th L 18E 40 Proposed Phase 2 ♦� i72n Y o IP iP � r 173 d Nc w IP t j ati - n- �� rP 175th -4 o rP ip 2 M 77t 1 7 h I i. 4 78th s 79th r a 1 Oth orno 1815 Distribution Chamber ____-_o— r 18 nd Diversion Structure \� rP Inspection Port I© Swirl Concentrator ss` Well er Gual,ty fnalure) Modify 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. 232 7.2.b CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2021-2026 EDP z DRAFT Packet Pg. 233 7.2.b FL U d LL U co N O N N O N d t r O C O M O a a U co N O N r N O N N N O 0. O L. IL N t K W C d E L v R r r Q Packet Pg. 234 7.2.b 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. 235 7.2.b a U d LL U c0 N O N r N O N d t r 4- 0 C O Q O Q IL_ U N O N T- N O N d N O 0. O L. IL N r L x W C d E L v R Q Packet Pg. 236 7.2.b Cip GENERAL U d U- U m N O N N O N d t r O C O M O a a U W N O N r N O N N N O 0. O L. IL N t K W C d E L v R r r Q Packet Pg. 237 7.2.b a U d LL U c0 N O N r N O N d t r 4- 0 C O Q O Q IL_ U N O N T- N O N d N O 0. O L. IL N r L x W C d E L v R Q Packet Pg. 238 7.2.b O N CD N N O N O w N V 67 O a C 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Lp N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O LO uD 0 0 Lfl uD O LO 0 0 O O OD O O OD uD Lo N NL- OOhN W f-LO0 Lo Lfl 7 V)V3 V) F N C)"TOo V> V3 69,63 N 77 uD CV u'7 V) V3 'IT 0 V) 7 N V) V) m V) 69163 O Vi V3 V3 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O Lo 0 0 0 0 0 O O N p O O Lo V) N O Q4 O V) Lo 0 V) Co Lo N to V) N V) V3 V3 V3 V) V) 0 0 Cl O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O O O N LO000 W)10A O 0o COO 0 N 2 V3 V) V) _o V7 V) Co V) V) 0000000000 0 0 0000000000 o 000CD 0 CD Co O 0 o 0 a LO O O O O O O O O O O O N N 0 Lo u7 u7 LO Ln 0 0 0 CO p N V> V3 V) V3 V) V3 V) V3 Oo V) V3 V) V) 000 0o000o 0 O O O O O O o 0 0 _ O Cl) N O O u7 LO O LA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O CO N VV3 > V) O LL V) V) fA V3 0000o 0050 CD o CD OO O O Oo O O o 0 0C, O N O O o 0 O O 0 0 0 p U, V3 0 Co V) N V) V) V) V3 V3 00 Coco 0 00000 00 000q LLD O O Lo CT u7 O (O Co u LO LV N O f� VI V3 V) V) V3 e4 V3 V3 N a c o ° Co r' r' r' r' 0 0 Co 0 orn m a m m ornrnrnrnrnrnrn o00 CAS N N N N ����� U O LON N E O E -2 C nE EQ nE nU Vu31 N N N YEO) NEN NEO) NEN V3 VI�3 N� UE UUU ¢LU E E E o U O UUUUUU U U LD LL U U N N C N (A Cl ClU 0 N N p C (D N m 7 U a 0 3^y^� - m5 rn O J f6 CCD C ' U 32��> 0> C > C O C m C C (0 Y y 3 N c C6 E E C6 O U "OCNC EU U U C N@ O C6 2 Eq Y d O� 070 U 2 E CU 0"O Cp E O 01 @ O d -O CO N O O U C6 07 C O.._ U N N i1 C O i1 C OL y to C y +C..p (n ` N C OS w N Co n 3 _7 X O N U U O = N E f6 C O N N N 7 @ O7 C U C6 >i x C C N �. OS ¢ U :4 O U N O d O1 O C> _ N 0. C O) Cn C¢ O U X W _ 'O d U N fA N m "6 N 3 C Z oY�o— N t 2 -O C Y o :7 o� C fN a�0m�m C C D �C o- O rnU N 01 c f6 O) LL fC6 O "CCi C U O 01 U L�° 2 `mc32w U L1 ] LL, - f6 U 01 .� d N ... n C O�G N O UU O j > N y O)w rn C O) ++ O) OU•C C T OS NQ I.L O) f6 Vl (0> Y 0 LL "Oa rn LLI E (� C U d 0 .� N C.T. O N CO 1 i� U "O 0 00 •� W Z, f6 > O m .O. i j .9 f0 f�6 (L.i i x O Z, (n _ f6 C ¢ O. N 0.2 .d N O- U N U2U i 0 rn U¢¢ UU d U U ` @U..2 LLB wLL y� E 3Uin C`6 W x y¢ @U 7 IL o o Qd'm �_ W 0_. �d5 c 7dm(n 6�_x�xx W C) m d� m»¢ W xxLL Co Ll.dJd}UvLL. mach oxxcn o @xin ¢ U �._._ d i UUUZ�dJ�U�UJLLdU m m—cna O 2 d O ¢� FL U a LL U to N O N N 0 N d t O C CL O a a_ V to N O N N 0 N d N O Q Q a N t K W C Cd G m <.i y.+ a Packet Pg. 239 7.2.b 000 o 0 LS fA O O O CS fA 000000 000000 000000 O Ln CS LL 7 0 N eO EH CS LL 7 0 r� Lnr� H3 fA L O S9 O O O O O N N N N l0 V) O. Cl E E O O U U N tll C � @ a m a N d E C _ N C N N U C @ U N E LL d 0 0 3 C C C C O O. O LL� @ 0' o $ 2 a m E LL ca E o m O U 2LLLL N LL 'E N U au) a N W oo�tgLL O 6 C "@ O d l6 3 E 3LL Y W� a U U N� N U N d dCn a) d O eR O C N 0 LO C0 co W O C N m Cli 4a w N O N Ln N O N V N N M N N N N N N O N N N O N a1 O O N c N 0 N Nall O N y d N N C N L O (n C .� L N C7 N N LL cc p C.4 @ t0 N_N_ i0 CL LL `p CoC(n .@-. N ta ik U C,ik L N C N C l0 C U- O LL C @—O � E a)7 m c W W N � O N LL w ccc s m(DOfIx a)ww c fa EU O y @ c U E E E o o C7 ° 0 0 LL v o 0 0 W 0 0 0 LL C @ C C C LL U d LL o U c � O O O d O o6 N @ 2 d a) N w O O U U O C C)5 a N@— of C,a O fH O fH wgo V 0LO a M � a_ toU to N O w 0 T- w c � � v O n N vi t r w woo 0C C o� C 64 O 70 a O ur sic O f» O �- O N 11 Packet Pg. 240 7.2.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. 241 7.2.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 fA 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. 242 7.2.b 44 11 Packet Pg. 243 7.2.b O L a E rn � 3 LL a N V N N � E a > 1° 0 Q Q E U N f0 = U Ui 0 fR 0 0 fA V3 0 N V3 O 0 0 V3 V3 0 0 V3 V3 0 0 o V3 0 0 V3 V3 0 0 fA Vi 0 0 Vi Vi 0 0 V3 0 0 fH V3 0 0 0 Vi Vi Vi � N O N o 10 7 N O � � F N � O N N O N N N O N � O O N N y3 O N M N 0 0 N N 0 0 N O N N N V o o O N 0 uoi 7 O N N O N cV a 0 0 O 0 O o O n N c o M o n N E M I- e N N � W IL LL X X X U rn c L rn .T Y C O � 3 o � � a O m N O U w N O 2 y C Y N E> N m O O N. 5 N E U O 12 C m O> m o� as .o E a E m Z`E E O >c o m Y c w o> E a U ° .° m m c a LU C ILL v o` O m E'S, lL N mvY C E N aa cu o E a a> �'2 m m E 0 U �i rnL O O. Nv Z a c c w c a d m` d 2 `m `m m U1 rn U m 0. E ". .O m m o o o N o m y m m E L•v L m m m m m m m a"i m 0 o a rn U C N` "O C m a= O m m ?i >i d E E m U N C LL >. d 'O Y a m>? V 0 c E o m `m m oa > m t t m m d> L c� o f oo d' a m c a¢m`UUc�wLLo2222acncn��>vUw=o¢ v y o m ami c o u p N M N O M 0 C 0 to rr 0 C 0 to O O O Co 0 C 0 H �o C ro O N 64 <0 L co rr co 12 Packet Pg. 244 7.2.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. 245 7.2.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 Cn N en e» ei NW Cl) OVk N M N O N M_ O C N r A M GI U) CO N N M 01 N en e» ei NW M O N M N A N OI LL� M O N (O O O A V N 06 A N M m W N N N M o EA EA EA NW � O N m oo �n �n vl A O O N O N O N N M M OD A:l N N M N N N M O N EA EA V3 NW N m mmu� ao O O A orna P O O 10 M O N MN- VOW N CD 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 NW W N IL O a 3 o N E M N A M c0 N N fD N � W O N O N IL LL U U N a — m mUrna d 0 v IL U) O m � 0. U)Q Z m 0 0 0 E m (p :v F W U U U 0 (n U) (n U CU w w a 0M n d U LL a Cl000 O OD W O O O O O O W W O O W O O �C1 O O O O W W O O 0 0 0 0 o Lt] O Lt] O o� o W O r O W N m O O EA � H3 o O o O O O O M o 0 0 o 0 O W o M ui � N es O O p o p O <p p o 04 O O O O o O O N O Fn H3 N es 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o W A SON (O A A CO � 07 A AaD A �1A 0 am o Au�oo o O r O M� W OAD ll-� W M MN Obi M NW EA H3 W d3 V H3 fA x xx U N N l6 > L j U 3 a N N L O� N E O pOioi G 'o ENU — No a E o 'g o L 2 o o a o U) E ao V`m o U)— c7 U O m N E L ° o o E E o N c m 0 N N A U N c m a mom a6w oo '� ma y a'�m d;9 o�LL z,U o 9U °� m 3 m �'£'E c c m d �— m m m cY 3U a— c>>m mU fn [n N 0 m7>5 . m m m.��>� 6) m L� o L> o 2 L E 2 U U� m U E O m a W NH HU _ UH aco W N FL U IL U_ U N O N 1 r N CD d t r O C O CL O a IL_ V to N O N N O N d N O Q O L a N r+ t K W C N E m <.i a 14 Packet Pg. 246 7.2.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. 247 7.2.b 0 r M 0 N O N O O O O O O f7 O 10 LO O C (o3 N V3 Ci 0 v Lo LO g 64 lo N 0 N O O N O N C� O N � O N a 0 O o O O N O N d 0 o n o V O O o ok a N V to N O C (D O» O» N 0 m o m N m kc p N N N d o O 0 Q oo b N . ID a O n n M O If! W H Q. O a �n t Wk o M to 6 N M W V ui H N O N N ;o N N Q N N T L N M Lf) d O °0» GCto N O w w Q O L a N t K W C N s r Q a` d m e d � w N y) m O Z a6 Q L R H 61 m N V C y R O. C N O V R O y c a 2 N H d t y R 10 E 10 o y N O a U r C7 y S U 'o f H f7 0 F a 16 1 Packet Pg. 248 7.2.b N N O N N O N a c d O CO 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 C Z C R v w r O R U Ui a O O O O O O O � O CD mI- N N C n 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 63 V3 V3 V)V3M C n 00 O M V 00 C n CD I N V)OO M O O V)V3 O Co O O N CD N O W O FR U) �N�CoO�Min (o N 61,C6 Ch ��-liH3 V) V) V) V) V) V) V) M O N M M CA Co U) C1 V3 V) N M O O Co I- Cn Co CLO Cf C 1 V) V) 69 O M O M M O Cn Co Cn V) V) &�, VJ � Co W oho 0 Co In C6 V) � v_ CO Cfl CoCo CD -It N V) �V O O Oo M Horn O O o O Co 001- , V) V) 0 �N V CO V V) N � � V) v� �;vv l I IT 0 I Co M NO p- CO I N N CO Olq M ilzC2 M N C A N Co O O Co � �It CA M� V) V) X X 0 0 Cri c h CK1 O NM7ln CO f� E N O N O NNNNNN O O O O O O mourn E E EEEEEE E E m m m m m m m m m m a) > CC@ Co Co O @ O @ 0 al 03 0 0 @ @ 0 0 03 0 4 ccCo C O pad d d d d d d d d 0 d c a) c E E ro a) a) a) a) a) a) ro o `>°`>° E E EEEEEEa aa) y O O U Cn U >� Cn U >� U U U U U U N w LL LL Co Q. N N Co Co Co Co Co 0 Jrnaciaci aai aai aai aai aai aai aai O "O M aA D D O—C D OC D D D D D N ac) c c c c c c L 3 o Ea a¢c¢¢¢¢¢¢¢o>N xs>aiai ¢ co - E¢ COa Co-----or- a) o m m m m m m m m m m U m LL C Co p Co CNJ N N N N N N Cn m 0 (n 0¢¢ d N d N d d(L(L(L d LL (n d N U M to Co N fA O N 6A CD M h CN Cl! M N VT (1 M V3 COf1 M W M w M V 44 V9 I- O Ih O oc VT O of OO w w w di V3 a L � a� O to LL U Vt » N O N 0 0 0 � � rn u9 mLO N m m N OO Cp m t r O w n = 0 o O C Co1 M O V3 Vi a 1- o � r- a_ Nt N o N N V G rfl C O N N N O N N O �n N CD Le 6, n N O v rfl 613, to O. a v 0 t a 4a N t K W C N E t <.i N�+ a J D0 Co L N Co °0 N w L m E d CID, U ECa' D a. y ¢ (n E o d Cu m E �¢ m � F CL F H 17 2 9 Packet Pg. 7.2.b tc N O N N N O N N N O N N O N V d w c 0 p O 0) m O a. a � y N c ' W N L > W N O E N a o Q Z N ~ C U Q r O v U Li a W X O 0 Z N in 06 N 0 r Z L N N (L otCO > a 5- 0 LLN .O U M LL O C o C cc m o - E 0 a Y � Y `m m C p d C C E N O O N O C 0 O Co b4 0 LQ N L2 v Co 'N t a E U `m Co N fn Co rn o N r R r O O!kN fA y IL U X 0 Q 0 a a Q d N 0 E N O E m m 0 fD N o = V _ � O O N C Z a w 0 o F C9 FL U IL LL U to N O N N O N d s r 4- 0 C O CL O a IL_ V to N O N N O N d N O Q O L a N r+ B t X W C N E t U O y.+ a 18 Packet Pg. 2 0771 \ Lo 2co k _ 04 co ■ Lo to Lo \ \ co � k�lo NE ll�_ ojL / x x k x x x § ) / cc _ \ E _ o \ )) k � ) _ k \ k \o k )_ ( 2 - { co o { \ )< - �) » Z e/ w! / ) 7 R \ � - \| / } ° J 'a » § A ® co §) 2 ( \ | o § ] - k { / #-o !k- k \ ;/) 0 Co § FLU 3 ] ) o E U IL b q q d CD � 0 0 CL 0 Q a Q CD C� d N 0 0 0 a � � \ w § E / Q 19 1 Packet Pg. 251 7.2.b a N R O N O F N O N N O N LO N O N (D N O N N O N N O N w w N N U CDi N N N O N N O N IL G a) O m N E O . N H W IL LL U E R a_ 0 a C +y+ i U N � C E a E > N W 0CL 3 —° a h Z Of Ec y W v O 3 a U Ui in O O O O M O r OLLiO OOr EA000000 m 0) w 000>r � (O EA (00 000(00(ONN00 r OMO(000>(O �(OMM MN OEA (OMWN OOM (D N EA(O EA O>N M"T mM "O �V> EA Eli V>V>V>�� o� n_ ui C v M cc N 4i Efl 44 O CD Cq 00 O M O 7 O Cq Efi N 4i O O W 0) C> r v m O N M V3 O M N (O � 4i Eli Efl N r N (O V N CoM oLO � Eli Uf> 4i Co Lo (O n O N (O (O N M M 00 Efi Eti � C. Co C. Co O p0000 V O O cD O M N r M 4i Eli OIN TCL- Co N M r M Co N 4 i 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 N N E N > > > > > N Cl >> > 0 0 0 0 0 C O O O N N as aEEEEErr 0 0 0 0 E IL IL m Co Co r r r r r o . o L -C t N N t N a) a) LL' LL' a) a) LL' LL' a) LL' l0 : y l0 a a a a a:5 Z M�NHD m m m m m U) > 3 3 3 3 3 a 3 (D (D (DU)(nnininin 3 3a Y L (n(n , Co----- m m V 7 7 m0 7 C C C C U) C d U m d C c c> c c c c c c a a > Q Q O Q¢¢¢¢¢ V V_ ¢Mr 00(n O����� N NU O C N N N N N N N N C 7 m t t (V p t t. t t t C (noaaNa.CL vv¢ N O O N EA u4 N N a v rn rn N N 4'T 49 CD CD v v v Co Co C C M Cl) 40 4'i Co NO CD NO 00 Q1 M M � 4MA Co V� 00 00 00 W C) 40 r IA 4i I � N N M M IA 4i CoNV0 0N0 � Cc R 7 Co OD R 7 N N I& 4i V 40A V O O Cli N N 4i 4i O N 4i N T Q) r r O O u-, u', � � N N E m N a(n= 7 E m ° 3 o 0 � xf 3 ceS m _ y L C 4 N C O r w (n�c3 U aci c E CD 3 m� o 2 (n y 2 m r C— 01 01 N N¢ 7 N od o c c d E y 2m o m m m E2 m din m m a o a a zt! a= N N Of E o 10 10 C J J J D F F F FL U IL a_ U N CD N CD d t 0 C O CL 0 a a_ V to N CD N O N CD W O Q O a N r+ t K W C Cd G t <.i y.+ a 20 Packet Pg. 252 7.2.b 6'�O� N _ N W H N �? O N V3 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 V) VT O VJ VJ N V); N 61) 00 O CD O CD O O O C O ^ CDO 0 O o LO N N V N O O O O N N V) Vt O VJ VJ VT VTN - O O O C O O C o^ CDO og0 C 00 N O LO N N O V N N O O O O N O V) Vt VJ VJ N N N O N O 0 0 0 o CD CD CD O 00 O O CD CD 0 y o O N CD o CD CD 0 o N 0 � CD CD CD 'p o o v> N Vr LO Tr to to a �I- 0 0 o CD 0^r- cD lc lc C O o o to o WM N N N O O O (D N f, O N 1- N a)O O O N V) V) N VT N OD VJ VJ N � �� N � NLO O CD O CD O O O^LA O C O O C NCD N O O O CD Ih CD N -q N N V) N N VJ VT N N VJ *k # I IL rn rn 0 a> o rnCD w N N N y C O o N N g WWWN E NN 10 N N'e O N +9-4 ON N V�) VT OD W 66� V> W IL LL U a y U °1 a7 y C C a7 R N CDU W > G a N 0E L Co y a CDa) NO a C W O w L F O w N O O O d a7 7 U O N 7 C a1 c 3 = c o O c C S o w N U m a 7 m s L) -you o c m u > W RaNsc o _s yID aass 'o > Q c Q a) mda O CO O U d N a7 U C m 0 (Oj N U 0 U O y ayi C yN 0 UaR W - ' 2 O ad = C 0 N N C Cc:a0+ a) 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 FL U IL LL U to N O N N O N d t O O r CL O a IL v to N O N T- N O N d N O Q O a N y+ t K W C N E t U m y.+ Q 21 Packet Pg. 253 7.2.b a U a a_ U co N O N N O N d L O C O O Q d U co N O N N O N d N O 0. O L- a. N r� L K W C O E t u co r Q 22 1 Packet Pg. 254 7.2.b CIP FL U d PARKS U m N O N N O N d PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 40 0 0 O Gl U W N O N r N O N N N O 0. O L. a N t K W r Q EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 23 1 Packet Pg. 255 7.2.b FL U d LL U co N O N N O N d t r O C O M O a a U co N O N r N O N N N O 0. O L. IL N t K W C d E L v R r r Q 24 1 Packet Pg. 256 7.2.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 125 - CAPITAL PROJECTS (,-,-:EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 25 1 Packet Pg. 257 7.2.b FL U d LL U co N O N N O N d t r O C O M O a a U co N O N r N O N N N O 0. O L. IL N t K W C d E L v R r r Q 26 1 Packet Pg. 258 7.2.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. 259 7.2.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. 260 7.2.b PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements I ESTIMATED COST: $5M South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, within Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5-acre regional park; Zoned Commercial Waterfront, Marina Beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; protected through Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redefine the park to better serve the community as it accommodates the new alignment of Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches, picnic tables and BBQ's, improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area. The Marina Beach Master Plan includes daylighting Willow Creek which requires removal of a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's and is the only exchange between the Puget Sound and our Freshwater Edmonds Marsh Estuary. Two funds utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Marina Beach Park is a highly used regional park. Through the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan the community identified the need to restore the adjacent Edmonds Marsh, re- established for salmon habitat. Improvements are intended to retain this site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. Importantly, the project is intended to address sea level rise and will promote recreational tourism at both Marina Beach and the Marsh for all generations to enjoy, learn about, and utilize as a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment. SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design $250,000 $250,000 Engineering Construction $250,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 29 1 Packet Pg. 261 7.2.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. 262 7.2.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. 263 7.2.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. 264 7.2.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. 265 7.2.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. 266 7.2.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 126 - SPECIAL CAPITAL / PARKS ACQUISITION EDMONDS PAR!(S, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES 35 1 Packet Pg. 267 7.2.b FL U d LL U co N O N N O N d t r O C O M O a a U co N O N r N O N N N O 0. O L. IL N t K W C d E L v R r r Q 36 1 Packet Pg. 268 7.2.b I PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved Capital ESTIMATED COST: $2,400,768 Projects ---------- R1f 1� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on the following projects: Marina Beach- ends 2031; Edmonds Center for the Arts (PSCC) — ends 2026; the Frances Anderson Center (FAC) Seismic Retrofit — ends 2026 and Civic Park — ends 2039 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2021-2026 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Principal & Interest— $82,128 $80,178 $83,878 $82,653 $81,393 $80,063 Marina Beach Principal & Interest— $56,598 $60,098 $58,998 $58,035 $57,045 $51,000 PSCC Principal&Interest— $27,092 $26,968 $27,205 $27,007 $27,129 $27,205 FAC Principal & Interest — $234,247 $233,475 $232,225 $235,725 $233,725 $236,475 Civic Park TOTAL $400,292 400,718 $402,305 $403,419 $399,291 $394,743 37 Packet Pg. 269 7.2.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield I ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 r 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. 270 7.2.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. 271 7.2.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. 272 7.2.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 332 - PARKS CONSTRUCTION EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 41 1 Packet Pg. 273 7.2.b FL U d LL U co N O N N O N d t r O C O M O a a U co N O N r N O N N N O 0. O L. IL N t K W C d E L v R r r Q 42 1 Packet Pg. 274 7.2.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. 275 7.2.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield I ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 r 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. 276 7.2.b 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. 277 7.2.b PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements I ESTIMATED COST: $5M South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, within Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5-acre regional park; Zoned Commercial Waterfront, Marina Beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; protected through Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redefine the park to better serve the community as it accommodates the new alignment of Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches, picnic tables and BBQ's, improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area. The Marina Beach Master Plan includes daylighting Willow Creek which requires removal of a 1,600 pipe that was placed in the early 1960's and is the only exchange between the Puget Sound and our Freshwater Edmonds Marsh Estuary. Two funds utilized: Fund 125 and Fund 332. 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. 278 7.2.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. 279 7.2.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. 280 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2020 TO 2021) 7.2.c ADDED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I DESCRIPTION 112 SR-104 Adaptive System Installation of adaptive system along SR-104 from 226th St. SW to 236th St,. SW X in order to improve traffic flows along this corridor. 112 Main St Overlay from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave. Overlay Main St. from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave., along with curb ramp upgrades. 112 Citywide Bicycle Improvements project Addition of bike lanes or sharrows along 100th Ave. from 244th to Walnut, X Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave. to 84th, 80th from 220th to 228th, and 228th from 78th to 80th. 112 236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W Addition of sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W / project X ranked #11 in Long Walkway list from 2015 Transportation Plan) 125 1 Greenhouse Replacement I lReplacement of aging greenhouse 421 Phase 17 Annual Replacement Program (2027) 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. d U d u_ U W N O N N O N d t r 0 c O r a O a Page 1 of 3 1 Packet Pg. 281 7.2.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 1 Waterfront Re -development I X lCompleted in 2020 332 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 d U a- u_ U W N O N N O N am t r 0 c O r 0- 0 a co N O N N O c 0 A Q E 0 V a u_ V M t K W C N E t v R r r Q Page 2 of 3 1 Packet Pg. 282 7.2.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 d U d u_ U W N 0 N N 0 N am t r O c O r M O a to N O N N 0 c O N �L a E O U a u_ U CL t K W C N E t v R r r Q Page 3 of 3 1 Packet Pg. 283 7.2.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. 284 7.2.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. 285 7.2.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. 286 7.2.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. 287 7.2.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. 288 7.2.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. 289 7.2.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. 290 7.2.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. 291 • 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. 292 7.2.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. 293 7.2.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. 294 7.2.e 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. 295 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. 296 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. 297 7.2.e 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. 298 7.2.e 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 7th 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. 299 7.2.e • 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. 300 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. 301 • 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. 302 7.2.e 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. 303 7.2.e 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. 304 7.2.e 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. 305 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. 306 7.2.f 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. 307 7.2.f 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 $45OK 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. 308 7.2.g 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. 309 7.2.g 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. 310 7.2.h 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. 311 7.2.h 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. 312 7.2.h 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. 313 7.2.h 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. 314 7.2.h 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. 315 7.2.h 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. 316 7.2.h 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. 317 7.2.h 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. 318 7.2.h 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. 319 7.2.h 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. 320 7.2.h 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. 321 7.2.h 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. 322 7.2.h 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. 323 7.2.h 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. 324 7.2.h 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. 325 7.2.h 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. 326 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) & Capital Improvement Program (CIP) x: d � A 9 -got v City Council — December 1, 2020 IL LL U N O N N O N d L 4- 0 C O Q O Q C O R C O N d L Q_ CL U a LL U L d E u d cd G t ci Q Packet Pg. 328 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 ..r IL LL U N O N N O N d L 4- 0 C O Q O Q C O R C O N d L Q_ CL U a LL U L d E u d cd G t ci Q Packet Pg. 330 Public Works & Utilities 5 Ivilm� 11 is e NTH C a v IL LL U w N O N N O N d t 4- 0 C O O Q ✓ C 'eSTM� ."4X 'tz Packet Pg. 332 2020 - Sidewalk Projects Dayton St. (7th Ave - 8th Ave) #1 Short Walkway 2015 Transportation Plan 4d Walnut St. (3rdAve — 4th Ave) #3 Short Walkway 2015 Transportation Plan t IL LL U N O N N O N d L 4- 0 C O Q O Q C O R C O N d L Q_ CL U a LL U L d E u d cd G t ci Q Packet Pg. 334 112 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 3 C!W pr Itl u IL LL u w C14 CD N CM 0 0 0 I MEMO W I Packet Pg. 338 1 2020 - Dayton St. Utility Improvement Project DAYTON STREET UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS z 1 ` 0 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 a_ U IL LL U N O N N O N d L 4- 0 C O Q O Q C O R C O N d L Q_ CL U a LL U L d E u d C cd G t ci Q Packet Pg. 340 IL LL U N O N N O N d L 4- 0 C O Q O Q C O R C O N d L Q_ CL U a LL U L d E u d cd G t ci Q Packet Pg. 341 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 r r 7 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 y IM 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. PLAZ A ,rraam & storage IT pe nque grove Parks CIP/CFP 2019=2020 Waterfront Re -development— In Progress - "L' 0 �I u ti �Lij'�w{' r J'S --MMOFFM elf ' f ' IF r I� ' �\M- 4 Parks CIP 2019 & 2020 Yost Pool Repairs - Complete Pool Grates, CO2 Injector & Pool Cover 22 IL LL U N O N N O N d L 4- 0 C O Q O Q C O R C O N d L Q_ CL U a LL U L d E u d cd G t ci Q Packet Pg. 349 Parks CIP 2020 City Park Walkway - In Progress' a 'f�.+ � i }, i.t �.: ���± � x \...4 y� ����'� ��� s�•�eRs f � i�.• � � 'iY 44 1a - .; ` �_`a. [�� Pq�` 'F @ t - w - Yam._ �� �(• � - L 1F Parks CIP 2020 Gateway Sign - In Progress PV 0-1 D 0 W N T 0 W N 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 • C :TMO VI I i 0 Icive : Packet Pg. 353 Parks CIP 2021 Park Improvement & Capital Replacement Program (Fund 125) ];..=01 Life -cycle major maintenance to prolong usage and/or increase capacity: • Resurfacing • Replacement • Upgrading DP#81 $155,000 Annually 28 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 wt 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 a v IL LL U w N O N N O N d t 4- 0 C O O Q C O cC C N N d L IL a_ U a LL U N L d d V d C d t V R Q Packet Pg. 359 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) & Capital Improvement Program (CIP) W __— 'E y� j 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 7.2.j 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 Packet Pg. 362 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 =rye°��o�, � exer�=a =rarfo / MEADOWS sprag�e pro r,aae future B&G slk—p.,k a footprint - - m it elawn pl,gronna' fenrare GREAT LAWN re�srroopovil'ioon I. PLAZA & r roge pe nqu grove _ Transportation Plan (2015) Comprehensive Transportation Plan Moo. ,S W�ow F 4 O O • Walkway Plan • Bicycle Plan • ADATransition Plan (2017) • Pavement Preservation Rating Study (2017) • Priority list of projects • Financial Plan(Impact fees) 7 7.2.j 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 2093 CO-. SL•7 68, Packet Pg. 367 7.2.j a Comprehensive Plan Priority Grant Sources & Competitiveness Maintenance Issue 01[:4"lws1: 00e Mayor & City Council Project Selection :4"1[• Project Delivery Capacity Available Funding Concurrency Safety Packet Pg. 368 ,July CIPICFP Schedule • City staff begins development of capital budgets August/September • Submit proposed Capital budget to Finance • Prepare draft CFP and CIP October • Planning Board; Public Hearing (October 14th & 28th) November/December • City Council Presentation (November 10th) • Public Hearing Planning Board (November 12th) • Public Hearing City Council (November 24th) • Adopt CFP w/ Budget into the Comprehensive Plan 10 7.2.j FL U d LL U N O N N O N N t 4- 0 C O r O Q C O r R r C d N N L a. O L IL _ U d LL V t .. N O Z C N E t u ca Q Packet Pg. 370 7.2.k ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, on October 14, 2020, Planning Board reviewed the proposed 2021- 2026 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the Capital Facilities Plan was presented and Public Hearings were held before the Planning Board on October 28, 2020 and November 12, 2020; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2020, the proposed 2021-2026 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program were presented to the Council for review and discussion; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2020, a Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2021-2026 to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program was held; and WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds that, consistent with RCW 36.70A.130, the adoption of these amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan concurrently with the adoption of the City's 2021 budget meets one of the permissible exceptions to the general rule requiring concurrent review of all amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, NOW THEREFORE -1- Packet Pg. 371 7.2.k THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Capital Facilities Plan element of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally 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: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON -2- Packet Pg. 372 7.2.k 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, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2020. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 4814-2355-3038,v. 1 -3- Packet Pg. 373 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/8/2020 Budget Deliberations and Opportunity for Budget Adoption 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 Motion to place 2021 City budget, as revised to include Council -approved amendments, on December 15 Consent Agenda Narrative: Actions remaining in the 2021 Budget adoption process: December 8 Deliberation and voting on proposed amendments to budget December 15 Further deliberation, adoption of the budget (if not already adopted) Attachments: Council Proposals 12_8 Staff Proposals 12_8 2021 Budget Ordinance Packet Pg. 374 7.3.a Proposed Changes to the Preliminary Budget - Proposed by COUNCIL Revenue DP # or Expense Increase Increase Net Effect on No. New Item Submitter Fund Description (Decrease) (Decrease) Cash 1 1 CM L Johnson General Fund Increase Equity Initiative funding from $50,000 to $75,000 $ 25,000 $ (25,000) Remove DP 11, leave money in Fund 016 for future use in 2 11 CM Buckshnis 001 / 016 Building Maintenance $ (210,222) $ (210,222) $ 3 35 CM Olson General Fund Increase funding for Building Maintenance $ 210,222 $ (210,222) Make the current 0.5 FTE Human Services Program Manager a full-time (1.0 FTE) position in the new "Human Services 4 19 CM Buckshnis General Fund Department" $ 48,956 $ (48,956) Add a part time (0.5 FTE) one-year temporary basis Human Services Administrative Assistant position in the new "Human 5 New CM L Johnson General Fund Services Department" $ 48,956 $ (48,956) Combine Human Services positions together into the new 6 New CM Olson General Fund "Human Services Department" $ - $ Reduce Human Services funding from $500,000 to $250,000 in 7 22 CM Buckshnis General Fund "start-up year" $ (250,000) $ 250,000 Reduce Human Services funding by $25,000 in order to increase 8 22 CM Olson General Fund funding to Senior Center back to 2020 level of $75,000 $ - $ - 9 New CM Buckshnis General Fund Increase funding to Senior Center back to 2020 level of $75,000 $ 25,000 $ (25,000) 10 29 CM Buckshnis General Fund Reduce funding for Salmon Safe Program $ (32,000) $ 32,000 Add $20,000 for assistance with Waterfront Comp Plan update 11 New CM Buckshnis General Fund (using money made available by reducing Salmon Safe Program) $ 20,000 $ (20,000) 12 37 CM Olson General Fund Eliminate Commuter Trip Incentive for one year $ (36,000) $ 36,000 Increase support for Edmonds Chamber of Commerce (in lieu of 13 37 CM Olson General Fund funding the Commuter Trip Incentive) $ 36,000 $ (36,000) Increase funding to Edmonds Chamber of Commerce back to 14 New CM Buckshnis General Fund 2020 level of $10,000 $ 10,000 $ (10,000) Do not purchase 2 Ford Explorer Police Dept. patrol vehicles in 15 45 CM Olson 511 - Fleet 2021, delay replacement until 2022 $ (100,000) $ 100,000 Remove DP 56 funds for researching Willow Creek Daylighting 16 56 CM Buckshnis 422 - Storm until land ownership issue is resolved $ (80,000) $ (70,000) $ 10,000 Move $430,000 from Storm fund 422 to 017 Marsh Fund for 17 62 CM Buckshnis 422 / 017 future Marsh work $ - $ - $ Increase funding to Edmonds Center for the Arts back to 2020 18 New CM Buckshnis General Fund level $ 25,000 $ (25,000) CMs Paine and 19 New Buckshnis General Fund 3-Year Temporary Position for Code Re -write $ 140,000 $ (140,000) CMs Paine and 20 New Buckshnis General Fund Add funding for PROS Plan Update $ 120,000 $ (120,000) N O N Packet Pg. 375 7.3.b Proposed Changes to the Preliminary Budget - Proposed by STAFF Revenue DP # or Expense Increase Increase No. New Item Submitter Fund Description (Decrease) (Decrease) Typo on DP 28 - $6,082 charged to wrong BARS account, no 1 DP 28 Dave Turley General Fund effect on revenues or expenses $ $ DP 9 Jim Lawless General Fund Estimated Increase to Prisoner Care Costs Reduce Fire Hydrant Maintenance Costs - additional information 3 DP 9 Dave Turley General Fund received after budget was created $ (50,000) $ "Unfreeze" one frozen position - one position had been filled but had not yet been entered into the payroll system when the list of frozen positions was created, so it incorrectly appeared to be a 4 DP 6 Dave Turley General Fund vacant position $ 70,437 $ 5 New Dave Turley Sewer Fund Adj. new incinerator bond payments from estimate to actual $ (187,370) $ 6 New Jessica N-H Fund 617 Adj. to Firemen's Pension Fund for recent rate increases $ 8,583 $ Totals $ 141,650 $ Net Effect on Cash $ (300,000) $ 50,000 $ (70,437) $ 187,370 $ (8,583) (141,650) 7 New Patrick Doherty Fund 140 (BID) BID Budget - Approved by Council $ 79,202 $ 76,340 $ (2,862) Packet Pg. 376 7.3.c ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2021. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington completed and placed on file with the City Clerk a proposed budget and estimate of the amount of money required to meet the public expenses, bond retirement and interest, reserve funds, and expenses of government of the City for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2021; and, WHEREAS, a notice was published that the City Council would meet virtually via Zoom on 2020 at 7:00 PM for the purpose of making and adopting a budget for said fiscal year and giving taxpayers within the limits of the City an opportunity to be heard in a public hearing upon said budget, and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing at that time and did then consider the matter of the proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2021, and WHEREAS, the proposed budget does not exceed the lawful limit of taxation allowed by law to be levied on the property within the City for the purposes set forth in the budget, and the estimated expenditures set forth in the budget being all necessary to carry on the government of the City for the fiscal year 2021 and being sufficient to meet the various needs of the City during that period, and NOW, THEREFORE; the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1. The budget for the City of Edmonds Washington for the year 2021 is hereby adopted at the fund level in its final form and content as set forth in the comprehensive Packet Pg. 377 7.3.c budget document, City of Edmonds Adopted Budget, copies of which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 2. Estimated resources for each separate fund of the City of Edmonds, and aggregate expenditures for all such funds for the year 2021 are set forth in summary form below, and are hereby appropriated for expenditure at the fund level during the year 2021 as set forth in the City of Edmonds Adopted Budget. Fund Description Revenue Expenditure General Fund $ 42,460,777 $ 44,284,853 LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve Subfund 300,000 467,140 Contingency Reserve Subfund 2,620 - Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,010 5,900 Building Maintenance Fund - 210,221 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund 123,581 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund - 28,445 Drug Enforcement Fund 165,370 45,800 Street Fund 1,722,360 2,172,530 Street Construction Fund 3,048,185 2,781,828 Municipal Arts Acquisition Fund 165,060 236,880 Memorial Tree Fund 270 - Hotel/Motel Tax Fund 71,460 87,150 Employee Parking Permit Fund 25,240 26,880 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,390 3,000 Tourism Promotional Arts Fund 24,000 29,900 REET 2 1,282,050 1,428,736 REET 1 1,285,240 1,761,841 Gifts Catalog Fund 103,930 100,900 Cemetery Maintenance/Imp. Fund 179,800 200,998 Parks Trust Fund 2,200 50,000 Cemetery Maintenance Fund 29,220 25,000 Sister City Commission Fund 10,120 11,900 Business Improvement District Fund 79,202 76,340 Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund 65,000 - Edmonds CARES Fund - - 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund 759,710 759,700 Parks Capital Construction Fund 1,392,520 5,360,378 Water Utility Fund 10,299,357 10,578,596 Storm Utility Fund 6,072,300 6,927,783 Sewer/WWTP UtilityFund 28,131,150 35,821,699 Utility Debt Service Fund 1,985,870 1,985,870 Equipment Rental Fund 1,331,100 1,292,815 Technology Rental Fund 1,204,880 1,251,409 Firemen's Pension Fund 67,270 87,584 Totals $ 102,272,661 $ 118,225,657 d V C C L Q E N i31 7 m N O N C M E t U M r+ Q Packet Pg. 378 7.3.c Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of the budget hereby adopted to the State Auditor's Office and to the Association of Washington Cities. Section 4. Attached hereto is the Use of Tax Funds Report, and by this reference said Report is incorporated herein as if set forth in full and the same is hereby adopted in full. The Finance Director is authorized to update actual expenditures in the final report as projected prior to printing the final document. Section 5. This ordinance is a legislative act delegated by statute to the City Council of the City of Edmonds, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect January 1, 2021 APPROVED: MAYOR, MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: 1'M'1 CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 379 7.3.c Q Packet Pg. 380 7.3.c 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 ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2021. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2020 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY as c c �a L 0 E d 3 m r N O N C W E t U 2 r+ Q Packet Pg. 381 7.3.c Part 1: Actual Use of REET Funds collected during the prior two-year period and Actual Use of RE ET Funds as a Percentage of Project REET FUNDS USED FOR THE FOLLOWING STREET EXPENDITURES 2019 % of Project usingREET 2020 % of Project using REET REET 2 - Fund 125 Audible Pedestrian Signals 43,127 78% 2018 Overlay Program 12,484 28% 2019 Overlay Program 389,474 30% 238th Island & Misc Rams 86,606 28% 2020 Overlay Program 4,340 19% 2020 Pavement Preservation Program 391,513 38% 238th Island and ADA Curb Ramps 1,511 100% 238th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to SR-99 Project 1,222 61% REET 1 - Fund 126 Sunset Walkway Improvement 94 31 % Trackside Warning System 289,977 97% Dayton St. Utility Replacement 5,058 0.16% 238th St. Walkway SR104 to Hwy 99 3,623 73% 89th PI W Retaining Wall 125,241 98% 220th Adaptive 815 100% 2018 Overlay Program 24,901 55% 84th Overlay from 220th to 212th 88,777 9% 2019 Overlay Program 435,218 33% 238th Island & Misc Rams 22,806 7% 2019 Traffic Calming 1,121 24% 2019 Guardrail Install 54 100% Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing 9,917 74% 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program 46,848 92% 2020 Overlay Program 4,850 21 % 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades 42,331 100% 2018 Traffic Calming 18,000 10000 Interfund Transfer for 1 % Arts - Various Projects 3,321 100% 2019 Guardrail installations 21,879 100% 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades 57 100% 2020 Guardrail installations 18,286 75% 2020 Pavement Preservation Program 295,955 29% 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades 7,793 100% 238th St. Walkway SR104 to Hwy 99) 778 39% 84th Ave W Overlay-220th to 212th Project 37,567 16% Adaptive system along 220th 12,914 100% Admiral Way Crossing 870 100% Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements 11,317 17% Q Packet Pg. 382 7.3.c Part 1: Actual Use of REET Funds collected during the prior two-year period and Actual Use of REET Funds as a Percentage of Project REET FUNDS USED FOR THE FOLLOWING PARKS EXPENDITURES 9 % of Project usingREET 2020 % of Project usingREET REET 2 - Fund 125 Waterfront Develo ment&Restoration 245,306 87% City Park Shed Project 19,765 51% Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Phase 2 35,611 86% Seaview Park Playground 210,099 100% Seaview Park Playground Fence 15,346 100% Yost Pool Shower Boiler 31,440 75% Seaview Park Tennis Courts 39,247 100% E7MA.Waterfront Develo ment&Restoration 20,326 18% Edmonds Marsh Project 25,000 100% Gateway Sign Replacements 3,000 36% Olympic Beach Restrooms 18,236 96% Marina Beach Volley Ball Court 8,776 100% Parks Maintenance 50,540 100% 4th Ave Corridor 17,500 100% City Park Walkway 30,000 100% Civic Park 20,000 5% Gateway Sign 17,000 100% Marina Beach Design / Construction 30,000 90% Parks Maintenance Professional Services 25,000 100% Parks Maintenance R & M 25,000 1005/. Parks Maintenance Supplies 21,000 100% Waterfront Development and Restoration 1,395,551 49% Yost Pool 33,000 100% REET 1 - Fund 126 Debt Service 159,937 100% 163,120 100% Civic Park 465,564 82% 450,000 100% Waterfront Redevelopment 16,400 6% 1,144,042 40% Q Packet Pg. 383 7.3.c Part 2: Use of REET Funds for the succeeding two-year period and Percentage of REET Funds for capital projects Comnared to all other sources of ranital nmiect funding as Identified in CitJs Canitnl Facilities Plan_ TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND FUNDING SOURCES 2021 2022 Total % of Funding Hwy 99 Gateway/ Revitalization (873,048) (5,755,000) (6,628,048) Federal or State Grants (Secured) $583,048 $5,755,000 6,338,048 96% Fund 126Reimbursement - Hwy 99Gateway /Revitalization 290,000 290,000 4% Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization $ - $ $ - 100% Elm Way from 8th Ave S. to 9th Ave S. (150,800) (968,000) (1,118,800 Federal or State Grants (Unsecured) - 621,000 621,000 56% Stormwater Utility Fund 55,800 347,000 402,800 36% Fund 126 Reimbursement - Elm Way from 8th Ave S. to 9th Ave S. 95,000 - 95,000 8% Elm Way from 8th Ave S. to 9th Ave S. $ - $ - $ - 100% PARKS PROJECTS AND FUNDING SOURCES 2021 2022 Total % of Funding Civic Center Playfield 6,030,315) 6,027,213 12,057,528 G.O. Bonds 3,700,000 3,700,000 31% General Fund - 1,758,000 1,758,000 15% Grants 895,833 2,574,167 3,470,000 29% Private Donations unsecured 400,000 400,000 3% Q Packet Pg. 384