Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2020-12-15 City Council - Full Agenda-2751
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. o Agenda Edmonds City Council V,j Hv REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 DECEMBER 15, 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 CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2020 2. Approval of claim checks and wire payment. 3. Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Doug Wrigley ($441.60) Edmonds City Council Agenda December 15, 2020 Page 1 4. MOU Extending AFSCME Collective Bargaining Agreement 5. Verdant Grant Interlocal Agreement Amendment 6. October Monthly Financial Report 7. Award Construction Contract for the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project 8. 2020 Board & Commission Retirements 9. 2021 Board & Commission Reappointments 10. Confirmation of Tree Board Position # 2 Appointment 11. Ordinance establishing City Council Meeting Schedule for the Second Tuesday of the Month 12. Adoption of 2021 City Budget Ordinance 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Fourth Quarter Budget Amendment (10 min) 2. 2021 Legislative Agenda (30 min) 3. Adoption of the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program/Capital Improvement Plan (60 min) 4. Emergency Ordinancs to allow Streateries in ROW & Outdoor Dining without CU permit (30 min) 8. NEW BUSINESS 1. Selection of Council President for 2021 (20 min) 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Council Committee Minutes (0 min) 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda December 15, 2020 Page 2 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of December 8, 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: 12-08-2020 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 6.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES December 8, 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 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. 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 Councilmember L. Johnson 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, with the exception of Councilmember K. Johnson, participating remotely. (Councilmember K. Johnson joined the meeting during the first seven minutes. ) 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 6.1.a COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT ITEM 7.1, CONFIRMATION OF CHIEF OF POLICE APPOINTMENT, BE DESIGNATED AS A STUDY ITEM ONLY TO ALLOW OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE VETTING AND MORE INPUT. Councilmember Olson observed this had been on the agenda for next week, and she felt there was value to waiting. She hoped Councilmembers would not force this through and allow an opportunity to hear from everybody. Council President Fraley-Monillas said Mayor Nelson and she discussed putting this on the agenda; one of the main reasons was because both candidates for Police Chief were being trashed in social media and in the media. To create less animosity for those applying for the position, it would behoove the Council to move forward one way or another. The Council will be asked to either confirm or not confirm the appointment Mayor's for Police Chief. It is not about the Council's opinion, both candidates have already been vetted very carefully. The finalists have been be out for the last five weeks and nothing was heard until the Mayor announced his choice for Police Chief. At that point there were numerous contacts about the Police Chief position. This has been very hard on both Chief Lawless and Chief Pruitt. The best thing to do is move forward in a progressive manner. Council President Fraley-Monillas said it is not the Council's responsibility to vet people applying for jobs and it is the Mayor's decision to appoint the person he wants to work with. She acknowledged some times she liked the Mayor's appointments, sometimes she didn't, but no matter what, she had to respect the decision made by the Mayor for an executive level position. She encouraged Council not to approve the motion to delay this until next week because nothing will be different or change. The only thing that will happen is continued inappropriate comments on social media regarding the two candidates which is disrespectful to both as good, solid citizens and law abiding people who have served their country in many different ways. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO HOLD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THIS TOPIC. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised point of order, stating there is a motion on the table. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a motion to hold an executive session would be an amendment or a separate motion. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended it be an amendment to the agenda. There is already an amendment pending and Councilmember Buckshnis' proposed amendment would not be a proper amendment to an amendment. He recommended voting on the first amendment and then Councilmember Buckshnis' amendment would be in order. Observing this was a special meeting, Councilmember Distelhorst asked if adding an executive session would be allowed on a special meeting agenda. Mr. Taraday said his advice was always to err on side of caution when adding things to special meeting agenda. The statute states no final action can be taken on an item that has not been listed on the special meeting notice. The statutes are not clear what constitutes "final action." He has always recommended the Council err on the side of caution and not amend special meeting agendas. Councilmember K. Johnson requested the motion be restated as she had joined the meeting late. Mayor Nelson restated the motion as follows: TO MOVE ITEM 7.1, CONFIRMATION OF CHIEF OF POLICE APPOINTMENT, TO A STUDY ITEM. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 Councilmember K. Johnson said there is great value in taking the time; Police Chief Compaan resigned nearly a year ago and things are getting very compressed this time of year. She has received 56 comments, primarily today. The public would benefit from having more time and taking more time would be a good way to proceed to ensure the process was open and transparent and there was no reason to rush. Councilmember Olson corrected the record regarding the statement made by Council President Fraley- Monillas, advising contacts were made to the HR Director after the candidates were identified; the source documents related to that contact were not sought out. Councilmember Paine raised a point of order, whether was discussion regarding the motion. Mayor Nelson agreed it was straying. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO HOLD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION PRIOR TO ITEM 7.1. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she requested an executive session on Sunday after a lot of information and documents came forth. She again asked for an executive session on Monday at noon and her request has not been answered. She hoped her fellow Councilmembers understand that personnel issues and documents are part of the executive session mandate because the candidates were interviewed in executive session. Council President Fraley-Monillas said an executive session was already held on this issue. City staff have done numerous checks, checks and rechecks, contacting everyone from the FBI to the military and back. As of today, the HR Director indicated she had contacted perhaps 14 people from the FBI, the Tribes and the military and all the references were very good. She was not interested in continuing to "pursue some sort of a hunt for someone at this point." As the Council had already had an executive session, she encouraged the Council to move forward tonight. Councilmember Paine said she did not support the motion for an executive session because anything the Council did needed to be transparent to the community. Councilmember Buckshnis said there was no hunt, it was flushing through documents that have been provided. Because the Council interviewed the candidates in executive session, it was best to discuss things in an executive session and then provide final action and comments during Item 7.1 which would be very transparent. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether the Council was doing the CFP/CIP before or after the item regarding the budget. Mayor Nelson advised the agenda currently has the CFP/CIP before the budget. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA SO THAT THE CFP/CIP IS AFTER THE BUDGET. Councilmember K. Johnson said the budget is much more important and she was not prepared to discuss the CFP/CIP but was fully prepared to discuss the budget. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 6.1.a Mr. Taraday referred to an email he sent a few minutes earlier recommending that even if the Council did not amend the agenda, that the Council not vote on Item 7.2 until they determined whether they would be adopting the budget because those approvals must occur at the same meeting. If the Council thinks they are likely to adopt the budget tonight, he recommends reversing the order. If the Council thinks they are unlikely to adopt the budget tonight and just want to discuss the CFP/CIP and it move to Consent next week, there may not legally be a reason to amend agenda. Councilmember K. Johnson said she has many comments regarding the CFP/CIP, but did not think the Council would be able to cover it in a timely manner and she wanted to ensure the budget was covered in a timely manner which was the reason she suggested reversing the order on the agenda. If there was any time left, the Council could discuss the CFP/CIP. She anticipated the budget would take all Council's time so she wanted to change the order of the agenda items. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for Councilmember K. Johnson's motion. She preferred to postpone the entire budget since the packet was not complete. In the past there has always been rationale and understanding provided for amendments. She anticipated the budget discussion would be longer this year to allow Councilmembers time to provide the rationale for their amendments. She agreed it would be best to have budget first and then the CFP/CIP which has always been done in the past. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday's advice, not to change the agenda if the Council was unlikely to approve the CFP/CIP tonight. Mr. Taraday clarified the final vote to approve the CFP has to be at the same meeting as the final vote to adopt the budget. If that was not likely to occur tonight, the final vote on both would be next week. Council President Fraley-Monillas said hearing that, it did not make sense to move CFP/CIP prior to the budget adoption because both have to be approved at the same meeting. She did not support the motion. With regard to budget deliberations, Council President Fraley-Monillas said the Council has had the budget for eight weeks; this weekend there was a flood of budget amendments, three days before the Council was scheduled to talk about the budget. She cannot fix stuff when people aren't cooperating or doing things in a productive manner. She encouraged the Council to leave the agenda as proposed. Councilmember L. Johnson said she arrived at the last three meetings fully prepared to make amendments and discuss others' amendments. She was challenged at understanding why the budget discussion was continually punted. Councilmembers received the budget book on October 6th; she was ready to discuss it, had done her homework and hoped fellow Councilmembers had done the same and were also ready. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has also been ready, but she has had ten people contact her and she provided the Q&A for the budget just two weeks ago. She questioned Mr. Taraday's comment that the CFP and budget have to be adopted on the same night and did not recall that occurring in the past. She did not want to be shamed into thinking that she was not doing her job because the Council has had the budget for eight weeks. Many people have contacted her to provide input. The Council needs to vet the budget and be deliberative because it is a very detailed budget and there is a lot of information in it. She wants to hear from other Councilmembers because she respects their opinions. She has not provided her opinions because she was told last Tuesday that she needed to submit her rationale and budget amendments within 24 hours which she did. She recommended respecting each other's timing and respecting that citizens are watching and are very interested in the budget. Mr. Taraday said the reason this year is different than past years is because the GMA requires Comprehensive Plan amendments happen only once a year with a few exceptions. This year the Council has already adopted the Comprehensive Plan amendments, so the only way to adopt the CFP, which is part Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 6.1.a of the Comprehensive Plan, is to do it with the budget. That is the only way to satisfy the exception to the once per year requirement. He agreed it had not been this way in past years because in those years the CFP was adopted along with the other Comprehensive Plan amendments. Councilmember Paine observed if the CFP/CIP was moved to the end of the agenda, the Council could proceed with budget deliberations although she was unsure the Council would get through that process. She was ready to start budget discussions tonight and it would be great to get as much of that done tonight and finalize it next week if it could not be completed this week. Council President Fraley-Monillas said approving the CFP first will be shorter since the Council has done a majority of the work prior to the budget deliberations. Councilmember K. Johnson called the question. Council President Fraley-Monillas recommended leaving the agenda as it stands and moving forward with approval of the agenda as it is now 7:24 p.m. and the Council has spent 24 minutes on approval of the agenda. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. George Bennett, Edmonds, said he rarely gets involved in politics as he has a distain for being wrong all the time to half the people, but he does get involved when he is passionate about and issue. He found it ironic that Council President Fraley-Monillas said the candidate was being trashed in Edmonds on public forums. He has found a strong amount of decorum in those discussions; the only trashing he has seen was in the KING 5 news story where it was implicitly stated that Edmonds has a large racist population. He asked the Council President to be careful when implying that decorum and debate are trashing candidates. The points of his discussion were vetted in the initial vote. He still thinks something is rotten in the State of Denmark; there has been zero transparency into Mayor Nelson's process and any qualification -based decisions he has made. In the early discussion, it sounded like there was additional information that some Councilmembers would like to discuss. If that was widely available, like the bible says, nothing happens in the dark that doesn't not come out in the light of day. He encouraged the Council to understand that the public will pursue this. He applauded and appreciated the two candidates for their willingness to put themselves in the line of fire, not only for a living but through this process. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons to make a political statement is purely appeasement; the Council is appeasing for political reasons. There is zero transparency into the qualifications -based decision that was made. Basing a decision from a perspective of color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, age or gender as the deciding factor is wrong. The reckless news interview by Council President Fraley-Monillas was irresponsible and not borne out by the facts of the town. Mayor Nelson has had ample time to release any and all documents and has not done so. The only explanation is a unique and fresh prospective. He urged the Council to vote no and delay. Maria Sixto, Edmonds, a proud resident for 19 years, said it was always her and her wife's goal to live in an idyllic town like Edmonds and raise their child there. Acceptance seemed unlikely given their perception Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 6.1.a of the conservative senior population residing in Edmonds. They soon started meeting police officers that represented their LGBTQI+ community who were widely supported by Assistant Chief Jim Lawless. Historically no other chief has been as instrumental at creating a more diverse workforce in Edmonds. She was shocked and dismayed when after making a public announcement, Mayor Nelson appointed a very fine but less qualified Chief of Police. She was certain Chief Pruitt would have been an amazing recruit under Chief Lawless, but at this moment his qualifications were not on par. The final straw was Council President Fraley-Monillas declaring on television that Edmonds was a racist town. She should be recalled; and Ms. Sixto said shame on you Councilmember for your careless remarks and generalization of the citizens of Edmonds. There have been plenty of racist events and the hacking of the Zoom interview was appalling and better security measures should have been taken. However, that does not justify denying a great candidate a well -deserved appointment. None of the elected Councilmembers believe for one moment that Chief Pruitt is as equally qualified as Chief Lawless from the level of education, experience, and certifications, not to mention that Chief Pruitt comes from a jurisdiction of approximately 400. The Council has a duty to do what is right for the citizens of Edmonds. Council President Fraley-Monillas publicly admitted that this was a racially motivated appointment. This affects her personally as she comes from a hardworking family of immigrants who sought political asylum from Cuba in 1968, leaving with just a suitcase for a family of four. She was the first to graduate from college in her family, their daughter is a graduate of a competitive high school where she worked tirelessly for impeccable grades and a GPA, earning multiple scholarships to top universities. While she was sure the Council's intentions were good, they were only adding to microaggressions that hardworking, qualified people of diverse backgrounds have to endure. She has never had any accomplishment handed to me that she did not earn. All things being equal, she supports diversity hands down, but this is a slap in the face to Chief Lawless as well as to Chief Pruitt. She sincerely hoped Councilmember would vote no on this appointment. Gail Welfringer, Edmonds, a resident since 1988, business owner, homeowner, taxpayer and parent whose children attended Edmonds schools, read from a letter she submitted to Councilmembers today. Her letter was submitted with no affiliation to any organization she belongs to. As a private citizen, she requested the Council not allow the vote to be pushed tonight with regard to the appointment of the City's next Police Chief. Conflicting facts that have led to this point are not in line with the culture or traditions in Edmonds, a city based on trust and support by citizens to its elected officials. Many citizens asked for and deserve more details regarding this process, which to this day remain unanswered. As events have unfold, one fact remains, this process is unclear and complicated and should give pause to all involved. The timeline was set for December 15t' and now, without any valid explanation, it has been moved up to tonight without allowing time for concerned citizens to show support or reconcile answers which is not right. In the end, citizens elect City officials based on the understanding they meet their duties with fair and unbiased judgment and that the busines coming before Council will be given its due diligence and deliberation. Based on the outpouring of concern, contact by citizens, police associations and media channels, she requested the Council forego voting on this matter. This is not about credentials or skills, it is about a responsibility based on a specific and distinct promise made by an employer, Mayor Nelson, to their employee, Assistant Chief Lawless, that needs to be honored. It was about law enforcement professionals put in a position that recognizes their hard work and dedication that would allow them to excel in the position. If this was not done right, she questioned what would incentive other officers to excel to these positions. She urged the Council to consider the relationship, hard work and dedication and forego, hit pause and do their job. Al Compaan, Edmonds, said he had the honor of serving as Edmonds' Police Chief for 12 years prior to retirement December 31, 2019 and serving the City for over 41 years in the Police Department. He was very troubled by the process that was followed for selection of the City's next Police Chief. It is a critical appointment, important to the community and to the members of the Police Department. He was very troubled by the lack of transparency, the fact that the agenda was changed last night after business hours to put the confirmation matter on the agenda for tonight. He said there was no other way to describe it other than sleazy, noting he did not use that word lightly. This is not the Edmonds way; Edmonds is a wonderful Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 6.1.a community and he has lived here many years. He was stunned by how this matter has been handled, troubled by it and if Council moves forward tonight with the number of unanswered questions that remain, shame on the Council and Mayor Nelson. He trusted that the Council would make the right decision. Dennis O'Malley, Edmonds, born in Edmonds 1977 and a lifelong resident, said he like many others hoped the Council would cast their vote to nominate Chief Lawless the City's permanent chief. Chief Lawless has not only been an officer with the Edmonds Police Department for 25 years, but he is also a member of the community and knows the City better than any other candidate possibly could. He knows the community and what it needs in terms of a Police Department. He has more education, training, and experience than Chief Pruitt and served in a town with 50,000 and many officers, while Chief Pruitt is currently the Police Chief in a department with less than 1,000 residents and a mere 5 officers reporting to him. He questioned how Chief Pruitt even qualified for the position. It appears Mayor Nelson and Council President Fraley-Monillas were basing their nomination solely off Chief Pruitt's nationality and race, blatantly obvious and pretty disappointing. Race is not a qualification for a job, experience, qualifications and training are what a decision should be based on. If Council President Fraley-Monillas believed her angle would gain her votes in the next election, she was sorely mistaken. As if the community hasn't suffered enough in this pandemic, with small businesses struggling to survive or closing and instead of promote the City, Council President Fraley-Monillas goes in the opposite direction and bashes the City on the news. Unfortunately, while there are racist people in every town, there are more good people in Edmonds than bad. Council President Fraley-Monillas put every resident in the same category by calling Edmonds a racist city and she should be absolutely ashamed of herself. The Council is expected to represent the City as a whole, not just certain groups or to push their personal agenda through as has been done repeatedly since the pandemic began. As a lifelong resident, now raising his own family here, he was genuinely disappointed in himself for voting for Mayor Nelson and truly feels deceived and will be voting for anyone but him and Council President Fraley-Monillas in the next election. He asked Councilmembers to look at what matters for this position: experience, qualifications, training and most importantly, genuine care and knowledge of the City. He asked that the Council confirm Chief Lawless as Chief of Police. No one has been bashing anyone and he expressed concern with that statement. People want the more qualified, better police officer who has been in the Edmonds community for over 25 years to be the City's Police Chief. Leslie Marmion, Edmonds, referenced the decision regarding the Police Chief, pointing out Mayor Nelson has all along supported Chief Lawless which is a no brainer and he has been Acting Chief for a long time and has an incredible resume that stands alone above all the rest. The person Mayor Nelson appointed could someday be a great Chief when he has more experience. She pointed out Council President Fraley-Monillas was shaking her head while people are commenting on the fact there were two candidates, one with superior skills, education, and managing nearly 50,000 people versus 200-400, there was literally not one thing on the resume of Mayor Nelson's current choice that shows he was the better candidate. She was dismayed to think Council President Fraley-Monillas went on KING 5 and said to all viewers that Edmonds was a racist community. Council President Fraley-Monillas can shake her head all she wants, but the bottom line is she has shamed the Council and the town. Her family in Duvall asked her about the KING 5 report; they were shocked, surprised, and frustrated. This Council should work together to fix the problem and it shouldn't be to shove this nomination down the community's throats; taxpaying citizens deserve far better than they are getting in this situation. To Mayor Nelson, she hoped and prayed that at some point he figured out how to work with Council and that Council President Fraley-Monillas would take a step back, reflect on what she has done to the community by saying taxpaying citizens are racist. She said shame, shame, shame on Council President Fraley-Monillas. She echoed the comments made by previous speakers. Brian Thompson, Edmonds, a resident and small business owner, said he appreciates the City's law enforcement. Although he wants to respects the position of Council President, he finds hard it with the quote he heard, "with all the racism in Edmonds," stated in the context of justifying the nomination of Chief Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 6.1.a Pruitt. If racism was a problem, and he did not believe it was, the color of the Police Chiefs skin would not make a difference. Back in 1998 voters overwhelmingly passed I-200 striking down affirmative action. Last year, through Referendum 88, voters overturned affirmative action that legislators had imposed without a vote of the people. He did not understand why legislators, including the Edmonds City Council, were trying to impose affirmative action when the voters have repeatedly said it is undesirable. On November 9th at a Town Hall, one Police Chief candidate stated that to make up for the lack of an SRO in the school district, he would reach out to students at basketball courts and football fields. With COVID, there are no students on basketball courts or on football fields. It was Chief Lawless who had a plan to make up for the missing SROs. He hoped the Council would do the right thing and appoint the person who would meet the community's needs. Barry Crane, Edmonds, thanked Councilmembers and Mayor Nelson for their service to the community, recognizing public service involved many personal sacrifices and it was impossible to please all citizens. They have a difficult and often thankless j ob and he appreciated all they do. According to Abraham Maslow, after psychological needs are met, the most important human need is safety. As duly elected officials, the community's public safety is placed in their hands and they have a fundamental civic and moral responsible to the citizens of the community to choose the most qualified candidate to lead the Police Department into the future. He believed, along with others who have spoken, that the most qualified candidate was evident to all. Racism is not acceptable in the community, but the way to address systemic racism is not by putting the wrong person in the wrong job at the wrong time. Under the leadership of Chief Compaan and Jim Lawless, the number of women and persons of color in the Edmonds Police Department has nearly doubled since 2009. He was deeply saddened and frankly completely baffled that some Councilmembers would consider this appointment on any other basis than that of the most qualified candidate. Public safety is not the place for political posturing because of the importance of getting it right. As the Council votes, he urged them to consider the good faith that 42,000 residents place in them to make the correct decision. Darrell Marmion, Edmonds, a resident for 32 years, said although he did not know either candidate, reading the resumes and information that has been published, the obvious choice was clear. As he did not know either candidate, his comments would be regarding the process. To Council President Fraley- Monillas' earlier comment that it was not the Council's job to vet the candidates, he said it actually was because that is what confirmation is about based on what he had seen in the Supreme Court candidate vetting via the confirmation process and he suggested she relook at that. Since Mayor Nelson's announcement of his preferred candidate, he has not seen anything explaining the rationale used to propose that the person who looks the least qualified on paper be confirmed by the Council. He hoped more information would be provided about that tonight during the agenda item because that did not make sense from his perspective. He was also concerned about Council President Fraley-Monillas moving up the agenda item; instead of people having a week to mull things over and raise concerns, the decision was made to move it up and people have had only a day or two to think about it and many people may not even be aware that the agenda was changed which he did not feel was appropriate. In reviewing comments on My Edmonds News, he did not see any trashing of the candidates, but there was plenty of trashing of Mayor Nelson and Council President Fraley-Monillas, which he agreed with, so that was not a valid reason to delay the process. He urged the Council to vote no on this suggested appointment. He appreciated that Council meetings were available on Zoom so that the public can participate. Most Councilmembers are very attentive and listening to comments, but he found it very distracting that one person in particular, Council President Fraley-Monillas, is continually smirking, dismissing comments, shaking her head no and appears distracted during most of the meeting which is not conducive to good meetings. Duane Hoekstra, Edmonds, referred to a letter he sent to the Mayor and Councilmembers and stated he is a retired Seattle sergeant who spent 42 years with the Seattle Police Department, five of those years working in community relations assigned to the Office of the Chief of Police in the early 1970s. He has lived in Edmonds for the past 38 years. During his 42 years with the Seattle Police Department, he saw many Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 6.1.a changes in the Chief of Police, changes that caused disruption to the personnel working for the department and to the expectations of the citizens they served. Because of his past experience, he strongly disagreed with changing from a Police Chief who has successful managed the department and is well liked by the department and the citizens. He urged the Council to consider the disruption and instability to the Edmonds Police Department and disruption of expectations to the citizens served before deciding to taking a new and unknown course with the Edmonds Police Department. Susan Hoekstra, Edmonds, a graduate of Edmonds High School class of 1958 and longtime citizen of Edmonds, said her perspective comes from the many years she has personally witnessed and appreciated the steady hand of the Edmonds Police Department and the commitment of the officers to protect the city. That same qualified leadership is still there over a cohesive, disciplined department now. She urged the Council to keep that exceptional continuity under the fine leadership of Jim Lawless. She recommended the Council vote no on Pruitt and yes on Lawless to give citizens piece of mind. She thanked the Council for considering her feelings, safety and stability. Peter Gibson, Edmonds, expressed his embarrassment that Council President Fraley-Monillas went on KING 5 television and was quoted saying, "with all the racism in Edmonds." His friends and family who do not live in the community, watch that news source and that was not something he wanted to live up to. Council President Fraley-Monillas does not represent him, his family or his community. He said shame on Council President Fraley-Monillas and suggested she step down and Chief Lawless resume his role. Chris [last name not provided] expressed disappointment and questioned the motives of those who have chosen not to acknowledge Chief Pruitt's experience beyond his current position. Her neighbors are willing to pay respect to all of Chief Lawless' honorable resume and his distinguished career, but decline to pay the same respect to the qualifications beyond Chief Pruitt's current position, including his highly relevant 12 years of service in the Marine Corps, 8 years in the Washington National Guard and his years with the Tulalip Police Department in multiple leadership positions including his role as sergeant and Interim Chief of Police of a staff of 65 people, information both candidates provided in the November 9th public forum. She hears repeated accusations of a lack of transparency by her neighbors who do not take the time to participate and research all the resources that the Council and City provide to offer transparency including a public forum where both candidates provided their qualifications, ideas and vision for the community. She hears repeated accusations of abrupt actions being taken, however, this process has occurred over six months and involved eight members of the community and five local law enforcement leaders who assisted with the candidate search and vetting as well as the City's own HR Department. The irresponsible report that KING 5 posted last night was very disappointing on many levels. She agreed there was some poor word choice by Council President Fraley-Monillas, coupled with sensational editing by KING 5. Her neighbors are misquoting the unfortunate sound bite and she encouraged people to re -watch the clip for Council President Fraley-Monillas' actual statement. Regardless of what Council President Fraley-Monillas said, racism is real even in Edmonds. Even though the town is charming and adorable and has a little fountain downtown, racism is real in Edmonds and everywhere, but people are using that to distract them from the real issue tonight. She encouraged Mayor Nelson to help heal some of the public's mistrust following a clumsy process and explain why he was putting Chief Pruitt forward. He encouraged the Council to listen and give weight to Mayor Nelson, the selection committee and HR Department who are qualified to evaluate and vet candidates and vote as soon as possible so respect can be paid to both chiefs who are being unfairly targeted with online attacks by citizens who continue to claim how lovely and not racist Edmonds is. Mark Marsh, said he has over 35 years in law enforcement, including 33'/z years with the Edmonds Police Department. He retired in March 2015 but kept his passion for the City and Police Department by doing volunteer work. During his time with the Edmonds Police Department, he had the opportunity to interact with numerous outside police agency as well as watch the growth of the Edmonds Police Department and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 6.1.a its personnel. One of the officers he supervised was Acting Chief Lawless; he personally observed how Assistant Chief Lawless continued his rise through the organization through hard work and dedication. Even while working full-time as Assistant Chief, he completed his master's degree, no easy task given the amount of work he had. When Mayor Nelson announced his plans to appoint Assistant Chief Lawless as full time Police Chief, Mr. Marsh said he couldn't have been happier or more proud of the Police Department and City. That joy was short lived when members of the Council pointed out a City ordinance that required more than one candidate be interviewed before an appointment could be made. Assistant Chief Lawless' qualifications are without question, deserving of Edmonds Chief of Police. He did not know Mr. Pruitt, however, his qualifications and experience are lacking for someone to be considered for the Edmonds Police Chief job. His 14 years of experience with smaller Tribal Police agencies does not equate to the knowledge and job skills required for the Police Chief position. Early this year Mayor Nelson praised the leadership shown by Assistant Chief Lawless and stated he wanted to appoint him to the permanent position. Now he reverses course and states Pruitt is the best person for the task. Chief Pruitt has had less than one year in his current position and is in charge of a department with less than 10 officers. He quoted from an article by the City when the two finalists were announced, "most candidates fail to exhibit sufficient command staff experience, serving only corrections experience and/or having worked in agencies much smaller than the Edmonds Police Department." He questioned what changed and why the sudden reversal, whether the qualifications were changed in the back room without any public input or other reasons that were not stated publicly. Many questions regarding this decision by Mayor Nelson need to be answered. This process and the choice made by Mayor Nelson are not in the best interest of the Edmonds Police Department and more importantly, for the City of Edmonds. He hoped the process would end with the selection of the right person, Jim Lawless. Kasandra Allen expressed her disappointment that Jim Lawless will not be able to continue leading the Edmonds Police Department as he has ably done for nearly a year. Her husband has been with Edmonds Police Department for nearly three years and has always spoken highly of the department and its leadership and that continued when Jim Lawless stepped up to lead through a difficult season. She referred to a letter she keeps in her nightstand drawer that Jim Lawless sent to family members of EPD personnel this past June; his words of wisdom provided hope, encouragement and acknowledge the stresses on families in law enforcement. There are very few things that touch her enough to keep, but that letter did. Edmonds has not seen an exodus of law enforcement as some neighboring jurisdictions have and she believed the leadership was one of the reasons the Edmonds Police Department remains a place where officers want to work and families encourage good officers to stay with the department. The Edmonds Police Department and Jim Lawless both have the respect of the community, the department, and the families of the law enforcement agents who serve the City. She found it difficult to understand any reason from what she has seen expressed that would warrant a change in leadership, why fix something that isn't broken? In this case, the fix has real consequences for real people like Jim Lawless, Edmonds Police Department staff and families, and the community at large. She quoted from Mayor Nelson's April 9th statement, "one measure of a person's worth is how they perform during a crisis. This has been a crisis like no other. Acting Chief Lawless has been a steady, firm hand during this time of uncertainty. I can't imagine a person better suited for this job than Jim." Ms. Allen deeply regretted that the political leadership of Edmonds is not united to work together to do what is best for the community and the department and frankly has turned this process into a mess where it is hard to see how the community wins. Martha Karl, Edmonds, thanked elected officials for their public service, recognizing it was a tough job and listening to all the bashing tonight must be difficult, but it was part of the job. A long term resident with over 20 years of law enforcement experience, working in local and federal law enforcement, she has experienced firsthand the benefits of a change in leadership in law enforcement agencies from the top down. She believed the Edmonds Police Department had grown comfortable and their efforts to engage citizens have become stale and are not a priority. The public outcry from citizens to the City and the Edmonds School District about not wanting law enforcement in schools was due to the problem with law enforcement Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 6.1.a in the City and this is a great first step in repairing some of those relationships. When speaking with people in the tribal circles, she has heard recommendations for Chief Pruitt and that he has a great reputation for engaging the community. His abilities to read people and understand people and situations and handle interpersonal relationships judicially and empathetically are important. Emotional intelligence is not something one can get with a higher degree. It is essential to rebuild this community and people with children in the community not wanting law enforcement in their schools is something to pay attention to. She trusted that the electeds have done a great job and recommended sticking with what they know, and not changing just because a lot of people are angry. Jay Grant referred to a letter he sent this evening after finding out there would be a vote tonight, said he did not understand why a change was made. He did not know either candidate well, but after talking to many people, heard only good results regarding the City's current Police Chief. From a command point of view, professionally, hands -down, the current Acting Chief was a superior choice. The process bothered him the most and other extremely negative things have come to light regarding the candidate, the appointment and the confirmation. Much of it has just come up recently, some of what he has read has been factual. For that reason alone, the City Council has an obligation to back off, look at this from a professional side, and find out the facts before making any determination. If some of the information is true, approving the nomination tonight could put the person into the position of resigning after the appointment. Karin Butler, Edmonds, applauded the City Council for calling for an expanded search and for Mayor Nelson's appointment of Chief Pruitt. There is racism in Edmonds, hers is a family of color and they have experienced the racism. As a Black man, her husband has been pulled over multiple times in the community. She reached out to then -Chief Compaan and Interim Chief Lawless to explain how her sons are afraid of police and her fear that they might harm her husband, neither responded in ways other than to encourage the current police culture. She said positive change is needed, the community is diverse and a Chief of Police is needed who understands that. Having a Chief of Police that her sons can look up to is meaningful to them and to the community. This is beyond how qualified he is, he is extremely qualified, and the community needs to wake up and she hoped the Council approved the appointment of Chief Pruitt. She summarized her family of color would feel more safe and welcome walking the streets of Edmonds if that happens. Darnesha Weary, Edmonds, a 30 year resident of Edmonds, a graduate of an Edmonds high school, and a member of the interviewing panels, agreed with the decision to move forward with this appointment for several reasons. With the qualifications on paper, she believed this was the correct choice. Edmonds is a racist city and everyone who is says it is not is not a person affected by it. She is Black, has a Black husband, Black son and daughter, and Black friends who live in Edmonds who can say Edmonds is racist because they have experienced it several times. Her kids were assaulted and she found the way the Police Department handled that situation unacceptable. She echoed Ms. Butler's comments that she and her husband do not go to downtown Edmonds often. Her husband has been followed, had the police called on him when they were looking for houses to buy because someone said he was suspicious. Her kids are not allowed to walk anywhere or go anywhere, especially her son, or hang out in downtown Edmonds because they are afraid of the police. When the police showed up at a peaceful rally led by a youth, she was upset at how they handled it. They did not protect her high school daughter when she was talking about her passion for justice in the community and she was almost harmed until her dad stepped in to protect her. The world and community are changing, there are a lot of Black and Brown faces showing up and it is time to move forward. She was offended by the comment that he was being hiring just because he was Black because it was completely untrue, something she would never stand for. Black people were not a monolith, she would not support someone because they were black and she hoped no one would ever support her just because she was Black, but rather for her qualifications and because she was the right fit for the job. Edmonds needs to move forward and that means making difficult decisions. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 Mike O'Malley said he has been listening to comments for and against Lawless and a previous speaker's comments about her daughter who was at Harveys which is a bar and her daughter seems like she was underage and although he was uncertain about the circumstances, underage children should not be at a bar. Chief Lawless has been engaged in the community; he has talked with several Edmonds Police Department officers and several are minorities. For someone to say they are scared to go to Edmonds and that police officers are coming at them makes no sense because there are minority police officers. He sees plenty of minorities in Edmonds and plenty of people of color in Edmonds who walk around and do not get harassed. He expressed concern with the City Council pushing this through and for four members to vote against a delay and pursue their own agendas when the public has stated they want Chief Lawless as their permanent Chief. Councilmembers are voted in by the public and not elected to pursue their own agendas, but instead pursue what the majority of Edmonds wants. It is very clear that the majority of Edmonds wants Chief Lawless to be the permanent Chief of Edmonds, nothing to do with racism, but on qualifications alone. He urged the Council to look at the candidates' qualifications and listen to the public opinion of the entire Edmonds who overwhelmingly support Chief Lawless. Nora Murphy said she intended to read a letter she sent to the City Council regarding the selection of the Chief of Police, but after listening to the meeting she was extremely disappointed in the process, the comments about race and four Councilmembers who would not agree to postpone this decision. Elected representatives have the duty to take into account the citizens' requests. She did not know the elected officials' agendas but she found them disturbing. She has known Jim Lawless for many years; to say he is not progressive enough is ridiculous. With the number of people of color, women, gays that are now within the Edmonds Police Department, anyone saying that should be ashamed of themselves. Chief Lawless has promoted and encouraged this, met with members of community, and has reached out to young adults and young people. This conversation needs to go away from the candidates and look at the process; Council President Fraley-Monillas should be ashamed of herself for putting this forward so quickly this evening and she was disgusted by the other four Councilmembers who agreed to that. As a 60+ year resident of Edmonds, she thoroughly endorsed Chief Jim Lawless and suggested the Council look at the additional, disturbing information that some members of the public have found about Chief Pruitt. She looked forward to the Council hopefully postponing this decision and taking the time to look at it further. Jeff Jones, Edmonds, a long-time Edmonds resident and a sergeant for Edmonds Police Department for more than two decades including when Chief Lawless hired, said he watched him progress through his career to Assistant Chief. He was thoroughly embarrassed by the antics that have occurred during this process, commenting it was basically a joke. This does not just affect the Police Department, all the agencies in the City work closely and everyone is watching what the Council does. Without support from the top, it is difficult to do one's job. What he has seen is the opposite, the Police Department is not getting support from the top. Things cannot be done behind closed doors; he was disappointed with the news media coverage as other speakers have described. That news report stated the vote would take place in a week, but after the news, he learned it would occur tonight, which does not sound like open and honest negotiations or consideration. He was proud to have served the City for 37 years, but was embarrassed about what going was going on right now in the City. Chief Lawless is an excellent candidate and he not seen anyone display or say anything that would change the decision Mayor Nelson made in May with regard to his performance for the City for over two decades. He realized tenure was not the only consideration, but given the amount of time Chief Lawless has dedicated, he has been a member of the SWAT team, run the SWAT team, been the supervisor for many officers, and under his leadership, the Edmonds Police Department is more diverse than the population it serves. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 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 Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification from City Attorney Jeff Taraday, noting there seemed to be a viewpoint that if one candidate were not chosen, the other candidate would be the alternate. It was her understanding that Mayor Nelson had the ability to call for more candidates and go through the process again. Mr. Taraday explained the City Council has confirmation authority, but not appointment authority. The Mayor is the only officer of the City who can appoint a Police Chief and the Council has simply an up or down vote on that appointment. Furthermore, the Mayor can only appoint one Police Chief at a time so there are not two pending Police Chief candidates. There is only one appointee and it is up to the Council to vote up or down to confirm that appointment. Council President Fraley-Monillas said if the current appointee is voted down, the Mayor can make the decision either to bring up second candidate or go out for more names or potentially start the process over. Mr. Taraday agreed, advising that was up to the Mayor. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she wanted that to be clear as several speakers recommended turning down one to get the other, but that was not how the process works. HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson agreed if the appointment was not confirmed, it would be up to the Mayor to decide next steps for selecting another appointee. Ms. Neill Hoyson reviewed the Police Chief requirements and background process in response to questions whether Chief Pruitt meets the requirements of Police Chief under RCW 35.21.333. The requirements are: 1) the candidate must be a citizen of the United States of America which Chief Pruitt is, 2) has obtained a high school diploma or high school equivalency certificate which Chief Pruitt has, 3) the candidate has not been convicted under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States of a felony; Chief Pruitt has not been convicted of a felony and a complete criminal background was done by a third party contractor who does the City's criminal background checks, 4) has not been convicted of a gross misdemeanor or any crime involving moral turpitude within five years of the date of application; Chief Pruitt has not been convicted of any crime or anything involving moral turpitude and that was confirmed by the third party contractor, 5) has received at least a general discharge under honorable conditions from any branch of the armed services for any military service if the person was in the military service; Chief Pruitt received an honorable discharge and that was confirmed with paperwork from the military, 6) has completed at least two years of regular uninterrupted full-time commissioned law enforcement employment involving enforcement responsibilities with a government law enforcement agency; Chief Pruitt meets that requirement, both Tulalip and Sauk-Suiattle have met the requirements to be considered a general authority law enforcement agency per RCW 10.92. There are certain things that tribal police have to meet to be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 considered a general law enforcement agency, 7) has been certified as a regular and commissioned enforcement officer through compliance with the state's basic training requirements or equivalency. Chief Pruitt passed the equivalency academy at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission in 2007. This was confirmed by his employer at the time, Tulalip, as well as the Criminal Justice Training Commission. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised the City has an additional requirement in its job description. While the RCW only requires two years, the City's job description requires 10 years of increasingly responsibility experience as a sworn general enforcement officer. Through his time with Tulalip and with Sauk-Suiattle, Chief Pruitt meets that requirement. Ms. Neill Hoyson reviewed the background process for this candidate, advising it is very similar to that done for a lateral law enforcement officer. The candidate completes a Personal History Statement, a very extensive form with information on relatives, references that are not employers, law enforcement academies they have attended, their education, residences for the last ten years, employment for the last ten years, all law enforcement applications they have done and the result, any military experience, any law enforcement experience, all arrests and convictions, motor vehicle citations and the information must be certified by the candidate. This statement along with the criminal background done by the third party are then used to conduct the background investigation. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained the third party contractor verified Chief Pruitt's education, a BA in criminal justice administration, which was verified by the educational instruction, the criminal background check which did not result in any criminal background information, and a financial check to determine if there was anything concerning in the candidate's finances the City should be aware of. Additionally, Chief Pruitt's personnel file was reviewed to determine if there were any complaints, investigations, demotions, or discharges; his evaluations; as well as any additional information. The review of his employment file with Tulalip revealed nothing concerning with regard to his qualifications for Chief of Police. Additionally, the employment of the candidate was confirmed with both Sauk-Suiattle and Tulalip and they confirmed the information Chief Pruitt provided. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained Chief Pruitt also completed a lateral polygraph where the candidate completes a questionnaire and the polygraph looks at truthfulness as it relates to criminal background, education or things the person has been involved in; Chief Pruitt passed that polygraph. Reference checks were conducted with direct supervisors such as the Chair of the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, the current Chief of Police of the Tulalip Tribe as well as two former Tulalip Police Chiefs. Professional and personal reference checks were conducted as well as secondary reference checks (names provided by people providing references regarding the candidate's qualifications for the position). The final piece, a psychological evaluation, cannot be done until a candidate has a conditional offer due to ADA issues. That evaluation was completed today and in speaking with the psychologist, she found no concerns related to Chief Pruitt. The City is awaiting the final report from the evaluation; because Chief Pruitt has VA benefits, he needs to provide the form to the company doing the psychological evaluation for them to produce the final report. Because that final report is not in hand, she recommended due to ADA regulations, if Mr. Pruitt is confirmed, it needs to be a conditional confirmation of his employment subject to the City receiving that final evaluation information from the psychological evaluation. Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Olson referred to the City's requirement of 10 years of increasing experience; however, the Sauk-Suiattle Police force and scope of responsibility is significantly smaller than the Tulalip Tribe. She asked how that requirement was met. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the increasing responsibility does Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 6.1.a not depend on the size of the organization, but the responsibility of the position. The majority of that requirement was certainly met during Chief Pruitt's time with Tulalip where he progressed through many positions of responsibility including Commander, Deputy Chief and Interim Police Chief. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has received numerous emails and was not prepared to ask questions. She asked if there was an agenda memo or packet for this item. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised there was an agenda memo. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it included the information Ms. Neill Hoyson had just provided. Ms. Neill Hoyson said it did not provide the specific details of the RCW but stated it had been confirmed that he met the requirements of the RCW for Police Chief and included the RCW number. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Ms. Neill Hoyson said two years of uninterrupted patrol duty or service were required and she had mentioned Chief Pruitt served at Sauk-Suiattle and the Tulalip Tribes. She asked if going from one agency to another counted as uninterrupted. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered yes, it could be counted as uninterrupted depending on the length of time between; Chief Pruitt had two years at Tulalip. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the candidate for appointment has an adequate understanding of some of the challenges they may face in the position. Ms. Neill Hoyson asked Councilmember Distelhorst to clarify what he meant by challenges. Councilmember Distelhorst said in terms of opinions submitted by the community today regarding the two finalist, have there been discussions with the candidate about that. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she has been in contact with Chief Pruitt and he absolutely understands. Interestingly enough, he was in a similar situation when he was the Interim Chief at Tulalip; an outside candidate competed with him for the position and he did not get the position. He is very understanding of what is occurring and shared he would be surprised if Edmonds was not coming to the defense of the incumbent. He feels that is very normal and speaks well of the City that residents feel that strongly and are engaged. Councilmember Olson said on paper, there is no municipal policing experience, 10 years less in policing and less time in staff leadership positions, and the lack of knowledge of the community, the surrounding communities and the community partners are glaring disparities between the experience, qualifications and readiness for this job. With the conversations that have occurred, she asked whether City was at risk of an EEOC lawsuit for hiring based on race, not diminishing Chief Pruitt, just a relative weighing of the resumes. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she believed there was an assumption in Councilmember Olson's statement that the hire was based on race; nothing she has seen indicates that. Mr. Taraday said the Council has before it an appointee appointed by Mayor Nelson subject to Council confirmation. Mayor Nelson has never told him that the appointee was appointed because of his race and he not heard him say anything to that effect. There should not be any risk because he was not aware of any evidence to that fact. Councilmember Buckshnis said since there was no packet to do comparison, she relayed a question about the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission, that tribal police are not certified peace officers with statewide jurisdiction unless they have successfully going through the Washington Criminal Justice Training Commission. She recalled Ms. Neill Hoyson saying Chief Pruitt was certified and asked if he qualified as a commissioned officer. Ms. Neill Hoyson yes, Chief Pruitt does; he attended the equivalency academy at the Criminal Justice Training Commission in 2007. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was similar to getting GED, noting she did not mean to be disrespectful. Ms. Neill Hoyson said tribal police attend a different academy to be recognized by the state. They do not need to attend the full basic law enforcement academy which is typically about five months. They attend an abbreviated academy to address the things that were not addressed in the Tribal Police Academy. Once they do that, they are certified as peace officers in Washington State. Additionally, the agency itself has to go through a process to be considered a general law enforcement agency which includes filing certain things with the Department of Enterprise Services; both Sauk-Suiattle and Tulalip went through that process. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 Councilmember K. Johnson said Ms. Neill Hoyson answered this question in an email; she apologized for the redundancy but felt it was important for the record. She asked Ms. Neill Hoyson to describe the process she went through with the community group; who the members are, what cities they live in and who appointed them. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she emailed that information and it was published in a press release. Councilmember K. Johnson requested the information be provided for the minutes. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she did not know the cities in which the panelists live. The panelist were selected by Mayor Nelson. The Community panel members were Dr. Gustavo Balderas, Superintendent, Edmonds School District; Darnesha Weary, community member; Sekou Kon6, Diversity Commission member; Alicia Crank, community member; Owen Lee, Youth Commissioner member; Richard Taylor, community member; Jan Flom, Swedish Edmonds Nursing Director, and Shubert Ho, business owner. The law enforcement panel members consisted of Dan Templeman, Everett Chief of Police; James Nelson, Lynnwood Chief of Police; Shawn Ledford, Shoreline Chief of Police; and Edmonds Police Department Sergeant Ken Crystal. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how did the panelists' advice shaped the selection process, whether there was criteria, votes, or just a discussion. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised each panel had a discussion at the end of the process where they provided feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates as it related to the police of Police Chief. That information was provided to Mayor Nelson. Councilmember Paine asked with the qualifications and record developed with all the sources and resources, was the Edmonds Police Department at risk of losing their accreditation. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she did not believe there was any risk of the Edmonds Police Department losing its accreditation as the candidate meets the requirements of the RCW and the background process met the requirements of any applicable WACs or RCWs. Councilmember Paine appreciated the diligence of the lengthy research process. With regard to accreditation, Councilmember Olson said some amount of course work needs to happen in a short amount of time before the accreditation comes up again and there would be a crunch to get that done. She asked the benefit to the City of being an accredited police force. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered in her opinion it provides a level of established credibility that the department has procedures and policies to show that the department is providing law enforcement at a standard that WASPC has set for achieving accreditation, that there is consistency and accountability in the law enforcement. There could be other things related to law enforcement that an officer could specifically speak to. Councilmember Olson asked if there were any officers in the meeting that could speak to that. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered there were not. Council President Fraley-Monillas observed Ms. Neill Hoyson and she have had multiple discussions regarding the number of references she checked. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she had contacted 15 references. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked her to state who she has contacted for references, noting she found the reference list impressive. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she would not provide specific names, but she spoke with the current Chair of the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, the current Tulalip Police Chief, two former Tulalip Police Chiefs, two current Tulalip Police Commanders, one current Sauk-Suiattle Police Officer, one current Tulalip Police Officer, a current Sauk-Suiattle Officer who was previously a Tulalip Officer, one retired FBI Agent who spent his career stationed in Everett and was assigned to work with tribal communities, a current regional FBI Supervisor for the region that Tulalip and Edmonds are in, one Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned as a tribal liaison and two personal family friends of Chief Pruitt. Council President Fraley- Monillas asked if she spoke to anyone in the military. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she did not. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Ms. Neill Hoyson's comment that the Council could not take final action as it was pending the results of the psychological evaluation, noting it seemed that the Council was being asked to make a decision without all the information. Ms. Neill Hoyson said due to the fact that she received an initial verbal confirmation of no issues related to the psychological evaluation, she did not Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 6.1.a believe there was any issue with the Council confirming the appointment conditional on receipt of the final psychological evaluation. Councilmember K. Johnson said she thought the psychologist was waiting information. Ms. Neill Hoyson said the psychologist was waiting for a VA benefit form that must be released to the psychologist before they could finalize their report. It was her understanding it was a procedural issue. With regard to accreditation, Councilmember Olson referred to the career level certification required by the rank involved which is typically done in municipal policing, but not in tribal policing and it was her understanding Chief Pruitt did not have any of them. If the first level, mid -level, and executive level have not been done, she asked how long will it take him to complete the different levels and would it be done by the time accreditation comes around mid -year next year. Ms. Neill Hoyson assured every effort would be made to have him reach that level. Councilmember Olson commented the amount of time that would take and whether that was a feasible goal was unknown and asked if that was saying it was not important to keep the department's accreditation in order to make this happen. Ms. Neill Hoyson reiterated every effort would be made to have the candidate reach that level as required. Councilmember Buckshnis asked her fellow Councilmembers for an extra week due to the amount of documentation that has come in and because she had not had time to decipher what was said during public comments. She wished Ms. Neill Hoyson had answered Councilmembers emails. She had no questions because she has not had time to prepare valid questions based on legal documents she needs help trying to understand. Council President Fraley-Monillas reminded that if the Council turns down this candidate, the Mayor goes back to the beginning and may or may not include Chief Lawless. She wanted Council to understand the process was out of their hands except for who the Mayor brings back. During her time with the City, multiple directors have been appointed who perhaps were not her first choice, but because the Mayor made a decision and moved forward with the person he was most comfortable working with, the City ended up with the person and she had been pleasantly surprised every time that that had occurred. Just because some are picking away at this gentleman like she has never seen done before in a director's position, that does not mean the Council makes the decision about who is chosen next. She asked Ms. Neill Hoyson if she believed everything possible had been done to vet this candidate for this position. Ms. Neill Hoyson said a very thorough background on the candidate had been done that meets the level for lateral police officers. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if she had ever vetted anyone this much in her career in public service. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered yes, she has done this level of recruitment before and believed it was appropriate, not excessive. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for a summary of the town hall/public meeting held on a Monday regarding the two candidates. She did not attend because a citizen threatened to sue if three or more Councilmember attended and she has not viewed it. She asked how many people attended, how many spoke, and what information was shared. Ms. Neill Hoyson said it was a Zoom meeting and she did not know how many attended. There were no public questions during the meeting; the public was asked to submit questions ahead of time and those were compiled and asked of the candidates at the meeting. The public's role at the meeting was to listen to the responses and subsequently submit any feedback on the candidates. She did have the questions in front of her. Councilmember K. Johnson observed it was basically a public forum. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed it was a public forum where the public submitted their questions ahead of time. Mayor Nelson asked if the video of the meeting was publicly available to watch. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she believed it was, but she could confirm. Councilmember Olson asked if there were any domestic violence instances in this candidate's background. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she was unsure that should be discussed in a public forum. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council interviewed the candidates for 45 minutes each in an executive session so she cannot say anything about it. As Mayor Nelson had not interview the candidates in an executive session, she asked him to provide information regarding his selection criteria and choice. Mayor Nelson answered it was important to understand that he was the moderator of this meeting and was not here to testify or provide testimony to the City Council. He is the Mayor of the City of Edmonds' executive branch and has exercised his appointment authority. With regard to the process, he thanked the Council who were clear about him following the City code and the process. He went through the process, he followed City code. In August, the job was posted and the hiring process progressed for 3'/2 months, it can't get any more transparent. There were 22 applicants and during the process 2 finalist rose to the top. The finalists were announced on October 27 and for 5 weeks the community has known who the finalists were. Their bios have been shared, community and law enforcement panels were created as well as a public forum that was viewable from November 9d' through today. The public has had an opportunity for five weeks to view the candidates qualifications and ask questions. On December 3rd, he announced that Sherman Pruitt was his appointment as the next Chief of Police for Edmonds because he thinks he is the best candidate for the job. He wanted to be clear so that there was no confusion because there seems to be a lot of confusion about transparency and how this came about. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed Mayor Nelson was the moderator, but this was the Council's meeting and he continues to control the meeting via round robin Q&A. She can ask Mayor Nelson questions, noting he has answered budget questions in the past. She found his testimony to be very helpful and thanked him for sharing it. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she understood Mayor Nelson's frustration with the process. She pointed out nothing came forward until Mayor Nelson chose a candidate who was not part of Edmonds, it had been fairly quiet until then. That said, she asked whether Chief Pruitt had been convicted of domestic violence. Ms. Neill Hoyson said talking to specifics in a public forum was not appropriate. She reiterated he passed the criminal background check. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked if a conviction for domestic violence would have been reflected in his background check and disqualified him. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered that was correct. Councilmember Olson observed the police panel recommendation had not discussed and asked if Mayor Nelson had anything to share from that. Mayor Nelson answered the panelists were to advise him and as stated by Ms. Neill Hoyson, they provided him information and that information, information from the community panel, from the public forum, from citizens and everyone else who has weighed in, informed him and his decision to appoint Sherman Pruitt. Councilmember Olson said there had been a lot of discussion about how thorough the background check was; she knows of at least one significant hole in it. She asked Ms. Neill Hoyson whether there was a time previously in her career when a fire chief appointment was made that the City Council objected to based on things that did not come up in the background check. Mayor Nelson asked if Councilmember Olson was questioning his staff member about her abilities. Councilmember Olson said she was questioning how thorough the background check was. Mayor Nelson asked if she was questioning the thoroughness of the background check for the current candidate. Councilmember Olson answered yes. Mayor Nelson said Ms. Neill Hoyson has already stated what was done with regard to the background check and he did not want a Councilmember questioning the abilities of his HR Director. Council President Fraley-Monillas said this was inappropriate. If Councilmember Olson had evidence of malfeasance or inappropriate actions, she requested it be brought forward to the Council and/or to the Mayor. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 6.1.a Mayor Nelson advised Council comments would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers making one comment during their turn. Councilmember Paine appreciated that there had been a lengthy time for review because the Council insisted on a more thorough candidate selection process. As she has said to the community, this is the Mayor's appointment and she was happy to affirm his appointment. She enjoyed the discussions during the interviews with both candidates and was glad to support Chief Pruitt. She has done many interviews in the past in her work and she appreciated the entire process the City has gone through. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked the two finalists for going through the process as well as the community panel members and the law enforcement panel members. He was able to attend and watch the community meeting through the difficulties and appreciated the professionalism and poise of both candidates. This is a big task and requires community support for a position at this level. He hoped the City would come together and if there is new leadership for the Edmonds Police Department, that they will support the leadership, the department and the City as it was in the best interest of the wellbeing of residents and the City. It's clear there will be no shortage of opportunities in the community and he looked forward to a brighter future ahead for all the City's residents. Safety is defined very differently by how people experience their community; what some consider safe, others may not. It is important that all those views are incorporated within the Police Department and he looked forward to voting for the conditional confirmation of Sherman Pruitt. Councilmember Olson said she understands the Council's job of confirmation, and knows it is not a choice. She has been through this process 2-3 times and could always understand/justify the decision that was made but was not getting there this time. She had additional comments to share about interviews. She understood the charm of Chief Pruitt, a lovely guy and lovely interview, but she did not feel he had the experience and readiness to take on a large municipal program. There may possibly be other positions where he could get that experience and then be ready. Councilmember Buckshnis apologized for her misstep using the term previously, she agreed equivalency for a commissioned officer was very important. She has been through many appointments and voted against the confirmation of a director 8-10 years ago. This happened too quickly and there is so much information that she wished the Council could have respected each other's time and had a discussion in executive session. She found the candidates' interviews great, but a great deal of information is coming in from numerous sources. She was not prepared to make a conditional appointment because some questions have not been answered which was why she asked Councilmembers to respect her request for a delay which didn't happen. She was glad Mayor Nelson provided his testimony/opinion. This is a very important appointment and as Mr. Bennett and Mr. Crain said, this is our community and it is a very important position. She was not prepared because she was getting emails every 4 minutes and still has 55 to read. She did not support the appointment at this time. Her truth is listening to the citizens and there is just too much information and too many questions to be answered. Council President Fraley-Monillas said what has been so concerning about this process was that no attack was made on anyone prior to Mayor Nelson naming his selection. As soon as Mayor Nelson made that announcement, a number of groups "went fairly wild about the situation." She understood, she happens to like Chief Lawless a lot, he is a very bright man, has already been respectful to her and if she needed help she has contacted him and she had nothing negative to say about him. He is a very good person, a good cop, and he has been very upfront and honest with her. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the community is not the same as it once was; she has lived in Edmonds longer than anyone on the Council. Councilmember K. Johnson interjected she has lived in Edmonds longer than Council President Fraley-Monillas. Council President Fraley-Monillas continued, she Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 6.1.a has lived in Edmonds or the area over 60 years, moving from Richmond Beach to Edmonds and has seen changes in the community. Her neighborhood which used to be predominately working class single income households, is now the community of color and most households have two working members just to survive, it is the working area of Edmonds. Things have changed and the City needs to change with it and she had no question that Chief Pruitt could bring the City through that change. She found him to be willing to change, interested in changing and he will show Edmonds perhaps a new way of doing things. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the length of Chief Pruitt's probation as a new employee. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered probation is six months. Council President Fraley-Monillas said he will be an at - will employee and the probation period is an opportunity to encourage, train, teach and correct performance issues. If there are any probation issues, there will be an opportunity for the Mayor and HR Department to create a project for him to correct. The same would be true if Chief Lawless were in that position. She was willing to give this a shot, to see how Chief Pruitt moves through the process. She was sorry that he has had to watch this play out over the past week in the media and on television. She will provide a statement later about what came up yesterday during her interview. Chief Pruitt has shown the best in all of us; when he was called names and inappropriate attire and pornographic material was displayed at the Zoom meeting, he handled it with grace, not something that everyone can do. She admired his ability to not let a high stress situation where people were calling him names and treating him disrespectfully get to him. She was willing to give Chief Pruitt a shot; she did not want to take anything away from Chief Lawless, he was a good man, but it was time for a change. Councilmember L. Johnson said the position of Police Chief is most likely the most important position she will make during her tenure on City Council. Given the large number of emails, phone calls and personal discussions she has had, people are invested and understandably very passionate about the decision. This decision was not rushed into, there was a two month search and once two top candidates were named in October, a six week process followed with multiple forums, interviews and extensive vetting. The Mayor's choice for appointment, Chief Pruitt, has a vast range of experience and training including tribal law enforcement, co -commissions with the FBI and U.S. Marshalls as well as military service. Like many cities, Edmonds is working to respond to the societal demand for a more equitable, restorative law and justice system and traditional responses to this demand are sometimes slow and often require more than a gentle push to implement. There are benefits of a fresh perspective that come with a change in leadership. Chief Pruitt is not comfortable with the status quo because he is not from the status quo. The extensive interview process painted a picture of a leader who is deeply respected for his community building, his engaging style and his deep empathy and ability to understand people and situations. These are intrinsic qualities that cannot be taught. Those intrinsic qualities plus a warmth, approachability and level of grace combined with his unique background and experience make him an ideal face and voice for public safety to lead Edmonds forward. She was prepared to support this appointment. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled a Councilmember saying this was the Mayor's appointment and her job was to support that appointment. She had an entirely different viewpoint, believing that it was the Mayor's job to make the appointment, but the Council's job to develop their own seven -member assessment and then confirm or not. She asked Mr. Taraday to speak to that. Mr. Taraday answered each Councilmember may have their own philosophy about what's involved in the confirmation process. There was a long time in the country's history where presidential appointments were routinely confirmed by deferring to the president and a lot of appointments were confirmed on 90-10 votes in the Senate. There has recently been a very different type of confirmation process in the Senate. There is not any one way that is the right way; each Councilmember has their own level of deferring to the Mayor versus imposing their own values and try to force the executive to come to their values. At the end of the day, if there are four votes to confirm, the Mayor's appointment is confirmed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 6.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson respected the Mayor's authority to appoint whomever they wish, but as separate body of government, the City Council acts as a discrete body and makes the decision amongst the seven about what they think is best. It is not whether the Council supports or does not support the Mayor, but whether they want to confirm his appointment. She asked Mr. Taraday if he disagreed with that. Mr. Taraday said each Councilmember may have a different approach; some may decide they will not confirm unless they themselves would hire the candidate. Others may view it from the standpoint that it is the Mayor's employee and as long as they are okay with the Mayor's appointment, they will defer to the Mayor's judgment. Both are valid perspectives and valid approaches to the confirmation process; there is no right level of deference to give the Mayor. Councilmember K. Johnson appreciated Mr. Taraday's philosophical discussion, acknowledging she has a very limited viewpoint; the Council is not here to defer to the Mayor or use their own judgment, they are here to represent the 42,000 residents of Edmonds as this is a representative form of government. She appreciated that Mr. Taraday was trained as a philosopher and she always enjoys their intellectual discussions. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she represents the 42,000 people living in Edmonds, not just those who are active and reaching out to the Council. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S CHOICE OF CHIEF PRUITT TO BE OUR NEW CHIEF OF POLICE. Ms. Neill Hoyson pointed out the confirmation needs to be conditional based on receipt of a satisfactory psychological evaluation. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SAY PROVIDED THE WRITTEN PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION COMES BACK AS VERBALLY TOLD TO THE HR DIRECTOR. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO TABLE THIS VOTE UNTIL NEXT WEEK. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Olson requested the Council vote no so she could finish her comments. Mayor Nelson said this is discussion on the motion to confirm Chief Pruitt so this was her opportunity to comment on that. Councilmember Olson said she wanted an opportunity to comment on the appointment, not the motion. Mayor Nelson advised comment should be on the motion on the floor. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, the motion is to appoint. Councilmember Olson could amend the motion, but her comment about voting down the motion so she could make another comment was irrelevant to the motion. Councilmember Olson said she was hoping the Council could have more discussion and asked how that could happen. Mr. Taraday said the Council can still discuss the merits of Chief Pruitt as the Mayor's appointee so if Councilmember Olson was attempting to speak to the merits of that, her comments were in order. Councilmember Olson said this selection didn't happen in a vacuum with no context and no history. She always felt unless there was a candidate obviously better qualified and with a better temperament, that Acting Chief Lawless would be chosen for many reasons, the greatest being he has been performing the role so admirably since January with the support of his organization from the beginning. Having been Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 6.1.a publicly named Chief on April 9rh, he also withdrew from another Chief selection process. She asked her fellow Councilmembers to consider how badly they were willing to treat a long term, faithful employee. She felt she was being pressured and told she was being unkind in her assertions that things were left out of the background check but she believed that was the case. Despite repeated denials that things came up in the background check, she knew there were holes in it. In the end, it was all about public safety. She was not asking anyone to uphold past promises without giving that consideration, but that conversation has already happened and the City's public safety is better upheld by a candidate that has exposure and experience. From a loyalty standpoint, the proposed motion was a crummy thing to do and she hoped the Council would not do it. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO MOVE THE BUDGET AND CFP/CIP TO ANOTHER DATE EVEN IF IT WAS A SPECIAL MEETING. Councilmember Buckshnis said there is so much intricacy in budget, and although Councilmembers have said they are prepared to discuss it, it is important to have fresh minds. From the extended agenda, it appeared there was time on next week's agenda. Council President Fraley-Monillas said there are two hours of agenda items on December 15t1'. She suggested starting on the CFP/CIP to get Councilmembers' positions before moving into the budget. She will confer with the Mayor about when to schedule discussion on the budget. Although there are a number of agenda items next Tuesday, some could be delayed to the new year and moving the budget discussion may require some creative scheduling. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed some items could be delayed. She emphasized the CFP/CIP is totally tied to the budget with decision packages and changing the CFP/CIP changes decision packages in the budget. Observing it was 9:45 p.m., she was willing to meet another day or even December 22°d anticipating it would be beneficial for all. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed to schedule two hours on tonight's meeting for the purpose of the budget. Instead, within 24 hours she changed the agenda and the Council spent those two hours to discuss the appointment. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was done for tonight and preferred not to continue with the CFP/CIP, the budget or anything. Councilmember Distelhorst said in looking at the agenda, there is 2 hours indicated for the budget, 30 minutes for the confirmation and 30 minutes for the CFP/CIP. He has been up working since 7 a.m. on his day job and was willing to go another 73 minutes to 11 p.m. It the Council's duty, they have had the budget for a long time, and this is at least the third time the CFP/CIP has comes to Council. He was prepared to keep working. Councilmember L. Johnson said she arrived to the meeting prepared, fully caffeinated, and ready to start the budget process. She was concerned with continuing to punt the budget discussion, noting for a number of Councilmembers, this is the first time they have been through the budget process which is part of the reason she did work early in the process so she would be prepared. She preferred to get going on the budget. Councilmember Paine offered go to 11:30 p.m. because it was time to get things related to the budget underway and get through as much as possible. Councilmember Olson said she would vote against proceeding because she was really tired although she acknowledged if the meeting were extended she would rally. She has been prepared for weeks but she was tired and was not in the best place mentally to focus and make good decisions. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 6.1.a Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested extending to 11:30 p.m. She usually did not like meeting this late most of time, but if the Council doesn't, the budget would be pushed out. The Council has had the budget for 8 weeks and 30 amendments were provided over the weekend; that will take numerous hours and the Council needed to start knocking some of those out. She was not interested in having another meeting just because "we can't get ourselves organized up enough." She preferred to continue tonight for another hour, until 11 p.m. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has been prepared and refused to be shamed that information should have been submitted sooner. She received input from 10 citizens and got questions answered and those decision packages were included in the packet including the rationale. She preferred to start with the budget instead of the CFP/CIP. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of personal preference; as Council President Fraley-Monillas, Councilmembers Buckshnis, Paine and Olson are aware and now anyone else is, she has been having very unusual problems with her eyes tonight and cannot see or read adequately and could not complete her homework. For those reasons she did not want to consider with any detailed documents. She respectfully requested the Council meeting not continue. She requested Mayor Nelson rule on her point of personal privilege. Mr. Taraday said a point of personal privilege is something like a request to turn up the heat, take a bathroom break, etc. Councilmember K. Johnson is asking for adjournment of the meeting and that is beyond the scope of personal privilege. Councilmember K. Johnson clarified she was having physical disabilities and would appreciate people recognizing that and not make her stay until 10, 10:30 11, 11:30, as she was done. Mayor Nelson said that may be, but it was not a point of personal privilege. Councilmember Olson suggest the Council consider the possibility of other days of the week to meet. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what the options were if the Council didn't start tonight and delayed the process to next week, whether there was the option and availability for another meeting. She wanted to respect Councilmember K. Johnson's struggles at the same acknowledge it was now December 8th and it was getting closer to the last meeting of year and serious discussions needed to start very soon. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Taraday to respond regarding Councilmembers' options for meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson said her question was not directed to Mr. Taraday, but other Councilmembers' availability given their jobs, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council has met for two hours on a weekend in the past. She began committee meetings today at 4 p.m. today and it has been a very busy day for Councilmembers. Her personal view, having reviewed many budgets, was that fresh minds makes things go faster. It would also be helpful if Mr. Turley provided all the questions and the rationale for decision packages. Having a complete packet would allow the Council to effectively move through the budget and the CFP/CIP. She suggested having a separate two-hour meeting to discuss the budget, commenting Councilmembers will be surprised at how easy it will be. Councilmember Distelhorst said he remains available outside of his day job hours to meet and get this done as soon as possible. There has been a lot of discussion, emails, and availability of documents and appreciated the Mayor and staff s time answering emails. Council President Fraley-Monillas said there is a houseful of staff waiting for the next two items who have been waiting for hours. She was not comfortable blowing it off because Councilmembers were tired; staff has been here as long as Councilmembers. She acknowledged it was getting late and suggested knocking out the low hanging fruit may be a reasonable idea. A lot of people have plans and it will be an Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 inconvenience to hold another meeting. She reiterated the budget has been out for eight weeks; five Councilmembers have all their amendments in. She encouraged the Council to move forward tonight. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not want to get into a point -by -point argument, but she will have to leave the meeting if it is extended beyond 10 p.m. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: MOVE THE CFP/CIP AND BUDGET TO A FUTURE MEETING. MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING YES. (Councilmember K. Johnson left the meeting at 10 p.m.) COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND TO 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson declared a 5 minute recess. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested reversing the order of the CFP/CIP and budget. The CFP/CIP cannot be approved without having the budget discussion first and if the Council only planned to have a 30 minute discussion, it would be preferable to start with the budget because the CFP/CIP couldn't be approved anyway. She was also aware that Councilmember K. Johnson had a lot of questions. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested working through some of the issues on the CFP/CIP and getting questions answered and queued up for next week. It may be more important for Councilmember K. Johnson to participate in the budget since she had the lion's share of the amendments this weekend. Councilmember Buckshnis observed Councilmember K. Johnson had provided the rationale for all her amendments. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO REVERSE ORDER OF THE CFP/CIP AND BUDGET AGENDA ITEMS. Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled Mr. Taraday said the items should be keep in the order they are. Her issue was the budget needed to be dealt with in 2021 and therefore she felt Councilmember K. Johnson needed to be present for the budget discussion. If she had any questions about the CFP/CIP, they could be answered next week. It would be much cleaner if questions by the remaining six Councilmembers could be answered tonight versus voting on budget amendments and that would give Councilmember K. Johnson the ability to add to the discussion. Mr. Taraday clarified he did not say the agenda items needed to stay in the same order; he said the vote on the CFP/CIP and the budget ordinances need to occur at the same meeting. That obviously will not occur tonight so the vote on both will need to happen at some other meeting in the future. The Council can still discuss both items in whatever order they want and even make preliminary amendments to either, but the final vote on the two ordinances has to be done at another meeting. Councilmember Distelhorst observed the Council voted on this motion earlier the meeting so it would require a motion to reconsider. City Clerk Scott Passey explained there was a parliamentary principle that the same question not be addressed more than once in a meeting but he was unsure if that applied. Mr. Mr. Taraday agreed it was essentially the same motion made earlier so it would require a motion for reconsideration by someone on the prevailing side of the motion. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 24 Packet Pg. 27 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO TAKE THE BUDGET FIRST AND DISCUSS DECISION PACKAGES TO MOVE THROUGH THIS MORE SEAMLESSLY AND QUICKER. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, whether Councilmember Buckshnis was on the prevailing side. Mr. Taraday said she was not. 2. ADOPTION OF THE 2021-2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Public Works Director Phil Williams said he and City Engineer English were present to answer questions Materials were presented at previous meetings. Mayor Nelson advised Council questions would be taken in a round robin format with Councilmembers asking one question during their turn. Councilmember Buckshnis said her amendments were related to removing decision packages that are tied to the CFP/CIP. Mr. Williams said decision packages are related to the budget; he was interested in whether any changes were desired in the CFP/CIP. Councilmember Buckshnis said she would remove items in Storm that are tied to decision packages. Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, this is not the budget discussion. Mayor Nelson agreed decision packages were related to the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to change the Stormwater project for the marsh. Mr. Williams said a motion could be made to make a change in the CFP to accomplish that and he assumed the same motion would be made to modify the budget. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO REMOVE $450,000 AND $80,000 IN THE 2021 REQUEST ON PAGES 224 AND 225. Councilmember Buckshnis explained those are tied to decision packages because the marsh is a continuous salmon recovery thing so it should be a holistic Parks & Recreation project. She suggested the $17+ million be zeroed out and replaced with TBD. This ties into Mayor Nelson's legislative agenda, the Comprehensive Plan changes and the information about the marsh. When looking at the project from an RCO or regional parks standpoint, there is basically a regional park funded through RCO grants. This would be fulfilling Mayor Nelson's suggestion on the legislative agenda; figure out what to do with the Unocal property and therefore there should not be any design analysis or any type of funding and the best thing to do is to insert TBD. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked for clarification, the proposal was to take money out of the CFP for the marsh and move it where? Councilmember Buckshnis said based on the fact that the marsh is one holistic thing, she wanted to go back to the way it was for many years, rather than identify a $17 million marsh restoration project, zero out the $17 million and insert TBD. The City is waiting for the resolution of the Unocal properties so there should be no design or consideration of what will happen because everything is still in flux. Council President Fraley-Monillas asked where they money would go. Councilmember Buckshnis it was just defunding Storm so when Storm rates are calculated that $17 million is not included. Council President Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 25 Packet Pg. 28 6.1.a Fraley-Monillas asked where the $17 million goes. Councilmember Buckshnis said it would not go anywhere, the cost is unknown at this time. Councilmember Paine referred to packet page 231, remove $450,000 for 2021 in the Willow Creek Daylighting and the items in the first 2021 column. There may be some activity mid-2021 for a bigger project that could be designed in a way that would encompass any property the City might get adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if that change would impact the potential for grants if the property were transferred in 2021. Mr. Williams answered it could. Staff s recommendation was to carryover the money that was in the 2020 budget to the 2021 budget with a promise that none of it would spent without a specific scope of work approved by the City Council. The funds show a certain level of commitment that this is serious project for the City. If all reference to the marsh project is taken out of the budget including the minimal amount of $450,000 compared to the likely cost of the project and there is no reference to a future capital project in the out years of the CIP, that basically erases the whole effort from the budget and the CIP. It is useful to have it in there and it is not part of the stormwater rates at this point and does not have any significant impact on stormwater rates. Whether that would change in the future depending on how the City decides to provide local match for grants is another decision the Council would make. As Councilmember Paine pointed out, things are moving forward with the Department of Ecology and WSDOT and there may be some resolution to the ownership issue in mid-2021. It would be useful to have money in the budget to react to that type of development. Councilmember Distelhorst observed ensuring that money is still in the CFP/CIP is important. He asked if having it in a different fund was okay, whether it was in Stormwater or Parks & Recreation, would maintaining the dollar amount but switching where it lived still meet the potential goal of having it there for grant match. Mr. Williams said the first $450,000 was from Stormwater rates and was designed to match a grant which was lost due to the unresolved property issue. Providing those funds was a unanimous decision. He saw no reason to take it out of the Stormwater budget and was unsure where else to put it. It does not make a lot of difference where it is in the City's budget. Councilmember Buckshnis said it is extremely important because it affects stormwater rates and it is not a stormwater floodplain project. The $450,000 was provided as a match for a NOAA grant that was lost. She will propose moving the $450,000 decision package to Marsh Restoration Fund 017. She is requesting that the dollar amounts that affect future rates be changed to TBD which was stated in the CFP for many years and was just changed last year. The cost of the entire marsh restoration is unknown under RCO or regional park because when looking at salmon recovery money, it has to be looked at with the salmon starting at Marine Beach and going all the way to the Edmonds Marsh so Marina Beach cannot be separated from the marsh, it has to be one holistic system. Contrary to what Mr. Williams says, it does matters which bucket it is in. Public Works will manage the project and help with engineering, but to receive RCO grants, it needs to be a regional park in Parks & Recreation and not Storm. She is trying to simplify this because the stormwater aspect is unknown other than $40,000 for cleaning out the pipes and there is no idea how much design and construction will cost. She will recommend moving the $450,000 to the Marsh Restoration Fund 017. Councilmember L. Johnson said Councilmember Buckshnis' comments provided more insight. She asked the potential implications of moving the funds to Fund 017. Mr. Williams agreed it can be accounted for in whatever way the City prefers. The source of the funds is important; if it is Stormwater rate revenue, it needs to be spent on stormwater related work. That is a legal requirement, that it go toward work related to the mission of the Stormwater Fund. The $450,000 and the recommended $80,000 are from stormwater rates. The source of the $17 million has not been identified. A cost estimate has been prepared although its Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 26 Packet Pg. 29 6.1.a accuracy was unknown at this stage of design; it was likely +/- 30-40%. That does not need to be included if the Council does not want to; it does not address the cost of acquiring property and he agreed it was best not to speculate about that. There is a cost estimate for daylighting Will Creek, that portion of the marsh restoration. Stormwater and Engineering have been working on that project for the past ten years to assist Parks on the project across the railroad tracks that he agreed was part of the same effort. He concluded it was appropriate to have money in the budget that shows the City's commitment to that project. Anytime funds are sought for a project, the question is asked what funds the City has committed to the project and where the match would come from. If all the funding is removed, it leaves that question open. Councilmember L. Johnson clarified the original $450,000 set aside as a grant match originated from Stormwater. Mr. Williams answered that was correct. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson said he and Council President Fraley-Monillas will work on scheduling an additional meeting, possibly on Thursday evening, to work on the CFP/CIP and the budget. 3. BUDGET DELIBERATIONS AND OPPORTUNITY FOR BUDGET ADOPTION Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson said due to the unfortunate rise in COVID numbers, today the governor announced an extension of the restrictions imposed three weeks ago through January 4. He also announced additional grant funding available for small businesses. With the rising numbers, he encouraged the public to physically distance and mask up, noting the sooner they do so, the sooner the restrictions will be loosened. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember L. Johnson encouraged the public to be safe, be well, do their part to protect the public safety and help get us out of this mess. Councilmember Olson thanked Acting Chief Lawless for his service as Acting Chief during the past year, and his great service to the community. She also extended a warm welcome to Chief Pruitt. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for everyone's comments tonight, recognizing that they were heartfelt. She believed the City would have a great Chief in Chief Pruitt, and expressed appreciation for Acting Chief Lawless. She commented it is dangerous out there, wear masks, wash your hands and stay safe to bring the numbers down. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmembers Olson and Paine's comments about Acting Chief Lawless and new Chief Pruitt. She voiced a heartfelt thank you to Gail Lovel who is retiring from the Tree Board, noting she helped create the logo, right tree right place, got the Tree Board involved with Edmonds in Bloom, and was a shining star and has spent a lot of time with City employees Debra Dill and Rich Lindsay. There is now an opening on the Tree Board and the application is available on the City's website. She encouraged people to apply, noting the Tree Board is a great group of people. She echoed previous Councilmembers' comments regarding wearing masks, noting she missed the gym, going to movies, etc. People need to stay in their own space, wear masks and stay safe. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 27 Packet Pg. 30 6.1.a Council President Fraley-Monillas explained her television interview yesterday. To George Bennett, Maria Sixto, Dennis O'Malley, Leslie Marmion, Brian Thompson, Barry Crain, Darrell Marmion, Peter Gibson and Nora Murphy, she explained she was interviewed yesterday for ten minutes by KING 5, a solid ten minutes of questions and discussion. From that, two lines of what she said made it to the media. By no way did she say Edmonds citizens were discriminatory or were racist. She did say that Edmonds had its fair share of racist incidents such as someone yelling at a Black family walking on Sunset, tagging a person of color -owned businesses, threatening children with baseball bats, hanging nooses in construction sites where only the Black people would see them, yelling racist comments in the streets at families, and marking up certified approved BLM art in public. All those incidents occurred in the City of Edmonds within the last few years. Council President Fraley-Monillas explained what she was trying to reference yesterday when asked was that there have been a lot of issues in Edmonds and that these are some of the issues. By no means did she say anything about all citizens in Edmonds being discriminatory, because that would be foolish for anyone to say. She did indicate that there are some problems in Edmonds and this is not a Pollyanna approach, everyone knows there have been problems and that the community needs to work on those problems. There is no question there is racism in Edmonds, but the difference is what is done about it. She wanted to explain because she has gotten massive hate mail today as a result of two lines taken from a ten minute discussion about Edmonds and its citizens. She has lived in Edmonds most of her life and understands Edmonds better than most. The majority of residents are not racist, but there is racism in Edmonds. If people want to take hits at her again tomorrow, she said feel free. This was coming from her heart and she believed in the people that live in Edmonds. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Acting Chief Lawless for his service during this time and welcomed Chief Pruitt. He pointed out COVID numbers continue to skyrocket, yesterday there were nine deaths in Snohomish County. To those who think this is not a serious issue, fellow community members are literally dying. He urged the public to take it seriously, don't watch the Sounders on Saturday with anyone other than those already in your household. Do not see friends, don't see anyone else and be safe. He always enjoyed Student Representative Roberts' comments and looked forward to them tonight. Student Rep Roberts thanked Acting Chief Lawless for his service as Chief and congratulated and welcomed Chief Pruitt. He hoped Edmonds would be able to adapt and ultimately support the new Chief. He announced the Youth Commission now has an Instagram account, EdmondsYouthCommission. The Youth Commission also has an opening for Position 10 and he encouraged students to apply. He urged the public to wear masks; the reality is the phrase "wear a mask" and these reminders won't be going away anytime soon. Just because there is a vaccine and the year will be changing doesn't mean the virus will somehow magically go away. The virus is here to stay and people are dying. He urged the public to follow the guidelines, wear a mask and do everything possible to not get the virus and not spread it. 10. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:39 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 28 Packet Pg. 31 6.1.a Public Comment for 12/8/20 Council Meeting: From: Bill Phipps Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:25 PM To: Citizens Planning Board <citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov> Subject: tree code public comment Hello Planning Board members and Mr.Lien; Please enter the following comments, on the Tree Code, into public record and as comments to Mr. Lien. Thank you. I really enjoyed your last meeting on November 18, 2020. You really dug into the issues surrounding the updated tree code. I appreciate your efforts. I liked the way you danced around the issues and each other ! We now realize that the proposed code, as written, only addresses 5% of the private land in Edmonds. That is the amount of un-developed land that remains.. It does not address the 95% of private land in Edmonds that is already developed. Is it true that Edmonds is 95% "built out".? Thus, there is only 5% of private land left that might be developed. That's the land this code addresses, so far. Some of us realize that this is not enough. In the Urban Forest Management Plan it was stressed that 83% of our forest canopy is on private land. It was a goal of the UFMP to update our codes in order to control deforestation on that 83% of land in Edmonds. The code, as written, doesn't do enough to address deforestation on private land. Not when you remember phrases like "no net loss". So, we can look at "alike" nearby cities and see what they have done: In Shoreline, a property owner can take out three significant trees in a three year period. In Kirkland, a property owner can take out two significant trees at a time and may not take out the last two trees on the lot. It goes on and on with permits vs notifications, fees, plans, penalties, It's complicated. But it can be done. Most of our neighboring cities are already doing it. You know, these are not draconian measures we're talking about. On my street in the last month, 6 significant conifers were cut down; on two different properties. Even under a strong tree code, both of these events would have been permissible. But neither of those folks are replanting conifer saplings.! If you're scared of the "property righters", at least institute a notification system; whereas property owners notify the City of tree cuttings on their property. Then the City knows how Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 29 Packet Pg. 32 6.1.a many trees are being lost and how many replacement trees to plant in our Tree Bank from proceeds from our Tree Fund. The city of Kirkland uses such a system to track their forest canopy. I've always thought the key to a good tree code is replacement trees. We have to realize that we are losing tree canopy due to development and "property rights". We must commit to replacing lost trees with new trees. We must be forward looking and play "the long game". The trees we plant today will make a huge difference to our grandchildren and their grandchildrens' quality of life. We must plant multiple "of kind" replacement saplings for every tree cut down. Any significant tree cut down anyplace, any time, for any reason; must have replacement trees planted. Once again, thank you for allowing me to sit in on your "tree code" meetings. I appreciated your nuanced discussions about tree replacement requirements, penalties, fees -in -lieu -of, permits, and especially incentives. We must encourage tree plantings and incentives for property owners to retain their trees. Tree credits, tax breaks, storm water bill discounts, tree vouchers; all are good ideas. I hope you choose to broaden the scope of the draft tree code. I hope you look at regulating tree removal on the already developed properties in Edmonds. This is where our urban forest canopy is. Let's create a meaningful tree code that we can all live with and be proud of. Thank you for your time and consideration; Bill Phipps Edmonds From: Dave Teitzel Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 6:27 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Wippel, Teresa (My Edmonds News) <myedmondsnews@gmail.com>; Edmonds Beacon Editor <edmondseditoryourbeacon@gmail.com> Subject: Choices Councilmembers, please submit the following open letter as part of the record of the 12/8/20 Council meeting: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 30 Packet Pg. 33 6.1.a I respect each of you for your willingness to step up and serve our community. Yours is not an easy job, and the vote you will be taking this evening is clearly the most challenging one of the year. I encourage you to carefully consider all the factors around selection of the best candidate for police chief before you cast your vote. And I urge you to request the Administration be extra transparent in revealing all the criteria that were considered in making the decision to bring forward Chief Pruitt as the preferred nominee. Anything less will fuel ongoing suspicion among your constituents that the city is hiding something. The position of police chief is arguably the most important one in our city. Our citizens need to be assured our next chief is best qualified to manage a large and increasingly diverse force, has direct experience addressing policing around issues such as homelessness and substance abuse, has intimate knowledge of crime issues affecting our community, has clearly demonstrated the ability to implement policy/procedures around deescalation and safer/more equitable policing techniques, has demonstrated a willingness and ability to connect well with our community, etc. Please don't feel rushed to a vote until you are well assured all the questions such as these and others which have been raised by your constituents have been answered. Your decision is too important to do otherwise. Regards, Dave Teitzel Former Edmonds City Councilmember From: Jean Sittauer Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 5:30 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Fw: Please Read This ITTAUER GOUGE GROUP COLDWELL BANKED I BAIN From: Jean Sittauer Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 9:16 PM To: council@edmondswa.gov <council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Please Read This Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 31 Packet Pg. 34 6.1.a To all council members: I am absolutely astounded by the news tonight that Adrienne has asked to move the vote for police chief up to tomorrow instead of the 15th. Please DO NOT approve the agenda that Adrienne has proposed for tomorrow.! Pull the item until next week as was proposed, as this change is unacceptable. You might not know me, but I LOVE Edmonds with all of my heart!! My parents moved here in 1957, and they knew that Edmonds was the best place to live with their six kids, and I agree because I have my kids and grandkids living here, I want you to know that what I say comes from not only of many years of living here, but also from what I know about Edmonds. I was upset when I heard Adrienne say that we have a racist issue in Edmonds. I do not believe that we have the problem that she is taking about. We have to be bigger than the few people who are the problem and try to educate the upcoming generation about how to be better than those few people. In this case, my family's safety is in question and I am deeply concerned. If you permit Sherman Pruitt to be Chief of Police, you are putting someone into power based on color, not qualifications for the job. Chief Lawless is the best candidate for the position. In this time of COVID-19 and all that we have been going though, I hope that you don't believe that the best way to make change is through a pandemic situation. We should be making changes based on good decisions, not emotions. We can make Edmonds the place that we are dreaming about. Thank you, Jean Sittauer From: Roberts, Brook Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 5:21 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Youth Perspective: Police Chief Confirmation Dear Council, My original intent was to write a detailed email outlining my thoughts on the Police Chief nomination and submit it on Friday, but due to the vote being moved to tonight, I will briefly share my thoughts on the nomination and confirmation from the youth perspective. Edmonds needs a Police Chief who can lead with confidence and experience. One who is accountable for himself and the actions of his officers. One who can connect with all members of the community, especially those from underserved areas, and build a sense of trust with them. One who understands why certain people believe that all law enforcement officers are "bad", and can work towards overcoming that notion. One who can handle the four responsibilities of policing: enforcing laws, preventing crimes, responding to emergencies, and providing support services. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 32 Packet Pg. 35 6.1.a I encourage you all to look at the education, experience, and plans of each candidate and to consider how they could best cater to the needs of the Edmonds community, especially those who live in the underserved areas and at -risk youth. During tonight's meeting, I request that you all ask the important questions relating to Mayor Nelson's decision to backtrack from selecting Acting Chief Jim Lawless to choosing Chief Sherman Pruitt for the Police Chief position. For example, what caused the change? How does he foresee Chief Pruitt adapting to the Edmonds Police Department and community? In a time like right now, the administration must be transparent in its decisions. If transparency is not maintained, the suspicion against the current administration and Council among citizens will continue. Lastly, please take your time with this decision, it is not to be rushed. If need be, postpone the vote. When you eventually vote, vote for who you believe will best serve the Edmonds community, his officers, and the City; and vote with confidence. Thank you, Brook Roberts, Edmonds City Council, Student Representative Edmonds Youth Commission, Position 4 From: Jeffrey Jones Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 5:13 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Police Chief vote As a citizen of Edmonds, I am offended by the antics of the council. The council president was on Television today stating that Edmonds is a racist community. I am completely offended by that statement as a citizen and as a 37 year employee of the City. At the time, the reporting was that the vote would take place next week. After the airing of the TV coverage, it was announced that it would be tonight. Completely illegal and not acceptable. The issue before you is the approval of the Chief of Police. This is something that needs not only council oversite, but public comment. This during a time when there is no on person meetings, which means that many citizens can't or don't know how to attend or submit public comment. This too is unacceptable given the importance of the position under consideration, and the fact that the stated reasons by the council president and Mayor are absolutely illegal under current Federal law. Comments have been made that Edmonds is a racist community. No specific incidents have been identified. I can say all people are clowns, but with no proof that doesn't mean anything. I can tell you as a 37 year veteran of the Edmonds Police Department, under the guidance of Chief Lawless, our department is more diverse than Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 33 Packet Pg. 36 6.1.a the community we serve. I have seen indications of prejudice, but they have been mostly outsiders stating them did not want to talk to my "persons of color" taking their report. I have no room in my life for prejudice and expressed this to these person. I have never observed an expression of prejudice from one of my officers. This process is a joke and one that will cost the city in the long run from people leaving employment with the city. I was proud of serving Edmonds for 37 years. Now I am ashamed of what you have made us in the media and to the local community. If you do this vote tonight, you will be saying that service to the city counts for nothing and we can just do things behind closed doors. If you support this system, you should resign. I will do everything I can to support anyone with a conscience who runs against you. Let your conscience be your guide. Consequences are eminent. From: Kurt Trester Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 4:20 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Sheriff Appointment Added to 12/8 Agenda I commend Officer Pruitt on his service to our country in the military and during his time as an officer of the law. However, his lack of municipal experience in comparison to Sheriff Lawless is of great concern to me as an Edmonds resident. Experience matters greatly in a position such as this. Please, Edmonds City Council Members, do not confirm Sherman Pruitt. Jim Lawless is the right man for this job. Kurt Trester From: Chris Gradwohl Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 2:11 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Monillas, Adrienne <Adrienne.Monillas@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment Yesterday Eric Wilkinson of King 5 News posted a story "Questions raised over abrupt change for potential new Edmonds police chief' https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/questions-raised-over-abrupt-change-for-potential- new-edmonds-police-chief/ar-BB1bJ0o9?ocid=hPIocaInews Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 34 Packet Pg. 37 6.1.a In the article, City Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas is quoted as saying: "I think he will be very good for the city," said Fraley-Monillas. The council president also believes racism is a problem in Edmonds, and Pruitt is the better pick to heal the city's racial wounds. "In this time frame in Edmonds, I think we could use Chief Pruitt," she said. "With all the racism in Edmonds, we have somebody who has had that experience in their life. I think that's important." I would ask that the council president provide specific examples to support her statement of "all the racism in Edmonds". I would expect that such a statement should be easily supported by numerous, well-known examples. Chris Gradwohl From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2020 7:22 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 December 8, 2020 City Council meeting Please make full public disclosure that Ordinances 4200 and 4201 failed to pass. Neither City Council Motion included the following concept: 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. One cannot throw things into an Ordinance different than the related Motion made. This is very dangerous. Please put a stop to it at once. I have personally been impacted by something similar. On March 17, 2009, City Council passed an incomplete Ordinance. Council motioned to reserve an easement that had yet to be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 35 Packet Pg. 38 6.1.a defined. An Exhibit defining the easement was added to Ordinance 3729 AFTER Council's vote. My family was greatly harmed by that Exhibit. Please do the right thing and admit both Motions failed. Next, please budget to compete a full Rewrite of the Code. Both the ECC and the ECDC have needed updating for years. Please provide a status update of the Code Rewrite and explain what prior budgeted amounts have accomplished. Please explain why hundreds of thousands of dollars previously budgeted have not resulted in execution of the Code Rewrite. Finally, please review the offices of Hearing Examiner and City Attorney before budgeting any public funds for either position. I believe I have provided plenty of evidence that the Hearing Examiner system does not work in Edmonds. History shows the City Attorneys and Staff are willing to provide incomplete information to Hearing Examiners in front of Hearing Examiner decisions. As for the Office of City Attorney, history shows City Attorneys are willing to misrepresent law to City Council immediately in front of a City Council vote. The March 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes disclose that Council was told that "an intrusion into a right-of-way was not allowed and the City had the obligation to clear it". All know that the City has no right to clear an UNOPENED right-of-way. The rights are NOT ABSOLUTE, and the property owner has the right to use their property. Also, please do not forget the impliedly joining concept created by City Attorney Taraday weeks after a Conditional Use Permit expired Null and Void. From: David Varnau Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 7:46 PM To: council@edmonds.gov; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: to consider in your city council meeting I am a resident of Edmonds and walk or bike ride along Sunset Avenue virtually every morning. The purpose of this email is to point out what is patently obvious to most pedestrians and bikers who currently use Sunset Avenue. Namely, that, because of the sheer volume of folks using the walkway during the pandemic, the street has become hazardous for all who use it. On any given day, you will see pedestrians walking in the vehicle lane in order to maintain social distancing. Add to the mix bikers as well as owners with dogs on leash all weaving in and out between the parked cars and you have a recipe for disaster. In fact, in the late morning, an elderly woman can be routinely observed using a walker assistive device as she laboriously ambulates with her companion in the vehicle lane. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 36 Packet Pg. 39 6.1.a Given the safety hazard of the current situation and the City's resulting potential liability, I urge the City Council to give strong consideration to closing the one way lane of Sunset once again to all cars except for local access. Sunset remains one of the few options Edmonds residents have for enjoying the outdoors on foot or on a bike locally during this long Covid winter. That said, 1--and many others --would be elated if such a traffic revision were made permanent and that section of Sunset were converted into a more pedestrian/bicycle friendly pathway with a park -like feel to it. Certainly, there is opposition to such a move, but it would improve the quality of life for --and the appeal of --our community. Thank you for your consideration. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes December 8, 2020 Page 37 Packet Pg. 40 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #245209 through #245370 dated December 10, 2020 for $3,315,772.67 and wire payment of $89,772.13. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 12-10-20 wire 12-10-20 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 12-10-20 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 : 26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245209 12/10/2020 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 15-85689 INTERPRETER - XZ0776586 INTERPRETER - XZ0776586 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total 245210 12/10/2020 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 39213 WWTP: 11/17/20 PEST CONTROL S 11/17/20 Pest Control Service 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 39682 PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUSS PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUS 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 Total 245211 12/10/2020 078216 ACJ HOLDINGS LLC 2-05225 #20-290269 UTILTY REFUND #20-290269 Utilty refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total 245212 12/10/2020 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 137330187 PUBLIC SAFETY - ADDITIONAL EQl PUBLIC SAFETY - ADDITIONAL EQl 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 137375528 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12' 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 137375529 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL Fire Inspection CITY HALL 121 5TH 1 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 Total 6.2.a Page: 1 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 2 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245213 12/10/2020 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 10737 MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CF r MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER Cl- c d 421.000.74.534.80.33.00 134,228.1 E �% Total: 134,228.1E a m 245214 12/10/2020 065568 ALLWATER INC 111820037 WWTP: ACCT: COEWASTE: 11/18/, 3 11/18/20 Acct COEWaste:- 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 50.7( 10.4% Sales Tax Y 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 5.2 � u Total: 55.9i � 245215 12/10/2020 074488 ALPHA COURIER INC 21615 WWTP: 341304, 342407, 342408, 34 E 341304, 342407, 342408, 343650, 34 2 U 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 325.1E p Total : 325.1E R 245216 12/10/2020 001528 AM TEST INC 118618 WWTP: SAMPLE 20-A0016845-1684 a AMPLE 20-A0016845-16849 NUVOD Q- Q 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 435.0( 118752 WWTP: SAMPLE NUMBERS: 20-AO( N SAMPLE NUMBERS: 20-A0015440-1 0 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 470.0( N 118874 WWTP: SAMPLES 20-A0016408-16z r SAMPLES 20-A0016408-16413 NUV, E 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 490.0( .� 118875 WWTP: SAMPLE 20-A0016414 SAMPLE 20-A0016414 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 110.0( E 118876 WWTP: SAMPLES 20-A0016254-16, SAMPLES 20-A0016254-16255 r 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 130.0( Q 118877 WWTP: SAMPLES 20-A0015989-15f SAMPLES 20-A0015989-15993 NUV1 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 435.0( 118878 WWTP: SAMPLES 20-A0015783-15i Page: 2 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 3 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245216 12/10/2020 001528 AM TEST INC (Continued) r SAMPLES 20-A0015783-15784 c E, 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 130.0( 118879 WWTP: SAMPLE 20-A0016547-1654 f° a SAMPLE 20-A0016547-16548 NUVO L .3 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 130.0( Total: 2,330.0( 245217 12/10/2020 070976 AMERESCO INC 2020-793A(1) WWTP: C511 PH 6 PROJECT B PRC Y C511 PH 6 PROJECT B PROF SRV t U 423.100.76.594.39.41.00 584,569.0E 2020-793G(1-1) WWTP: C511 PH 6 PROJ B CONSTF E C511 PH 6 CONSTRUCTION SERV I 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 1,877,399.0( Retainage 9/1-10/31/20 0 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 -93,869.9E 10.4% Sales Tax o L 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 195,249.5( 0- Total : 2,563,347.6( Q 245218 12/10/2020 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 6600334 DECEMBER PREMIUMS N LEOFF BENEFITS 009.000.39.517.20.23.10 7,800.0: c%j FIRE BENEFITS N 617.000.51.517.20.23.10 1,213.2; E Total: 9,013.2E 12 245219 12/10/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 22978314 CEMETERY: SHIRTS r- CEMETERY: SHIRTS W E 130.000.64.536.20.24.00 64.21 u 10.4% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.20.24.00 6.6E Q Total : 70.9: 245220 12/10/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1992009588 WWTP: 11/25/20 UNIFORMS,TOWE Mats/Towels Page: 3 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 12/ 10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245220 12/10/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 4 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 c 51.4E Uniforms: Jeanne - 3 Lab Coats $0.1' >% 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 1.4' a 10.4% Sales Tax L 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 5.3E .3 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 c 0.1E 1992009590 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS Y FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS U 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 29.5E r- 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.0, 2 1992018891 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE U PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE O 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 61.1 E > 10.4% Sales Tax o 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.3E a 1992024120 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS Q PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS c 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6' c PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1' r PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS N 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1' •� PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS z 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS aD 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0E t 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 r 0.1 1 Q 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6z 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6z Page: 4 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 5 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245220 12/10/2020 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) r 10.4% Sales Tax c 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6z >, 10.4% Sales Tax a 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6z L 10.4% Sales Tax 3 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.6 c PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1- Y 1992024121 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT m FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� E FLEET DIVISION MATS ii 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1( ,- 10.4% Sales Tax O 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.9 1 > 10.4% Sales Tax o 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.9£ a Total : 225.3° Q 0 245221 12/10/2020 078097 ARMSTEAD CONSULTING INC 4 CONSULTING FEES - NOVEMBER N consulting fees for Equity and Social o 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 10,625.0( r Total: 10,625.0( E 245222 12/10/2020 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0242561-IN DIESEL - 2,901 GALLONS fd DIESEL - 2,901 GALLONS U 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 3,573.4,' WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill E 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 1,539.9- m REG FUEL 7,302 GALLONS 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 11,927.8, Q WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 3,890.5, WA ST SERVICE FEE 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 50.1 < Page: 5 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245222 12/10/2020 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM (Continued) 245223 12/10/2020 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 0266350-IN FLEET - FUEL/ DIESEL & REGULAR REG FUEL 7,803 GALLONS 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 DIESEL 3,201 GALLONS 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 WA ST SERVICE FEE 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 0270782-IN WWTP: 11/17/20 DIESEL FUEL ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 Total 118956 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area Printing 714 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 UB Outsourcing area Printing 714 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area Printing 714 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 UB Outsourcing area Postage 714 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 UB Outsourcing area Postage 714 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 6.2.a Page: 6 Amoun c m 5.2, E, �a a W 12,007.2E .3 c 4,153.51' 4,701.9E y t U 1,703.3, E .ii 50.1 ' ,- 0 5.2, > 0 L Q a 2,395.1E Q 0 249.1- c 46,252.7-, N T E 45.9E U 45.9E (D E t 47.3< m r 139.4z Q 139.4' Page: 6 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 7 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245223 12/10/2020 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) r 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 c 4.6z 10.1 % Sales Tax E E 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 4.6z a 10.1 % Sales Tax L .3 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 4.7£ 119082 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area Printing 666 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 42.8E Y UB Outsourcing area Printing 666 U 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 42.8E UB Outsourcing area Printing 666 E 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 44.1.E n UB Outsourcing area Postage 666 ,U 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 135.1E 0 UB Outsourcing area Postage 666 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 135.1E o 10.1 % Sales Tax a 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 4.3< Q 10.1 % Sales Tax o 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 4.3E c 10.1 % Sales Tax 7 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 4.4E r Total: 845.31 245224 12/10/2020 075263 AVR PRODUCTION SERVICES LLC 12042020 HOLIDAY MARKET DJ SERVICES F( fd U HOLIDAY MARKET DJ SERVICES F( 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 1,200.0( W Total : 1,200.0( E U 245225 12/10/2020 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 54779 INTERPRETER - 9Z0891586 INTERPRETER - 9Z0891586 Q 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 150.0( 55318 INTERPRETER - 8Z0990564 INTERPRETER - 8Z0990564 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 100.0( Page: 7 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245225 12/10/2020 075217 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 245226 12/10/2020 073834 BATTERIES PLUS 245227 12/10/2020 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 245228 12/10/2020 078220 BETTER AIR NW 245229 12/10/2020 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 245230 12/10/2020 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 8 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Total: 250.0( m P33269388 WWTP: PO 439 12V BATTERIES E PO 439 12V BATTERIES sa 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 a 838.5( m 10.4% Sales Tax 3 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 87.2( Total: 925.7( 33056 CEMETERY ADS: 12/3, 12/10, 12/17, N 1k CEMETERYADS: 12/3, 12/10, 12/17, t 130.000.64.536.20.41.40 1,040.0( U Total: 1,040.0( •9 BLD2020-1312 REFUND: PERMIT FEES Better Air NW - Refund of Permit fees O 001.000.257.620 R 64.0( o Total: 64.0( a a 1205558 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 709.5 GAL Q FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 709.5 GAL o 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 N 720.0( c 1207135 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 622.2 GAL FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 622.2 GAL N T 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 633.3, 1209737 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 753.3 GA M FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 753.3 GA z 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 780.3 1210923 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 720.00 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 720.00 GF E E 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 754.9E m Total : 2,888.6, Q 20099 EOJA.SERVICES THRU 11/28/20 EOJA.Services thru 11/28/20 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 15,226.51' 20101 BLUELINE CONSTRUCTION SERVI( Page: 8 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245230 12/10/2020 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 245231 12/10/2020 075342 BORUCHOWITZ, ROBERT 245232 12/10/2020 077243 BPAS 245233 12/10/2020 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 9 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r E4FE.Services thru 11/28/20 c E, 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 447.5( EBGA.Services thru 11/28/20 f° a 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 4,566.0( L Total : 20,240.W 112020 PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICES ea NOVEMBER DEFENSE SERVICES Y 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 3,879.1, u Total : 3,879.1 , 1000769146 NOVEMBER VEBA FEES E NOVEMBER VEBA FEES U 001.000.39.518.61.49.00 319.5( o NOVEMBER VEBA FEES 111.000.68.542.61.49.00 135.0( o NOVEMBER VEBA FEES a 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 27.0( Q NOVEMBER VEBA FEES 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 0 31.5( N NOVEMBER VEBA FEES o 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 31.5( N NOVEMBER VEBA FEES T N 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 67.5( .E NOVEMBER VEBA FEES fd U 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 31.5( NOVEMBER VEBA FEES 001.000.41.521.22.23.00 243.0( E Total: 886.5( U m r 648238 UNIT 24 - PARTS Q UNIT 24 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 86.5, 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.0( Page: 9 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 245233 12/10/2020 002800 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY (Continued) 245234 12/10/2020 075025 BRANDING IRON LLC 11526 245235 12/10/2020 075489 BRENT J ONEAL PHD & ASSOC LLC 30 245236 12/10/2020 078235 BURNHAM INSULATION & SHELVING 61689419 245237 12/10/2020 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 245238 12/10/2020 075892 CASCADIA ART MUSEUM 5726728 5727668 TPA CAM Description/Account Total ED! HOLIDAY SIGNAGE 2020 ED! HOLIDAY SIGNAGE 2020 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total EXPERT SERVICES - 8Z0990564 EXPERT SERVICES - 8ZO990564 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Total STORM WATER RENTAL - BLOW IN STORM WATER RENTAL - BLOW IN 422.000.72.518.20.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.518.20.48.00 Total ROADWAY - ASPHALT ROADWAY - ASPHALT 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 ROADWAY - SHEET MIX & ASPHAL- ROADWAY - SHEET MIX & ASPHAL- 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 10.0% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 Total TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMEI` TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMEI` 123.000.64.573.20.41.40 6.2.a Page: 10 Amoun 95.5 m E �a a 2,240.0( m L 3 232.9E 2,472.9E U m t 2,925.0( u 2,925.0( •E 0 R 2,466.0( o a 256.4E Q 2,722.4E " 0 N 0 281.8, r E 28.1 E 764.2E Q 2,500.0( Page: 10 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245238 12/10/2020 075892 075892 CASCADIAART MUSEUM 245239 12/10/2020 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) RN11200961 245240 12/10/2020 078218 CHRISTOPHER & MICHELLE HOFFMAN 3-00450 245241 12/10/2020 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 245242 12/10/2020 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 245243 12/10/2020 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC 245244 12/10/2020 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 120006044 3871 DEC-2020 8498310301175175 8498310301175191 6.2.a Page: 11 PO # Description/Account Amoun Total: 2,500.0( m WWTP: 11/30/20 CYLINDER RENTA E 11/30/20 nitrogen, oxygen, carbon a 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 142.7E m 10.4% Sales Tax 3 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 14.8E Total: 157.6( #611261766-SK UTILITY REFUND 1k #611261766-SK Utility refund due to t 411.000.233.000 132.9< U Total : 132.9- •E WATER QUALITY LAB ANALYSIS WATER QUALITY LAB ANALYSIS O 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 R 1,069.2( o Total: 1,069.2( a a E4FD.LAKE BALLINGER WATERSHI Q E4FD.Lake Ballinger Watershed Foru N 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 266.E 1 c Total : 266.6j N C/A CITYOFED00001 T Dec-2020 Fiber Optics Internet E 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 M 661.5( Total : 661.55 +: m CEMETERY INTERNET 820 15TH S� E CEMETERY INTERNET 820 15TH Sl U 130.000.64.536.20.42.00 140.2, MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF Q MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTEF 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 140.2, Total : 280.5' Page: 11 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 12 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245245 12/10/2020 075384 CONOM, DEREK 12102020 Conom Law CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 10,000.0( �% Total: 10,000.0( a m 245246 12/10/2020 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING NOV 2020 NOV 2020 - EDMONDS PD 3 NOV 2020 DRY CLEANING CHARGE 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 506.1- Total : 506.11 Y U 245247 12/10/2020 074444 DATAQUEST LLC 13526 NOVEMBER BACKGROUND CHECK t BACKGROUND CHECKS - NOVEME U 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 491.5( •9 Total: 491.5( Z 245248 12/10/2020 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY DGARCIA-2021 INCIN WWTP: DAN GARCIA 2021 INCINEF 4- O DAN GARCIA 2021 INCINERATOR C R o 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 200.0( a Total : 200.0( Q 245249 12/10/2020 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY JCLAY-2021 INCIN. WWTP: JCLAY 2021 INCINERATOR o JCLAY 2021 INCINERATOR CERTIFI c 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 200.0( Total : 200.0( r 245250 12/10/2020 078229 DETHLEFS SPARWASSER REICH 12102020 Dethlefs CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT E CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT U 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 10,000.0( +% Total: 10,000.0( E 245251 12/10/2020 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 20-4051 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES U city council minutes 11/24 and 12/1 f° 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 846.0( Q Total : 846.0( 245252 12/10/2020 061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS TPA DRIFTWOOD TPA DRIFTWOOD TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMEI` Page: 12 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245252 12/10/2020 061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS 245253 12/10/2020 007253 DUNN LUMBER 245254 12/10/2020 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 245255 12/10/2020 007725 EDMONDS BAKERY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 7640452 00010111397 12102020 Edm Bakery 245256 12/10/2020 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1410 245257 12/10/2020 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 1933 1935 PO # Description/Account 123.000.64.573.20.41.40 Total : PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027 PM SUPPLIES: FASTENERS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.2% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total WWTP: PO 444 NON-CHLOR BRAK PO 444 NON-CHLOR BRAKE 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Total EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION Employee Appreciation Gift Certificat( 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 Total PM SUPPLIES: FILLER GLUE PM SUPPLIES: FILLER GLUE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: PAINTBRUSH, GLUE PM SUPPLIES: PAINTBRUSH, GLUE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.2.a Page: 13 Page: 13 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245257 12/10/2020 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 245258 12/10/2020 060983 EDMONDS SO SNO CO HISTORICAL 12102020 Historical 245259 12/10/2020 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-07490 3-38565 6-01127 6-01130 6-01140 245260 12/10/2020 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR179965 245261 12/10/2020 064961 EMERALD BEST MOTEL 12102020 Emerald Bes 6.2.a Page: 14 PO # Description/Account Amoun c 10.4% Sales Tax m 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.8 1 >, Total : 18.71 a m CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 3 CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 7,000.0( Total : 7,000.0( Y U HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F t HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 107.6E •9 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c o 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 52.8E R WWTP: 9/15-11/14/20 METER 2088 > 0 9/15-11/14/20 200 2ND AVE S / MEl a 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 235.5( Q WWTP: 9/15-11/14/20 METER 9439 9/15-11/14/20 200 2ND AVE S / MEl N 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 24.3< WWTP: 9/15-11/14/20 METER 50104 N 9/15-11/14/20 200 2ND AVE S / MET N 423.000.76.535.80.47.64 2,353.9E E Total: 2,774.3° ELECTRONIC NOV 2020 ELECTRONIC NOV 2020 m E 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 171.4E 10.4% Sales Tax r 001.000.23.512.50.45.00 17.8< Q Total : 189.31 CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT Page: 14 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245261 12/10/2020 064961 EMERALD BEST MOTEL 245262 12/10/2020 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 245263 12/10/2020 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Total 0155426-IN INV 0155426-IN - ACCT 11847 - EDN 2 ASSISTAN CHIEF BADGES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 1 SGT BADGE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 1 CPL BADGE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2 OFFICER BADGES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6 PLAIN BOOK CASES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 PACKAGEINSURANCE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 PACKAGE & HANDLING FEES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 Total EDH913780 PLANNING -LEGAL AD Everett Herald - Legal Ad- 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH914488 ORDINANCES 4202 & 4204 ordinances 4202 and 4204 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 245264 12/10/2020 075381 EVERETT POLYGRAPH SERVICES LLC 2020-1127E Total ; POLYGRAPH FOR POLICE CHIEF C POLICE CHIEF RECRUITMENT 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 Total 6.2.a Page: 15 Amoun c 10,000.0( 10,000.0( E, �a a W L �3 216.0( c �a 108.0( Y U m 108.0( E 216.0( 'M 180.0( O R 14.0( o a a 5.9( Q 0 16.5( N 864.4( N T E 64.4( 2 m 32.2( E 96.6( U m r Q 200.0( 200.0( Page: 15 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 16 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245265 12/10/2020 075673 FARMER, MARIA 11182020 INTERPRETER - XZ0582167 INTERPRETER - XZ0582167 E, 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 150.0( Total: 150.0( a m 245266 12/10/2020 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAEVE177682 WATER - SUPPLIES 3 WATER - SUPPLIES 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 193.6( 10.4% Sales Tax Y 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 20.1 < u Total : 213.7; 245267 12/10/2020 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0933456 WATER - PARTS/ 1" & 3/4" COPPER E WATER - PARTS/ 1" & 3/4" COPPER U 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,680.0( o 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 174.7, p 0933456-1 WATER - PARTS 3/4" COPPER a WATER - PARTS 3/4" COPPER Q 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 586.8( 10.4% Sales Tax N 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 61.0< 0935230 WATER - PIPE THREADER c� WATER - PIPE THREADER N 421.000.74.534.80.35.00 977.0( E Freight fd 421.000.74.534.80.35.00 U 40.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.35.00 105.71 E 0935467 WATER - SOLID COVERS U WATER - SOLID COVERS f° 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 11391.9( Q Freight 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 108.7� 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 156.0, Page: 16 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 17 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245267 12/10/2020 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) 0935557 WATER - PARTS WATER - PARTS E 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 3,312.5, a 10.4% Sales Tax L 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 344.5, .3 0939969 WATER - REPAIR CLAMPS & 2" BR/ WATER - REPAIR CLAMPS & 2" BR/ 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,003.71 Y 10.4% Sales Tax U 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 104.4( Total: 10,047.31 E .ii 245268 12/10/2020 078232 FS FINANCIAL STRATEGIES LLC 12102020 Fin. Strate CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT U CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT o 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 10,000.0( R Total: 10,000.0( o a 245269 12/10/2020 076809 GAGNER, SAMUEL GAGNER FLASHLIGHT GAGNER EXP CLAIM - REIMBURSE Q MODLIGHT PLH-18650 LIGHT 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 285.0( N Total: 285.0( 245270 12/10/2020 071467 GATEWAY PET MEMORIAL WA70014-1-0039 INV WA70014-1-0039 - EDMONDS PI N r DISPOSAL OF 4 ANIMAL REMAINS E 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 52.7, .m Total: 52.7, 245271 12/10/2020 078226 GEIGLE SAFETY GROUP INC 201201-003C WWTP: GREG CARREON+SARAN E E GREG CARREON+SARAN BRINKLE t 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 118.0( Total : r 118.0( Q 245272 12/10/2020 078241 GERLACH CONSTRUCTION INC 12102020 Gerlach CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 10,000.0( Page: 17 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 18 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245272 12/10/2020 078241 078241 GERLACH CONSTRUCTION INC (Continued) Total : 10,000.0( 245273 12/10/2020 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 1080987 OLD PW - SECURITY OLD PW - SECURITY 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.0( 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 5.7< Total : 60.7; 245274 12/10/2020 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC U2016060429 SEWER - PARTS SEWER - PARTS 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 256.& 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 26.7, Total : 283.5E 245275 12/10/2020 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 54 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 78.1; Total: 78.1: 245276 12/10/2020 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 47774 E7MA.SERVICES THRU 11/27/20 E7MA.Services thru 11/27/20 332.000.64.594.76.41.00 178.6( E7MA.Services thru 11/27/20 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 100.7( E7MA.Services thru 11/27/20 125.000.64.594.76.41.00 151.0E Total: 430.3° 245277 12/10/2020 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 55 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 50.0( REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 2,850.0( Total: 2,900.0( Page: 18 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 12/ 10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245278 12/10/2020 061013 HONEY BUCKET Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 19 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 055182535 FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE' FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE' E, 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 131.6E 0551831144 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET f° a HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET L 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 644.9� .3 0551831145 YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 439.6( Y 0551831146 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC U HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 246.0( E 0551831147 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE ca PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.4E 0551831148 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET _0 > SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET o 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.4.E a 0551831149 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I Q WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I o 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 221.6E N 0551831150 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B( CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY B( N T 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.4E N 0551831151 MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED E MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED 2 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,514.1 , +: 0551831152 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY (D CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD HONEY E 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.4E m 0551831153 CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON Q 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 118.2E 0551833801 COVID TESTING SITE HONEY BUCI COVID TESTING SITE HONEY BUCI 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 285.0( Page: 19 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245278 12/10/2020 061013 061013 HONEY BUCKET 245279 12/10/2020 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE 245280 12/10/2020 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG 245281 12/10/2020 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) BID-11202020 BID-ED2020-10xs 3420920 3424211 245282 12/10/2020 065980 INDUSTRIAL SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS SIN006643 245283 12/10/2020 072627 INTRADO LIFE & SAFETY INC 7012968 6.2.a Page: 20 PO # Description/Account Amoun Total: 4,083.0E m BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGER OCT E BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGER OCT sa 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 a 2,766.6, m Total: 2,766.6, 3 BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY FOR OCT( c BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY FOR OCT( ea N 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 600.0( Total : 600.0( t U OFFICE SUPPLIES - NOVEMBER 2C E OFFICE SUPPLIES - NOV 2020 2 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 257.9z o 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 R 26.& o HAGUE - CHAIR a Hague - Chair Q- Q 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 586.6, 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 61.0" o Total : 932.4; N T WATER & SEWER - SOFTWARE RE WATER & SEWER - SOFTWARE RE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,265.0( WATER & SEWER - SOFTWARE RE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 11265.0( 10.4% Sales Tax t 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 131.5E r 10.4% Sales Tax Q 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 131.5E Total : 2,793.1: MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Page: 20 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 21 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245283 12/10/2020 072627 INTRADO LIFE & SAFETY INC (Continued) Monthly 911 database maint 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 200.0( Tota I : 200.0( 245284 12/10/2020 076136 JEFF ANDERSON BID-11282020 BID/ED! HOLIDAY COLLATERAL DE; BID/ED! HOLIDAY COLLATERAL DE 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 1,900.0( Total : 1,900.0( 245285 12/10/2020 078242 JENNIFER LUSH ND LLC 12102020 Lush CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 10,000.0( Total: 10,000.0( 245286 12/10/2020 078225 JOSEPH & SHANNON FISHER 5-15025 #20-321909 UTILITY REFUND #20-321909 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 144.4� Tota I : 144.4' 245287 12/10/2020 075265 KBA INC 3005654 E7MA.SERVICES THRU 11/30/20 E7MA.Services thru 11/30/20 332.000.64.594.76.41.00 4,905.6E E7MA.Services thru 11/30/20 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 2,764.4( E7MA.Services thru 11/30/20 125.000.64.594.76.41.00 4,153.6E Total: 11,823.7E 245288 12/10/2020 078223 KELLY, JADEN 11/29/2020 CLAIM FOR EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT FOR PURCHASE 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 53.9( Total : 53.9( 245289 12/10/2020 067568 KPG INC 7-0920REV E7DC.SERVICES THRU 7/25/20 E7DC.Services thru 7/25/20 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 45.131.0, Page: 21 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 22 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245289 12/10/2020 067568 KPG INC (Continued) E7DC.Services thru 7/25/20 112.000.68.595.20.61.00 3,836.1( Total: 48,967.1, 245290 12/10/2020 078219 KRISTI & KLARK DAHLMAN 1-29600 #611261804-TC UTILITY REFUND #611261804-TC Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 385.7, Total : 385.7' 245291 12/10/2020 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 188 CONFLICT COUNSEL - XZ0827635 CONFLICT COUNSEL - XZ0827635 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 300.0( Tota I : 300.0( 245292 12/10/2020 078234 LEACH, JAMES BLD2020-1094 REFUND OF PERMIT FEES BLD020-1094 Permit withdrawn and f 001.000.257.620 292.0( Tota I : 292.0( 245293 12/10/2020 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4682072 LEMAY NOV 2020 LEMAY NOV 2020 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 35.5, INV 4681607 INV 4681607 - ACCT 2185-952778-8 SHRED 3- 65GAL TOTES 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 12.0< Total: 47.5° 245294 12/10/2020 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 48824414 WWTP: PO 446 DRUM PUMP Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 16.5� PO 446 DRUM PUMP 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 197.OF 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 22.2, 49499335 WWTP: PO 456 HEX SCREWS & NL Page: 22 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245294 12/10/2020 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO (Continued) PO 456 HEX SCREWS & NUTS, WA 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Tota I : 245295 12/10/2020 078222 MECHAELIS, KIM 2005678.009 REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: 001.000.239.200 Tota I : 245296 12/10/2020 078215 MICHAEL & MEGAN MCMURRAY 2-14625 #20-320505 UTILITY REFUND #20-320505 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total 245297 12/10/2020 078213 MICHELE & SCOTT AMY 3-12750 #777816RT UTILITY REFUND #777816RT Utility refund - received 411.000.233.000 Total 245298 12/10/2020 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 337403 WATER - OIL WATER - OIL 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 339641 WWTP: PO 208 11/20/20 PROPANE 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 PO 208 11/20/20 PROPANE 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total 6.2.a Page: 23 Page: 23 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245299 12/10/2020 068662 MINNIHAN, TERRY 245300 12/10/2020 075590 MOBILE GUARD 245301 12/10/2020 065469 MYERS SCULPTURE 245302 12/10/2020 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 245303 12/10/2020 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 24 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 57 REIMBURSEMENT r REIMBURSEMENT c d E, 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 504.21 Total: 504.2, a m INV00635330 NETGUARD ANNUAL SERVICE - AC 3 NetGuard Annual Service - Qty 144 le 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 34.8E Total : 34.8E Y U 7 E7MA.SERVICES THRU NOVEMBEF t E7MA.Services thru November 2020 U 332.000.64.594.76.41.00 2,178.7E •9 E7MA.Services thru November 2020 z 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 1,228.5E o E7MA.Services thru November 2020 125.000.64.594.76.41.00 1,842.7E p Total: L 5,250.0( a Q 0599192-IN SEWER - 02 SENSOR SEWER - 02 SENSOR N 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 120.0( c 10.4% Sales Tax N 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 14.0( N Freight E 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 14.6E .2 0599872-IN STORM - SUPPLIES U STORM - SUPPLIES 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 522.8( E 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 54.3, Total : 725.8E Q 11 WILLOW CREEK GRANT WRITING Willow Creek Grant Writing thru 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 1,062.5( Page: 24 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 25 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245303 12/10/2020 075539 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING (Continued) Total : 1,062.5( 245304 12/10/2020 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 10311946 NOVEMBER FSA FEES GO COMMUTER FEES 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 25.0( 10311947 DECEMBER FSA FEES FSA PARTICIPANT FEES 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 124.5( Total : 149.5( 245305 12/10/2020 063034 NCL 447122 WWTP: PO 445 NITR INHIB. Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 15.6( PO 445 NITR INHIB. 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 148.5( Total : 164.1( 245306 12/10/2020 078233 NEATHERY, DAVID H INV 20-22859 INV 20-22859 TRANSCRIPT FEE - CS 20-22859 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 858.5( Total : 858.5( 245307 12/10/2020 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S010496449.003 WWTP: PO 442 HOFF STAINLESS PO 442 HOFF STAINLESS 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,884.3( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 195.91 Total: 2,080.2 , 245308 12/10/2020 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 763 DEV SVCS PROF SVCS (NOYES) Planning Board Minutes- 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 399.0( Tota I : 399.0( 245309 12/10/2020 067868 NW TANK & ENVIRONMENTAL 87636 WWTP: PO 408 TANK MONITOR CE PO 408 TANK MONITOR CERTIFICA 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 510.0( Page: 25 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 26 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245309 12/10/2020 067868 067868 NW TANK & ENVIRONMENTAL (Continued) Total : 510.0( m 245310 12/10/2020 076902 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTR OF WA 69490548 DOT RECERTIFICATION E MOLES - DOT RECERT sa 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 a 103.0( m 69548478 DOT RECERT 3 STREET (HIATT) 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 103.0( WATER (DANIELS) Y 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 103.0( u 69617824 DOT RECERT t STORM (BROWN) U 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 103.0( •ii Total: 412.0( u 4- 0 245311 12/10/2020 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 139156990001 INV 13915699001 - ACCT 90520437 R 10 BOXES - PAPER MATE PENS - D 0 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 129.7� a 10.4% Sales Tax Q 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 13.5( 139162017001 INV 139162017001 - ACCT 9052043' N 4- NOTE PADS 5 X 8-DISCOUNT c 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.5, c� 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2.4E E Total: 169.2E fd U 245312 12/10/2020 073714 OLBRECHTS & ASSOC PLLC Oct/Nov 2020 PLANNING -PROF SERVICES Hearing examiner services for the °' E 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 3,108.0( Total : 3,108.0( Q 245313 12/10/2020 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 24.2, 0060860 HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/ Page: 26 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 27 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245313 12/10/2020 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT (Continued) HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/ 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 124.3, Total: 148.5' 245314 12/10/2020 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 3685-105348 UNIT 8 - PARTS UNIT 8 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.0, 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.5( Total : 26.5 , 245315 12/10/2020 075735 PACIFIC SECURITY 34157 SECURITY NOV 2020 SECURITY NOV 2020 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 3,416.8E Total : 3,416.81 245316 12/10/2020 071488 PARENTMAP 2020-77712 TOURISM PROMOTION MARKETIN( TOURISM PROMOTION MARKETIN( 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 1,005.0( Total: 1,005.0( 245317 12/10/2020 074793 PETDATA INC 9025 INV 9025 - SEPT 2020 - EDMONDS 1 12 - 1 YR LICENCES @ $4.20EA 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 50.4( 1 REPLACEMENT TAG 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 4.2( 9101 INV 9101 - OCT 2020 - EDMONDS P 22 - 1 YR LICENCES @ $4.20EA 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 92.4( 1 REPLACEMENT TAG 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 4.2( 9191 INV 9191 - NOV 2020 - EDMONDS P 555 - 1 YR LICENSES @ $4.20EA 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2,331.0( 1 LATE FEE COLLECTED Page: 27 Packet Pg. 68 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 28 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245317 12/10/2020 074793 PETDATA INC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 2.5( Total : 2,484.7( 245318 12/10/2020 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1A81510 WWTP: PO 451 GREG BIT STEP 14 PO 451 GREG BIT STEP 14 & 3M 33 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 116.2- 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 12.0� Total : 128.3( 245319 12/10/2020 064167 POLLARD WATER 0179345 WATER - OIL WATER - OIL 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 139.9( Freight 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 35.4, 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 18.2< Total : 193.5° 245320 12/10/2020 073231 POLYDYNE INC 1497316 WWTP: PO 266 POLYMER (CLARIFI 11/18/20 PO 266 POLYMER (CLARIF 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 11,040.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 1,148.1 E Total : 12,188.1( 245321 12/10/2020 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC PSTAC20-134 SERGEANT PROMOTIONAL ASSES ASSESSMENT CENTER TESTING 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 5,147.2( Total : 5,147.2( 245322 12/10/2020 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 20210026 WWTP: 2021 OPERATING PERMIT 1 2021 Operating Permit Fees $28,600 423.000.76.535.80.41.50 29,252.1 E Total : 29,252.1' Page: 28 Packet Pg. 69 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245323 12/10/2020 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 245324 12/10/2020 030695 PUMPTECH INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 220023412418 0162526-IN 245325 12/10/2020 076687 REBUILD -IT SERVICES GROUP LLC 11278 11300 11310 245326 12/10/2020 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 0000054155 PO # Description/Account WWTP: 10/21-11/19/20 METER 000" 10/21-11/19/20 METER 000390395 2 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 Total WWTP: PO 351 PC50 PACO COLLIN PO 351 PC50 PACO COLUMN PUMF 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total WWTP: RETURN SPROCKET; CREI RETURN SPROCKET; CREDIT INV' 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 WWTP: 11/19/20 CREDIT FOR INV. 11/19/20 CREDIT FOR INV. 11278 F( 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 WWTP: PO 440 SPROCKET, 40TAE PO 440 SPROCKET, 40T ASA 60, 2 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total STORM - STREET SWEEPINGS 6.2.a Page: 29 Amoun c m 1,225.7z �% 1,225.71 a m L 3 13,230.0( 1,375.9', U 14,605.9: E 2 U 13.8z o R 13.0E o L a 2.8( Q 0 N -13.8z c N T -13.OE N E -2.8( 2 m 242.6( E t U 21.3E Q 27.4E 291.41 Page: 29 Packet Pg. 70 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 30 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245326 12/10/2020 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY (Continued) r STORM - STREET SWEEPINGS c 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 7,225.7� �% 54190 E7MA.CONTAMINATED SOIL REMO f° a E7MA.Contaminated Soil Removal (D 332.000.64.594.76.41.00 579.1 < .3 E7MA.Contaminated Soil Removal 126.000.64.594.76.41.00 c 326.5z m E7MA.Contaminated Soil Removal U) 125.000.64.594.76.41.00 489.8, y Total: 8,621.2E r E 245327 12/10/2020 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE U 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 221.2� O 3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; o L 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 37.6E 0- PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : Q 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 143.0E c PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; N 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 143.0E PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; r 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 143.0E PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; E 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 143.0E 2 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 143.0E (D 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; E FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; t m 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 234.2E Q 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 71.6E Tota I : 1,280.1( Page: 30 Packet Pg. 71 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245328 12/10/2020 078224 ROGER & JEANNE HINRICHS 5-10050 #40267731-805-JS9 UTILITY REFUN #40267731-805-JS9 Utility refund duE 411.000.233.000 Tota I : 245329 12/10/2020 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-029483 UNIT 24 - BATTERY UNIT 24 - BATTERY 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5-029652 UNIT 6 - PARTS UNIT 6 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota I : 245330 12/10/2020 072387 RUSSELL SIGN CO 12102020 RussellSign CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 Tota I : 245331 12/10/2020 077424 SEFAC USA INC 17111932 FLEET - TRUCK LIFT SERVICE/ INS FLEET - TRUCK LIFT SERVICE/ INS 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Total 245332 12/10/2020 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 54164 REMOTE & ONSITE COMPUTER SL Onsite computer support - 11/10/20; 512.000.31.518.87.41.00 Total 245333 12/10/2020 078214 SMD HOLDINGS LLC 2-30550 #20-334918 UTILITY REFUND #20-334918 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Tota I : 6.2.a Page: 31 Page: 31 Packet Pg. 72 vchlist 12/ 10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245335 12/10/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 32 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 200124873 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 41.9" >, 200274959 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W f° a TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W L 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 20.6- .3 200422418 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( ca 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,256.3� Y 200493146 MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M U MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.3, E 200714038 SEAVIEW PARK M SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.8E 200748606 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW _0 > TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW o 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 19.4E a 200943348 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V Q TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V c 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 55.9( c 201192226 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W N T 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 21.1 , N 201197084 SEAVIEW PARK E SEAVIEW PARK 2 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 25.3, +: 201236825 FISHING PIER RESTROOMS (D FISHING PIER RESTROOMS E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 188.7( m 201327111 PINE ST PARK PINE ST PARK Q 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.8� 201557303 CEMETERY BUILDING CEMETERY BUILDING 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 160.2, Page: 32 Packet Pg. 73 vchlist 12/ 10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245335 12/10/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 33 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 201563434 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA c TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 36.1E a 201582152 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W L TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W 3 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 37.3( 201610276 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT ca OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT Y 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 9.1E 201656907 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN! DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN! E 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 179.1('R 201703758 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( O 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 37.2� > 201711785 STREET LIGHTING 1 LIGHTS @ 15( o L STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ a 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 8.6 , Q 201762101 415 5TH AVE S c 415 5TH AVE S N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 27.7, 202077194 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE N T FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 597.3, . 202087870 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 199.2( (D 202161535 CEMETERY WELL PUMP E CEMETERY WELL PUMP U 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 m 97.4� 202289096 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME Q TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 68.6< 202289120 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME Page: 33 Packet Pg. 74 vchlist 12/ 10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245335 12/10/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 34 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 c 70.9� 202529186 STREET LIGHTING (406 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (406 LIGHTS @ a 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 3,955.0- L 202529202 STREET LIGHTING 7 LIGHTS @ 40( 3 STREET LIGHTING (7 LIGHTS @ 40 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 110.5E 202576153 STREET LIGHTING (2097 LIGHTS C Y STREET LIGHTING (2097 LIGHTS C y 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 13,536.9; U 202579488 STREET LIGHTING (33 LIGHTS @ 2 E STREET LIGHTING (33 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 378.& 202620415 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA O MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.4E o 204292213 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST a CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST Q 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 113.9E c 204467435 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA N HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 32.8, r 204714893 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 5.1 , 12 204714927 STREET LIGHTING (19 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (19 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 120.0( t 204714935 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 m STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 60.0( Q 204714943 STREET LIGHTING (4 LIGHTS @ 10 STREET LIGHTING (4 LIGHTS @ 10 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15.2E 204714950 STREET LIGHTING (12 LIGHTS @ 2 Page: 34 Packet Pg. 75 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245335 12/10/2020 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 220547582 220792758 222704264 245336 12/10/2020 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Lien Release 245337 12/10/2020 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Trang, Thanh 245338 12/10/2020 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Willliams, Rob 245339 12/10/2020 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 3080 6.2.a Page: 35 PO # Description/Account Amoun c STREET LIGHTING (12 LIGHTS @ 2 m 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 95.5' >, TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE ° fCL TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE L 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 51.7� '3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 117.8£ Y WWTP: 10/25-11/30/20 FLOWMETEI U 10/25-11/30/20 FLOW METER 2321 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 21.1 £ E Total : 21,846.1d 'R RELEASE OF LIEN FOR FINANCE p release of lien R 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 200.0( o L release of lien a 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 200.0( Q Total : 400.0( c N SHORT PLAT: THANH TRANT FOR I o short plat: thanh trang for planning N 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 188.5( N Total: 188.5( E M CRITICAL AREA NOTICE FOR PLAN U critical area notice: Rob and Nichelle r- 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 106.5( E Total: 106.5( m DEC-2020 COMMUNICATION DISPA Q DEC-2020 COMMUNICATION DISPA 001.000.39.528.00.41.50 73,802.9( DEC-2020 COMMUNICATION DISPA 421.000.74.534.80.41.50 1,942.1 £ Page: 35 Packet Pg. 76 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245339 12/10/2020 076433 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 911 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 245340 12/10/2020 068618 SNOHOMISH COUNTY PARKS DEPT 12072020 245341 12/10/2020 078227 SNO-KING YOUTH CLUB 245342 12/10/2020 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 12102020 Sno King 103583 103583 103585 103585 103586 103586 103588 6.2.a Page: 36 PO # Description/Account Amoun c DEC-2020 COMMUNICATION DISPA m 423.000.75.535.80.41.50 1,942.1 £ �% Total: 77,687.2E a m SPONSOR PLAQUE: WATERFRONT 3 SPONSOR PLAQUE: WATERFRONT 125.000.64.594.76.65.00 25.0( Total : 25.0( Y U CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT a) CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT U 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 10,000.0( •9 Total: 10,000.0( z CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N O CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N R o 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 626.0( a CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N Q- Q CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 626.0( N FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( o FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 644.6; r FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( E FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 644.E SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST m E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 605.1 f SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST U SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST Q 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 605.1 f CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.8� Page: 36 Packet Pg. 77 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245342 12/10/2020 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 245343 12/10/2020 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 245344 12/10/2020 078221 STERN, JESSICA 245345 12/10/2020 076324 SUPERION LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 37 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N c CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 464.4� a 173796 WWTP: 11/2020 ROLLOFF ASH DIE L 11/2020 ROLLOFF ASH DISPOSALi 3 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 1,180.4- -a Total: 5,856.45 M 98434/4 FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR STEVE I U) U FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR STEVE I t 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 129.0< U E 10.4% Sales Tax ii 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 13.4, u Total: 142.4° o 2005677.009 REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION: R > 0 REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION: a 001.000.239.200 400.0( Q Total : 400.0( 0 N 283405 DEV SVC PROF SVCS o CentralSquare / Superion LLC- N 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 11500.0( N 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 156.0( .M 283406 DEV SVCS PROF SVCS z CentralSquare / Superion LLC- o 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 3,600.0( E 285085 DEV SVCS-PROF SVCS M CentralSquare/Superion LLC- r 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 3,150.0( Q 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 327.6( Total : 8,733.6( Page: 37 Packet Pg. 78 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245346 12/10/2020 078217 SUSAN CAMPBELL & MICHAEL GERKE 4-38325 245347 12/10/2020 078240 TAGLE AND PARTNERS LLC 245348 12/10/2020 078228 TEKNOLOGIC LLC 245349 12/10/2020 078209 THE GOLDEN AGE 2 245350 12/10/2020 078211 THE NADLER LAW GROUP PLLC 245351 12/10/2020 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 245352 12/10/2020 066628 THE SUPPLY COMPANY LLC 12102020 Tagle 12102020 Teknologic 12102020 GoldenAge2 12102020 Nadler Law 2426 00215964S 6.2.a Page: 38 PO # Description/Account Amoun #20-331165 UTILITY REFUND r #20-331165 Utility refund due to c E, 411.000.233.000 276.41 Total: 276.4, a m CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 3 CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 10,000.0( Total : 10,000.0( Y U CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT t CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT U 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 9,000.0( g Total: 9,000.0( z CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT O CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT R o 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 10,000.0( a Total : 10,000.0( Q CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT N CARES FUND BUSINESS SUPPORT c 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 10,000.0( 7 Total : 10,000.0( r TOURISM PROMOTION AND CREAI E Digital promotion ads for Creative U 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 3,322.2, Digital tourism promotion ads Noveml m 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 2,000.0( t Total: 5,322.2: m r FLEET - COVID/ HAND SANITIZER Q FLEET - COVID/ HAND SANITIZER 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 480.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 49.9, Page: 38 Packet Pg. 79 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 39 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245352 12/10/2020 066628 066628 THE SUPPLY COMPANY LLC (Continued) Total : 529.9: 245353 12/10/2020 075587 THE UPS STORE #6392 0026 WWTP:11/20/20 SHIP CHG 11/20/20 SHIP CHG 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 154.2( Total : 154.2( 245354 12/10/2020 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 126895 DEV SVCS WIDE FORMAT MONTHL HP Pagewide LX4000- 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 175.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 18.2( Total: 193.2( 245355 12/10/2020 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR US53022 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE MUSEUI 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 400.8( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 41.6E Tota I : 442.4f 245356 12/10/2020 078208 TORINO LLC PLN2019-0065 REFUND OF PLANNING FEES PLN2019-0065 Torino LLC- 001.000.257.620 6,130.0( Tota I : 6,130.0( 245357 12/10/2020 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 56 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 526.1 � Total : 526.1 < 245358 12/10/2020 062345 URBAN FORESTRY NURSERY 8270 PM: TREES PM:TREES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 290.0( 8.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.6E Page: 39 Packet Pg. 80 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 245358 12/10/2020 062345 062345 URBAN FORESTRY NURSERY (Continued) 245359 12/10/2020 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 432203 245360 12/10/2020 075496 VALERIE INC 245361 12/10/2020 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 12162020 PO # Description/Account Total : WWTP: PO 454 PH 4.00, 7/00 & 10.0 PO 454 PH 4.00, 7/00 & 10.00 BUFFI 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total HOLIDAY MARKET MANAGEMENT HOLIDAY MARKET MANAGEMENT 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total 9867590300 C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bldg 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Comm Svc 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Dev Svcs 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 6.2.a Page: 40 Amoun 314.6E m E �a a 118.5( m L 3 27.4- c �a 15.1 , Y 161.01 u t U E 2 5,000.0( U 5,000.0( o R 0 a 639.6, Q 36.1E N 0 199.2- N T 721.8z E M 256.6, U 320.9" E t U 1,394.0< Q 226.8, 72.3( Page: 40 Packet Pg. 81 vchlist 12/ 10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245361 12/10/2020 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 41 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 00 1. 000. 22.518.10.42. 00 100.4, c iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS E E 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 362.7E a iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor L 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 100.41 .3 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Park Admin 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 50.2, c iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Maint 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 320.9- iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Rec t 001.000.64.571.22.42.00 140.4E E iPhone/iPad Cell Service PD ii 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 1,784.2E %- Air cards PD O 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 1,160.2� > iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning o 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 120.01' a iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin Q 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.6E c iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin N 0 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.6, iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin r 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.6E E iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 7.6, iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 7.6( E iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street t 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 217.T iPhone/iPad Cell Service Fleet r Q 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 50.2, iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/SeWe 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 95.3z iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/Sewe Page: 41 Packet Pg. 82 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 42 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 245361 12/10/2020 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) r 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 c 95.3' iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer E, 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 336.6, a iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water L 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 436.4, .3 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 c 156.1 £ iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 240.0E (D iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn t 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 240.0E E iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 6 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 659.9E ,- iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Disco O 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 40.0" > 9867724400 C/A 772540262-00001 0 L Cradlepoint 1 - Court/IT a 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 100.0" Q Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm o 421.000.74.534.80.49.20 3.3- c Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 3.3- r Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm E 423.000.75.535.80.49.20 3.4( Trimble 1 - Storm z 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 10.0, Lake Ballinger monitor m 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 31.7E t Total: 10,803M M 245362 12/10/2020 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 66393 UNIT 6 - TOW TO SHOP Q UNIT 6 - TOW TO SHOP 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 80.0( 10.5% Sales Tax Page: 42 Packet Pg. 83 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 245362 12/10/2020 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 66413 INV 66413 - EDMONDS PD - CS 20, TOW GREEN TOYOTA - CS 20-2846 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 Total 245363 12/10/2020 073472 WAPRO 2203 WAPRO MEMBERSHIP - GRAY, LAC Membership dues for Lacey Gray 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 Total: 245364 12/10/2020 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 121002949 121002949 - EDMONDS PD NOV 2020 BACKGROUNDS 001.000.41.521.11.41.00 Total 245365 12/10/2020 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 120-624 STREET - 701 12TH AVE N 2 ALDEF STREET - 701 12TH AVE N 2 ALDEF 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 120-631 PM: TREE REMOVAL: 9425 BOWDC PM: TREE REMOVAL: 9425 BOWDC 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 Total 245366 12/10/2020 075283 WAVE 3201-1027483-01 FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SEF High Speed Internet service 12/01/20 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 Total 245367 12/10/2020 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 12027761 FAC MAINT - COVID (COMPOSTABL 6.2.a Page: 43 Page: 43 Packet Pg. 84 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245367 12/10/2020 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 245368 12/10/2020 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 245369 12/10/2020 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 44 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r FAC MAINT - COVID (COMPOSTABI. c d 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,923.7- �% 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 200.0, L 12027762 FAC MAINT - GLOVES 3 FAC MAINT - GLOVES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 c 1,043.6( 10.4% Sales Tax Y 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 108.5( U Total: 3,275.91 U E 7909 UTILITY BILLING - 5,000 #10 WINDC UTILITY BILLING - 5,000 #10 WINDC U 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 225.8< O UTILITY BILLING - 5,000 #10 WINDC 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 225.8< o UTILITY BILLING - 5,000 #10 WINDC a 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 225.8z Q 10.4% Sales Tax c 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 23.4� N 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 23.4� r 10.4% Sales Tax U) 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 23.4E •� Total: 747.9E U 31995 PM: PLANTS m PM: PLANTS E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 575.0( U 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 59.8( Q 32120 PM: PLANTS PM: PLANTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 185.0( 7.8% Sales Tax Page: 44 Packet Pg. 85 vchlist 12/10/2020 12 :13 :26 P M Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 245369 12/10/2020 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 245370 12/10/2020 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 161 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 161 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 45 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.4( c Total: 834.Z E �a 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, a m TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, 3 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 270.7z TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 270.7( Y 253-003-6887 LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCI U LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL ACCI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 42.1E E 425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI M LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI z 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.5( o 425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( Ta SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( o L 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 59.4.E 0- Total : 690.51, Q Bank total : 3,315,772.61, N 0 Total vouchers : 3,315,772.61, N T E M V E U Y El Page: 45 Packet Pg. 86 6.2.b vchlist 12/10/2020 1:48:32PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page 0 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 12102020 12/10/2020 062693 US BANK 0091 US BANK - NOVEMBER d SERGEANT ASSESSMENT CENTEF E 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 288.1 , SERGEANT ASSESSMENT CENTEF 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 m 59.4E 3 0091 DECEMBER US BANK - EMILY Office Supplies for working from home 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 1,099.4E N 0808 DECEMBER US BANK - JESSICA IRS MAILING t 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 4.1( U 0824 CRAIG - NOVEMBER US BANK E Emergency Prepardness Workshop 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 120.0E o 0824 DECEMBER US BANK - CRAIG 'R parks safety supplies o 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 60.8( Q. DISASTER SUPPLIES a a 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 28.6< „ 1522 1522 SHANNON BURLEY CREDIT C N AMAZON: ADMIN SUPPLIES: PORT) 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 66.2' c� ISSUU: DIGITAL CRAZE 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 39.0' 3 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: LEAF 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 547.6E y AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM SUPPLI E 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 538.9� U AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM SUPPLI co 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 105.4, Q AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM SUPPLI 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 529.8E AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM SUPPLI 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 7.6 , Page: 1 Packet Pg. 87 vchlist 12/10/2020 1:48:32PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 12102020 12/10/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.b Page: 2 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) -� AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM SUPPLI r- 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 16.5( E AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM: CLASS ra 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 107.81 1558 VMWARE, LOGMEIN, DUO, BLUEBE 3 BulkRegister.com - Doman Name 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 63.1, Zoom - Cloud Recording and webinar N 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 132.4E Newegg.com - Samsung 32" Ultra 4k t 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 1,676.8E U BulkRegister.com - Domain Name R 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 It). It U Newegg.com - Intel NUC NUC8V5PN o 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 539.8E R Rev.com - Zoom Live Captions add o 0 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 40.0( o. VMware - 3 yr current support CL Q 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 3,013.6E c Zoom - Room Connector Monthly for c? 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 32.4E LogMeln corporate service - 8/19/20 - c� 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 145.7' VMware - 3 yr current support 3 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 3,013.6E }; BlueBeam - Revu standard license - Q 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 425.4- E Newegg.com - Intel 660p Series M.2 ; U 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 181.0< Newegg.com - Intel NUC NUC8V5PN Q 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 543.1 E Duo Security - 10 Duo D-100 Hardwa 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 210.0( BulkRegister.com - Domain Name Page: 2 Packet Pg. 88 vchlist 12/10/2020 1:48:32PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 12102020 12/10/2020 062693 US BANK (Continued) 1880 6.2.b Page: 3 PO # Description/Account Amoun 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 30.1- 1880 PARKS CREDIT CARD E AMAZON: ADMIN SUPPLIES: INK Ci �a 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 79.4- DISPLAYS2GO: LEAP SUPPLIES: P( L 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 986.9E 3 AMAZON: ADMIN SUPPLIES: INK C) c 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 27.2z N QFC: LEAP PROGRAM SUPPLIES 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 8.2E t AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: CORREC U 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 6.71 •E AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: CARD PI 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 15.1 o AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM CLASSF 'R 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 137.5, p AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM: SCHOC Q. 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 11.7- Q DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: PRE! 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 1,431.8E N AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM SUPPLI o 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 7.9( C� AMAZON: ADMIN SUPPLIES: INK C) a 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 54.4E 3 QFC: LEAP PROGRAM SUPPLIES: \ 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 19.8- y FASTSIGNS: REC SUPPLIES: BANN E 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 88.4( U DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: PRE; ca 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 89.9- Q AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: STRING 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 19.8E AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: PAPER C 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 99.4( Page: 3 Packet Pg. 89 vchlist 12/10/2020 1:48:32PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 12102020 12/10/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.b Page: 4 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) -� AMAZON: ADMIN SUPPLIES: STOR, r- 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 118.1 , E AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: COPY P) �a 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 92.7( AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: L 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 48.1, AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 R 32.2z N MAIN MEDIA TAYLOR CORT: LEAP 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 227.2� t AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: STANDI� U 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 110.3E AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM: SCHOC 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 203.2� o AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 285.4z o AMAZON: LEAP PROGRAM: SCHOC Q. 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 5.5( Q 2519 PD 1 -2519 12/7/20 FED EX TO UNT CENT. FOR HUMAI N 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 78.81 FED EX TO WSP TOX LAB c� 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 19.5( 3048 THOMPSON -3048 12/7/20 3 MOUSE PAD - PROPERTY ROOM 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 6.9E y BOX OF 2 PRONG FILE FOLDERS E 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 19.8, U ELECTRIC STAPLER ca 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 44.1E Q 7 BOXES BLACK NITRILE GLOVES 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 185.3E BOOTS FOR A. JAMES 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 195.3� Page: 4 Packet Pg. 90 vchlist 12/10/2020 1:48:32PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 12102020 12/10/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.b Page: 5 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) -� 3 OLYMPUS VOICE RECORDERS r- 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 186.0� E WIRELESS MOUSE, FILE FOLDERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 44.1� WEBCAM, HEADSETS, MICE, FAN L 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 192.8z LITERATURE RACK FOR RECORDS 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 R 118.1< N BARCODE SCANNER FOR PROPEF 001.000.41.521.80.35.00 247.1.E t WAPRO MEMBERSHIP - KERN U 001.000.41.521.11.49.00 25.0( •Fa ANNUAL DATA PLAN-2 TRAIL CAM,' U 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 291.1 £ o BOOTS FOR D MACHADO 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 281.5< o CASE OF KLEENEX Q. 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 40.6" Q 3314 LAWLESS CC -3314 12/7/20 100 PLASTIC TARGET BACKERS N 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 387.51 o NATOA MEMBERSHIP - SWAT TEAK c� 628.000.41.521.23.31.00 450.0( MONTHLY TRAILCAM DATA PLAN 3 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 9.9� }; 4171 MCCLURE CC -4171 12/7/20 CD APPLE MONTHLY DATA STORAGE E 001.000.41.521.40.41.40 0.9� U 4697 COMPUTER HEADSET ca headset for zoom meetings Q 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 25.9� 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 2.7( 4929 DEV SVCS US BANK Page: 5 Packet Pg. 91 vchlist 12/10/2020 1:48:32PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 12102020 12/10/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.b Page: 6 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) -� Building Dept Code Books 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 1,380.8E E Amazon: office supplies- 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 8.3£ Teresa Wippel Communications- 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 115.1 < 3 Zoom- 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 R 80.0( N Zoom - Dev Svcs subscription- 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 199.9( t Amazon: keyboard wrist rest and mo U 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 13.9£ -9 Adobe Creative Cloud monthly Z 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 105.9£ o Amazon: Office Desk chair mat- 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 68.0( o Seattle Times-CL Q. 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 50.5( Q Amazon: Dev Svcs office supplies- 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 c 22.9� N Amazon: Misc supplies Dev Svcs 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 76.6E N 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 L 144.2( 10.4% Sales Tax }; 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 14.8E y 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 8.3E u 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 31.91 Q 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 5.0, 5639 PAYFLOW PAYMENT PROCESSOR Payflow payment processor Page: 6 Packet Pg. 92 vchlist 12/10/2020 1:48:32PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 12102020 12/10/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.b Page: 7 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) -� 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 13.6( r- Payflow payment processor E 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 13.6( Payflow payment processor 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 m 13.6( .3 5810 5810 RICH LINDSAY CREDIT CARD ISA: PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIF c 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 185.0( N ROTO-ROOTER: CITY PARK RESTF 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 1,062.6( t 5919 5919 FRANCES CHAPIN CREDIT CE U AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS: EAC: E 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 200.0( 2 SUBMITTABLE HOLDINGS: EAC: AI\ o 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 3,604.0( R ART ACCESS:: EAC: Exhibit Listing o 117.100.64.573.20.41.40 39.0( Q. Constant Contact: WOTS contact dat a a 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 417.3( .� 5923 COMMUNITY SERVICES ECON DE\ N Facebook Advertising 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 T 50.0( c� MailChimp for issuing bulletins for 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 30.7� 3 Russell Sign Company - Deposit for 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 954.9( Facebook Advertising E 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 19.9� U OfficeSpace website listing for Noven 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 100.0( a 425 Magazine Advertising 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 900.0( 6654 COVID SUPPLIES, LAPTOPS, BLINC BLINDS.COM - CITY HALL - BLINDS Page: 7 Packet Pg. 93 vchlist 12/10/2020 1:48:32PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 12102020 12/10/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.b Page: 8 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) -� 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,123.9- r- NATIONAL SAFETY - COVID/ GLOVE E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4,272.4E NATIONAL SAFETY - COVID/ N95 M, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2,408.4E m .3 NATIONAL SAFETY - COVID/ GLOVE 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,567.6E AMAZON - COVID/ VAPOR & PARTI( y 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2,298.0( WCP SOLUTIONS - COVID t 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 31,615.7- U ULINE - COVID/ GLOVES 2 CHARGE E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 867.0 1 Z AMAZON - COVID/ OVER GLASSES p 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 640.4E R NEWEGG - COVID/ LAPTOPS FOR) 0 0 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 7,370.3z a ZOOM - PRO ANNUAL Q 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 165.4� c IAP - CITY PARK BUILDING - PARTS N 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,118.41 BLINDS.COM - CITY HALL BLINDS c� 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 265.8( 7573 SMITH -7573 12/7/20 3 WAPRO MEMBERSHIP - D SMITH 001.000.41.521.11.49.00 25.0( y WAPRO MEMBERSHIP - BROMAN E 001.000.41.521.11.49.00 25.0( U 8474 8474 JESSE CURRAN CREDIT CAR f6 AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES Q �Ii 9111A][:L�IiZc3�ils KPUWY AMAZON: COVID SUPPLIES: HAND 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 18.7E AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: RAIN GEP Page: 8 Packet Pg. 94 vchlist 12/10/2020 1:48:32PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 12102020 12/10/2020 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.b Page: 9 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) -� 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 65.8� r- AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 40.0, AMAZON: COVID SUPPLIES: MASK; 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 m 82.7E .3 AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: COMBINA 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.9" r- 9821 GREENMUN -9821 12/7/20 y 2 IPHONE SCREEN PROTECTORS 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 15.4, t IPHONE SCREEN PROTECTOR U 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 6.6( •� 3V BATTERY FOR TRAFFIC RADAR 001.000.41.521.71.31.00 10.4< p SNAGIT SOFTWARE UPGRADE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 88.3( p MOTOROLA REMOTE EARPIECE Q. 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 93.5( Q BRIWAX FOR BATON POLISHING .� 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 27.7E N FLASHLIGHT WARRANTY RETURN o 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 24.4� c� MONTHLY CLOUD STORAGE 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 0.9� 3 14 HOLSTERS 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 1,590.4, y USB DRIVES, HDMI CABLE E 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 133.0< U TLO SEARCHES - NOV 2020 f6 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 98.7( Q 65" TV & MOUNT - TRAINING ROOK 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 749.3z CABLE HIDER FOR TRAINING ROO 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 44.1 Page: 9 Packet Pg. 95 vchlist 12/10/2020 1:48:32PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 12102020 12/10/2020 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.b Page: 10 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) -� B I D-1 687/0907 BID/ED! CREDIT CARD NOVEMBER BID/Ed! Squarespace Annual Subscri E 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 238.4E BID/Ed! The Branding Iron Printing 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 m 71.6( .3 BID/Ed! Kyle Gabouer Hosting Servic 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 35.7E BID/Ed! Russell Sign Co. Printing �a 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 227.9, BID/Ed! Facebook Advertising Noverr t 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 533.8 1 U BID/Ed! My Edmonds New Advertisini E 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 55.0( Z BID/Ed! Zoom Meeting Charges NovE o 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 14.9E R BID/Ed! The Branding Iron Printing p 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 888.0( Q. 10.4% Sales Tax a a 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 125.0E .� Total : 0 89,772.1; N 0 Bank total : 89,772.1: N Total vouchers : 89,772.1: 3 c a� E U a Page: 10 Packet Pg. 96 6.2.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Proiect Engineering Accounting Proiect Funding Proiect Title Number Number STM 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA SWR 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC WTR 2018 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC STIR 2019 Downtown Parking Study s021 E9AC E STIR 2019 Guardrail Install i039 E9AB M STIR 2019 Overlay Program i036 E9CA STIR 2019 Pedestrian Safety Program i041 E9DB 3 SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC Y v WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA c� STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA E STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD 2 U UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB - WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA Q STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA Q' Q STIR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA c N STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB c STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA C� STIR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC >n a� STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC M Z STIR2021 Overlay Program i051 E21 CA o d STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC N 2, STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB a STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA u_ STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB c STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA a) E STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC Q 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 STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB Revised 12/10/2020 Packet Pg. 97 6.2.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 c m E M L 3 c M Y V N t c� E v 4- 0 O CL O. Revised 12/10/2020 Packet Pg. 98 s.2.� PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number ProiectTitle i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force STIR i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STIR E21CA i051 2021 Overlay Program 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration 'IW E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station IKSWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring Ir FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System o STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility SWR ESGB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalizatio STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program a Revised 12/10/2020 Packet Pg. 99 s.2.� 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 —loffr2018 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects E6JC Waterline Replacement Project qm 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 Saving 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 UpdatNNW 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 12/10/2020 Packet Pg. 100 6.2.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 E FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab Q WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station 3 SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIRESAA c470 Trackside Warning System Y v WTR ESKA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c� STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project E STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector 2 U 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) Q SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c N SWR E6GC c492 2018 Sewerline Replacement Project o WTR E6JC c493 2018 Waterline Replacement Project N STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW L a� PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) E WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement M Z FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South d SWR EBGA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM EBFB c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements j 2, WTR EBJA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM EBFC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project a PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) u_ PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) r c STM EOFA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 E STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR EOGA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project Q WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals Revised 12/10/2020 Packet Pg. 101 6.2.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 c m E M L 3 c M rn Y V N t c� E v 4- 0 O CL O. Revised 12/10/2020 Packet Pg. 102 6.2.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 c m E M sz O L 3 c M to Y V N t E v 4- 0 R O CL om Revised 12/10/2020 Packet Pg. 103 6.2.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 c m E M O L 3 c M to Y V N t E v 4- 0 R O L CL om i Revised 12/10/2020 Packet Pg. 104 6.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Doug Wrigley ($441.60) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Marissa Cain Background/History n/a Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Doug Wrigley by minute entry. Narrative Doug Wrigley ($441.60) Attachments: CFD - Doug Wrigley - for council Packet Pg. 105 . 6.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM . V TY ciJ 8 Date Claim Form Received by City Please take note that. 0 LA i?I W 1^ I. A ) 0-,q who currently resides at mailing address Idi ,R A t pt 6 0 Y ew phone work phone Ond who resided at SPiMA Gl 4 A H at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is claiming damages against City o-F E d 17+wjs in the sum of $ 44). 6 a arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: I I �I I 'L� TIME: !I I j A, LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: S6W4 r YV1gk f h iy1 4yg2n,7f -P i > 14 S4- DESCRIPTION: E R 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the in"ury or damage. c 11n �, av� sue. �. r�� w> J [ •+�+ 0 aA+D - R,0 To 'i-L r r. I a rcd A E U v (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) o U 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. �o 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: (year) (make) (model) OWNER: Address: Phone#: Name: Address: DRIVER: Address: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Address: Yes X No * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # Fonn Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 106 6.3.a * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * I, b6 V) 3 2 W Y% 1. ' e , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56. X Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washington County of t�dli I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that /f 1 s the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and'acknowtedged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: .���t1tt�111111ollm �tttttt tF WN.�hINS Sign ur ��.a6.7°i,9�•�7► -Z $ Title = _ Puso /I�' �/ c My appointment expires: w F,���'►►C►►QrliFrtiii�►t�����4tti� Please present the completed claim form to City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5t" Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. m a� M E M C Fonn Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 107 6.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 MOU Extending AFSCME Collective Bargaining Agreement Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History The current collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Edmonds Employee Association Local 3517 (AFSCME Council 2) expires on 12.31.20. The Union and the City have met and mutually agree to extend the current CBA through 12.31.21. All terms of the CBA remain in effect and a 2% wage adjustment will be provided to all AFSCME covered positions for 2021. Staff Recommendation Approve on consent the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) extending the current CBA with AFSCME through 12.31.21. Narrative See attached MOU. Attachments: REVISED AFSCME Extension through 12.31.21 (clean) 11.10.2020 Packet Pg. 108 6.4.a MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Amended to the AGREEMENT by and between CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON and EDMONDS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION THIS AMENDMENT is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON (hereinafterthe "City") and the EDMONDS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 3517 (AFSCME COUNCIL 2) (hereinafter "Union") (collectively, the "Parties"). WHEREAS, the City and the Union ratified a Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter "CBA") effective January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that negotiations toward a successor agreement may not be the most productive at this time, given current economic uncertainty and unknown business impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and agree to extend the CBA for one calendar year; and 0 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that the CBA will continue in full force and effect, except as provided c N herein; o r r r NOW THEREFORE, the City and Union have entered into this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to memorialize the following agreement: m The CBA between the Parties, which expires on December 31, 2020, shall be extended for one calendar year, through December 31, 2021, and that the following provision shall be added to Appendix A to the CBA, at the end of Section A.1: "Effective January 1, 2021 the monthly rates of pay for each classification covered by this Agreement shall be increased by 2% across the board." This, within its four corners, is the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the CBA extension from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. This MOU supersedes and has precedence over any contrary or inconsistent agreements or representations, oral or written, regarding the contents hereof. Otherwise, the CBA shall remain in full force and effect, supplemented as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. Packet Pg. 109 6.4.a DATED this the day of 2020. EDMONDS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION, CITY OF EDMONDS LOCAL 3517 (AFSCME COUNCIL 2) [NAME & TITILE], EEA Representative Mike Nelson, Mayor [NAME & TITLE], EEA Representative y Packet Pg. 110 6.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Verdant Grant Interlocal Agreement Amendment Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Angie Feser Background/History In 2018, the City of Edmonds was granted a total of $170,000 from Public Hospital District No. 2 (Verdant) to provide fitness zones in two parks; Mathay Ballinger Park ($70,000) and Civic Park ($100,000). Due to circumstances of the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services department not having a Director/project manager for nine months and COVID impacts of this year, the Ballinger Park project was not developed or advanced. In addition, with plans to construct future stormwater facilities within the park, the viability of newly installed exercise stations would be uncertain. Verdant also recognized the pandemic impacts on their grant recipients and provided the opportunity for organizations to re -purpose their awarded funding. With a higher probability of park construction, a need for additional funding and eligible amenities, the request to transfer the $70,000 for use towards the Civic park project was approved by Verdant. This attached amendment reflects this reallocation of grant funding and an extended deadline. Staff Recommendation Approve the proposed Amendment No. 2 Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edmonds and Public Health District No. 2 (Verdant) to reallocate $70,000 of the original $170,000 from Mathay Ballinger Park to Civic Park for the purpose of providing fitness zones that support health and fitness. Attachments: Verdant ILA Amendment No. 2 for Civic Park Fitness Zones Packet Pg. 111 6.5.a AMENDMENT NO.2 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A PHYSICAL ACTIVITY PROGRAM This Amendment No. 2 to that certain Interlocal Agreement between Public Hospital District No. 2 and the City of Edmonds to provide a physical activity program in Edmonds ("Agreement") dated May 8, 2019, as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated October 25, 2019, is made by and between Public Hospital District No. 2, Snohomish County, Washington ("PHD2"), a public hospital district formed under Chapter 70.44 RCW and the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"). WHEREAS, the timeline of the Agreement has changed due to unforeseen delays and COVID-19 Pandemic; and WHEREAS, Section 7.4 of the Agreement authorizes the parties to amend the Agreement with a written instrument signed by both parties; and WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement agree that it is in the best interests of both to extend the timeline, including the timing of payments due under the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits conferred on both parties, the parties agree to Amendment No. 2 as follows: 1. Section 5 (Obligations of PHD2), subsection 5.1 of Amendment No. 1 is amended to read as follows: 5.1 PHD2 will fund the Physical Activity Program provided by the City of Edmonds in two payments: (a) An initial payment of Sixty -Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($62,250.00) on July 15, 2020; (b) A second and final payment of One Hundred Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents ($107,750.00) on July 15, 2022. 2. Section 6 (Obligations of the City of Edmonds), subsection 6.1 of Amendment No. 1 is amended to read as follows: 6.1 The funds provided by PHD2 will be used by the City of Edmonds solely to fund a portion of the cost of park improvements to encourage physical activity by area residents at Civic Park, as specified originally in the Grant Application and updated in the Grant Modification Request Form. The improvements described in the Application and Grant Modification Request Form will be completed by the City of Edmonds no later than November 30, 2022 for Civic Park. The City of Edmonds will be solely responsible for ongoing maintenance of the outdoor fitness zone during the term of this Agreement. The project scope may be further developed and refined, but not substantially altered from the scope described in the Application and Grant Modification Request Form without the prior written authorization of PHD2. #A319B PAGE 1 OF 2 Packet Pg. 112 6.5.a 3. Section 6 (Obligations of the City of Edmonds), subsection 6.5 of Amendment No. 1 is amended to read as follows: 6.5 The City of Edmonds will submit progress reports of activities carried out under the Program including summaries of outcomes and results and financial reports detailing use of the funds, according to the following schedule: Date due to PHD2 Type of report February 15, 2022 1st annual report February 15, 2023 2nd annual report February 15, 2024 Yd annual report February 15, 2025 4th annual report EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED IN THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO. 1, SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. In witness whereof, the parties hereby execute this Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement, which will be effective as of the last date provided hereon. PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 2 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON Date: Lisa Edwards, Superintendent THE CITY OF EDMONDS Date: Michael Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk #A319B PAGE 2 OF 2 Packet Pg. 113 s.s City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 October Monthly Financial Report Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Informational only; no action needed. Narrative October 2020 Monthly Financial Report Attachments: October 2020 Monthly Financial Report Packet Pg. 114 I 6.6.a I OF EDP � d 1)7 C. 1 $9v CITY OF EDMONDS MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT OCTOBER 2020 Packet Pg. 115 1 I 6.6.a I Page 1 of 1 C TTY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Receive, 001 GENERAL FUND $ 43,803,858 $ 36,079,131 $ 30,980,306 $ 12,823,552 71 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 437,980 212,500 425,000 12,980 97 O l l RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - - 0 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 56,140 - - 56,140 0 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,230 2,500 5,000 230 96 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND - 280,312 100 (100) 0 p s?. 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 165,390 38,838 64,445 100,945 39 G) Ill STREET FUND 1,912,768 1,442,865 1,665,560 247,208 87 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,747,881 1,684,500 1,751,291 996,590 64 .O C eo 117 MUNICIPAL ARTSACQUIS. FUND 263,576 98,275 76,399 187,177 29 C li 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 750 617 462 288 62 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 98,630 86,076 54,330 44,300 55 C 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 27,270 15,012 12,288 14,982 45 0 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,790 450 341 1,449 19 N 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 34,450 28,949 18,709 15,741 54 N 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,436,090 1,290,899 1,345,695 90,395 94 L a) 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 1,453,520 1,304,064 1,339,547 113,973 92 c� 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 145,050 108,850 48,393 96,657 33 O 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 184,610 201,674 108,920 75,690 59 'C O 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 6,390 5,135 3,809 2,581 60 Z dt 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 54,210 51,905 36,168 18,042 67 <0 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,380 6,288 264 10,116 3 'V C 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 79,209 74,937 70,106 9,103 89 C 141 AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSINGFUND - - 57,837 (57,837) 0 LL 21 142 EDMONDS CARES FUND 1,265,100 - 852,137 412,963 67 z 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 12,400 30,893 - 12,400 0 r O 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 738,400 53,388 47,291 691,109 6 C 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND t 9,638,306 714,160 1,403,521 8,234,785 15 p N 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 119,777 31,935 (31,935) 0 i d 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 11,116,270 8,333,498 8,363,142 2,753,128 75 p 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 2 6,720,466 4,563,849 4,925,043 1,795,423 73 r� 00 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 3 25,261,935 11,725,832 15,005,131 10,256,804 59 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,988,100 625,604 616,552 1,371,548 31 O E 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,746,160 1,566,132 1,551,455 194,705 89 V 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,202,963 924,246 1,004,927 198,036 84 Q 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 72,620 54,205 54,924 17,696 76 $ 112,687,892 $ 71,725,360 $ 71,921,028 $ 40,766,864 64 Difference primarily due to the Edmonds Waterfront Development Grant received in July of 2020. 2 Difference primarily due to a 9.5%increase in storm rate. 3 Differences primarily due to WWTP Contributed Capital billings to their partners. 1 I Packet Pg. 116 1 6.6.a Page 1 of l C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND $ 49,044,056 $ 34,483,508 $ 35,443,149 $ 13,600,907 720/ 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 467,140 340,924 226,722 240,418 49° 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - 931,523 - 00 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND - 3,835,827 - - 00 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,900 5,533 - 5,900 00, 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 100,000 1,862 - 100,000 0° G 019 EDMONDSOPIOID RESPONSE FUND 21,555 100,000 21,555 - 1000 y 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 45,800 - 30,332 15,468 660 O 111 STREET FUND 2,199,717 1,617,190 1,700,334 499,383 770/ 0 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,717,463 1,325,639 919,137 1,798,326 34° 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 243,880 51,601 28,236 215,644 12° LL 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 128,250 61,654 47,329 80,921 37° 2 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 591 632 26,248 20, O 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 2,820 450 2,550 150, C 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 33,900 12,574 5,129 28,771 N 1501 N 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 3,610,520 1,181,723 1,317,203 2,293,317 360/ N 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 3,401,093 1,209,379 1,341,070 2,060,023 390/ O 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 113,782 54,092 85,183 28,599 750, O 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 195,787 160,396 148,952 46,835 760/ r- 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - 4,935 - - 00 O O. 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 11,900 6,775 11 11,889 O 00, 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 80,510 75,218 49,813 30,697 620, •v 142 EDMONDS CARES FUND 1,265,100 - 964,793 300,307 760 C 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 12,400 - - 12,400 0° jL 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 738,400 53,388 47,291 691,109 60, s 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 13,013,343 137,607 1,136,879 11,876,464 9° C 421 WATER UTILITYFUND 12,809,352 7,799,919 8,855,472 3,953,880 69° E 0 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 10,831,951 4,034,850 6,660,621 4,171,330 610, G 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 32,767,560 9,338,341 15,522,880 17,244,680 470/ d 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,988,130 625,592 616,542 1,371,588 31° 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 3,170,398 1,590,603 2,710,622 459,776 0 85° 00 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,454,784 709,124 859,114 595,670 59°; C 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 78,700 124,976 70,538 8,162 900/ 0) $ 140,581,251 $ 69,878,160 $ 78,809,990 S 61,771,261 56° v 2 Packet Pg. 117 6.6.a Page I of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: 1 REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 2 EMSPROPERTY TAX 3 VOTED PROPERTY TAX 4 LOCAL RETAIL SALESIUSE TAX 4 5 NATURAL GAS USE TAX 6 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 7 ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 8 GASUTILITY TAX 9 SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 10 WATER UTILITY TAX 11 SEWERUTILITYTAX 12 STORMWATERUTILITY TAX 13 T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 14 TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 15 PULLTABS TAX 16 AMUSEMENT GAMES 17 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX LIC INS ES AND PERMITS: 18 FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 19 POLICE -FINGERPRINTING 20 AMUSEMENTS 21 VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 22 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST 23 FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 24 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER 25 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 26 GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 27 DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 28 NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 29 RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 30 BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 31 ANIMAL LICENSES 32 STREET AND CURB PERMIT 33 OTRNON-BUSLIC/PERMITS INTERGOVERNMENTAL: 34 DOI 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 35 NCHIP GRANT 36 WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT 37 TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 38 DOCKSIE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE 39 HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 40 STATE GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY 41 PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 42 ARCHIVES AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT 43 STATE GRANT FROM OTHER JUDICIAL AGENCIES 44 SCHOOL ZONE 45 WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT 46 MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 47 WA91INGTON STATE ARTS COMMISSION 48 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DOE 49 TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT 50 CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 51 MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT 52 MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION 53 DUI - CITIES 54 LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 55 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 56 MISCELLANEOUS INT ERLOCAL REVENUE 57 VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 58 POLICE TRAINING CLASSES 59 FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND 60 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS TECHNOLOGY ACQ. $ 10,737,617 $ 5,943,393 $ 6,022,077 $ 4,715,540 560/( 4,112,031 2,297,826 2,351,276 1,760,755 570/( 500 244 26 474 501( 8,450,000 6,992,063 6,719,684 1,730,316 800/( 7,600 8,448 6,184 1,416 810/( 760,500 666,839 662,655 97,845 870/( 1,684,800 1,424,234 1,430,598 254,202 850/( 579,600 474,308 535,796 43,804 920/( .. 348,800 286,525 296,691 52,109 850/( G 1,148,400 984,798 911,237 237,163 790/( 0- 896,600 704,116 639,822 256,778 710/( 471,900 381,511 417,899 54,001 89% 822,200 669,936 668,933 153,267 81% 823,900 679,544 579,582 244,318 700/( 55,200 55,915 56,617 (1,417) 1030/( C 40 383 449 (409) 11230/, M 280,900 220,336 228,029 52,871 810/( 2% 31,180,588 21,790,419 21,527,554 9,653,034 690% C 250 185 315 (65) 126% 2 700 525 80 620 11% p 6,000 4,675 - 6,000 00/, c 50,000 52,821 10,894 39,106 220/( N 682,200 676,201 678,877 3,323 100% d 41,000 34,545 33,381 7,619 810/( 100,600 72,818 56,323 44,277 560/( j 358,200 387,851 255,690 102,510 710/( 0 116,300 106,391 187,404 (71,104) 1610/( 63,700 59,649 61,595 2,105 970/c C 64,800 48,847 - 64,800 00/( Q. 13,500 15,460 - 13,500 00/c 675,600 548,491 558,009 117,591 830/( 24,380 9,918 9,691 14,689 400/( v 45,000 35,430 93,536 (48,536) 2080/( C 18,500 18,546 14,290 4,210 770/( 2,260,730 2,072,354 1,960,085 300,645 870% IL 6,000 3,470 2,052 3,949 340/( - 14,616 - - 0°/ - 2,285 - - 00/( 4,000 1,852 - 4,000 0°/ - 4,138 559 (559) 00/c 7,100 3,501 1,623 5,477 23°/ 18,000 - - 18,000 00/( 210,500 208,433 207,989 2,511 990/( - - 9,399 (9,399) 00/( - - 140 (140) 00/( - - 825 (825) 00/( - 2,594 - - 00/c 13,070 12,536 13,211 (141) 1010/( - 5,000 - - 00/c - 7,165 - - 0°/ 16,740 16,722 12,114 4,626 720/( 45,600 45,102 47,280 (1,680) 1040/( 500 - - 500 00/c 48,300 46,665 50,966 (2,666) 1060/( 6,000 5,827 6,129 (129) 1020/( 231,500 228,650 265,801 (34,301) 11501( 338,200 255,686 253,877 84,323 750/( - 2,500 - - 00/( - 2,000 - - 00/( - 211 1,194 (1,194) 00/( 1,000 814 4,001 (3,001) 4000/( 550 - - 550 00/c 947,060 869,767 877,159 69,901 93°/ 4 2020 Local Retail Sales/Use Taxrevenues are $(272,379) lower than 2019 revenuesL Please also seepages pages 18 & 19. 3 Packet Pg. 118 1 Title CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: 1 RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS 2 ATM SURCHARGE FEES 3 CREDIT CARD FEES 4 COURT RECORD SERVICES 5 D/M COURT REC SER 6 DRE REIMBURSEABLE 7 WARRANT PREPARATION FEE 8 IT TIME PAY FEE 9 MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 10 SALE MAPS & BOOKS 11 CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 12 BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 13 PHOTOCOPIES 14 POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 15 ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 16 ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 17 SNO-ISLE 18 PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 19 POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 20 CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 21 WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 22 MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 23 FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI 24 FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 25 LEGAL SERVICES 26 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 27 BOOKING FEES 28 FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 29 EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 30 EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 31 FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 32 ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 33 ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 34 PLAN CHECKING FEES 35 FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 36 PLANNING 1 % INSPECTION FEE 37 S.E.P.A. REVIEW 38 CRITICAL AREA STUDY 39 DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 40 GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 41 PROGRAM FEES 5 42 TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 43 WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES 44 BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 45 INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 6.6.a Page 2 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received $ 3,000 $ 3,452 $ 4,336 $ (1,336) 1450/( 600 573 120 480 200/( 11,000 12,231 5,518 5,482 500 300 79 7 293 20/c 300 58 65 235 220/( - - 235 (235) 00/c 11,000 9,530 2,358 8,642 210/( 1,000 1,122 589 411 590/c 100 321 66 34 660/( 100 50 9 91 90/( O 25,100 - - 25,100 00/( y 600 - - 600 0% 1,000 928 450 550 450/( io 500 - - 500 00/( .v 125,000 184,534 223,782 (98,782) 1790/( e�0 1,400 - - 1,400 00/( 85,000 94,875 71,159 13,841 840/( LL 21,000 20,260 5,795 15,205 280/( 30,000 38,074 - 30,000 00/( 41 126,800 62,642 36,753 90,047 290/( O 195,000 211,867 198,859 (3,859) 1020/( 2 - 2 58 (58) 00/( N 117 - - 00/c C N 52,500 54,941 59,291 (6,791) 113% 1,050 1,231 1,183 (133) 113% 45,000 37,660 31,603 13,397 700/( O 3,000 2,173 1,997 1,004 670/( v 10,000 15,160 18,602 (8,602) 1860/( 3,500 4,704 3,147 353 900/( 1,007,500 761,350 784,324 223,176 780/( 0 2,500 1,066 1,880 620 CL 750/( O 50 100 - 50 00/, 72,600 92,650 68,214 4,386 940/( .v 375,900 568,248 236,734 139,166 630/, 4,000 9,190 15,225 (11,225) 3810/( 500 2,236 - 500 00/( 5,000 5,190 2,960 2,040 590/( LL 14,000 14,225 14,382 (382) 1030/( 4,707 - - 00/( 15,500 9,839 3,083 12,417 200/( O 869,162 742,885 91,025 778,137 100/( c 1,300 512 - 1,300 00/, cV 5,000 8,435 7,998 (2,998) 1600/( N 800 585 - 800 00/( 3,290,838 2,222,254 2,487,084 803,754 760/( 6,418,500 5,200,055 4,378,891 2,039,609 687/, 42 5 2020 Parks & Recreation Program Revenues are $(651,860) lower than 2019 revenues. 4 Packet Pg. 119 1 I 6.6.a I Page 3 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received FINES AND PENALTIES: 1 PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 2 TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 3 NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 4 CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 5 NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 6 OTHERINFRACTIONS'04 7 PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 8 PARK/INDDISZONE 9 DWI PENALTIES 10 DUI - DP ACCT 11 CRIM CNV FEE DUI 12 DUI - DP FEE 13 OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 14 CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 15 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 16 CRIM CONV FEE CT 17 OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 18 OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 19 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 20 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 21 CRIM CONV FEE CN 22 PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 23 BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT 24 COURT COST RECOUPMENT 25 BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 26 M1SC FINES AND PENALTIES MISCELLANEOUS: 27 INVESTMENT INTEREST 28 INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 29 INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 30 PARKING 31 SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 32 BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 33 LEASESLONG-TERM 34 DONATION/CONTRIBUTION 35 PARKSDONATIONS 36 BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 37 POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 38 SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 39 SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 40 CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 41 OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 42 POLICE JUDGMENT SIRESTITUT ION 43 CASHIERS OVERAGES/SHORTAGES 44 OTHER MISC REVENUES 45 SMALL OVERPAYMENT 46 NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 47 NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 48 L&I STAY AT WORK PROGRAM 49 FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 50 NSF FEE - DEVEL SERV DEPT 51 US BANK REBATE TRANSFERS -IN: 52 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 012 53 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 011 54 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 511 55 TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 4,000 $ 3,066 $ 1,002 $ 2,998 250/( 241,000 189,561 89,134 151,866 370/( 19,000 15,946 10,608 8,392 560/( 20,000 14,543 7,948 12,052 400/c 1,000 1,371 760 240 760/( 2,000 1,191 1,088 912 540/( 147,000 124,598 59,603 87,397 410/( 2,500 2,644 794 1,706 320/( 7,000 7,974 6,958 42 990/( 700 394 190 510 270/( 200 55 35 165 170/( 1,500 1,716 1,901 (401) 1270/( 140 - - 140 00/( 30,000 24,202 17,782 12,218 590/( 3,600 2,232 1,849 1,751 5101( 1,000 553 455 545 460/( 100 (2,792) 37 63 370/( 13,100 17,755 6,293 6,807 480/( 600 302 955 (355) 1590/( 1,600 747 615 985 380/( 500 274 82 418 160/( 16,000 9,930 6,202 9,798 390/( 14,000 11,704 6,946 7,054 500/( 6,000 4,480 2,921 3,079 490/( 10,100 5,150 - 10,100 00/( 300 1,208 1,441 (1,141) 4800/( 542,940 438,803 225,599 317,341 427% 399,400 359,644 264,232 135,168 660/c 53,440 22,002 12,300 41,140 230/( 50,950 7,128 5,746 45,204 110/( - 150 - - 00/( 153,000 133,238 24,524 128,476 160/( 2,100 1,610 380 1,720 180/( 205,000 168,134 138,784 66,216 680/( 22,500 3,544 910 21,590 40/( 3,500 3,050 920 2,580 260/( 2,000 1,597 635 1,365 320/( 5,000 10,721 100 4,900 20/( 300 68 538 (238) 1790/( 3,000 2,314 3,586 (586) 1200/( 2,000 - - 2,000 00/( 2,000 3 1,344 656 670/( 200 469 248 (48) 1240/( - (71) 16 (16) 00/( 5,000 195,060 13,467 (8,467) 2690/( 100 58 34 66 340/( 100 60 30 70 300/( 150 112 142 8 950/( - 10,483 - - 0°/ - 370 - - 00/( - - 30 (30) 00/c 8,500 7,490 7,251 1,249 850/( 918,240 927,233 475,217 443,023 5207, 3,835,827 - - 00/( - 931,523 - - 00/( 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 - 1000/( 35,800 13,150 35,800 - 1000/( 1,535,800 4,780,500 1,535,800 - 1000% $ 43,803,858 $ 36,079,131 $ 30,980,306 $12,823,552 710% 5 Packet Pg. 120 I 6.6.a I Page 1 of 6 CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 17,066,688 $ 13,138,847 $ 13,781,011 $ 3,285,677 81' 2 OVERTIME 491,580 632,280 489,261 2,319 100' 3 HOLIDAY BUY BACK 262,020 8,449 5,394 256,626 2' 4 BENEFITS 6,599,678 5,150,444 5,288,570 1,311,108 80' 5 UNIFORMS 90,975 94,212 73,733 17,242 81' 6 SUPPLIES 428,811 386,981 359,617 69,194 84' 7 SMALL EQUIPMENT 161,262 129,711 135,627 25,635 84' 8 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15,407,641 10,823,215 11,007,014 4,400,627 71' 9 COMMUNICATIONS 169,795 126,222 127,047 42,748 75' 10 TRAVEL 78,580 61,037 9,633 68,947 12' 11 EXCISE TAXES 6,500 6,838 12,850 (6,350) 198' 12 RENTAL/LEASE 1,825,110 1,529,827 1,502,919 322,191 82' 13 INSURANCE 394,124 436,448 393,746 378 100' 14 UTILITIES 531,525 437,676 402,108 129,417 76' 15 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 297,010 457,761 577,041 (280,031) 194' 16 MISCELLANEOUS 526,991 345,662 289,997 236,994 55' 17 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 100' 18 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,266,993 625,579 834,033 2,432,960 26' 19 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 57,173 - 9,053 48,120 16' 20 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,000,000 10,296 - 1,000,000 0' 21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 168,850 - - 168,850 0' 22 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 - 212 288 42' 23 INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 137,250 7,023 69,285 67,965 50' 49,044,056 S 34,483,508 35,443,149 13,600,907 72' LEO FF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009) 24 BENEFITS $ 206,650 $ 135,964 $ 132,391 $ 74,259 64' 25 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 252,990 204,325 88,539 164,451 35' 26 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 180 5,793 1,207 83' 27 MISCELLANEOUS 500 455 - 500 0' 467,140 S 340,924 226,722 240,418 49' RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) 28 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES $ - $ 931,523 $ - $ - 0' $ - 931,523 - - 0' C O NTINGENC Y RES ERVE FUND (012) 29 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES $ $ 3,835,827 $ - $ - 0' - 3,835,827 - - 0' HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) 30 SUPPLIES $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 0' 31 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 - 200 0' 32 MISCELLANEOUS 5,600 5,533 5,600 0' 5,900 5,533 5,900 0' EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSEFUND (018) 33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 100,000 $ 1,862 $ $ 100,000 0' 100,000 1,862 100,000 0' EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSEFUND (019) 34 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 21,555 $ - $ 21,555 $ - 100' 35 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - 100,000 - - 0' 21,555 100,000 21,555 - 100' DRUG INFO RC EM NT FUND (104) 36 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 45,000 $ - $ - $ 45,000 0' 37 REPAIR/MAINT 800 - 800 0' 38 MISCELLANEOUS - 30,332 (30,332) 0' 45,800 30,332 15,468 66' u 6 Packet Pg. 121 I 6.6.a I Page 2 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent STREETFUND (111) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 723,081 $ 484,312 $ 542,076 $ 181,005 75' 2 OVERTIME 18,400 41,280 37,182 (18,782) 202' 3 BENEFITS 309,539 230,280 268,438 41,101 87' 4 UNIFORMS 6,000 3,278 3,781 2,219 63' 5 SUPPLIES 263,000 223,529 142,903 120,097 54' 6 SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,000 2,279 684 19,316 3' 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 27,930 7,627 2,423 25,507 9' 8 COMMUNICATIONS 4,500 5,471 6,623 (2,123) 147' 9 TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0' 10 RENTAL/LEASE 230,450 224,344 192,873 37,577 84' 11 INSURANCE 145,219 156,514 156,937 (11,718) 108' 12 UTILITIES 280,918 215,368 214,497 66,421 76' 13 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 52,000 20,601 52,348 (348) 101' 14 MISCELLANEOUS 13,000 2,019 3,655 9,345 28' 15 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 100,000 - 75,658 24,342 76' 16 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 4,170 - - 4,170 0' 17 INTEREST 510 289 255 255 50' COMBINED STREEI'CONST/IMPROVE(112) 18 SALARIES AND WAGES 19 BENEFIT S 20 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 21 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 22 MISCELLANEOUS 23 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 24 LAND 25 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 26 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 27 INTEREST MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) 28 SUPPLIES 29 SMALL EQUIPMENT 30 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 31 TRAVEL 32 RENTAL/LEASE 33 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 34 MISCELLANEOUS HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) 35 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 67 MISCELLANEOUS 37 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 38 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT EVIPLOYEEPARIIIG PERMIT FUND (121) 39 SUPPLIES 40 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) 41 MISCELLANEOUS TO URIS M PRO MO TIO NAL FUND/ARTS (123 ) 42 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 43 MISCELLANEOUS $ 2,199,717 $ 1,617,190 $ 1,700,334 $ 499,383 77' $ - $ - $ 10,567 $ (10,567) 0' - - 6,613 (6,613) 0' 586,130 269,551 162,084 424,046 28' 163,028 396,885 320,161 (157,133) 196' - 8 (8) 0' 40,140 40,318 40,121 19 100' - 7,300 - - 0' 1,853,975 537,070 305,428 1,548,547 16' 72,220 72,201 72,201 19 100' 1,970 2,313 1,952 18 99' $ 2,717,463 $ 1,325,639 $ 919,137 $ 1,798,326 34' $ 4,700 $ 2,780 $ 114 $ 4,586 2' 1,700 - 116 1,584 7' 228,500 45,347 26,540 201,960 12' 80 6 - 80 0' 2,000 - - 2,000 0' 300 - - 300 0' 6,600 3,468 1,466 5,134 22' $ 243,880 $ 51,601 $ 28,236 $ 215,644 12' $ 92,487 $ 59,071 $ 42,737 $ 49,750 46' 6,763 583 592 6,171 9' 4,000 2,000 4,000 - 100' 25,000 - - 25,000 0' $ 128,250 $ 61,654 $ 47,329 $ 80,921 37' $ 1,790 $ 591 $ 632 $ 1,158 35' 25,090 - - 25,090 0' $ 26,880 $ 591 $ 632 $ 26,248 2' $ 3,000 $ 2,820 $ 450 $ 2,550 15' $ 3,000 $ 2,820 $ 450 $ 2,550 15' $ 33,900 $ 10,615 $ 5,129 $ 28,771 15' - 1,959 - - 0' $ 33,900 $ 12,574 $ 5,129 $ 28,771 15' O a d C eo C IL 21 t a O 2 0 N 0 N L d O tt 7 Packet Pg. 122 I 6.6.a I Page 3 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (125) 1 SUPPLIES $ 21,000 $ 34,096 $ 14,374 $ 6,626 68' 2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 479,831 145,777 302,921 176,910 63' 3 RENTAL/LEASE - 381 - - 0' 4 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 176,176 373,501 354,028 (177,852) 201' 5 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 620 - - 620 0' 6 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,932,893 627,968 645,880 2,287,013 22' $ 3,610,520 $ 1,181,723 $ 1,317,203 $ 2,293,317 36' REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXI (126) 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 9 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 10 LAND 11 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 12 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 13 INTEREST 14 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) 15 SUPPLIES 16 SMALL EQUIPMENT 17 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 19 MISCELLANEOUS 20 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES CEVIEERYMAINTEVANCERMPROVEM NT(130) 21 SALARIES AND WAGES 22 OVERTIME 23 BENEFIT S 24 UNIFORMS 25 SUPPLIES 26 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 27 SMALL EQUIPMENT 28 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 29 COMMUNICATIONS 30 TRAVEL 31 RENTAL/LEASE 32 UTILITIES 33 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 34 MISCELLANEOUS PARKS TRUSTFUND (136) 35 SMALL EQUIPMENT SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) 36 SUPPLIES 37 TRAVEL 38 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND (140) 39 SUPPLIES 40 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 41 MISCELLANEOUS EDMONDS CARES FUND (142) 42 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LID FUND CONTROL (211) 43 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) ## GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 44 INTEREST $ 883,267 $ 124,833 $ 604,778 278,489 68' '- 95,963 376,857 257,722 (161,759) 269' 00. 142,736 14,013 12,963 129,774 9' d 300,000 - - 300,000 0' w 1,951,937 691,997 463,550 1,488,387 24' ca 24,220 - - 24,220 0' v C 2,970 1,680 1,484 1,486 50' ea - - 575 (575) 0' E $ 3,401,093 $ 1,209,379 $ 11341,070 $ 2,060,023 39L t $ 48,882 $ 28,863 $ 39,033 $ 9,849 80' 10,221 - - 0' O 6,500 22,000 - 1,858 3,000 7,183 3,500 14,818 46' G 33' N 600 - 168 432 28' N 35,800 13,150 35,800 - 100' N $ 113,782 $ 54,092 $ 85,183 $ 28,599 75' O $ 97,476 $ 76,070 $ 78,592 $ 18,884 81' v 3,500 3,101 558 2,942 16' 0 42,029 34,788 33,646 8,383 80' 'C 1,000 225 - 1,000 0' Q 7,000 3,584 2,717 4,283 39' d 20,000 15,673 15,165 4,835 76' w - 1,246 1,184 (1,184) 0' ea 4,200 866 150 4,050 4' _ 1,700 1,517 1,401 299 82' 500 - - 500 0' LL 8,230 5,217 6,858 1,372 83' 5,652 3,643 3,559 2,093 63' s 500 - - 500 0' 4,000 14,466 5,124 (1,124) 128' O $ 195,787 $ 160,396 $ 148,952 $ 46,835 76' o $ - $ 4,935 $ - $ - 0' $ - $ 4,935 $ - $ - 0' $ 1,500 $ 651 $ 11 $ 1,489 1' 4,500 2,705 - 4,500 0' 5,900 3,418 - 5,900 0' $ 11,900 $ 6,775 $ 11 $ 11,889 0' $ 11,850 $ 12,278 $ 9,555 $ 2,295 81' 66,035 60,388 37,835 28,200 57' 2,625 2,551 2,423 202 92' $ 80,510 75,218 49,813 30,697 62' $ 1,265,100 $ $ 964,793 $ 300,307 76' 1,265,100 964,793 300,307 76' $ 12,400 $ $ - $ 12,400 0' $ 12,400 $ $ - $ 12,400 0' $ 643,810 $ - $ - $ 643,810 0' 94,590 53,388 47,291 47,299 50' $ 738,400 $ 53,388 $ 47,291 $ 691,109 6- 8 Packet Pg. 123 I 6.6.a I Page 4 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332) 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 323,349 $ 28,439 $ 363,171 $ (39,822) 112' 2 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 112,920 - 20,316 92,604 18' 3 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 12,577,074 109,168 753,392 11,823,682 6' $ 13,013,343 $ 137,607 $ 1,136,879 $ 11,876,464 9' WATER FUND (421) 4 SALARIES AND WAGES 5 OVERTIME 6 BENEFIT S 7 UNIFORMS 8 SUPPLIES 9 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 10 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 11 SMALL EQUIPMENT 12 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13 COMMUNICATIONS 14 TRAVEL 15 EXCISE TAXES 16 RENTAL/LEASE 17 INSURANCE 18 UTILITIES 19 REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 20 MISCELLANEOUS 21 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 22 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 23 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 24 REVENUE BONDS 25 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 26 INTEREST 27 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS STORMFUND (422) 28 SALARIES AND WAGES 29 OVERTIME 30 BENEFITS 31 UNIFORMS 32 SUPPLIES 33 SMALL EQUIPMENT 34 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 35 COMMUNICATIONS 36 TRAVEL 37 EXCISE TAXES 38 RENTAL/LEASE 39 INSURANCE 40 UTILITES 41 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 42 MISCELLANEOUS 43 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 44 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 45 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 46 REVENUE BONDS 47 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 48 INTEREST 49 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ 845,871 $ 641,549 $ 688,932 $ 156,939 81' 24,000 20,862 15,595 8,405 65' 363,882 288,861 263,013 100,869 72' 4,000 3,326 3,374 626 84' 150,000 53,890 102,299 47,701 68' O 2,170,000 1,612,558 1,651,885 518,115 76' y0. 170,000 126,684 131,727 38,273 77' OC 11,000 4,856 5,197 5,803 47' 1,753,804 673,823 1,085,927 667,877 62' .v 30,000 23,624 24,001 5,999 80' 200 - - 200 0' E 1,649,700 1,382,337 1,297,916 351,784 79' LL 133,158 127,133 108,420 24,738 81' 2% 52,865 55,096 52,541 324 99' 35,775 22,202 22,727 13,048 64' p 75,830 223,517 19,881 55,949 26' 2 131,400 97,922 111,326 20,074 85' N 650,870 206,313 204,067 446,803 31' o 3,946,207 2,096,353 2,934,520 1,011,687 74' N 2,800 - - 2,800 0' N 370,960 - - 370,960 0' p 25,840 25,839 25,839 1 100' 0 211,190 113,174 105,907 105,283 50' 0 378 (378) 0' ,- $ 12,809,352 $ 7,799,919 $ 8,855,472 $ 3,953,880 69' O $ 728,080 $ 556,684 $ 524,991 $ 203,089 72' 6,000 31,984 12,016 (6,016) 200' 334,154 280,636 241,396 92,758 72' 6,500 5,215 6,437 63 99' 46,000 22,693 19,055 26,945 41' 4,000 3,653 2,026 1,974 51' 3,047,970 867,736 1,567,146 1,480,824 5P 3,200 4,105 5,159 (1,959) 161' 4,300 - - 4,300 0' 470,100 443,909 485,391 (15,291) 103' 270,830 203,066 225,328 45,502 83' 118,263 127,548 116,576 1,687 99' 11,025 9,099 9,468 1,557 86' 116,183 12,426 15,103 101,080 13' 158,100 129,527 148,250 9,850 94' 282,550 81,819 78,897 203,653 28' 4,758,296 1,159,718 3,088,873 1,669,423 65' 102,030 - - 102,030 0' 181,210 - - 181,210 0' 60,760 32,063 53,576 7,184 88' 122,400 62,969 60,769 61,631 50' - - 165 (165) 0' $ 10,831,951 $ 4,034,850 $ 6,660,621 $ 4,171,330 61' 9 Packet Pg. 124 I 6.6.a I Page 5 of 6 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent SEWER FUND (423) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,953,719 $ 1,477,963 $ 1,564,447 $ 389,272 80' 2 OVERTIME 95,000 78,736 85,125 9,875 90' 3 BENEFITS 854,294 647,874 674,421 179,873 79' 4 UNIFORMS 9,500 7,039 7,482 2,018 79' 5 SUPPLIES 421,000 255,893 289,072 131,928 69' 6 FUEL CONSUMED 60,000 36,924 16,184 43,816 27' 7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 4,000 - - 4,000 0' 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 35,000 19,134 36,680 (1,680) 105' 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,286,406 925,225 3,023,707 (737,301) 132' 10 COMMUNICATIONS 43,000 34,645 34,517 8,483 80' 11 TRAVEL 5,000 4,689 - 5,000 0' 12 EXCISE TAXES 978,000 888,302 799,573 178,427 82' 13 RENTAL/LEASE 311,966 283,998 269,140 42,826 86' 14 INSURANCE 182,121 186,110 175,867 6,254 97' 15 UTILITIES 1,540,685 785,711 730,964 809,721 47' 16 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 745,630 367,202 172,176 573,454 23' 17 MISCELLANEOUS 127,650 72,488 72,899 54,751 57' 18 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 7,197,114 851,088 2,584,681 4,612,433 36' 19 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 33,647 83,575 (83,575) 0' 20 CONST RUCT ION PROJECTS 15,438,495 2,163,617 4,687,579 10,750,916 30' 21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 154,660 - - 154,660 0' 22 REVENUE BONDS 82,840 - - 82,840 0' 23 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 173,210 172,528 173,200 10 100' 24 INTEREST 68,270 40,516 36,505 31,765 53' 25 OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 5,015 5,085 (5,085) 0' $ 32,767,560 $ 9,338,341 $ 15,522,880 $ 17,244,680 47' BOND RFSERVEFUND (424) 26 REVENUE BONDS $ 755,020 $ - $ - $ 755,020 0' 27 INTEREST 1,233,110 625,592 616,542 616,568 50' $ 1,988,130 $ 625,592 $ 616,542 $ 1,371,588 31' O a d C eo C li 21 t C O 2 0 N 0 N L GN O r 0 u 10 Packet Pg. 125 I 6.6.a I Page 6 of 6 CITY 0FIDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining % Spent EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 266,952 $ 216,517 $ 224,189 $ 42,763 84' 2 OVERTIME 2,000 8,081 824 1,176 41' 3 BENEFITS 112,598 93,096 93,275 19,323 83' 4 UNIFORMS 1,000 1,254 1,092 (92) 109' 5 SUPPLIES 130,000 85,171 61,489 68,511 47' 6 FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - - 1,000 0' 7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 243,000 157,568 101,561 141,439 42' 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 2,002 1,515 56,485 3' 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 46,750 3,861 4,248 42,502 9' 10 COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,843 1,902 1,098 63' 11 TRAVEL 1,000 255 - 1,000 0' 12 RENTAL/LEASE 12,750 11,417 10,273 2,477 81' 13 INSURANCE 27,848 30,167 40,270 (12,422) 145' 14 UTILITIES 14,500 11,725 12,012 2,488 83' 15 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 25,094 35,162 24,838 59' 16 MISCELLANEOUS 12,000 9,670 8,776 3,224 73' 17 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 - 100' 18 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 678,000 932,883 614,032 63,968 91' $ 3,170,398 $ 1,590,603 $ 2,710,622 $ 459,776 85' TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND (512) 19 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 369,264 $ 249,332 $ 240,316 $ 128,948 65' 20 OVERTIME 2,000 125 - 2,000 0' 21 BENEFITS 124,590 84,410 80,751 43,839 65' 22 SUPPLIES 5,000 3,585 8,726 (3,726) 175' 23 SMALL EQUIPMENT 137,700 36,892 101,247 36,453 74' 24 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 309,810 22,118 69,477 240,333 22' 25 COMMUNICATIONS 58,770 45,886 52,766 6,004 90' 26 TRAVEL 1,500 359 - 1,500 0' 27 RENTAL/LEASE 7,490 6,600 6,523 967 87' 28 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 367,660 198,928 287,807 79,853 78' 29 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 3,319 11,501 (6,501) 230' 30 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 66,000 57,571 - 66,000 0' $ 1,454,784 $ 709,124 $ 859,114 $ 595,670 59' FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) 31 BENEFITS $ 23,000 $ 16,265 $ 18,045 $ 4,955 78' 32 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 54,500 108,711 51,486 3,014 94' 33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 - 1,007 193 84' $ 78,700 $ 124,976 $ 70,538 $ 8,162 90' TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 140,581,251 $ 69,878,160 $ 78,809,990 $ 61,771,261 56' u 11 Packet Pg. 126 6.6.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDPTURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF MAYOR HUMAN RESOURCES MUNICIPAL COURT CITY CLERK FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY NON -DEPARTMENTAL POLICE SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PARKS& RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES MAINTENANCE % Spent $ 418,912 $ 341,182 $ 266,797 $ 152,115 64% 306,685 245,087 276,971 29,714 90% 740,691 451,921 535,390 205,301 72% 1,138,771 815,237 872,107 266,664 77% 726,962 583,474 611,198 115,764 84% G Q. 1,289,583 1,062,062 1,133,433 156,150 88% � 912,540 728,368 718,169 194,371 79% 15,322,110 10,029,350 10,148,912 5,173,199 66% 11,951,730 9,559,426 9,682,005 2,269,725 81% C LL 761,493 474,870 457,484 304,009 60% t 3,582,847 2,274,866 2,302,031 1,280,816 64% r� C Q 4,594,969 3,458,166 3,011,118 1,583,851 66% 0 3,538,610 2,593,751 2,628,170 910,440 74% N N 3,758,153 1,865,748 2,799,364 958,789 74% L a) $ 49,044,056 $ 34,483,508 $ 35,443,149 $ 13,600,907 72% V O C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2020 Amended Budget 10/31/2019 Expenditures 10/31/2020 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITY FUND $ 12,809,352 $ 7,799,919 $ 8,855,472 $ 3,953,880 69% STORM UTILITY FUND 10,831,951 4,034,850 6,660,621 4,171,330 61% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 32,767,560 9,338,341 15,522,880 17,244,680 47% BOND RESERVE FUND 1,988,130 625,592 616,542 1,371,588 31% $ 58,396,993 $ 21,798,702 $ 31,655,514 $ 26,741,479 54% 12 Packet Pg. 127 Page 1 of 4 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2020 Amended Budget 10/31/2019 Expenditures 10/31/2020 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 191,224 $ 149,989 $ 158,990 $ 32,234 83% OVERTIME 1,000 - - 1,000 0% BENEFITS 95,736 81,376 82,327 13,409 86% SUPPLIES 2,500 1,901 1,544 956 62% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 342 534 466 53% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 62,160 79,552 4,263 57,897 7% COMMUNICATIONS 5,000 4,894 7,442 (2,442) 149% TRAVEL 17,500 2,625 587 16,913 3% RENTAL/LEASE 12,292 10,041 10,285 2,007 84% REPAIRS✓MAINTENANCE 500 121 645 (145) 129% MISCELLANEOUS 30,000 10,341 180 29,820 1% $ 418,912 $ 341,182 $ 266,797 $ 152,115 64% OFFICEOFMAYOR SALARIES $ 222,432 $ 182,001 $ 186,356 $ 36,076 84% BENEFITS 54,043 44,433 70,261 (16,218) 130% SUPPLIES 1,500 593 800 700 53% SMALL EQUIPMENT - - 4,199 (4,199) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,000 2,211 594 2,406 20% COMMUNICATION 1,400 862 1,156 244 83% TRAVEL 3,000 2,603 166 2,834 6% RENTAL/LEASE 16,860 10,425 13,228 3,632 78% MISCELLANEOUS 4,450 1,960 213 4,237 5% $ 306,685 $ 245,087 $ 276,971 $ 29,714 90% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES $ 356,658 $ 267,560 $ 294,047 $ 62,611 82% OVERTIME - 197 5,491 (5,491) 0% BENEFITS 142,458 89,640 119,289 23,169 84% SUPPLIES 18,556 3,990 3,925 14,631 21% SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 2,762 893 (593) 298% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 136,471 40,947 55,449 81,022 41% COMMUNICATIONS 1,550 938 1,138 412 73% TRAVEL 1,000 1,075 500 500 50% RENTAL/LEASE 31,921 20,424 25,442 6,479 80% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 8,380 7,571 7,832 548 93% MISCELLANEOUS 43,397 16,818 21,385 22,012 49% $ 740,691 $ 451,921 $ 535,390 $ 205,301 72% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 647,030 $ 488,792 $ 527,244 $ 119,786 81% OVERTIME 800 1,219 4,538 (3,738) 567% BENEFITS 223,319 172,770 195,930 27,389 88% SUPPLIES 10,600 5,773 5,735 4,865 54% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 5,155 7,074 (6,074) 707% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 124,925 62,353 50,787 74,138 41% COMMUNICATIONS 3,550 2,409 2,135 1,415 60% TRAVEL 6,500 3,039 37 6,463 1% RENTAL/LEASE 67,947 53,620 56,409 11,538 83% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 4,880 277 7,896 (3,016) 162% MISCELLANEOUS 25,100 19,828 14,323 10,777 57% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 23,120 23,120 0% $ 1,138,771 $ 815,237 $ 872,107 $ 266,664 77% O a d OC C eo C IL t C O 2 O N O N L N O 0 13 Packet Pg. 128 1 I 6.6.a I Page 2 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 376,214 $ 300,798 $ 335,263 $ 40,951 89% BENEFITS 156,718 134,171 136,352 20,366 87% SUPPLIES 10,240 2,403 3,287 6,953 32% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 4,024 2,108 (2,108) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 37,410 26,712 21,920 15,490 59% COMMUNICATIONS 40,000 24,920 17,109 22,891 43% TRAVEL 2,000 494 6 1,994 0% RENTAL/LEASE 63,850 38,286 42,287 21,563 66% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 32,530 42,728 47,700 (15,170) 147% MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 8,938 5,166 2,834 65% $ 726,962 $ 583,474 $ 611,198 $ 115,764 84% FINANCE SALARIES $ 870,882 $ 710,203 $ 808,910 $ 61,972 93% OVERTIME 4,500 - - 4,500 0% BENEFITS 289,923 243,921 221,472 68,451 76% SUPPLIES 7,350 5,479 3,871 3,479 53% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,650 579 - 2,650 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,300 1,725 1,518 7,782 16% COMMUNICATIONS 2,000 1,008 713 1,287 36% TRAVEL 3,100 2,371 - 3,100 0% RENTAL/LEASE 50,048 41,924 48,800 1,248 98% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 41,480 42,499 43,963 (2,483) 106% MISCELLANEOUS 8,350 12,353 4,186 4,164 50% $ 1,289,583 $ 1,062,062 $ 1,133,433 $ 156,150 88% CITY ATTO RNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 912,540 $ 728,368 $ 718,169 $ 194,371 79% $ 912,540 $ 728,368 $ 718,169 $ 194,371 79% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 101,750 $ - $ - $ 101,750 0% BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT 50,000 28,264 1,254 48,746 3% SUPPLIES 5,000 3,477 3,867 1,133 77% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,009,120 8,765,450 8,643,724 2,365,396 79% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 6,838 12,850 (6,350) 198% RENTAL/LEASE 15,249 10,376 13,135 2,114 86% INSURANCE 394,124 436,448 393,746 378 100% MISCELLANEOUS 91,774 70,895 101,806 (10,032) 111% CONTRIBUTION TO ECA 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 100% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 3,266,993 625,579 834,033 2,432,960 26% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 168,850 - - 168,850 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 137,250 7,023 69,285 67,965 50% FISCAL AGENT FEES 500 - 212 288 42% $ 15,322,110 $ 10,029,350 $ 10,148,912 $ 5,173,199 66% O Q. d 20 C eo C IL t C O 2 O N O N L N O r 0 14 Packet Pg. 129 Page 3 of 4 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining 1%SPell t PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES $ 6,968,887 $ 5,455,650 $ 5,787,513 $ 1,181,374 83% OVERTIME 461,280 590,785 455,082 6,198 99% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 262,020 8,449 5,394 256,626 2% BENEFITS 2,769,042 2,170,997 2,301,254 467,788 83% UNIFORMS 80,750 84,072 54,486 26,264 67% SUPPLIES 90,500 79,449 67,534 22,966 75% SMALL EQUIPMENT 127,739 101,916 102,690 25,049 80% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 224,548 190,279 151,680 72,869 68% COMMUNICATIONS 36,000 32,077 36,043 (43) 100% TRAVEL 29,310 32,743 6,905 22,405 24% RENTAL/LEASE 826,124 763,196 682,395 143,729 83% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 15,180 9,791 5,007 10,173 33% MISCELLANEOUS 60,350 40,022 26,022 34,328 43% $ 11,951,730 $ 9,559,426 $ 9,682,005 $ 2,269,725 81% COMMUNITY S ERVIC ES /EC 0 N DEV. SALARIES $ 357,423 $ 218,341 $ 269,916 $ 87,507 76% BENEFITS 114,637 67,718 77,390 37,247 68% SUPPLIES 7,475 6,414 6,839 636 91% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,173 - 3,321 852 80% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 214,400 167,093 83,416 130,984 39% COMMUNICATIONS 2,975 1,130 1,800 1,175 61 % TRAVEL 2,000 - 1,020 980 51% RENTAL/LEASE 13,410 9,522 9,834 3,576 73% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 10,500 - - 10,500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 9,500 4,651 3,948 5,552 42% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 25,000 25,000 0% $ 761,493 $ 474,870 $ 457,484 $ 304,009 60% DEVELO PM ENT SERVIC ES/PLANNING SALARIES $ 1,760,943 $ 1,357,050 $ 1,423,531 $ 337,412 81% OVERTIME 1,300 8,170 13,366 (12,066) 1028% BENEFITS 658,292 521,179 517,568 140,724 79% UNIFORMS 500 - - 500 0% SUPPLIES 17,100 8,622 6,129 10,971 36% SMALL EQUIPMENT 7,300 2,663 2,404 4,896 33% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 886,518 209,094 150,589 735,929 17% COMMUNICATIONS 9,000 7,012 9,759 (759) 108% TRAVEL 6,800 9,661 228 6,572 3% RENTAL/LEASE 170,234 118,652 141,318 28,916 83% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 6,800 3,439 - 6,800 0% MISCELLANEOUS 58,060 29,324 37,139 20,921 64% $ 3,582,847 $ 2,274,866 $ 2,302,031 $ 1,280,816 64% ENGINEERING SALARIES $ 1,772,804 $ 1,426,597 $ 1,448,894 $ 323,910 82% OVERTIME 5,000 5,466 2,668 2,332 53% BENEFITS 701,327 581,643 584,860 116,467 83% UNIFORMS 450 - 256 194 57% SUPPLIES - 32 - - 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,200 - 868 1,332 39% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 188,840 1,961 1,530 187,310 1% COMMUNICATIONS 19,600 12,051 13,927 5,673 71% TRAVEL 600 585 134 466 22% RENTAL/LEASE 134,995 101,281 110,218 24,777 82% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 2,600 - 769 1,831 30% MISCELLANEOUS 80,000 49,746 40,803 39,197 51% $ 2,908,416 $ 2,179,362 $ 2,204,927 $ 703,489 76% 15 Packet Pg. 130 I 6.6.a I Page 4 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDTIURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2020 Amended 10/31/2019 10/31/2020 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining % Spent PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES $ 2,272,394 $ 1,704,624 $ 1,636,328 $ 636,066 72% OVERTIME 10,000 20,073 3,550 6,450 36% BENEFITS 864,290 648,022 612,660 251,630 71% UNIFORMS 6,275 5,635 5,030 1,245 80% SUPPLIES 137,390 134,832 126,376 11,014 92% SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,900 4,934 6,066 4,834 56% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 620,765 389,348 170,648 450,118 27% COMMUNICATIONS 31,370 21,698 15,858 15,512 51% TRAVEL 5,270 4,407 50 5,220 1% RENTAL/LEASE 268,945 229,787 225,745 43,200 84% PUBLIC UTILITY 230,507 181,560 151,641 78,866 66% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 29,700 26,291 16,593 13,107 56% MISCELLANEOUS 98,110 76,657 31,521 66,589 32% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 9,053 - 9,053 0 100% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 10,296 0% $ 4,594,969 $ 3,458,166 $ 3,011,118 $ 1,583,851 66% PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS CONST RUCT ION PROJECTS TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 380,790 $ 242,267 $ 247,992 $ 132,798 65% 200 339 - 200 0% 131,041 85,771 86,876 44,165 66% 8,600 3,488 3,367 5,233 39% 1,000 2,115 264 736 26% 200 92 127 73 64% 1,350 566 605 745 45% 500 1,427 - 500 0% 97,295 74,954 80,021 17,274 82% 3,318 2,395 2,486 832 75% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 4,900 975 1,505 3,395 31% $ 630,194 $ 414,388 $ 423,243 $ 206,951 67% 787,257 634,975 656,026 131,231 83% 7,500 6,030 4,565 2,935 61% 348,852 280,539 281,078 67,774 81% 3,000 4,505 13,961 (10,961) 465% 112,000 130,528 126,343 (14,343) 113% 3,000 5,222 5,207 (2,207) 174% 977,444 158,030 952,599 24,845 97% 16,000 16,658 19,361 (3,361) 121% 1,000 6 - 1,000 0% 55,940 47,338 43,803 12,138 78% 297,700 253,722 247,981 49,719 83% 143,460 325,043 446,637 (303,177) 311% 5,000 3,153 1,802 3,198 36% 1,000,000 1,000,000 0% $ 3,758,153 $ 1,865,748 $ 2,799,364 $ 958,789 74% $ 49,044,056 $ 34,483,508 $ 35,443,149 $ 13,600,907 72% 16 Packet Pg. 131 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2020 General Fund Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 2,268,581 $ 2,268,581 $ 2,376,947 4.78% February 4,691,156 2,422,575 4,730,574 0.84% March 7,266,925 2,575,769 7,100,593 -2.29% April 10,693,016 3,426,091 9,435,773 -11.76% May 19,106,833 8,413,817 17,528,670 -8.26% June 21,647,958 2,541,125 19,628,003 -9.33% July 23,877,416 2,229,458 22,424,193 -6.09% August 26,676,562 2,799,147 24,769,057 -7.15% September 28,994,637 2,318,075 26,979,585 -6.95% October 32,807,785 3,813,148 30,980,306 -5.57% November 41,358,293 8,550,508 December 43,803,858 2,445,565 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2020 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 193,769 $ 193,769 $ 323,203 66.80% February 345,606 151,837 496,485 43.66% March 547,140 201,534 685,999 25.38% April 740,550 193,410 857,110 15.74% May 973,673 233,123 998,087 2.51% June 1,219,609 245,935 1,240,599 1.72% July 1,532,815 313,206 1,463,854 -4.50% August 1,804,669 271,854 1,739,374 -3.62% September 2,081,138 276,470 2,115,408 1.65% October 2,301,037 219,898 2,574,968 11.90% November 2,520,239 219,202 December 2,700,000 179,761 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. u 17 Packet Pg. 132 1 I 6.6.a I SALES TAX SUMMARY Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: October 2020 Year -to -Date Total $6,719,684 Automotive Repair, Health &Personal Care, $151,800 $206,892 Amusement & Construction Trade, Recreation, $39,845 $1,035,190 Business Services, Accommodation, $688,775 $24,595 Gasoline, $31,223 Clothing and Accessories, $200,217 Retail Food Stores, $269,097 Communications, $196,288 Wholesale Trade, Retail Automotive, $230,800 $1,492,973 Manufacturing, $83,699 Misc Retail, $1,239,702 Others, $128,607 Eating & Drinking, $699,981 10,000, 000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000, 000 0 Annual Sales Tax Revenue 7 395 114 $8,406,296 $8,452,715 $6,905,122 $5,840,764 T $6,719,684 2014L. 2015 2016 2017 2018 L. 2019 YTD 2020 u 18 Packet Pg. 133 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2020 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 634,902 $ 634,902 $ 692,248 9.03% February 1,436,667 801,765 1,539,597 7.16% March 2,031,860 595,193 2,187,876 7.68% April 2,597,573 565,713 2,691,601 3.62% May 3,324,621 727,048 3,191,797 -4.00% June 3,990,697 666,076 3,761,924 -5.73% July 4,697,452 706,756 4,450,258 -5.26% August 5,482,731 785,279 5,184,289 -5.44% September 6,213,489 730,757 5,920,380 -4.72% October 6,961,050 747,562 6,719,684 -3.47% November 7,750,015 788,965 December 8,450,000 699,985 Gas Utility Tax Sales and Use Tax 12,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --b Current Year Budget Prior Year City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2020 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 81,408 $ 81,408 $ 82,496 1.34% February 168,408 87,000 177,747 5.55% March 245,012 76,604 260,308 6.24% April 308,737 63,725 337,848 9.43% May 358,094 49,357 395,193 10.36% June 392,813 34,720 430,775 9.66% July 419,421 26,607 463,305 10.46% August 441,879 22,458 489,325 10.74% September 462,623 20,744 510,729 10.40% October 486,497 23,874 535,796 10.13% November 524,782 38,285 December 579,600 54,818 Gas Utility Tax 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 re 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Yeaz Budget Prior Yeaz *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. u 19 Packet Pg. 134 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2020 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 79,271 $ 79,271 $ 70,129 -11.53% February 154,920 75,649 134,128 -13.42% March 224,811 69,891 191,257 -14.93% April 298,919 74,108 254,236 -14.95% May 365,795 66,876 309,632 -15.35% June 433,375 67,580 361,422 -16.60% July 497,866 64,491 424,830 -14.67% August 563,527 65,661 479,371 -14.93% September 631,163 67,636 528,163 -16.32% October 697,753 66,590 579,582 -16.94% November 761,530 63,777 December 823,900 62,370 Electric Utility Tax 1,000,000 Telephone Utility Tax 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 ir 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget � Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2020 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 176,332 $ 176,332 $ 179,486 1.79% February 369,755 193,422 371,370 0.44% March 530,960 161,206 535,467 0.85% April 710,778 179,818 710,200 -0.08% May 852,710 141,933 854,417 0.20% June 974,520 121,810 970,402 -0.42% July 1,088,754 114,233 1,091,103 0.22% August 1,199,457 110,703 1,214,761 1.28% September 1,311,314 111,857 1,316,801 0.42% October 1,428,233 116,919 1,430,598 0.17% November 1,552,157 123,924 December 1,684,800 132,643 Electric Utility Tax 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget - Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. u 20 Packet Pg. 135 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2020 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 804,719 $ 804,719 $ 737,298 -8.38% February 1,363,439 558,720 1,256,012 -7.88% March 2,170,455 807,015 2,048,593 -5.61% April 2,696,703 526,248 2,538,466 -5.87% May 3,481,516 784,813 3,275,201 -5.93% June 4,099,586 618,070 3,855,044 -5.97% July 5,087,366 987,780 4,682,817 -7.95% August 5,941,343 853,977 5,382,918 -9.40% September 7,092,152 1,150,809 6,403,521 -9.71% October 7,892,798 800,646 7,186,022 -8.95% November 8,818,044 925,246 December 9,384,958 566,914 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales 2020 Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 355,919 $ 355,919 $ 348,012 1.79% February 1,125,592 769,673 1,101,727 0.44% March 1,480,771 355,179 1,449,754 0.85% April 1,795,425 314,654 1,758,968 -0.08% May 2,150,929 355,505 2,107,634 0.20% June 2,466,536 315,606 2,417,745 -0.42% July 2,822,237 355,701 2,766,634 -1.97% August 3,592,736 770,499 3,521,551 -1.98% September 3,947,537 354,801 3,869,253 -1.98% October 4,262,734 315,197 4,179,529 -1.95% November 4,618,388 355,654 December 4,921,433 303,045 Storm Water Sales 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --6-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O Q. d M C C E 21 t a O 2 O N O N L d O v u ZZ Packet Pg. 136 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2020 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 843,972 $ 843,972 $ 792,168 -6.14% February 1,528,418 684,445 1,457,427 -4.64% March 2,368,523 840,105 2,253,756 -4.85% April 3,057,434 688,911 2,905,227 -4.98% May 3,904,796 847,362 3,666,165 -6.11% June 4,601,743 696,947 4,301,071 -6.53% July 5,475,901 874,158 5,076,023 -7.30% August 6,170,772 694,871 5,723,561 -7.25% September 7,057,714 886,942 6,520,644 -7.61% October 7,759,947 702,233 7,174,847 -7.54% November 8,620,364 860,417 December 9,307,969 687,605 Unmeter Sewer Sales 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 — 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O Q. d M C C LL 21 t C O 2 0 N O N L d O LW 22 Packet Pg. 137 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2020 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 5,642,749 $ 5,642,749 $3,641,481 -35.47% February 8,910,266 3,267,517 7,564,087 -1S.11% March 12,507,763 3,597,497 10,796,906 -13.68% April 16,723,319 4,215,556 13,318,642 -20.36% May 19,875,327 3,152,008 17,123,820 -13.84% June 24,725,220 4,849,893 21,049,664 -14.87% July 28,663,754 3,938,534 24,352,711 -15.04% August 32,968,461 4,304,707 27,602,216 -16.28% September 36,464,588 3,496,127 31,099,506 -14.71% October 40,092,243 3,627,655 35,443,149 -11.60% November 44,563,572 4,471,329 December 49,044,056 4,480,484 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2020 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 2,923,229 $ 2,923,229 $ 1,280,852 -56.18% February 3,405,897 482,668 2,717,261 -20.22% March 4,567,146 1,161,249 3,569,389 -21.85% April 6,398,890 1,831,744 3,731,670 -41.68% May 6,709,824 310,934 5,129,301 -23.56% June 8,510,257 1,800,433 6,488,886 -23.75% July 9,528,179 1,017,922 7,237,544 -24.04% August 10,974,933 1,446,754 8,074,263 -26.43% September 11,879,864 904,931 8,970,365 -24.49% October 12,546,369 666,505 10,148,912 -19.11% November 14,100,020 1,553,651 December 15,322,110 1,222,090 Non -Departmental 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 �- 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --ft— Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O Q. d M C C E 21 t C O 2 O N O N L d O v u 23 Packet Pg. 138 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2020 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 26,361 $ 26,361 $ 23,825 -9.62% February 54,130 27,769 55,625 2.76% March 88,475 34,345 81,971 -7.35% April 119,273 30,799 106,847 -10.42% May 158,791 39,518 133,074 -16.20% June 205,911 47,121 160,080 -22.26% July 239,007 33,095 186,441 -21.99% August 285,476 46,469 212,640 -25.51% September 323,555 38,079 239,066 -26.11% October 346,924 23,369 266,797 -23.10% November 382,373 35,449 December 418,912 36,539 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2020 Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 25,001 $ 25,001 $ 28,750 15.00% February 50,898 25,897 60,151 18.18% March 76,062 25,164 87,486 15.02% April 101,769 25,706 114,642 12.65% May 126,945 25,177 142,030 11.88% June 151,749 24,804 169,276 11.55% July 177,563 25,814 196,288 10.55% August 203,939 26,376 222,950 9.32% September 229,480 25,541 249,862 8.88% October 254,419 24,939 276,971 8.86% November 279,429 25,010 December 306,685 27,256 Office of Mayor 350,000.00 300,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget - -Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O Q. d M C C E 21 t a O 2 O N O N L d O v u 24 Packet Pg. 139 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2020 Human Resources Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 59,451 $ 59,451 $ 68,346 14.96% February 117,267 57,816 134,278 14.51% March 178,196 60,929 184,385 3.47% April 229,767 51,571 233,118 1.46% May 284,932 55,165 283,462 -0.52% June 355,895 70,963 335,262 -5.80% July 411,216 55,322 378,306 -8.00% August 469,554 58,338 423,682 -9.77% September 531,309 61,755 476,486 -10.32% October 590,790 59,481 535,390 -9.38% November 649,771 58,981 December 740,691 90,920 Municipal Court Human Resources 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 - 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Yeaz Budget Prior Year City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2020 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 86,636 $ 86,636 $ 79,231 -8.55% February 180,238 93,602 166,073 -7.86% March 272,302 92,065 249,701 -8.30% April 365,299 92,996 331,047 -9.38% May 465,516 100,217 422,932 -9.15% June 553,704 88,188 507,527 -8.34% July 646,093 92,389 595,161 -7.88% August 743,853 97,760 681,851 -8.34% September 834,912 91,059 775,370 -7.13% October 934,920 100,009 872,107 -6.72% November 1,028,111 93,191 December 1,138,771 110,660 Municipal Court 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -0---CurrentYeaz Budget �PriorYear *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. u 25 Packet Pg. 140 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development 2020 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 49,169 $ 49,169 $ 40,001 -18.65% February 106,160 56,991 82,357 -22.42% March 165,380 59,220 123,069 -25.58% April 227,893 62,513 165,175 -27.52% May 286,048 58,155 210,066 -26.56% June 342,978 56,930 258,279 -24.70% July 404,684 61,706 309,288 -23.57% August 472,943 68,259 360,249 -23.83% September 532,197 59,254 408,834 -23.18% October 597,110 64,914 457,484 -23.38% November 667,285 70,174 December 761,493 94,208 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2020 City Clerk Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 71,401 $ 71,401 $ 83,447 16.87% February 129,624 58,223 139,339 7.49% March 187,005 57,380 199,113 6.47% April 251,043 64,039 258,617 3.02% May 306,774 55,730 321,093 4.67% June 361,810 55,036 378,904 4.72% July 423,597 61,787 438,669 3.56% August 486,276 62,679 499,805 2.78% September 539,284 53,008 554,592 2.84% October 597,946 58,662 611,198 2.22% November 662,981 65,035 December 726,962 63,981 City Clerk 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O Q. d M C C E 21 t C O 2 O N O N L d O v u 26 Packet Pg. 141 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Technology Rental Fund 2020 Technology Rental Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 177,914 $ 177,914 $ 81,888 -53.97% February 334,463 156,549 291,582 -12.829/c March 444,630 110,167 352,886 -20.639/c April 528,740 84,111 396,588 -24.999/c May 626,604 97,864 462,422 -26.20% June 728,444 101,840 540,328 -25.82/, July 813,042 84,598 612,976 -24.61% August 911,499 98,456 699,095 -23.30% September 1,028,310 116,812 807,205 -21.50% October 1,126,888 98,577 859,114 -23.769/c November 1,231,196 104,309 December 1,454,784 223,588 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2020 Finance Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 124,756 $ 124,756 $ 148,549 19.07% February 235,691 110,935 251,089 6.53% March 337,197 101,506 353,610 4.87% April 438,143 100,947 456,877 4.28% May 539,685 101,542 562,662 4.26% June 639,437 99,752 795,796 24.45% July 7S0,562 111,125 879,925 17.24% August 854,084 103,522 964,589 12.94% September 970,025 115,941 1,050,712 8.32% October 1,081,072 111,048 1,133,433 4.84% November 1,184,488 103,415 December 1,289,583 105,095 Finance 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. u 27 Packet Pg. 142 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2020 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 76,045 $ 76,045 $ 49,883 -34.40% February 1S2,090 76,045 142,611 -6.23% March 228,135 76,045 192,534 -1S.61% April 304,180 76,045 288,462 -5.17% May 380,225 76,045 359,660 -5.41% June 456,270 76,045 431,895 -5.34% July 532,315 76,045 503,028 -5.50% August 608,360 76,045 574,161 -S.62% September 684,405 76,045 646,093 -5.60% October 760,450 76,045 718,169 -5.56% November 836,495 76,045 December 912,540 76,045 City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2020 Police Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 940,461 $ 940,461 $ 887,236 -5.66% February 1,891,364 950,903 1,893,712 0.12% March 2,844,400 953,036 2,821,483 -0.81% April 3,808,566 964,166 3,703,720 -2.75% May 4,764,870 956,304 4,601,807 -3.42% June 5,757,552 992,683 5,628,905 -2.23% July 6,727,081 969,529 6,748,449 0.32% August 7,664,129 937,048 7,666,496 0.03% September 8,620,478 956,349 8,693,795 0.85% October 9,688,901 1,068,423 9,682,005 -0.07% November 10,939,777 1,250,876 December 11,951,730 1,011,953 Police 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. O Q. d M C C E 21 t C O 2 O N O N L d O v u Z$ Packet Pg. 143 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2020 Development Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 249,933 $ 249,933 $ 241,446 -3.40% February 530,487 280,S53 461,847 -12.94% March 820,192 289,705 685,780 -16.39% April 1,114,858 294,666 922,412 -17.26% May 1,418,144 303,286 1,151,071 -18.83% June 1,697,166 279,021 1,370,746 -19.23% July 1,991,793 294,627 1,608,527 -19.24% August 2,295,145 303,352 1,8S1,746 -19.32% September 2,593,333 298,188 2,083,333 -19.67% October 2,899,612 306,279 2,302,031 -20.61% November 3,239,495 339,883 December 3,582,847 343,352 Parks & Recreation Development Services 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --*-- Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2020 Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 310,663 $ 310,663 $ 278,296 -10.42% February 633,218 322,555 596,263 -5.84% March 976,069 342,851 892,745 -8.54% April 1,332,232 356,164 1,186,533 -10.94% May 1,699,847 367,615 1,472,976 -13.35% June 2,069,338 369,491 1,756,039 -15.14% July 2,534,539 465,201 2,047,976 -19.20% August 3,070,105 535,567 2,368,204 -22.86% September 3,504,600 434,495 2,706,435 -22.77% October 3,876,641 372,041 3,011,118 -22.33% November 4,200,535 323,894 December 4,594,969 394,434 Parks & Recreation 5,000,000 4,500,000 �4 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. u 29 Packet Pg. 144 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works Administration 2020 Public Works Administration Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 51,939 $ 51,939 $ 41,796 -19.53% February 105,536 53,597 83,385 -20.99% March 157,916 52,379 125,953 -20.24% April 210,278 52,362 169,511 -19.39% May 262,800 52,522 212,944 -18.97% June 316,459 53,659 256,932 -18.81% July 370,954 54,495 298,731 -19.47% August 422,825 51,871 340,410 -19.49% September 472,902 50,077 382,165 -19.19% October 524,167 51,265 423,243 -19.25% November 575,881 51,714 December 630,194 54,313 Facilities Maintenance Public Works Administration 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Yeaz Budget � Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2020 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 284,728 $ 284,728 $ 177,532 -37.65% February 585,426 300,698 353,835 -39.56% March 887,362 301,936 583,052 -34.29% April 1,181,106 293,744 781,557 -33.83% May 1,483,561 302,454 1,002,638 -32.42% June 1,740,520 256,959 1,175,527 -32.46% July 2,069,330 328,810 1,373,287 -33.64% August 2,371,409 302,079 1,592,675 -32.84% September 2,707,430 336,020 1,875,737 -30.72% October 3,011,628 304,199 2,799,364 -7.05% November 3,381,203 369,574 December 3,758,153 376,950 Facilities Maintenance 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -*-- Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. u 30 Packet Pg. 145 I 6.6.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2020 Engineering Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 219,750 $ 219,750 $ 212,290 -3.39% February 436,542 216,792 426,262 -2.35% March 671,678 235,136 646,635 -3.73% April 915,104 243,427 868,452 -5.10% May 1,155,255 240,151 1,118,106 -3.22% June 1,402,970 247,715 1,335,611 -4.80% July 1,656,398 253,428 1,551,091 -6.36% August 1,917,510 261,112 1,768,495 -7.77% September 2,156,951 239,441 1,986,661 -7.89% October 2,402,446 245,495 2,204,927 -8.22% November 2,635,839 233,393 December 2,908,416 272,577 Engine a ring 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 31 Packet Pg. 146 I 6.6.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail As of October 31, 2020 Years Agency/ Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon Issuer Type Rice Maturity Value Value Date Rate Grant Cnty WA Bonds 4,014,120 0.17 4,000,000 4,007,160 01/01/21 1.47% First Financial CD 3,000,000 0.44 3,000,000 3,000,000 04/10/21 2.86% Port of Seattle WA Bonds 273,305 0.50 270,000 271,852 05/01/21 2.23% Grant Cnty WA Bonds 410,553 1.17 405,000 411,452 01/01/22 1.79% FFCB Bonds 1,998,548 1.62 2,000,000 2,054,418 06/14/22 1.88% Energy Northwest Bonds 1,466,077 1.67 1,345,000 1,450,300 07/01/22 5.00% Energy Northwest Bonds 260,748 1.67 250,000 260,505 07/01/22 2.95% Mason & Kitsap Cnty WA Bonds 948,084 2.08 855,000 939,431 12/01/22 5.00% FHLB Bonds 3,000,000 2.16 3,000,000 3,007,986 12/30/22 1.79% Grant Cnty WA Bonds 1,517,955 2.17 1,500,000 1,533,945 01/01/23 1.54% Grant Cnty WA Bonds 576,332 2.17 520,000 572,203 01/01/23 5.00% Seattle WA Muni Bonds 2,224,500 2.25 2,000,000 2,211,800 02/01/23 5.00% FHLB Bonds 1,996,590 2.93 2,000,000 1,995,276 10/05/23 0.22% First Financial CD 2,803,516 3.04 2,803,516 2,803,516 11/15/23 2.10% Kent WA Bonds 286,648 3.08 250,000 286,040 12/01/23 5.00% Spokane County WA Bonds 259,075 4.09 250,000 264,260 12/01/24 2.10% First Financial CD 2,000,000 7.01 2,000,000 2,000,000 11/01/27 1.68% TOTAL SECURITIES 27,036,049 2.25 26,448,516 27,070,144 Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool 6,895,687 6,895,687 Demand 0.19% Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool 20,107,281 20,107,281 Demand 1.60% TOTAL PORTFOLIO $ 53,451,483 $ 54,073,111 Port of Kent WA, Issuer Diversification Seattle WA Seattle 1% Muni, 8% WA, 1% Fi rst Mason & Financial - KitsapCnty CD, 30% WA, 3% Grant Cnty WA 24% Spokane County FHLB, 19%,j WA, 1% Energy Northwest, FFCB, 8% 6% Cash and Investment Balances (in $ Millions) Checking, Bonds, State LGIP, $18.6, 30% $6.9 , 11% County CD's, $7.8, LGIP, 13% $20.1, 33% 32 Packet Pg. 147 1 I 6.6.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Annual Interest Income $1,400, 000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 917 754 $834,693 $800,000 $653,690 $600,000 — 335 926 $423,816 $400,000 — $200,000 - $- 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 YTD 2020 Edmonds Rate of Return Compared to Benchmark (Rolling 12 months) 6 Month Treasury Rate (Benchmark) City Blended Rate 2.0% 1.8% 1.5% 1.3% 1.0% 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.0% - November January March May July September Maturity Distribution and Rate of Return $10, 000,000 5.00 $8,000, 000 4.00 $ 6,000, 000 ` 3.00 $4,000, 000 2.00 $ 2,000, 000 4 1.00 r- 0.00% 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-48 48-54 54-60 60-66 66-72 72-78 78-84 84-90 90-96 Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo Mo C-: 33 Packet Pg. 148 GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW I 6.6.a I GENERAL FUND & SUBFUNDS 001-General Fund 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 016-Building Maintenance 017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation 018 -Edmonds Homelessness Response 019 - Edmonds Opioid Response Total General Fund & Subfunds FUND BALANCES Iy:/_1►lei a1►1all .1.1 1_1WG101[a] ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2019 9/30/2020 10/31 /2020 $ 15,552,187 $ 11,432,266 $ 11,089,345 $ 355,874 379,625 554,152 1,782,149 1,782,149 1,782,149 12,187 14,687 17,187 210,221 210,221 210,221 864,491 864,591 864,591 223,581 223,581 223,581 50,000 50,000 28,445 $ 19,050,690 $ 14,957,121 $ 14,769,671 $ ---- ACTUAL ---- Q3 YTD c (2,698,260) $ (4,462,84, (36,566) 198,27t - - c - 5,00( .E u_ 100 10( 0 - 0 (21,55! c (2,734,726) $ (4,281,02( 0 r U O *$2,000,000 of the General Fund Balance has been assigned by management for the development of Civic Field. -- *$7,720,000 of the fund balance in Fund 001 added to the $1,782,149 balance in Fund 012, represent the required 20% operating reserve. General Fund & Subfunds 21 18 General Fund 15 $9 33 & Subfunds 12 $5.24 $5.05 General Fund c Operating Reserve = 9 i Civic Field 6 $7.72 $7.72 $7.72 3 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Dec 2019 Sept 2020 Oct 2020 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 34 Packet Pg. 149 6.6.a GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2019 9/30/2020 10/31 /2020 Q3 YTD General Fund & Subfunds $ 19,050,690 $ 14,957,121 $ 14,769,671 $ (2,734,726) $ (4,281,02C Special Revenue 10,622,237 10,235,228 11,490,334 (661,506) 868,09E c Debt Service - (0) (0) - (C m Capital Projects 6,443,150 6,878,746 6,709,792 516,124 266,642 Total Governmental Funds $ 36,116,078 $ 32,071,095 $ 32,969,796 $ (2,880,107) $ (3,146,281 c ii 21 c O 2 0 N O N Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund Balances - y Combined O r v O 21 40 ... $19.05 $36.12 O 18 35 $32.07 $32.97 m d' --*--General Fund & 30 R v 15 $14.96 $14.77 Subfunds c --a—Special 25 jy 0 12 Revenue O 21 $11.49 _ 10.24 2 20 G 9 Debt Service 15 N $6.71 0 N 6 0fCapital 10 d Projects O 3 5 c Dec 2019 Sept 2020 Oct 2020 _ Dec 2019 � Sept 2020 Oct 2020 ca Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 35 Packet Pg. 150 6.6.a SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE: GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- SPECIAL REVENUE 12/31/2019 9/30/2020 10/31/2020 Q3 YTD 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund $ 39,839 $ 73,859 $ 73,953 $ (3,552) $ 34,11: 1 1 1 - Street Fund 1,298,473 1,067,380 1,263,698 (21,067) (34,77E 112- Combined Street Const/Improve 1,421,769 2,127,421 2,253,924 (70,068) 832,154 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 634,011 646,333 682,174 (912) 48,16: F 118 - Memorial Street Tree 19,785 20,222 20,247 210 462 a 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 93,013 101,933 100,015 5,742 7,001 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 86,844 98,101 98,500 1,114 11,65E 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 13,600 13,443 13,492 139 (10� 123 -Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 72,101 85,168 85,681 4,363 13,58C 125 -Real Estate Tax 2 2,625,364 2,572,735 2,653,856 65,414 28,492 ii 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 2,486,325 2,347,350 2,484,802 169,411 (1,52C 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 332,255 312,548 295,464 (25,442) (36,791 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 260,685 239,431 220,652 (15,694) (40,032 0 136 - Parks Trust Fund 163,071 166,670 166,880 1,728 3,80E N 137- Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 1,053,314 1,086,243 1,089,483 15,362 36,16E N 138 - Sister City Com m ission 10,129 12,868 10,381 134 25: aD 140 -Business Improvement Disrict 11,546 28,653 31,839 9,188 20,29 0 141 -Affordable and Supportive Housing Fd 112 51,036 57,949 18,589 57,83-1 u 142 - Edmonds Cares Fund - (816,165) (112,656) (816,165) (112,65E 0 Total Special Revenue $ 10,622,237 $ 10,235,228 $ 11,490,334 1 $ (661,506) $ 868,09E t *$200,000 of the fund balance in Fund 125 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding 12 10 8 Ln c 0 6 4 i Special Revenue Funds ■ Special $10.42 $10.04 $11.29 Revenue Dec 2019 Sept 2020 &J Oct 2020 ■ Fund 125 - Marsh Restoration Funding *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 36 Packet Pg. 151 1 ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW I 6.6.a I ENTERPRISE FUNDS 421 -Water Utility Fund 422 - Storm Utility Fund 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 411 -Combined Utility Operation Total Enterprise Funds FUND BALANCE: ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2019 9/30/2020 $ 23,049,550 $ 22,426,629 12,607,151 10,936,388 46,572,051 45,952,697 843,961 843,970 - 31,765 $ 83,072,713 $ 80,191,449 10/31 /2020 $ 22,557,221 10,871,573 46,054,303 843,971 31,935 $ 80,359,003 CHANGE IN FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- $ (282,055) $ (585,741) (1,627,394) 3 1,055 $ (2,494,132) $ *$250,000 of the Storm Utility Fund Balance has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding Enterprise and Agency Fund Balances as of October 31, 2020 50,000,000 45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 $10 621 573 10,000,000 5,000,0000 $31935 843,971 $250,000 Combined Water Storm Storm -Marsh Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve Utility Restoration Funding $46,054,303 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. (492,32� (1,735,57E (517,74� 1C a 31,93E W (2,713,711 .� v c c ii 21 c 0 2 0 N O N L r V O $131,118 Firemen's Pension Fund 37 Packet Pg. 152 SUMMARY OVERVIEW I 6.6.a I FUND BALANCES CITY-WIDE ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2019 9/30/2020 10/31 /2020 Governmental Funds $ 36,116,077 $ 32,071,095 $ 32,969,796 $ Enterprise Funds 83,072,713 80,191,449 80,359,003 Internal Services Fund 10,803,067 11,538,939 9,789,712 Agency Funds 146,733 139,708 131,118 TotalCity-wideTotal $130,138,590 $123,941,191 $123,249,629 1 $ CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- Q3 YTD (2,880,107) $ (3,146,281 (2,494,132) (2,713,711 m 279,306 (1,013,35E W (15,108) (15,61E T (5,110,042) $ c (6,888,961 u_ 21 c 0 2 0 Governmental Fund Balances (Excluding General Fund) as of October 31, 2020 c Drug Enforcement Fund Street Fund Combined Street Const/Improve Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Memorial Street Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Employee Parking Permit Fund Youth Scholarship Fund Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 Gifts Catalog Fund Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Parks Trust Fund Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Sister City Commission Business Improvement District Parks Capital Construction Fund M $73,953 1,263,698 � $2,25 ,924 � $682,1 4 $20,247 $100,015 $98,500 $13,492 $85,681 $ ,653,856 $2,1 84,802 1 $295,464 1 $220,652 $166,880 $1089,483 $10,381 $31,839 $6,701,792 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 $4,500,000 $6,000,000 $7,500,000 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. u This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 38 Packet Pg. 153 1 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW 1 6.6.a I INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 511 - Equipment Rental Fund 512 -Technology Rental Fund Total Internal Service Funds 12,000,00 10,000,00 8,000, 00 6,000, 00 4,000, 00 2,000, 000 FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2019 9/30/2020 10/31 /2020 $ 10,016,269 $ 10,654,871 $ 8,857,102 $ 786,798 884,068 932,610 $ 10,803,067 $ 11,538,939 $ 9,789,712 1 $ Internal Service Fund Balances 5 10,654,871 786.798 �$884,068 Dec 2019 Sept 2020 $8,857,102 $932,610 Oct 2020 CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- Q3 YTD 242,460 $ (1,159,16-1 0 36,845 145,812 a 279,306 $ (1,013,35E 2 c c ii 21 c 0 2 0 N O N L 0 r U O ■ 511- Equipment Rental Fund i ■ 512 - Technology Rental Fund *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 39 Packet Pg. 154 1 6.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Award Construction Contract for the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Rob English Background/History On December 8, 2020, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and the Committee placed the item on the December 15th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Award the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements construction contract to Kamins Construction in the amount of $1,249,282.45 and authorize a management reserve of $124,500. Narrative On November 24, 2020, the City received eight bids for the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Project. The bids ranged from a low of $1,249,392.45 to a high of $1,713,764.00. The Engineer's Estimate was $1,220,200. A summary of bid results is attached as Exhibit 1. Kamins Construction Inc. submitted the low responsive bid and provided bid documents that meet the federal Underutilized Disadvantage Business Enterprise Goal of 9%. The bid documents from the low bidder are acceptable and WSDOT provided their approval to award the construction to Kamins Construction. The project will install a new high intensity activated crosswalk (HAWK) signal at SR524 and 84th Ave, convert the emergency signal at SR104 and 232nd St to a full traffic signal, install new ADA compliant pedestrian curb ramps at nine intersections and add new signage and pavement markings at each location. New Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) will be added for pedestrian safety at seven intersections. Exhibit 2 is a project map showing where the new pedestrian safety improvements are located. Additional funding is required for the construction phase. Staff is recommending using project savings of $86,000 from the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Complete Streets Grant, transferring 2021 funds ($50,190) from the Pedestrian Safety and Traffic Signal Upgrade Programs and programming an additional $125,000 from the REET 125 Fund. A portion of the REET 125 funding ($38,700) will be used for additional staff time related to delays earlier this year in advertising the project. The proposed construction budget is attached (Exhibit 3). Attachments: Exhibit 1 - Bid Summary Exhibit 2 - Project Map Packet Pg. 155 s.7 Exhibit 3 - Budget Summary Packet Pg. 156 6.7.a CITY OF EDMONDS 0S PROJECT NAME: Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Bid Date: 11/24/2020 Engineer's Estimate: $1,220,200 CONTRACTOR Schedule A Schedule B Schedule C Base Bid 1 Kamins Construction $ 1,214,868 $ 33,415 $ 11000 $ 11249,282 2 Trinity Construction $ 1,206,267 $ 99,636 $ 11000 $ 11306,903 3 Road Construction NW $ 1,350,224 $ 39,109 $ 125 $ 11389,458 4 Allied Construction $ 1,484,545 $ 51,860 $ 10,000 $ 115463405 5 CA Carey $ 1,546,990 $ 57,507 $ 1 $ 11604,498 6 Westwater Construction $ 1,575,425 $ 56,856 $ 11000 $ 11633,281 7 SRV Construction $ 1, 657, 077 $ 44,682 $ 11000 $ 11702,759 s A-1 Landscaping $ 1,621,243 $ 67,951 $ 24,570 $ 1,713,764 co x W a Packet Pg. 157 City of Edmonds Mapbook 11 aFL 6.7.c Proposed Construction Budget Description Amount Contract Award $ 1,249,393 Construction Management, Inspection & Testing $ 265,000 City Furnished/Installed RRFB's $ 104,000 Education Outreach $ 20,000 WSDOT $ 5,000 1 % for Arts on local funding $ 4,020 Management Reserve (10%) $ 124,500 Funding Funding Source Total = $ 1,771,913 Amount Federal Grant $ 1,023,000 126 REET Fund $ 475,535 422 Storm Fund $ 51,000 TIB Complete Street Funds (Fund 112) $ 86,000 2021 Ped Safety/Traffic Signal Programs DP 75/76 (Fund 12 $ 50,190 Additional Funding - Fund125 ($39k for the Design Phase) 1 $ 125,000 Total = $ 1,810,725 Packet Pg. 159 6.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 2020 Board & Commission Retirements Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History This year we have eleven community volunteers who will be retiring from various City boards and commissions. 1. Cary Guenther, Architectural Design Board 2. Marni Muir, Arts Commission 3. Anabel Hovig, Diversity Commission 4. Brian Potter, Diversity Commission 5. Pat Valle, Diversity Commission 6. Kimberly Koenig, Economic Development Commission 7. Mary Monroe, Economic Development Commission 8. Margaret Safford, Economic Development Commission 9. Stephen Waite, Historic Preservation Commission 10. Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Planning Board 11. Roger Pence, Planning Board Please see the attached list for further details on service dates. Staff Recommendation Narrative Mayor Nelson would like to thank these retiring volunteer board and commission members for their service to the City of Edmonds and the community. Attachments: 2020 Retirements Packet Pg. 160 6.8.a Board & Commission Retirements for 2020 ➢ Architectural Design Board - term limits: 2 consecutive 4-year terms o Cary Guenther, Position #7, Planner, 2012 - 12/31/2020 ➢ Arts Commission - term limits: 2 consecutive 4-year terms o Marni Muir, Position #3 General, 2012 - 12/31/2020 ➢ Diversity Commission - term limits: 3-year terms with no term limits o Anabel Hovig, Position #6, 2017 - 12/31/2020 o Brian Potter, Position #4, 2018 - 12/31/2020 o Pat Valle, Position #5, 2015 - 12/31/2020 ➢ Economic Development Commission - term limits: 2-year terms with no term limits o Kimberly Koenig, Position #3, 2018 - 3/31/2020 o Mary Monroe, Position #2, 2016 - 3/31/2020 o Margaret Safford, Position #1, 2019 - 3/31/2020 ➢ Historic Preservation Commission - term limits: 3-year terms with no term limits o Stephen Waite, Position #1, Professional, 2002 - 12/31/2020 ➢ Planning Board - term limits: 4-year terms with no term limits c o Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Position #5, Professional, 2014 - 12/31/2020 o Roger Pence, Alternate Position, 2019 - 12/31/2020 ;v r as 0 N O N Q 12/10/2020 3:29 PM Packet Pg. 161 6.9 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 2021 Board & Commission Reappointments Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History The attached list of board and commission members have requested reappointment. All members and positions have been vetted for eligibility. Staff Recommendation Reappointment of the attached list of board and commission members. Narrative Community volunteers are essential to the operation of the City's various boards and commissions. They provide knowledge and experience to the Mayor, City Council, and staff on a variety of issues. They also organize community events and help influence and shape our community. Edmonds is fortunate to have such a dedicated and hard working group of volunteers and we thank them for their willingness to serve the Edmonds community. Attachments: Boa rd_Commission_Reappointments_for_2021 Packet Pg. 162 6.9.a 2021 Board & Commission Reappointments ➢ Arts Commission - term limits: 2 consecutive 4-year terms o Tanya Sharp, Position #2 Visual, 2017 - 2020. Final term will expire on 12/31/2024 ➢ Edmonds Sister City Commission - term limits: 3-year terms with no term limits o Michele Fellows - Position #8, 2014 - 2020. New term will expire 12/31/2023 o Greg Lange - Position #3, 2018 - 2020. New term will expire 12/31/2023 o Gillian lim - Position #5, 2018 - 2020. New term will expire 12/31/2023 o Karyn Heinekin - Position #10, 2014 - 2020. New term will expire 12/31/2023 o Gabe Longoria - Position #11, 2018 - 2020. New term will expire 12/31/2023 ➢ Historic Preservation Commission - term limits: 3-year terms with no term limits o David Preston, Position #6, Citizen, 2018 - 2020. New term will expire 12/31/2023 ➢ Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Members - One-year terms, renewable annually with no term limits o Frances Chapin, Position #4, Tax User, 2000 - 2021 o Benjamin Mason, Position #1, Tax Provider, 2020 - 2021 o Joe Mclalwain, Position #6, Tax User, 2007 - 2021 o Pat Moriarty, Position #2, Tax Provider, 2013 - 2021 ➢ Planning Board - term limits: 4-year terms with no term limits o Alicia Crank, Position #6, 2017 - 2020. New term will expire 12/31/2024 o Mike Rosen, Position #1, 2017 - 2020. New term will expire 12/31/2024 12/10/2020 2:52 PM Packet Pg. 163 6.10 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Confirmation of Tree Board Position # 2 Appointment Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Tree Board Preparer: Jana Spellman Background/History The Tree Board is a seven -member board, as codified in Chapter 10.95 ECC. Each position is appointed by a City Council member and confirmed by the Council for a term that coincides with the appointing Council member's term. An alternate is appointed each year by the Council President. The Board's current City Council liaison is Diane Buckshnis. Staff Recommendation Confirm Tree Board Position # 2 Appointment (This may be done by approving the Consent Agenda.) Narrative At the end of December 2020, the current Tree Board member for osition # 2, Gail Lovel, will retire. Tree Board position # 2 is appointed by the corresponding City Council member, position # 2, who is Luke Distelhorst. Notice of the vacancy was advertised is advance and six local residents applied. Councilmember Distelhorst reviewed the applications and selected Brian Doyle to be his appointment. (See attached application.) Mr. Doyle's term would match the term of City Council Position # 2. Per the code, each City Council member's appointment is subject to confirmation by a majority of the City Council. Confirmation at the December 15 meeting means that the appointee can participate in the Tree Board's first meeting in January. Attachments: Doyle Tree Board Application_Redacted Packet Pg. 164 I 6.10.a I Edmonds Citizen Board and Commission Application (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) NOTE: This form is a public record and may be subject to disclosure upon request. TREE BOARD (Board or Commission) Name:Brian Doyle Address: Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: 11/27/2020 Occupational status and background:I currently am doing alumni relations and outreach for Leadership Snohomish County. Previously I was a project manager and landscaper for my family's landscape construction business for 15 years. I also worked for Earth Day NW 2020 where I advocated for regional sustainability. Organizational affiliations:I am also currently enrolled in the 2020-21 Signature Class at Leadership Snohomish County. I've also been volunteering at the Edmonds Food Bank. Why are you seeking this appointment? I am seeking this appointment because I believe I can bring a wealth of experience and passion for our tree community. I've planted, transplanted and pruned more trees than many others. I want to use this knowledge to give back to our community. We have a special tree canopy here. What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? I was a lanscaper for 15 years, in that role I researched, selected, planted and cared for dozens of different kinds of trees for our clients. Please list any other Board, Commission, Committee, or official positions you currently hold with the City of Edmonds:. Additional comments: As I've stated above, I have a unique amount of experience around trees, and a great passion for our community. I'd love the opportunity to share this knowledge and passion with the Tree Board. You may return this form as follows: By e-mail to: jana.spellman @edmondswa.gov or U.S. Mail to: Jana Spellman Development Services Department 121501 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Signature Tree Board applications are due Friday, December 4, 2020 by 4:30 p.m. E-mail questions to: Received 12/02/2020 Updated 11.12.2020 Tana. spellm an @edmondswa. aov Development Services Dept. Packet Pg. 165 6.11 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Ordinance establishing City Council Meeting Schedule for the Second Tuesday of the Month Staff Lead: Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History On October 27, 2020, the City Council discussed their preferences for meetings held on the second Tuesday of the month (see attached minutes). As a result of their discussions, they directed the City Attorney to prepare the attached ordinance to change the meeting times of their committee meetings and to reinstate their regular meeting of the full council. Staff Recommendation Adopt ordinance as part of the consent agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: Pages from 2020-10-27 City Council Ordinance 2nd Tuesdays Packet Pg. 166 6.11.a - Upgrading • Funds 125, 126, 332 o Civic Park Development $6,030,315 (DP #82) o $6.03M in each 2021 & 2022 ■ Design Complete ■ Permit Review Complete ■ Rebid in January 2021 ■ Groundbreaking spring 2021 ■ 16 Months to Complete 16 months to complete o 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 • Fund 332 Fishing Pier Repair: $54,425 (DP #83) o Carryforward of unused funds from WDFW o Bid spring/summer 2020 Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 9. ACTION ITEM MOVING COUNCIL FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TO INDIVIDUAL Councilmember Paine recalled Council discussed this last week. The agenda memo includes several questions: 1. Do we do this? 2. If so, when does this change start and for how long? 3. And if so, when and what times do we want to have our committee meeting? At the 10/20 meeting, the majority of those who were supportive of a time shift preferred option A. Options for individual Council Committee meetings include but are not limited to: A. Stagger Committee meetings via Zoom so that the public may watch all three and that Directors/staff can attend. For example, one committee meeting from 4-5pm, the next from 5- 6pm and the third from 6-7pm, followed by the regular Council meeting at 7pm. B. Two committee meeting days --one from 5-6p and the other from 6-7pm--with the third committee meeting held on the next Tuesday followed by the regular Council meeting at 7pm. C. Three Tuesdays a month, Committee meetings would be held prior to the regular Council meeting. (Con: Council would not be able to meet in executive session except for one meeting per month.) Councilmember Buckshnis said she received another complaint from a citizen about using Zoom. She wanted to ensure the Council vetted the issue and had sufficient time to have all their questions answered. Citizens are used to the current format and there are only two committee meeting nights left this year. The extended agenda does not have that much on it. She summarized that was her opinion because she continues to hear complaints from citizens about the Zoom process. Council President Fraley-Monillas said people will have to learn to deal with the Zoom process because it likely will continue for another year. Moving forward with a change to committees now is probably the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q October 27, 2020 Page 19 Packet Pg. 167 6.11.a best way to ensure citizens are hearing what is occurring in committees. She encouraged Councilmembers to consider Option A, staggered committees so the public can watch the meetings. Councilmember Olson said she was leaning toward this change and doing it for a longer period of time to avoid another change. She recommended making a change now through December 2021. She agreed with Council President Fraley-Monillas, finding staggered committees a better option. She found Option B to be the worst option because Councilmembers have too many meeting conflicts and she wanted to be able to attend committee meetings as a spectator. Councilmember Distelhorst preferred Option A both for scheduling for residents who are used to Tuesday nights and Councilmembers who have cleared their schedules on Tuesday nights. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Councilmember Paine for her work and added her support for the change and her preference for Option A. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested whatever the Council chose to do, it should only be for this year. When 2021 starts, the Council will have a lighter schedule and the Council could maintain the third Tuesday for committee meetings and hold them 7-8 p.m., 8-9 p.m. and 9-10 p.m. in a staggered format. Mayor Nelson observed a majority of Councilmembers agreed with the change, which was the first question Councilmember Paine posed. The next question is the format and for how long. Council President Fraley-Monillas said she can set it up for the November and December meetings. It will be up to the next Council President to determine Council committee assignments. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADOPT THIS METHODOLOGY TO ADD ONE MORE NIGHT OF REGULAR MEETINGS ON THE SECOND TUESDAY AND MOVE TO A ZOOM FORMAT FOR THE REST OF YEAR USING OPTION A. Councilmember Olson asked for clarification whether through the end of the year was through 2020. Councilmember Paine clarified her intent was through the end of 2021. Councilmember Distelhorst recalled when the Council adopted the ordinance regarding the Zoom format, it was not tied to a date but rather OPMA, the governor order or the ability ability to meet in person. He asked it would make sense to sync this change to that instead of a calendar date. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled when the Council began meeting on Zoom in March the motion did not establish an ending date, just until further notice. He said that would be true with regard to the Zoom aspect. With regard to the meeting times, he sought clarification whether committee times envisioned in Option A were temporary for COVID purposes or whether the Council envisioned that as a long term change as it would affect how the ordinance to amend the code was drafted. Councilmember Paine asked if Mr. Taraday wanted to know which committee would meet at which time. Mr. Taraday explained the current code states committees are held on the second Tuesday of the month at 7 p.m. Clearly that will change and Tuesday at 7 p.m. will be a regular Council meeting. He asked if the Council was establishing a new regular meeting time for committees or would all the committee meetings be special meetings without establishing a regular time. Councilmember Paine preferred to make a permanent change and when the Council no longer met virtually via Zoom, the Council could evaluate whether to continue committee meetings or not. She felt meetings were much faster when the Council met in person and she agreed it was difficult for the public to provide audience comments via the Zoom process. Adding an additional regular meeting will make things more efficient. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q October 27, 2020 Page 20 Packet Pg. 168 6.11.a Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested the Council pursue Option A with meetings 4-5 p.m., 5-6 p.m. and 6-7 p.m., followed by the regular Council meeting at 7 p.m. until future notice as a long term change would be the easiest for citizens. When the Council returns to meeting in person, it can be reconsidered. If the committees meet at those times, the meetings can be taped and citizens can watch them later. She acknowledged there would always be citizens who disliked the change, but it was important for Council to be able to get their work done. Councilmember Buckshnis said committees should not be special meetings because then the agenda cannot be changed and the Finance Committee often adds items. She pointed out the Personnel Committee does not meet often; it needs to be clear to citizens when no meetings are scheduled. She also noted some committees such as the Parks and Public Works (PPW) Committee often last longer than an hour Council President Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order about the motion on the floor. Councilmember Paine restated the motion: DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD MAKE IT PERMANENT TO MOVE TO A STAGGERED ZOOM MEETINGS TIME ON TUESDAYS AND START AT 4 AND CONTINUE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE AND REEVALUATE WHEN THE COUNCIL RETURNS TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Council President Fraley-Monillas explained her point of order, Councilmembers should speak to the motion, not "woulda shoulda coulda" and backstory stuff can be worked out as the Council moves forward. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken and Councilmember Buckshnis was allowed to continue. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated with staggered meetings, some committees last longer than one hour and some committees rarely meet. She was unsure if a one hour limit could be set for each committee, recalling the PPW Committee meetings often last longer than an hour. She questioned establishing a time for each committee in an ordinance. Mr. Taraday said there are advantages to establishing regular meeting times. It would be necessary to establish which committee meets at 4 p.m., at 5 p.m. and at 6 p.m. With regard to a committee being unable to complete their business in the allotted hour, there would need to be a provision for that. One possibility would be the committee continues to the same time the next day, but that may not work for all Councilmembers. He sought Council direction on how to handle overflow time. City Clerk Scott Passey said he can host Zoom meetings for the committees any time before 7 p.m., but needs to be in Council Chamber at 7 p.m. to stream the regular meetings. Council President Fraley-Monillas said what is done now will be relevant into the future. There are issues now with committee meetings that run longer or shorter. She suggested for meetings that run longer than an hour, there may be issues related to organizational skills. Continuing a meeting to the following Tuesday may be a possibility. She suggested these issues could be worked out as the Council moved forward versus trying to work them out at a Council meeting. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding that more than one meeting could be streamed at the same time so there could be one Zoom channel for each committee meeting. Mr. Passey said it was his understanding the City has one Zoom account that staff uses; he was unsure running multiple meetings at the same time would be possible. There would need to be a separate post for each meeting, someone to run each meeting, meetings would need to be recorded and the public would need to be able to attend. The meetings would not be livestreamed from the Council Chambers on the City's website, they would be attended via Zoom only. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q October 27, 2020 Page 21 Packet Pg. 169 6.11.a Councilmember L. Johnson suggested 3:30-4:30 pm., 4:30-5:30 p.m., and 5:30-6:30 p.m. so the 5:30-6:30 p.m. committee meeting would have a break before the 7 p.m. meeting and to provide Mr. Passey time before he needs to be in Council Chambers to host the Council meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis said it has nothing to do with organizational skills, it is related to the items on the agenda. There are often numerous items on the PPW Committee agenda. She suggested holding committees on different nights although she acknowledged Councilmembers have other commitments. She suggested having meeting concurrently and having the audio on the website as has been done in the past. Mr. Passey said the assumption is if the Council can meet virtually, there is no reason the public cannot attend virtually as well. Councilmember Buckshnis said Finance Committee meetings have also exceeded one hour. Committee meetings are a time for council, staff and the administration to go through things and they should not be rushed in order to meet a one hour deadline. Councilmember K. Johnson did not support making this a permanent change and preferred to make a change only for this year. She reiterated the Council's schedule will be lighter next year and the Council would be moving from three regular meetings to four regular meetings plus committee meetings. She preferred to solve the problem for this year and worry about next year later. Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Paine, anticipating any issues could be worked out and if it didn't work, it could be changed. That was how the Council moved to committee of the whole during the pandemic; it was just a motion and not a long process. She supported the motion, preferring to change the process if it didn't work. The Council is wasting a lot of time discussing "shoulda woulda coulda" when there are a lot of other things to discuss. Councilmember Olson suggested considering a hybrid, having the PPW Committee during regular meetings since that seems to last the longest and have the other committee meetings prior to a regular Council meeting. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. 10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mayor Nelson advised written reports are added to the Council meeting packets as reports become available. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported the Council will meet on Monday, November 2 next week due to the election on Tuesday, November 3. As South County Fire Chief Hovis mentioned tonight and as Snohomish Health District Medical Director has said, Mayor Nelson emphasized COVID-19 numbers are increasing. This is the third time the numbers are going up and they are going up at as fast a rate as the first time. Considering that the first time people weren't wearing masks or social distancing, the current rate of increase is exponentially higher. There are not a lot of options for governments to take at this time; it is up to each person to socially distance and wear a mask. No one wants to take additional measures and there are few options besides shutting things down. If things continue to get worse, that is the only option that has effectively Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q October 27, 2020 Page 22 Packet Pg. 170 6.11.b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE REGULAR MEETING TIMES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS, REINSTATING THE SECOND TUESDAY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, ESTABLISHING REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES PRIOR TO THE SECOND TUESDAY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. WHEREAS, the city council has the power to organize and regulate its internal affairs under RCW 35A.11.020; and WHEREAS, the city council has determined that a regular city council meeting on the second Tuesday of each month is necessary; and WHEREAS, the city council has determined that regular city council committee meetings should occur on the second Tuesday of each month, prior to the city council meeting on that day; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1.04.010 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Regular public meeting time and days," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in st-Fike through): 1.04.010 Regular public meeting time and days. A. Full Council. Regular meetings of the city council shall be held on every the first, third, and fetffth Tuesdays of every month, except for the fifth Tuesday of a month, at 7:00 p.m. Regular meetings of the city council shall be held in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington. Council meetings shall adjourn no later than 10:00 p.m. on the day initiated unless such adjournment is extended by an affirmative vote of a majority of the council as a whole plus one. B. Council Committees. The city council shall have the following standing committees: finance; parks and public works ("PPW"); public safety, planning and Packet Pg. 171 6.11.b personnel ("PSPP"). Regular meetings of the city council standing committees shall be held on the second Tuesday of every month at 7!00 p.m. Regular meetings of th eity eatifleil sta-ndiag-eewA�ni#ees shall be held eeneidffeatly in the following three r-aaffipy in the Police Training Room of the Public Safety Complex, 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington, with their respective start times as follows: (1) PPW shall commence at 4:00 (2) finanee PSPP shall be hold in -the Jury Meeting Room commence at 5:00 p.m.; and (3) PSPP finance shall be held in the oliee T- ixi g Room shall commence at 6:00 n.m. Council eenuni#ee meetines shall adie,,,.,, no later tha meeting. At least tThe audio from city council standing committee meetings shall be recorded and posted online. Section 2. Regular meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Until such time that gubernatorial proclamation 20-28, and its various extensions have been terminated or amended to allow the city council to meet in person, regular council meetings shall occur using a virtual meeting technology that complies with the proclamation. Instructions for accessing the virtual meetings shall be posted on the city council agenda, which can be found on the city's website. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. ection 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Packet Pg. 172 6.11.b CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 173 6.11.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE REGULAR MEETING TIMES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS, REINSTATING THE SECOND TUESDAY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, ESTABLISHING REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES PRIOR TO THE SECOND TUESDAY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2020. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 2 Packet Pg. 174 6.12 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Adoption of 2021 City Budget Ordinance 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. Two Public Hearings have been held on the budget, and final budget deliberations were held on December 10, 2020. Staff Recommendation Approval of the 2021 City budget ordinance as part of the Consent Agenda, as proposed by Mayor Nelson on October 5 and revised to include Council -approved amendments. Narrative: Mayor Nelson presented his 2021 Proposed Budget to the Council on October 5, 2020. Two Public Hearings have been held on the budget, and final budget deliberations were held on December 10, 2020. Included in tonight's packet is the final ordinance including all Council -approved amendments. Attachments: 2021 Budget Ordinance Packet Pg. 175 6.12.a 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 November 17th, 2020 and on November 24th, 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. 176 6.12.a 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 $ 42,450,777 $ 45,179,468 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 - 210,222 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 Maintena nce/Imp. Fund 179,800 200,998 Parks Trust Fund 2,200 50,000 CemeteryMaintenance Fund 29,220 25,000 Sister City Commission Fund 10,120 11,900 Business Improvement District Fund 79,239 76,340 Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund 65,000 - 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund 759,710 759,700 Parks Capital Construction Fund 1,392,520 5,360,378 Water U ti I i ty Fund 10, 299, 357 10, 578, 596 Storm Utility Fund 6,012,300 6,847,783 Sewer/WWTP UtilityFund 28,131,150 35,634,329 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 96,167 Totals $ 102,202,698 $ 11%861,486 Packet Pg. 177 6.12.a 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 CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 178 6.12.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 15th day of December, 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 December, 2020 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 179 6.12.a 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 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 18,000 100% 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. 180 6.12.a 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 2019 % of Project usingREET 2020 % of Project using REET 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 1000/. Marina Beach Design / Construction 30,000 90% Parks Maintenance Professional Services 25,000 100% Parks Maintenance R & M 25,000 100% 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% N U C cv C 'a L O d 3 m U N O N a� v C m C 'a L O .r d m N O N C N E t V R Q Packet Pg. 181 6.12.a Part 2: Use of RE ET Funds for the succeeding two-year period and Percentage of REET Funds for capital projects rmm�n rerl fn .!!other Sources of c?nit?! n orf fi mrlinn oe Irlon}i£crl in (`ih/e rnnifnl Fn rili 4ioe Plnn TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS AND FUNDING SOURCES 2021 2022 Total % of Funding Hwy99 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 126 Reimbursement - Hwy 99 Gateway / 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 Pla field 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 1500 Grants 895,833 2,574,167 3,470,000 29% Private Donations unsecured 400,000 400,000 3% Fund 125 Reimbursement -Civic Center Development 1 652,5461 652,546 1 1,305,092 1 110/ Fund 126 Reimbursement -Civic Center Development 71,816 1 71,816 1 1% Park Impact Fees 710,1201 642,500 1 1,352,620 1 11% Civic Center Acquisition/Development/Stadium demo $ $ $ 100% N V C C O .r 7 m r V N O N U C m C L O E Iy Im m r N O N ++ C N E t 0 t4 r r Q Packet Pg. 182 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Fourth Quarter Budget Amendment Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Marissa Cain Background/History Amend the 2020 Ordinance No. 4198 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the proposed 4th Quarter Budget Amendment and Ordinance No. XXXX. Attachments: 2020 4th Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 2020 4th Quarter Budget Amendment Exhibits - updated Packet Pg. 183 7.1.a ORDINANCE NO. XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4198 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2020 Budget; and THEREFORE, WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 4198 amending the final budget for the fiscal year 2020 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, and D adopted herein by reference. 1 Packet Pg. 184 7.1.a Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: 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. 185 7.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4198 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, 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 12020. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Pg. 186 7.1.a EXHIBIT "A": Budget Amendment Summary (December 2020) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 2020 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES 2020 ENDING FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 15,552,186 44,055,157 49,365,292 10,242,051 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 355,874 437,980 467,140 326,714 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 1,782,150 56,140 - 1,838,290 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 12,188 5,230 5,900 11,518 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 210,221 - - 210,221 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND 864,491 - 864,491 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 223,581 100,000 123,581 019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 50,000 - 21,555 28,445 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 39,840 165,390 45,800 159,430 111 STREET FUND 1,298,473 1,913,184 2,200,133 1,011,524 112 COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE 1,421,770 2,841,881 2,811,463 1,452,188 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 634,011 264,200 244,504 653,707 118 MEMORIAL STREETTREE 19,784 750 - 20,534 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 93,013 98,630 128,250 63,393 121 EMPLOYEE PARKI NG PERMIT FUND 86,843 27,270 26,880 87,233 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 13,601 1,790 3,000 12,391 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 72,102 34,450 33,900 72,652 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 2,625,364 1,436,090 3,610,520 450,934 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 2,486,325 1,453,520 3,401,093 538,752 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 332,256 145,050 113,782 363,524 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 260,683 184,610 195,787 249,506 136 PARKSTRUSTFUND 163,070 6,390 - 169,460 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 1,053,314 54,210 - 1,107,524 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,128 10,380 11,900 8,608 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND 11,546 79,209 80,510 10,245 141 AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND 112 - - 112 142 EDMONDS CARES FUND - 1,860,000 1,860,000 - 211 LID FUND CONTROL 12,400 12,400 231 2012 LTGO DEBTSERVICE FUND - 738,400 738,400 - 332 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 6,443,149 9,638,306 13,013,343 3,068,112 421 WATER 23,049,552 11,121,042 12,814,124 21,356,470 422 STORM 12,607,149 6,745,424 10,856,909 8,495,664 423 SEWER/TREATMENT PLANT 46,572,055 25,279,820 32,785,445 39,066,430 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 843,961 1,988,100 1,988,130 843,931 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 10,016,266 1,801,427 3,225,665 8,592,028 512 Technology Rental Fund 786,799 1,265,219 1,517,040 534,978 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 146,732 72,620 88,700 130,652 Totals 130,138,589 113,794,269 141,767,565 102,165,293 r Q Packet Pg. 187 7.1.a EXHIBIT "B": Budget Amendments by Revenue (December 2020) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION Adopted Budget Ord.#4168 1/1/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord.#4174 2/25/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord.#4183 4/15/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord.#4187 5/19/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord.#4191 7/22/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord.#4198 10/23/2020 Proposed Amendment Ord.# 1212020 2020 Amended Revenue Bud et 001 General Fund $ 43,803,858 $ $ $ $ $ $ 251,299 $ 44,055,157 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 437,980 437,980 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 56,140 56,140 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,230 5,230 017 Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund - 018 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund 019 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund - 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 165,390 - 165,390 111 Street Fund 1,893,668 19,100 416 1,913,184 112 Combined StreetConst/Improve 2,433,890 313,991 - 94,000 2,841,881 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 259,635 - 3,941 - 624 264,200 118 Memorial Street Tree 750 - - 750 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 98,630 98,630 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 27,270 27,270 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,790 1,790 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 34,450 34,450 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,436,090 1,436,090 126 Special Capital Fund 1,453,520 1,453,520 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 145,050 145,050 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 184,610 184,610 136 Parks Trust Fund 6,390 6,390 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd 54,210 54,210 138 Sister City Commission 10,380 10,380 140 Business Improvement District Fund 79,209 79,209 142 Edmonds CARES Fund - 1,265,100 632,550 (37,650) 1,860,000 211 Lid Fund Control 12,400 - - 12,400 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 738,400 738,400 332 Parks Construction 9,638,306 9,638,306 421 Water 11,116,270 4,772 11,121,042 422 Storm 5,670,766 545,000 504,700 24,958 6,745,424 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 24,452,726 809,209 - 17,885 25,279,820 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,988,100 - - 1,988,100 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,746,160 55,267 1,801,427 512 Technology Rental Fund 1,202,963 62,256 1,265,219 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 72,620 - - 72,620 Totals $109,226,851 $1,668,200 $ 527,741 $ $ 1,265,100 1 $ 726,550 1 $ 379,827 $ 113,794,269 a Packet Pg. 188 7.1.a EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendments by Expenditure (December 2020) FUND N0. FUND DESCRIPTION Adopted Budget Ord. #4168 1/1/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4174 2/25/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4183 4/15/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord.44187 5/19/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4191 7/22/2020 Adopted Amendment Ord. #4198 10/23/2020 Proposed Amendment Ord. # 1212020 2020 Amended Expenditure Budget 001 General Fund $ 48,244,815 $ 313,606 $ 485,635 $ $ $ 321,236 $ 49,365,292 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 467,140 - - - 467,140 012 Contingency Reserve Fund - - 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,900 5,900 017 Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund - - 018 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund - 100,000 100,000 019 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund 21,555 - 21,555 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 45,800 - 45,800 111 Street Fund 2,139,717 60,000 416 2,200,133 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 2,403,472 313,991 94,000 - 2,811,463 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 243,880 - - 624 244,504 118 Memorial Street Tree - - - - 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 122,750 5,500 128,250 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,880 - 26,880 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 3,000 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 33,900 - 33,900 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 3,067,616 542,284 620 3,610,520 126 Special Capital Fund 2,661,040 716,786 23,267 3,401,093 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 100,220 10,762 2,800 113,782 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 195,787 - - 195,787 136 Parks Trust Fund - - 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd - - 138 Sister City Commission 11,900 11,900 140 Business Improvement District Fund 80,510 80,510 142 Edmonds CARES Fund - - - - 1,265,100 632,550 (37,650) 1,860,000 211 Lid Fund Control 12,400 - - 12,400 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 738,400 738,400 332 Parks Construction 11,942,630 1,070,713 13,013,343 421 Water 12,436,114 373,238 - 4,772 12,814,124 422 Storm 8,357,375 1,190,856 1,283,720 24,958 10,856,909 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 30,493,425 2,274,135 - 17,885 32,785,445 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,988,130 - - 1,988,130 511 Equipment Rental Fund 3,170,398 - 55,267 3,225,665 512 Technology Rental Fund 1,224,784 230,000 62,256 1,517,040 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 78,700 - - 10,000 88,700 Totals 1 $130,318,238 $ 7,101,871 $ 1,796,042 $ 100,000 $ 1,265,100 $ 726,550 $ 459,764 $ 141,767,565 a Packet Pg. 189 EXHIBIT "D": Budget Amendment Summary (December 2020) 7.1.a Fund Number Proposed Amendment Changein Revenue Proposed Amendment Changein Expense Proposed Amendment Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 251,299 321,236 (69,937) 111 416 416 117 624 624 142 (37,650) (37,650) 421 4,772 4,772 422 24,958 24,958 423 17,885 17,885 511 55,267 55,267 512 62,256 62,256 - 617 10,000 (10,000) Total Change 379,827 1 459,764 (79,937) r Q Packet Pg. 190 7.1.b New Item for Council to Consider (December 2020) Budget Amendment for: Fourth Quarter Item Description: In late 2019 our previous State Lobbyist resigned requiring an REP for a new Lobbyist, after the 2020 Budget was set. Due to the change in Lobbyist there was a slight increase to the monthly fee, which this amendment reflects by increasing the total budget from $40,296 to $45,000. This increase will be an on- going expense. Department: Economic Development/Community Services Fund Name: 001 GENERAL Division: Community Services Title: Lobbyist Activities Preparer: Patrick Doherty Budget Amendment Type INew Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? On -Going Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? 10perating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fill out on -going costs & revenues Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 001.000.61.511.70.41.00 Professional Services $ 4,704 $ 4,704 $ 4,704 $ 4,704 $ 4,704 Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 4,704 $ 4,704 $ 4,704 $ 4,704 Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue Increase (Decrease) $ $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance (4,704) (4,704) (4,704) 4,704) (4,704 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease $ (4,704) $ 4,704) $ 4,704) $ (4,704) $ (4,704 Packet Pg. 191 7.1.b New Item for Council to Consider (December 2020) Budget Amendment for: Fourth Quarter Item Description: This amendment covers three sets of goods/services reimbursed by other entities. The Police Department opened up a peer support/critical incident class to other agencies. The outside agencies paid a portion of the instructor costs. The department also received permission to use State School Zone funds to purchase a new radar gun and motorcycle gloves. Edmonds Police Foundation funded eight bleeding control kits and some supplies for the Peer Support Team. Department: Police Fund Name: 001 GENERAL Division: N/A Title: Goods and Services Reimbursed by Others Preparer: Caroline Thompson, Executive Assistant, x1397 Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? Reimbursed by Grants or Outside Agencies What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 Police Training - Miscellaneous $ 1,194 $ $ $ $ 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 Police Traffic - Small E ui ment 690 001.000.41.521.71.31.00 Police Traffic - Supplies 142 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 Police Training - Supplies 40 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 Police Patrol - Small Equipment 1,622 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 3,688 $ $ $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 001.000.337.30.000.00 Police Training Classes $ 1,194 $ $ $ $ 001.000.334.03.500.01 School Zone Account 832 001.000.367.00.400.00 Police Contributions from Private Sources 1,662 Total Revenue Increase Decrease $ 3,688 $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 S $ S $ S Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease S $ S $ S Packet Pg. 192 7.1.b New Item for Council to Consider (December 2020) Budget Amendment for: Fourth Quarter Item Description: Purchase NPDES Pro Software to assist with tracking and reporting of several requirements related to NPDES municipal permit compliance. Inspection workloads to meet NPDES requirements continue to increase without increases in staffing; staff propose this software purchase to help manage increasing workloads. The proposed budget amendment covers the cost of the initial set up fee and a 3-year license to the software and will be entirely grant -funded by the Stormwater Capacity Grant funds form Ecology which required no City -match and are intended specifically for increasing efficiencies in meeting permit requirements. Department: Public Works Fund Name: 422 STORM Division: Engineering Title: NPDESPro Software Purchase Preparer: Zachary Richardson (Stormwater Engineer) Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? lReimbursed by Grants or Outside Agencies What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 Miscellaneous Engineering $ 23,000 $ $ $ $ Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 23,000 $ $ $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 422.000.334.03.102.40 Ecology Capacity Grant $ 23,000 $ $ $ $ Total Revenue Increase Decrease $ 23,000 $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 S $ S $ S Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease S $ S $ S Packet Pg. 193 7.1.b New Item for Council to Consider (December 2020) Budget Amendment for: Fourth Quarter Item Description: Unit 525-POL a 2019 Ford Explorer police patrol vehicle was totaled in May 2020, WCIA paid us $53,139.48 to replace it. The money was deposited into the vehicle replacement revenue fund, and this adjustment creates the spending authority so we can purchase its replacement. Department: Public Works Fund Name: 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL Division: Fleet Title: Police Vehicle Replacement Preparer: Mike Adams Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 100% Self Funded What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Capital Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Equipment $ 53,139 $ $ $ $ Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) 53,139 $ $ $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 511.100.372.00.000.00 Insurance proceeds 53,139 $ $ $ $ Total Revenue Increase Decrease $ 53,139 $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 S $ S $ S Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease S $ S $ S Packet Pg. 194 7.1.b New Item for Council to Consider (December 2020) Budget Amendment for: Fourth Quarter Item Description: To increase spending authority for the Firemen's Pension Fund. Through November, $75,665 has been expended from this fund, which has a budget of $78,700. This decision package is to add budget authority to make sure we remain under budget at year-end. Department: Finance Division: Fund 617 FIREMEN'S Title: Fund 617 Additional Spending Authority Name: PENSION Preparer: Dave Turley Budget Amendment Type INew Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 1 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 617.000.51.517.20.29.00 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 10,000 $ $ $ $ Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 10.000 $ $ $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 S $ $ $ $ Total Revenue Increase Decrease S $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 617.000.51.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,000) $ S $ S Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease $ 10,000) $ S $ $ Packet Pg. 195 7.1.b New Item for Council to Consider (December 2020) Budget Amendment for: Fourth Quarter Item Description: This decision package is a request to increase the budget for salaries and benefits in the Police Department. This increase is necessary due to increased costs related to the COVID-19 response, as well as increased labor costs that resulted from the EPOA Commissioned Officers contract that was settled in July. Department: Police Department Fund Name: 001 GENERAL Division: Title: Increase to budget for Salaries/Benefits Preparer: Caroline Thompson Budget Amendment Type INew Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 1 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 001.000.41.521.22.11.00 Police - Patrol Salaries $ 57,268 $ $ $ $ 001.000.41.521.22.23.00 Police - Patrol Benefits 7,965 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) $ 65,233 $ $ $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 S $ $ $ $ Total Revenue Increase Decrease S $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 65,233 $ S $ S Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease $ 65,233 $ S Packet Pg. 196 7.1.b New Item for Council to Consider (December 2020) Budget Amendment for: Fourth Quarter Item Description: This decision package is to adjust the budget for the Edmonds CARES Fund -142. Snohomish County allocated CARES funds to the City of Edmonds to use towards business grants, and this adjustment is to cover the additional grants the city intends to provide to local businesses no later than 12/18/2020. Department: Division: Fund 142 EDMONDS CARES Title: Name: FUND Preparer: Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? Reimbursed by Grants or Outside Agencies What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 CARES RELIEF FUNDS S 300,000 $ $ $ $ Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 300,000 S $ $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 142.000.333.21.019.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND $ 300,000 $ $ $ $ Total Revenue Increase (Decrease) $ 300,000 $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 S $ S $ S Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease S $ S $ $ Packet Pg. 197 Previously Discussed by Council (December 2020) Budget Amendment for: Fourth Quarter Item Description: To move the CARES Funds as allocated with Ordinance 4196 to the associated Funds where reimburseable expenditures were made. *Please note that Account 001.000.39.525.40.49.00 Miscellaneous (an inactive account) was subsequently corrected to Account 001.000.39.565.10.41.00 Community Relief Funds for a new budget total of $81,017. Net effect to the General Fund is zero. Department: Citywide Fund Name: MULTIPLE FUNDS Division: Title: COVID-19 Response Preparer: Dave Turley Budget Amendment Type reviously Discussed By Council Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? Oct 6 2020 How is this amendment funded? Reimbursed by Grants or Outside Agencies What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operatin Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 SUPPLIES $ 47,514 $ $ $ $ 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 RENTAL/LEASE 12,666 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 SUPPLIES 10,987 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 UNIFORMS 10,823 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 PROFESSIONAL SVC 6,403 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 SUPPLIES 5,028 001.000.23.512.50.35.10 SMALL EQUIPMENT -JUDICIAL 3,144 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,126 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 SUPPLIES 2,510 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,211 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 SUPPLIES 2,090 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,303 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,138 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 COMMUNICATIONS 965 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 REPAIRIMAINT 956 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 MISCELLANEOUS 827 001.000.66.518.30.35.00 MINOR EQUIPMENT 818 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 COMMUNICATIONS 811 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 UNIFORMS 416 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 624 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 SUPPLIES 4,772 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 SUPPLIES 1,958 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 SUPPLIES 7,698 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 SUPPLIES 4,772 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 PROFESSIONAL SVC 3,160 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,369 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 COMMUNICATIONS 886 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 SUPPLIES 2,128 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 SMALL EQUIPMENT 30,760 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 14,007 512.000.31.518.88.35.00 SMALL EQUIPMENT 11,095 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 SUPPLIES 6,394 001.000.39.565.10.41.00 COMMUNITY RELIEF FUNDS 81,017 001.000.64.571.30.11.00 SALARIES 44,282 001.000.39.517.78.11.00 SALARIES 8,992 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 CARES RELIEF FUNDS 337,650 Total Expenditure Increase(Decrease) $ $ $ $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 001.000.333.21.019.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND $ 247,611 111.000.333.21.019.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 416 117.100.333.21.019.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 624 142.000.333.21.019.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 337,650 421.000.333.21.019.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 4,772 422.000.333.21.019.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 1,958 423.000.333.21.019.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 17,885 511.000.333.21.0.9.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 2,128 512.000.333.21.019.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 31,496 512.100.333.21.0.9.00 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 30,760 Total Revenue Increase(Decrease) $ - $ $ $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease Account Number Description 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 $ $ $ $ Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease $ $ $ $ $ Packet Pg. 198 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 2021 Legislative Agenda Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Community Services Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History The attached Final Draft of the 2021 Edmonds Legislative Agenda has been compiled over the last couple of months with direct input from Mayor Nelson, our Olympia lobbyist, Debora Munguia, Directors of every City Department, and those Councilmembers who have already shared their issues or suggestions about agenda items. The agenda was also informed by the legislative agendas of AWC, the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County, Snohomish County Health District, WRIA8, WRPA, and Snohomish County Cities. Staff Recommendation Approve the 2021 Edmonds Legislative Agenda. Narrative The attached Final Draft of the 2021 Edmonds Legislative Agenda contains all the proposed additions and/or edits offered by City Councilmembers. Attachments: Draft 2021 legislative agenda Packet Pg. 199 7.2.a °C. 199v 1L 9 Oki l i Lei D 1"1 12 1 CITY OF EDMONDS 2021 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA REQUESTS Highway 99 Community Renewal Plan — Transportation Improvements Request: Move $6.5 million currently earmarked for now -defunct Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector project to the Edmonds Highway 99 transportation improvement program. The City of Edmonds places a high priority on both safety and social and environmental justice throughout our community. The Highway 99 Corridor and its surrounding neighborhoods have historically been under -served, with lower levels of parks and public spaces, community gathering facilities, and safe, multimodal transportation improvements. In furtherance of the City Council -adopted Highway 99 Corridor Subarea Plan, the City of Edmonds is initiating a Community Renewal Plan in 2021 within the Corridor to kickstart desired redevelopment and community -building along this roughly two-mile linear neighborhood in order to address inequities that have left this lower -income, multi -ethnic Corridor with fewer amenities and quality of life factors most of Edmonds has enjoyed: parks/trails, community gathering spaces, local jobs, a range of housing options — in sum, a sense of community. In tandem with this Community Renewal Plan, the City will pursue multiphase transportation improvements along the Corridor, costing upwards of $184 million, including accompanying utility improvements. This significant public investment will also promote private investment along the R C a CU Mn J N O N Packet Pg. 200 7.2.a 2021 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 2 of 8 corridor, and bring needed jobs, affordable housing and services to an underserved community of Edmonds. The first phase of these improvements is a landscaped, raised center median along the entire length of the Corridor. This will greatly enhance vehicle and pedestrian safety and the aesthetic environment. This improvement is possible due to the $10 million approved in the Connecting Washington package and is underway. Continuing the momentum started by the center median project, the next phase is to focus continued transportation improvements in our Highway 99 Community Renewal Area. This project consists of intersection and pedestrian safety improvements in the stretch from the southern city limits at 244t" Street SW to 234t" Street SW. These improvements include: • Capacity improvements at 238t" St SW intersection a� • Sidewalk widening for safer pedestrian travel and access to transit along the entire length Q a� • Street lighting enhancements for safer pedestrian travel and to deter crime along the entire length T a� as • ADA compliant curb ramps throughout J r N O • Utility (water, stormwater, sewer) upgrades throughout These improvements will improve traffic flow, enhance pedestrian safety and encourage transit usage They will also enhance the environment for investment and redevelopment, thereby bringing needed affordable housing, jobs, commercial goods and services to an under -served neighborhood, and help reduce crime. The requested $6.5 million will fund 90% design, right-of-way acquisition and project management. Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Project Request: Earmark up to $8.175 million to facilitate transfer of the former UNOCAL site from WSDOT to the appropriate state agency during the 2021-23 biennium to allow completion of this important marsh restoration project. One of Edmonds' highest priorities is restoration of the Edmonds Marsh — one of the few remaining tidal wetlands in the Central Puget Sound nearshore environment within an urbanized setting. This marsh restoration project will accomplish three important goals: • Key nearshore habitat rearing juvenile salmon • Helping boost salmon populations as food source for Puget Sound resident orca • Enhancing urban wildlife habitat and nearshore water quality in Puget Sound Packet Pg. 201 7.2.a 2021 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 3 of 8 The path of the planned daylighting of Willow Creek, to allow free flow between the Marsh and Puget Sound, will run across the former UNOCAL site, abutting the Marsh's southern border. The site should be transferred to the appropriate state agency, such as DNR, WDFW or other agency. A transfer from WSDOT requires reimbursement of the Motor Vehicle Fund, from which the original funds were sourced for purchase of the site, requiring the requested funds. PRIORITIES Invest in Housing Stability and Affordability c The city of Edmonds supports equity and racial justice in providing housing stability and Q affordability. The city established the Edmonds Housing Commission and we support additional state resources to provide affordable housing, housing stability, shelter and services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and associated services, especially in light M, of the tremendous economic and housing -related impacts of COVID-19, including: _J r N • Increased funding for the Housing Trust Fund N • Greater flexibility for cities to provide housing for low-income households • Providing rental assistance to support tenants and landlords, and services to prevent foreclosures to homeowners. Gun Violence Reduction Support efforts for legislation addressing the reduction of gun violence, especially related to semiautomatic weapons and use of high -capacity magazines. Law Enforcement — Suspended Driver License, Third Degree Support legislation that decriminalizes the sole offense of Driving While License Suspended in the Third Degree. This should not apply to cases where a driver has prior convictions or concurrent traffic -related offenses. Puget Sound Health and Salmon/Orca Recovery Support WRIA 8, together with other organizations and municipalities in pursuing the following measures and funding from the Legislature: Top Capital Budget Priorities: • Support funding for Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration in RCO budget • Support funding for state salmon recovery funding, Salmon Recovery Funding Board, RCO Packet Pg. 202 7.2.a 2021 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 4 of 8 • Support funding for Floodplains by Design in Ecology budget • Support funding for Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program in RCO budget Top Operating Budget Priorities: • Support funding for salmon recovery Lead Entities in RCO budget • Support state agency budget requests for monitoring salmon populations Legislative Priorities: • Support legislation seeking to improve regulatory protections for salmon habitat areas. c • Support legislation that seeks to provide immunity from liability for entities that Q implement habitat restoration projects involving the placement of large wood. • Participate in continued efforts to explore watershed -based and/or regional funding u authorities to support multiple -benefit projects that address salmon habitat protection J and restoration, water quality, stormwater management, and flood management. N 0 N • Support legislation addressing effects of climate change on salmon habitat M Parks, Recreation and Conservation Support Washington Recreation & Park Association's (WRPA) legislative priorities to include • Protect funding for dedicated accounts within the Capital Budget urging lawmakers to keep top -of -mind that the outdoor recreation sector generates nearly $22 billion a year in economic activity for the state, as well as 200,000+ jobs. • Provide local parks and recreation agencies with new funding options to address vital M&O and preservation needs and to enhance economic development including a 2020 bill that will allow parks and recreation agencies to take a 0.1% sales tax increase to voters and bond against new sales tax proceed upon voter approval. • Strongly support $50,000 allocation to update outdoor recreation sector economic analysis • Urge lawmakers to refrain from diverting funding from dedicated accounts that are focused on funding outdoor recreation including the Washington Wildlife & Recreation Program (WWRP), Youth Athletic Facilities (YAF), and Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA) and No Child Left Inside (NCLI). Packet Pg. 203 7.2.a 2021 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 5 of 8 • Advocate for key Healthy & Active Communities funding including Healthiest Next Generation, Bicycle and Pedestrian, Safe Routes to Schools, and Complete Streets funding. Creative Districts Support efforts to continue to provide capital funding to capital projects in certified Creative Districts, as well as sufficient operating funding to ARTSWA to administer the Creative District program. Bolster Resources for Infrastructure Investment Support efforts to establish dedicated funding mechanisms for critical public works (vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian transportation, utilities, stormwater, parks, etc.) infrastructure programs Q a� that help cities grow and prosper. In particular, we support the following AWC priorities: • Adopt a comprehensive transportation package that provides new resources and options for municipal transportation investment; r N O • Authorize new ways to leverage public and private funding for major projects. N • Fully fund the Public Works Trust Fund Continue investment in the Public Works Assistance Account (PWAA), the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB), and the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Local and State Public Health Funding & Programming • COVID-19. Support federal and state efforts to fund a sustained coronavirus response including community testing, contact tracing, epidemiology, vaccine distribution, and communications; a rigorous evaluation and compliance of phase 3 trials prior to approving a COVID-19 vaccine; and the authorization of emergency medical service providers to augment local health's coronavirus response. • Foundational Public Health Services. Increase funding to fully implement the set of public health capabilities that were adopted in HB 1497 (2019), as well as public health infrastructure investments at the federal level. • Adult Mortality Review. Support the development, implementation and funding of an adult death review and prevention system through creation of adult mortality review teams. Vapor Products. Support state and federal bans on the sale of flavored vapor products, increased funding for vape education and outreach, increased Packet Pg. 204 7.2.a 2021 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 6 of 8 oversight on the manufacturing and sales of vapor products, and additional research on the health impacts of vaping and vapor products. Suicide as a Notifiable Condition. Supports legislation adding suicide as a notifiable condition to WAC 246-101 in order to track suicides in real time, rather than waiting 12-18 months for data to emerge from the death certificate -based mortality surveillance system. • Quarantine or Isolation Employment Protection. Support legislation providing protections from income or job loss due to quarantine/isolation of impacted individuals and caregivers. • Housing and Health. Support legislation improving the stability, safety, quality, and affordability of housing as a means to achieving improved population health outcomes. Economic Development Tools c as Support efforts and proposals from Economic Alliance of Snohomish County, AWC, and other Q State economic development agencies to broaden the array of tools and incentives available to > encourage and support sustainable economic development and investment, particularly in under -developed urban areas, to provide jobs, housing and meet GMA goals for sustainable development. J r N O • We support AWC's proposal to create a tax increment financing (TIF) facsimile option for cities. • We support continued investment in the Department of Commerce's economic development functions, especially focused on international trade and sector -lead programs. Public Defense Costs Continue to support efforts to provide a state revenue stream for additional city public defense costs as a result of the State Supreme Court's mandated caseload rule for public defenders. Land Use Law Review (Growth Management Act. SEPA. annexation laws. et. al. In 2019, the "Road Map to Washington's Future" report was provided to the Legislature. It identifies opportunities at a high level for improving/consolidating/streamlining the myriad of state land use laws, including GMA, SEPA, annexation, water rights, and others. We need to follow closely and participate in discussions related to the Road Map report and to other potential legislation related to land use or environmental issues, especially to safeguard our interests of encouraging appropriate development in urbanized areas and along transit corridors, while protecting agricultural, rural and open space lands. We support efforts by the Legislature to exempt residential projects within cities from administrative or judicial appeals under SEPA and the GMA to help increase residential building capacity. Packet Pg. 205 7.2.a 2021 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 7 of 8 Environmental and Climate -Related Issues Monitor and support potential environmental -protection measures, including those that would enhance the Puget Sound ecosystem, including the impacts of coal and oil trains, drought management, toxics control and clean-up, as well as measures associated with climate change, crumb rubber athletic field infill, remediation of culverts under state highways, banning plastic bags, etc. Fire Alarm Testin Support efforts to direct the State Building Code Council to amend WAC 51-50-0907. This rule was modified by Legislative action in 2018 to stipulate that required annual fire alarm testing can only be performed by NICET II -certified technicians. This, in effect, disqualifies licensed City electricians from being able to conduct these tests unless they are, or have in the past, worked full-time in the fire alarm industry. This rule needs to be amended to allow Q a� municipalities that have employees with State electrical 01 or 07 licenses to be able to conduct '— fire alarm testing and fire alarm maintenance in municipal buildings and facilities. This would N 0) save local taxpayers money; this requirement currently costs a city the size of Edmonds � approximately $60,000 annually. This exemption would only apply to fire alarm testing. Repairs 0 or replacements to the employer's systems would still require a full NICET II — certified technician. a Specific amendment: Amend WAC 51-50-0907 to allow fire alarm testing by local governments of their facilities by staff who satisfy the following criteria: 1) A fully licensed staff electrician available to lead this work 2) A previous history of doing in-house testing of fire alarms 3) A written Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for conducting testing 4) An on -call contract with a full -service fire alarm or security system contractor who is approved to do repairs, other maintenance, and replacements of fire alarm systems Fiscal Impacts of Legislation and Rulemaking Follow the lead of AWC and municipalities in sending a clear message to the Legislature to consider the fiscal impacts of legislation and rulemaking on local municipalities, including a check on "unfunded mandates" and "do no harm" analysis of proposed new rules or legislation. Likewise, fiscal notes accompanying legislation should include both the financial costs and benefits (currently only costs are analyzed). Fiscal Sustainabilitv for Local Governments Continue to support efforts to ensure sufficient, stable and flexible revenue for essential city services, including equitable distribution from shared revenue sources, such as liquor and Packet Pg. 206 7.2.a 2021 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 8 of 8 marijuana taxes, as well as tying property tax revenue growth to inflation and population to allow municipalities the local option of continuing to provide core governmental services. Follow/Support Other Cities', Agencies', Partners' Agendas Monitor and provide support to our partner cities, agencies and other entities in their top agenda items, where they align with our interests. Packet Pg. 207 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Adoption of the 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Program/Capital Improvement Plan Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Rob English 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. On December 8, 2020, The City Council continued discussion on the 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. Packet Pg. 208 7.3 The CFP and CIP were presented to the Planning Board on October 14th and a public hearing was held on October 28th. Due to a publication error, the public hearing for the October 28th Planning Board meeting was not properly noticed. A second public hearing at the Planning Board meeting was held on November 12th. The minutes (draft for November 12th) from the Planning Board meetings are attached 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 6: 11/12/20 Draft Planning Board Minutes Exhibit 7 - SOM Letter to Council CFP-CIP Exhibit 8 - SOM Letter to Planning Board Exhibit 4: 10/14/20 Planning Board Minutes December 1st CFP-CIP Presentation CFP Ordinance Exhibit 5: 10/28/20 Planning Board Minutes Nov 12th CFP-CIP Intro Presentation Packet Pg. 209 7.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2021-2041 � 0F EDP O G �n f DRAFT 1 1 Packet Pg. 210 7.3.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. 211 7.3.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. 212 7.3.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. 213 7.a.a k\k\ c§ Cli \��( �\ � _ - o §}�\)2 S ° �2 ) a§ \�\2 " " " " " \/) )) \ �oco 3o a \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. 214 7.3.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. 215 7.3.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 FL c� a U_ c� m N O N N O N O t a+ O a O a O a a LL t� cc N O N IL O N O O a O L a T x w c as U 4N a Packet Pg. 216 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. 217 7.3.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. 218 7.3.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. 219 I 1 INS- 'i'- I i3w AMOW *Von- !� !' 3 Or r.—moo I 7.3.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. 221 7.3.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. 222 7.3.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. 223 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. 224 7.a.a 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. 225 7.3.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. 226 7.3.a PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $184,000,000 Gateway/Revitalization a U d U- 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. 227 7.3.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,885,000 intersection improvements 21 g sw:T I i w W Paalung sign ShaP / ? M1° 7313 P.u.6 90-1- 3 Edmonds Edmonds / W Family Clinic ei Publis Works ADX KENNEL 21 1 27114 / Q 2ll1e1 27109B n o/ / - 212TH sr sw Z2 St M.- 7307,.5�• CLIPIC a �' 7303"3' ^ n M Pbnl 7344 "1" 7302 "2" PARK & RIDE 215TH N ST 5W � o: 0 a PLANT yy SWEDISH AEGIS ALLIED / ROOFING / / / B&M / CON ST 21414 / 21448 / / NCnONAL�' 9( %ALUE / PILLAGE / 16TH STISW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300' storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #4). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding).The project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is within Lynnwood. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering, $178,000 $1,121,000 ROW, & Administration Construction $1,586,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $178,00 $1,121,000 $1,586,000 a- U- U co N O N N O N d t O i 0 CL O Q a LIL 1D N O N N O N d W 0 a 0 L. a r x w c a� E r Q 19 1 Packet Pg. 228 7.3.a PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,442,000 intersection improvements 21d10 w 13� 21d01 1d08 21405 04 LU I2{ U > 2120L< MCDC2i431 un nz 150 215AEGIS #2 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. 229 7.3.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. 230 7.3.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. 231 7.3.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 1eeTM sr sw PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196t" St. SW @ 88t" Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right -turn -only (prohibiting left -turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196t" St. SW. SCHEDULE: All project phases are scheduled between 2024 and 2026 (unsecured funding). In order to allow the installation of a traffic signal, the MUTCD traffic signal warrants must be met and the installation must be approved by WSDOT (since 196t" St. SW is a State Route / SR-524). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning/Study Engineering & $200,000 $180,000 Administration Construction $550,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $180,000 $550,000 23 Packet Pg. 232 7.3.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. 233 7.3.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. 234 7.3.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. 235 7.3.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. 236 7.3.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. 237 7.3.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. 238 7.3.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. 239 7.3.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. 240 7.3.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. 241 7.3.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. 242 7.3.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. 243 7.3.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. 244 7.3.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. 245 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. 246 7.3.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. 247 7.3.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. 248 PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. from 6t" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $216,000 to 7t" Ave. S 714 I � 120Fm In alON@ l#� ALDER 5T 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. 249 7.3.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 EVENS 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. 250 7.3.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. 251 7.3.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. 252 7.3.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. 253 7.3.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. 254 7.3.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. 255 7.3.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. 256 7.3.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. 257 7.3.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. 258 7.3.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. 259 7.3.a PROJECT NAME: 104th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,019,000 from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2027-2041 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027-2041 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $155,000 Construction $864,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,019,000 51 Packet Pg. 260 7.3.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. 261 7.3.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. 262 7.3.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. 263 7.3.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. 264 7.3.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. 265 7.3.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. 266 7.3.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. 267 7.3.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. 268 7.3.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. 269 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 7.3.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. 270 7.3.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. 271 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. 272 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. 273 7.3.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. 274 7.3.b CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2021-2026 EDP z DRAFT Packet Pg. 275 7.3.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. 276 7.3.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. 277 7.3.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. 278 7.3.b Cip GENERAL d U- U c0 N O N r N O N d t r 4- 0 C O Q O Q IL_ U N O N r N O N d N O 0. O L. IL N r L x W C d E L v R Q Packet Pg. 279 7.3.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. 280 7.3.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. 281 7.3.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. 282 7.3.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. 283 7.3.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. 284 7.3.b 44 11 Packet Pg. 285 7.3.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 wc»a m m E a v L mo 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. 286 7.3.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. 287 7.3.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. 288 7.3.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 O 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. 289 7.3.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. 290 7.3.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 LO I- 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 E o ¢c¢¢¢¢¢¢¢o>N 06>0)0) ¢ 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 1 Packet Pg. 7.3.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 2 7.a.b \ 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 c,4 ) _ ( 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. 293 7.3.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. 294 7.3.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. 295 7.3.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. 296 7.3.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. 297 7.3.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. 298 7.3.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 125 - CAPITAL PROJECTS (,-,-:EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 25 1 Packet Pg. 299 7.3.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. 300 7.3.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. 301 7.3.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. 302 7.3.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. 303 7.3.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. 304 7.3.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. 305 7.3.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. 306 7.3.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. 307 7.3.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. 308 7.3.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 126 - SPECIAL CAPITAL / PARKS ACQUISITION EDMONDS PAR!(S, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES 35 1 Packet Pg. 309 7.3.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. 310 7.3.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. 311 7.3.b PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield I ESTIMATED COST: $12,057,528 310 611 Ave. N, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits. 8 acres; zoned Playgrounds & Athletic Areas PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding; $3.7M in bonds and $5.1 M in carryforward funds from previous years. This signature project is slated to go to bid in early 2021 with ground breaking scheduled for second quarter of 2021. This project is expected to take 16 months to complete (8 months in 2021 and 8 months in 2022). Remaining annual expenditures are estimated at $6.03M in 2021 and $6.03M in 2022. Three funds are utilized: Fund 125, Fund 126 and Fund 332. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This is a multi -year design, land acquisition, fund development and construction project that is a very high priority in the PROS plan. With $3.47M in grant funding to support the effort. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. The design is complete, permits are approved and the project is ready to enter the construction phase. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Planning and Design Engineering Construction $71,816 1 % Art TOTAL $71,816 38 1 Packet Pg. 312 7.3.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. 313 7.3.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. 314 7.3.b CIP PARKS PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FUND 332 - PARKS CONSTRUCTION EDMONDSPARKS, RECREATION &CULTURAL SERVICES 41 1 Packet Pg. 315 7.3.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. 316 7.3.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. 317 7.3.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. 318 7.3.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. 319 7.3.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. 320 7.3.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. 321 7.3.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. 322 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2020 TO 2021) 7.3.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. 323 7.3.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. 324 7.3.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. 325 7.3.d 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. 326 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. 327 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. 328 7.3.d 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. 329 7.3.d 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. 330 7.3.d • 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. 331 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. 332 • 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. 333 7.3.d 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. 334 7.3.d 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. 335 7.3.d 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. 336 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. 337 7.3.e 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. 338 7.3.e Our specific comments on the CFP/CIP are as follows. The 2021-2026 CFP for Marsh Restoration on page 63 needs to be revised. As mentioned above, the daylighted channel CANNOT proceed in the near term and there is no reason to include it in the CFP until the Unocal property issue is resolved. We don't know how much a property purchase might add to the project cost, nor what an ecological restoration approach (rather than "stormwater" approach) may cost. At this point in time, the restoration costs should be noted as TBD (to be determined) as it is in the CIP. Further, it is inappropriate to use Fund 422 (stormwater) for the invalid $17M estimate in the CFP since most of the Marsh Restoration costs will be for estuary restoration, NOT stormwater. Within the 2021-2026 CFP for Marsh Restoration are three 2021 Budget Decision Packages; DP #56, DP #61, and DP #62. We do not support the $80K for DP #56 for another channel design because the City can't know where the tidal channel might be placed until the property issue is resolved. We cannot comment on the $40K for DP #61 because we cannot tell by the description if/how it will improve water quality in the Marsh — it is titled Phase 1 of something that has not been presented to the public. We recommend that the $450K carryover in DP #63 NOT be funded, but instead transfer the $450K to the Marsh Restoration Fund (Fund 017) so that it can be used for future grant matching costs. Instead of $80K for DP #56, we suggest the Council use a portion of those funds to cover the City's Planning Department's costs for fixing the Comprehensive Plan in 2021 (as described above) and initiating the Master Plan development process. The table on page 18 of the CIP needs to be revised to delete the Fund 422 costs for everything except the "true" stormwater activities (i.e., storm -drain water quality). If the City is intent on spending stormwater funds for the Marsh, it should be for actual stormwater projects that benefit water quality and circulation in the Marsh such as retro-fitting the Harbor Square stormwater system so that it drains to Dayton Street (rather than into the Marsh), and infiltrating the polluted stormwater in street storm drains. The City should also work with WSDOT to remove the passage -blocking fences in the Marsh on each side of Highway 104. During the interim period of resolving use of the Unocal property, we recommend the CIP `Parks' Plan include 1) vegetation enhancement in the deteriorating portions of the Edmonds Marsh; 2) extending the boardwalk along the western edge of the Marsh to enhance wildlife viewing with concurrent planting of trees and vegetation between the extended boardwalk and the RR tracks; and 3) bringing in an experienced wetland geomorphologist to assess how the years of sediment buildup and altered circulation (due to tidegate closings in winter) can be resolved to restore ecological functions in the Marsh. cc: Mayor Mike Nelson Packet Pg. 339 7.3.f 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. 340 7.3.f 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. 341 7.3.g 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. 342 7.3.g 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. 343 7.3.g 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. 344 7.3.g • 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. 345 7.3.g 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. 346 7.3.g 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. 347 7.3.g 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. 348 7.3.g 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. 349 • 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. 350 7.3.g 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. 351 7.3.g 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. 352 City Council — December 1, 2020 7.3.h 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. 354 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 7.3.h 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. 356 Public Works & Utilities 5 7.3.h 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. 358 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 7.3.h 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. 360 112 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. 364 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 7.3.h 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. 366 7.3.h 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. 367 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 7.3.h 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. 375 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 7.3.h • C :TMO VI I i 0 Icive : Packet Pg. 379 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 7.3.h 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. 385 7.3.i 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. 386 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: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON -2- Packet Pg. 387 7.3.i 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. 388 7.3.j 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. 389 7.3.j 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. 390 7.3.j 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. 391 7.3.j 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. 392 7.3.j 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. 393 7.3.j 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. 394 7.3.j 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. 395 7.3.j 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. 396 7.3.j 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. 397 7.3.j 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. 398 7.3.j 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. 399 7.3.j 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. 400 7.3.j 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. 401 7.3.j 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. 402 7.3.j 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. 403 7.3.j 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. 404 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 7.3.k 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. 407 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 din _ 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 7.3.k City of Edmonds ftAnk STORM AND SURFACE WATER MANAC'EMENT COMPREHENSM PLAN City of Edmonds C"vv of Edrnands Pu61iu W:nl:x ��pgaomnl'Fnyi�nreri:� ilive�im r\grmvM hr Ciry [nwciJ m luty 6, 2tl10 roComprehensive Water System Plan �� October 2017 oduha�200 murraysrrrRh I august 2013 CO-. SL•7 68, Packet Pg. 412 7.3.k 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. 413 ,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 7.3.k 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. 415 7.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Emergency Ordinancs to allow Streateries in ROW & Outdoor Dining without CU permit Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Debbie Rothfus Background/History Sidewalk cafes (aka "bistro dining") are allowed by the City Code under certain conditions and they have been popular. Last winter when the coronavirus first struck, restaurants -for both inside and outside dining -were generally shut down. Takeout service was the only option for most. Later, eating establishments that already had outdoor patios were allowed to use them in a manner consistent with the Governor's order. Still, business viability and the feeling of a lively pedestrian area were much reduced, given the limited existing options for outdoor dining. When the Governor's orders allowed, Mayor Nelson authorized a special event permit (since extended through the end of the year or when the Council adopts streateries regulations, whichever comes first)) so that commercial dining and beverage services could occur in designated vehicle parking spaces within the public right of way. While some people objected to losing parking spaces, many people seemed to like the new outdoor opportunity, which felt both safer and more pedestrian -oriented. Staff has also learned that recently the Edmonds Downtown Association did a survey of its members and received 70 responses, which showed that 83.9% supported continuing curbside dining. A slightly different variation of this situation has occurred for food and beverage business owners that have potential on -site space (i.e., outside of the right-of-way) not already been permitted for outdoor dining but who don't want to go through all of the current code restrictions, including a conditional use permit process, to be approved for on -site outdoor dining. Again, outdoor dining is appealing to many customers, in part to allow a fresh air experience that reduces COVID concerns. Staff prepared code concepts to address the two situations. The concepts were reviewed at the City Council's November 12 PSPP committee meeting. The concepts then went to the full Council at a meeting on November 24. (See attached Council minutes.) Staff Recommendation Approve the Emergency Ordinance to Allow Permitted Streateries. Approve the Emergency Interim Ordinance for On -Site Outdoor Dining. Narrative The coronavirsus pandemic has had significant health impacts. In addition, it has significantly impacted small businesses. One of the biggest economic impacts locally is on restaurants and similar businesses. This is partly because the Governor --in working to stop the spread of the virus --has ordered eating and Packet Pg. 416 7.4 drinking establishments to have no inside dining. It's also because many people would prefer not to eat indoors where virus transmission risk is greater. Two code updates are proposed to make outdoor dining more feasible. Both are presented as emergency ordinances that can take effect immediately -- but would still need later approval from the City Council to continue. The first update would temporarily allow "streateries" (the term for commercial dining spaces that are in the right-of-way, typically using a vehicle parking space). The streateries would have to comply with safety regulations and other standards. Each streatery would need to obtain its own permit. The total number of streateries would be limited to 20. The streateries would have to be ADA-accessible, which generally means they would be located on platforms flush with the sidewalk. A number of other cities are already providing for this option. An emergency ordinance has been prepared for to implement this update. (See the attached draft Streateries Ordinance.) It would be in effect for one year unless the City Council takes action otherwise. The second code update would allow on -site outdoor dining spaces (i.e., on commercial property, not in the public right-of-way) without a conditional use permit, so long as certain standard (including safety for any canopies) are met. Currently, outdoor dining is allowed only with a conditional use permit, which must go through a hearing examiner process that is more costly and takes much longer than an administrative permit. The On -Site Outdoor Dining Ordinance, which amends Chapters 17.70 and 17.75 ECD, would be an interim ordinance, in effect no more than 180 days. (See the attached draft On -Site Outdoor Dining Ordinance.) In the interim period, it would be reviewed by the Planning Board and the Planning Board could recommend a revised set of code amendments for longer -term City Council consideration. Adopting both code updates in an expedited manner this year is important because the public is looking for more outdoor dining options (especially since the Special Event permit is ending) and local businesses want to serve customers as soon as possible. We do not see this need lessening in the very near future, in part because the pandemic threat is likely to lurk for quite a while. Both ordinances are subject to having a public hearing and further consideration by the City Council within the time required under state law. A presentation will be made at the December 15 City Council meeting. (See attachment.) Attachments: 11.24 CC Minutes-Streateries Streateries Ordinance - final Outdoor Dining Ordinance -Final Streateries On -Site Dining Presentation Packet Pg. 417 7.4.a Council can make a motion at any time to take action. He relayed Councilmember K. Johnson's point was nottaken. 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: COVID 19 has changed the way we live c d E z Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes M, November 24, 2020 Q Page 12 Packet Pg. 418 7.4.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 E 1. Streateries (parklets allowing diningibeverage service in designated vehicle parking spaces a within ROW) c o Applicable citywide, adjacent to commercial uses where street parking spaces are .2 available 0 o Subject to individual permits for up to one year with 6-months extensions possible y o Dining on raised platforms, flush with sidewalk, to provide ADA accessibility c 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 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( a as o Must have reflective lights for night-time w 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, °r not in ROW) d 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 U o May include canopy or awning U o Ensure safety standards (e.g., for heaters) are met N o Must have ADA access o Must meet building setback standards Next Steps E z Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 24, 2020 Q Page 13 Packet Pg. 419 7.4.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 d 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. m L Councilmember L. Johnson anticipated there would be increased need for parking for restaurant takeout Cn 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 E a per business limit. Ms. Hope answered the recommendation has not yet been finalized but the thinking a) was that one single business would not need both. Scattered parking would remain for pickup/takeout for L restaurants and other stores. She did not envision individual businesses with a streatery would have dedicated parking for pickup/takeout. a 0 r 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 r_ 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 O 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 w assured the proposal regarding gas heaters will be carefully considered by staff. 'L Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Ms. Hope for answering her questions. With regard to legalities, she M recalled interim ordinances were typically no longer than six months. She asked if this was technically L vacating the right-of-way to the restaurateur and if so, could that result in a lawsuit. She felt it was a great C? us 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 c 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 v is a pilot project proposed as an emergency ordinance that would sunset. The proposal for onsite dining is N an interim ordinance while a more permanent ordinance is worked out. Councilmember Buckshnis asked r if staff knew about any lawsuits. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he had not heard of any. c d E z M, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q November 24, 2020 Page 14 Packet Pg. 420 7.4.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 O 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. L d E Councilmember Olson asked if the ordinance could be crafted to sunset with state emergency order for w 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 M L between barriers because leaving one spot makes it awkward and difficult to park so it is not used. us 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 c 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 v a coupon in to -go orders or marketing neighboring businesses so they realize some benefit as well. N r 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 E z M, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Q November 24, 2020 Page 15 Packet Pg. 421 7.4.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 11 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 c d E z M Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 24, 2020 Q Page 16 Packet Pg. 422 7.4.b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECDC, ENTITLED "STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS," TO ALLOW "STREATERIES" FOR DINING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE WHREAS, COVID-19 has created significant impacts to people's health and well-being, which includes not only immediate physical health, but economic health; and WHEREAS, Washington's Governor has been proactive in trying to responsibly address coronavirus issues and some of his actions have included orders to close or partially close businesses where COVID-19 transmission has the most risk; and WHEREAS, in Edmonds, food and beverage services, such as restaurants, have been especially impacted by full and partial closures; and WHEREAS, COVID-related restrictions on restaurants and similar businesses have limited or prohibited indoor dining during much of the year; and WHEREAS, even without a state order, many people that want to eat at a restaurant would prefer to do so in an outdoor environment, rather than indoors; and WHEREAS, in August 2020, the City issued a special event permit to allow outdoor dining in designated vehicle parking spaces within the public right-of-way until October 11, 2020, and said permit was extended until November 8, 2020, and then again, until December 31, 2020 or the effective date of a Council -adopted ordinance for streateries, whichever comes sooner; and WHEREAS, City staff has worked to develop amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code that would allow outdoor dining in designated parking spaces in the public right-of-way (i.e., "streateries") through an individual permitting process and more specific standards; and 1 Packet Pg. 423 7.4.b WHEREAS, the concepts for amending the code to allow streateries were presented in a November 12, 2020 meeting of the City Council's Public Safety, Planning, and Personnel Committee and subsequently presented in a November 24, 2020 meeting of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the concepts for streateries have been incorporated into a set of amendments to Chapter 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code; and WHEREAS, a sunset clause on the effectiveness of these provisions has been included in the code amendments because these provisions are not currently intended to be permanent, but rather, are primarily intended to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Street Use and Encroachment Permits," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfo g ). Section 2. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the council (RCW 35A.12.130), and that the same is not subject to a referendum. Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, streateries would need to continue to operate under a special event permit, but that permit was supposed to expire on December 31, 2020. Any uncertainty in the ability of the city's restaurants to continue offering streatery-dining could further jeopardize an already struggling restaurant industry. Therefore, this ordinance should be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by staving off restaurant failures and creating program so that Edmonds citizens will have safer places to dine for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic. Packet Pg. 424 7.4.b Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 2, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. 3 APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON Packet Pg. 425 7.4.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECDC, ENTITLED "STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS," TO ALLOW "STREATERIES" FOR DINING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2020. 4840-7251-8158, v. 1 2 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 426 7.4.b Exhibit A Chapter 18.70 STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Sections: 18.70.000 Permits required. 18.70.010 Exemptions. 18.70.020 Applications. 18.70.030 Review. 18.70.040 Revocation. 18.70.050 Fees. 18.70.000 Permits required. No person shall use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit from the development services director or city engineer. A. Encroachment Permit. An encroachment permit is required to encroach upon any portion of city public space, right-of-way or easement area with permanent structures. "To encroach" means to construct, erect or maintain in, over or under any public place, right-of-way, easement, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk, including the airspace above them, any structures permanent in nature, including but not limited to building extension, marquee, fence, retaining wall, artwork, or any other building or structure. B. Street Use Permit. A street use permit is required to use any portion of public space or city right-of-way for objects which are temporary in nature. 1. To "use" means to place or maintain in, over or under any public place, right-of-way, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk, including the air space above them, any temporary or movable object. 2. "Temporary in nature," in reference to street use permits, means not having or requiring permanent attachment to the ground, or involving structures which have no required permanent attachment to the ground. 3. "Temporary object' for the purposes of this chapter refers to all objects placed in the right-of-way that are temporary in nature including but not limited to chairs, tables, planters, sandwich boards, benches, stanchions, platforms, rope, and fencing. None of the above definitions shall be interpreted to prohibit the parking of a properly licensed vehicle within the parking strip adjacent to their property line of sight, and street plantings, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 18.70.030.C.6. 18.70.020 Applications. Applications for street use or encroachment permits shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other applicable city code, the following information: A. Street Use Permit. 1. Architectural design board approval, when applicable. 2. Complete application requirements for Edmonds arts commission, when applicable. 3. Certificate of insurance. 4. Complete street use or streatery permit application. 5 Packet Pg. 427 7.4.b B. Encroachment Permit. 1. Critical areas determination, when applicable. 2. Complete application requirements for Edmonds arts commission, when applicable. 3. Architectural design board approval, when applicable. 4. Partial site plan, to be recorded with Snohomish County, clearly showing proposed encroachment, private property lines, all existing structures and driveways, easements and/or public property (developed or undeveloped). 5. Legal description, including copies of all recorded easements on the property. 6. Elevation view or side view of the proposed encroachment. 7. Ownership. Evidence showing the applicant to be the agent record owner of the property immediately adjoining the public place or right-of-way. An application to place artwork in the public right-of-way will be exempt from this requirement. 8. Certificate of insurance. 9. Complete encroachment permit application. 10. Complete encroachment agreement, to be recorded with Snohomish County. C. Such other information as the city engineer or designee of the development services director shall require. D. The encroachment agreement shall require prompt removal of the encroachment by the applicant at his/her/its expense upon reasonable demand by the city engineer and be legally adequate for recording in the land records of Snohomish County and the chain of title of the applicant's property. Such encroachment agreements may be executed as acknowledged on behalf of the city by the city engineer and recorded by the city clerk following approval as to form by the city attorney. 18.70.030 Review. A. Architectural Design Board. Any application for a permit to construct, erect or maintain an awning, marquee, sign or any structure in a public place, except as otherwise allowed in ECDC 18.70.030.C, may be referred by the development services director or his/her designee to the architectural design board. If referred to the board, the board shall review the plans and specifications as they relate to Chapter 20.10 ECDC. Applications for mobile street vending units shall be reviewed in accordance with ECC 4.12.055 by the architectural design board. B. Edmonds Arts Commission. Applications for an encroachment permit or a street use permit to install art in the public right-of-way shall be subject to the review and recommendation of the Edmonds arts commission. No art shall be permitted in the public right-of-way except as expressly permitted herein. Artwork that is reviewed under an encroachment permit shall be exempt of the requirements of ECDC 18.70.020(B)(5), (6), (7) and (10). 1. The terms "art" or "artwork" as used in this section shall refer only to a work of visual art existing in a single copy or in multiple copies of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author. 2. The terms "art" or artwork" do not include: 0 Packet Pg. 428 7.4.b a. Any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, database, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication; b. Any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container; c. Architectural details such as masonry, ironwork, or other building fixtures or materials; d. Any portion or part of any item described in subsection (A), (B) or (C) of this section; e. Any work not subject to copyright protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act, as codified under federal copyright law, U.S.C. Title 17, as the same exists or is hereafter amended. 3. An encroachment permit or street use permit requires determination of public benefit. The Edmonds arts commission (EAC) is mandated in Chapter 10.20 ECC to advise the city on matters pertaining to art. When the proposed encroachment or street use is art, EAC will review and make written recommendations to the community services director and city engineer for use and consideration in permit issuance. (See subsection (C) of this section.) 4. The public right-of-way is a traditional forum for public expression. By this permit program the city acknowledges that it is approving uses in a limited public forum. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to protect the safety of the public who use the right-of-way for pedestrian or vehicular traffic and to ensure that the city provides for accessibility for the disabled. No recommendation or denial shall be based upon the content or message expressed by an artist or in a work of art as long as there is no commercial content. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown area. 5. Specific submission requirements for EAC review include, but are not limited to: a. Site plan sketch showing locations of artwork; b. Minimum one -quarter -inch scale rendering of the art concept or art component, including at least one elevation showing the art in context or comparable photographs of actual artwork in context; c. Material/color samples; d. Model (optional); e. Written proposal: seven copies of a written proposal in eight and one-half by 11-inch format to include: i. A description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork for the proposed project; ii. Detailed maintenance requirements; iii. Schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; iv. Artists' resume/background; v. Evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee. For proposal to be reviewed at next scheduled EAC meeting, a complete submission of all requirements must be received a minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the meeting. 7 Packet Pg. 429 7.4.b Additional requirements may be requested based on staff input or information sought by EAC members. 6. Review Criteria. Art in public places may be art standing alone, modifiers or definers of space, functional, or used to establish identity. The use of art as an integral part of the structure and function of building is encouraged, e.g., the interpretation of light fixtures, benches, hardware, doors, surface finishes, walkways, gates, and other features with the artwork or as a part of the artwork, although only some of these elements would occur in the public right-of-way. The criteria for review of encroachment or street use review artwork submissions are as follows: a. Constructability of proposed artwork. No artwork shall impair disabled accessibility and barrier -free design requirements. b. Artist's credentials and recognition. c. Durability and craftsmanship in fabrication and production quality. Quality of the work is a high priority. d. Due consideration shall be given to the structural and surface soundness of artworks and to their permanence, including ability to withstand age, theft, vandalism, weathering, and maintenance and possible related repair costs. Careful consideration shall be given to the materials used and the appropriateness of those materials for the conditions of the site. e. Coordination of the artwork with the design of the building and the historic and pedestrian - oriented character of the downtown area is encouraged. f. Maintenance/conservation plan. g. Relationship to other existing artwork in vicinity. h. No Commercial Content. Artwork shall not be used as signage (see definition of signage). C. Issuance by the Development Services Director or City Engineer. The development services director, city engineer or their respective designee may administratively, without hearing, approve a street use or encroachment permit if: 1. The proposed use shall not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, including but not limited to the following requirements: a. No portion of the public right-of-way designed and intended for vehicular traffic or parking shall be permanently occupied, except to the extent allowed under ECDC 18.70.30.C.6. b. Requirements of the State Building Code, including but not limited to all provisions relating to disabled accessibility and barrier -free design requirements shall be met; c. Any mobile vending units shall be properly licensed pursuant to Chapter 4.12 ECC; d. Permit application fees have been paid (see ECDC 18.70.050); e. A "clear zone" must be maintained on public sidewalks or walkways. A clear zone refers to an area seven feet in height and five feet in width providing a level, safe walking surface along the public sidewalk. Clear zone on sidewalks shall not include any curbing, planting strips or ramps. For tables and chairs placed in the public right-of-way, the clear zone can be reduced to four feet in width in front of obstacles (trees, street lights, sign posts, etc.); Packet Pg. 430 7.4.b f. All temporary objects shall be removed from the right-of-way on 24 hours' notice to accommodate public events. Temporary objects are subject to removal in the event of an emergency; and g. All temporary objects, excluding approved awnings,- wall signs, and permitted streateries, that project more than 36 inches into the right-of-way shall be removed each day at the close of business. 2. Exclusive Bistw and Ou4 Sidewalk Dining. In an effort to enhance street life of the city and serve both an economic development purpose as well as enhance the livability of the city's urban core, exclusive sidewalk dining shall be allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.70.040. a. For purposes of this section the following terms are defined as: i. "Exclusive bistfa and atAd sidewalk dining" shall refer to a properly zoned and licensed food or beverage service establishment that uses the public right-of-way to serve only its customers at the exclusion of the general public. ii. `Barrier" shall refer to any temporary object or objects (e.g., stanchion, rope, f€neing, plantm, markers) used to establish an exclusive bistro and outdoor dining area. Barriers shall be approved by the city engineer. b. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way and applicant fees pursuant to ECDC 18.70.050 have been paid. c. All barriers, with the exception of markers and marking, shall be removed each day from the right-of-way at the close of business. d. The design and use shall comply with all requirements of state law, city ordinance and city policy including but not limited to: i. Washington State Liquor and Canabis Ee*tre -Board (WSLCB) and Snohomish County health division (SCHD). When applicable, the business shall provide a written approval from the WSLCB and/or SCHD for use of public rights -of -way; ii. ECDC 17.70.040, Bistro and outd Exclusive sidewalk dining; and iii. All litter and nuisance regulations, including but not limited to RCW 70.93.060 and Chapter 6.40 ECC. 3. The design board has reviewed and approved any proposal which includes a request to construct, erect or maintain an awning, building, sign or any building or structure, except as otherwise allowed in ECDC 18.70.030.C; 4. The proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the public; and 5. The proposal (if for an encroachment permit) either benefits the public interest, safety or convenience (e.g., supports or protects the city street, reduces pedestrian hazards) or is an accessory structure such as a fence normally associated with residential use of the property and fully complies with the requirements of subsections (13)(1) through (3) of this section. 6. Streateries. Streatery means a type of parklet located within the public right of way, typically in a vehicle parking space, that has been designed to allow for food and beverage services. To provide greater onnortunities for outdoor dining and beverage service. streateries may be nermitted. subiect to the following requirements: I Packet Pg. 431 7.4.b a. A streatery may be permitted as a type of street use in the parking lane of any public street on a E block where retail or restaurant use is located. d a b. The business applying for the streatery is herein after referred to as the Permittee. c. Streateries must meet applicable city and state statutes, including for fire, electrical, and building V safety, as well as for liquor service and other applicable agency requirements. d. Streateries must be operated in a manner that complies with orders from the state health 0 r department or governor related to coronavirus protection and with health district standards for 3 food and beverage service or with this chapter, whichever is stricter. e. A complete street use permit application for a streatery shall be submitted to the city on a to c r_ provided by the development services department. City review of any streatery application will be C completed in a timely manner and include opportunity for review by engineering, building, and `0 fire staff. A street use permit for ithe streatery may be issued with any conditions as necessary Field inspection will follow. 3 f. Any streatery in existence on December 1, 2020 under a special event permit may continue such O use until January 17, 2021, provided that a street use permit for the streatery is applied for by 06 January 11, 2021 and the City determines that the streatery meets or can meet the requirements of 0 this section and issues a permit for it, with any conditions. g. Timingapiration. i. The streatery shall be permitted for a period of no more than one year, provided that the permit may be extended in three- to six-month increments. ii. If the streatery has been cited with more than three violations of the city code within a o 12-month period, its permit may be expired without allowance for extension. iii. After the streatery has begun operating or within 30 days of street use permit approval, CO whichever is first, if the streatery is not used b. the he applicant for at least 15 days of any m 30-day period, the City may expire the permit in order to avoid leaving the parkin space pace unavailable for use. A notice of potential expiration shall be provided by the City to the `m permittee at least ten days in advance of any expiration taking eu ffect. a h. Number of allowed streateries. In the BD zone, after the first 20 streateries have been approved, R. no more streatery permits shall be accepted by the City unless the permit is to replace an existing 0 streatery or this section is amended to allow additional streateries. A business is allowed to have Q 0 no more than one streatery permit. w i. Location. d � i. A streatery must be located fully or partially adjacent to the business that it serves, C provided that if the business is not adjacent to one or more suitable parking spaces, 5 another business or property owner may give its written concurrence for the parking O space in front of it to be used for a streatery_ 0 ii. All streatery use shall be entirely within the approved space(s) and shall not extend into the travel lane of the public right-of-way. c m iii. Streateries shall not be located in ADA parking stalls, in front of fire hydrants or bus a� stops, or over the top of city storm catch basins. iv. The maximum length of a streatery is two vehicle parking spaces. For corner locations, w the two spaces may be comprised of one parking space on each of the adjacent 79 intersecting streets. c ;F V. No more than two streateries shall be located next to each other. vi. Where only one parking space exists between two streateries on a block face, each of the 0 two streateries must be set back at least one foot from the intervening parking space. c 0 j. Other site requirements. c i. A streatery must be located on an ADA-accessible raised platform that is flush with the 0` sidewalk and has no more than a'h- inch horizontal gap between the sidewalk and platform. The platform must be ADA-accessible from the public sidewalk and, upon entering the streatery, a wheelchair -user must be able to access at least one seat at a table on the platform. Exception: A streatery may be allowed without a platform if the business has other onen-air dinine that is ADA- compliant and available for customer use. 4 ' c ii. Each streatery must be protected at its end(s) from any adjacent vehicle parking space by m a water -filled iersev barrier, substantial planter at least 30 inches hieh, or other approved t 0 10 a Packet Pg. 432 7.4.b barrier. The preferred color for a jersey barrier is white. Each barrier must include E adequate lighting or reflective markings, as approved by the city engineer, for night-time a visibility to drivers. M iii. Screening shall be located on the streatery side that is adjacent to and parallel with the V traffic lane. Such screening shall be at least 30 inches high and primarily consist of: (a) lattice, picket, or solid fencing; (b) fabric or membrane material; or (c) containerized 0 z r plantings where the container is at least 30 inches in height. Above 36 inches in height, 3 any screening from the traffic lane will have views into and out of the streatery. An applicant may propose a different material that provides both external views and a sense c r_ of separation, subject to approval by the building official. Reflecting markings or C lighting as approved by the city engineer, are required along the traffic side for night- L0 time visibility to drivers. iv. All tents, canopies, fabric screens, and umbrellas are subject to approval by the building 3 official for any structural requirements and by the fire marshal for flame-retardance. 0 Tents and canopies must be fully open to the air on at least one side. If the open side is 06 less than 8 linear feet, a second side must have ventilation. 0 V. Tents, canopies, awnings, fabric screens, and umbrellas that are documented as being purchased b, t�pplicant prior to January 1, 2021, may be of any color. Otherwise, the color of said items shall be primarily yellow, white, or red, or any combination of those m colors. Material that is transparent may also be acceptable. vi. Fuel -burning heaters and open flames, such as candles, torches and fire pits, are not allowed within 3 feet of any fabric (including tents and canopies) unless approved by the fire marshal. CO k. Signagc. A streatcry shall have no more than one sign. The allowed sign does not need a separate m permit but must be no more than eighteen inches in length and eight inches in height and must not be internally lit nor have components that wave or otherwise appear to move. The sign shall not be `E placed on the longest side of the streater facing acing traffic and shall not be attached to the ground. It a may be attached to or part of a streatery component but cannot interfere with traffic or sight o visibility. — 1. Maintenance. The permittee is responsible for maintenance of all streateromponents, including 0 surface and furniture cleaning and keeping the area underneath and adjacent to the streatery free of w obstruction so that stormwater can flow freely at the curb. d M. Insurance. Insurance is required, per ECDC 18.70.030.G. R n. Installation and removal. The permittee is responsible for providing and installing all components 5 of the streatery and for removing the components when the permit has expired. The City may also remove or require removal of the streatery as needed to deal with emergency conditions or 0 infrastructure repair. o. City staff may provide additional details or guidance for applicants to implement this section, c m consistent with direction from the city engineer and the development services director or their a� respective designees. E a-n. This section shall sunset on December 31.2021. unless the effective date is chanced by action of LLJ '-' the City Council. 9 D. Bay Windows, Decks, and Related Architectural Features. In an effort to allow for more creative designs and a better overall appearance in the downtown area, bay windows, decks, and related architectural features may encroach into the public right-of-way within the central business district or any other zone in which no setback from the lot line is required, subject to the following requirements: L 0 1. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation m has been paid; L m 2. The encroachment shall not occur over alleys; L 3. The building encroachment shall not project more than two feet (24 inches) into the right-of-way; c m E t 0 11 a Packet Pg. 433 7.4.b 4. The encroachment shall not exceed 30 percent of the length of the facade on any one side of the building; 5. The encroachment shall provide for a minimum clearance height of eight feet over any pedestrian right-of-way and a minimum clearance height of 11 feet over any vehicular right-of-way, whichever is greater; 6. The encroachment shall be approved by the architectural design board as contributing to a modulated facade design which enhances the variation and appearance to the public of the overall building design and public streetscape. E. Appeal. The decision of the development services director, city engineer, or their respective designees may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II proceeding under the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC; provided, however, that the establishment of compensation for use of the public right-of-way is a legislative decision of the city council and is not subject to judicial review. F. Awnings and Canopies. Consistent with ECDC 22.43.040, awnings and canopies, whether architectural or temporary, excludingthose hose permitted under ECDC 18.70.030.C.6, may encroach into the public right of way within the central business district or any other zone in which no setback from the lot line is required, subject to the following_ 1. The awning or canon shall hall provide a minimum clearance height of 8 feet above the walking surface, not to exceed 15 feet at its highest point. 2. Awning and canopy projection over the right of way shall be determined as follows, provided that no awning or canopy s�project within two feet of the street curb (measured from the back of curb): Sidewalk Width Minimum Projection Less than 8 feet 5 feet 8 feet or greater 6 feet 3. Awnine and canopies shall not be constructed at a location or in a manner that will obstruct obsure, or interfere with any streetlight, flower pole, utility pole or appurtenance, street tree, or any transportation -related sign, signal, or traffic control device. 4. All awnine and canopv desiens shall meet the above criteria. unless otherwise approved by the city engineer. FG. Insurance Requirement. When the application is for use or encroachment onto a public right-of-way including but not limited to streets, roads, alleys, trails, sidewalks, bike paths, pedestrian easements, and any other easement intended for the use of the public, the applicant who operates a business or commercial operation shall be required to provide and continually maintain during the term of the permit a certificate of insurance naming the city as an additional insured, with respect to liability, and providing that it shall be primary as to any other policy of insurance. The policy must contain the additional insured statement, coverage amounts and cancellation notification indicated on the sample insurance form provided by the city. In addition, a business and commercial applicant as well as all residential or nonprofit applicants shall sign a covenant to hold harmless and indemnify the city which will be recorded and run with the land in a form approved by the city attorney. GH. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to permit the base or ground support for any sign to be located upon or attached to the ground within the public right-of-way. 18.70.040 Revocation. A. Except as provided below, all permits approved under this chapter shall be temporary, shall vest no permanent right and shall be issued and may in any case be revoked at the sole discretion of the city upon 30 days' notice, or without notice in the event any such use or occupation shall become dangerous; any structure or obstruction so permitted shall become insecure or unsafe; shall become a public nuisance; or shall not be constructed, maintained or used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The 12 Packet Pg. 434 7.4.b determination by the city engineer that a structure is dangerous, insecure, unsafe, a nuisance or has not been constructed, used or maintained in accord with this chapter shall be conclusive. B. Permits shall also be revoked if: 1. Following written notice of the lapse of an insurance policy required to be maintained by ECDC 18.70.030(F), the permittee fails to supply a valid certificate of insurance; or 2. Following written notice of the lapse of an annual application fee, renewal fee, or fees for the exclusive use of the right-of-way by ECDC 18.70.050(B), the permittee fails to bring fees/account current. C. Per-mits issued foF ar-ehiteetttFal features pufstiant to ECDC 19.70.030(D) shall be issued for- an initial teFm of 10 years. A peFmit for- an arehiteetural featuFe may be revoked at any time as provided in subseetion (A) of this seetion. if r-evoked before the end of the 10 year- term, at the will of the , holder- of the per -fait shall be reimbufsed for- any eonsider-ation pr-evided for- the pefmit. Reimbufsement au4omati eally renewed, if not r-evoked by the eity, for- additional 10 year- ter-fns sttbj eet to stieh addit C. D. If any such structure, obstruction, use or occupancy is not discontinued on notice to do so by the city engineer and within the time period designated, the city engineer may remove any structure or obstruction, or make such repairs upon the structure or obstruction as may be necessary to render the same secure and safe, at the expense of the permittee, or his successor, and such expense may be recorded as a lien and otherwise collected in the manner provided by law. 18.70.050 Fees. A. Application fees for street use or encroachment permits are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion. Application fees shall be paid to the city prior to issuance of any permit. B. Fees for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion. The fee for a streatery permit shall be the same as for a street use permit, provided that a technology fee shall not be charged for a streatery. C. There shall be no judicial appeal from a determination of the compensation to be paid for the use of public right-of-way. 13 Packet Pg. 435 7.4.c ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE. WHREAS, COVID-19 has created significant impacts to people's health and well-being, which includes not only immediate physical health, but economic health; and WHEREAS, Washington's Governor has been proactive in trying to responsibly address coronavirus issues and some of his actions have included orders to close or partially close businesses where COVID-19 transmission has the most risk; and WHEREAS, in Edmonds, food and beverage services, such as restaurants, have been especially impacted by full and partial closures; and WHEREAS, COVID-related restrictions on restaurants and similar businesses have limited or prohibited indoor dining during much of the year; and WHEREAS, even without a state order, many people that want to eat at a restaurant would prefer to do so in an outdoor environment, rather than indoors, to be a safer environment from a COVID-19 standpoint; and WHEREAS, some dining and beverage establishments already have permitted bistro dining for certain sidewalk areas per Chapter 17.70 ECDC or permitted outdoor dining on commercial properties per Chapter 17.75 ECDC; and WHEREAS, outdoor dining on commercial properties per Chapter 17.75 ECDC requires a conditional use permit through a hearing examiner process that is more costly and time- consuming to obtain than an ordinary administrative permit; and WHEREAS, City staff have been working on potential code amendments to allow outdoor dining on commercial properties without a conditional use permit; and Packet Pg. 436 7.4.c WEHEREAS, concepts for amending the code to allow outdoor dining without a conditional use permit were presented in a November 12, 2020 meeting of the City Council's Public Safety, Planning, and Personnel Committee and subsequently presented in a November 24, 2020 meeting of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the concepts for amending the permit process for on -site outdoor dining have been incorporated into a set of amendments to Chapter 17.75 of the Edmonds Community Development Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an emergency basis without first holding a public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 17.75 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Outdoor Dining," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thr-oug). Section 2. Section 17.70.010 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Other temporary buildings," is hereby amended to read as set forth below (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfi e thfoug ): Except as provided in ECDC 17.70.030 and 17.75.010, a conditional use permit shall be required to construct a temporary building in any zone. The permit shall be administratively reviewed by staff and shall be valid for a period of one year; provided, however, that said permit may be extended by the development services director for a single one-year extension upon submittal of a written application prior to the expiration of the original permit. All the requirements of the zoning district shall be met. An appeal of the staff decision granting or denying such a Packet Pg. 437 7.4.c permit or extension shall be reviewed by the hearing examiner in accordance with the requirements for any other conditional use permit under Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Section 3. Sunset. This interim ordinance shall remain in effect for 180 days from the effective date or until it is replaced with another ordinance adopting permanent regulations, after which point it shall have no further effect. Section 4. Emerizency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the council (RCW 35A.12.130), and that the same is not subject to a referendum. Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, restaurants would have to go through a much longer permit process before being able to offer outdoor dining. Any delay in the ability of the city's restaurants to offer additional outdoor dining could further jeopardize an already struggling restaurant industry. Therefore, this ordinance should be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by staving off restaurant failures and creating regulations so that Edmonds citizens will have safer places to dine for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 4, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power Packet Pg. 438 7.4.c specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. Section 7. Adoption of Findings. The city council hereby adopts as findings of fact in support of the adoption of this ordinance the "whereas" clauses above. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 439 7.4.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 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2020. 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 5 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 440 7.4.c CHAPTER 17.75 Exhibit A OUTDOOR DINING Sections: 17.75.010 Outdoor dining —Permitted secondary use. 17.75.020 Outdoor dining — Secondary uses requiring a eend tion l „se permit. 17.75.030 Outdoor dining buildings or structures. 17.75.010 Outdoor dining — Permitted secondary use. A. Limited outdoor seating for outdoor dining is allowed as a permitted secondary use in the BN — neighborhood business zone, BC — community business zone, BP — planned business zone, BD — downtown business zone, CW — commercial waterfront zone, CG — general commercial zone, WMU— Westgate Mixed Use, MU — medical use zone, and FVMU — Firdale Village mixed use zone. When established as a permitted secondary use, the outdoor dining area shall currently comply or be proposed to comply with at least one of the following criteria: 1. The site is not directly adjacent to any residentially zoned property(ies). 2. The site complies with the landscaping requirements found in Chapter 20.13 ECDC along the property line(s) directly adjacent to residentially zoned property(ies). 3. The dining area is screened from adjoining residentially zoned property(ies) by a building and/or a four -foot wall, hedge, or solid fence. 4. Seating is limited to an additional 4- 50 percent of the existing interior seating of the establishment or 4-2-30 seats, whichever is greater. 5. Anv dining area adiacent to vehicle narkine shall be separated by landscapine. curb stop. wall or other suitable barrier B. For sites directly adjacent to residentially zoned property, the outdoor dining area shall be closed between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. C. Areas utilized for outdoor dining shall comply with setback requirements applicable to the site. Temporary buildings or structures used for the outdoor dining use do not require a separate conditional use permit. D. Seating shall be located outside of public rights -of -way. Seating within public rights -of -way is reviewed as bistro dining pursuant to the requirements of ECDC 18.70.030 or as a streatery pursuant to ECDC 18.70.030.: E. No additional parking stalls shall be required for outdoor dining usage. For any outdoor dining space that would utilize existing on -site parking spaces, at least one ADA-accessible space must remain or be located on the site. 17.75.020 Outdoor dining — Secondary uses requiring a permit. Outdoor dining not meeting the r-e ir-e v ents of ECC , 7 7c 0 0 on property outside of the public right of way shall be a secondary use requiring_ a eenditional ,.so permit only if the use includes a component subject to a buildingopermit. Components requiring a building or fire permit include, but are not limited to, detached free-standing) structures and structures attached to a building, such as awnings canopies, roofs, and pergolas. within the zones stated in ECDC 17 75 0 0(n ) This use shall be established and maintained only -in accordance with the terms of ^ conditional use permit approved by thethis chapter. hearing examiner as a Type M A decision under the proeedural requirements contained in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. At a mininnim, the conditions considered for imposition by the hearing examiner may include a restriction on operating hours, location of the outdoor seating, and/or buff-ering of the noise and visual Co Packet Pg. 441 7.4.c 17.75.030 Outdoor dining buildings or structures. Any building or structure such as a service stand, fence, planter, kiosk, awning or other shelter utilized in serving outdoor diners shall fully comply with all provisions of the State Building Code and eonmffanity development eode including but not Emit.,] to design r-eviewTitle 19 building and fire codes. 7 Packet Pg. 442 7.4.d Ordinances for "Streateries" and On -Site Outdoor Dining December 15, 2020 City Council Meeting Packet Pg. 443 7.4.d COVID 19 has changed the way we live i 1 1 1 ti SOCIAL DISTANCINGw 0 U) a� c c 0 N � � c 0 N N d L Packet Pg. 444 w' L loll OF i, YAl- • -- c 7.4.d Special Event Permit—Temporary Mitigation • Special event permit was authorized in August to allow dining in designated vehicle parking spaces • Originally thru Oct. 11 • Extended thru Nov 8 • Extended thru Dec 31 or Council adoption of streateries ordinance, whichever sooner • 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 Packet Pg. 446 7.4.d Two concepts for code updates to help address economic crisis 1. Streateries (parklets allowing dining/beverage service in designated vehicle parking space, within ROW) 2. On -Site Outdoor Dining (allowing more opportunities —without CUP —for outdoor dining on private property, not in ROW) Both concepts presented at: • City Council's Nov. 12 PSPP Committee meeting • City Council's Nov. 24 meeting Packet Pg. 447 7.4.d IL "Streateries"— aka "Parklets" that are specifically for dining C a Packet Pg. 448 7.4.d Streateries Concept— Highlights • Applicable citywide, adjacent to commercial uses where street parking spaces are available • Subject to individual permits for up to one year with 6-month extensions possible • Dining on raised platforms, flush with sidewalk, to provide ADA accessibility • Maximum 2 parking spaces per use • Safety standards (e.g., fire &structural safety) to apply • Insurance and "hold harmless" agreements by applicants required • Some aesthetic guidelines included Packet Pg. 449 7.4.d Streateries—Some Additional Concepts • Limitation on total number of streateries: 20 • Must meet state & health district standards (incl for COVID protections) • Must have reflective lights for night-time • Applicants to pay cost of platforms, safety barriers, liability insurance, etc. Note: City staff has also explored what other cities are doing for streateries Packet Pg. 450 7.4.d Draft Ordinance for Streateries • Amends Chapter 18.70 (Street Use and Encroachment Permits) • Proposed as emergency ordinance • Timing fits with Council's intent to respond quickly to COVID impacts • If adopted as emergency, public hearing proposed for Feb. 2 • Proposed to sunset on May 1, 2022 unless Council takes other action 6110101wla • Sets specific standards, permit process, and inspections for streateries • Assures compliance with Governor orders, ADA, fire safety, & other requirements Packet Pg. 451 4-4 On -Site Outdoor Dining 7.4.d C� Packet Pg. 452 7.4.d On -Site Outdoor Dining Concept— Highlights • Allow under simple permit process, without going thru conditional use permit process • Allow on business property, such as on deck or patio or in parking lot • No requirement for additional parking spaces • May include canopy or awning • Ensure safety standards (e.g., for heaters) are met • Must have ADA access • Must meet building setback standards Packet Pg. 453 7.4.d Draft Ordinance for On -Site Outdoor Dining • Amends Chapter 17.75 (Outdoor Dining) • Proposed as emergency interim ordinance • If adopted as emergency, would require public hearing, possibly February 2 • Would be in effect for up to six months • While interim ordinance is in effect, Planning Board would review & propose to City Council any longer -term ordinance Packet Pg. 454 7.4.d Recommended Next Steps • Council to: • Adopt emergency ordinance for Streateries (with sunset date) • Adopt emergency interim ordinance for On -Site Outdoor Dining (with longer term recommendation by Planning Board in early 2021) • Hold future public hearings as needed (circa Feb. 2) • City staff to: • Finalize handouts and web information • Get word out to affected businesses Packet Pg. 455 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Selection of Council President for 2021 Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History Each year the City Council selects a Council President and a Council President Pro Tem to serve for the legislative year ahead. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The procedure for selection of the Council President will be as follows: The clerk will call for nominations. No Councilmember may nominate more than one person until every member wishing to nominate a candidate has had an opportunity to do so. Nominations do not require a second. The clerk will repeat each nomination until all nominations have been made. When it appears no one else wishes to make a nomination, the clerk will ask again for nominations. If none are made, the clerk will declare the nominations closed. After the nominations are closed, the clerk will call for a vote in the order that the nominations were made. Councilmembers will be asked to signify their vote by raising their hand. As soon as a nominee receives four votes, the clerk will declare the Council President elected and no votes will be taken on the remaining nominees. The same process will be repeated for the election of the Council President Pro Tem. Packet Pg. 456 9.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/15/2020 Council Committee Minutes Staff Lead: Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A. For information only. Narrative The Council committee meeting minutes are attached. Attachments: PPW120820 FC120820 Packet Pg. 457 9.1.a PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING December 8, 2020 Elected Officials Participating Virtually Councilmember Diane Buckshnis Councilmember Susan Paine CALL TO ORDER Staff Participating Virtually Phil Williams, Public Works Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Scott Passey, City Clerk Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Rob English, City Engineer The Edmonds City Council virtual online PPW Committee meeting was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Councilmember Paine. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS Verdant Grant Interlocal Agreement Amendment Ms. Feser explained in 2018 the City received a two-part grant for $170,000 from Verdant for fitness zones in 2 locations, Mathay Ballinger Park and Civic Park. Due to COVID, Verdant reached out to grant recipients to inquire whether any changes were needed. The project at Mathay Ballinger was delayed due to the departure of the previous director, work still needed be done, and the deadline for completion was November. There is also a stormwater facility proposed for Mathay Ballinger Park, and she was hesitant about installing fitness zone equipment that would not be used due to construction. Staff proposed to Verdant shifting the $70,000 for a fitness zone in Mathay Ballinger to Civic Park as another source of funding; Verdant was receptive and approved that request. She recognized Mathay Ballinger could use more resources and attention; she is working on a DNR grant for a tree project in Mathay Ballinger to include community involvement, tree planting and education. She summarized the amendment would shift $70,000 to Civic Park for a total $170,000 as well as extend the deadline. Discussion followed regarding the February 2022 due date for a progress report (date established by Verdant), the likelihood of Verdant approving a future grant for a fitness zone at Mathay Ballinger, and qualifiers in the census tract data related to the Mathay Ballinger area. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda Councilmember Paine relayed she received a text from Councilmember K. Johnson about adding a tree resolution to the PPW Committee agenda. Mr. Taraday said according to state statue, final action may not be taken on any item not on the special meeting notice. To be completely safe, he recommended adhering to the agenda. Hopefully, committee meetings will be held at regularly established times next year which will provide more flexibility to add items to the agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis said a resolution from a Councilmember does not need to go through the committee process and, in this case, it has already been reviewed by the Tree Board. 2. WWTP Staffing Update Discussion Regarding Current Status and Recommended Changes to the WWTP Reorganization Proposal Reviewed by City Council on August 11, 2020 Mr. Williams recalled in August he proposed a minor reorganization at the WWTP. The lead operator and lead mechanic positions have been vacant a long time and there is a contract plant supervisor. At that time he proposed combining the two lead positions into a chief operator position. That has been presented to the union who requested the impacts be negotiated; approval of the job description is on the consent agenda tonight. He would like to begin the process of filling that position now due to the storage of staff. Also in August, he asked to fill an operator in training (OIT) position in preparation for two upcoming operators retirements in 2021. He also recommended converting the vacant senior Packet Pg. 458 9.1.a 12/08/20 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 2 maintenance mechanic position to an instrument control technician and plant electrician position (INC. Last week another operator left to take a job elsewhere. The City has experienced a great deal of difficulty retaining operators. He proposed at this time postponing filling the instrument/electrical position and hiring another operator. Questions and discussion regarding the change to gasification, operator skills, the existing INC employee, the source of candidates, level of licensure required to function independently, state requirements related to operators in charge, and the need for a pay study. Action: Schedule this update on the Consent Agenda. 3. Report on Bids for Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Protect Mr. English reported the project went out to bid in November; 8 bids were received. The low bid of $1,249,393 was submitted by Kings Construction; the engineer's estimate was $1,220,200. He referred the project map shows the scope of the project; the two biggest improvements are a new HAWK signal on 196t" & 84t" and upgrading the emergency signal at SR 104 & 234t" to a full signal with pedestrian crossing. Improvements at the remaining intersections include rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), upgrading pedestrian ramps, and constructing bulb outs for ramps to provide better visibility. He reviewed the proposed construction budget and fundingsources: Description Amount Contract Award $1,249,393 Construction M mt Inspection & Testing $265,000 furnished/Installed RRFBs $104,000 -City Education Outreach $20,000 WSDOT $5,000 1 % for Arts on local funding $4,020 M mt Reserve 10% $124,500 Total $1,771,913 Funding source Amount Federal Grant $1,023,000 126 REET Fund $475,535 422 Storm Fund $51,000 TIB Complete Street Funds Fund 112 $86,000 2021 Ped Safety/Traffic Signal Programs DP 75/76 Fund 12_ $50,190 Additional Funding REET 125 $125,000 Total $1,810,725 Note - $39,000 is additional staff time during PE phase Mr. English relayed staff recommends forwarding award of the to the project to the City Council on December 15t". Questions and discussion followed regarding the use of Fund 125, elements of the project funded by Storm, funds allocated for design in the past, benefits of the project, history of citizen input about intersections where improvements will occur, and other potential locations for RRFB. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Packet Pg. 459 FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING December 8, 2020 Elected Officials Participating Virtually Staff Participating Virtually Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Dave Turley, Finance Director Councilmember Vivian Olson (joined at 6:01 p.m.) Scott Passey, City Clerk Councilmember Luke Distelhorst CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council virtual online Finance Committee meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Council President Fraley-Monillas. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. October 2020 Monthly Financial Report Mr. Turley highlighted: • October is 83% through year • General Fund revenues are at 71 % (property taxes will be received in November) • Expenditures are at $78.8M, the increase from 2019 due primarily to Edmonds CARES Fund, Parks Capital Construction Fund, Utility Funds, Equipment Rental (transfer to General Fund) • Local retail sales and use tax at $6.7M, $6.9M this time last year, only 3-4% behind last year • Property taxes slightly above 2019 • Revenue from Charges for Goods and Services $4.3M this year compared to $5.2M in 2019, primarily due to parks programs that did not operate • General Fund expenditures at $35M compared to $49M budget o Two months left in year o Professional services under budget because overbudgeted fire contract o Interfund Subsidizes below budget because $2M transfer of Civic Field did not happen o Construction Projects below budget because recorded in Repairs and Maintenance • General Fund Expenditures by Department - very similar to last year o REET 1 & 2 - collected more than budget and more than 2019 o Sales and Use Tax - only 3.5% below budget through October o Gas Utility Tax - above budget and above 2019, reflects people at staying home o Non -Departmental -below budget, budgeted $8.5M, only spent $7.4M for fire contract • Investment Portfolio summary: -$54M in cash and investments. Questions and discussion followed regarding the financials reflecting lower taxes from restaurants and businesses, car sales slightly lower, less travel and more local spending, telephone utility tax under budget and lower than 2019, future budget amendment for fire contract when Snohomish County Fire settles their labor contract, and the CD for the senior center. Committee members requested identifying the partner agency (e.g. ECA, senior center) in the Agency/Issuer column on the Investment Portfolio Summary. Action: Send to Councilmembers and Schedule on Consent Agenda 2. Fourth Quarter Budget Amendment Mr. Turley explained the purpose of a budget amendment is to include things not anticipated when the budget was approved. He reviewed the proposed amendments: 0 N 00 0 N U U_ c W E U 2 a Packet Pg. 460 9.1.b 12/08/20 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2 • Increase in fee due to change in State Lobbyist • Goods and services reimbursed by other entities for training conducted by Police Department • NPDES Pro Software Purchase • Police Vehicle Replacement (vehicle totaled in May 2020) • Additional spending authority for Firemen's Pension Fund • Increase to Police Department budget for salaries/benefits related to COVID-19 response and EPOA Commissioned Officers contract settled in July • Moves CARES Funds as allocated by Ordinance 4196 to associated funds where reimbursable expenditures were made Questions and discussion followed regarding the amendments. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda. 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:31 p.m. 0 N co O N U U- c a� E t V Q Packet Pg. 461