2021-11-01 City Council - Full S Agenda-29941.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
SPECIAL MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
NOVEMBER 1, 2021, 7:00 PM
THIS MEETING IS HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO VIEW OR LISTEN TO
THIS EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING, 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.
CLOSED CAPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE USING THE ZOOM PLATFORM.
"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 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ROLL CALL
PRESENTATION
1. Family Court Awareness Month Proclamation (5 min)
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes on 27, 2021
2. Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Edmonds City Council Agenda
November 1, 2021
Page 1
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Budget Presentation and Public Hearing (25 min)
2. Property Taxes Presentation and Public Hearing (25 min)
3. Public Hearing on Proposed 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) & Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) (30 min)
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. 2021 November Budget Amendment (20 min)
2. Amendment to Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund Ordinance (15 min)
3. Amendment to City's Agreement with South County Fire (15 min)
4. Special Event Permits and Amendments to ECC Tltle 4 Licenses (45 min)
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
November 1, 2021
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
Family Court Awareness Month Proclamation
Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
Family Court Awareness Month (FCAM) was conceptualized in 2020 by Tina Swithin, founder and CEO of
One Mom's Battle. Tina's mission is to shine a spotlight on the dark topic of family court while honoring
the nearly 800 children who have been murdered by separating or divorcing parents since 2008.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
Attachments:
FCAM_2021
Packet Pg. 3
O
City of Edmonds • Office of the Mayor
FAMILY COURT AWARENESS MONTH - NOVEMBER 2021
WHEREAS, the mission at One Mom's Battle (OMB) and the Family Court Awareness Month
Committee (FCAMC) is to increase awareness of the importance of a family court
system that prioritizes child safety and acts in the best interest of children; and
WHEREAS, the mission at the FCAMC is to increase awareness on the importance of
education and training on domestic violence, childhood trauma and post
separation abuse for all professionals working within the family court system; and
WHEREAS, the mission at the FCAMC is to educate judges and other family court o
professionals on the empirical data and research that is currently available. Such L)
research is a critical component to making decisions that are truly in the best
interest of children. This research includes The Adverse Childhood Experiences
U_
(ACE) Study (CDC -Kaiser Permanente), Saunder's Study (US Department of Justice),
N
The Meier Study: Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Abuse Allegations,
CD
Ni
and the Santa Clara Law Study (Confronting the Challenge of High -Conflict
a
Personality in Family Court); and
U_
WHEREAS, recent Washington state legislation has restricting abusive litigation, to prevent
individuals who abuse their intimate partners from misusing court proceedings in
order to control, harass, intimidate, coerce, and/or impoverish the abused partner
a
and family; and
WHEREAS, the mission at the FCAMC is fueled by the desire for awareness and change in the
family court system while honoring the more than 800 children who have been
murdered by separating or divorcing parents nationwide; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Mike Nelson, Mayor of the City of Edmonds, hereby
proclaim November as Family Court Awareness Month in Edmonds, and
encourage all citizens to support the mission of FCAMC.
Mike elson, Mayor - November 1, 2021
Packet Pg. 4
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes on 27, 2021
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Nicholas Falk
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
10-27-21 Draft City Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 5
7.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
October 27, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Adrienne Fraley Monillas, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Council President
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Council President Pro Tern
Mike Nelson, Mayor
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER
STAFF PRESENT
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sharon Cates, City Attorney
Jessica Neil Hoyson, HR Director
At 7:08 p.m., the Edmonds City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Council President Paine.
The Council utilized the Zoom online meeting platform to conduct this meeting.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Council then convened in Executive Session to discuss Collective Bargaining Strategy Discussion,
RCW 42.30.140(1)(A).
ADJOURN
At 7:50 p.m., the executive session concluded and the meeting was adjourned.
N
ti
N
O
C
N
E
t
C�
M
r
r
Q
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 6
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim check #249739 dated October 25, 2021 for $38,189.42, checks #249740 through
#249840 dated October 28, 2021 for $1,904,864.77 and wire payments of $22,050.57 and $2,968.50.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
claims 10-28-21
wire 10-21-21
wire 10-28-21
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-28-21
Packet Pg. 7
7.2.a
vchlist
10/28/2021 10 :49 :59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249739 10/25/2021 009835 FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INTL
249740 10/28/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
249741 10/28/2021 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun vi
17362
E191 PO - 2021 FORD POLICE INTEI
y
E191 PO - 2021 FORD POLICE INTEI
E
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
34,940.0( a
9.3% Sales Tax
a�
L
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
3,249.4, '3
Total :
38,189.4, -o
c
INV-2-13604
INV-2-13604 - EDMONDS PD - ALLE
�a
N
1 S/S POLO
U
001.000.41.521.21.24.00
35.0( t
10.1 % Sales Tax
U
001.000.41.521.21.24.00
3.5z
INV-2-13748
INV-2-13748 - EDMONDS PD - ALLE
2 S/S POLOS 1 BLACK & 1 BLUE
p
001.000.41.521.21.24.00
79.9E �a
2 CUSTOM EMBROIDERY
p
L
001.000.41.521.21.24.00
22.0( a
10.1 % Sales Tax
Q
.r
001.000.41.521.21.24.00
10.3,
T
INV-2-13849
INV-2-13849 - EDMONDS PD - MOR
N
BLAUER J/W W/ALTERATIONS
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
386.0( c
HEATPRESS EDMONDS PD
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
20.0( E
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
41.0, };
Total:
597.8E
E
15-91325
lA0159405 CHUUKESE INT
1a0159405 CHUUKESE INT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 170.0( Q
15-91389 lA0159405 CHUUKESE INT
1a0159405 CHUUKESE INT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01 170.0(
15-91605 lA0273074 KOREAN INT
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 8
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249741 10/28/2021 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
249742 10/28/2021 078745 A-1 LANDSCAPING & CONSTRUCTION EOMA Pmt#1
249743 10/28/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 50449
249744 10/28/2021 078722 ADAMANT HOMES LLC
249745 10/28/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC
50539
PO # Description/Account
lA0273074 KOREAN INT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Total :
EOMA PMT#1 SERVICES THRU 9/30
EOMA PMT#1 SERVICES THRU 9/30
332.100.64.594.76.41.00
EOMA PMT#1 SERVICES THRU 9/30
125.000.68.595.61.41.00
Total
WWTP:10/14/21 PEST CONTROL S
Pest Control Service
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUSI
PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUS
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Total
PLN2019-0052 PERMIT FEE REFUND
PLN2019-0052 (8717 240th ST SW)-
001.000.257.620
Total
101321007 FINANCE DEPT WATER
Finance dept water
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
102021010 PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE
PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE
7.2.a
Page: 2
Amoun
m
170.0( E
510.0( a
a�
3
739,635.1
72,258.5z
811,893.6f t
E
73.0( o
Ta
7.5� o
a
a
125.0(
Q
N
13.0( ao
N
218.55 c
N
E
M
719.5, U
719.5:
a�
E
t
�a
34.7,1 Q
3.6-
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 9
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
249745 10/28/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC (Continued)
249746 10/28/2021 001528 AM TEST INC 123999
249747 10/28/2021 078740 ANDREW KALAPACA & JILL DEVITO 2-20325
249748 10/28/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 23889394
6560000012158
65600000123662
656000128175
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
Total :
WWTP: SAMPLE #21 -A000-1 4001
SAMPLE #21 -A000-1 4001
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
#21-22737WA UTILITY REFUND
#21-22737WA Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Total
CEMETERY: SHIRTS
CEMETERY: SHIRTS
130.000.64.536.20.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.20.24.00
WWTP: UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MATT
Mats/Towels $47.88 + $4.99 tax = $5
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
3 lab coats @ $17.each = $0.51 + tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
WWTP: 10/13/21 UNIFORMS,TOWE
Mats/Towels $47.88 + $4.99 tax = $5
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
3 lab coats @ $17.each = $0.51 + tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
7.2.a
Page: 3
Amoun
37.0(
E
3.8E a
79.21
L
3
c
�a
80.0( y
80.0(
t
E
126.3E 19
126.3E o
�a
0
L
443.8E a
Q
46.1 E N
ao
N
52.8 ,
N
0.5E
c
52.8 ,
t
0.5E
a
63.4,
6.5�
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 10
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249748 10/28/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 4
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued) vi
656000128179 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS E
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
29.5E a
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
3.0 � .3
656000129610 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6' N
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1'
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
E
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1'
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
6.1 0
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
�a
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1 - o
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.3< Q
10.4% Sales Tax
r
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.61 N
10.4% Sales Tax
N
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6 1
10.4% Sales Tax
N
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.61 •E
10.4% Sales Tax
ea
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6,
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.3< E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0£ Q
656000129613 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2�
FLEET DIVISION MATS
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 11
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249748 10/28/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
249749 10/28/2021 078237 ARIAS, ADRIAN
249750 10/28/2021 075523 ART WALK EDMONDS
249751 10/28/2021 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC
249752 10/28/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
091021
GRANT ART WALK
PO #
Description/Account
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
lA0358484 SPANISH INT
lA0358484 SPANISH INT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Total :
Total :
GRANT AGREEMENT: ART WALK E
GRANT AGREEMENT: ART WALK E
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
Total
INV360292 LIBRARY - PARTS
LIBRARY - PARTS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.25% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
122148 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing 1769
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 1769
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Printing 1769
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 1769
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
UB Outsourcing area Postage 1769
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
7.2.a
Page: 5
Amoun
19.1( y
E
1.5E a
a�
1.4- 3
766.3E
c
�a
N
U
100.0(
100.0(
E
U
0
5,000.0( '@
5,000.0( o
L
Q
a
Q
45.21 N
00
4.61 N
49.81
N
E
2
U
123.7E
a�
123.7E E
�a
127.5" Q
377.8E
377.8E
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 12
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 6
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
249752
10/28/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
(Continued)
10.25% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
12.6�
10.25% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
12.6�
10.25% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
13.0(
Tota I :
1,169.1 f
249753
10/28/2021 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY
65144
lA0248282 SPANISH INT
lA0248282 SPANISH INT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
100.0(
66439
XZ0127001 SPANISH INT
XZ0127001 SPANISH INT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
100.0(
66789
lA0487327 SPANISH INT
lA0487327 SPANISH INT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
100.0(
Total :
300.0(
249754
10/28/2021 078377 BENNETT, MICHELLE
BENNETT EX CL 10/21
BENNETT EXPENSE CLAIM - FBI C`
PER DIEM ALEXANDRIA, VA 10/19-,-
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
197.5(
Total:
197.5(
249755
10/28/2021 074307 BLUE STAR GAS
1277750
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 663.60 GF
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 663.60 GF
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1,423.9
Tota I :
1,423.9 ,
249756
10/28/2021 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY
664756
UNIT 66 - PARTS
UNIT 66 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
245.2E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
25.5-
665075
UNIT 66 - PARTS
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 13
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249756 10/28/2021 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY
249757 10/28/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 7
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
UNIT 66 - PARTS
a0i
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
147.5E E
10.4% Sales Tax
a
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
15.3E
Total :
L
433.6f .3
27492507
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
c
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
y
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
32.3z
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
3.3E
27492509
PARK MAINT IRC2501F COPIER COI
E
PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
26.4z p
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
2.7E p
27492512
CANON COPIER MONTHLY LEASE
a
Monthly lease-
Q
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
26.4z "
10.4% Sales Tax
04
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
2.7E N
27492513
INV 27492513 - EDMONDS PD
o
10/21 -CONTRACT - WXD01878
N
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
185.7z E
10.4% Sales Tax
ea
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
19.3,
27492516
INV 27492516 - EDMONDS PD
10/21 - CONTRACT- FAXBOARD
E
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
36.0,
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
3.7E Q
27492520 OCTOBER 2021 COPY EQUIP
OCTOBER 2021 COPY EQUIP
001.000.23.512.50.45.00 212.5E
10.4% Sales Tax
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 14
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 8
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249757
10/28/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
22.1-
27492521
INV 27492521 - EDMONDS PD
E
10/21 -CONTRACT - 3AP01257
ca
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
a
175.9E
10/21 -CONTRACT - 3AP01253
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
175.9(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
36.6( Y
27492523
P&R C5750 COPIER: CONTRACT 0(
U
P&R C5750 Copier: Contract Number
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
227.0z E
10.4% Sales Tax
M
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
23.6-
27492525
CONTRACT CHARGES/CLERK'S
o
contract charges-
�a
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
302.& o
10.4% Sales Tax
L
a
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
31.4� Q
2749511
CONTRACT CHARG/CLERK'S
.r
T
contract charges-
N
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
13.3, N
10.4% Sales Tax
c
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
1.3� N
Total:
1,561.71, .
�a
249758
10/28/2021 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC
00910
STATE LOBBYIST OCTOBER 2021
U
STATE LOBBYIST OCTOBER 2021
001.000.61.511.70.41.00
a�
3,750.0( E
Total:
3,750.0(
�a
249759
10/28/2021 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS
INV-53
EOGA ENG2020-0522 PERMIT FEES
Q
EOGA ENG2020-0522 PERMIT FEES
423.000.75.594.35.41.00
370.0(
Total :
370.0(
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 15
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249760 10/28/2021 077126 CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
3029457
249761 10/28/2021 078498 COMMUNITIES OF COLOR COALITION 1014
249762 10/28/2021 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC 01-24570
249763 10/28/2021 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3372497
249764 10/28/2021 061860 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES 343279
249765 10/28/2021 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
249766 10/28/2021 076172 DK SYSTEMS
21-4122
10396
PO # Description/Account
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES W/E 10
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES W/E 10
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
Total
PMT 1 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF
PMT 1 ERPF Household Support Gra
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
Total
P.S.17 - HEATER KIT
P.S.17 - HEATER KIT
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
E22GA INVITATION TO BID
E22GA INVITATION TO BID
423.000.75.594.35.41.00
Total
FIRE STATION 17 - BOILER INSPEC
FIRE STATION 17 - BOILER INSPEC
001.000.66.518.30.49.00
Total
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 1/19
council minutes 10/19
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Total
FIRE STATION 17 - BOILER REPLAC
FIRE STATION 17 - BOILER REPLAC
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
7.2.a
Page: 9
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 16
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 10
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249766
10/28/2021 076172
DK SYSTEMS
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
1,424.8(
Tota I :
15,124.8(
249767
10/28/2021 078741
DOROTHY & JEREMY SHERETTE
2-28625
#799022RT UTILITY REFUND
#799022RT Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
178.1 ,
Total :
178.1:
249768
10/28/2021 007253
DUNN LUMBER
8310160
PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027
PM SUPPLIES: SILT FENCE WITH S
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
133.3E
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
13.7z
Total :
147.1:
249769
10/28/2021 078494
ECONORTHWEST
24457A
COMPREHENSIVE GAP ANALYSIS
Comprehensive GAP Analysis
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
3,508.7E
24546
COMPREHENSIVE GAP ANALYSIS
Comprehensive GAP Analysis
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
3,600.0(
Total :
7,108.7E
249770
10/28/2021 076610
EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
2640
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
43.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.5
2641
LIBRARY - LIGHT BULB FOR PLAZA
LIBRARY - LIGHT BULB FOR PLAZA
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
19.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
2.0E
2647
PM: WRENCH
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 17
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249770 10/28/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
249771 10/28/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
249772 10/28/2021 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 11
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
PM: WRENCH
(D
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.9£ E
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
0.7<
2653
PUBLIC WORKS - PARTS
3
PUBLIC WORKS - PARTS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
15.1 ,
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Y
1.5 j
Total:
95.01
2-25150
WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 C
E
WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 C
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
77.2' o
2-25175
EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 C)
'@
EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 Cj
0
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
86.5i a
2-26950
LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/
Q'
Q
LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
109.8, N
2-28275
PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AV
ao
N
PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AV
c
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
105.1 < N
2-29118
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
E
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
53.9z U
2-37180
SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER £
SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER £
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
77.0E
4-34080
LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL S'
fd
LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL S'
Q
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
58.6(
Total : 568.2 ,
66702 9Z0915139 SPANISH INT
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 18
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249772 10/28/2021 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
249773 10/28/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR203490
249774 10/28/2021 076992 ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS
249775 10/28/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
AR203539
AR203541
19001 A-18
PO # Description/Account
9Z0915139 SPANISH INT
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Total :
WWTP: 9/16-10/16/21 CONTRACT C
9/16-10/16/21 CONTRACT OVERAG
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
CUST# MK5533 C57501 3AP07496 C
Meter charges 09/16/21-10/15/21 B&'
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
Meter charges 09/16/21-10/15/21 Col
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
P&R COPIER USAGE: C57501
P&R COPIER USAGE: C57501: accot
001.000.64.571.22.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.45.00
Total
E7MA SERVICES THRU 9/30/2021
E7MA SERVICES THRU 9/30/2021
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
E7MA SERVICES THRU 9/30/2021
126.000.64.594.76.65.00
Total
EDH940550 ORDINANCE 4235
ordinance 4235
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
EDH940867 PUBLIC HEARING
public hearing
7.2.a
Page: 12
Amoun
100.0( E
100.0( a
a�
3
87.0(
9.OE
a�
t
48.1- •�
70.2( p
Ta
12.3( p
L
a
a
Q
91.61 "
T
N
10.1E N
334.5 , o
N
E
56,000.0(
c
83,370.51 E
139,370.5,
�a
a
44.8(
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 19
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
249775
10/28/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
(Continued)
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
Tota I :
249776
10/28/2021 076751 FALK, NICHOLAS
Falk, Nicholas
FALK TRAVEL TO SNO CO RECORE
Falk travel to Sno Co Recorder's Offic
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
Total
249777
10/28/2021 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
1035032
WATER PARTS & INVENTORY
WATER - INVENTORY
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
WATER - PARTS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
1036018
WATER - PARTS
WATER - PARTS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Tota I :
249778
10/28/2021 076809 GAGNER, SAMUEL
GAGNER 10/21 EXP CL
GAGNER EXPENSE CLAIM VCQB IP
PER DIEM RICHLAND 10/3-10/8
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
Tota I :
249779
10/28/2021 075538 GAMEZ, OMAR
092321
REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES
REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES
001.000.23.523.30.43.00
Total
249780
10/28/2021 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA
10015 10021 TAI CHI
10015 10021 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION
7.2.a
Page: 13
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 20
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 14
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249780
10/28/2021 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA
(Continued)
10015 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
644.8,
10021 TAI CHI INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
854.91
Total:
1,499.7f
249781
10/28/2021 067615 GTS INTERIOR SUPPLY
40102391-00
PUBLIC SAFETY- SUPPLIES
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
499.0f
HANDLING FEE
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
7.4�
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
48.9
Tota I :
555.4'
249782
10/28/2021 073960 GUTTER KING INC
2110082
WADE JAMES THEATER - GUTTER
WADE JAMES THEATER - GUTTER
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
67.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6.9 ,
Tota I :
73.9 ,
249783
10/28/2021 012560 HACH COMPANY
12681754
WWTP: PO 678 COD TNT
PO 678 COD TNT
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
686.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
71.3z
Total:
757.3'
249784
10/28/2021 074804 HARLES, JANINE
284604
PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI
PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
300.0(
Total :
300.0(
249785
10/28/2021 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC
2019-277
TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 21
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 15
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249785
10/28/2021 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC
(Continued)
TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
11866.0( E
REIMBURSEMENT - CALENDAR ED
a
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
18.7E
Total:
L
1,884.7E .3
249786
10/28/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
11886
PM: SAFETY FENCE
c
PM: SAFETY FENCE
y
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
43.2<
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.4,'
3023905
PM: REFLECTIVE INSULATION
E
PM: REFLECTIVE INSULATION
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
29.0( o
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.9� p
4021493
PM: FISH NET
a
PM: FISH NET
Q'
Q
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
16.9£ "
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1.7,' N
4341397
PM: SILT FENCING
o
PM: SILT FENCING
N
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
159.8E E
10.5% Sales Tax
ea
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
16.7�
6011094
PM: PC PANELS
PM: PC PANELS
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
69.0(
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
7.1( Q
6015895
PM: LAMP HOLDER, SCREW DRIVE
PM: LAMP HOLDER, SCREW DRIVE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
17.0"
10.3% Sales Tax
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 22
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 16
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249786
10/28/2021 067862
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1.7E
6022428
PM: LUMBER
E
PM: LUMBER
ca
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
a
19.5E
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2.0,
7022305
PM: SPRAY PAINT, POLY SHEETINC
PM: SPRAY PAINT, POLY SHEETINC
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
155.5E
10.3% Sales Tax
t
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
16.0,
8024490
PM: LUMBER, L-ANGLES
PM: LUMBER, L-ANGLES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
123.6E o
10.3% Sales Tax
�a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
12.7z o
L
Total:
699.51 a
Q
249787
10/28/2021 061013
HONEY BUCKET
0552378522
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
N
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
352.0( N
Total:
352.0( o
249788
10/28/2021 078737
HURRICANE BUTTERFLY LAW
21-0121
INV 21-0121 - EDMONDS PD - SWA-
N
E
PEPPERBALL LAUNCHER KT W/EX
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
1,999.9(
PEPPERBALL PROJECTILES -DISC
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
249.1 £ E
10.5% Sales Tax
628.000.41.589.40.31.00
236.1E
Total:
2,485.2: Q
249789
10/28/2021 073548
INDOFF INCORPORATED
3513795
OFFICE FURNITURE
Office Furniture for new Planning staf
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
1,903.0(
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 23
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 17
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
249789
10/28/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
197.9-
3514642
JULIAN CALENDARS, PAPER CLIP
Julian calendar, appointment book,
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
87.4E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
9.0�
Total :
2,197.4E
249790
10/28/2021 076320 IRONCLAD COMPANY
11359
UNIT 121 - 5 SEGEMENT GUTTER E
UNIT 121 - 5 SEGEMENT GUTTER E
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2,880.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
299.5,
Tota I :
3,179.5,
249791
10/28/2021 069366 ISSAQUAH HONDA KUBOTA
420711
PM SUPPLIES: ENGINE PTO, DRIVE
PM SUPPLIES: ENGINE PTO, DRIVE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
208.5f
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
21.6�
Tota I :
230.2 ,
249792 10/28/2021 076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC W3Y0200006
249793 10/28/2021 066489 KENT D BRUCE CO LLC
9257
9379
WWTP: THRU 10/1/2021
THRU 10/1/2021
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
E183PO -
PARTS/ ADAPTER KIT RE
E183PO -
PARTS/ ADAPTER KIT RE
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
UNIT 665
- PARTS/ SIDE SUPPORT
UNIT 665
- PARTS/ SIDE SUPPORT
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 24
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 18
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
249793
10/28/2021 066489 KENT D BRUCE CO LLC
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
15.8E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
30.8�
9395
E183PO - PARTS/ ADAPTER KIT (RE
E183PO - PARTS/ ADAPTER KIT (RE
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
47.2(
10.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
4.9"
Total :
327.9°
249794
10/28/2021 067568 KPG INC
8-1721 REV
EBCA SERVICES THRU 8/25/21
EBCA SERVICES THRU 8/25/21
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
50,062.3,
9-1821
EBCA SERVICES THRU 9/25/2021
EBCA SERVICES THRU 9/25/2021
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
41,463.1(
Total :
91,525.4:
249795
10/28/2021 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING
4718941
SHREDDING SEPTEMBER 2021
SHREDDING SEPTEMBER 2021
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
17.2E
Total:
17.2E
249796
10/28/2021 078739 LEVINSON LLC
3-48750
#4222-3807482 UTILITY REFUND
#4222-3807482 Utility refund - receive
411.000.233.000
361.0<
Total:
361.W
249797
10/28/2021 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER
November Cigna
NOVEMBER CIGNA PREMIUMS
November CIGNA premiums
811.000.231.550
12,782.4,'
Total :
12,782.4;
249798
10/28/2021 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC
0258802
E191 PO - PARTS
E191 PO - PARTS
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
381.7(
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 25
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
249798 10/28/2021 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC (Continued)
249799 10/28/2021 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 359729
249800 10/28/2021 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 360445
249801 10/28/2021 076264 MONO ROOFTOP SOLUTIONS
PO # Description/Account
10.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Total :
PM: TILLER RENTAL FOR MARSH B
PM: TILLER RENTAL FOR MARSH B
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Total
PM: AIR FILTER
PM: AIR FILTER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total :
26296 CITY HALL - ROOF WORK
CITY HALL - ROOF WORK
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
26327 LIBRARY - REPAIRED FAILED DRAI
LIBRARY - REPAIRED FAILED DRAI
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
26334 PUBLIC WORKS - COATING ON OV
PUBLIC WORKS - COATING ON OV
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Total
7.2.a
Page: 19
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 26
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249802 10/28/2021 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC
249803
249804
249805
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
1103P1694
10/28/2021 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY SO11217120.003
10/28/2021 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO
10/28/2021 065720 OFFICE DEPOT
S011217120.004
3252378-00
202604025001
7.2.a
Page: 20
PO # Description/Account Amoun
UNIT 14 - PARTS/ SENSOR
UNIT 14 - PARTS/ SENSOR
(D
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
409.2, E
Freight
a
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
18.3z
10.4% Sales Tax
3
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
44.4,
Total:
472.0f
N
WWTP: FRT CHG FOR INV. S01121'
U
FRT CHG FOR INV. S011217120.00,
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
81.2z
10.4% Sales Tax
E
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
8.4E U
WWTP: PO 670 A-B 20-750-ENETR
p
PO 670 A-B 20-750-ENETR POWEF
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
470.3" p
10.4% Sales Tax
a
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
48.9- Q
Total :
608.91 "
T
N
SHOP COMPRESSOR - SERVICE &
ao
SHOP COMPRESSOR - SERVICE &
N
0
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
319.1- N
10.4% Sales Tax
E
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
33.1 E n
Total:
352.3( u
c
INV 202593201001 ACCT 90520437
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES/ PENS
t
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
123.3E M
10.4% Sales Tax Q
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 12.&
INV 202604025001 ACCT 90520437
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES/ RULE
001.000.65.518.20.31.00 35.9'
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 27
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249805 10/28/2021 065720 OFFICE DEPOT
249806 10/28/2021 074148 OLSON, VIVIAN
249807 10/28/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 21
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
3.7z E,
202855164001
INV 202855164001 ACCT 90520437
a
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES/ PENS
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
40.3E .3
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
4.2(
204818951001
INV 204818951001 ACCT 90520437
Y
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES/ BANE
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
a�
198.2E
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
Total:
439.31,
0
102121
CM OLSON REIMBURSEMENT FOR
'@
Racial Equity Training - Snohomish
o
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
193.7.E a
Total :
193.7; Q
3685-163564
UNIT 137 - PARTS/ BELT
N
UNIT 137 - PARTS/ BELT
00
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
36.7E N
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3.&
E
3685-164091 UNIT 124 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER
ca
UNIT 124 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4.3�
c
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
0.4E
3685-166850 UNIT 47 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER
UNIT 47 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER
Q
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
36.1
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
3.7E
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 28
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 22
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
249807
10/28/2021 072739
072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
(Continued)
Total :
85.3E ui
249808
10/28/2021 077808
OSBORN CONSULTING INC
6546
E21 FD SERVICES THRU 9/30/21
E
E
E21 FD SERVICES THRU 9/30/21
�a
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
20,963.1 ,
Total :
20,963.1 .3
249809
10/28/2021 002203
OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
00103678
UNIT 121 -PARTS/ ACTUATOR
c
UNIT 121 -PARTS/ ACTUATOR
fd
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
N
919.1 �
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
18.4, u
10.4% Sales Tax
E
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
97.5- 2
Total :
1,035.0! -
249810
10/28/2021 075735
PACIFIC SECURITY
38048
SECURITY SEPTEMBER 2021
>
SECURITY SEPTEMBER 2021
0
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
3,938.7; a
Total:
3,938.7: Q
249811
10/28/2021 065051
PARAMETRIX INC
29986
WWTP: THRU 10/2/21 ONSTRUCTI(
T
N
THRU 10/2/21 CONSTRUCTION SEF
N
423.100.76.594.39.41.00
9,519.2- Or
Total:
9,519.21
E
249812
10/28/2021 078742
PARK PLACE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
90590161
MAINTENANCE FOR CITY NETWOF
2
Maintenace for City Network Switches
U
};
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
2,139.2,
10.4% Sales Tax
E
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
222.2z
Total :
2,361.4F
a
249813
10/28/2021 070431
PITNEYBOWES EASYPERMIT POSTAGE 8000 9090 0618 6873
POPSTAGE
postage
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
34.6�
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 29
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
249813 10/28/2021 070431 070431 PITNEYBOWES EASYPERMIT POST (Continued)
249814 10/28/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2C90794
2C93773
2D28653
249815 10/28/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 220027305568
249816 10/28/2021 066786 RELIABLE SECURITY SOUND & DATA 23643
249817 10/28/2021 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC
Description/Account
Total
F.A.C. - PARTS
F.A.C. - PARTS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC MAINT - PARTS/ BATTERIES
FAC MAINT - PARTS/ BATTERIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
PUBLIC SAFETY - PARTS FOR POL
PUBLIC SAFETY - PARTS FOR POL
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
Total
W WTP: 9/21-10/21 /21 200 2ND AVE
9/21-10/21/21 200 2ND AVE S, #WSl
423.000.76.535.80.47.63
Total
MAXXESS STANDARD SUPPORT R
Maxxess Standard support renewal -
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Total
5-033760 UNIT 7 - BATTERY
UNIT 7 - BATTERY
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
7.2.a
Page: 23
Amoun
34.65
m
E
�a
1,114.2(
L
115.8£
c
�a
90.5f
a�
t
9.4,
E
U
40.2( p
�a
4.1 £ p
1,374A4 a
a
Q
N
47.3, ao
47.3, c
N
E
529.1 <
10.4�
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 30
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249817 10/28/2021 064769 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC
249818 10/28/2021 078738 RONNIE & SUSAN HILLIARD
249819 10/28/2021 075001 RUTH, MARIA MUDD
249820 10/28/2021 078743 SCHLEGEL, GEORGIA
249821 10/28/2021 072440 SCORDINO, JOE
249822 10/28/2021 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
249823 10/28/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 24
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
Total :
111.3:
3-07327
#21-258913 UTILITY REFUND
E
E
#21-258913 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
367.2,
Total :
367.21 .=
3
04072021
BIRD FEST: KEYNOTE TALK ON TW
M
c
BIRD FEST: KEYNOTE TALK ON T"
fd
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
N
500.0(
Total:
500.0( t
10262021
BIRD FEST - POSTER ART CONTES
E
BIRD FEST - POSTER ART CONTES
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
350.0(
Total:
350.0(
�a
030
E7FG STUDENTS SAVING SALMON
o
L
E7FG STUDENTS SAVING SALMON
a
001.000.39.554.90.49.00
225.5� Q
Total :
225.55 r
N
14-420428
E183PO - PARTS/ RUBBER WHEEL
N
E183PO - PARTS/ RUBBER WHEEL
o
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
174.0( N
10.4% Sales Tax
E
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
18.1( 2
Total :
192.1( };
c
200202547
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
E
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95-
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
0
16.6( m
200348233 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W Q
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 35.6E
200468593 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD /
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 31
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249823 10/28/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 25
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
255.6'
200493146
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
E
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
a
18.3,
200638609
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
3
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
195.3E
200714038
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
Y
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
17.1 , t
200739845
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
E
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
16.0E Z
200865202
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
p
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
56.3� o
201197084
SEAVIEW PARK
a
SEAVIEW PARK
Q'
Q
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
21.6, .r
201236825
FISHING PIER RESTROOMS
FISHING PIER RESTROOMS
00
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
138.8E o
201327111
PINE ST PARK
N
PINE ST PARK
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
13.7z 2
201551744
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
U
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / P
001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,202.6, E
201572898 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME f°
111.000.68.542.64.47.00 42.3� Q
201611951 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.63.47.00 32.3(
201751476 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 32
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249823 10/28/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 26
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
(D
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
35.6, E
201782646
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / �
a
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / �
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
16.0< .3
201907862
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
�a
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
28.4E N
201942489
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
t
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
70.8(
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
'@
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
269.1 E u
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
o
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
269.1 E �a
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
o
L
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
269.1 E 0-
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
Q
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
269.1 E r
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH :
N
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
269.1 £ N
202250627
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
16.0< .E
202289120
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
2
U
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
};
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
49.0( aa)
202291662
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1,
E
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1;
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
M
4,988.9E
202439246
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
Q
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,953.1;
202620415
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 33
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249823 10/28/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
202807632
222704272
222704280
249824 10/28/2021 072776 SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DIST 5764
249825 10/28/2021 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
249826 10/28/2021 078227 SNO-KING YOUTH CLUB
PO # Description/Account
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
WWTP: 9/4-10/4/21 FLOWMETER 11
9/4-10/4/21 FLOW METER 2400 HI(
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
WWTP: 9/18-10/18 METER 1000135
9/18-10/18 200 2ND AVE S / METER
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
Total
E7FG SERVICES THRU QTR3
E7FG SERVICES THRU QTR3
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
Total
68726 INV 68726 - EDMONDS PD
LOCKER MAGNET - LEEN
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
MAILBOX MAGNET - LEEN
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10282021 SKYC
249827 10/28/2021 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE Nov-21
Total ;
ERPF NONPROFIT SUPPORT GRAD
ERPF NONPROFIT SUPPORT GRAD
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
Total
NOV-2021 FIRE SERVICES CONTR)
7.2.a
Page: 27
Amoun
m
14.3" E
R
a
a�
16.6( .3
c
�a
17.7z Y
a�
t
21,081.1E
31,696.35
0
M
330.0( o
330.0( a
a
Q
15,000.0(
15,000.0(
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 34
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
249827 10/28/2021 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE (Continued)
249828 10/28/2021 076811 STANLEY, MARCUS STANLEY 10/21 EXP CL
249829 10/28/2021 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 10015
249830 10/28/2021 078300 TERRY BALL POLYGRAPH LLC
249831 10/28/2021 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY
249832 10/28/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
PO # Description/Account
Nov-2021 Fire Services Contract Pay
001.000.39.522.20.41.50
Total
STANLEY VCQB INSTRUCTOR RIC[
PER DIEM RICHLAND 10/2-10/8/21
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
Total
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR OC'
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR OC'
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
Total
2021-169 INV 2021-169
4 PRE -EMPLOY EXAMS 10/20-10/22
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Total
132576 MONTHLY BASE CHARGE FOR HP
Monthly Base Charge for HP Pagewic
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
Total
9890524546 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
249833 10/28/2021 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES BLD2021-1129
Total
REFUND: BUILDING - CUSTOMER
7.2.a
Page: 28
Amoun
m
654,236.4,, E
654,236.4, a
a�
3
354.7.E
354.7; y
U
a�
t
550.0( .E
550.0( 19
4-
0
�a
1,000.0( o
1,000.0( Lo
r
N
00
175.0( N
0
18.2( N
193.2( •�
c
a�
104.6� E
t
48.4E
a
40.9E
194.01
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 35
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
249833
10/28/2021 071424 WASHINGTON ENERGY SERVICES
(Continued)
Refund: Building - Customer cancelk
001.000.257.620
Tota I :
249834
10/28/2021 070180 WATAI
22-0105
INV 22-0105 - EDMONDS PD
WATAI MEMBERSHIP - STRUM
001.000.41.521.71.49.00
WATAI MEMBERSHIP - JENSEN
001.000.41.521.71.49.00
Total
249835
10/28/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
12485770
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ GROUT BF
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ GROUT BF
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
12490084
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
12490085
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
249836
10/28/2021 078302 WEBER, CAROL
9
VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI
VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
249837
10/28/2021 073552 WELCO SALES LLC
8139
INV 8139 - EDMONDS PD
B/C PRINTS - GILGINAS &HARRIS
7.2.a
Page: 29
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 36
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249837 10/28/2021 073552 W ELCO SALES LLC
249838 10/28/2021 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC
249839 10/28/2021 078736 ZECK, LAURA
249840 10/28/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
B/C PRINTS - LEEN & VICK
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
4 NEW BC LAYOUTS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
Total
21-EDM00010
OCT-2021 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer
001.000.36.515.33.41.00
Total
603337219-001-0001
LAURA ZECK REFUND
larua zexk bid refund
001.000.233.000
Total
253-007-4989
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
7.2.a
Page: 30
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
10/28/2021 10:49:59AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
249840 10/28/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
102 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
102 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.a
Page: 31
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
(D
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
87.3E
E
425-697-6502
MUSEUM ALARM LINES - 118 5TH P
a
Museum Alarm Lines - 118 5th Ave N
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
108.8(
.3
425-712-8347
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
73.5 ,
425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC
t
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
68.2,
425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL,
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
001.000.66.518.30.42.00 138.6� o
Total: 1,076.4(
0
Bank total : 1,943,054.1<, a
a
Total vouchers : 1,943,054.15 Q
T
N
00
N
O
N
E
.2
V
al
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 38
7.2.b
vchlist
10/25/2021 10 :25 :48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
10212021 10/21/2021 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun . .
ui
0881 UTM CC SEPT 2021
c
VIRTUAL MANAGEMENT TRAINING
E
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
990.0(
Man Human Resources
a
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
495.0( .(D
Fun Issues of Caseflow
3
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
495.0( c
Jury Supplies
`6
001.000.23.512.50.31.00
3.5:
Man Human Resources
aD
t
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
495.0( u
Fun Issues of Caseflow
E
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
495.0( 2
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
c
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
495.0( -@
1558 ENOM SSL CERTIFICATE SERVICE;
c
Sunrise - Beelink Intel Coffee Lake
a
512.000.31.518.88.35.00
3,294.0( Q
Newegg.com - ASUS VP228QG 22" l'
512.000.31.518.88.35.00
817.4� N
Remote PC - Host overage 10/28/20
N
512.000.31.518.88.49.00
10.0( o
ENOM SSL Certificate Services
512.000.31.518.88.49.00
94.0( 3
Digicert.com - Wildcard certificates
r
512.000.31.518.88.49.00
2,435.81
Amazon - Logitech S120 2.0 speaker
E
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
38.6, U
Newegg.com - Omni Gear HDMI cabl
001.000.62.558.60.35.00
14.2< Q
Newegg.com - Allstate protection for
001.000.62.558.60.35.00
287.0<
Newegg.com - 2021 HP ProBook 450
001.000.62.558.60.35.00
1,711.1
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 39
vchlist
10/25/2021 10:25:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
10212021 10/21/2021 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.b
Page: 2
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
—71
Sunrise - Beelink Intel Coffee Lake
ui
001.000.62.558.60.35.00
529.0(
Zoom - Standard Biz Annual for M
001.000.31.514.23.42.00
112.4E a
Zoom - Audio License Unlimited AnnL
001.000.31.514.23.42.00
_W
33.7, 3
Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 22" Fu
=
001.000.62.558.60.35.00
372.4- N
ENOM - Domain Name Registration -
Y
512.000.31.518.88.49.00
U
30.7-
Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT),
U
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
44.1 E .
Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT),
U
001.000.61.557.20.42.00
44.1 E o
Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT),
001.000.23.512.50.42.00
54.1E o
Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT),
a
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
44.1 E Q
Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT),
001.000.62.558.60.42.00
88.3, N
Batterysharks - SigmasTek SP12-3.5
N
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
137.4 1 c
ENOM Domain Name Registration -
512.000.31.518.88.49.00
30.7- •3
Duo.com - MFA monthly qty 90
r
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
270.0(
Newegg.com - Allstate protection for
E
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
695.4� U
Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 22" Mc
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
275.9E Q
ENOM Domain Name Registration -
512.000.31.518.88.49.00
22.5(
Newegg.com - 2021 HP ProBook 45C
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
4,802.3E
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
10/25/2021 10:25:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
10212021 10/21/2021 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.b
Page: 3
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
-71
ui
Rev.com - Zoom Live Captions add o
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
40.0(
Amazon - APC UPS Network Manage
512.000.31.518.88.35.00
772.6�
Amazon - TP-Link 802.3af Gigabit Po
L_
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
89.8E 3
5639
PAYFLOW PAYMENT PROCESSOR
c
Payflow payment processor
`6
001.000.62.524.20.49.00
15.2(
Payflow payment processor
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
15.2( u
Payflow payment processor
E
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
15.2( U
6818
GFOA MEMBERSHIP & WEBINAR F,
GFOA - Membership for M Cain
c
—a
001.000.31.514.23.49.00
150.0( o
GFOA - California Public Finance
a
001.000.31.514.23.49.00
37.5( Q
8111
8111 MICHELE PARKER CREDIT CA
�-
LAKESHORE LEAFING: PRESCHO(
N
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
213.2'
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY: PRE!
c
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
279.5"
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
L
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
24.81 3
SMART FOODSERVICE: CHEF'S ST
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
53.4E E
GROCERY OUTLET: PRESCHOOL,
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
17.6<
AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
Q
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 128.0z
SAFEWAY: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.64.571.29.31.00 1.6�
VALUE VILLAGE: PRESCHOOL SUF
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
10/25/2021 10:25:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
10212021 10/21/2021 062693 US BANK
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.b
Page: 4
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
ui
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
3.3(
COSTCO: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES:
E
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
61.61
8111
CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM: DIS
a
CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEM: DIS
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
-36.4< 3
8842
GFOAGAAP UPDATE WEBINAR FC
c
GFOA - Annual Government GAAP ul
001.000.31.514.23.49.00
135.0( Y
9644
CORRECTIONAL COUNSELING - BF
Q
CORRECTIONAL COUNSELING - BF
U
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
274.2E E
Total:
22,050.51,
Bank total :
22,050.51 G
�a
Total vouchers :
22,050.51, o
a
Q.
Q
N
N
O
d
L
3
r
c
m
E
U
�a
a
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 42
7.2.c
vchlist
10/28/2021 11:27:10AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
10282021 10/28/2021 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun . .
ui
1937 FLEET CC - 10/06/2021
c
WEATHER TECH - E183PO
E
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
152.3(
AMAZON - E187WR PARTS
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
59.6( .�
HARBOR FREIGHT - L#818 26" TOP
3
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
242.8, c
AMAZON - FLEET BATTERIES
ca
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
49.0E
HOME DEPOT - FLEET SUPPLIES
t
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
27.5, u
AMAZON - 01-FLT - TEMP/HUMIDIT`
E
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
186.5f
AMAZON - UNIT 438 - JUMP STARTI
c
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
220.7z —@
SIMPLE TIRE - TIRES
0
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
931.3E a
SENSORED LIFE - 01-FLT - PARTS
Q'
Q
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
AMAZON - UNIT 89 HOSE REEL CO
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
22.1( N
AMAZON - SHOP SUPPLIES
o
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
109.9, m
RANDY'S RING & PINION UNIT 28,
3
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
189.5E
AMAZON - UNITS 89 & 73 PARTS
r
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
32.6E E
AMAZON - FIRST AID SUPPLIES
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
26.3E
THERMO KING - UNIT 66
Q
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
252.0,
ACE - DUAL RANGE VOLTAGE TES-
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
43.0z
FISHERIES SUPPLY - UNIT 98 PARI
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
10/28/2021 11:27:10AM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
10282021 10/28/2021 062693 US BANK
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.2.c
Page: 2
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
ui
99.1E
ACE - SUPPLIES
E
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
36.51
WA DOL - REPORT OF SALE
a
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
13.6E
WEATHER TECH - E187PO
3
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
174.3E
Total:
2,968.5( N
Bank total :
2,968.5( y
t
U
Total vouchers :
2,968.5( E
U
4-
0
�a
0
L
Q
a
r
N
00
N
O
L
3
r
c
m
E
M
U
�a
a
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 44
7.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STM
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21FB
L STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
TM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c5
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
STIR
2019 Traffic Calming
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
2019 Utility Ram Upda
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
2019 Waterline Replacement
0498
E7JA
STIR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
STIR
2020 Overlay Progra
i042
EOCA
STIR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
EmEl
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
STIR
2020 Traffic Calming _
i048
EOAC
Moor
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STIR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
Owl
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
STIR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
i0lW�1DB JJ
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i060
E21CC
EEVW
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
STIR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
WTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
i059
STIR
2022 Overlay Program
i063
E22CA
I STIR
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
i065
STIR
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
i066
E22CD
STIR
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
i064
-
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
STIR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
STIR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
L_ STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave
c423
E3DB
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
ir STIR
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
i052
E20CB
STIR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
ElCA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
STIR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
ME-STR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
STIR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
F9F
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
c488
E6GB
TR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement
i026
STIR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Constructio
c551
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
Rr ESJB
Revised 10/27/2021 Packet Pg. 45
7.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
L FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Reha
c443
E4MB
STM
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
c564
E21 FE
STIR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c4
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
c561
E21JB
STIR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
058
E2
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
MM
Fg1Wh Avenue Cultural Corridor
EBMA
STIR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
MENEWwy
99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th)
067
IFE22CE I
STIR
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
i068
E22CF
STM
MOW
Lake Ballinger Associated Projec
c436
E41FD
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 (Studeaving Salmon)
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
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
SWR
Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project
c566
E22GA
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project
c565
E22JA
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
ow
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
c563
E21 FD
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
SWR
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c559
E21 GA
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
SWR
Sani ary Sewer and S ormwater Pipe Rating Services
c562
E21 GB
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
EOFA
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
SR 104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226t
069
E22CG
STIR
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
E20CE
UTILITIES
Standard Details Update
solo
ESNA
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
=Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
IR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
i044
E9DC
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Developmentiastoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
WWTP
WTP Outfall Pipe Modifications-4
c481
ESHA
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
EOJB
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
E21 FA
Revised 10/27/2021 Packet Pg. 46
7.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
EOAA
i046
2020 Guardrail Installations
STR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
2020 Waterline Overlay
STR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
i049
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
STR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
Nov
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Projec
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
MOM
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design) Mom
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
STR
IMMV
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E1DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STR
E20CB
i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
INEMEL
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
STR
E21AA
i056
2021 Traffic Calming
F- STR
2021 Guardrail Installations
STR
E21 CA
i051
2021 Overlay Program
WTR
E21CB
i059
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
SWR
E21 CC
i060
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
STM
E21CD
i061
2021 Stormwater Overlay Progra
STR
E21 DA
i058
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
E21 DB11111111111111r
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
PRK
E21 FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
STM
E21 FB
c560
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
E21 FD
c563
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
STM
E21 FE
c564
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
SWR
E21GAW c559
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
E21 GB
c562
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
WTR
E21JA
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
STR
E22CA
i063
2022 Overlay Program
STR
E22CB
i064
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
i065
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
STR
E22CD
i066
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
STR
E22CE
i067
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th)
STR
E22CF
i068
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
E22CG
i069
SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th)
SWR
E22GA
c566
Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project
MrPhase
13 Waterline Replacement Project
STR
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
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
Revised 10/27/2021 Packet Pg. 47
7.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding Number
Number
Project Title
SWR E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
FAC E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
Trackside Warning System
STIR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
E5D6
c4
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E51KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
UTILITIES
E51IIIIA
Standard Details Updat
STR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
STIR
E6AB
Mi.
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
Minor Sidewalk Progra
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
SWR
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III -
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STIR
�
1005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
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)
c498
2019 Waterline Replacemer I
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
^A°e
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
8AB
220th Adaptiv
STIR
E8CA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E8CC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STIR
E8DB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
238th St. Island &gWamps
STM
E8FA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
STM
E8FB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
STM
E8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
SWR
E8GA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR
E8JA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
UTILITIES
JEIMV s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STIR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STIR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STIR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) lr
STM
E9FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
_ FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
Revised 10/27/2021 Packet Pg. 48
7.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Enaineerina
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
ProiectTitle
PM
EBMA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
E1CA
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STM
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Ouffall Groundwater Monitoring
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
STIR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
WTR
ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
STIR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
STIR
ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
ESFD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
WWTP
ESHA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
ESJB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
PRK
E7MA
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
SWR
EBGA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
STM
EBFB
c521
174th St. & 71stAve Storm Improvements
WTR
EBJA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
STM
EBFC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
PRK
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
STM
EOFA
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
E0F13
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
SWR
EOGA
c548
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
STM
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
PRK
E21 FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
WTR
E21JA
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
SWR
E21 GA
c559
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
STM
E21 FB
c560
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
WTR
E21JB
c561
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
SWR
E21 GB
c562
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
STM
E21 FD
c563
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
STM
E21 FE
c564
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
WTR
E22JA
c565
Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project
SWR
E22GA
c566
Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STIR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STIR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STIR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
Revised 10/27/2021 Packet Pg. 49
7.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
E7DC
i026
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
STR
EBAB
i028
220th Adaptive
STR
EBCA
i029
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR
EBCC
i031
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR
EBDB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
STR
EBDC
i037
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STR
E9AA
i038
2019 Traffic Calming
STR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
STR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
WTR
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
STR
E9AD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STR
EOAA
i046
2020 Guardrail Installations
STR
EOAB
i047
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
STR
EOAC
i048
2020 Traffic Calming
STR
EODB
i049
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
STR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
STR
E21 CA
i051
2021 Overlay Program
STR
E20CB
i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STR
EOCC
i053
2020 Waterline Overlay
STR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
STR
E21 AA
i056
2021 Traffic Calming
STR
E21AB
i057
2021 Guardrail Installations
STR
E21 DA
i058
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
WTR
E21CB
i059
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
SWR
E21 CC
i060
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
STM
E21 CD
i061
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
STR
E21 DB
i062
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
STR
E22CA
i063
2022 Overlay Program
STR
E22CB
i064
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
STR
E22CC
i065
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
STR
E22CD
i066
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
STR
E22CE
i067
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th)
STR
E22CF
i068
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
STR
E22CG
i069
SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th)
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
STR
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
STM
E9FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
STR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
WTR
EOJB
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
Revised 10/27/2021 Packet Pg. 50
7.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E7MA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
E21 FA
STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21 FB
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
E21 CD
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA
STM
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
c563
E21 FD
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
E7FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
E20FC
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
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
STM
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
c564
E21 FE
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
E0A13
STR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
STR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA
STR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21 AA
STIR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
STIR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DI3
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STIR
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
i052
E20CB
STR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
i029
EBCA
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
ElCA
STR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
Revised 10/27/2021 Packet Pg. 51
7.2.d
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STR
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th)
i067
E22CE
STR
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
i068
E22CF
STR
SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th)
1069
E22CG
STR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
040
E9DA
STR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
STR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
050
EODC
STR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
015
E6AB
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
STR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
058
E21 DA
STR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STR
Minor Sidewalk Program
017
E6DD
STR
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
E20CE
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
STR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
i044
E9DC
STR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
i061
E21 DB
STR
2022 Overlay Program
i063
E22CA
STR
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
i064
E22CB
STR
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
i065
E22CC
STR
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
i066
E22CD
STR
2020 Waterline Overlay
053
EOCC
STR
220th Adaptive
028
EBAB
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i060
E21CC
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
c488
E6GB
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
sol l
ESGB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
SWR
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c559
E21 GA
SWR
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
c562
E21GB
SWR
Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project
c566
E22GA
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
EBJB
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
WTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
059
E21 CB
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
c561
E21JB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
EOJB
WTR
Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project
c565
E22JA
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
Revised 10/27/2021 Packet Pg. 52
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
Budget Presentation and Public Hearing
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Dave Turley
Background/History
Tonight's presentation is an opportunity to present information related to the City's revenues, in order
to provide context useful in making expenditure decisions for the 2022 city budget.
Staff Recommendation
After the presentation a public hearing will be held.
Narrative:
N/A
Attachments:
Revenue Sources Presentation Nov 2021
Packet Pg. 53
Revenue Presentation for the 2022
Edmonds City Budget
November 1, 2021
u ji +C
Packet Pg. 54
Whyare we havingthispresentation tonight?
RCW 35.33.057 States that "Prior to the final hearing on the budget, the legislative
body or a committee thereof, shall schedule hearings on the budget or parts thereof"
What is the purpose?
When putting a budget together, we start with understanding our Revenues. One
purpose of this presentation is to help you understand City revenues to help us make
expenditure decisions, another is to give you context later this evening when you
decide whether to increase our property tax levy by 1%.
o� Eb4
Uti't� w o�0 r
Q
Packet Pg. 55
Budget Highlights
What is in the Proposed Budget, in addition to ongoing city services?
ARPA Funds - Year 2 of — $11 million in federal funds to be invested in Edmonds
businesses, individuals, and green infrastructure.
Improvements to the Uptown Community - beginning construction of Phase 2 of the
Highway 99 Revitalization Project.
Community Policing - In response to State mandates, and an effort to address public
safety issues, as well as take proactive steps to engage the community.
Climate Action - investments in solar energy, electric vehicle, and making additional
electric vehicle charging stations available for public use.
Human Services - Continuation of the program begun in 2021.
Maintenance of buildings - Significant investments being made in long -delayed
building maintenance.
c
0
Z
0
OF EbA t
Q
Packet Pg. 56
City-wide Revenue Budget - $114.8 million
City Revenues Compared to Previous Year
60,000,000
■ 2021 2022
50,000,000
40,000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
General Fund
Water, Storm,
Fleet and IT
Edmonds
Street Street Parks REET Other
and Sewer
(Internal
Rescue Plan
Construction Maintenance Construction
related funds Service Funds)
Fund
Packet Pg. 58
12roro
M0r000
6,OOOr OOO
400000000
2,00D, 000
General Fund Tax Revenue (2015 throu h 2020)
— — — 5a les Tax — Property Tax — EMS Tax Other Taxes
2015
201
2017
2018
2019
2020
o �
Packet Pg. 59
General Fund Revenues
These have been very consistent over the last several years
This stability helps when making a 2022 forecast
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
$30,000,000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
General Fund Revenues - 2% Per Year on Average
2016 2017 2018 2019
■GF Revenues Without Transfers -In
■ Transfers -In
2020 2021 Estimate 2022 Budget
C
O
Z
CL
O
R
C
O
d
L
N
O
N
O
Z
C
O
r
to
C
O
d
L
d
c,>
L
O
O
7
C
O
d
r
C
d
E
t
r �
r
w
Q
q'IlPacket Pg. 60
General Fund Revenues
About 74% of GF revenues are made up of Property Taxes and Sales Taxes
Property Taxes - very predictable and consistent
Sales Taxes - unpredictable and more volatile
(Chart from page 24 of Budget Book)
Exci3e iaxe.�.
$306,C00
Reta i I Sa I es a nd Us e
Taxes, $10,877,600
Praper#p Taxes,
515,405,500
usiness and Occupation
Taxes, $5,979,050
Lir- enses &
Permits,
$2.361,850
I ntergoaer n rnenta I,
$1, 249,760
Ch a rges for 5erwi r es,
W825513
Fines and
Pena I ti es,
$442.450
Miscellaneous, $688,660
Transfers In, $26,300
pF ED_ t
LAl
w 0��
Q
Packet Pg. 61
c
0
a
General Fund Revenues - Other (^--.-26%)i
Z
CL
These are things like charges for services, fines and penalties, grants, and other misc.
0
Development Services - Building permits and related fees
Parks - Program fees for things like classes
Outside Revenues - Agreements with Woodway and Edmonds School District,
Distributions from the State (e.g. liquor and marijuana taxes)
— 90 revenue line items in total
In general, in preparing the 2022 Proposed Budget, we have returned to pre -Pandemic
expectations for these revenues and related expenses
L
Q.
OF Ebb t
Q
Packet Pg. 62
General Fund Revenues - Property Taxes (^---,35%)
Very predictable and consistent
Presentation to follow later this evening
PjR01Pi, ERT Y
o � � ID E
o �
u 'jam
Packet Pg. 63
General Fund Revenues - Sales Taxes (^--,39%
Retail Sales Tax — 22%
Other Sales Taxes (Utilities, Criminal Justice, Leasehold) — 17%
2020
Sales and Use Tax
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
0
J
AN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NAV DEC
2021 Sales and Use Tax
9,000,000
x,000,OD0
7,000,ODO
69000,00O
59000,ODO
49000,OD0
39000,000 —
29000,000
190009000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 5EP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget Prior Year
CV E1) t�Li
c)
Q
IrPa7cketg. 64
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET
A significant revenue source that can help to alleviate pressure on the General Fund
(REET does not affect most households in a given year)
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
Cumulative Monthly YTb Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
2021 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & Z
()p ED4 0t
Q
Packet Pg. 65
General Fund Revenues and Budget Planning
Whatyou need to know:
COVID - will be with us for all of 2021 2022, we have prepared a budget intended to
deal with this for the long-term. A vaccine will help, but it will take time.
Forecasting - Our actual results have fallen in line with projections that we have made.
Trends - Our revenues remain strong, and we foresee continued growth in Sales Taxes
and REET.
Stimulus Packages - Nationally and locally, federal government stimulus packages
have had a positive impact on keeping the economy going.
Budget for 2021 - we are hoping for the best, but planning for the `°'^ continued
slow, steady growth overall.
OF Ebb t
Q
Packet Pg. 66
Next Steps:
Once this presentation is concluded, next on the agenda is our Preliminary Budget
Hearing:
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Accept comments
3. Close Public Hearing
This is a presentation only, no action is asked for this evening. Its purpose is to inform
Council and the public and help make decisions on expenditure setting later.
Thank you.
OF Ebb t
a
Packet Pg. 67
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
Property Taxes Presentation and Public Hearing
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Dave Turley
Background/History
A presentation and Public Hearing are required before Council passes the Property Tax Levy Ordinance
for 2022.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative:
Tonight's presentation will be followed by a Public Hearing, and then Council discussion on the 2022
Property Tax Levy.
Attachments:
Property Tax Presentation Nov 2021
Packet Pg. 68
Property Tax Presentation for the
2022 Edmonds City Budget
November 1, 2021
Packet Pg. 69
Whyare we havingthispresentation tonight?
RCW 84.55.120 States that we must "hold a public hearing on revenue sources for the
district's following year's current expense budget" (General Fund)
What is the ur ose?
p p
In our case, Property Taxes make up about 35% of GF budget. One significant purpose
of this presentation is to give you context when you decide whether to increase our
property tax levies by 1%.
OV Eby
O +'
w Q
Packet Pg. 70
Introduction:
Washington State property tax laws are among the most complicated in the entire country.
r
There are many sources out there that I can direct you to if you would like more details on the intricacies N
of Washington State property tax laws. One very good, concise description can be found at z
http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Finance/Revenues/The-Property-Tax-in-Washington-State.aspx
L
CL
K
I
r
L
Q
0
L.
a
aD
E
M
OV Ebb O�O ++
+'
w Q
U cn
Packet Pg. 71
Property Taxes make up about $15.4 million, or 35% of the General Fund budget
(Chart: Budget Book page 24)
Retail Sales and Use
Taxes, $10,877,600
Excise Taxes, $�.ww,t
Licenses & Permits,
$2,361,850
Intergovernmental,
6� $1, 249,760
Fines and Penalties,
$448,450
Miscellaneous,
$688,660
Transfers In, $26,300
Packet Pg. 72
Property Taxes that go to the City of Edmonds make up only 11.2% of the
Property Tax bill paid by the typical Edmonds homeowner
(this was 14.6% last year)
(Chart: Budget Book page 26)
Hospital District, $0.06 City of Edmonds, $0.91 ,
, 0.s% 11.2 %
Emergency Medical
Service, $0.36 , 4.4%
)f Edmonds,
.06 , 0.7%
Sno-Isle Libraries,
$0.42 , 5.3%
a
Packet Pg. 73
Property Taxes Levies 2013-2022
(Chart information for years 2013-2020:
2020 Edmonds Annual Financial Report, page 159)
$15,000,000
$14,000,000
$13,000,000
$12,000,000
$11,000,000
$10,000,000
Total Amount Levied
.10,E .10�� .10�� 'L�,yfo 'L�,y'\ .10�� .10,E 'L�•10 ea\
o°
Q�
,10
4.0%
-1.0%
-2.0%
-3.0%
-4.0%
Levy % Increase
The City's tax levy may only increase up to 1% per year except for 1) tapping banked capacity or 2) approving an excess levy or a levy lid lift.
In 2014-2016 the City levied extra money to pay for debt service on the Public Safety Building.
Packet Pg. 74
Property Taxes Decision for tonight: Does Council wish to increase either
the Regular Property Tax Levy or the EMS Levy by 1% over last year?
(Amounts provided by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office)
Regular Property Regular Property
Tax with 0% increase Tax with 1% increase
Regular Property Tax levied last year $ 10,556,496 $ 10,556,496
Add 0% or add 1% - 105,565
Add New Construction (est.) 33,146 33,146
Refunds and Other Assessor Adjustments (est.) (31,980) (31,980)
ESTIMATED Regular Levy for 2022
$ 10,557,662 $ 10,663,227
EMS Property Tax EMS Property Tax
with 0% increase with 1% increase
EMS Property Tax levied last year $ 4,164,015 $ 4,164,015
Add 0% or add 1% - 41,640
Add New Construction (est.) 13,075 13,075
Refunds and Other Assessor Adjustments (est.) (12,548) (12,548)
ESTIMATED EMS Levy for 2022
$
4,164,542 $
4,206,182
Revenue from the Current Expense Levy
(Regular Property Tax Levy) is unrestricted, it
can be spent on anything.
Revenue from the EMS Property Tax Levy
can be used only for emergency medical
care or emergency medical services — in our
case it supports our Fire District contract.
Banked capacity for the Regular Levy exists
in the amount of $341,775.
OV Eby
O +'
w Q
Packet Pg. 75
Next Steps:
Once this presentation is concluded, we will hold a Public Hearing on Property Taxes:
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Accept comments
3. Close Public Hearing
After the Public Hearing, Council needs to discuss the alternatives and decide on 1% or 0%
increases on both the Regular and EMS levies. Then we will prepare an Ordinance reflecting
the decision arrived at tonight and place it on next week's Consent Agenda.
Action Needed:
Motion to approve a 0% or 1 % increase to the Current Expense (Regular) Levy,
and a second Motion to approve a 0% or 1 % increase to the EMS Levy.
�� Eby
O +'
w Q
Packet Pg. 76
8.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
Public Hearing on Proposed 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) & Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Staff Lead: Rob English, Phil Williams, Angie Feser & Shannon Burley
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Rob English
Background/History
On October 26, 2021, Staff presented this item to the City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Hold public hearing.
Narrative
The 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are being presented
in a different format this year. In previous years, the CFP and CIP were separate documents and
projects in the CIP were organized by the City's financial funds. This year, staff combined the CFP and
CIP into one document with project lists that identify Capital Facility projects and project information
sheets for all projects and programs.
The Public Works and Utilities Department proposed 2022-2027 CFP/CIP is included as Attachment 1.
The Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department proposed 2022-2027 CFP/CIP is included as
Attachment 2. The October 26, 2021 presentations from Public Works & Utilities (Attachment 3) and
the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department (Attachment 4) are attached.
Staff made a CFP/CIP presentation to the Planning Board on October 13, 2021 (See Attachment 5 for the
10/13/21 Planning Board Minutes). The Planning Board held a public hearing at the October 27, 2021
meeting and received comments along with two written comments prior to the public hearing
(Attachment 6 are the written comments). The 10/27/21 Planning Board minutes will be provided to
the City Council when they are available.
The Planning Board approved the following motion and recommendations at the 10/27/21 meeting:
Motion to recommend the 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) to City Council, with the following recommendations:
1. That staff do their best to explain the funding aspect of the CFP to the public and explain why
items are located where they are, particularly the Marsh Restoration Project and other projects
that incorporate multiple components of the CFP.
2. That the City should establish a formal process to establish values and a vision of Edmonds that
would be as part of, and lead, the Comprehensive Planning process.
3. Seek opportunities to shift monies or look for funding to move forward with projects that
advance equity throughout the City.
Packet Pg. 77
8.3
This item is scheduled for further discussion at the November 16th City Council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is updated annually and identifies capital projects for at
least the next six years, which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. CFP projects are capital
improvement projects that expand existing facilities/infrastructure or provide 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 CFP projects.
These preservation projects are part of the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with
capital facility plan projects that encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related
projects.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Public Works & Utilities Proposed 2022-2027 CFP-CIP
Attachment 2 - Parks Proposed 2022-2027 CFP-CIP
Attachment 3 - October 26, 2021 Public Works & Utilities Presentation
Attachment 4 - October 26, 2021 Parks CFP-CIP Presentation
Attachment 5 - Planning Board Draft Minutes 10-13-21
Attachment 6 - PB written comments
Packet Pg. 78
Packet Pg. 79
8.3.a
Index
TRANSPORTATION & UTILITY PROJECT MAP ..................................................... 2
FACILITIES & WWTP PROJECT MAP.......................................................................
3
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LIST........................................................................4-6
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT SHEETS.............................................................
..7-64
WATER PROJECT LIST..........................................................................................65-66
WATER PROJECT SHEETS....................................................................................67-69
STORMWATER PROJECT LIST............................................................................70-71
STORMWATER PROJECT SHEETS......................................................................72-81
SEWER PROJECT LIST...........................................................................................82-83
SEWER PROJECT SHEETS.....................................................................................84-88
FACILITIES PROJECT LIST...................................................................................89-90
FACILITIES PROJECT SHEETS...........................................................................91-108
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT LIST.................................109-110
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECT SHEETS...........................111-114
CIP-CFP COMPARISON(2021-2027).................................................................115-118
Packet Pg. 80
1
-11. 1 C"
Public Works & Utilities Department
TRANSPORTATION &
PW D-04�
UTILITY PROJECTS �� � WT-28
Projects
o Sewer
o Stormwater
• Street/Intersection Project
o Non -Motorized Transportation Project
o Water
Sewer
Street/Intersection Project
Non -Motorized Transportation Project
PWT-05 PWT-17
• •
PWT-24
PWT-03
PWT-09
I
PWT-12
F7=
PWT-35
PWT-37
PWT-19 PWT-16
•
PWT-11
PWT-1/
-13 IPWT-14
PWT-31
PWT-50
PWS-11
PAM m
MMWr��<fflw PWT-10
* Site specific projects only. Citywide/annual citywide projects not shown. PWT-43 10 PWT
3.a
Public Works & Utilities Department
FACILITIES &
WWTP PROJECTS
t
11N/ S
r�
PWF;03` • ' Z-0l
♦;P.WF.-09 ;
100 a Iris
`E1111- 1
-1
Cl) Dayton St c
_
N
•�1IP
Dayton
St
�
Daytoi
qlP:P� F-13
Q� �� �
o
o. o,
O
la
Alder
ra
r
Ln
S
4
•
-
U��
■■�
Walnut
��
i-
St Walnut St ,�,
0 a'
t
IRW PWF-07 PWI
PWF-04 PWF-09 • PWI
PWF-03
PWF-10 00
PWF-13 P
Projects '1% pmu)-&
ge
o Facilities I
o WWTP
N
►odds Prague St PWF-01 si
7-07
Edm
III
■
3 �r
nds_St_
AN
* Site specific projects only. Citywide/annual citywide projects not shown. I Packet Pg. 82
8.3.a
TRANSPORTATION
c
m
a
a�
m
U-
Q
m
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
fA
O
O.
O
L.
a
4-
0
a�
c
�L
m
4)
n
a
a_
U
d
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
Q.
O
L
a
N
O
a+
r
06
N
Y
L
O
V
Packet Pg. 83
a
Transportation Projects
8.3.a
#
CFP
PROJECT
DP
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
#
(2022-2027)
(2028-42)
Project Cost
Preservation / Maintenance Proiects
PWT-01
lAnnual Street Preservation Program
76
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,386,000
$1,650,000
$1,650,000
$9,186,000
$0
$9,186,00C
PWT-02
84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
84
$5,780
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,780
$0
$5,78C
PWT-03
76th Ave. W Overlay from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.
78
$1,663,723
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,663,723
$0
$1,663,722
PWT-04
Main St. Overlay from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave.
$0
$157,000
$780,000
$0
$0
$0
$937,000
$0
$937,00C
PWT-05
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades
$0
$0
$0
$80,000
$450,000
$0
$530,000
$0
$530,OOC
PWT-06
Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$150,0001
$700,000
$0
$850,000
$0
$850,OOC
PWT-07
Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades
sol
sol
sol
$0
$100,000
$350,000
$450,000
$0
$450,OOC
Safetv / Canacity Analvsis
PWT-08
X
228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th PI. W Corridor
$0
$0
$0
$1,000,000
$1,700,000
$12,000,000
$14,700,000
$0
$14,700,OOC
PWT-09
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 2
80
$7,660,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7,660,000
$0
$7,660,00C
PWT-10
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 3
81
$640,000
$3,200,000
$1,930,000
$16,000,000
$10,752,000
$0
$32,522,000
$0
$32,522,OOC
PWT-11
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 4
82
$400,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,167,000
$16,000,000
$16,434,000
$41,001,000
$0
$41,001,00C
PWT-12
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 5
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,080,000
$4,964,000
$7,044,000
$37,971,000
$45,015,00(
PWT-13
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,217,000
$20,217,00C
PWT-14
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$38,142,000
$38,142,00C
PWT-15
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$35,242,000
$35,242,00C
PWT-16
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,072,000
$20,072,00C
PWT-17
X
SR 524 196th St. SW / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$238,000
$216,000
$720,000
$1,174,000
$0
$1,174,00C
PWT-18
X
Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$176,000
$1,000,000
$0
$1,176,000
$0
$1,176,OOC
PWT-19
X
76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW - Intersection Improvements
83
$276,902
$387,4391
$725,000
$6,881,000
$0
$0
$8,270,341
$0
$8,270,341
PWT-20
SR-104 Adaptive System
86
$150,000
$260,000
$0
$1,955,000
$0
$0
$2,365,000
$0
$2,365,OOC
PWT-21
X
SR-104 tooth Ave W. Intersection & Access M mt m rovements
$0
$0
$0
$160,000
$931,000
$0
$1,091,000
$0
$1,091,OOC
PWT-22
X
SR-104 @ 95th PI. W Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$80,000
$450,000
$0
$530,000
$0
$530,OOC
PWT-23
X
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$213,000
$1,219,000
$0
$1,432,000
$0
$1,432,OOC
PWT-24
X
Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,266,000
$1,266,OOC
PWT-25
X
84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$16,622,000
$16,622,OOC
PWT-26
X
SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$481,000
$2,750,000
$0
$3,231,000
$0
$3,231,OOC
PWT-27
X
Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Intersection Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$671,000
$671,OOC
PWT-28
175th St Sope Repair
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$1,000,OOC
PWT-57
2022 Guardrail Program
95
$20,180
$0
$01
$0
$0
$0
$20,180
$0
$20,18C
PWT-58
2022 Traffic Signal Upgrades
88
$30,280
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,280
$0
$30,28(
Non -motorized transportation Proiects
4-
0
C
�L
d
2
t)
B
7
a
a
v
ti
tL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
O
to
O
am
O
L
a
to
d
r
0a
to
Y
L
O
t�
7
PWT-29
X
232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. to SR-104
$0
$0
$0
$0
$206,000
$1,183,000
$1,389,000
$0
$1,389,00C
PWT-30
X
236th St. SW Walkway from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W
$0
$0
$0
$0
$227,000
$1,267,000
$1,494,000
$0
$1,494,OOC
PWT-31
X
236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,831,000
$1,831,00C
PWT-32
X
84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$0
$150,000
$640,000
$790,000
$0
N
$790,OOC E
PWT-33
X
80th Ave. W Walkway from 212th St. SW to 206th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$209,000
$209,000
$2,476,000
$2,894,000
$0
$2,894,00C V
PWT-34
X
80th Ave. W Walkway from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.
$0
$0
$0
$597,000
$2,339,000
$0
$2,936,000
$0
$2,936,OOC r
PWT-35
I X
1218th St. SW Walkway from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W
1 $0
$0
$0
$0
$240,000
$1,350,000
$1,590,000
$0
$1,590,00C Q
PWT-36
X
Walnut St. Walkway from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave S
$0
$0
$0
$265,000
$0
$0
$265,000
$0
$265,00C
PWT-37
X
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$200,00C O
PWT-38
Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements Project
85
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
$t0,00C E
PWT-39
X
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
79
$1,562,390
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,562,390
$0
$1,562,39C V
PWT-40
X
Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$201,000
$201,000
$2,300,000
$2,702,000
$0
$2,702,00C 43
PWT-41
I X
195th PI. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$120,000
$668,000
$0
$788,000
$0
$788,00C Q
PWT-42
X
I Railroad St. Walkway from Dayton St. to Main St. / SR-104
$0
$0
$0
$170,000
$754,000
$0
$924,000
$0
$924,00(
PWT-43
X
SR-104 76th Ave. W Non -Motorized Trans Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,294,000
$1,294,000
PWT-44
X
Downtown Lighting Improvements
$0
$0
$0
$300,0001
$1,200,000
$0
$1,500,000
PWT-45
X
SR-104 Walkway: HAWK to Pine/Pine from SR-104 to 9th
$0
$0
$0
$327,0001
$327,000
$2,636,6o0011
$3,290,0001,
Packet Pg. 84
Transportation Projects
8.3.a
#
CFP
PROJECT
DP
#
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028.42)
TOTAL
Project Cost
PWT-46
X
191st St. SW Walkway from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$678,000
$678,OOC
PWT-47
X
104th Ave. W / Robinhood Lane Walkway from 238th St. SW to 106th
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,060,000
$1,060,OOC O
PWT-48
X
80th Ave. W Walkway from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$324,000
$324,OOC M
PWT-49
X
84th Ave. W Walkway from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$328,000
$328,OOC
PWT-50
X
238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,285,000
$1,285,OOC to
d
PWT-55
X
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
93
$901,780
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$901,780
$0
$901,78C =
PWT-56
X
2022 Pedestrian Safety Program
87
$20,185
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,185
$0
$20,18E .v
s
Ferry Projects
a
PWT-51 X I Ferry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Dayton St. $0 $0 $0 $357,000 $0 $0 $357,000 $0 $357,OOC
d
Traffic Calming V
PWT-52 ITraffic Calming Program 11 94 1 $33,1301 $18,0001 $18,0001 $18,0001 $18,0001 $18,00011 $123,130 $0 $123,13C tl
PWT-53 I I Citywide ADA Transition Plan $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $100,00C
PWT-54 Transportation Plan Update 77 $185.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $185.000 $0 $185.000
Total Projects $15,059,350 $8,622,439 $7,953,000 $34,731,000 $46,537,000 $47,988,000 $160,890,789 $177,003,000 $337,893,78E
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028.42)
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal revenue
$185,000
$131,000
$156,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$922,000
$0
$922,OOC
REET Fund 125
$835,199
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$835,199
$0
$835,19S
REET Fund 126
$1,382,400
$1,596,000
$1,518,000
$1,518,000
$1,518,000
$1,518,000
$9,050,400
$0
$9,050,40C
Transportation Impact Fees
$60,000
$75,6091
$343,750
$145,000
$500,000
$0
$1,124,359
$0
$1,124,35E
General Fund
$500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500,000
$0
$500,OOC
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$371,272
$25,000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$401,272
$0
$401,272
Federal Grants
$936,428
$1,811,830
$1,343,250
$0
$0
$0
$4,091,508
$0
$4,091,50E
State Grants
$8,700,000
$3,700,000
$2,607,000
$0
$0
$0
$15,007,000
$0
$15,007,OOC
Other
$2,073,211
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,073,211
$0
$2,073,211
Unsecured Funding$0
$1,268,000
$1,975,000
$32,918,000
$44,369,000
$46,320,000
$126,850,000
-$177,003,0001
$303,853,OOC
Total Revenue $15,059,350 $8,622,439 $7,953,000 $34,731,000 $46,537,000 $47,988,000 $160,890,789 $177,003,000 $337,893,78E
Packet Pg. 85
Q
Project Description
Annual pavement preservation program to maintain City streets.
Project Benefit
Maintains the City's pavement infrastructure and reduces the need for larger capital investment to rebuild City
steets.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,500,000/ year
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$225,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $200,000 $200,000
$1,275,000 $1,350,000 $1,350,000 $1,236,000 $1,450,000 $1,450,000
$1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,386,000 $1,650,000 $1,650,000
$150,000 $150,000 $150,000
$500,000
$500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,236,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
$500,000
$1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,386,000 $1,650,000 $1,650,000
7
Packet Pg. 86
212TH 8T S4'?
I
2161n_ EL 514 4
2101m!k 3;
:. SR
220TH.ST
Project Description
Pavement overlay of 84th Ave. W from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW, with curb ramps upgrades, RRFB's at the
existing crosswalk in front of the Chase Lake Elementary School, and bike lane addition from 215th St. SW to
212th St. SW on both sides of the street. This project is funded through a secured Federal grant and local funds.
The project will be completed in fall 2021 and the funding in 2022 is necessary to close-out the project and
complete the grant documents.
Project Benefit
Improve pavement condition and active transportation safety along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,130,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$5,780
Expense Total
$5,780
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
$780
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$5,000
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$5,780
Packet Pg. 87
LW
' d
W
00
796
OT iJ"
Q;- w
Q P Sk 5W 155th S1 SW
.'7 Q
Q.
W
IaFtk PI 8W 7
�88TWST SW'' _
1$d p1 X�
Penny Lfi r
93
$ i89uk P7
Si �k1'F4+de
S1 54h
�-
191MI St SW
ii_a T
192+kd Pl &W
5w
Malt. wp'
#
1920 PF M
P3jr4 3iq*
1?JFd W •
>
193r sW
N
#51
Nw
S
4JI cm
u
t
d
Project Description
Pavement overlay of 76th Ave. W from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. with pedestrian curb ramps upgrades,
RRFB's at the proposed crosswalk at 75th PI. W, and possible addition of a bike lane for the northbound
movement. This is a joint project funded by the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood, since the west half of the street
is in the City of Edmonds and the east half is in the City of Lynnwood.
Project Benefit
Improve pavement condition, install new Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) for pedestrian safety and
upgrade pedestrian curb ramps to meet ADA standards. In addition to the existing southbound bike lane, the
project may add a new northbound bike lane as outlined in the City's Transportation Comprehensive Plan.
Estimated Project Cost
1,955,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$1,663,723
Expense Total
$1,663,723
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
$274,195
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$639,788
State Grants
Other
$749,740
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,663,723
Packet Pg. 88
G
Edmonds Polito and Orvic Pinyfleid
Municipal Court
Veteran's. Z
LL3
Playa y Bell sr r_i
st
.�
{ F_
IN A
Sno•Isla Frances Artdvrron Par
Par
,s ■ 0 Library Anderson enter 7
0 IL C@nter Field L J
Uavton S .
Christian,CrL
�
Science
Church
Project Description
Pavement overlay along Main St. from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave. with pedestrian curb ramps upgrades and Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB's) at the existing pedestrian crosswalk at 8th Ave. The project will be funded with a
federal grant (funds available in 2023) and City funds for a local match.
Project Benefit
Improve pavement conditions on this segment of Main St., pedestrian safety with the addition of RRFB's, and
pedestrian accessibility with the ADA curb ramp.
Estimated Project Cost
$937,000
Design
$157,000
Right of Way
Construction
$780,000
Expense Total
$157,000
$780,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
$31,000
$156,000
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$126,000
$624,000
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$157,000
$780,000
Packet Pg. 89
10
a
C•
PU ET DR
Project Descriptio
The project consists of a complete signal rebuilt, with the removal of all vehicle head currently on spam wire and
conversion to standard traffic signal poles with mast arms. Vehicle detention will also be upgraded as part of this
project.
Project Benefit
his upgrade will provide safer roadway conditions since the vehicle heads aren't fixed while handing on those
wires. The new vehicle detection will guarantee that all vehicles will be detected.
Estimated Project Cost
$530,000
Design
$80,000
Right of Way
Construction
$450,000
Expense Total
$80,000
$450,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$80,000
$450,000
Funding Source Total
$80,000
$450,000
Packet Pg. 90
11
1' S Vr
2381h St SW
Faith f� F
Cornrnunity <
Church
Project Description
Install new traffic signal and vehicle detection system.
Project Benefit _V
The existing traffic signal is near the end of its anticipated service life.
Estimated Project Cost
$850,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
23sth Si
$150,000
$700,000
$150,000 $700,000
$150,000 $700,000
$150,000 $700,000
ir
23 7th F'
Packet Pg. 91
12
Orackom
La nd i ng"t
5avth 0 -f it F
dr
Railroad `'Sf
Si�CiC►t r �ti. � � '
w Edmonds Palici
"t and Municipal
At / ' Court
li:ni Park co Aiv Uateran'!
' r '&V Edmonds Cenlignnial Plaa�
4k- City Hall Playa
Oell S
` ■
'}
_E rit in MAIN T
Project Description
Install new traffic signal and vehicle detection system.
Project Benefit
The existing traffic signal is near the end of its anticipated service life.
Estimated Project Cost
$450,000
Design
$100,000
Right of Way
Construction
$350,000
Expense Total
$100,000
$350,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$100,000
$350,000
Funding Source Total
$100,000
$350,000
Packet Pg. 92
13
•,-R Kam,*
:;. r i3t r
JL 1
• * ;�; sir} V p !i' �!
is
1 # JE 11 ITR y ! # t alY St SVf
■ Ln {t
two r*M.IF M9
i
E PHAN E
him P1s #Op
'
r A
rP
ibth Nh SW #
iire *
a �_ '
•Y -+� t`f �!4 i -$
■
rho :.'r. �* '
■ 1 #`:y P
■#iiA ■ ■#
f �ti t__R(1
P, Ty 4— PP . 7V
. Q
•114,J 7�N pL Rm ■ V4�Y ■„ k k
-�
��rWMl1�
dt
_+#' ; Sr/4100
T
EL
M 11r_ rt ##X �
�
■ #71! fw .R ["-W. 4`F074 0 '&
,�t w'L1 r! r f 1 Zi 1- #
'
irz , . i •ram +1Tr.w1 i r,�. S ! .. } `_ _ * •,, -
Project Description
Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th PI. W to three lanes (with center two-way left turn lane), with curb and
gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes.
Project Benefit
This project would improve active transportation safety and traffic flows along this corridor. Community Transit
will evaluate the possibility of 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).
Estimated Project Cost
$14,700,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,000,000 $700,000
$1,000,000
$12,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,700,000 $12,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,700,000 $12,000,000
$1,000,000 $1,700,000 $12,000,000
14
Packet Pg. 93
6OWZ)0 f
J
rL
03
04
In
17j,
244TH ST S
232-THS1-,T*—
-
LU
n
W
a
> 3
Pik
}
?
Jto
4
0
W
Ifs
>236TH-ST SW
244TI J ET SLV
Project Description
Installation of raised landscaped median along Highway 99 corridor from 244th St. SW to 212th St. SW, addition
of"Gateway" signage on both ends of the corridor, and a new pedestrian HAWK signal just north of 234th St. SW
The project is funded from state funds provided by the Connecting Washington Transportation program.
Project Benefit
The conversion of the center two-way left turn lane to a landscaped raised median will improve corridor safety
along this Highway of Regional Significance (HRS), with an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of — 35,000 vehicles per
day. The new HAWK signal will provide a signalized pedestrian crossing between the existing traffic signals at
238th St and 228th St.
Estimated Project Cost
9,033,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$7,660,000
Expense Total
$7,660,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
$7,660,000
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$7,660,000
A
15
Packet Pg. 94
244TH 0 SW
4 _ f
'tilts R L`Rr �f J C-_4 f
r. rri�yurl�i Ff Sa �
\I AIUkKBALI,IhIGER 4+JAYtV LAKE6i4k,�.d1F10Efi
f
Project Description
The Stage 3 Highway 99 project limits are from 244th St SW to 238th St. SW. The project will construct wider
sidewalks with a planter strip, new street lighting, improved stormwater facilities, targeted utility replacements,
potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments. The Design and right
of way phases are funded through secured Connecting Washington funds.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience along this segment of the Hwy 99 corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$32,522,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$640,000 $2,000,000 $712,000
$1,200,000 $1,218,000
$16,000,000 $10,752,000
$640,000 $3,200,000 $1,930,000 $16,000,000 $10,752,000
$640,000 $3,200,000 $1,875,000
$55,000 $16,000,000 $10,752,000
$640,000 $3,200,000 $1,930,000 $16,000,000 $10,752,000
16
Packet Pg. 95
.4
F i; T se w
222hd Si 5W
a Jq ro togf
isP, y
r
Project Description
fit P1a sw
int41
-
ti t
u,nc
eu
_w
J
' U.JI—
z
0
or To
-="
The Stage 4 Highway 99 project limits are from 220th St SW to 224th St. SW. The project will construct wider
sidewalks with a planter strip, new street lighting, improved stormwater facilities, targeted utility replacements,
potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments. The intersection of
Highway 99 and 220th St. will be widened to add capacity and improve the level of service. The Design and right
of way phases are funded through secured Connecting Washington funds, a federal grant and local transportation
impact fees.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved
Estimated Project Cost
$41,001,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$400,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $688,000
$500,000 $1,500,000 $2,479,000
$16,000,000 $16,434,000
$400,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,167,000 $16,000,000 $16,434,000
$1,232,000 $348,000
$400,000 $500,000 $732,000
$268,000 $1,920,000
$400,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000
$3,167,000 $16,000,000 $16,434,000 Q
$3,167,000 $16,000,000 $16,434,000
Packet Pg. 96
17
Project Description
Along Hwy 99 from 216th St SW to 212th St. SW, the project will include wider sidewalks with a planter strip, new
street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of
overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development will be improved
along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$45,015,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,580,000 $2,013,000 $1,000,00
$500,000 $2,951,000 $1,000,00
$35,971,OC
$2,080,000 $4,964,000 $37,971,00
$2,080,000 $4,964,000 $37,971,OC
$2,080,000 $4,964,000 $37,971,00
is
Packet Pg. 97
;_S.--
t- 1 2MI, 51 SW
M&frnhD Lm
6 Ida
Ar
aim 51
Wi
# 23dili St~SW
E#T14 ST ';-a
234m sr svi
6
29Gth st SW
tFE
I ,.
�„
Project Description
Along Hwy 99 from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW, the project will include wider sidewalks with a planter strip,
new street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of
overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved
along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$20,217,000
Design
$2,146,OC
Right of Way
$1,433,OC
Construction
$16,638,OC
Expense Total
$20,217,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$20,217,OC
Funding Source Total
$20,217,00
Packet Pg. 98
19
lt�WEKANCE �•.
228TH.ST SW -
PM
7 Lott j A R a 4 # I Ztm 51 sw i #
4;FN div # 229tlti s� 5w
JO
■"r ■ �,..
• i ��# J ■P.w�►I,+r # War Ow'J4JZ, ,F.
w
++'i �+IV
+} is + <
♦ '' °°al' IFIMEJOIM SAP*
Holh' to *.I�jy�A
MEe i;r
Project Description
Along Hwy 99 from 234th St. SW to 228th St. SW, the project will include wider sidewalks with a planter strip,
new street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of
overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved
along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$38,142,000
Design
$4,013,OC
Right of Way
$5,354,OC
Construction
$28,775,OC
Expense Total
$38,142,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$38,142,OC
Funding Source Total
$38,142,00
Packet Pg. 99
20
ilia
7. i �
M}
IL
*�
F. 1W 00
■
a *
9 2751h as 5:W G'
N* am Z
a %
44
mmaat e_�
225ah Sw k 5
IN
-L
INN
LU HIM
A
JP
7► sw..
'k' n A
k
u�
$ 228TH 5T SW
Project Description
L
I [l NTLA E
w
w
t"
t 0 It
i Jr
226TH iL sw
Along Hwy 99 from 228th St. SW to 224th St. SW, the project will include wider sidewalks with a planter strip,
new street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of
overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved
along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$35,242,000
Design
$3,596,OC
Right of Way
$2,439,OC
Construction
$29,207,OC
Expense Total
$35,242,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$35,242,OC
Funding Source Total
$35,242,00
Packet Pg. 100
21
A
Project Description
Along Hwy 99 from 220th St. SW to 216th St. SW, the project will include wider sidewalks with a planter strip,
new street lighting, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of
overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
Project Benefit
Improve aesthetics, safety, and user experience. In addition, future economic development would be improved
along the corridor.
Estimated Project Cost
$20,072,000
Design
$1,866,OC
Right of Way
$2,036,OC
Construction
$16,170,OC
Expense Total
$20,072,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$20,072,OC
Funding Source Total
$20,072,00
Packet Pg. 101
22
7 96TH ST SW
Project Descriptio
Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th 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 existing
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
Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but
increase the delay along 196th St. SW.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,174, 000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$238,000
$216,000
$720,000
$238,000 $216,000 $720,000
$80,000
$158,000 $216,000 $7
Packet Pg. 102
23
Funding Source Total
$238,000 $216,000 $720,000
geil St
Z:
,�
GJ
<
■
�ii
41
of
CrL
_
MAIN ST
.4nd�rson
U7
Center
ti.l
Field
} Yost Park
�; .�.��:.;�� -• Imo.,
A
Project Description
Installation of a traffic signal or mini -roundabout. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the
2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
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.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,176,000
Design
$176,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,000,000
Expense Total
$176,000
$1,000,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
$500,000
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$176,000
$500,000
Funding Source Total
$176,000
$1,000,000
Packet Pg. 103
24
INCO
219th St S;W
0
ea
Lo
I
STARBUCKS
21919
0TH ST SW
h w
IL
r 7514
P IWO �
221st PI SW
ESPEI?ATE LYNWOOD
Project Description
Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Add eastbound and westbound
dedicated left turn lanes with a protected -permitted phase. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement
during southbound left turn phase. (Additional improvements include wider sidewalk, bike lanes, and various
utility improvements (invluding potential conversion overhead utility lines to underground). ROADWAY PROJECT
PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan).
Project Benefit
Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to
LOS D. Improve active transportation conditions for pedestrians and bicycle riders.
Estimated Project Cost
$8,270,341
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Water Utility Fund 421
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$276,902 $287,439 $50,000
$100,000 $675,000
$6,881,000
$276,902 $387,439 $725,000 $6,881,000
$60,000
$75,609
$343,750
$21,062
$25,000
$5,000
$15,840
$15,000
$5,000
$180,000
$271,830
$371,250
$6,881,000
$276,902 $387,439 $725,000 $6,881,000
Packet Pg. 104
25
AIYMr 147 '.' m4h' ga
:l1bu,. ut
A¢ss Dr
Q* fi . -
-
71
►ram k �..•
}
_•',,arm„
Jilihal
vi
L.�
Project Description
r 7*■ 3 * �t
VIA "Imp
i c
4' -3�"3Tna9iSy�� {
Dd
E
N
Installation of an Adaptive System along SR-104 from 236th St. SW to 226th St. SW (total of five traffic signals
along this stretch / spaced — % mile from each other). No signal communication currently exists between any of
the existing traffic signals.
Project Benefit
Improve traffic flows along this regional corridor with a current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of — 25,000 vehicles
per day.
Estimated Project Cost
$2,365,000
Design
$150,000
$260,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,955,000
Expense Total
$150,000
$260,000
$1,955,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
$45,000
REET Fund 126
$78,000
$264,000
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
$105,000
$182,000
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$1,691,000
Funding Source Total
$150,000
$260,000
$1,955,000
Packet Pg. 105
26
QFC
PCC NATURAL
MARKET
0
76 gas
WALGREEN'S
PARIIINO
BABE{
EDMO DS
WAY
eQ o Q Q
0 co *r w a
Gy
ev o
BANK � a°� a°iw
4co M o, a�a � aak
� �
ry ew
m
IVAR'
a4M
G
N
BARTELL'S
—
Project Description
Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block pedestrian crossing along 100th Ave. W, improve
safety to access the driveways within proximity to the intersection, and re -striping of 100th 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
Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve active transportation safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,091,000
Design
$160,000
Right of Way
Construction
$931,000
Expense Total
$160,000
$931,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$160,000
$931,000
Funding Source Total
$160,000
$931,000
Packet Pg. 106
27
a
2281h Sr SVV
PVD
Sub Station
7L -
di
� nn 9S ' <
�
�
�
df
u
cv
28TH ST S1
Vh�estgate
�Clia pgl
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
Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
Estimated Project Cost
$530,000
Design
$80,000
Right of Way
Construction
$450,000
Expense Total
$80,000
$450,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$80,000
$450,000
Funding Source Total
$80,000
$450,000
uw w
Zz
LU
IL
uU LA
w
AS
Packet Pg. 107
28
38TH ST %:
x
ICareen
Presbyter
Church
Project Description
Install traffic signal. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in
2015).
Project Benefit
Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.
Estimated Projec ost
$1,432,000
Design
$213,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,219,000
Expense Total
$213,000
$1,219,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$213,000
$1,219,000
Funding Source Total
$213,000
$1,219,000
Packet Pg. 108
29
Seaview Park '0st Office
L� LU
ia5lh PI SW
—
l�
i
L
7841h PI SW Apw
Jr
•' r
C
` c
01)
OLYMP(c v,6VV
0,9
Lynndals Park
A
Project Description
Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in
2015 Transportation Plan: #11).
Project Benefit
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.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,266,000
Design $213,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$1,053,OC G
Expense Total
$1,266,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REST Fund 125
s
REET Fund 126
G
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
i
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
s
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$1,266,OC 1
Funding Source Total $1,266,00
Packet Pg. 109
30
L
UJ
LU
&OV
212 5`
a
<
¢
�
u
220TFI ST SW
s
C
LU
CL
>
L
c
C
_
�
c
287}i T StiN
WD
LU
D
228TH :S t'
z
236TI4 STO
_
Project Descriptio
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
Improve traffic flow, access and active transportation uses by installing a center two way left turn lane, sidewalks,
bike lanes and street lighting.
Estimated Project Cost
$16,622,000
Design $2,122,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$14,500,OC G
Expense Total
$16,622,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
s
REET Fund 126
G
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
i
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
s
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$16,622,OC i
Funding Source Total $16,622,00
Packet Pg. 110
31
Seattle 243rit PI S
Z Baptist
�r !!-: � Church Lake
°' aLLJ r' Ballinge
EDMONDS WAY LASE BALLINGE
R 4A
A
Project Description
Add a second westbound left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street
Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
Project Benefit
Improve access, safety and delay at the intersection.
Estimated Project Cost
$3,231,000
Design
$481,000
Right of Way
Construction
$2,750,000
Expense Total
$481,000
$2,750,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
$65,000
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$416,000
$2,750,000
Funding Source Total
$481,000
$2,750,000
Packet Pg. 111
32
/17
OkVDA LE B
17,W1 St S)~')
7
K
rd St SW
173rd p1 SVV
1740 St SW
5t. Thomas
Moore school
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 PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13)
Project Benefit
Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street.
Estimated Project Cost
$671,000
A
Design
$109,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$562,OC
Expense Total
$671,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$671,OC
Funding Source Total
$671,00
Packet Pg. 112
33
Project Descriptio
— a
The project will stabilize the roadway subgrade and embankment and rebuild the damaged pavement on 175th
St. SW.
Project Benefit r
Repair roadway and stabilize slope embankment.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,000,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$1,000,000
Expense Total
$1,000,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$1,000,000
Funding Source Total
$1,000,000
Packet Pg. 113
34
SPER.ANCE
tom_
, _ 4
x
'A, e
Project Description
Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104. This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List
of 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,389,000
Design
$206,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,183,000
Expense Total
$206,000
$1,183,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$206,000
$1,183,000
Funding Source Total
$206,000
$1,183,000
Packet Pg. 114
35
F
.._v--,F
Flementary
II'd F.T.
Project Descriptio
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
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,494,000
Design
$227,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,267,000
Expense Total
$227,000
$1,267,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$227,000
$1,267,000
Funding Source Total
$227,000
$1,267,000
N.
A
36
Packet Pg. 115
dJ -
7
L
�y
W
Lu
.I�
V
I�
A
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
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1, 831,000
Design
$264,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$1,567,OC
Expense Total
$1,831,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$1,831,OC
Funding Source Total
$1,831,00
Packet Pg. 116
37
16 0
w _
; h a�
O
B1.141 y F
�- t'LvhFC
13
A N
238
rimn
ESPERANCE
�� raun�r
AP HA41
Chris# ;, 4laln
_ .
Lutheran dIfl4¢■,,,PM =
CMISTLUMERAN a 3 S
{' R1FCM Church � -n ell 1.11QFT1 FT
�
Perk and Ride
a7G@1
Ch
23eo:
�dF€rrflY 0
7HZ.
L FU NG �
2HO?
M.M *
a IM
� .�
2Sd15
¢
L( AURORA
MARKETPLACE
T
U
reWILY h4n .n�i lit
1e
N
SEQQL
Project Description
Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 238th St .SW to 234th St. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked
#5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$790,000
Design
$150,000
Right of Way
Construction
$640,000
Expense Total
$150,000
$640,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$150,000
$640,000
Funding Source Total
$150,000
$640,000
Packet Pg. 117
(YNNW0O [
EDMONDS
Project Description
Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked
#1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
The improvements will improve active transportation safety (including for school kids due to proximity of several
schools).
Estimated Project Cost
$2,894,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$209,000 $209,000
$2,476,000
$209,000 $209,000 $2,476,000
$209,000 $209,000 $2,476,000
$209,000 $209,000 $2,476,000
39
Packet Pg. 118
It iL'
C LYC
� s
� r
a� c
� c
d'
N LYNNWOOD
w s
a
y
N s
I 01h PI Soh' A _
i
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
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$2,936,000
Design
$597,000
Right of Way
Construction
$2,339,000
Expense Total
$597,000
$2,339,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$597,000
$2,339,000
Funding Source Total
$597,000
$2,339,000
Packet Pg. 119
40
Chase Lake Elementary
Chase Lake
School
Edmonds
Church of'CGod
.' i 6tlt St 54V Edmonds Woodway High `
School c
wadisi
Edmond
I LU
.`
u
a <
1
r pF� r c
4
N
. � t
o
0TH ST SW
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
The improvements will improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,590,000
Design
$240,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,350,000
Expense Total
$240,000
$1,350,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$240,000
$1,350,000
Funding Source Total
$240,000
$1,350,000
Packet Pg. 120
41
BECK'S
GPEGORY
THE MAMNER
L
LU COMMODORE tu
dwlu V MA alp
!
7E x i
c
c
c
c
c
Holly or
Ceder
i
Project Description
Install sidewalk on the south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S.
Project Benefit
This project will improve pedestrian safety along this stretch.
Estimated Project Cost
$265,000
Design
$40,000
Right of Way
Construction
$225,000
Expense Total
$265,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$265,000
Funding Source Total
$265,000
Packet Pg. 121
42
4NT
N
no
z-
� �T
'
t
rS
I�
Swedish
F_dmil ndc
216?11 st SW
EDMONDS
MEDICAL
PAIILlOIV
21605
KRUGE:R
CLINIC
=N'S
E P,
MCDONALD'S
VALUE Q
VILLAGE
2161t1 st SW
Project Descriptio
Install 150' sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on
north side of 216th St. SW). This project ranked #3 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan).
Project Benefit
To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
Estimated Project Cost
$200,000
Design
$20,000
Right of Way
Construction
$180,000
Expense Total
$200,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$200,000
Funding Source Total
$200,000
43
Packet Pg. 122
Project Description
Complete pedestrian crossing enhancements with the installation of RRFB's at (7) intersections (Walnut St. @ 8th
Ave. S, SR-524 @ Brookmere, 106th Ave. W @ 229th PI. SW, Main St. @ Olympic Ave., 76th Ave W @ 206th St.
SW, Dayton @ 2nd Ave. S, and Dayton St. @ Private Drive ), a new traffic signal at SR-104 @ 232nd St. SW, and a
HAWK signal at SR-524 @ 84th Ave. W. Design, right of way and construction phases are funded through a
federal grant, TIB state grant and local funds.
Project Benefit
Improve pedestrian safety by increasing driver yielding compliance for pedestrians waiting to cross at a marked
crosswalk and safer crossing along SR-104 and SR-524 with higher speeds and longer crossing distances through
signal and HAWK signal.
Estimated Project Cost
$2,145,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$10,000
Expense Total
$10,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
$820
REET Fund 126
$2,230
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$310
Federal Grants
$6,640
Other
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$10,000
Packet Pg. 123
Project Description
Installation of bike lanes or sharrows along various street segments as identified on the Proposed Bike Facilities
map of 2015 Transportation Plan. 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
This project will create new bike connections to various destination points throughout the City (such as schools,
parks, Downtown, Sound Transit Station...). Sound Transit awarded the grant to fund improvements that will
provide more convenient access so that more people can use Sound Transit services.
Estimated Project Cost
2,100,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$1,562,390
Expense Total
$1,562,390
Other
$1,323,471 $0 $0 $0 $0
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
$238,919
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$1,562,390 $0 $0 $0 $0
45
$0
w
C
NSW
91
Packet Pg. 124
CASPIRs T
Z
w
w
LU
M
cr,
4
J
S�
MAIN ST
N
S
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
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.
Estimated Project Cost
$2,702,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$201,000 $201,000
$2,300,000
$201,000 $201,000 $2,300,000
$201,000 $201,000 $2,300,000
$201,000 $201,000 $2,300,000
Packet Pg. 125
46
220TH ST SVJ
■
O# rr .rr
•
0.
tA
�s +
fL 3r ' •e r
■+ _ , g F 14
01
1 , �' ■j
�.� W # ;
mein V oi;
t r�
Ln
M
Project Description
Install sidewalk along 95th PI. W from 224th 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
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
Design
$120,000
Right of Way
Construction
$668,000
Expense Total
$120,000
$668,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$120,000
$668,000
Funding Source Total
$120,000
$668,000
Packet Pg. 126
47
Puget Sound
Fishing Fli@r
Oiyrn p i c
Beach Park
R4astroo m '01A
k
Washington Stag Ferry
Bracketts Terminal
Landing
South `^
4�
Railroad
Station
"r , 1 "
4
Zq141 Post Office
11q<.'(� Air
1
's -- Mini Park -
i��
LU
(17
V�
City of Edmonds
Trooltment Plant
Project Description
Install new and wider sidewalk along Railroad Ave from Dayton St. to SR-104.
Eta
Project Benefit
Improve active transportation safety along Railroad Ave from Dayton St. to SR-104, key stretch since connects to
various destination points (such as Waterfront Center, Port of Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds, WSDOT Ferry
Terminal...).
Estimated Project Cost
$924,000
Design
$170,000
Right of Way
Construction
$754,000
Expense Total
$170,000
$754,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$170,000
$754,000
Funding Source Total
$170,000
$754,000
Packet Pg. 127
Seattle
.. flap#ist
Church W Lake
Ballinger
OAI
b WA Y
�
FDMONDS WAIF LACE BALUN
GER WAY
Project Descripti
ila
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
Improve active transportation safety along this section of the Interurban Trail and across SR-104.
Estimated Project Cost
$1, 294,000
Design
$238,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$1,056,OC
Expense Total
$1,294,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$1,294,OC
Funding Source Total
$1,294,00
Packet Pg. 128
or_
Project Description
Installation of street lights along various streets within Downtown Edmonds.
Project Benefit
This project will add new street lighting in Downtown to improve pedestrian safety at night.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,500,000
Design
$300,000
Right of Way
Construction
$1,200,000
Expense Total
$300,000
$1,200,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$300,000
$1,200,000
Funding Source Total
$300,000
$1,200,000
Packet Pg. 129
50
Edmonds
Marsh �
cra
z
0
W
w
} ..
CL
4F z m
Fe
❑WOn
_.- _
F
?: LU
V)
.JJ
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
This project will improve pedestrian connectivity between the residential areas along 3rd Ave. S to Downtown
Edmonds and City Park.
Estimated Project Cost
$3,290,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$327,000 $327,000
$2,636,000
$327,000 $327,000 $2,636,000
$327,000 $327,000 $2,636,000
$327,000 $327,000 $2,636,000
51
Packet Pg. 130
Sierra
Park
un m
❑o
0
O�
u,
Project DescriptiAom
Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in
Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$678,000
Design
$100,00
Right of Way
Construction
$578,00
Expense Total
$678,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$678,OG
Funding Source Total
$678,00
Packet Pg. 131
52
Salem �
s
Edmonds Lutheran
Helghts Church -
K-12
s
Scriber' k40: C
High SchooE" c
Ak. - c
c
J6- M
Hickman s
Park
it M440 Edmonds FaRb
Mom4rial Community
Com etery Church
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
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,060,000
A
Design $160,00 i
Right of Way :•:
Construction $900,00
Expense Total $1,060,00 a
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
s
Transportation Impact Fees c
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422 =
Federal Grants 1
s
State Grants i
y
Unsecured Funding $1,060,00
Funding Source Total $1,060,00 s
Packet Pg. 132
53
Hickman s
Park
it M440 Edmonds FaRb
Mom4rial Community
Com etery Church
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
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,060,000
A
Design $160,00 i
Right of Way :•:
Construction $900,00
Expense Total $1,060,00 a
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
s
Transportation Impact Fees c
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422 =
Federal Grants 1
s
State Grants i
y
Unsecured Funding $1,060,00
Funding Source Total $1,060,00 s
Packet Pg. 132
53
Packet Pg. 132
53
46, "
1•wow-
0TH ST SW
Edmond} Church of C,od
Project Description ir
Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 218th ST. SW to 220th ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked
#7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
Project Benefit
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Projec ost
$324,000
A
Design
$59,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$265,OC
Expense Total
$324,00 '
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
i
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$324,OC '
Funding Source Total
$324,00
Packet Pg. 133
54
4Ln
Seavi vw
Elern@ntai
I-B61h St SW
r f
1871h St sw
Op
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
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$328,000
Design
$50,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$278,OC
Expense Total
$328,00
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$328,OC
Funding Source Total
$328,00
Packet Pg. 134
55
{ <
L
OC
L
(Q
77 1-fir
Q•
7
41
.
L
.
w
Ar
a
o
N
CU CO
7401!h S[ SW
Nlathay
Ballinger
Park
r
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
This project would improve pedestrian safety.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,285,000
Design
$187,OC
Right of Way
:•:
Construction
$1,098,OC
Expense Total
$1,285,00 0
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
s
Transportation Impact Fees
c
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
=
Federal Grants
1
s
State Grants
i
Unsecured Funding
y
$1,285,OC
Funding Source Total
$1,285,00 s
Packet Pg. 135
56
Pugel Sound
Edmonds Marsh
s
ra:1
04 r
w LU
Project Description JV
Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle storage for ferry users.
Project Benefit
Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to local driveways.
Estimated Project Cost
$357,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$357,000
Expense Total
$357,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
$357,000
Funding Source Total
$357,000
Packet Pg. 136
57
Project Description Af
Install traffic calming devices (such as Radar Feedback signs, speed cushions, or other elements).
Project Benefit
Reduce vehicle speeds on City streets that qualify under the City's Traffic Calming Policy.
Estimated Project Cost
$33,130 for 2022
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$33,130 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000
$33,130 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000
$33,130 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000
$33,130 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000
Packet Pg. 137
Project Description
The Plan identifies all existing ADA deficiencies within the City Right of Way (such as non -compliant ADA curb
ramps, tripping hazards within sidewalk, non -compliant ADA driveways, and signalized intersection without
Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS).
Project Benefit
Inventories and prioritizes ADA issues in the City right of way.
Estimated Project Cost
$100,000
Design
$100,000
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
$100,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
$100,000
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$100,000
Packet Pg. 138
59
Project Description
_JV
Update the City's long range transportation plan.
Project Benefit
Estimated Project Cost
$185,000
Design
$185,000
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
$185,000
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
$185,000
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$185,000
L, "
Packet Pg. 139
Q
2
0TH ST SW
IF 1viaul v00a.111imwll
The walkway project is ranked #6 on the short walkway list from the 2015 Transportation Plan. The project will
install approximately 700 feet of new sidewalk, six pedestrian curb ramps and modify the existing stormwater
system on Elm Way between 8th Ave. S and 9th Ave. S.
Project Benefit
The project will improve pedestrian safety and provide a missing link of sidewalk on Elm Way between 8th Ave
and 9th Ave.
Estimated Project Cost
$998,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$901,780
Expense Total
$901,780
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126
$551,880
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$349,900
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$901,780
Packet Pg. 140
61
Project Description Jw
Addition of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and/or flashing LED lights around regulatory signs at
selected locations throughout the City.
Project Benefit
Improve safety at pedestrian crossings.
Estimated Project Cos
$20,000/year
Design
Right of Way
Construction $20,185
Expense Total $20,185
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
REET Fund 126 $20,185
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total $20,185
62
Packet Pg. 141
Project Description J
Install guardrails along selected stretches throughout the City with steep drop-off and other safety issues.
Project Benefit
Improve safety of City transportation system.
Estimated Project Cost
$20,000/year
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$20,180
Expense Total
$20,180
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125
$20,180
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$20,180
63
Packet Pg. 142
Project Description
Upgrade traffic signal equipment at selected signalized intersections with new equipment within signal cabinet,
new vehicular detection, new vehicle heads, and/or new pedestrian heads.
Project Benefit
Improve reliability of traffic signal operation.
Estimated Project Cost
$30,000/year
Design
Right of Way
Construction $30,280
Expense Total $30,280
Street Fund 112 - Gas Tax & Multi -modal re
REET Fund 125 $30,280
REET Fund 126
Transportation Impact Fees
General Fund
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total $30,280
Packet Pg. 143
64
8.3.a
WATER
c
c�
a
N
N
LL
.Q
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
0.
O
L.
a
4-
0
a�
c
�L
:i
3
d
a-
u
a
a_
U
r-
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
O_
O
L-
a.
r
Y
06
N
Y
L
O
V
a+
Q
Packet Pg. 144
65
8.3.a
Water Proiects
#
CFP
PROJECT
OP
#
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Project Cost
PWW-01
Phase 12 Annual Replacement Program 2022
50
$2,159,412
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,159,412
$2,159,412
PWW-02
Phase 13 Annual Replacement Program 2023
46
$486,661
$3,389,788
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,876,449
$3,876,449
PWW-03
Phase 14 Annual Replacement Program 2024
$0
$506,128
$3,525,379
$0
$0
$0
$4,031,507
$4,031,507
PWW-04
I
I Phase 15 Annual Replacement Program 2025
$0
$0
$526,373
$3,666,379
$0
$0
$4,192,7521
$4,192,752
PWW-05
Phase 16 Annual Replacement Program 2026
$0
$0
$0
$547,428
$3,813,034
$0
$4,360,462
$4,360,462
PWW-06
Phase 17 Annual Replacement Program 2027
$0
$0
$0
$0
$569,325
$3,965,555
$4,534,880
$4,534,880
PWW-07
Phase 18 Annual Replacement Program 2028
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$592,098
$592,098
$592,098
PWW-08
2022 Waterline Overlays
49
$175,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$175,000
$175,000
PWW-09
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
47
$505,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$505,000
$505,000
Total Projects $3,326,073 $3,895,916 $4,051,752 $4,213,807 $4,382,359 $4,557,653 $24,427,560 $0 $24,427,560
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
Y027
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
(2028-42)
Water Fund - 421
$3,326,073
$3,895,916
$4,051,752
$4,213,807
$4,382,359
$4,557,653
$24,427,560
$24,427,560
Total Revenue $3,326,073 $3,895,916 $4,051,752 $4,213,807 $4,382,359 $4,557,653 $24,427,560 $0 $24,427,560
Packet Pg. 145
66
1
Project Description
Per the approved 2017 Water Comprehensive Plan, the projects will replace/maintain pipe and related
appurtenances at various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase flow or
pressure, or more prone to breakage due to its material properties.
Project Benefit
Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of
breakages and leakage, improve fire flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
$2.9 to $4.5 million/year
Design
$486,661
$506,128
$526,373
$547,428
$569,325
$592,098
Right of Way
Construction
$2,159,412
$3,389,788
$3,525,379
$3,666,379
$3,813,034
$3,965,555
Expense Total
$2,646,073
$3,895,916
$4,051,752
$4,213,807
$4,382,359
$4,557,653
Water Fund 421
$2,646,073
$3,895,916
$4,051,752
$4,213,807
$4,382,359
$4,557,653
Funding Source Total
$2,646,073
$3,895,916
$4,051,752
$4,213,807
$4,382,359
$4,557,653
Packet Pg. 146
67
Project Description
Road pavement overlays to cover areas of roadways that were excavated and patched in previous years as part of
the Waterline Replacement Projects.
Project Benefit
Improve overall pavement condition in locations that were excavated and patched due to Waterline Replacement
Projects.
Estimated Project Cost
$175,000
Design $30,000
Right of Way
Construction $145,000
Expense Total $175,000
Water Fund 421 $175,000
Funding Source Total $175,000
Packet Pg. 147
185th P[ SW
S
18151h PI SW view
at@r Tank
ALI OW
Project Description
Per the approved 2017 Water Comprehensive Plan, the project will replace/maintain pipe and related
appurtenances at various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase flow or
pressure, or more prone to breakage due to its material properties. This work is being done to provide an in
detail evaluation of the condition of our two underground potable water storage reservoirs. Findings will be used
to determine costs and next steps for any future needed maintenance or repairs.
Project Benefit
Maintain a high level of drinking water quality, improve overall system reliability, decrease probability of
breakages and leakage, improve fire flows, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
TBD
Design
Right of Way
Construction $505,000
Expense Total $505,000
Water Fund 421 $505,000
Funding Source Total $505,000
LLJ
I-
00
A
Packet Pg. 148
8.3.a
STORMWATER
c
m
a
a�
m
a_
Q
m
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
fA
O
O.
O
L.
IL
4-
0
a�
c
�L
m
4)
n
a
a_
U
d
a_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
Q.
O
L
a
N
O
a+
r
06
N
Y
L
O
V
IL
a
Packet Pg. 149
70
8.3.a
Stormwater Projects
# CFP PROJECT DP 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Y027 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
# (2022-2027) (2028-42) Project Cos
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration Related Projects
PWD-01 X lEdmo.ds Marsh Water Quality Improvements 55 1 $190,000 $1,230,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,420,840 $0 $1,420,8,
PWD-02 X I Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek Daylighting - Design & Construction 1$0 $600,0001 $600,0001 $8,000,0001 $8,000,0001 $0 $17,200,00011 $0 $17,200,0(
Perrinville Creek Basin Projects
PWD-03 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects 60 $121,542 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $621,542 $0 $621,5,
PWD-04 X Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration (Phase 1) 53 $550,0010 $150,000 $2,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,500,000 $0 $3,500,0(
PWD-05 X Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 59 $555,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $555,000 $0 $555,0(
Storm Drainage Improvement Projects
PWD-06
Lake Ballinger Regional Facility Design Phase
54
$300,000
$250,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$550,000
$0
$550,0(
PWD-07
X
Ballinger Regional Facility Construction Phase
$0
$0
$6,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$6,000,000
$0
$6,000,0(
PWD-08
Green Street & Rain Gardens
61
$400,000
$600,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$1,000,0(
Annually Funded Proiects
PWD-09
12022 SD Overlays
57
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$60,000
$0
$60,0(
PWD-10
Phase 3 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2022)
58
$1,450,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,450,000
$0
$1,450,0(
PWD-11
Phase 4 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2023)
52
$312,000
$1,622,400
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,934,400
$0
$1,934,4(
PWD-12
Phase 5 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2024)
$0
$324,480
$1,687,296
$0
$0
$0
$2,011,776
$0
$2,011,7,
PWD-13
Phase 6 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2025)
$0
$0
$337,460
$1,754,786
$0
$0
$2,092,246
$0
$2,092,2,
PWD-14
Phase 7 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2026)
$0
$0
$0
$350,958
$1,824,977
$0
$2,175,935
$0
$2,175,9'
PWD-15
Phase 8 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2027)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$364,996
$1,897,976
$2,262,972
$0
$2,262,9,
PWD-16
Phase 9 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2028)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$379,596
$379,596
$0
$379,55
Compliance Related Projects
p-w—p--i —7F I Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan 1 56 1 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $300,0(
Total Projects $4,238,542 $4,877,720 $11,524,756 $10,205,744 $10,289,973 $2,377,572 $43,514,307 $0 $43,514,3C
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$ 2,457,292
$ 2,363,880
$ 3,774,756
$ 4,205,744
$ 4,289,973
$ 2,377,572
$ 19,469,217
$
$ 19,469,21
Federal Grants
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$
$
State Grants
$ 671,250
$ 723,840
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ 1,395,090
$
$ 1,395,09
Unsecured Grants
$ 1,110,000
$ 1,790,000
$ 7,750,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 6,000,000
$
$ 22,650,000
$
$ 22,650,00
Total Revenue
$ 4,238,542
$ 4,877,720
$ 11,524,756
$ 10,205,744
$ 10,289,973
$ 2,377'572
$ 43,5 44,307
$ -
$ 43,514,30
r-
O
C
�L
O
d
2
V
3
a
a_
U
d
LL
U
F-
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
W
O
tZ
O
L
a
N
d
r
06
N
L
O
V
sZ
7
d
71
Packet Pg. 150
Edmonds Marsh
RJniup Qf, O
Edmonds Marsh
Project Descriptio
Feasibility documents for the Willow Creek Daylighting project identified some areas of concern for water quality
of stormwater entering the Marsh. Additionally, new research has identified a chemical in tire production causing
pre -spawn mortality in salmon, further cementing the linkage between vehicle traffic and poor water quality for
fish habitat. By improving the water quality inputs of stormwater, the future marsh can provide better habitat for
the return of salmon to the marsh. This project was previously included in the 2021 budget as only a "Phase 1"
project specific to the west side of SR-104. However, with additional funding identified, staff propose to expand
this effort to provide water quality mitigation for all discharges directly into the marsh form SR-104 and Harbor
Square.
Project Benefit
Improve water quality of stormwater discharging into the Edmonds Marsh from the west portions of SR-104
located near the marsh. The improvements will provide better habitat for the return of salmon to the marsh.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,500,000
Design $190,000 $10,000
Right of Way
Construction $1,220,840
Expense Total $190,000 $1,230,840
Stormwater Utility Fund 422 $104,500
Federal Grants
State Grants $30,000 $536,340
Unsecured Grants $160,000 $590,000
Funding Source Total $190,000 $1,230,840
Packet Pg. 151
72
%VI I; -.I L.L. I;, ofAI I •I II--:. I .
Project Description
14aish as it cximud in I D 41
L;lximed pLoj2acmkepr
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 $17.2 million
and future funding sources are yet to be identified; however, grant funding of roughly 75% of the project cost is
tentatively planned.
Project Benefit
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 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.
Estimated Project Cost
$17, 200, 000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
Unsecured Grants
$600,000 $600,000
$8,000,000 $8,000,000
$600,000 $600,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000
$150,000 $150,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
$450,000 $450,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000
$600,000 $600,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000
Funding Source Total
73
Packet Pg. 152
Project Descriptio
Reducing scouring flows in order to reduce sediments load in Perrinville Creek was identified in a previous basin
report completed in 2015 as a critical element of restoring this creek which has been significantly impacted by
urban development. The projects funded by this program are incremental steps toward recovering this stream
run as adequate fish habitat. These effort have become even more critical given recent challenges around the
Perrinville Creek outfall area. This program is a fund for implementing projects within the Perrinville Creek basin
to reduce scour flows in the creek. It allows staff flexibility to respond to ad -hoc opportunities such as rain garden
cluster projects, or ensure matching funds are available for chasing grant applications for flow reductions projects.
Project Benefit
The project will reduce peak flows in Perrinville creek, improve fish passage and decrease creek bed scour during
peak flow events.
Estimated Project Cost
$100,000/year
Design
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Right of Way
Construction
$111,542
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
Expense Total
$121,542
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$121,542
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$121,542
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Packet Pg. 153
74
Project Description
The City has struggled to manage the undersized outfall system at Perrinville Creek; the current combination of
creek alignment, sedimentation, and undersized culverts creates several issues which make the creek
unsustainable as a natural system. The concern must be addressed from the bottom of the creek up in order to
sequence the relief of the numerous concerns correctly. A future phase would replace the culvert under Talbot
Road as well. The improvements are needed to relieve current flooding, ease City maintenance needs, and
provide better and more sustainable fish habitat. This project will build on any interim improvements which staff
are able to complete in 2021. The project would include a new culvert under BNSF right-of-way which is fully
compliant with current flood management and fish passage regulations. The project will include many
stakeholders and likely include a minimum 2-year design and development phase before being ready for
construction.
Project Benefit
The project will reduce City maintenance needs in the future and improve fish passage.
Estimated Project Cost
$5,500,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$550,000 $100,000
$50,000
$2,800,000
$550,000 $150,000 $2,800,000
$550,000 $150,000 $2,800,000
$550,000 $150,000 $2,800,000
75
Packet Pg. 154
Pout
EL Office
S&a- -),v Park
cn
7851h S# SVv
r 3: JO
lu
Ik
1 R6th S1 5W
ir
Ti
cc V- 0
Project Descriptio 20
Reducing scouring flows in order to reduce sediments load in Perrinville Creek was identified in a previous basin
report completed in 2015 as a critical element of restoring this creek which has been significantly impacted by
urban development. The project is an incremental step toward recovering this stream run as an adequate fish
habitat. The grant for this project has already been secured. This project proposes construction of an infiltration
system in Seaview Park, almost identical to the successful Phase 1 project which was completed in 2019, in order
to infiltrate more runoff in the Perrinville Creek basin.
Project Benefit
Decrease peak storm flows in the Perrinville Creek basin to help normalize flows within Perrinville Creek and
decrease potential of scour within the Creek.
Estimated Project Cost
$742,000
Design
$60,000
Right of Way
Construction
$495,000
Expense Total
$555,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$138,750
Federal Grants
State Grants
$416,250
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$555,000
76
Packet Pg. 155
Mathay
Ballinger
Park W
240Ih PI SW 241st ST FVV
a L f� -
__ .,
co
242 nd $I S
Project Descriptiois
Lake Ballinger suffers from urban flooding & seasonal algae blooms along with other water quality impairments.
The Highway 99 corridor is an area of high development, including a future City project which will require
stormwater mitigation. By creating a regional facility, the City can improve the stormwater mitigation achieved
by development, addressed stormwater mitigation needs for the future Highway project, and treat runoff from
one of the City bigger pollution generating areas. The City can drastically improve Lake Ballinger water quality.
The project proposes to implement water quality and flow control improvements at City -owned Mathay-Ballinger
Park as green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) which would significantly benefit the Lake ecology and habitat
conditions and enhance a valued neighborhood, but underutilized, park. This phase is limited to design and
production of plans and specifications; construction phase will be tracked as separate project (to ease and
simplify grant management/reporting).
Project Benefit
The project proposes to implement water quality and flow control improvements at City -owned Mathay-Ballinger
Park as green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) which would significantly benefit the Lake ecology and habitat
conditions and enhance a valued neighborhood, but underutilized, park.
Estimated Project Cost
$550,000
Design
$300,000
$250,000
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
$300,000
$250,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$75,000
$62,500
Federal Grants
State Grants
$225,000
$187,500
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$300,000
$250,000
Packet Pg. 156
77
Mathay
Ballinger
Park
nil
yy }y..,
[y` 240th Pa ','- -
f 1b C Y
l'-
EL
242n 1 -n sv
i
Project Description
Lake Ballinger suffers from urban flooding & seasonal algae blooms along with other water quality impairments.
The Highway 99 corridor is an area of high development, including a future City project which will require
stormwater mitigation. By creating a regional facility, the City can improve the stormwater mitigation achieved
by development, addressed stormwater mitigation needs for the future Highway project, and treat runoff from
one of the City bigger pollution generating areas. The City can drastically improve Lake Ballinger water quality.
This phase is limited to the construction phase and will be tracked as separate project (to ease and simplify grant
management/reporting)
Project Benefit
The project proposes to implement water quality and flow control improvements at City -owned Mathay-Ballinger
Park as green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) which would significantly benefit the Lake ecology and habitat
conditions and enhance a valued neighborhood, but underutilized, park.
Estimated Project Cost
$6,000,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$6,000,000
Expense Total
$6,000,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$1,500,000
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
$4,500,000
Funding Source Total
$6,000,000
Packet Pg. 157
Project Descriptio
City forays into green stormwater infrastructure elements have been limited, but with good success. Continuing
to implement such projects will allow us to proactively make improvements to the conditions of the City drainage
system and will help reduce flooding. This project proposes to implement green stormwater elements, such as
rain garden and bioretention, throughout the City. Staff will leverage opportunities with other projects,
communication with property owners, and historical knowledge/experience to identify and selected locations
where green infrastructure can be implemented with relative ease or efficiency. Staff proposes to implement this
effort as a series of small work projects over the next several years.
Project Benefit
Improvements to the City drainage systems using raingardens and green infrastructure resulting in reduced
flooding and a reduction to peak stormwater flows.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,000,000
Design
$75,000
$100,000
Right of Way
Construction
$325,000
$500,000
Expense Total
$400,000
$600,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
$400,000
$600,000
Funding Source Total
$400,000
$600,000
Packet Pg. 158
79
Project Description
Road pavement overlays to cover areas of roadways that were excavated and patched in previous years as part of
the Annual Storm Maintenance Projects.
Project Benefit
Improve overall pavement condition in locations that were excavated and patched due to the Annual Storm
Replacement Projects.
Estimated Project Cost
$60,000
Design
$9,000
Right of Way
Construction
$51,000
Expense Total
$60,000
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$60,000
Federal Grants
State Grants
Unsecured Grants
Funding Source Total
$60,000
Packet Pg. 159
Project Description
Annual storm drain replacement/maintenance projects. Projects propose to replace or rehab storm drain
infrastructure in several locations throughout the City. Locations of work identified by City crews and staff via
first had knowledge or video inspection results. Much of Edmonds stormwater infrastructure is past its lifespan
and requires routine replacement or repair in order to preserve the function of the storm drain system. Failure to
conduct annual maintenance projects will increase chances of a storm drain system failure.
Project Benefit
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease breakages, and decrease overall day to day maintenance costs
Estimated Project Cost
$1.8 to $2.3 million/year
Design
$312,000
$324,480
$337,460
$350,958
$364,996
$379,596
Right of Way
Construction
$1,450,000
$1,622,400
$1,687,296
$1,754,786
$1,824,977
$1,897,976
Expense Total
$1,762,000
$1,946,880
$2,024,756
$2,105,744
$2,189,973
$2,277,572
Stormwater Utility Fund 422
$1,762,000
$1,946,880
$2,024,756
$2,105,744
$2,189,973
$2,277,572
Funding Source Total
$1,762,000
$1,946,880
$2,024,756
$2,105,744
$2,189,973
$2,277,572
Packet Pg. 160
8.3.a
SEWER
c
m
a
a�
m
a_
Q
m
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
fA
O
O.
O
L.
IL
4-
0
a�
c
�L
m
4)
n
a
a_
U
d
a_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
Q.
O
L
a
N
O
a+
r
06
N
Y
L
O
V
IL
a
Packet Pg. 161
8.3.a
Sewer Proiects
#
CFP
PROJECT
DP
#
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Project Cost
PWS-01
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements, (2022)
65
$1,606,550
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,606,550
$1,606,550
PWS-02
Phase 10 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2023)
62
$336,074
$1,889,212
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,225,286
$2,225,286
PWS-03
Phase 11 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2024)
$0
$349,517
$1,964,780
$0
$0
$0
$2,314,297
$2,314,297
PWS-04
Phase 12 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2025)
$0
$0
$363,498
$2,043,372
$0
$0
$2,406,8701
$2,406,870
PWS-05
Phase 13 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2026)
$0
$0
$0
$378,038
$2,125,107
$0
$2,503,145
$2,503,145
PWS-06
Phase 14 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2027)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$393,160
$2,210,111
$2,603,271
$2,603,271
PWS-07
Phase 15 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2028)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$408,886
$408,886
$408,886
PWS-08
1
12021 SS Overlays
64
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$60,000
$60,000
PWS-09
I
I Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation Phase 4
63
$482,258
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$482,258
$482,258
PWS-10
I
IAnnual Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation
$0
$501,549
$521,6111
$542,475
$564,174
$586,741
$2,716,550
$2,716,550
PWS-11
1
1 Lake Ballinger Sewer
$0
$1,000,0001
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$6,000,000
$6,000,000
Total Projects $2,484,882 $3,740,278 $7,849,889 $2,963,885 $3,082,441 $3,205,738 $23,327,113 $0 $23,327,113
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
(2028-42)
Sewer Fund -423
$2,484,882
$3,740,278
$7,849,889
$2,963,885
$3,082,441
$3,205,738
$23,327,113
$23,327,113
Total Revenue $2,484,882 $3,740,278 $7,849,889 $2,963,885 $3,082,441 $3,205,738 $23,327,113 $0 $23,327,113
Packet Pg. 162
83
Project Description
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive Plan, the projects will replace pipe and related appurtenances at
various locations throughout the City due to old age, being undersized, need to increase capacity, or more prone
to breakage due to its material properties.
Project Benefit
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease
overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
$2.0 to $2.6 million/year
Design
$336,074
$349,517
$363,498
$378,038
$393,160
$408,886
Right of Way
Construction
$1,606,550
$1,889,212
$1,964,780
$2,043,372
$2,125,107
$2,210,111
Expense Total
$1,942,624
$2,238,729
$2,328,278
$2,421,410
$2,518,267
$2,618,997
Water Fund 423
$1,942,624
$2,238,729
$2,328,278
$2,421,410
$2,518,267
$2,618,997
Funding Source Total
$1,942,624
$2,238,729
$2,328,278
$2,421,410
$2,518,267
$2,618,997
Packet Pg. 163
Project Description
Road pavement overlays to cover areas of roadways that were excavated and patched in previous years as part of
the Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects.
Project Benefit
Improve overall pavement condition in locations that were excavated and patched due to Sanitary Sewer
Replacement Projects.
Estimated Project Cost
$60,000
Design
$12,000
Right of Way
Construction
$48,000
Expense Total
$60,000
Water Fund 423
$60,000
Funding Source Total
$60,000
Packet Pg. 164
Project Description
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive plan and current video inspections of sewer mains, the project will
line existing sewer mains that are subject root intrusion, infiltration and inflow, and damage that can be repaired
by this trenchless method.
Project Benefit
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease
overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
$482,258
Design
$72,338
Right of Way
Construction
$409,920
Expense Total
$482,258
Water Fund 423
$482,258
Funding Source Total
$482,258
Packet Pg. 165
Project Description
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive plan and current video inspections of sewer mains, the project will
line existing sewer mains that are subject root intrusion, infiltration and inflow, and damage that can be repaired
by this trenchless method.
Project Benefit
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, decrease breakages, and decrease
overall day to day maintenance costs.
Estimated Project Cost
$500,000 to $590,000/year
Design
$75,232
$78,241
$81,371
$84,626
$88,011
Right of Way
Construction
$426,317
$443,370
$461,104
$479,548
$498,730
Expense Total
$501,549
$521,611
$542,475
$564,174
$586,741
Water Fund 423
$501,549
$521,611
$542,475
$564,174
$586,741
Funding Source Total
$501,549
$521,611
$542,475
$564,174
$586,741
Packet Pg. 166
tSVLKANU-
F
�
�
r
na
238TH ST SW
244TH ST SVO
A G
rn
r�
Lake
Ballifi���
�» 4rza 5w
c
M
s
235TH PL SW 236TH ST. sv r
4YAY LAKF 'BA LLrNGER WAY -.:�244:TH;ST SWL:7
Project Description
Per the approved 2013 Sewer Comprehensive plan and current video inspections of sewer mains, the sewer pipe
along Lake Ballinger will require additional flow capacity in the near future. These improvements are needed to
account for population growth, reduce Infiltration and Inflow from the pipe and improve maintenance and
emergency access for this major trunk system.
Project Benefit
Improve system reliability and capacity, decrease infiltration and inflow, and decrease overall day to day
maintenance costs. Improved access will help ease maintenance and access for emergencies, which will further
decease any chance of potential sewer spills into Lake Ballinger.
Estimated Project Cost
$6,000,000
Design
Right of Way
Construction
Expense Total
Water Fund 423
Funding Source Total
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
$1,000,000 $5,000,000
$1,000,000 $5,000,000
$1,000,000 $5,000,000
* zi z
Packet Pg. 167
8.3.a
FACILITIES
WA-.' Aft
Packet Pg. 168
8.3.a
Facilities Proiects
#
CFP
PROJECT
OP
#
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Project Cost
PWF-01
Boys and Girls Club
$36,151
$38,034
$27,733
$37,453
$32,077
$15,101
$186,549
$0
$186,549
PWF-02
Cemetery Building
$455
$1,954
$2,094
$8,414
$3,377
$818
$17,112
$0
$17,112
PWF-03
City Hall
$171,463
$279,064
$323,246
$150,000
$70,949
$108,628
$1,103,350
$0
$1,103,350
PWF-04
I
I Fishing Pier
1 $10,320
$9,991
$2,971
$2,9181
$5,628
$1,043
$32,870
$0
$32,870
PWF-05
I Frances Anderson Center
$143,925
$130,593
$298,378
$98,892
$20,934
$113,029
$805,751
$0
$805,751
PWF-06
IFS 16
$24,970
$47,689
$1,591
$69,388
$30,107
$31,631
$205,377
$0
$205,377
PWF-07
I FS 17
$39,935
$81,545
$225,547
$144,830
$27,575
$122,245
$641,678
$0
$641,678
PWF-08
I FS 20
$16,960
$20,000
$16,274
$94,248
$69,782
$23,765
$241,029
$0
$241,029
PWF-09
IHistoric Log Cabin
$7,903
$80,000
$888
$546
$1,361
$6,469
$97,167
$0
$97,167
PWF-10
I Historical Museum
$12,121
$13,0891
$15,000
$10,000
$4,6211
$10,199
$65,029
$0
$65,029
PWF-11
Library
$45,000
$105,1751
$150,902
$53,325
$45,038
$35,000
$434,441
$0
$434,441
PWF-12
Meadowdale Club House
$26,083
$13,426
$6,365
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
$59,464
$0
$59,464
PWF-13
Old Public Works
$55,635
$107,743
$24,308
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$262,205
$0
$262,205
PWF-14
Parks Maint. Building
$130,631
$15,789
$40,320
$9,349
$5,177
$69,228
$270,495
$0
$270,495
PWF-15
Public Safety
$340,180
$50,967
$445,276
$55,169
$151,481
$515,071
$1,558,144
$0
$1,558,144
PWF-16
Public Works O&M
$80,000
$126,570
$218,643
$80,315
$79,348
$43,821
$628,697
$0
$628,697
PWF-17
WadeJames Theater
$21,697
$18,600
$99,077
$43,880
$115,734
$21,872
$320,860
$0
$320,860
PWF-18
Yost Pool House
$25,0001
$65,5701
$26,128
$8,409
$19,127
$30,389
$174,623
$0
$174,623
Total Projects $1,188,429 $1,205,800 $1,924,741 $900,120 $711,762 $1,173,988 $7,104,840 $0 $7,104,840
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
$388,076
$111,454
$126,656
$117,964
$106,361
$122,520
$973,031
$0
$973,031
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$800,353
$1,094,345
$1,798,085
$48,325
$0
$0
$3,741,108
$0
$3,741,108
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
$0
$0
$0
$30,453
$0
$0
$30,453
$0
$30,453
Unsecured Funding
$0
$0
$0
$703,3791
$605,401
$1,051,4671
$2,360,2471
$0
$2,360,247
Total Revenue $1,188,429 $1,205,799 $1,924,741 $900,121 $711,762 $1,173,987 $7,104,839
$0 $7,104,839
LI
Packet Pg. 169
a
Project Description
This building built in 1900 was the original field house for Edmonds High School. The property located at Civic
Field and is not part of the large Civic Field Park restoration project. The building is solely operated by the
Snohomish County Boys and Girls Club in partnership with the City's Parks and Recreation department. The
building has significant need for major renovations if it is expected to be in operation for another 10 years.
Renovation and deferred maintenance may eclipse the building value in its current location.
Projects: Exterior plumbing access, Window replacement, Roof replacement, Siding replacement, ADA Access,
Plumbing replacement, Front entry door replacement, Fire Alarm System new installation, Fire Sprinkler updates,
Baseboard heating replacement
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$186,549
Construction\Professional Services
$36,151
$38,034
$27,733
$37,453
$32,077
$15,101
Expense Total
$36,151
$38,034
$27,733
$37,453
$32,077
$15,101
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
$6,000
$6,000
$7,000
$7,000
$7,000
$7,000
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$30,151
$32,034
$20,733
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
$30,453
Unsecured Funding
$25,077
$8,101
Funding Source Total
$36,151
$38,034
$27,733
$37,453
$32,077
$15,101
Packet Pg. 170
91
Project Descriptio M
This small structure houses the Edmonds Cemetery funerary services and the cemetery Sextant office. The
building is in relatively good condition and has little deferred maintenance backlog. Minor security and
communications updates will be needed as technology dictates.
Projects:
Minor repair and maintenance
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$455
$1,954
$2,094
$8,414
$3,377
$818
$455
$1,954
$2,094
$8,414
$3,377
$818
$455
$1,954
$2,094
$2,000
$2,000
$818
$6,414 $1,377
$455 $1,954 $2,094 $8,414 $3,377
92
Packet Pg. 171
lla
Project Description
City Hall was built in 1979 and was operated as a private business office center until the City purchased and
renovated the building in the 1990s. The City has operated Edmonds City Hall from this location since the
renovations were completed. The building is in near original condition and is in need of substantial repair and
maintenance.
Projects: Solar utilization and cool roof engineering scope, HVAC upgrades and equipment replacements,
Electrical Service replacement, Plumbing and drain pipe replacement, Restroom remodels w/gender neutral
consideration, Center Stairway Code updates and replacement, Lobby remodel, Main Entry Awning re -glazing,
Interior Painting, ADA accessibility improvements, Whole building generator installation
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$1,103,350
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$171,463
$279,064
$323,246
$171,463
$279,064
$323,246
$15,000
$15,000
$18,000
$156,463
$264,064
$305,246
$171,463 $279,064 $323,246
$150,000
$70,949
$108,628
$150,000
$70,949
$108,628
$18,000
$20,000
$20,000
$132,000 $50,949 $88,628
$150,000 $70,949 $108,628
93
Packet Pg. 172
...
Project Description
The Pier was recently renovated and is generally in good condition. The Beach Ranger Office is a 1200 square foot
office and restroom facility located near the east end of the pier. There are season programs and visitor support
functions that operate out of this facility.
Projects:, Electrical panel and pier electrical feed replacement, Minor repairs and maintenance
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$32,870
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$10,320
$9,991
$2,971
$2,918
$5,628
$1,043
$10,320
$9,991
$2,971
$2,918
$5,628
$1,043
$5,000
$5,000
$2,971
$2,918
$2,500
$1,043
$5,320
$4,991
$3,128
$10,320
$9,991
$2,971
$2,918
$5,628
$1,043
Packet Pg. 173
Project Description
The Frances Anderson Center is housed in the 1928 Edmonds elementary school building. This building serves as
the Parks, Recreation, Cultural and Human Services offices and is on the City's Historic Register. The Building is
nearly 55,000 square feet and is home to several permanent tenants including, Main Street Kids daycare,
Edmonds Montessori, Sno-King Youth Organization and the Olympic Ballet practice space and offices. The building
serves as the City's main recreation center offering arts, athletic and cultural programing year round. Due to the
age and high usage of the building there are many building systems that are in need of replacement or restoration.
Projects: Replacement of Heating Boilers with Electric alternatives that will add ventilation, cooling and heating,
Replacement of all exterior doors (24 ea), New, ADA accessible door closures, New Windows (historically
appropriate), Interior painting Classrooms , Plumbing drainage collector, Gym Floor, Drinking fountains ADA
compliant, Restroom remodels (w/ gender neutral consideration), Replacement of all plumbing fixtures,
Replacement of several common area and classroom flooring, Addition of building security card readers , Building
HVAC controls to maximize efficiency, Fire Alarm replacement, Fire Sprinkler replacement, Elevator refresh and
code updates
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$805,751
Construction\Professional Services
$143,925
$130,593
$298,378
Expense Total
$143,925
$130,593
$298,378
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
$20,000
$20,000
$25,000
$98,892
$20,934
$113,029
$98,892
$20,934
$113,029
$25,000
$15,000
$30,000
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond) $123,925 $110,593 $273,378
95
Packet Pg. 174
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
Project Description
8.3.a
$73,892 $5,934 $83,029
$143,925 $130,593 $298,378 $98,892 $20,934 $113,029
This facility is operated by South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue and was built in 2003 and has a building area
of 10,700 square feet. The building is in fair condition and will require some infrastructure updates or
replacements to remain operationally ready for the needs of the City.
Projects: Roll -up bay door replacements, HVAC unit replacements, Gutter and drainage repair or replacements,
Building Controls updates , Interior painting and flooring
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$205,377
Construction\Professional Services
$24,970
$47,689
$1,591
$69,388
$30,107
$31,631
Expense Total
$24,970
$47,689
$1,591
$69,388
$30,107
$31,631
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
$5,000
$5,000
$1,591
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$19,970
$42,689
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
$61,388
$22,107
$23,631
Funding Source Total
$24,970
$47,689
$1,591
$69,388
$30,107
$31,631
Packet Pg. 175
Project Description
This building is operated by South Snohomish County Fire and Rescue, was built in 1999 and has a building area of
9,800 square feet. This building has had some updates but will need some infrastructure upgrades to remain
operationally ready.
Projects: Bay Door replacements, Drainage updates, Electrical infrastructure updates, HVAC Chiller plant
replacement, Interior Painting and flooring
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$39,935
$81,545
$225,547
$144,830
$27,575
$122,245
$39,935
$81,545
$225,547
$144,830
$27,575
$122,245
$5,000
$5,000
$8,000
$8,000
$5,000
$5,000
$34,935
$76,545
$217,547
$136,830
$22,575
$117,245
$39,935
$81,545
$225,547
$144,830
$27,575
$122,245
97
Packet Pg. 176
Project Description
This building is the eldest of the City's three fire stations and is operated by South County Fire and Rescue. This
station serves Esperance and supports the other two fire stations in Edmonds. The building is 6400 square feet
and was built in 1990. The building has had significant updates to the exterior envelope and is in need of interior
and HVAC system updates.
Projects: New engine bay doors, Fire alarm system replacement, New property perimeter fencing, Storm water
drainage system, Interior painting and flooring
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$241,029
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$16,960
$20,000
$16,274
$16,960
$20,000
$16,274
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$13,460
$16,500
$12,774
$16,960 $20,000 $16,274
$94,248
$69,782
$23,765
$94,248
$69,782
$23,765
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$89,248 $64,782 $18,765
$94,248 $69,782 $23,765
Packet Pg. 177
Project Description
This Historic log cabin is home to the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce visitor center, the structure was a purpose
built cabin from the turn of the century. The structure is professionally maintained on a three year cycle by a log
cabin specialist and requires only minor maintenance and upkeep annually.
Projects: Front entry steps and railing, New thick cut shat roof
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$97,167
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$7,903
$80,000
$888
$546
$1,361
$6,469
$7,903
$80,000
$888
$546
$1,361
$6,469
$4,000
$1,000
$500
$546
$1,361
$500
$3,903
$79,000
$388
$5,969
$7,903
$80,000
$888
$546
$1,361
$6,469
Packet Pg. 178
Project Description
The 110 year old original Carnegie Library building is home to the Edmonds Museum. The building is on the State
of Washington Historic registry and has been well maintained over the last several years. Buildings of this age
require specialized maintenance and coordination with the state historic architect to maintain the historic status.
Structural stabilization and weatherproofing are the most significant priorities to maintain this facility.
Projects: Minor structural reinforcement , Entry facade masonry repair, Lower entry restoration, Heating boiler
replacement
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$65,029
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$12,121
$13,089
$15,000
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
$12,121
$13,089
$15,000
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
$12,121
$2,500
$2,500
$2,500
$2,000
$2,500
$10,589
$12,500
$7,500
$2,621
$7,699
$12,121
$13,089
$15,000
$10,000
$4,621
$10,199
100
Packet Pg. 179
Project Description
The Edmonds Library is operated by the Sno-Isle Library system with exception of the Second floor Plaza room
rental space. The library is a 19,000 square foot building built in 1982. The building hosts special event rentals and
daily Library programming and community services. This is one of the City's most heavily used buildings by the
public and has significant deferred maintenance needs, including the building fagade and plaza deck
waterproofing.
Projects: Window replacement, ADA access device upgrades or replacement, Gender inclusive public restroom
creation, Plaza room restroom/changing facilities, Plaza room A/V installation, Building masonry restoration or
building cladding, Exterior stairway restoration, HVAC ventilation fan replacement, Building breezeway remodel,
Building flooring replacement, Garage level drainage and stucco repairs, Exterior planter box replacement and
waterproofing, Staff restroom remodel
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$399,441
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
$45,000
$105,175
$150,902
$53,325 $45,038
$45,000
$105,175
$150,902
$53,325 $45,038
$5,000
$5,000
$7,500
$5,000 $5,000
$40,000
$100,175
$143,402
$48,325
$40,038
$45,000 $105,175 $150,902 $53,325 $45,038
101
$35,000
$35,000
$5,000
$30,000
$ Packet Pg. 180
Funding Source Total
Project Description
This 4000 square foot facility was built in 1965 as a community theater facility and later was transformed into the
Meadowdale community club house. The building is currently owned and maintained by the City of Edmonds and
houses the City operated Meadowdale pre-school and the 1500 square foot Meadowdale club house rental
facility. This facility while dated has been well maintained and only requires minor maintenance and repairs.
Projects: Minor maintenance and repairs, Furnace replacement, Increased mechanical ventilation
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$59,4b4
Construction\Professional Services
$26,083
$13,426
$6,365
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
Expense Total
$26,083
$13,426
$6,365
$7,985
$4,446
$1,159
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
$5,000
$3,500
$3,500
$3,500
$2,500
$1,159
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$21,083
$9,926
$2,865
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
$4,485
$1,946
Funding Source Total
$26,083
$13,426
$6,365
$7,985
$4,446
$1.1 �n
Packet Pg. 181
102
7
Project Description
This facility was built in 1965 to house the City's Public Works Department, the building was converted in 1995 to
tenant space and City storage, as well as Edmonds Police large evidence storage. This is a vital piece of property
adjacent to the Waste Water Treatment Plant, and could be converted for utility use if regulatory requirements
dictate. Building is primarily used as storage and will need some updates to maintain current operational
readiness.
Projects: HVAC updates, Role -up door replacement, Parking lot resurfacing
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$262,205
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$55,635
$107,743
$24,308
$55,635
$107,743
$24,308
$2,500
$5,000
$2,000
$53,135
$102,743
$22,308
$55,635 $107,743 $24,308
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$25,000
$25,000
$24,519
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$23,000 $23,000 $22,519
$25,000 $25,000 $24,519
103
Packet Pg. 182
Project Description
This facility was built in 1967 by Ed Huntley who at the time was the City Facilities supervisor. The 4800 square
foot facility now houses all City Facility Operations staff(11) and all of Park and Rec Parks Maintenance Staff(12+
seasonal help) This Facility is home to the City Carpentry Shop, Key Shop, City Flower program, Parks engine
repair shop and Parks and Facilities maintenance supply storage as well as Parks and Facilities Manager offices.
This Facility is near end of life and is undersized to support the departmental staffing that are assigned to this
facility.
Projects: Maintenance and Repair to maintain operational capacity
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$270,495
Construction\Professional Services
$130,631
$15,789
$40,320
$9,349
$5,177
$69,228
Expense Total
$130,631
$15,789
$40,320
$9,349
$5,177
$69,228
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
$5,000
$2,500
$5,000
$1,500
$1,500
$5,000
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
$125,631
$13,289
$35,320
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
$7,849
$3,677
$64,228
Funding Source Total
$130,631
$15,789
$40,320
$9,349
$5,177
$69,228
Packet Pg. 183
104
owl
Project Description
The Public Safety building houses Edmonds Police Department, Edmonds Municipal Court and the City Council
Chambers. The building was built in 1999 encompassing 30,000 square feet of office, court and municipal
government uses. The building houses one of the City emergency operations centers, large police training,
simulator facilities and evidence processing and storage. The building has had minimal system updates over it's
life and has a significant amount of deferred maintenance and should be retrofitted with new fire sprinklers.
Projects: Boiler replacement, Air Handler and Outdoor ventilation unit replacements, Chiller plant replacement
study/scope, Auxiliary heating coil replacement, New solar plant installation, Parking lot reconfiguration to meet
current usage, Fire Sprinkler Installation, Interior hallway renovation and painting, Sleeping room remodel and
gender specific/neutral accommodations, Gender inclusive public restrooms, Operable windows is specific
locations, Roof replacement, Courts flat roof, Sally Port garage/processing remodel
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$1, 558,144
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
$340,180
$50,967
$445,276
$340,180
$50,967
$445,276
$285,000
$15,000
$20,000
$55,180
$35,967
$425,276
$55,169
$151,481
$515,071
$55,169
$151,481
$515,071
$15,000
$15,000
$20,000
$40,169 $136,481 $495,071
$55,169 $151,481 $5 Packet Pg. 184
Funding Source Total
$340,180 $50,967 $445,276
105
Project Description
This building built in 1995 houses four Public Works divisions and the auxiliary City Emergency Operations Center.
This building is 28,000 square feed and is capable of operations 24/7 during weather emergencies and natural
disasters. The building has significant deferred maintenance needs and infrastructure updates.
Projects: Vehicle yard leveling, HVAC unit replacements, Ventilation fan replacements, Fire Alarm system
replacement, Lobby remodel, Restroom remodel with gender inclusivity considerations, Electric Vehicle Charging
and maintenance infrastructure, Emergency Communications updates, Wireless network expansion, Interior
hallway flooring, Utility Bay HVAC replacement, Water main replacement (building connection), Window
replacement Offices and Conference rooms, Achieve storage room remodel
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$628,697
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$80,000
$126,570
$218,643
$80,315
$79,348
$43,821
$80,000
$126,570
$218,643
$80,315
$79,348
$43,821
$5,000
$8,500
$10,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$75,000
$118,070
$208,643
$75,315
$74,348
$38,821
$80,000
$126,570
$218,643
$80,315
$79,348
$43,821
106
Packet Pg. 185
Project Descriptio
This community theater was built by the Driftwood Players theater group in 1967 and was deeded to City
ownership at a later date. The facility is 6,300 quare feet in size and houses the Driftwood Players theatrical
performances and City meetings. The City's maintenance responsibilities are limited to large infrastructure,
parking lot, roofing and grounds.
Projects: Parking lot repair and recoating, Gutter/down spout replacement, Minor repair and maintenance
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$320,86u
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$21,697
$18,600
$99,077
$21,697
$18,600
$99,077
$2,000
$2,000
$5,000
$19,697
$16,600
$94,077
$21,697 $18,600 $99,077
$43,880
$115,734
$21,872
$43,880
$115,734
$21,872
$5,000
$5,000
$2,000
$38,880 $110,734 $19,872
$43,880 $115,734 $21,872
107
Packet Pg. 186
Project Description
L
„y
This recreational facility houses the City's aquatic programing and some Parks and Recreation programs. Built in
1971 the pool house historically was only operated seasonally. The tenant run aquatic programing is currently
expanding to year round lap and team aquatic activities and will continue to support summer open swim
programing. The facility requires minimal maintenance to remain operational and is subject to tenant lease terms
of use.
Projects: Security updates, Roof replacement, Gutter replacement, Plumbing fixture updates, Operational repair
and maintenance
Project Benefit
Public owned facilities and properties are maintained to assure safe and property operating conditions and to
assure the protection of the physical asset throughout an expected lifespan. A well maintained facility creates a
safe work environment that is clean and sanitary which promotes workplace efficiency and confidence. Routine
and preventative maintenance reduces energy consumption and provides for building systems to operate as
designed during manufacturer expected lifespan.
Estimated Project Cost
$174, 623
Construction\Professional Services
Expense Total
Fund 001 (Repair & Maint, Prof Services)
Fund 016 (2021 Facilities Bond)
Fund 016 (non -bond proceeds)
Unsecured Funding
Funding Source Total
$25,000
$65,570
$26,128
$25,000
$65,570
$26,128
$2,500
$5,000
$2,500
$22,500
$60,570
$23,628
$25,000 $65,570 $26,128
$8,409
$19,127
$30,389
$8,409
$19,127
$30,389
$2,000
$2,500
$2,500
$6,409 $16,627 $27,889
$8,409 $19,127 $30,389
Packet Pg. 187
8.3.a
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
.. -
109
Packet Pg. 188
8.3.a
WWTP Proiects
#
CFP
PROJECT
DP
#
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Project Cost
PWP-01
WWTP Annual Capital Replacement In-house Projects
$0
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
$14,000,000
$19,000,000
PWP-02
Carbon Recovery Project
67
$1,162,671
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,162,671
$0
$1,162,671
PWP-03
City Park Odor Scrubber
68
$297,121
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$297,121
$0
$297,121
PWP-04
I
I Nutrient Removal Project
1 $0
$1,000,0001
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$6,000,000
$0
$6,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Projects $1,459,792 $2,000,000 $6,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $12,459,792 $14,000,000 $26,459,792
Funding Source
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2047
TOTAL
(2022-2027)
TOTAL
(2028-42)
TOTAL
Edmonds (Sewer Fund 423) (50.79%)
$741,428
$1,015,800
$3,047,400
$507,900
$507,900
$507,900
$6,328,328
$7,110,600
$13,438,928
Mountlake Terrace (23.17%)
$338,234
$463,400
$1,390,200
$231,700
$231,700
$231,700
$2,886,934
$3,243,800
$6.130,734
Olympic View Water Sewer District (16.55%)
$241,596
$331,000
$993,000
$165,500
$165,500
$165,500
$2,062,096
$2,317,000
$4,379,096
Ronald Sewer District (9.49%)
$138,5341
$189,8001
$569,4001
$94,9001
$94,9001
$94,9001
$1,182,4341
$1,328,6001
$2,511,034
Total Revenue $1,459,792 $2,000,000 $6,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $12,459,792 $14,000,000 $26,459,792
Packet Pg. 189
110
Project Description
This ongoing project is to ensure that critical infrastructure is maintained and replaced as needed. Project
expenditures may include, but are not limited to, variable frequency drives, pumps, motors, gear boxes,
conveyors or any WWTP equipment that needs replacement versus repair.
Project Benefit
This project ensure that the critical infrastructure is maintained and equipment is replaced in order to reduce risk
to the City.
Estimated Project Cost
$19,000,000
Design
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$2,800,OC
Right of Way
Construction
$800,000
$800,000
$800,000
$800,000
$800,000
$11,200,OC
Expense Total
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$14,000,00
Sewer Fund 423
$507,900
$507,900
$507,900
$507,900
$507,900
$7,110,6C
Mountlake Terrace
$231,700
$231,700
$231,700
$231,700
$231,700
$3,243,8C
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$165,500
$165,500
$165,500
$165,500
$165,500
$2,317,OC
Ronald Sewer District
$94,900
$94,900
$94,900
$94,900
$94,900
$1,328,6C
Funding Source Total
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$14,000,00
Packet Pg. 190
111
High Efficiency Blowers
Project saves: $33,9091yr, and
345 tons CO2, equivalent to:
36.6 home's energy I
799 barrels of
use For one year oil com med
Dewaterin
Project saves: $133,211iyr. and
537 tons C 0 r, equivalent to:
56.7 riome s e, ergy 1.243 barrels oFoil
u�afor one year I c,pn3mmd
Aeration & Blowers
Projects ayes, $3d,00yr. and
294 tons M, equivalent to:
87.3 home's energy 611 barrels of
use for oneyear I ail cDn5umed
Project Description
The Carbon Recovery Project replaces the aging Sanitary Sewage Sludge Incinerator with the Ecoremedy
Gasification Process. The multi -year project which was approved by City Council on July 7, 2020 is being delivered
through the State of Washington Energy Savings Performance Contracting program.
Project Benefit
Project benefits include a more sustainable approach to treating and disposing of biosolids by creating a
marketable biochar. The project will reduce overall energy requirements while producing a PFAS free (or greatly
reduced) end product. The project also includes a more robust odor scrubber and screenings management
enhancements which are designed to reduce operation and maintenance cost for our ratepayers while improving
odor in our surrounding community.
The Carbon Recovery Project is the final project that was envisioned within the Pathway to Sustainability.
Estimated Project Cost
$26,121,039
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$1,162,671
Expense Total
$1,162,671
Sewer Fund 423
$590,521
Mountlake Terrace
$269,391
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$192,422
Ronald Sewer District
$110,337
Funding Source Total
$1,162,671
112
Packet Pg. 191
Project Description
This project will remove and treat the hydrogen sulfide gas that is being released into the atmosphere from a City
owned sewer mainline and private roof vents in the area of Pine St and 2nd/3rd Ave S. The gas has a rotten egg
smell which results in numerous complaints from residents in the area. An activated carbon odor scrubber was
identified as the most efficient and effective method of capturing and destroying the nuisance odor.
Project Benefit
This project would formally address the ongoing problem and reduce odors in the area for residents and park
patrons.
Estimated Project Cost
$297,121
Design
Right of Way
Construction
$297,121
Expense Total
$297,121
Sewer Fund 423
$150,908
Mountlake Terrace
$68,843
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$49,174
Ronald Sewer District
$28,197
Funding Source Total
$297,122
Packet Pg. 192
113
Project Description
The State of Washington Department of Ecology will soon issue the General Permit for Nutrient Reduction. This
General Permit will be issued to all WWTP's who discharge into the Puget Sound and currently caps the WWTP
nutrient load. With the anticipation of the General Permit, the City has participated in a full scale pilot program
that began in August 2020. The pilot program has shown promise to meet the requirements of the General
Permit. This project is a place holder to fully develop a design and ultimately determine the cost of construction
and ongoing O&M expenses.
Project Benefit
This project will ensure a reduction in nutrients discharged by the WWTP into the Puget Sound while increasing
settleability and reducing effluent solids. Completion of the project will allow the City to meet the requirements
within the General Permit, accompanying NPDES Permit and to increase flows in order to maximum the rated
capacity of the WWTP.
Estimated Project Cost
$6,000,000
Design
$1,000,000
Right of Way
Construction
$5,000,000
Expense Total
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
Sewer Fund 423
$507,900
$2,539,500
Mountlake Terrace
$231,700
$1,158,500
Olympic View Water Sewer District
$165,500
$827,500
Ronald Sewer District
$94,900
$474,500
Funding Source Total
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
Packet Pg. 193
114
8.3.a
CIP- CFP
COMPARISON
(2021-2022)
Packet Pg. 194
115
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2021 TO 2022)
8.3.a
ADDED PROJECTS
Type
PROJECT NAME
CFP
DESCRIPTION
Transp
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 2
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
Transp
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 3
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
Transp
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 4
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
Transp
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway -Stage 5
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
Transp
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 6
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
Transp
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 7
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
Transp
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 8
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
Transp
Hwy 99 Revitalization and Gateway - Stage 9
X
Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project divided in different Stages
Parks
ADA Playground Upgrade Program
Annual Program to upgrade / replace plagrounds
Parks
Yost Pool Repair
Replacement of failing plaster at the pool
Water
Phase 18 Annual Replacement Program (2028)
Estimated future costs for waterline replacements.
Water
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
Reservoir assessment to determine upgrade needs and preliminary design
Water
2022 Waterline Overlays
Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements.
Storm
Phase 9 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2028)
Estimated future costs for storm pipe replacements.
Storm
Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration Phase 1
Estimated future costs for 1st phase of Creek Restoration
Storm
2022 SD Overlays
Estimated future costs for road repairs due to storm replacements
Storm
Green Street & Rain Gardens
Estimated future costs for Citywide green infrastructure projects
Sewer
Phase 15 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements (2028)
Estimated future costs for sewer line replacements/rehab/impr.
Sewer
2022 SS Overlays
Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewer line replacements.
Sewer
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 4
jEstimated future costs for sewer project.
4-
0
C
�L
cc
d
2
2
a
d
U
a
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
0
N
a�
N
O
O_
O
L
Q.
d
06
N
Y
L
O
U
a.
a
Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 195
116
8.3.a
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2021 TO 2022)
REMOVED PROJECTS
Type
PROJECT NAME
UP
DESCRIPTION
Transp
Hwy 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
Removed / Included in Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project - Stage 4
Transp
Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
Removed/ included in Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project - Stage 9
Transp
Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
Removed / included in Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project - Stage 5
Transp
Hwy 99 Pedestrian Improvements (SR-104 Off -Ramps)
X
Removed / included in Hwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway project Stage 2 & 3
Transp
Hwy 99 @ 234th St. SW Traffic Signal
X
lRemoved
Transp
Sunset Ave. Sidewalk
X
Removed
Transp
Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S
X
Completed
Transp
Dayton St. Walkway from 7th Ave.S to 8th Ave. S
X
Completed
Parks
Greenhouse Replacement
2021 Project
Water
2021 Waterline Overlays
Completed
Water
Dayton 3rd to 9th
Completed
Water
5 Corners Reservoir RecoatinR
Completed
Water
Phase 11 Annual Replacement Program (2021)
Completed
Storm
Dayton 3rd to 9th
Completed
Storm
Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements -Dayton Pump Station
Completed
Storm
2021 SD Overlays
Completed
Storm
Phase 1 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2020)
Completed
Sewer
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase 2
Completed
Sewer
Phase 7 SS Replacement Project (2020)
Completed
Sewer
Phase 8 SS Replacement Project (2021)
Completed
Sewer
Dayton 3rd to 9th
Completed
Sewer
2021 SS Overlays
Completed
Sewer
LS#1 Metering and Flow Study
Completed
4-
0
C
�L
cc
d
2
2
a
d
U
a
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
0
N
a�
N
O
O_
O
d
d
N
Y
O
U
d
a
Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 196
117
8.3.a
CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2021 TO 2022)
CHANGED PROJECTS
Type
PROJECT NAME
CFP
CHANGE
Transp
SR-104 Adaptive System
X
Moved up from 2023 to 2022
Transp
175th Slope Repair
Moved from Fund 126 to Fund 112
Transp
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave.S to 9th Ave. S
X
Construction funding added in 2022
Parks
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Postponed until 2025
Parks
Waterfront Walkway Completion
Moved to fund 125
Parks
Civic Park
X
Utilizing $2M from REET and not General Fund
Parks
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
Increase in funding 2023-2027
4-
0
CD
C
�L
cc
d
2
2
a
d
U
a
LL
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
O
O_
O
L
Y
^Y
Cd
N
Y
L
O
ci
Q.
Y
a
Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 197
118
EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
2022-2027 PROPOSED
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN &
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
8.3.b
EDMONDSPARKS,
RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES
October 13, 2021
Members of the City Council, Staff and Citizens of Edmonds,
It is an honor to present the 6-year Parks Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP serves as a long-
range planning guide identifying parks capital projects and related funding sources, both secured and
unsecured. The CIP is updated each year and presented in conjunction with the budget. Capital
Improvement projects that are also included in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) which are identified in the
following document.
In 2022 the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department will focus on the completion of the largest
ever City of Edmonds Parks Capital project, the redevelopment of the 8-acre Civic Center Playfields. There
are significant resources of staff time and funding invested in this project which began construction in
August 2021 and is schedule to be complete Winter 2022. In addition to Civic Center the department will
continue to focus on deferred maintenance of existing parks and recreation facilities, playground
renovations and upgrades and required maintenance at Yost Pool.
The updated Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS) will be completed in early 2022. This
document, based largely on citizens priorities will guide future CIP plans. At this time, near future projects
include the re -development of Marina Beach Park ($1M in grant funding secured), and annually funds are
being set aside and accumulating for potential parkland and open space acquisition should the right
opportunity become available. The department is focused on providing an equitable distribution of access
to park and recreational facilities throughout the entire City.
Your Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is proud to have served the citizens throughout
the COVID-19 pandemic, working to ensure residents and visitors had safe and enjoyable places to
recreate. With unprecedented usage of the city's parks system our priorities shifted to enhanced litter,
garbage and restroom sanitization however we are looking forward to returning to our list of deferred
maintenance and keeping the Edmonds Parks safe and enjoyable for all.
Sincerely,
,Ril�
Angie Feser
Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director
425-771-0256
Angie.Feser@EdmondsWA.gov
Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services • 600 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020
Page 1
Packet Pg. 199
8.3.b
2022 - 2027 SIX -YEAR PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CFP # PROJECT 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 6-Year Tot
PARKS CIP/CFP PROJECTS
Civic Center Playfield
Redevelopment of 8-acre park consistent with Master Plan adopted in 2017;
X
PRK 1
add restrooms, walking track, landscaping, inclusive playground, improve
$ 9,755,742
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9,755,7
field and lighting, skate park, petanque grove, tennis and multi sports courts.
Marina Beach Park Improvements
Redevelop the park consistent with the Master Plan adopted in 2015;
X
PRK 2
Parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, permanent restrooms,
$
$
$ 1,750,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 2,750,000
$
$ 6,000,0
upgrade play area, improve ADA Accessibility, add bridges over new
alignment of Willow Creek.
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Prioritized in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and State certified Creative
PRK 3
District. Improvements encourage pedestrian traffic and provide visual
$
$
$
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 8,000,0
connection between ECA and downtown contributing to economic vitality.
Playground Upgrade Program
Annual upgrades of playground equipment and fall surfacing to provide
PRK 4
additional inclusive playgrounds/facilities providing access for children of all
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 175,000
$ 1,050,0
ages and abilities.
Yost Pool Repair
Regular maintenance to re -plaster the pool to replace and repair failing
PRK 5
plaster. Pool will be forced to close without repair.
$ 175,000
$
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ 175,0
Waterfront Walkway Completion
Connecting the waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing North to Marina
PRK 6
Beach Park by adding missing section in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums,
$
$
$ 500,000
$ 750,000
$
$
$ 1,250,0
to provide ADA improvements.
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting)
X
PRK 7
Restoration of the Marsh to reconnect the Puget Sound within the Edmonds
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Marsh and two fresh water creeks to provide fresh water / salt water estuary
and natural tidal exchange.
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
m
N
0
O.
O
d
O
C
�L
to
m
2
O
a
a_
U
a
u_
U
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
M
d
0
O
O_
O
L
a
Y
L
O
d
Page 2
Packet Pg. 200
8.3.b
2022 - 2027 SIX -YEAR PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CFP
#
PROJECT
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
6-Year Tot
Community Park & Athletic Complex - Phase II
X
PRK 8
In cooperation with the Edmonds School District, complete a community park
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
and athletic complex at Former Woodway High School to include lighting and
Parks & Facilities Maintenance and Operations Building
X
PRK 9
Replace and/or renovate deteriorating building in City Park. Project in
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
conceptual phase.
(A) SUBTOTAL PARKS CIP/CFP PROJECTS
$ 10,107,764
$ 177,023
$ 2,427,024
$ 3,427,025
$ 3,927,026
$ 6,177,027
$ 26,230,7
PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
PRK A
This ongoing program allocates funds for the regular maintenance, repair and
$ 155,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 2,405,0
replacement of parks amenities, structures and equipment.
Beautification Program
This ongoing program allocates funds to support beautification. Specifically
PRK B
flower plantings, irrigation and mulch in areas such as corner parks, landscape
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 126,0
Park and Open Space Acquisition Program
PRK C
To acquire land for future parks and open spaces as opportunities become
$ 1,099,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 3,094,0
available.
Debt Service and Interfund Transfers
PRK D
Debt service on Civic Park $1.6M bond (2021) and Interfund transfers to
$ 193,832
$ 123,000
$ 148,000
$ 173,000
$ 198,000
$ 198,000
$ 1,033,8
Engineering for Capital Project Support.
(B) SUBTOTAL - PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
$ 1,468,832
$ 993,000
$ 1,018,000
$ 1,043,000
$ 1,068,000
1 $ 1,068,000
$ 6,658,8
(C) TOTAL PARKS CIP/CFP EXPENDITURES (A+B) $ 11,576,596 $ 1,170,023 $ 3,445,024 $ 4,470,025 $ 4,995,026 $ 7,245,027 $ 32,889,5
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
m
N
O
0.
O
L
4-
0
tM
C
�L
d
2
3
a
a_
U
a
u_
U
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
M
d
N
O
CL
O
L
a
Y
L
d
Page 3
Packet Pg. 201
8.3.b
2022 - 2027 SIX -YEAR PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PARKS CIP REVENUE
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
6-Year Tot
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) I - Fund 126
$ 900,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 1,900,0
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) 11 - Fund 125
$ 3,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 11,000,0
Park Impact Fee's - Fund 332-100
$ 874,575
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 3,124,5
Tree Fund 143 - Land Acquisition
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 1,194,0
Operating Contribution - General Fund
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
Investment Interest (3%)
$ 78,110
$ 39,793
$ 50,797
$ 31,381
$ 25,632
$ (539)
$ 225,1
Donations
$ 142,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 142,0
Bond Proceeds
$ -
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
Secured Grants
$ 2,728,000
$
$
$ 1,000,000
$
$
$ 3,728,0
Unsecured Grants
$ -
$
$
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,600,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 8,600,0
(D) TOTAL PARKS CIP REVENUE
$ 8,421,685
$ 2,388,793
$ 2,399,797
$ 4,380,381
$ 3,974,632
$ 8,348,461
$ 29,913,7.
Parks Fund 6-Year Overview
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
(E) Beginning Fund Balance (332 + 332-100)
$ 4,554,645
$ 1,399,734
$ 2,618,504
$ 1,573,276
$ 1,483,632
$ 463,238
(D) Revenue
$ 8,421,685
$ 2,388,793
$ 2,399,797
$ 4,380,381
$ 3,974,632
$ 8,348,461
(C) Expenditures
$ 11,576,596
$ 1,170,023
$ 3,445,024
$ 4,470,025
$ 4,995,026
$ 7,245,027
(G) Ending Fund Balance (E+D-C)
$ 1,399,734
$ 2,618,504
$ 1,573,276
$ 1,483,632
$ 463,238
$ 1,566,672
ti
N
O
N
N
N
0
N
d
N
O
O.
O
L
a
O
c
�L
to
m
2
3
a
a_
U
a
u_
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
M
d
N
O
O_
O
L
a
Y
L
M
a.
N
C
d
E
t
U
r
r
Q
C
d
E
t
U
R
Q
Page 4
Packet Pg. 202
of Epp
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services
PARKS PROJECTS ,-- - -
U
Projects loop
o Parks
U
ti
CD
N
N
N
N
CD
0
_ o
Im
�� •�
W
���� PRK-05 V
���� a
PRK-07 ��� LL
V
PRK-02 Me � _ . N
PRK-09 = N
1 N
�111111 �'�Cl1111 04
NE C4
r o
F� 0
0
a.
N ' �� N
I � PRK-0�
■ �� E
J
* Site specific projects only. Citywide/annual citywide projects not shown. Packet Pg. 203
Page 5
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 1: Civic Center Playfield
f,
310 61h Ave. N — Downtown Edmonds
Project Summary: An 8-acre downtown park development supported by $3.47M in grant funding, $5.3M in bonds,
$1.3M in Park Impact Fees and $3.4M in Real Estate Excise Tax. This signature project broke ground in August
2021 and is slated for completion Winter 2022.
Project Justification: This is a multi -year design, fund development and construction project that is a very high
priority in the 2016 PROS plan. The Master Plan process was robust with extensive community input. Construction
began August 9, 2021 and is underway and 2022 funding necessary to complete the project.
Estimated Construction Cost: $13,758,000
2022
2023
0-
Planning & Design
Construction
$9,755,742
$9,755,742
Total Expenses
$9,755,742
$9,755,742
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$2,898,672
$2,898,672
Park Impact Fees - Fund 332-100
$1,352,620
$1,352,620
Bond Proceeds
$1,634,450
$1,634,450
Federal Grant (LWCF)
$500,000
$500,000
RCO State Grants
$850,000
$850,000
Snohomish County Grants
$450,000
$450,000
Verdant Grant
$170,000
$170,000
Hazel Miller Foundation Grant
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
State Appropriation / DOC Grant
$258,000
$258,000
Park Donations
$142,000
$142,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$9,755,742
$0
$9,755,742
$0
Project Accounting #C536 & C551
Page 6
Packet Pg. 204
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 2: Marina Beach Park Improvements
470 Admiral Way, South of the Port of Edmonds
Project Summary: Park renovation 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, permanent 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, retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area
and off leash dog area and environmental education opportunities. 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 the freshwater Edmonds Marsh Estuary. $1,000,000 in RCO grants
were awarded for this project in 2021.
Project Justification: Marina Beach Park is a highly used regional park. Through the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the 2016 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan the
community identified the need to restore the adjacent Edmonds Marsh, and re-established for salmon habitat.
Improvements are intended to retain this site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. This 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.
Estimated Cost: $6,000,000
Planning & Design
2022
2023
2024 2025
$600,000
2026
$600,000
Construction
$1,150,000 $1,500,000
$2,750,000 $5,400,000
Total Expenses
$1,750,000 $1,500,000
$2,750,000 $6,000,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$750,000
$1,000,000 $1,750,000
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fees
$1,000,000 $500,000
$1,150,000 $2,650,000
Secured Grants
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$1,750,000 $1,500,000
$2,150,000 $5,400,000
$600,000 $600,000
Project Accounting # C550
Page 7
Packet Pg. 205
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 3: 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
41h Avenue from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, Downtown
Project Summary: Final design of 4th 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 4th 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", as well as
preliminary design development through 2020-21. Funding for this project has not been secured at this time.
Project Justification: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic and
provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown retail. Improvements will enhance
connectivity as an attractive walking corridor and contribute to the economic vitality in 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.
Estimated Cost: $8,000,000
Planning & Design
2022
2023
2024
2025
$800,000
$800,000
Construction
$200,000
$1,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,200,000
Total Expenses
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Park Impact Fees - Fund 332-100
Operating contribution — general fund
Secured Grants
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$0
$1,000,000
1 $0
$1,000,000
1 $0
$6,000,000
1 $0
$8,000,000
Project Accounting #C538
Page 8
Packet Pg. 206
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 4: Playground Upgrade Program
Project Summary: City of Edmonds owns, operates and maintains 15 playgrounds and only two of them are
considered fully inclusive and accessible (Seaview and Civic Parks). One of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Department initiatives is to continually update playgrounds which range in installation dates from 1985 -
2019. As part of these scheduled updates the department will work to enhance playgrounds to be inclusive versus
merely meeting ADA standards. In many cases this includes enhanced play surfacing and play equipment that
provide for children of all abilities.
The playground improvement prioritization is slated to be established at the conclusion and adoption of the 2022
PROS plan to determine an implementation strategy.
Project Justification: Playground upgrades are a necessary part of maintaining a safe play environment. With
playgrounds that are 35+ years old many will be scheduled for upgrades. Further, it is the goal of the City to ensure
that those upgrades include considerations for children of all physical and mental abilities and that these play
amenities are designed to be a welcoming and healthy experience for all.
Estimated Cost: $175,000 per year / $1,050,000 (6-year total)
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Planning & Design
Construction
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$1,050,000
Total Expenses
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$1,050,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000
$1,050,000
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fees
Secured Grants
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$175,000 $175,000
$0
$175,000 $175,000
$175,000 $175,000 $1,050,000
$0
Page 9
Packet Pg. 207
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 5: Yost Pool Repair
96th Ave W & Bowdoin Way, Yost Park
Project Summary: Yost Pool was built nearly 50 years ago and continues to provide recreational opportunities for
many residents. In addition to teaching our youth water safety, the pool serves as an opportunity for community
members of all ages to lead healthy and active lifestyles. At this time, the pool needs a significant capital repair as
the plaster lining the inside of the pool is continuing to deteriorate, falling off the walls and detaching from the
bottom of the pool. The pool was re -plastered in 2001, 2011 and it is past due to re -plaster it again.
Project Justification: Typically, the plaster on the pool bubbles when it reaches its end of life, eventually breaking
open creating sharp edges which present a danger to the pool users and leads to future damage to existing plaster.
If the plaster repair is not completed, the pool will not be operational at a point in the near future.
Estimated Cost: $175,000
Planning & Design
i
Construction $175,000
$175,000
Total Expenses $175,000
$175,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125 $175,000
$175,000
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fee's
Secured Grants
Total Revenue $175,000
Unsecured Funding $0
L $175,000
i
Page 10
Packet Pg. 208
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 6: Waterfront Walkway Completion — Ebb Tide Section
Beachfront in front of Ebb Tide Condominiums (200 Beach Place)
Project Summary: This would connect the 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 waterfront. The final missing piece would be constructed in front of the Ebb Tide condominiums in the
easement owned by the City of Edmonds. The easement and walkway design are currently under legal review.
Project Justification: 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
2016 PROS plan is to open up beachfront access.
Estimated Cost: $1,250,000
i
Planning & Design
$125,000
1
$125,000
Construction
$375,000
1 $750,000
$1,125,000
Total Expenses
$500,000
$750,000
$1,125,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$500,000
$750,000
$1,125,000
Park Impact Fee's - Fund 332-100
Operating contribution — general fund
Secured Grants
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$500,000
so
$750,000
$0
$1,125,000
$0
Page 11
Packet Pg. 209
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 7: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting)
Edmonds Marsh - City of Edmonds Marsh and property owned by Unocal (Chevron Services Co.)
Project Summary: Reconnect the Puget Sound with the Edmonds Marsh restoring the natural tidal exchange. This
project will impact the existing Marina Beach Park and its proposed renovation including daylighting of Willow
Creek within the park. That project is identified and detailed a separate capital improvement project (PRK 2).
Project Justification: This project will fulfill the 2016 PROS plan goals and support Governor's Inslee's capital
budget for salmon recovery, culvert removal, water quality and water supply projects to expand and improve
salmon habitat. The marsh estuary restoration project will allow for and provide a natural tidal exchange, allow
Chinook salmon to again migrate into Willow Creek, support migratory birds and waterfowl, provide a natural
redistribution of saltwater -freshwater flora and fauna and address sea level rise impacts. In addition, it 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.
Estimated Cost: TBD
Page 12
Packet Pg. 210
8.3.b
Land Acquisition
Planning & Design
Construction
Total Expenses
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Real Estate Excise Tax I — Fund 126
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fee's
Bond Proceeds
Secured Grants
Tree Fund 143 — Land Acquisition
Park Donations
Operating Contribution — General Fund
Stormwater — Fund 422
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
Project Accounting #M070
r
.Q
U
Oa
c
d
m
.v
c�
u_
.Q
ca
U
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
a�
N
O
0-
0
L
Q.
4-
0
�L
:i
a.
a-
U
d
u_
V
ti
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
d
N
O
Q
O
L
a.
Y
L
Q
Page 13
Packet Pg. 211
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 8: Community Park & Athletic Complex Phase II (CFP Only)
23200 100`h Ave. W — Former Woodway High School
Project Summary: Two projects - Phase I lighting, Phase II renovation of existing underdeveloped athletic field.
Project Justification: By adding lighting to the newly renovated Phase I year-round field, usage of the multi -use
facility would significantly increase. Phase II would renovate a currently poorly maintained and underutilized large
athletic field to provide community significantly more multi -sport use of an existing facility. This Athletic Complex
serves a densely populated area of more than 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance costs
offset by user fees. Phase I was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phase II estimated at $6-8M.
Estimated Cost: $6-8M
2022 2023 2024
2025 2026 2027 Total
TotalConstruction
-------
Real Estate Excise Tax 11 - '125Bond
-------
Proceeds
Total
Unsecured Funding
-------
$6-8 M
Page 14
Packet Pg. 212
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK 9: Parks & Facilities Maintenance Building (CFP Only)
600 3rd Avenue South — City Park
Project Summary: The 40+ year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and
needs major renovation or replacement and is currently too small to accommodate staff and needed work areas.
Project Justification: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional
work areas and fixed equipment in order to more efficiently maintain City parks and Capital facilities.
Estimated Cost: $3 — 4M
Planning & Design
Construction
Total Expenses
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Park Impact Fees— Fund 332-100
Bond Proceeds
Operating Contribution — General Fund
Park Donations
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
Page 15
Packet Pg. 213
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK A: Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
Project Summary: 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 Justification: 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.
Estimated Cost: $2,405,000 (6-year total)
Repair & Maintenance
$105,000
$400,000
$400,000
$400,000
i
$400,000
$400,000
$2,105,000
Professional Services
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$300,000
Total Expenses
$155,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$2,405,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$155000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$2,405,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$155,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$450,000
$2,405,000
$0
Page 16
Packet Pg. 214
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK B: Beautification Program
Project Summary: Beautification to include flower plantings, irrigation and mulch in multiple areas throughout
town for example: outdoor plazas, corner parks, the library, Frances Anderson Center, streetscapes, gateways
and hanging flower baskets.
Project Justification: Improve beautification 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
resulting in about $19,000 of contributions a year in additional funding.
Estimated Cost: $21,000 per year / $126,000 (6-year total)
Page 17
Packet Pg. 215
8.3.b
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK C: Park and Open Space Acquisition Program
Project Summary: Acquisition of land when feasible that will benefit citizens and support the priorities identified
in the PROS plan. $700,000 is currently reserved for park land and open space acquisition. These funds were
accumulated in 2019, 2020 and 2021. There is no request to purchase a specific property at this time.
Project Justification: There are large areas of Edmonds where the Parks, open space and recreation facilities level
of service is below adopted standards; particularly on the Hwy 99 corridor. This is a priority in the PROS plan.
Estimated Cost: TBD, funds accumulated in preparation for land acquisition opportunities total $3,094,000 over
6 years.
Land — Park Facilities
Total Expenses
Real Estate Excise Tax I - Fund 126
$900,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
$1,900,000
Tree Fund 143 - land acquisition
$199,000 $199,000 $199,000 $199,000 $199,000 $199,000
$1,194,000
Total Revenue $1,099,000 $399,000 1 $399,000 1 $399,000 1 $399,000 1 $399,000) 1
Unsecured Funding � I
$3,094,000
Page 18
Packet Pg. 216
8.3.b
CIP/CFP COMPARISON 2021-2022
Fund Project Name CFP Description
New Projects Added
125
Playground Upgrade Program
Annual upgrades of playground equipment and fall surfacing to provide additional
inclusive playgrounds / facilities providing access for children of all ages and abilities.
125
Yost Pool Repair
Regular Maintenance to re -plaster the pool to replace and repair the failing plaster. Pool
will be forced to close without repair.
Projects Removed
125 Greenhouse Replacement 2021 Project
Projects Changed
125
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Postponed until 2025
125
Waterfront Walkway Completion
Moved to fund 125
125
Civic Center Playfield
X
Utilizing $2M from REET and not the General Fund
125
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
Increase in funding 2023-2027
Page 19 Packet Pg. 217
8.3.c
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) &
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
City Council — October 26, 2021
Packet Pg. 218
8.3.c
CFP & CIP Format Changes
Combined CFP & CIP Document
i
Packet Pg. 219
8.3.c
CFP & CIP Format Changes
Public Works & Utilities Department
TRANSPORTATION &
UTILITY PROJECTS "°°
i- PWf-,B PWi.t,
Projects
. �wlr
• Stormwerer
• Streer/Inrer—ion Project P o weons
o Non-Ntotori]etl T—por 6e o Project
• Warer PWf-03
Sneel/Interslrtian Prviect GVYI-05
PIVi-1]
Non-mi torl]eP Tra PSp Mfim Project
•I
Y
PWI 3�
vWl.jS
vwr.l,
vwr.ts
PWf11
A Pwr as /
vwr-tt
Citywide Project Maps
Public Works & Utilities Department
TRANSPORTATION &
UTILITY PROJECTS A6-�
Projects
G Sewer
Stormwater
• Street/intersection Project
a Non -Motorized Transportation Project AG-J
o Water
Sewer _. . ,
Street/intersection Project �ri1Mi.O5
Non -Motorized Transportation Project
11111 W!"Wir•3 i
PWW-09 PWD-05 •
PWT-491 -Wil
Packet Pg. 220
8.3.c
CFP & CIP Format Changes
rCapital
Nui Facilities
Project
1. iime, .rl�[•li1Ji[•]
Project List
2022 7mogueln
De
Pac
#
CFP
PROJECT
IDP
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
4027
TOTAL
TOTAL
#
(2022-2027)
(2028-42)
Preservation / Maintenance Proiects
PWT-01
Nnnual Street Preservation Program
76
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$1,386,000
$1,650,000
$1,650,00
$9,186,OOC
$24,750,00
PWT-02
34th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
84
$5,780
$0
$0
$0
$
$
$5,78
$
PWT-03
76th Ave. W Overlay from 196th St. SW to Olympic View Dr.
78
$1,663,723
$0
$0
$0
$
$
$1,663,72
$
PWT-04
Main St. Overlay from 6th Ave. to 9th Ave.
$0
$157,000
$780,000
$0
$
$
$937,00
$
PWT-05
-Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades
$0
$0
$0
$80,000
$450,00
$
$530,00
$
PWT-06
i nal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW
$0
$0
$0
$150,0001
$700,00
$
$850,00
$
PWT-07
iMain St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades
$0
$0
$0
$0
$100,00
$350,00
$450,00dl$
Safety/ Capacity Analysis
PWT-08 X 28th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th PI. W Corridor
PWT-09 X lHwy 99 Revitalization & Gateway Project - Stage 2
PWT-10 X lHwv 99 Revitalization & Gatewav Proiect - Staoe 3
Packet Pg. 221
8.3.c
CFP & CIP Format Changes
New Project Sheets
p.eieN De+<, � p5�cn
,iiai pa�eu..�u preservnlon po5ram to mmmam Cny srrtns.
Ma—, rile WI parertln[ mFrastruc[ure arM reduces Me need fin Dryer -pits[ uxestment lu rebuild Dry
sleets.
IdLEftd Inl•d C"
$1.500.000
Devgn 522'— S—.IIW sm— sas — Sa0a.0W 51.—
R(PEdSViF
Cadh,atiun S1,Z)S,afO 5135a,0fO 51iSa,Wp SI 236,dm 51 ASD,apO $1,d50,aW
iaR.s<Tnld 545W,INo SI,SWpW 545W,rxp 51,1.6,Wa S GWAW Sl,6W0
select Fund lu-Gxia6rtulb-errodal 5150,® 51»� Stsa,am Sa,zso,®
REEF ]teM 115 $SW,aao
PERfWdla6 55m,Wp Sl f�m,® $S,Sm,am S1,2aa� $1,S0a1® 51,SDa,Om Sa2,Sm,mO
TraltpvtaOdn Inpel Iles
6[nnal FVId S—,,M
sttamealer Utarty Fl a22
Fe . Gtanss
ale Grans
UnsecVN Fur�ns
Ftadwy Souse Trial Sl,Sp0,o00 $I,SAIa,paO $45W,o0a S43a6.6W S1650,dW 51,65a,pa0 Sa6,25a,pda
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
PRK lCivic Center Playfielcl
J11
310 6^ Are. N - Delenluu,rs EdmarW s
PFalecs Summary: An 8-acre dawmown pxt 6enbpment supporte0 b1' $3 9]M n rnm TUlld,tt(, 55 3M n b6rM5,
51.3M 'm Part IMn a Fees and S3,9M m Nea! Esrxe Exam lax. Thrs sgnattrte palec't brake Srolaltl n Mr`ust
2021 -6'is stated fw compledon W'-- MI22.
Prale'n ]usdf dan: Thm e a multiyear deW. hnd d-ai pment proiect &at s a very hl;t
Israsnry m tM 2D16 PA135 pan.lne Master Plan prxess was robust wnn eelensne community input, Connr—
beGan AUNst 9, 2021 aM s taldeway art6 2022 f ft ncessary to complete the protect.
Em'—a C burden Cam: 513,M,000
...
—'aa dawnt —&—
Packet Pg. 222
8.3.c
Public Works & Utilities —Transportation
2022 Preservation Projects
2022 Pavement Preservation Program DP#76($1.5M)
• 6 Lane Miles
• 10 New ADA Ramps
76th Ave Overlay DP#78($1.6M)
• 1961h St to Olympic View Dr
• City of Lynnwood
• 2.8 Lane Miles (1.4 in Edmonds)
• 15 New ADA Ramps (10 in Edmonds)
84th Ave Overlay Project Close-out DP#84($5k)
Packet Pg. 223
8.3.c
Public Works & Utilities —Transportation
2022 Safety &Capacity Projects
• Hwy 99 Revitalization/Gateway DP#80($7.6M)
• Hwy 99 2441"St-238t"St Stage 3 DP#81($640K)
• Hwy 99 224t"St-220t"St Stage 4 DP#82($400K)
• 76t" Ave/2201" St Intersection DP#83($276K)
• SR-104 Adaptive System DP#86 ($150K)
• Traffic Signal Upgrades DP#88($30K)
• Guardrail Program DP#95($20K)
0
U)
L
a
HN
d
.W
ad
VJ
J9
0
a
N
O
N
cc
N
L
d
V
l�
al
Packet Pg. 224
8.3.c
Public Works & Utilities —Transportation
2022 Active Transportation Projects & Planning
• Citywide Bicycle Improvements DP#79($1.5M)
• Citywide Pedestrian Improvement DP#85($10K)
• Pedestrian Safety Program DP#87($20K)
• Design Assistance for Concrete Crews DP#89($20k)
• Elm Way Walkway DP#93($901K)
• Traffic Calming Program DP#94($33K)
Packet Pg. 225
8.3.c
Public Works & Utilities — Utilities
2022 Water Utility
• 2023 Replacement Program DP#46($486K)
• Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment DP#47($505K)
• Waterline Overlays DP#49($175K)
• 2022 Replacement Program DP#50($2.1M)
Packet Pg. 226
8.3.c
Public Works & Utilities — Utilities
2022 Stormwater Utility
• 2023 Replacement Program DP#52($312K)
• Lake Ballinger Regional Facility DP#54($300K)
• Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Impr DP#55($190K)
• Stormwater Overlays DP#57($60K)
• 2022 Replacement Program DP#58($1.45M)
• Perrinville Creek Basin Projects
• Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration DP#53($550K)
• Seaview Park Infiltration Ph 2 DP#59($555K)
• Perrinville Creek Flow Mgmt DP#60($121K)
• Green Street & Rain Gardens DP#61($400K)
Cd
N
Y
L
0
a 'h
r 1,
N
0
N
al
Packet Pg. 227
8.3.c
Public Works & Utilities — Utilities
2022 Sewer Utility
• 2023 Replacement Program DP#62($336K)
• Cured in -place pipe rehabilitation DP#63($482K)
• Sewerline Overlays DP#64($60K)
• 2022 Replacement Program DP#65($1.6M)
2022 WWTP
• Carbon Recovery Project DP#67($1.16M)
4-
0
a�
c
�L
al
Packet Pg. 228
8.3.c
Public Works & Utilities — Facilities
• Boys &Girls Club
• Cemetery Building
• Historic Museum
• Library
• City Hall • Meadowdale Club House
• Fishing Pier • Old Public Works
• Frances Anderson Center • Parks Maintenance Bldg
• Fire Station 16
• Fire Station 17
• Fire Station 20
• Historic Log Cabin
• Public Safety
• Public Works O&M
• Wade James Theater
• Yost Pool House
a
N
O
N
a
s
r
al
Packet Pg. 229
8.3.c
Facilities Repair and
Maintenance
Solar Plant Renewal
$150k Grant Application (45%) - FAC (9.6 kw) & Public Safety (100kw)
$
230,000 $
Citywide EV Charging
Stations
Add 10 Public EV Charging Stations
$
260,000 $
PW Yard Repairs & Leveling
Facilities Portion - Balance from W/S Utilities
$
110,000 $
City Fleet EV Charging
For 2022 Electric -powered new Vehicles (6 stations)
$
90,000 $
Historic Museum
Structural Reinforcement at roof
$
10,000
Library Repairs
West Deck Flashing
$
60,000 $
Interior & Ext. Painting
FAC, FS16, Meadowdale Clubhouse
$
230,000 $
Security
PS Pedestrian Perimeter
Fencing
$
270,180
Unforeseen Repair and
City Wide
Maintenance
$
100,000
$
1,292,680
Plus Solar Grant
$
67,500
$
1,360,180 $
Total
Bond $
GF $ DF a
0
162,500
N '
m
a
260,000
_
r
110,000
i
90,000
y i
$
10,000 c i
60,000
U
230,000
a
$ 270,180
N
N >
N
$ 100,000
'
0
O
912,500
$ 380,180
Bonds
General Fund
E
t
U
N
_
Inc. t 89�
r
C
E
t
V
r
a
Packet Pg. 230
8.3.c
CIP/CFP Schedule
July
• City staff begins development of capital budgets
August/September
• Submit proposed Capital budget to Finance
• Prepare draft UP and CIP
October
• Planning Board (October 13tn)
• City Council Presentation (October 26tn)
• Planning Board Public Hearing (October 27tn)
November/December
• City Council Public Hearing (November 15t)
• Adopt CFP into the Comprehensive Plan (December 141n)
4-
0
a�
c
0
m
0
L
Q_
06
L
0
2
a
N
O
N
C
N
0
w
0
al
Packet Pg. 231
8.3.c
Questions
4-
0
a�
c
0
m
2
a
c
0
c
aD
m
L
Q_
W
0
CL
N
O
N
C
N
L
d
0
0
U
C
t
Packet Pg. 232
8.3.c
End
4-
0
a�
c
�L
ci
C
0
L
Q.
d
M
ca
N
Y
L
0
a.
O
N
N
L
d
:i
U
r
a
Packet Pg. 233
8.3.d
Parks 2022-2027 CIP / UP
Complete 2022 Parks, Recreation &
Open Space (PROS) Plan Update
Complete Civic Park Redevelopment
Deferred Maintenance/Capital
QQplacement Program
-epare for Future Large Projects
Land Acquisition
Marsh Restoration
Marina Beach Park
PROS Plan Priorities
Packet Pg. 234
8.3.d
a�
y
O
Q
O
L
a
2022-2027 Parks CIP/CFP Framework °
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Planning Timeline 2021
1st QTR
2nd QTR
Parks Capital Projects/Contracted Work
JAN FEB I MAR
APR MAYJ JUN
Civic Park Complex
cc
Yost Park - Civic Water Mitigation (2022)
Waterfront Redevelopment
X
Fishing Pier Repair
X
Olympic Beach Pathway
Olympic Beach Parking Lot
Gateway Sign Installation
Haines Wharf Slide Repairs
New Property Clean-up/Securing
Greenhouse Replacement
Cemetery Columbarium
Veteran's Kiosk Removal
Brackett's North Restroom Refurb
Park Maintenance/Major Maintenance
Yost Park Bridges Repair
Waterfront Redevelopment Signage
X
Museum Art Panel Installation
X
Hiring Staff (8)
X
Brackett's Landing North - Anchor Removal
X
City Park Pedestrian Safety Project
Veteran's Plaza Sculpture
Yost Pool Startup/Maintenance
X
Spray Pad Startup/Maintenance
Portico Panel Installation
X
Brackett's North Entrance Gate Refurb
Flower Basket / Corner Park Planting
Veterans Plaza Flag Pole Sleeve Install
Flower Pole Order / Replace (5)
Library Bookdrop Removal
Dayton Street Project Landscaping
Holiday Light Installation
°
2016 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (PROS) Goals
• Collaborative efforts to meet recreation and cultural needs a
• Interconnected park system that includes cultural identity and natural environm
• Preserve and expand shoreline c
• Natural resource land for habitat conservation, recreation & environmental edul - on
• Promote a healthy, active and engaged community through recreation y
• Provide an engaged and vibrant community through arts and cultural opportuni a
• High quality maintenance of parks and related amenities a_
U
r
a
2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan (PROS)
y
• Adoption February 2022
• Recommended CIP/CFP
N
• City Comp Plan — reference N
�O
• N
L
Parks Project List
O
• Deferred maintenance o
• Small capital projects
• Nearly 30 projects
ot_ FDA,
Grant Funding eligibility
a
not-C
0)
�rrc.
1 RqO E
t
U
a-.
Q
Packet Pg. 235
8.3.d
2022-2027 Parks CIP/CFP Project Distribution
PRK-03 PRK-01
® PRK-06
PRK-05
PRK-07 •
PRK-02 •
® PRK-09
•
N
PRK-08
•
aD
N
O
Q
O
L
a
O
a
c
O
R
c
N
L
a
a_
U
d
LL
U
N
L
a
N
O
N
t0
N
L
0
r
U
A
El
Packet Pg. 236
8.3.d
Parks 2021-2027 CIP - New Format
2022 - 2027 SIX -YEAR PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CIP #
PROJECT
(D
N
O
Q
O
L
a
O
�L
2
Project -based versus Fund-ba 1
Z
2022 2023 1 2024 1 2025 1 2026 1 2027 1 6-Year Total
a
9 CIP/CFP Projects
Civic Center Playfield
X
PRK 1
Redevelopment of 8-acre park consistent with Master Plan adopted in 2017;
p� g, inclusive playground, improve
add restrooms, walkingtrack, landscaping,
$ 9,755,742
-
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 9,7SS,742
field and lighting, skate park, petanque grove, tennisand multi sportscourts.
Redevelop the park consistent with the Master Plan adopted in 2015;
X
PRK 2
Parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn areas, permanent restrooms,
$ -
upgrade playarea, improve ADA Accessibility, add bridges over new
alignment of Willow Creek.
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Prioritized in the 2014 Community Cultural Plan and State certified Creative
PRK 3
District. Improvements encourage pedestrian traffic and provide visual
$
connection between ECA and downtown contributing to economic vitality.
Playground Upgrade Program
Annual upgrades of playground equipment and fall surfacingto provide
PRK 4
additional inclusive playgrounds/facilities providing accessfor children of all
$ 175,000
ages and abilities.
Yost Pool Repair
Regular maintenance to re -plaster the pool to replace and repair failing
1
PRK 5
1 plaster. Pool will be forced to close without repair.
$ 175,000
Waterfront Walkway Completion
Connecting the waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing North to Marina
PRK'6 Beach Park by adding missing section in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums, $ -
to provide ADA improvements.
Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting)
Restoration of the Marsh to reconnect the Puget Sound within the Edmonds
X PRK 7 Marsh and two fresh water creeks to provide fresh water / salt water estuary $
and natural tidal exchange.
CC
C
4 CIP Programs y
L
a
- $ 1,750,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,750,000 $ - $ 6,000,000 d
2022 Projects = Decision Pack a es
ILL
U
N
1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 8,000,000
t4
a
N
O
175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 1,050,000 N
t0
N
O
$ - $ - $ 175,000
Y
V
0
r
- $ 500,000 $ 750,000 $ - $ - $ 1,250,000
d
E
OF Eb4
4 O
C>
$ - $
r
C
Inc. 189Z
d
t
V
14
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 237
8.3.d
Parks 2021-2027 CIP - New Format
2022 -2027 SIX -YEAR PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
CFP
#
PROJECT
2022
2023
2024
202S
2026
2027
6-Year Total
Community Park & Athletic Complex -Phase II
X
PRK 8
In cooperation with the Edmonds School District, complete a community park
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
and athletic complex at Former Woodway High School to include lighting and
construction of two additional fields.
Parks & Facilities Maintenance and Operations Building
X
PRK 9
Replace and/or renovate deteriorating building in City Park. Project in
$ _
$ _
$ _
$ _
$ _
$ _
$ _
conceptual phase.
(A) SUBTOTAL PARKS CIP/CFP PROJECTS
$ 10,107,764
$ 177,023
$ 2,427,024
$ 3,427,025
$ 3,927,026
$ 6,177,027
$ 26,230,742
PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
Citywide Park Improvements / Capital Replacement Program
PRKA
This ongoing program allocates funds for the regular maintenance, repair and
$ 155,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 2,405,000
replacement of parks amenities, structures and equipment.
Beautification Program
This ongoing program allocates funds to support beautification. Specifically
PRK B
flower plantings, irrigation and mulch in areas such as corner parks, landscape
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 21,000
$ 126,000
beds, streetscapes and gateways as well as flower baskets.
Park and Open Space Acquisition Program
PRK C
To acquire land for future parks and open spaces as opportunities become
$ 1,099,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 399,000
$ 3,094,000
available.
Debt Service and Interfund Transfers
PRK D
Debt service on Civic Park $1.61M bond (2021) and Interfund transfersto
$ 193,832
$ 123,000
$ 148,000
$ 173,000
$ 198,000
$ 198,000
$ 1,033,832
Engineering for Capital Project Support.
(B)SUBTOTAL- PARKS CIP PROGRAMS
$ 1,468,832
$ 993,000
1 $ 1,018,000
1 $ 1,043,0001
$ 1,069,000
1 $ 1,069,000
1 $ 6,658,832
(C)TOTAL PARKS CIP/CFP EXPENDITURES(A+B)
$ 11,576,596
$ 1,170,023
1 $ 3,445,024
1 $ 4,470,025
1 $ 4,995,026
1 $ 7,245,027
$ 32,889,574
4 CIP Programs
Packet Pg. 238
8.3.d
Parks 2021-2027 CIP - New Format
2022 - 2027 SIX -YEAR PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PARKS CIP REVENUE
2022
2023
2024
202S
2026
2027
6-Year Total
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) I - Fund 126
$ 900,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 200,000
$ 1,900,000
Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) II - Fund 125
$ 3,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 1,500,000
$ 11,000,000
Park Impact Fees -Fund 332-100
$ 874,575
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 450,000
$ 3,124,575
Tree Fund 143-Land Acquisition
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 199,000
$ 1,194,000
Operating Contribution - GeneralFund
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Investment Interest (3%)
$ 78,1101
$ 39,793
$ 50,797
$ 31,381
$ 25,632
$ (539)
$ 225,173
Donations
$ 142,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 142,000
Bond Proceeds
$ -
$
$
$
$
$
$ -
Secured Grants
$ 2,728,000
$ -
$ -
$ 1,000,000
$ -
$ -
$ 3,728,000
Unsecured Grants
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,600,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 8,600,000
(D) TOTAL PARKS CIP REVENUE
$ 8,421,68S
$ 2,389,793
$ 2,399,797
$ 4,390,381
$ 3,974,632
$ 8,348,461
$ 29,913,748
i6-Year Overview 2022 1 2023 1 2024 1 2025 1 2026 1 2027 1 6-Year Total
Beginning Fund Balance (Accts 332 + 332-100) $ 4,554,645 $ 1,399,734 $ 2,618,504 $ 1,573,276 $ 1,483,632 $ 463,238 $ 12,093,029
Revenue $ 8,421,685 $ 2,388,793 $ 2,399,797 $ 4,380,381 $ 3,974,632 $ 8,348,461 $ 29,913,748
Expenditures $ 11,576,596 $ 1,170,023 $ 3,445,024 $ 4,470,025 $ 4,995,026 $ 7,245,027 $ 32,901,721
(37%i
(29%)
r l
Ar
E
h� OV Ebb
O
U` v N +�+
Gl
IL)
rnc. 18
t
V
M
r
r
El
Packet Pg. 239
8.3.d
PRK 1: Civic Center Playfield
i
Planning & Design
Construction
$9,755,742
Total Expenses
$9,755,742
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$2,898,672
Park Impact Fee's - Fund 332-100
$1,352,620
Bond Proceeds
$1,634,450
Federal Grant (LWCF)
$500,000
RCO State Grants
$850,000
Snohomish County Grants
$450,000
Verdant Grant
$170,000
Hazel Miller Foundation Grant
$1,500,000
State Appropriation / DOC Grant
$258,000
Park Donations
$142,000
p
Eb
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$9,755,742
$0
Packet Pg. 240
8.3.d
PRK 2: Marina Beach Park Improvements
a�
N
O
O_
O
,)RAIL
O
C
�L
a
c
O
Planning & Design
2022
20231
$600,000
125
2026
2027
Construction
$1,150,000
$1,500,000
$2,750,000
Total Expenses
$1,750,000
$1,500,000
$2,750,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$750,000
$1,000,000
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fees
$1,000,000
$500,000
$1,150,000
Secured Grants
$1,000,000
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$1,750,000
$1,500,000
$2,150,000
11 111
• Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $61VII
• Renovation to better serve community
• ADA Improvements
• Daylighting Willow Creek
Packet Pg. 241
8.3.d
PRK 3: 41hAvenue Cultural Corridor
Planning & Design
,,
2025
$800,000
2026
2027
Construction
$200,000
$1,000,000
$6,000,01
Total Expenses
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$6,000,01
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Park Impact Fees - Fund 332-100
Operating contribution — general fund
Secured Grants
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$1,000,000
$6,000,0�
• Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $8M
• Priority in State -Certified Creative District
• Priority in 2014 Community Cultural Plan
• No funding source currently identified
Packet Pg. 242
8.3.d
PRK 4: Playground Upgrade Program
is
' P
The Sierra Park Playground
5 —12 year olds
Planning & Design
,,
2025
2026
2027
Construction
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,00(
Total Expenses
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,00(
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,00(
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fees
Secured Grants
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$175,000
$0
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,000
$175,00(
• Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $1,050,000
• Upgrade playgrounds to be inclusive
• Goal is one per year
• Some playgrounds 35+ years old
OF Epp
A. v
Packet Pg. 243
8.3.d
PRK 5: Yost Pool Repair
Planning & Design
,.
2025
2026
2027
Construction
$175,000
Total Expenses
$175,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$175,000
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fee's
Secured Grants
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$175,000
$0
• Re -plaster Yost Pool
• Routine Maintenance/10 years
• Necessary to continue operating the pool
Packet Pg. 244
8.3.d
PRK 6: Waterfront Walkway Completion - Ebb Tide
. Ma�SFi
3AL SERVICIF5
O
a�
c
Sectioi I
Planning & Design
2022
20231
$125,000
125
20261
Construction
$375,000
$750,000
Total Expenses
$500,000
$750,000
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
$500,000
$750,000
Park Impact Fee's - Fund 332-100
Operating contribution —general fund
Secured Grants
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$500,000
1
$750,000
1
• Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $1,250,000
• Improve safety mobility challenges or strollers
• Shoreline Permit approved
• Easement currently under legal review
a
Packet Pg. 245
8.3.d
PRK 7: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration
Land Acquisition
,,
2025
2026
2027
Planning & Design
Construction
Total Expenses
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Real Estate Excise Tax I — Fund 126
Fund 332 Balance + Park Impact Fees
Bond Proceeds
Secured Grants
Tree Fund 143 — Land Acquisition
Park Donations
Operating Contribution — General Fund
Stormwater— Fund 422
of
pM
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
�q c. 1890
Packet Pg. 246
8.3.d
PRK 8: Community Park & Ath
Phase 1
Phase 2 LI
i
BARKS. RFCRFATION AND CULTURAL SFRVIC
4-
0
aM
letic Complex Ph 2 (CFP Only
j=
Construction
Total Expenses
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Park Impact Fee's — Fund 332-100
Bond Proceeds
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$6-8
a
c
0
N
L
a
a
U
d
LL
U
N
L
a
N
O
N
N
L
• Former Woodway High School site
0
1 • In partnership with the Edmond School District o
• Phase I — lighting to significantly expand usage
• Phase 2 - on hold
;_
G1
all
Packet Pg. 247
8.3.d
PRK 9: Parks & Facilities Maintenance Building (CFP Only)
Planning & Design
,.
2025
2026
2027
Construction
Total Expenses
Real Estate Excise Tax II - Fund 125
Park Impact Fee's — Fund 332-100
Bond Proceeds
Operating Contribution —General Fund
Park Donations
Total Revenue
Unsecured Funding
$3-4
• Current building 40+ years old
• Long-term planning purposes only, must secure funding
GSA OF EDA,%
111,. 1890
Packet Pg. 248
8.3.d
PRK A: Citywide Park Improvements/Capital Replacement Progra
• Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $2,405,000
• Significant maintenance backlog throughout park system
• Prioritization driven by community input through PROS plan and safety
Packet Pg. 249
8.3.d
a�
N
O
O_
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICI
O ,
O
C
PRK B: Beautification Program
V
a
c
O
c
a�
L
a
a
U
d
LL
U
N
a
N
O
N
W
Total 6-year Cost Estimate: $126,000 N
Flower plantings, irrigation and mulch o
Outdoor plazas, corner parks, streetscapes, gateways, flower baskets, etc o
$19,000 per year in sponsorship revenue
E
c
E
t
U
f4
a-.
Q
Packet Pg. 250
8.3.d
PRK C: Park and Open Space Acquisition Program
• Total 6-year Cost Estimate: TBD based on opportunities that arise
• Property supports PROS Plans priorities
• $3,094,000 accumulated by 2027 ($700,000 from prior years)
Packet Pg. 251
8.3.e
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Virtual Meeting
Via Zoom
October 13, 2021
Chair Rosen 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
Mike Rosen, Chair
Alicia Crank, Vice Chair
Roger Pence
Richard Kuehn
Judi Gladstone
Matt Cheung
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier (excused)
Nathan Monroe (excused)
STAFF PRESENT
Eric Engmann, Planning Division
Rob Chave, Planning Division
Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Shannon Burley, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Robert English, Public Works
OTHER PRESENTERS PRESENT
Steve Toy, Snohomish County
Chair Rosen: Calls the meeting to order.
Matt Cheung: Reads Land Acknowledgement.
Eric Engmann: Does roll call. Present: Rosen, Crank, Pence, Kuehn, Gladstone, Cheung. Excused
Absence: Cloutier, Monroe.
Introduces Angie Feser, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services;
Shannon Burley, Deputy Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services; Rob
Chave, Planning Manager; Robert English, City Engineer; Steve Toy, Snohomish
County Principal Demographer.
Packet Pg. 252
8.3.e
Approval of Minutes
Chair Rosen: Discusses the minutes from September 22nd. Asks for comments (none) then for a
motion (moved for approval and seconded).
Motion to Adopt the September 22nd Minutes. Motion Passes 5-1, J. Gladstone opposed.
Announcement of the Agenda
Chair Rosen: Discusses the meeting agenda format. Asks if the simplified agenda from the last
meeting can be used instead.
Eric Engmann: Asks to retain the longer agenda format for the time being. Staff is reevaluating the
formats for all boards and committees.
Chair Rosen: Discusses the agenda. Thanks Steve Toy for returning to discuss the Buildable
Lands Report.
Audience Comments
Chair Rosen: Introduced audience comments and asks if anyone wishing to speak.
Eric: States Natalie Seitz is in the audience
Natalie Seitz: Comments on the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Plan.
• Struck by the number of facilities in the bowl downtown, it even needs an inset
map.
• Noticed that the downtown lighting improvements were not shown on the map.
• The planned improvements in the SR99 Corridor go well beyond the six -year
timeframe which gives the impression of more investment in this area than is
planned.
• Questions the basis for Mathay-Ballinger Park being described as "underutilized."
• Mentions green storm water infrastructure at Mathay-Ballinger can take away from
active recreation space. Asks about ways to mitigate the loss of recreation during
construction.
• Requests sidewalk improvement projects be extended to Mathay-Ballinger.
(No other public comment)
Administrative Reports - Snohomish County Buildable Lands Program
Chair Rosen: Introduces Steve Toy to discuss the Buildable Lands Report.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 253
8.3.e
Steve Toy: Introduces himself and thanks the Board for the opportunity to speak.
• County Council adopted the Buildable Lands Report on 9/8/21.
• Buildable Land Report is required by the Growth Management Act for seven
Washington counties.
• The report looks back at how implementation of GMA cognitive plans and zoning
for growth accommodation and densities is performing.
• It requires a periodic evaluation of the urban densities, and based on those densities,
looks at the adequacy of the remaining urban capacity for accommodating the
adopted growth targets.
• It relies on a centralized data processing GIS system approach using the County's
GIS resources.
• It is the central repository for the buildable lands information and a comprehensive
report or all 20 cities and unincorporated areas in the county.
• Discusses how COVID affected the report process.
• Discusses how the parcels are categorized in the model to estimate buildable land
capacity.
• Compared this model to the growth targets in 2035 assess growth capacity.
• Most of Edmonds is a green color, which means there isn't an anticipated change
of land use or intensity on those sites up to 2035.
• Uses zoning and future land use designations to determine density.
• The 99 Corridor is a source of a significant portion of the city's additional capacity,
also Edmonds Way and the Westgate area.
• These same areas have a larger amount of employment capacity.
• Mentions that CG zoning changes, since 2018, are factored into the density
assumptions going forward.
• Shows the 3D mapping to visualize buildable densities.
• Discusses specific developments that are shown on the map.
• Discusses the differences between what was predicted and what was developed.
• Developments are coming in at higher densities than predicted in Edmonds and
across the County.
• Edmonds is shown as having adequate redevelopment area to handle population
and employment growth to 2035.
Mentions that this is a summary and asks for any questions.
Chair Rosen: Thanks Steve and ask the Board if they have questions.
Roger Pence: Has a few questions and was the advocate for holding this session.
Appreciates the verification that Edmonds has the existing capacity to absorb the
expected or desired population growth out to 2035 and will watch the 2044
projections to see how things develop.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 254
8.3.e
• Asks Steve to explain the green (single-family) area which is defined as
constant/replacement. What does that mean?
Steve Toy: States the constant/replacement means that there is no net increase in residential
capacity anticipated on those parcels. There may be tear downs but is neutral in
capacity.
Roger Pence: States the downtown area jumps out as an issue.
• Area is mostly shown as blue, which means redevelopable.
• States that isn't how he sees downtown, asks for that to be explained.
Steve Toy: States that it is potentially redevelopable.
• It passes the test regarding the relationship between building assessed value and
land assessed value; the land is worth more than the building.
• States that may not adequately address conditions in Central Edmonds, but that's
the reason.
Rob Chave: States that the market factors aren't equally distributed around the city.
• Some blue areas may be more redevelopable.
• Notes that downtown is a bit different.
• Mentions the downtown rents, height limitations, and high property costs there.
• Even though they show as blue areas, it's not necessarily be very redevelopable.
Roger Pence: States that his stance is that they are older buildings, but not obsolete. Provides an
example of how older buildings in Seattle are being reused.
Rob Chave: States that this information is very hard to predict, especially in a 10-to-20-year
timeframes. Market conditions can change.
Steve Toy: Provides the example of the CG zoning changes, and how that changed the market
conditions over time. Lists other examples in surrounding cities.
Chair Rosen: Asks for any other questions. (none) Thanks him for his time and helping to
understand the methodology and usage of the Report.
Rob Chave: Mentions that this analysis will be an important piece of information for the 2024
Comprehensive Plan update. States that an additional positive takeaway from
Steve's presentation was seeing development densities outpace projections.
New Business - Presentation of Proposed 2022-2027 Capital Facilities Plan &
Capital Improvement Program
Chair Rosen: Introduces the new item.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 255
8.3.e
Angie Feser: Mentions Public Works will present first, then Parks. Discusses how questions and
answers can be done between each presentation.
Robert English: Provides background on the 2022 to 2027 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
• CFP projects are new projects, projects that increase, or expand existing services to
address growth.
• This is done on a six year and 20-year horizon.
• The CIP projects includes those CFP projects plus maintenance projects; provides
some examples.
• The format has changes to consolidate both documents into one, based on Angie's
previous experiences.
• Public Works includes transportation, water, storm water, sewer, wastewater
treatment plant projects, and facility projects.
• Also includes a citywide project map and is organized depending on whether it is
in the CFP or the CIP.
Explains components of the CFP.
• The decision package numbers for the 2022 budget are information given to City
Council.
• There's a project description, the benefits the project provides, and the justification.
• Each project has an estimated total project cost.
• It includes the anticipated revenue that's offsetting the expenditure.
• A table identifies the planned expenditures by phase.
• When funding is secured, we identify it as having financial funds, grant funding, or
other source.
• Many projects were unsecured. They're important projects but haven't been able to
secure funding at this point.
Covers the transportation projects grouping.
• In 2022, there is $1.5 million programmed for the pavement preservation program.
That would pave six lane miles of city streets and add ten new ADA ramps.
• Discusses the joint project with the City of Lynnwood on 76th Avenue between
196th Street to Olympic View.
Discusses safety and capacity projects.
• A big focus is on the Highway 99 Corridor. The Highway 99 revitalization and
gateway project are in the design phase. Going into construction in 2022. That's
why the program amount is $7.6 million. It's a safety project to minimize the
accidents occurring from that two-way left turn lane.
• Also adds a hawk signal for pedestrian crossing just north of 2341h Street and
gateway signage at either end of the city limits.
• Stages 3 and 4, are going into the design phase in 2022. Stage 3 is the very southern
segment between 244th Street up to 2381h Street. Stage 4, the portion between 224th
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 256
8.3.e
and 2201h Street, received a federal grant to begin the design phase.
• Another project in design is the 76th/220th intersection improvements. That will
continue into 2022.
• Another project is the State Route 104 adoptive system. This will coordinate five
traffic signals along State Route 104 to improve the timing and coordination of the
signal system. That's moving into the design phase in 2022.
• The other two programs replace guard rails.
Active transportation and projects and planning.
• Several large projects being pursued in 2022.
• The citywide bicycle improvements project is another project to build bike lanes
within the city. It won a grant from the Sound Transit.
• The Elm Way Walkway is a new sidewalk between 8th and 9th Avenue and over
$900,000.00 going into construction.
• The transportation plan update was last updated in 2015 and going to start the
process in 2022. Hoping to get lot of public input and comment on that plan.
• Traffic calming program will continue in 2022.
• Pedestrian safety programs include funding rectangular rapid flashing beacon signs
with flashing lights to cross busy streets.
• The citywide pedestrian improvement project includes Main Street and adds a
crosswalk and RFBs (rapid flashing beacons).
Moves on to water utility.
• $2.1 million per round for construction, that would be around 4,000 to 5,000 lineal
feet as replacement. Will start design for the 2023 program.
• Assessing the Yost and Seaview reservoirs to evaluate maintenance needs.
Moves on to storm water utility.
• The first two replace old, deteriorated pipe or undersized pipe within the city. $1.45
million set for this program in 2022.
• The Edmonds Marsh water quality improvements are continuing to design in 2022
to add water treatment to the catch basins along State Route 104.
• The Perrinville Creek Basin projects, three are planned within our basin. The first
one is a flow management project, mostly rain gardens to keep runoff it out of
Perrinville and reduce some of those peak storm water flows within the creek.
• Lower Perrinville Creek restoration is going to be a much larger project in the
upcoming years.
• Seaview Park Infiltration Phase 2. This is a state grant project. Phase 1 was built a
couple of years ago. Will go into construction in 2022 and add onto the infiltration
facility up there. The purpose is to take some of that runoff out of the Perrinville
Creek system.
• Lake Ballinger Regional Facility will continue with design in 2022. That's an
infiltration facility looking at infiltration options to reduce the flows into Lake
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 257
8.3.e
Ballinger.
• Green street and rain gardens. The primary source of funding was related to
COVID. It allows opportunities for bioretention and rain gardens and to try to take
care of the storm water runoff and water quality.
• Storm water overlays are used to overlay streets that have been cut by the
replacement program.
• Going to have the storm and surface water comprehensive plan update starting in
2022.
Sewer utility is mainly a replacement program.
• Also have the pipe rehabilitation program, where we rehabilitate the pipe from the
inside.
• We have the sewer line overlays that extend on the other two utilities.
• The capital replacement projects, are a maintenance program to keep everything up
and running at the plant.
Mentions the facility project sheets in the packet aren't complete. Will have them
updated before the public hearing. It includes the list of locations or facilities that
the city maintains. City council acted earlier in the year to bond for $4.4 million to
take care of some of the backlogged maintenance on these facilities.
Takes questions on the Public Works portion of the presentation.
Chair Rosen: Thanks Rob for reducing 115 pages to a few slides and for the presentation. Asks
if the Board has questions.
Judi Gladstone: Has a few questions.
• Asks about the order for the priority rankings and years they are shown.
• Asks why some lower ranked sidewalk projects are shown earlier than higher
priorities that are farther back.
Robert English: States that is part of the challenge, especially on walkway projects. The difficulty
is finding a funding source within the local city funds to pay for those projects.
Typically, sidewalk projects are built with securing grants. The priority doesn't
necessarily mean that's how they are scored on a grant competition. Provides
examples.
Judi Gladstone: Asks if most of the grants are state or federal. Notes that some sidewalks pushed
out are sidewalks on more well -traveled roads where they become safety hazards.
Asks about the capacity in the utility CFPs for the transportation projects. Is
interested in the impacts on utilities because there are utility relocation costs
associated with many transportation projects.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 258
8.3.e
(Dialogue between Judi and Rob to fully understand the question)
Judi Gladstone: Is there capacity within the utility CIP to accommodate those utility projects or are
they going to hold up the transportation projects? Or will it delay other water
projects or other sewer projects because the transportation projects come first?
Robert English: Yes. The monies that are generated, is put into the water main, storm water, or
sewer replacement programs. When a transportation project begins and it is largely
funded by the grant, the replacement program monies are pulled out of those
programs to upgrade the utilities within that transportation project. It could be
upgrading the size of the water main or replacing it because of age. Doing it all as
one project because that's the most efficient way to handle it.
Judi Gladstone: Asks about the money allocated for the transportation plan.
• Seems like half as much as allocated for the storm water plan
• Asks about the level of analysis anticipated for the transportation plan, since most
projects are pushed so far out.
• Mentions the amount of analysis needed to meet growth demands; the order of the
projects matters.
Robert English: Mentions it is based on the costs for the two previous plans (2010 and 2015).
• Increased the funding to account for some inflation.
• Will know more once the consultant is selected and develops the scope of work.
• Feels it is a reasonable funding number based on the previous history.
Judi Gladstone: Asks why the transportation plan cost is about half that of the drainage or storm
water plan.
Robert English: Mentions the storm water plan involves modeling that is more complex and
expensive than in the transportation plan. Part of the programing is the potential to
do some basin modeling and storm water projections. The transportation plan also
has a modeling component, but it's the detail in the storm water plan that gets
expensive.
Judi Gladstone: Says that makes sense. Will look forward to seeing both of those plans. Mentions
it will be good for the Planning Board to look at it, in terms of the vision for the
city.
Roger Pence: Mentions the Elm Way Walkway, one block between 81h and 9th avenue, and the
$900,000 cost. Asks why the cost is so high.
Robert English: Mentions the cost is based on the 30% design estimate generated by the consultant.
• States that it is the cost of building sidewalks and that why it is difficult to fund
sidewalk projects.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 8
Packet Pg. 259
8.3.e
• Mentions it is also the management, inspection, and documentation that's required
to get the project to completion. So, it also includes staff and consultant time.
Roger Pence: Asks if it included the conventional curb and gutter.
Robert English: Confirms.
Roger Pence: Asks to consider some less expensive ways of providing pedestrian safety on some
streets.
Chair Rosen: Asks about the time gap for sidewalks projects that don't show up until 2025.
Robert English: Talks about the timing of projects on the CIP timeline.
• Projects within that three-year horizon have realistic this is secured or expected to
be secured.
• Projects that don't have any funding yet, are put in the back three years of the plan.
• Projects can move up if successful grant applications are received.
Chair Rosen: Asks that this information be included in the presentation for the public hearing.
Thinks it sends a good message that you don't plan to spend money you don't and
shows fiscal responsibility
Asks about the downtown lighting. Why there, is it to address a safety issue, is it to
increase walkability in the early evening?
Robert English: States the downtown lighting project has been in the plans for several years and
was added because of the high volume of pedestrians. Needs to be shown because
of potential funding from Sound Transit associated with the area around the station.
Chair Rosen: Asks about the Perrinville flooding. Will the project fix the problem, including in
an extreme event?
Robert English: Mentions that Perrinville Creek is a system that is overtaxed in higher rain events.
• This project will not completely solve the problem, and not for extreme events.
• This will help address some constraints at the lower end of Perrinville Creek.
• The mayor set aside some ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) money for that
project.
• Also has funding to address some of the upper reaches to try to reduce intake.
Mentions it is a complex system with a lot of inputs.
• Has talked with Lynnwood about contributing and updating their storm water code
to address some of the issue within their city limits.
• Reiterates that staff is working on solutions to help.
Chair Rosen: Mentions that they talked last year about pipe replacement at 1 % per yet. Asks if
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 9
Packet Pg. 260
8.3.e
they are still using the 100-year replacement plan?
Robert English: Mentions this was primarily focused on the water main replacement program. This
would replace one percent a year, which equates about a mile of replacement for
the waterline program.
Chair Rosen: Asks to share that information clearly so the public understands the reality and the
constraints.
Asks how many rapid flashing signs r20,000.00 buys.
Robert English: States that it is about two if city crews install them, $7,000 to $10,000 per crossing.
It is almost double if a contractor does it, more like $15,000.
Chair Rosen: Asks for question from the other Board members.
Roger Pence: Discusses lighting in the Westgate district. Talks about the standards for lighting
for a major intersection in State Highway 104. Asks how to get adequate lighting
on a major spot like that.
Robert English: Mentions there are sometimes opportunities on existing utility poles to add lights.
He can talk with Street Operations to look for opportunities. Reiterates that he will
have a conversation see what evaluation has been done at that intersection.
Roger Pence: Would like to see it addressed. Mentions the difficulty with getting PUD to replace
a burned -out light there for years.
Judi Gladstone: Asks about the $500,000 contributed from the general fund in 2022 but nothing
from the general fund moving forward. Asks if this is typical or could $500,000 be
used in the future to fund a sidewalk project.
Robert English: Mentions the challenge in balancing the different needs that a city must fund.
• The general fund isn't typically used for large contributions to capital
improvements.
• There was no contribution last year, they are very fortunate this year.
• Council still has to approve this $500,000 in the budget, so it isn't finalized yet.
• Mentions it is great to add sidewalks but there are also streets and existing
sidewalks to maintain with very limited funding.
Judi Gladstone: Asks if this is typical in other cities.
Robert English: Mentions that it is pretty typical. Provides some examples of minor differences.
Chair Rosen: Asks for any more questions for Rob (none).
Asks for Angie and Shannon to begin their presentation.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 10
Packet Pg. 261
8.3.e
Parks Portion of the CFP/CIP Presentation.
Angie Feser: Introduces herself and Shannon Burley. Will share the parks component of the
CIP/CFP.
• Mentions they are completing the 2022 PROS Plan. It will be discussed with the
Planning Board starting in November.
• There will be a CFP and CIP plan readjustment and adopted based on the
community priorities through that process.
Discusses the development of a deferred maintenance and capital replacement
program.
• This is an inventory of the status of the Parks system.
• There is a lot of deferred maintenance, they are focusing safety projects or
playgrounds.
• The pool also requires a lot of attention
• There are infrastructure projects like the surfaces of parking lots, trails, and courts.
• These need to be identified and mapped out for deferred maintenance and future
upkeep.
Discusses how the CFP and CIP are set up.
• Shows the ties to the City's Comp Plan via reference.
• Started mapping out projects based on the timing and resources they need.
• Mentions there are some projects that don't have a dollar amount associated with
them and are pushed way out. The purpose for showing them is long-term planning.
• Discusses the map of park projects and their geographic distribution.
Acknowledges that there are a lot of resources spend in the bowl area. Will hope to
address that better in the PROS Plan.
• Shows that the items are now project based rather than funding based.
• The projects closer to 2022 and 2023 have a lot more detail and a lot more accurate
cost estimates than those in the later years.
• There are nine true capital projects, those in the CIP in the category called the CIP
projects which are more general.
• Mentions the new CIP identified the revenue sources and funding allocation
through the six years.
Mentions the sources of the funding.
• REET funds and park impact fees are really important.
• Mentions the new tree fund that is tied to land acquisition.
• There are no general fund monies for their CIP.
• There are a couple of other sources; donations, bonds, secured grants, and
unsecured grants.
• The bottom of the sheet shows the "cashflow" of the program. The beginning fund
balance of each year plus the revenue minus the expenditures.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 11
Packet Pg. 262
8.3.e
• Mentions Shannon did a lot of work to reformat this.
Mentions the entire budget is $13.7 million right now and $4 million of that is in
this year.
Discusses Marina Beach Part improvements.
• A renovation to better serve the community
• Accommodates the new alignment for Willow Creek.
• Includes a new parking lot configuration, overlooks areas, permanent restrooms,
upgraded play area, improved ADA access, a loop trail system including two
pedestrian bridges that go over Willow Creek and into the off -leash dog park area.
• A new area for personal watercraft staging and launching.
• Retaining the huge existing beach and driftwood area as well as the off -leash dog
area.
• Going to provide a lot of environmental education opportunities in this park with
Willow Creek and someday have salmon come through that creek.
• Awarded two grants for a total of $1 million and estimating that this project is close
to $6 million.
• Mapped it out over the years of when they'll be finishing the design work and
moving into construction.
Discusses the Fourth Avenue cultural corridor.
• Still needs the final phase of design as well as construction.
• Will be a pedestrian friendly and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way
that it creates a strong visual connection from Main Street to Edmonds Center for
the Arts along 41h Avenue.
• Funding has not been secured at this time but earmark and map out what it might
take to make this project happen.
• This project is a priority for the state certification for the creative district and the
City's cultural plan.
Mentions that the city maintains 15 playgrounds and only 2 of them are fully
inclusive.
• Mentions the Sierra Park playground, slated for 5 to 12-year-olds which is part of
a functioning capital replacement program.
• This process will include regularly scheduled updates to playgrounds, many are
more than 35 years old.
• There will be an annual allocation of $175,000 to upgrade playgrounds.
• A part of the Mayor's initiative is to not just meet ADA, but to have inclusive level
design.
Discusses Yost Pool.
• Was built 50 years ago and will have a 50-year celebration.
• Needs to have its plaster lining replaces as part of a 10-year routine maintenance
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 12
Packet Pg. 263
8.3.e
Mentions that the waterfront walkway in front of Ebb Tide Condos that is known
as the Missing Link.
• It's the one missing area in a mile that connects Brackets Landing North down to
Marina Beach Park.
• Currently doesn't have ADA accommodation and requires people to go down onto
the beach cross the sand and then back up.
• This section of walkway would be constructed within the city owned easement.
• The walkway in front of the condos, the easement, and the design are currently
under legal review.
• It will be a few years before it is finished, shoreline permits are reviewed, and the
project has been approved.
Discusses the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration project.
• Would reconnect Puget Sound with the marsh and restore the natural tidal
exchange.
• Also impacts the proposed Marina Beach project, where Willow Creek comes in
underneath the railroad.
• Supports salmon recovery and improves water quality and habitat.
• Helps to address sea level rise impacts.
• Is an opportunity for recreation tourism and environmental educational.
Discusses the Athletic Complex
• This project is listed here because it might be in Park's CIP program.
• Mentions this has been passionately debates of the last few years and that is why it
is listed here without park funding.
• Mentions the funding exists in the Public Works CIP and CFP.
• Mentions there are great grant opportunities for partnership in the renovation.
• Are really two projects, one adds lighting to the Phase 1 improvements and the
second is creating a multi -sport athletic field to increase usage.
• Serves a densely populated area of 150,000 residents within a 5-mile radius of the
site.
• First phase was completed in 2015 for about $4 million.
• Estimates for Phase 2 are about $6 to $8 million.
Mentions the park maintenance equipment repair bay.
• It is undersized for the work being done there (mower repair, welding flower
baskets, etc.) Also has a locker room, a meeting room, and is the only office space
for the park's lead.
Mentions another component of the CIP is combining all the small projects into one
category. It adjusted the CIP to have one fund for all these citywide improvements
and capital replace programs required by our entire park system.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 13
Packet Pg. 264
8.3.e
Discusses the Deferred Maintenance Program and how it contains a list with
projects.
• This is important to identify insufficiently maintained park and reduce higher
maintenance costs down the road.
• Delayed maintenance can increase the city's liability.
• It helps achieve PROS Plan Goal 7, which is to provide a high quality and efficient
level of maintenance service for all parks and facilities.
• $155,000 is allocated in 2022.
• Will need some time to get fully organized and get future projects laid out.
• By 2023, that money is bumped up to $450,000 to work on these projects.
Mentions the Beautification Program.
• It has an annual budget of $21,000 and support irrigation and mulch many areas of
the city.
• The program is highly supported by volunteers.
• Additional funding is supplied by the Basket and Corner Parks sponsorship, which
contributes about $19.000 per year.
Discusses land acquisition.
• Based on community priorities for open spaces.
• Allocation of about $700,000 reserved through 2021 REET funding.
• Tree code funds will also help with this. Estimates are about $200,000 a year from
fee -in -lieu and the fines.
• The City is working on a few acquisitions, but they are still confidential until the
approval of purchase.
Finishes the presentation and thanks the Board.
Takes questions on the Parls portion of the presentation.
Chair Rosen: Thanks Angie and Shannon for the great presentation.
Vice Chair Crank: Appreciates the streamlining of the presentation and having the two reports
together. Recognizes the amount of work it took.
Roger Pence: Asks if the Port is contributing to the marsh estuary restoration.
Angie Feser: Reiterates that they don't have money earmarked for the restoration.
Robert English: Isn't aware of any contributions by the Port.
Roger Pence: Asks about the Missing Link at the Ebb Tide.
• Is it in litigation?
• Is the issue with the Ebb Tide Condominium?
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 14
Packet Pg. 265
8.3.e
Shannon Burley: Mentions the litigation is about the easement itself.
• The easement has been validated, but there are questions the easement being used
to build a raised walkway.
• Currently being disputed by the Ebb Tide Condominium Association.
Roger: Mentions the city's powers of eminent domain to acquire the legal rights to provide
that pedestrian access.
Shannon Burley: Mentions they are currently trying a different method.
Judi Gladstone: Appreciates the connection to the goals of the plan.
• Asks about the long-term planning and maintenance of Yost Pool.
• Asks if there is clean up money available for the Chevron property by the marsh
Angie Feser: Mentions the Yost Pool is 50 years old and there was a feasibility study in 2009 to
look at alternatives for renovations or a new pool.
• The PROS plan process shows support for a new pool and aquatic facility. The next
round of engagement will look at those options.
• Mentions they are looking at indoor vs. outdoor facilities and the big price tag
attached.
• Looking at ways to keep the current pool operational.
Shannon Burley: Mentions the $175,000 project is very specific and it's rather large. The $450,000
programmed for other projects that would be used if something broke down or
needed repair.
Angie Feser: Mentions needing $10,000 to $15,000 a year to fix the pool. This is part of the
citywide improvement funds to account for the uncertainty.
Mentions the marsh property has a long history.
• Half the area is owned by Chevron and was going to be sold to WSDOT for the
future ferry landing.
• WSDOT has decided not to use that land for a new ferry landing.
• The site is in the process of clean up from oil contamination.
• It can't be turned over to WSDOT until the Dept. of Ecology deems it clean enough.
• The City will have right of first refusal if it is available for sale.
• Asks Rob English if he has anything to add. (He does not)
• Mentions there's associated with the Willow Creek and Shelleberger Creek project,
but they can't really design it if they don't own it.
Richard Kuehn: Asks about the process to make upgrades at the parks. What is the process to choose
these upgrades?
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 15
Packet Pg. 266
8.3.e
Angie Feser: States that it is part of the PROS Plan.
• It's going to help identify community priorities and reallocate resources.
• Some of it is age, safety, and ensuring equitable distribution across the city.
• Mentions the PROS Plan will help represent the entire community rather than focus
the improvements in one area.
Richard Kuehn: Mentions that Spokane has done a great job with community engagement and
inclusivity with their parks. Talks about signage emphasizing people making
comments on preferences.
Angie Feser: Mentions that Spokane is her hometown and remembers the '74 Expo at Riverfront
Park. Is familiar with the whole project.
Matt Cheung: Enjoys these parks conversations because it is big draws for Edmonds. Asks about
hearing that there are $100,000 for repairs this year but then $400,000 after. Would
like to know the reason.
Angie Feser: Mentions a lot of the current funding is going into a project downtown.
• Talks about the small team to do park planning.
• Involves identifying future projects, prioritizing them, getting bid documents
ready, and have them ready.
• They hope to have a dedicated park planner in next year's budget.
• Sees 2023 the timeframe they'll have the resources in place to utilize that extra
funding on projects.
Matt Cheung: Asks if they consider engaging the volunteers to assist with parks?
Shannon Burley: Mentions they rely on the community to help us maintain the City's parks. Pre-
COVID, they averaged 30 volunteer projects a year at parks.
Chair Rosen: Asks about the 41h Avenue corridor. Understands that there is no money but asks
what it would take to get that moving.
Angie Feser: Mentions the challenge is funding and that the next phase to finish the design.
Believes it has an $8 million estimate to do the work. States they need to finish the
design, get construction documents, get a bid, then comes construction. States that
it is very specific and grant funding is challenging, it isn't really eligible for
transportation or park grants. Asks Shannon to confirm the current design level,
60% or 30%.
Shannon: Believes it is at 30% design. The goal was to try and secure economic development
type grants for the project. Mentions the challenge of using utility funds because,
after opening the street, there were few utilities there.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 16
Packet Pg. 267
8.3.e
Chair Rosen: Asks about the Missing Link. It has a date and is expressed as Plan A and Plan B.
Asks about the confidence level that this is a reasonable amount of time to resolve
this.
Angie Feser: Believes this is correct. Mentions the has had a legal component and was paused
because of COVID related reasons. States that it is back on the schedule for next
year.
Chair Rosen: Asks about the beautification projects that have uniform numbers spread out over
the years. How is that flat number assessed, given inflation?
Angie Feser: Mentions it is generally a place holder and it comes down to sponsorships. There
have been more baskets created at corner parks and are part of the new landscaping
needed for street improvement projects. Mentions they should probably look at
increasing resources and funding because there has been more demand. Provides
an example of the roundabout at Five Corners, it requires a significant amount of
maintenance.
Chair Rosen: Asks why the greenhouse was removed from this year's list. Mentions that it was
important during last year's CFP because it was failing
Angie Feser: Mentions they've been working on, but it needs a variance. They're not sure if they
can get it down and rebuilt in time for next year after getting the variance approval.
There are also issues with the bids. This will probably carry forward to next year's
budget.
Chair Rosen: Thanks Rob, Angie, and Shannon and asks them to pass the thanks along to the
people they work with. Says the work shown tonight is a testimony to all the things
that they do.
Angie Feser: Talks about how she brought forward this new format for the CIP and how Parks
and Public Works worked together. Mentions the work of Rob English and the
many hours Shannon put in.
Robert English: Says he'll pass along the comments to his staff and appreciates it. He's very proud
of what they can do with the limited they have.
Roger Pence: Asks about the sign on SR 104. Saw a little movement a couple of months ago then
it stopped.
Angie Feser: States the project started on September 13th. Everything was started then they
found a sewer line where the sign would be. That requires a redesign and relocation
of the sign and other components. The sign company is scheduled for September
25th.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 17
Packet Pg. 268
8.3.e
Judi Gladstone: Asks if private funding is ever considered.
Angie Feser: Mentions they work with a lot of donations and grants. Have a policy that
organizations paying more than half the price of the improvement can have it
named. Lists several of the companies and organizations they've worked with.
Chair Rosen: Asks for any other comments. (none)
Will be ready for the public hearing at the next meeting.
New Business — Code Amendment to update Residential Occupancy Standards.
Chair Rosen: Introduces Eric to discuss the next item.
Eric Engmann: Offers to move the Residential Occupancy Code Amendment introduction to the
next meeting. Mentions that there has already been a lot of information shared
tonight. Leaves it up to the Board to make the decision to move it.
Chair Rosen: Asks if the Board has a preference.
Judi Gladstone: Appreciates the offer and would entertain the postponement, given the hour.
Matt Cheung: Mentions the next meeting contains a public hearing and two code amendments.
Asks how long that meeting is estimated to take. If two hours, then it makes sense
to add this onto that agenda.
Eric Engmann: States that moving the Residential Occupancy slides to the next meeting won't take
much extra time.
Chair Rosen: Agrees to move it to the next agenda.
Extended Agenda
Chair Rosen: Mentions the extended agenda was sent out separately. Asks if anyone has any
questions.
Roger Pence: Mentions the upcoming public hearing on the CFP/CIP. Feels the notice in the
Everett Herald will only be read by a few people. Would like much more
information shared on upcoming public hearings.
Chair Rosen: Asks staff to be as aggressive as possible in informing the public.
• Suggests using social media platforms to spread the word.
• Talks about the Board being proactive, such as writing letters to the editor.
• Reiterates the role of the city in making the public as engages as possible.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 18
Packet Pg. 269
8.3.e
Roger Pence: Says that a press release should be sent to the Beacon and My Edmonds News and
the Herald and that there is a PIO to help.
Rob Chave: Mentions all agendas are sent to the newspapers.
Roger Pence: Says that the public hearing is only one element of that agenda. Unless the public
hearing is highlighted, we're depending on them to read the whole thing to find that
one item. States that should do better.
Vice Chair Crank: Reiterates that, just because it is sent, it doesn't mean they're going to publish it.
Asks to make sure that the Board is not putting all the onus on whether or not it is
in the paper because many times, they just don't run it.
Rob Chaves: Confirms staff can't predict what the paper will run.
Judi Gladstone: Mentions that the extended agenda seems packed. Asks staff to be aware of trying
to put too much into one meeting so that everything can get proper attention.
Matt Cheung: Mentions the PROS Plan is on there twice.
Angie Feser: States there will only be one discussion in the upcoming meetings. But there will
be a department update too. They can be flexible with the schedule.
Rob Chave: Will coordinate with Angie and Rob about how much time they will need and
reassess the schedule.
Comments for the Good of the Order
Chair Rosen: Asks for comments for the good of the order.
Eric Engmann: Mentions the web link for the new code update page. People can go to
www.edmondswa.gov/codeupdates. Asks the Board to look and provide feedback.
Rob Chave: Mentions City Council approved a contract for the new Development Services
director, who starts on November 16th.
Chair Rosen: Asks for any other comments from staff or the Board. (none)
Offers a couple of updates.
There is an opening on the Planning Board — help spread the word.
The Board received an application for student participant. The Chair and vice chair
will meet with her, then possibly forward the nomination to the group.
Community meeting this Saturday (10/16) at I pm to participate in the process of
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 19
Packet Pg. 270
8.3.e
creating future parks.
The Department of Corrections is looking to expand their work release program in
Snohomish County. Nine potential sites have been identified and all but one has
fallen through. The site in Mountain Lake Terrace but borders Edmonds. They are
not moving forward at this point, just feasibility.
Adjournment
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
October 13, 2021 Page 20
Packet Pg. 271
8.3.f
From: English, Robert
To: Hall, Svdney
Subject: FW: Review of Public Works and Parks CIPs
Date: Thursday, October 28, 2021 2:24:44 PM
From: Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin @edmondswa.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 12:25 PM
To: Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin @edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser@edmondswa.gov>; English, Robert
<Robert.English @edmondswa.gov>
Subject: FW: Review of Public Works and Parks CIPs
Greetings Planning Board,
Forwarding comment letter received today from Ron Eber for your reference.
Bcc: PB members list
7-c06irk!
IMicl cllc M'Irtivl
City of Edmonds
Planning Workgroup
425-771-0222 (Direct)
From: Ron Eber <ronaldeberCcDcomcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 11:01 AM
To: Planning <Planning(Dedmondswa.gov>
Subject: Review of Public Works and Parks CIPs
Dear Planning Board:
I want to add my voice to those objecting to treating the restoration of the Edmonds Marsh as just a
"storm water" project. A valuable public natural resource should not be viewed as just a place to
dump storm water. Restoring the ecological function and health of the estuary requires a different
and more comprehensive perspective for the marsh and its restoration.
I have been following the issues surrounding the restoration of the Marsh and cannot understand
the old school approach that is being taken by the City. Restoring the Marsh is not a mere
engineering project but a much more complex ecological one that requires coordination with parks,
wildlife and fisheries experts.
Packet Pg. 272
8.3.f
Specifically, I recommend that you delete the $17.2 million dollar Storm water item on page 73 of
the Public Works CIP and move it into the placeholder item on page 12 of the Parks CIP. This work to
restore the Marsh is not a engineering plumbing project to get rid of storm water but rather an
ecological imperative. Let's address this critical need correctly and not as a Public Works project.
Thank you for your consideration and I hope you will point this problem out to the Council. Please
don't just "rubber stamp" the recommendations that are before you.
Ron Eber
50 Pine Street
Sent from Mail for Windows
Packet Pg. 273
Dear Planning Commission Members: October 27, 2021
Many people have been saying that the budget and planning processes are being
"expedited" because of the coming election. I hope there is a much better reason than
that. Good plans for Edmonds survive elections even if the designers don't.
How come there is never enough time taken, by the people we have elected, to have
constructive discussions with the many knowledgeable people in our community who
are willing to volunteer their time and expertise to help the Edmonds community? It
appears that even when there is input given, solicited or otherwise, it is rarely
considered if it is not in line with and supports where the Council or Mayor want to go.
Here is a case in point. In December of 2020 the Save Our Marsh (SOM) group of well-
informed citizens, wrote a letter to the Edmonds council. In it they suggested, after
much research, a change that needed to be considered to the Capital Facilities Plan
(referred to below as the "CFP"). They wrote:
"Restoring the tidal -estuarine functions of the Edmonds Marsh -Estuary and making
necessary modifications to Marina Beach Park should NOT be placed under a
Stormwater heading in the CFP; the focus of the estuary restoration project must be on
ecological processes and benefits to salmon/wildlife as well as public recreation. As the
SOM has suggested previously, a future CFP should place the restoration project under
"Parks" (since the Edmonds Marsh is a wildlife reserve/sanctuary)"
It saddens me to see wonderful opportunities to create exceptional environmental
conditions fall victim to politics and political infighting. our local government seems to be
becoming a microcosm of other larger governments, in that the thinking of the people
that we elect revolves more around their staying elected or getting what they want
rather than taking the time to effectively engage the community, lead a civilized
discussion and listen to the needs of the people of Edmonds so that the Council can
make community centered decisions.
In the case of the Marsh/Estuary, we actually have time, since WSDOT doesn't even
have the land yet and will not for at least a year, to really plan for the future of the
Marsh/Estuary. Let's not jump ahead with unfounded and inappropriate decisions. Let's
call on our Edmonds community to bring well thought out plans to the table before we
hire outside consultants to tell us what is "right for Edmonds". Let's have a dialogue with
the city staff and the community they are paid to serve.
After last night's Council meeting, Oct. 26, 2021, 1 see what appears to be a simple fix
before the issues pertaining to this project get more complex. I see it referenced in the
CIP/CFP 73 of the Public Works and also considered a project on page 12 of Parks
CFP/CIP that the Council is being asked to approve. I suggest that page 73 of the
Public Works be deleted and its reference in the tables, then revise the description on
page 12 of the Parks CFP to acknowledge the property ownership issues that are
causing delays in the Parks and Recreation continuing their planning. That would put
the project and funding decisions in the proper place and best position the city for grants
to address restoration of salmon and their habitat. The storm water and tidal issues
would be one part of an important whole relating to public recreation, community park
extension and environmental rehabilitation of the marsh to a better functioning estuary
and wetland.
Let's things right, not just expedite! Thanks for reading this, Bernie
Packet Pg. 274
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
2021 November Budget Amendment
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Marissa Cain
Background/History
Amend the 2021 Ordinance No. 4234
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approves Ordinance No. XXXX amending the 2021 Budget.
Attachments:
2021 November 1 Budget Amendment Ordinance
2021 November 1 Budget Amendment Ordinance Exhibits final
Packet Pg. 275
9.1.a
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4234 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 2021 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. 4234 amending the budget for the fiscal
year 2021 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, and D adopted
herein by reference.
1
Packet Pg. 276
9.1.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. 277
9.1.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2021, 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. 4234 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 12021.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
3
Packet Pg. 278
9.1.a
EXHIBIT "A": Budget Amendment Summary (November 2021)
FUND
NO.
FUND
DESCRIPTION
2021
BEGINNING
FUND BALANCE
REVENUE
EXPENDITURES
2021
ENDING
FUND BALANCE
001
GENERAL FUND
13,868,745
42,490,777
46,185,977
10,173,545
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
537,177
300,000
467,140
370,037
011
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND
-
25,000
-
25,000
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
1,782,150
2,620
-
1,784,770
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFTFUND
17,189
5,010
5,900
16,299
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
210,222
-
210,222
-
017
MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND
864,616
20,000
844,616
018
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
123,581
123,581
-
019
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND
28,445
-
28,445
-
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
74,303
165,370
45,800
193,873
111
STREET FUND
1,138,410
1,722,360
2,187,430
673,340
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/I MP ROVE
2,081,664
3,068,385
2,862,297
2,287,752
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
682,728
165,060
236,880
610,908
118
MEMORIAL STREETTREE
20,217
270
20,487
-
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
66,921
71,460
87,150
51,231
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
81,998
25,240
26,880
80,358
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
13,828
1,390
3,000
12,218
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
80,338
24,000
29,900
74,438
125
PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT
2,571,982
1,282,050
1,601,298
2,252,734
126
SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND
2,310,167
1,285,240
2,053,911
1,541,496
127
GIFTSCATALOG FUND
298,065
103,930
100,900
301,095
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV
205,127
179,800
200,998
183,929
136
PARKSTRUST FUND
166,637
2,200
50,000
118,837
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD
1,089,860
29,220
25,000
1,094,080
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
10,362
10,120
11,900
8,582
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND
19,152
79,239
76,340
22,051
141
AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND
78,441
65,000
-
143,441
142
EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND
-
5,946,550
5,946,550
-
143
TREE FUND
20,487
-
20,487
211
LID FUND CONTROL
-
-
-
231
2012 LTGO DEBTSERVICE FUND
-
759,710
759,700
10
332
PARKS CONSTRUCTION
6,153,510
1,392,520
5,552,490
1,993,540
421
WATER
25,699,652
10,299,357
10,760,050
25,238,959
422
STORM
13,590,688
6,265,225
7,293,890
12,562,023
423
SEWER/TREATMENT PLANT
52,398,428
31,130,450
40,492,284
43,036,594
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
843,961
1,985,870
1,985,870
843,961
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
9,103,794
1,331,100
1,429,954
9,004,940
512
Technology Renta I Fund
850,625
1,204,880
1,257,909
797,596
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
135,115
67,270
136,167
66,218
Tota Is
137,198,098
111,507,160
132,276,300
116,428,958
C
d
E
C
d
E
Q
r
N
of
3
m
L
E
d
O
Z
N
0
N
d
U
C
R
C
:a
L
O
r
C
d
E
C
d
E
Q
.r
d
Cl
7
m
d
E
N
O
Z
T-
N
O
N
c
N
E
t
U
M
r
Q
Packet Pg. 279
9.1.a
EXHIBIT "B": Budget Amendments by Revenue (November 2021)
FUND
NO.
FUND
DESCRIPTION
Adopted
Budget
Ord. #4211
1/1/2021
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #4216
3/10/2021
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #4221
4/27/2021
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #4230
7/23/2021
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #4234
9/28/2021
Proposed
Amendment
Ord. #
1112021
2021
Amended
Revenue
Budget
001
General Fund
$ 42,450,777
$
$
$ -
$ 40,000
$
$ 42,490,777
009
Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
300,000
-
300,000
011
Risk Management Reserve Fund
-
25,000
25,000
012
Contingency Reserve Fund
2,620
-
2,620
014
Historic Preservation Gift Fund
5,010
5,010
016
Building Maintenance Fund
-
-
017
Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund
018
Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund
019
Edmonds Opioid Response Fund
-
-
104
Drug Enforcement Fund
165,370
165,370
111
Street Fund
1,722,360
1,722,360
112
Combined Street Const/Improve
3,048,185
20,200
3,068,385
117
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
165,060
-
165,060
118
Memorial Street Tree
270
270
120
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
71,460
71,460
121
Employee Parking Permit Fund
25,240
25,240
122
Youth Scholarship Fund
1,390
1,390
123
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
24,000
24,000
125
ParkAcq/Improvement
1,282,050
1,282,050
126
Special Capital Fund
1,285,240
1,285,240
127
Gifts Catalog Fund
103,930
103,930
130
Cemetery Maintenance/Improv
179,800
179,800
136
Parks Trust Fund
2,200
2,200
137
Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd
29,220
29,220
138
Sister City Commission
10,120
10,120
140
Business Improvement District Fund
79,239
79,239
141
Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund
65,000
65,000
142
Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund
-
5,946,550
5,946,550
143
Tree Fund
20,528
(41)
20,487
211
Lid Fund Control
-
-
231
2012 LTGO Debt Service fund
759,710
759,710
332
Parks Construction
1,392,520
1,392,520
421
Water
10,299,357
10,299,357
422
Storm
6,012,300
252,925
6,265,225
423
Sewer/Treatment Plant
28,131,150
2,999,300
31,130,450
424
Bond Reserve Fund
1,985,870
-
1,985,870
511
Equipment Rental Fund
1,331,100
1,331,100
512
Technology Rental Fund
1,204,880
1,204,880
617
Firemen's Pension Fund
67,270
67,270
Totals
$ 102,202,698
$ 3,272,425
$
$ 5,946,550
$ 85,528
$ (41)
$ 111,507,160
C
d
E
C
d
E
Q
N
of
3
m
d
E
d
O
Z
N
0
N
d
U
C
R
C
L
O
r
C
d
E
C
d
E
Q
.r
d
Cl
7
m
d
E
N
O
Z
N
0
N
C
N
E
t
V
r
Q
Packet Pg. 280
9.1.a
EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendments by Expenditure (November 2021)
FUND
NO.
FUND
DESCRIPTION
Adopted
Budget
Ord. #4211
1/1/2021
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #4216
3/10/2021
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #4221
4/27/2021
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #4230
7/23/2021
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #4234
9/28/2021
Proposed
Amendment
Ord. #
1112021
2021
Amended
Expenditure
Budget
001
General Fund
$ 45,179,468
$ 610,850
$ 188,400
$
$ 120,929
$ 86,330
$ 46,185,977
009
Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
467,140
-
-
467,140
011
Risk Management Reserve Fund
-
012
Contingency Reserve Fund
-
-
014
Historic Preservation Gift Fund
5,900
5,900
016
Building Maintenance Fund
210,222
-
210,222
017
Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund
-
20,000
20,000
018
Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund
123,581
-
123,581
019
Edmonds Opioid Response Fund
28,445
28,445
104
Drug Enforcement Fund
45,800
-
45,800
111
Street Fund
2,172,530
14,900
2,187,430
112
Combined StreetConst/Improve
2,781,828
36,469
44,000
2,862,297
117
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
236,880
-
-
236,880
118
Memorial Street Tree
-
20,528
(41)
20,487
120
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
87,150
87,150
121
Employee Parking Permit Fund
26,880
26,880
122
Youth Scholarship Fund
3,000
3,000
123
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
29,900
-
-
29,900
125
ParkAcq/Improvement
1,428,736
47,562
125,000
1,601,298
126
Special Capital Fund
1,761,841
292,070
-
2,053,911
127
Gifts Catalog Fund
100,900
-
100,900
130
Cemetery Maintenance/Improv
200,998
200,998
136
Parks Trust Fund
50,000
50,000
137
Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd
25,000
25,000
138
Sister City Commission
11,900
11,900
140
Business Improvement District Fund
76,340
76,340
141
Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund
-
-
142
Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund
5,946,550
5,946,550
143
Tree Fund
-
-
211
Lid Fund Control
-
-
231
2012LTGO Debt Service Fund
759,700
759,700
332
Parks Construction
5,360,378
192,112
-
5,552,490
421
Water
10,578,596
136,054
45,400
10,760,050
422
Storm
6,847,783
406,307
39,800
7,293,890
423
Sewer/Treatment Plant
35,634,329
4,789,555
68,400
40,492,284
424
Bond Reserve Fund
1,985,870
-
-
1,985,870
511
Equipment Rental Fund
1,292,815
53,139
84,000
1,429,954
512
Technology Rental Fund
1,251,409
-
6,500
1,257,909
617
Firemen's Pension Fund
96,167
40,010
136,167
Totals
$118,861,486
$ 6,564,118
$ 636,400
$ 5,946,550
$ 181,457
$ 86,289
$132,276,300
Q
Packet Pg. 281
EXHIBIT "D": Budget Amendment Summary (November 2021)
9.1.a
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
Changein
Changein
Change in Ending
Fund Number
Revenue
Expense
Fund Balance
001
86,330
(86,330)
118
-
(41)
41
143
(41)
-
(41)
Total Change
(41)
86,289
(86,330)
Q
Packet Pg. 282
9.1.b
Budget Amendment for:
November 1st, 2021
Item Description:
A September decision package created the authority to transfer the funds out of the Memorial Tree Fund
into the new Tree Fund. This adjustment is needed to correct a mathematical error that was discovered
after the previous budget amendment was approved so the Memorial Tree Fund nets to zero.
Department:
Parks & Recreation
Fund
Name:
MULTIPLE FUNDS
Division:
Title:
Tree Fund Transfer
Preparer:
Marissa Cain
Budget Amendment Type
New 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?
One -Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?
10perating
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
118.000.64.597.80.55.00
Interfund Transfer
S (41)
$
S
$
S
Total Expenditure Increase(Decrease)
S 41
$
S
$
S
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
143.000.397.19.000.00
Interfund Transfer
S (41)
$
S
$
S
Total Revenue Increase Decrease
S (41)
$
S
$
S
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
118.000.64.508.30.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
S 41
$
S
$
S
143.000.64.508.30.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
(41)
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease
S
$
S
$
S
N
O
N
C
d
E
L
V
M
r+
a
Packet Pg. 283
Budget Amendment for: November 1st, 2021
Item Description: In August of 2021, council approved the reorganization request for the Municipal Court. This decision
package accounts for the estimated cost impact in 2021 for the following:
1. Create an Assistant Court Administrator position;
2. Backfill the clerk position vacated by the individual who will become the Assistant Court
Administrator and create an additional Court Clerk position;
3. Reclassify the Court Administrator; and
4. Chan a the elected Municipal Court Jude position from 0.75 FTE to 1 FTE.
Department:
Division: Fund
001 GENERAL
Title: Name:
Preparer:
Budget Amendment Type Previously Discussed By Council
Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? Aug 17 2021
How is this amendment funded? 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
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
001.000.23.512.50.11.00
Salaries - Judicial
$ 86,330
$
S
$
S
Total Expenditure Increase Decrease
$ 86,330
$
S
$
S
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
$
$
S
$
S
Total Revenue Increase(Decrease)
$
$
S
$
S
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
$ 86,330
$
S
$
S
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease
$ 86,330
$
S
$
S
N
O
N
r
C
d
E
L
V
M
r+
a
Packet Pg. 284
9.1.b
Budget Amendment for:
November 1st, 2021
Item Description:
In June of 2021, the HR Analyst Position moved from part-time to full-time on a temporary basis in order to
meet the increased staffing needs of the city. It has been determined that this change in FTE would most
benefit the city as a permanent position change. This decision package is to approve the permanent change
salary and benefits for the Senior HR Analyst Position in 2021 by reallocating budget from the vacant S&D
Coordinator position.
Department:
Fund
Name:
001 GENERAL
Division:
Title:
Preparer:
Budget Amendment Type
New 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?
One -Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?
Operating
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
001.000.22.518.10.11.00
Salaries - HR Analyst
$ 7,403
$
S
$
S
001.000.22.518.10.23.00
Benefits - HR Analyst
505
001.000.22.518.10.11.00
Salaries - S&D Coordinator
7,403
001.000.22.518.10.23.00
Benefits - S&D Coordinator
505
Total Expenditure Increase Decrease
S
$
S
$
S
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
S
$
S
$
S
Total Revenue Increase(Decrease)
S
$
S
$
S
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
S
$
S
$
S
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease
S
$
S
$
S
N
O
N
C
d
E
L
V
M
r+
a
Packet Pg. 285
9.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
Amendment to Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund Ordinance
Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty
Department: Community Services
Preparer: Patrick Doherty
Background/History
The Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund (ERPF) Ordinance was passed by City Council on 7/20/21, laying out the
intended usage of the city's allocation of $11,893,099 in American Rescue Plan Act funds. Six accounts
were created in the ERPF: City Expenditures, Household Support, Business Support, Nonprofit
Organization Support, Job Retraining Program, and Green Infrastructure.
Staff Recommendation
Review and approval at the 11/1/21 City Council meeting.
Narrative
The proposed amendments in the attached draft Ordinance (attached) are intended to accomplish three
things:
1. The Household Support programs in the original Ordinance were targeted for individuals and/or
households earning no more than 40% of Edmonds Median Income. This lower -income threshold was
originally intended to ensure that those with greatest need would be addressed first, without
competition from higher -income households. The grant programs have started, and many applications
are being received. Nevertheless, we have received many applications from individuals or households
with somewhat higher incomes than the current threshold. The proposed amendment would raise the
income threshold to 60%, but with priority given first to those households earning at or below 40% of
median income.
2. The Business Support grant program has already awarded grants to struggling businesses
throughout Edmonds. One of the criteria in the original ordinance was that businesses must not have
received more than $5,000 in prior grant awards. This may have been too low a threshold since we did
not receive many applications. The proposed amendment would raise this threshold to $10,000 in prior
grant awards.
3. The original ordinance specifies grant award amounts and/or numbers of grants in each of the
years 2021 through 2024. The final proposed amendment would allow for roll-over of unspent grant
funds in the same category to a following year, as well as allow for a greater number of grants to be
awarded if funds within a year allow for it.
These proposed amendments to Ordinance 4229 were initially presented to City Council at their
Packet Pg. 286
9.2
10/26/21 regular meeting.
Attachments:
FINAL DRAFT Ordinance Amending ERPF Ordinance
Packet Pg. 287
9.2.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 4229,
RELATED TO THE EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4229 on July 20, 2021, which set out
the provisions for utilizing Edmonds' allocation of federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
(ARPA) monies to mitigate the local impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and related social,
health and economic crises; and
WHEREAS, following adoption of Ordinance 4229, City staff determined that certain
revisions to the language of the Ordinance would benefit the public by clarifying the availability
of the grant funds and increasing the parameters for grant recipient eligibility; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to incorporate the proposed revisions into the
provisions of Ordinance 4229 as set forth herein;
NOW THEREFORE;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection 4.B. of Ordinance 4229 is hereby amended as follows (deletions
are indicated by strike through; additions are indicated by underline):
B. Account `B" shall be the "Edmonds Rescue Plan Household Support" account
into which $4,150,000 from the ARPA funds shall be allocated to reimburse those City
expenditures incurred through administration of the following programs, in compliance
with the ARPA eligibility criteria:
1. Household Support. Up to $3,000,000 for Grants to households ne more
than 40 f Edmonds Median i,,,.,.me for housing expenses, food, medical bills,
childcare, internet access, and other household expenses. Up to 400 households
may receive grants of up to $2,500 in 2021 and 2022. Up to 200 households may
receive grants of up to $2,500 in 2023 and 2024.
2. Utility Bill Support. Up to $150,000 for one-time grants to households e�
more than 40 f L'.a.-,-.onds Median ineeme in amounts up to $1,000 for up to
Packet Pg. 288
9.2.a
150 households to help defray expenses derived from outstanding City of
Edmonds utilities bills.
3. Housing Repair. Up to $1,000,000 for one-time grants to households eie
than 40 f Edmonds Median ir,.,.me for housing repair, especially
focused on energy -saving measures such as roof repair, window replacement,
HVAC repair/replacement, etc. Up to 200 grants at up to $5,000 each.
To be eligible for Grants, households must earn no more than 60% of Edmonds
Median Income, with priority given to households earning at or below 40%.
Section 2. Subsection 4.C.3 of Ordinance 4229 is hereby amended as follows (deletions
are indicated by stfike-through; additions are indicated by underline):
3. Small Business Support. Up to $625,000 for direct grants to small businesses
most affected by the COVID-19-related economic recession. Grants will take the
form of individual financial support grants (in the form of loans that are
forgivable after four months of performance), totaling up to 50 at up to $10,000
each in 2021, with up to 25 grants of up to $5,000 each available in 2022.
Eligibility criteria for these grants will include:
a. Small businesses in Edmonds with zero to 30 employees.
b. Businesses must demonstrate at least a 50% loss in revenue by the end of
2020 compared to the pre -pandemic 2019 revenues.
c. Businesses must not have received more than $5,000 $10,000 in other
grants, tax credits or other financial assistance.
d. Particular consideration will be given to businesses owned by people of
color, women, veterans, and other minorities.
Section 3. Section 5 of Ordinance 4229 is hereby amended as follows (additions are
indicated by underline):
Packet Pg. 289
9.2.a
Section 5. For those accounts that specify the number of grants or the amount of grant
funds to be awarded in specific years, in the event that the number of grants or the
amount of grant funds awarded in a year will result in less than a full disbursement of
that year's allocated funds, the Mayor or designee has the option to award additional
grants, to roll over remaining funds to the following_ year, or both. The City may only
use ARPA funds to cover costs incurred for one or more of the purposes allowed by
federal law and during the period beginning March 3, 2021, and ending December 31,
2024. A cost shall be considered to have been incurred for purposes of this Section if
the City has incurred an obligation with respect to such cost by December 31, 2024.
The City must return any funds not obligated by December 31, 2024, and any funds
not expended to cover such obligations by December 31, 2026.
Section 4. 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 5. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary
consisting of the title.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance, being exempt under RCW 35A.11.090(4),
as an ordinance appropriating money, 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:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 290
9.2.a
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.
Packet Pg. 291
9.2.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of 2021, 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 4229,
RELATED TO THE EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of
2021.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 292
9.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
Amendment to City's Agreement with South County Fire
Staff Lead: Jeff Taraday
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Nicholas Falk
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
South County Fire (SCF) has issued a notice that requires some amendment to the city's interlocal
agreement with them. SCF proposed an amendment that would require additional expenditure of
approximately $2.25M per year. In response, the mayor is recommending one of two options, either of
which would require additional expenditure of approximately $1.5M per year: Option 1) adding one 24-
hour two -person unit to the City's existing service level; or Option 2) adding two 12-hour two -person
"peak activity" units to the City's existing service levels. The city council should consider the pluses and
minuses of each option and give high level direction to the mayor on which option it prefers either at
this meeting or a subsequent meeting. This direction needs to be given by the end of October to comply
with the agreement. After the direction is given, an amended agreement incorporating the council's
preference would be brought back to the council for adoption.
Narrative
Establishing appropriate service levels for fire and emergency response is one of the most important
policy matters that a city council could be asked to vote on. The fundamental questions for policy
makers are these:
• how much emergency preparedness can a city afford to provide?
• and how does that city prioritize emergency preparedness compared to other needs of the
community?
As a city adds resources to its fire department, it adds preparedness. As a city withdraws resources, it
reduces preparedness. No city can add enough resources to be fully prepared for every emergency
scenario. City resources are limited and emergency preparedness is expensive. But it is also one of the
most important services that local government provides. Because there is no scientifically correct
answer as to the right amount of city resources to devote to emergency preparedness, it is
fundamentally a matter of legislative discretion. As councilmembers, you will each need to consider and
eventually take a vote to determine the right amount of preparedness to purchase for your city.
We will now explain the background that causes you to face this decision right now.
Packet Pg. 293
9.3
The City of Edmonds operated its own fire department through 2009. In 2010, it began contracting with
Snohomish County Fire District 1 (FD1) to provide fire and emergency medical services to the city
pursuant to an interlocal agreement. From 2010 through 2016, the interlocal agreement with FD1 called
for Edmonds' fire stations to be staffed 24/7 with nine firefighters and two firefighter/ paramedics, for a
total of eleven firefighters on duty at any given time. There were three firefighters located at each of the
city's three fire stations. In addition, the two paramedics were based in downtown Edmonds at station
17. We understand that the city also provided eleven firefighters on duty 24/7 when it ran its own fire
department in 2009.
In 2017, Mayor Earling proposed, and the city council approved, an amendment to the interlocal
agreement that changed the staffing model. The 2017 amendment reduced the total number of
firefighters on duty at any given time from eleven to nine, with three at each station. One of the three
firefighters at each station is required to be a paramedic. So, the total number of paramedics increased
from two to three. While certain assumptions would need to be made in calculating the cost savings
created by these changes, we believe it reasonable to assume that the savings exceeded one million
dollars per year. Of course, that cost savings did render the city less prepared for certain emergencies
that would have required a large dispatch. After all, Edmonds had four units capable of emergency
response from 2010 (and earlier) through 2016. But from 2017 through today, it has only had three
units.
During the negotiations leading up to the changes that took effect in 2017, FD1 expressed concern
about the reduction in the total number of Edmonds units that could respond at any given time.
Specifically, FD1 expressed concern that the 2017 changes would result in the need for units from
neighboring stations to respond into Edmonds, effectively amounting to a subsidy being provided by the
neighboring fire stations in Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood. To address those concerns, the parties
agreed upon some formulas that could be used to determine whether one community was using
fire/EMS resources from another community in a disproportionate manner. These formulas are
incorporated into the 2017 ILA.
One of these formulas is called the neighboring unit utilization factor or NUUF. The other is called the
transport balance factor or TBF. Because the NUUF and TBF are highly correlated, for the purposes of
brevity, we will only explain the NUUF in this agenda memo. (The entire ILA is attached as an exhibit for
anyone who wants to read more about the TBF.)
NUUF measures the amount of time that Edmonds units respond to calls for service outside of Edmonds
and then compares that to the amount of time that non -Edmonds units respond to calls for service in
Edmonds. The purpose of the NUUF is to determine whether those two things are roughly in balance.
Under the agreement, balance is achieved when those two amounts of time are within ten percent of
one another. The NUUF is quite far out of balance and has been for a while. In other words, the NUUF
indicates that non -Edmonds units are responding into Edmonds significantly more than the other way
around.
Recognizing this imbalance, on June 2, 2021, South County Fire (SCF), the successor to FD1 under the
interlocal agreement, issued what is called a Threshold Notice. A copy of the Threshold Notice is
attached. The purpose of the Threshold Notice is to demand that the city take Remedial Measures to
bring the NUUF and the TBF back into balance.
The administration has had several meetings with SCF since the Threshold Notice was issued. SCF has
Packet Pg. 294
9.3
proposed certain Remedial Measures. See June 16, 2021 letter, attached. Specifically, SCF would like the
city to add one 24-hour two -person unit and one 12-hour two -person unit or peak activity unit (PAU).
The 24-hour unit alone would essentially replace the unit that was removed in 2017 (although it
probably would not be returned to Station 17). So, the addition of a 24-hour unit and a 12-hour unit, as
proposed by SCF, would increase the level of preparedness beyond where it had been prior to 2017. The
SCF proposal would cost the city an additional $2.25M per year, approximately.
Mayor Nelson does not support the SCF proposal. He does, however, support increasing the level of
service. The mayor is seeking city council feedback on two alternatives. Either of Mayor Nelson's two
alternatives would have roughly the same cost: an additional $1.5M per year. He supports that financial
commitment, but is weighing and seeking feedback on how that additional commitment to the fire
service should be implemented.
One option would be to add a 24-hour two -person unit similar to the one that was cut in 2017, although,
again, it likely would not be located at Station 17. Alternatively, in lieu of the 24-hour unit, the city could
add two 12-hour two -person PAUs. We will refer to this option as the 2PAU option. There are pluses and
minuses of each alternative.
As between Mayor Nelson's two proposals, SCF has a strong preference for the 24-hour unit, because it
would add an additional resource at all times of day. A nighttime fire, for example, while infrequent, is
highly resource intensive when it occurs. The 24-hour unit adds a measure of preparedness for such
incidents, while the 2PAU option does not.
The advantage of the 2PAU option, on the other hand, is that it adds resources during the times of
greatest need. While we would defer to SCF for exact figures, we understand that roughly 70% of all
calls for service occur during the twelve peak hours. So, adding two units to address the peak would
appear to be adding resources when they are most in need. (It stands to reason that with a slight
staggering in the schedules of the two PAUs, these additional resources could probably capture a
percentage even higher than 70% of the calls, but we would still need to verify that with SCF.) In any
case, reasonable minds can differ over what type of preparedness is the best type for Edmonds. So, the
city council will ultimately need to indicate whether it has a preference. We need to know the council's
preference before we are required to designate the city's Remedial Measures at the end of October
2021.
Representatives of South County Fire will be present during the discussion of this agenda item and
would likely make some remarks and/or be available to answer questions.
Attachments:
2017 Restated ILA signed
2021-06-02 threshold notice
2021-06-16 letter from Chief Hovis re proposed remedial measures
2021-09-14 CityofEdmonds_RFE
2021-09-17 RFA to COE letter from FC Hovis to Mayor Nelson
Contract Original 2010
2009-11-02 City Council - Public Minutes-1410
2017-01-24 agenda memo
2017-01-24 City Council - Public Minutes-1839
2016-12-13 City Council - Full Minutes-1790
Packet Pg. 295
9.3
2016-12-06 City Council - Full Minutes-1787
2020 compliance report
2021-03-23 City Council - Full Minutes-2780
FW_ Data that has been provided by SCF_1
FW_ Data that has been provided by SCF_2
FW_ Data that has been provided by SCF_3
FW_ Data that has been provided by SCF_4
2021-10-26 PowerPoint
2021-11-01 letter to Thad Hovis
Packet Pg. 296
9.3.a
REVISED AND RESTATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
THIS REVISED AND RESTATED INTERLGCAL AGREEMENT ("Restated ILA") by
and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1, a Washington
municipal corporation (the "District") and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington city (the "City")
is for the provision of fire and emergency medical services (EMS).
WHEREAS, a consolidated Fire and EMS service, by a single vendor or through a
Regional Fire Protection Service Authority (RFA), has recently gained support of most elected
officials in Southwest Snohomish County; and
WHEREAS, the City and District agree that a long-term agreement between the City and
the District for fire and emergency medical services is beneficial to the City and District and their
stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2009, the City and District entered into an Interlocal
Agreement (the "Agreement") for the District to provide fire and emergency medical services to
the City beginning January 1, 2010;
WHEREAS, such Agreement was amended pursuant to a First Amendment dated April
17, 2012 to address a fire boat; and
WHEREAS, such Agreement was amended pursuant to a Second Amendment
approved on January 27, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City are authorized, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 of the
Revised Code of Washington, to enter into Interlocal Agreements which allow the District and
the City to cooperate with each other to provide high quality services to the public in the most
efficient manner possible; and
WHEREAS, the parties have analyzed the performance of the Agreement during the
period of 2010 — 2016 (the "Introductory Period") and have determined that is in their mutual
interests and the interests of their respective stakeholders to revise and update the Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, the District and City now wish to revise and restate the Agreement as
provided herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the City and District hereto agree as follows:
0. DEFINITIONS.
The following definitions shall apply throughout this Restated ILA.
Packet Pg. 297
9.3.a
Adjustment Year: The year in which a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is
effective between the District and the local chapter of the IAFF. When a new CBA has
retroactive effect, the Adjustment Year shall be the date to which the CBA is retroactively
applied. For example, if a CBA expires on December 31, 2014 and a new CBA is
executed on December 1, 2016 but made retroactive to January 1, 2015, the Adjustment
Year would be 2015.
b. Assigned: As used in the definitions of Unit Utilization Factor and Neighboring Unit
Utilization Factor, the term "Assigned" shall describe the period of time in seconds from
dispatch time to clear time, when the Unit becomes available to respond to another call.
c. City: City of Edmonds.
d. City Fire Stations: Fire Station 16, Fire Station 17, and Fire Station 20.
e. Commencement Date: January 1, 2010.
f. Contract Payment: The amount that the City shall pay to the District pursuant to this
Restated ILA.
g. District: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1.
Edmonds Unit: An Edmonds Unit is any Unit based at one of the City Fire Stations with
the exception of the Battalion Chief.
i. Effective Date: February 1, 2017.
j. Esperance: "Esperance" refers to the entirety of the contiguous unincorporated area
that is completely surrounded by the City of Edmonds and commonly known as
Esperance.
Esperance Offset: The amount of tax revenue and fire benefit charges, if fire benefit
charges are imposed in the future, to be received by the District from Esperance for the
year in which the Contract Payment is calculated. The Esperance Offset shall not drop
below $1,117,150 (the amount derived by multiplying the 2017 Esperance Assessed
Value of $565,469,115 by the District's 2017 tax rate of $1.97561714741 divided by
1,000) even if the actual tax revenue received by the District drops below that amount as
a result of reductions in assessed valuation or tax rate. The Esperance Offset for any
given year shall not exceed $1,117,150, multiplied by the compounded percentage
increase in City Station Personnel Costs from 2017 to the year for which the Esperance
Offset is being calculated. For example, if City Station Personnel Cost increases 3%
from 2017 to 2018 and 4% from 2018 to 2019, the 2019 cap for the Esperance Offset
would be $1,197,516 and be calculated as follows:
Packet Pg. 298
9.3.a
$1,117,150 x 1.03 = $1,150,664 x 1.04 = $1,196,691
I. District Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1.
m. Firefighters: Full-time, compensated employees, captains, firefighters, emergency
medical technicians, and/or paramedics.
n. Insurance: The term "insurance" as used in this Restated ILA means either valid
insurance offered and sold by a commercial insurance company or carrier approved to
do business in the State of Washington by the Washington State Insurance
Commissioner or valid self-insurance through a self-insurance pooling organization
approved for operation in the State of Washington by the Washington State Risk
Manager or any combination of valid commercial insurance and self-insurance pooling if
both are approved for sale and/or operation in the State of Washington.
o. Law: The term "Jaw" refers to state and federal statutes and regulations. Unless
expressly identified herein, City ordinances, codes and resolutions shall not be
considered "law."
p. Material Breach: A Material Breach means the District's failure to provide minimum
staffing levels as described within this Restated ILA, the City's failure to timely pay the
Contract Payment as described within this Restated ILA, or the City's or District`s failure
to comply with other material terms of this Restated ILA.
q. Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor: See Exhibit E.
r. Negotiation Threshold. A designated occurrence or condition that requires the parties
to renegotiate the Restated ILA.
s. Non -Edmonds Unit: A Non -Edmonds Unit is any Unit stationed at any station other
than the City Fire Stations.
t. Transport Balance Factor: See Exhibit E.
u. Unit: A Unit is a group of Firefighters that work together and are based at the same
station. Where a station is staffed by three firefighters at any one time, that station shall
be considered a Unit. Where a station is staffed by five or more firefighters at any one
time, without counting the Battalion Chief or Medical Services Officer, that station shall
be deemed to have two Units and the District shall clearly allocate the Firefighters at that
station in such a manner that the two Units at that station can be clearly distinguished for
the purposes of determining the Unit Utilization Factor for each Unit.
v. Unit Utilization Factor: See Exhibit E.
Packet Pg. 299
9.3.a
w. Wind -Up Period: Except in the context of Material Breach as defined in Section 10.2,
the two years immediately following notice of termination under 11.2.
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Services Provided. The District shalt provide all services necessary for fire suppression,
emergency medical service, hazardous materials response, technical rescue, and
disaster response (not including an Emergency Operations Center, which is provided by
the City at the time of this Restated ILA) to a service area covering the corporate limits of
the City of Edmonds. In addition, the District shall provide support services including, but
not limited to, fire marshal, fire prevention and life safety, public education, public
information, and fleet maintenance, payroll and finances, human resources, and legal
and risk management pertaining to the operations and delivery of the District's services.
1.2 Training, Education, and Career Development. The District shall provide training and
education to all firefighter and emergency medical service personnel in accordance with
State, County and local requirements. Furthermore, the District shall offer professional
development and educational and training opportunities for unrepresented and civilian
employees.
1.3 City Fire Chief, The District Fire Chief shall be designated as the City Fire Chief for
purposes of statutory provisions, regulations and the Edmonds City Code.
1.4 District Fire Chief Designates Fire Marshal. The District Fire Chief shall designate an
individual to sere as City Fire Marshal, and shall assign necessary personnel to support
the functions and needs of the Fire Marshal as mutually agreed to and partially funded
by the City (See Exhibit A), subject to the City's right to provide its own fire inspectors
pursuant to Section 2.8.2, below.
2. STANDARDS FOR SERVICESISTAFFING
2.1 Battalion Chief. A Battalion Chief shall continue to be available for response within the
City twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week as during the Introductory
Period. The District agrees to provide Incident Command response for all emergency
incidents twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
2.2 Fire Station Staffing. The City Fire Stations shall each be staffed twenty-four (24) hours
per day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire captain and two (2)
firefighters, at least one of whom shall be a firefighter/paramedic. Any increase in
staffing above this level shall not increase the Contract Payment unless the increase
occurs through an amendment of this Restated ILA.
2.2.1 The parties shall renegotiate this Restated ILA upon the occurrence of any of the
following Negotiation Thresholds:
4
Packet Pg. 300
9.3.a
a. When the Unit Utilization Factor ("UUF") at any one of the City Fire Stations
exceeds 0.250;
b. When the Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor ("NUUF") is out of balance as
defined in this Restated ILA, PROVIDED THAT this subsection shall not trigger a
renegotiation any earlier than January 1, 2018..
c. When the Transport Balance Factor (TBF} is out of balance as defined in this
Restated ILA, PROVIDED THAT this subsection shall not trigger a renegotiation earlier
than January 1, 2018.
d. When the Esperance Offset drops by ten percent (10%) or more over any
consecutive three (3) year period.
2.2.2 The District shall provide written notice to the City ("Threshold Notice") whenever
any of the foregoing Negotiation Thresholds occurs. Within thirty (30) days of issuance
of a Threshold Notice, the parties shall meet to renegotiate this Restated ILA. Such
negotiations shall include, at least the following topics:
(i) Methodologies intended to reduce the UUF substantially below 0.250 or
to balance the NUUF or TBF, as applicable (collectively "Remedial
Measures"). Remedial Measures may include, but shall not be limited to,
changes to the staffing mix and/or levels, adding another Unit; changing
fire response plans in CAD, and/or implementing other service changes;
and
(u) Adjusting the Contract Payment to account for the District's increased
cost in employing the selected Remedial Measures.
(iii) Where the Threshold Notice pertains to subsection 2.2.1(d), topics of
negotiation shall include increasing the amount of the Esperance Offset
andlor reducing staff and/or reducing overhead charges that are billed to
the City.
2.2.3 The District shall identify various Remedial Measures that are likely to
expeditiously achieve the applicable goals in Section 2.2.2(i). The City may opt to
identify and notify the District about alternative Remedial Measures. After consulting with
the District, the City shall select one or more of the Remedial Measures and shall
provide written notice of same within one hundred twenty (120) days following the
issuance of the Threshold Notice (the "Negotiation Deadline"). The City's selection shall
be subject to mediation under paragraph 18.1 if the Di strict finds the City's selection to
be ineffective or inappropriate, but it shall not be subject to arbitration under paragraph
18.2. Any disputes regarding the cost impacts of the City's selection shall be subject to
the complete Dispute Resolution procedures, and any adjustment to the Contract
Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive to the
earlier of the Negotiation Deadline or the date that the Remedial Measures were initially
employed. If the City fails to designate one or more Remedial Measures by the
Negotiation Deadline, such failure shall be deemed a Material Breach.
Packet Pg. 301
9.3.a
2.2.4 The parties shall endeavor to execute an amendment prior to the Negotiation
Deadline. If the parties cannot agree upon an amendment to this Restated ILA before
the Negotiation Deadline, either party may terminate the Restated ILA pursuant to 11.2,
PROVIDED THAT during the ensuing two-year Wind -Up Period, the District shall be
authorized to increase service levels at the City Fire Stations as it deems necessary, and
FURTHER PROVIDED THAT the marginal increase in the Contract Payment resulting
from any such ❑istrict-imposed service level increases during the Wind -Up Period shall
be shared equally by the parties during the Wind -Up Period.
2.3 Shift Arrangements. The City prefers that the following shift arrangements apply to
personnel assigned to stations within the City: no Firefighter shall start a 24-hour shift at
any of the City Fire Stations if that Firefighter has just completed a 48-hour shift at a City
Fire Station or any other fire station in the District without having taken a rest day
between shifts. The District commits that it will undertake in good faith, pursuant to
Chapter 41.56 RCW, to negotiate successfully for those arrangements, to be
implemented.
2.4 Review of Service Delivery Objectives. The parties acknowledge that the service
delivery objectives adopted in 2006 ("Response Objectives") have never been met in
their entirety, even when the City had its own fire department. During the Introductory
Period, the parties contracted for a particular staffing level at the City Fire Stations. It has
been recommended that the parties move toward a performance -based contract where
the City pays for a particular level of service that is measured by service delivery
objectives (e.g. response time) instead of a particular number of positions. The parties
would like to continue to evaluate this recommendation, but acknowledge that it would
take significant additional work to implement such a change, not the least of which
includes adoption of achievable performance standards. The City and the District agree
to work toward adoption of a revised set of service delivery objectives in the first quarter
of 2018.
2.4.1 Turnout Time. The District has adopted a standard of 2 minutes and 15 seconds
on 90% of all calls. Failure to meet this standard shall not be deemed a Material Breach.
If this standard is not being met during calendar year 2017 for the City Fire Stations, the
District shall provide the City, no later than December 31, 2017, with a report containing
the following information: (i) a list of possible measures that could be implemented to
improve Turnout Time, (ii) the estimated cost of each measure (if reasonably available)
and (iii) estimates concerning the amount that turnout time could be reduced with each
measure.
2.5 Reporting. The District agrees to annually report to the City in accordance with chapter
35.103 RCW. In addition to the regular quarterly report content and the content required
by law, the annual report shall contain the Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor for each of
the following jurisdictions: Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. The annual report shall
contain the total number of seconds that City Fire Stations responded to calls in
Woodway and the total number of automatic aid responses from Shoreline into
R
Packet Pg. 302
9.3.a
Edmonds. The annual report shall, to the extent practicable, also state the amount of
transport fees that the District sought to recover from incidents occurring within the City
and Esperance, respectively, and the amount of those fees that were actually recovered.
If the District has data that identifies the number of seconds during which two or more
Units were Assigned to different calls at the same time, it shall include that data in the
annual report.
2.5.1 Quarterly Reporting. In addition, the District shall provide a quarterly report to the
City Clerk, no later than 30 days after the end of each quarter. The quarterly report shall
contain the Unit Utilization Factor for each of the City Fire Stations, the Transport
Balance Factor, as well as the turnout time, travel time, and overall response time.
2.6 [section relocated for clarity]
2.7 Criteria -Based 9-1-1 Dispatch. It is understood and agreed by the City and ❑istrict that
the dispatch of Units during emergencies is determined by criteria -based dispatch
protocols of the dispatch centers and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL). Nothing herein
shall require the District to respond first within the City as opposed to other areas served
by the District. The City and District recognize that responses to emergencies skull be
determined by the District based upon dispatch protocols; the location of available Units
and the District's operational judgment, without regard to where the emergencies occur.
2.8 Level of Service Changes. During the term of this Restated I LA, service level changes
may be mandated that are beyond the control of either party. Additionally, either party
may desire to change the service level, including but not limited to, those services
identified in Section 1 Scope of Services and Section 2 Standards for Services/Staffing.
When a service level change is mandated by law, adopted by the Edmonds City Council
as part of the City's chapter 35.103 RCW Response Objectives, or is mutually agreed to
by the parties, the City and the District shall renegotiate the Contract Payment at the
request of either party, If the parties are unable to reach agreement within one hundred
twenty (120) days after the change is mandated or mutually agreed, the matter shall be
subject to the complete Dispute Resolution procedures, and any adjustment to the
Contract Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive
to the date that the service level change was initially employed, Failure of either party to
participate in, or comply with, the Dispute Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or
18.2 shall be deemed a Material Breach.
2.8.1 The City acknowledges that the District may be required by law to notify and
bargain with the local chapter of the IAFF any level of service changes made pursuant to
this section 2.8.
2.8.2 The City reserves the right to remove the Fire Inspector services from this
Restated ILA upon one year's written notice to the District, in which case the Contract
Payment shall be equitably reduced, PROVIDED THAT in no case shall such notice be
provided less than 90 days prior to the beginning of a new fiscal year, AND FURTHER
PROVIDED THAT the City shall consult with the District regarding the impacts of a
Packet Pg. 303
9.3.a
proposed removal of the Fire Inspector services at least 94 days in advance of the City
providing such notice, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT if the City exercises this
option, it shall provide fire inspection services using one or more inspectors with current
or previous firefighting experience.
2.9 Response Time Questions. In the event that response times should consistently deviate
from the City's Response Objectives, as they may be amended from time to time by the
City, the District Fire Chief and the City Mayor, or their designees, shall meet and confer
to address the cause, potential remedies, and potential cost impacts.
3. USE OF CITY FIRE STATIONS
3.1 Use of City Fire Stations. The City shall retain ownership of three existing City Fire
Stations and shall make them available for use by the District pursuant to the terms set
forth in Exhibit B. The parties acknowledge that none of these three fire stations are
ideally located and that the City could be better served by two ideally located fire
stations. The parties also acknowledge that the internal configuration of the City's three
stations contributes to slower turnout times than could be achieved with new stations
built according to current standards. In light of the above, the parties contemplate that
the City may opt to replace the three current fire stations with two new fire stations for
use by the District during the term of this Restated ILA. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of the Restated ILA and Exhibit B, the provisions of Exhibit B
shall control with respect to fire stations and fixtures contained therein, PROVIDED
THAT Exhibit B shall be amended in the event that the City moves to a two -station
service, and FURTHER PROVIDED THAT nothing in Exhibit B shall be construed to
prevent the City from moving to a two -station service; and FURTHER PROVIDED, that
the cost of providing turn key fire stations with equivalent technology to current fire
stations shall be borne entirely by the City.
3.1.1 In the event the City decides to replace or relocate any of the City Fire Stations,
the City shall provide notice to the District concerning the location, design and layout of
the new City Fire Stations, the time frame for completion, and any other information
reasonably requested by the District to plan for the transition. Not later than thirty (30)
days following such notice, the parties shall meet to discuss the impact of any such
changes on this Restated ILA and to negotiate an amendment to this Restated ILA to
address such impacts. The parties recognize that there may be initial cost impacts that
are not ongoing, and the parties agree to negotiate these as well. The parties shall
endeavor to execute an amendment no later than one hundred twenty (120) days
following such notice to address such initial cost impacts. If the parties cannot agree
upon an amendment to this Restated ILA within such time, either party may invoke the
Dispute Resolution procedures.
P
Packet Pg. 304
9.3.a
3.2-3.3 [Completed. Deleted for clarityf
4. ANNUAL CONTRACT AND TRANSPORT FEES PAYMENT TERMS
4.1 Annual Contract Payment. The City shall pay the District a sum referred to as the
Contract Payment for the services provided herein. The annual total amount of the
Contract Payment shall be determined according to Exhibit C. The Contract Payment
shall be paid in equal monthly installments by the 10" day of each month. Failure to pay
monthly installments in a timely manner shall be considered a Material Breach as
defined in the Definitions section of this Restated ILA.
4.1.1 If a service level change requiring an adjustment in the Contract Payment occurs
on a date other than January 1, the Contract Payment shall be adjusted on the effective
date of the service level change, and the monthly installment payments shall be adjusted
accordingly.
4.2 Contract Payment Adjustment. Each year, no later than September 1, the District shall
submit to the City an invoice for the ensuing year, including any revision to the Contract
Payment for the ensuing year.
4.2.1 Annual Percent Increase Based on Labor Costs. The cost of City Station
Personnel identified in Exhibit C shall be adjusted annually pursuant to the negotiated
labor collective bargaining agreement between the District and the local chapter of the
IAFF ("CBA"}, provided that, notwithstanding the actual terms of the CBA, the City
Station Personnel cost in Exhibit C shall increase from one labor agreement to the next
no more than the greater of (i) the median increase in the total cost of compensation
(i.e., combined cost of wages and benefits) of comparable fire agencies, (ii) the increase
in the Consumer Price Index as measured by the CPI-W Seattle -Tacoma -Bremerton
metropolitan area for the twelve (12) month period ending June 30, or (iii) the
percentage increase in compensation awarded by an interest arbitrator. The phrase
"comparable fire agencies" shall refer to a list of comparables agreed upon by the
Employer and Union through the collective bargaining process or the comparables
accepted by an interest arbitrator in an interest arbitration proceeding.
4.2.1.1 The parties recognize that the cost of the District's community paramedic
program is currently covered by grants. At the time the grants expire, the City may opt to
continue the community paramedic program in which case Exhibit C shall be revised to
add an equitable share of the cost of such community paramedics, taking into account
the other jurisdictions that are served by the community paramedics. If the City opts not
to continue with the program, the community paramedic program will not be continued
within the City limits after the grant term ends.
1 The Parties acknowledge that a number of actions described in the Agreement have been completed.
For clarity and conciseness, those provisions are removed and replaced with the words "Completed.
Deleted for clarity."
Packet Pg. 305
9.3.a
4.2.2 Adjustment Date Not Met. If a new CBA between the District and IAFF Local
1828 has not been finalized by September 1 of the final year of the then -effective CBA,
the City Station Personnel costs and the Indirect Operating Costs for the ensuing year
shall be adjusted following execution of the new CBA and shall be retroactive to January
1 of the Adjustment Year. For example, as of the date of this Restated ILA, the last CBA
expired on December 31, 2014; thus, the Adjustment Year is 2015. In such instances,
the District shall send the City (directed to the City Clerk), no later than September 1 of
each year for which a CBA has not yet been executed for the ensuring year, a range
within which the Contract Payment for the ensuing year is likely to fall, which range shall
be informed by the current status of negotiations between the District and IAFF Local
182B. To enhance the District's ability to provide the City with a predictable range for the
Contract Payment, the District shall, to the extent practicable, commence negotiations
with IAFF Local 1828 no later than July 151 of any year in which a CBA is expiring, if a
new CBA has not been executed by November Vt of the year in which a CBA is expiring,
the District shall notify the City of the economic issues on which the parties have not
reached tentative agreement.
4.2.3 Documentation of Labor Costs. Upon executing a new CBA, the District shall
provide supporting documentation sufficient to allow the City to confirm that the labor
costs have not increased more than the limits set forth in Section 4.2.1, including
comparable agency compensation data used by the parties or the interest arbitrator to
establish new compensation levels.
4.3 -4.4 [sections relocated and renumbered for clarity]
4.5 Indirect Operating Cost Portion of Contract Payment. The District shall determine the
Indirect Operating Cost portion of the Contract Payment according to the following:
• Overhead shall be ten percent (10%) of the cost of the City Station Personnel cost;
■ Equipment maintenance and operation, medications, and supplies shall be ten
percent (10%) of the City Station Personnel cost;
■ Fire Marshal allocation of fifty percent (50%) of wage and benefit cost of the position,
and Fire Inspector at one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of wage and benefit
cost of the position (See Exhibit A); and
• Apparatus replacement costs based upon the District Apparatus Replacement
Schedule —Rolling Stock designated as Exhibit D.
The total of the City Station Personnel cost and the Indirect Operating Costs; plus any
additional amounts due to annexations as provided in Section 4.6, less the "Esperance
Offset", shall constitute the Contract Payment for the ensuing year.
4,6 Annexation. The City's Urban Growth Area contains property within the boundaries of
the District. Should the City seek to annex portions of the District, the District will not
oppose the annexation. In the event the City annexes portions of the District other than
Esperance, the Contract Payment shall be increased by an amount calculated by
applying the then current District levy rate and emergency medical services levy rate to
10
Packet Pg. 306
9.3.a
the assessed value of the annexed area, plus revenue from a Fire Benefit Charge, if
imposed, that the District would have received from the annexed area in the year in
which the Contract Payment is calculated. The increase in the Contract Payment shall
occur on the first month on which the District is no longer entitled to collect non -
delinquent tax revenue from the annexed area pursuant to RCW 35.13.270(2).
4.6.1 Esperance Annexation. If the City annexes all of the area commonly referred to
as "Esperance", the District will support the annexation. Whenever any portion of
Esperance is annexed, the Esperance Offset attributable to the annexed area shall no
longer be used to reduce the calculation of the Contract Payment at such time as the
District is no longer entitled to collect non -delinquent tax revenue from the annexed area
pursuant to RCW 35.13.270(2).
4.7 Significant Change in Cost of Providing Services. In the event that there is a material
and significant increase or decrease in the costs of providing services under this
Restated ILA because the District was required to comply with a legislative or regulatory
decision by an entity other than the City, then at the request of either party, the City and
District shall seek to renegotiate this Restated ILA and the Contract Payment to fully
compensate the District for actual costs incurred according to the methodology in Exhibit
C. An example of a significant increase in cost would be if the state required that fire
engines be staffed with four firefighters per engine instead of three. If the City and
District are unable to successfully renegotiate the Contract Payment in this context
through good faith negotiations, then the complete Dispute Resolution provision of this
Restated ILA shall apply. Failure of either party to participate in, or comply with, the
Dispute Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or 18.2 shall be deemed a Material
Breach. Nothing herein prevents either party from terminating the Restated ILA
pursuant to Section 11.2, whether before or after exercise of the Dispute Resolution
provisions of this Restated ILA.
4.8 EMS Transport Fees. The District shall charge fees for the basic life support and
advanced life support transports that it performs. As the EMS service provider for the
City, the District shall receive and pursue collection of all Transport Fees in accordance
with District policy for transports that originate within the City limits. The District shall
remit the amount so received to the City, less an administration fee not to exceed the
actual cost of collection on a quarterly basis. The District shall be responsible for, and
agrees to prepare and provide in a timely fashion, reasonable documentation and/or
reports to the City.
4.9 Creating Unfunded Mandates. The City shall not create any unfunded mandates for
increased service or reporting by the District without fully compensating the District for
actual costs incurred.
5. CITY EMPLOYEES
5.1-5.8 [Completed. Deleted for clarity].
11
Packet Pg. 307
9.3.a
5.9 Former City Employees. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold the District harmless
from any and all demands, claims, or actions by former City personnel, which arise out of, or
relate to, the time prior to the Commencement Date, provided, however, that the indemnification
shall not apply to any claims arising as a result of the District's actions under the Agreement or
the Restated ILA.
6. ROLLING STOCK (APPARATUS AND VEHICLES)
6.1 — 6.5 [Completed. Deleted for clarity].
6.6 District Apparatus Replacement Schedule. The District has provided current information
regarding existing and proposed Apparatus Replacement Schedule attached in Exhibit
D. The District, in its sole discretion, may elect to purchase new rolling stock or
otherwise assign District rolling stock for use within the City.
6.7 Public Safety Boat. Title to the City Public Safety Boat known as Marine 16 (the
"Vessel") has been transferred to the District. The District's use of Marine 16 for training
and emergencies as a county -wide asset is described in the First Amendment to
InterlocaI Agreement for Use of Rescue and Fire Boat. Exhibit H to the Agreement is
hereby deleted.
6.7.1 [Completed. Deleted for clarity]
6.7.2 The District assumes responsibility for maintenance and repairs to the Vessel.
However, upon the District's request, the City agrees to provide maintenance and repair
services for the Vessel in exchange for receipt from the District of the City's normal
hourly shop rates for labor,
6.7.3 The Apparatus Replacement Schedule (Exhibit D to the Agreement and the
Restated ILA) is amended to include the Outboard Motors of the Vessel for as long as
the Vessel is in operation. The amended Apparatus Replacement Schedule is attached
hereto. The Contract Payment shall reflect the addition of the Outboard Motors to this
schedule.
6.7.4 [Completed. Deleted for clarity]
6.7.5 Use of the vessel by the City of Edmonds Police Department shall continue as
agreed to before this Restated ILA. The City is solely responsible for maintaining and
Certifying its operators.
6.7.5.1 The City's use of the Vessel is at the City's risk. The City acknowledges
that the District is making no representations or warranties concerning the Vessel.
Further, if the City uses the Vessel without a District operator, the City agrees to be
solely responsible for all damage or loss to the Vessel and its apparatus while the
Vessel is within the City's control and/or possession.
6.7.5.2 The City agrees to release the District from any claims associated with
any training provided to it. The City further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the
12
Packet Pg. 308
9.3.a
District harmless from any and all claims for bodily injury or property damage arising out
of the City's use and operation of the Vessel.
6.7.5.3 The City specifically and expressly waives any immunity that may be
granted under the Washington State Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW as to
any claims by its employees arising from the use of the Vessel.
7. EQUIPMENT
7.1 — 7.4 [Completed. Deleted for clarity]
S. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
8.1 Agreement Administrators. The District Fire Chief and the City Mayor and/or their
designees, shall act as administrators of this Restated ILA for purposes of RCW
39.34.030. During the term of this Restated ILA, the District Fire Chief shall provide the
Mayor with quarterly written reports concerning the provision of services under this
Restated ILA. The format and topics of the reports shall be as set forth in Section 2.5.
The District Fire Chief shall present an annual report covering the previous calendar
year to the Edmonds City Council prior to March 1, and at such meeting the Chief shall
request, and the City Council shall schedule, the Joint Annual meeting provided for in
section 8.2.
8.1.1 The parties agree to meet on a quarterly basis to address the performance of the
Restated ILA. It is expected that these quarterly meetings will be attended by at least
one City Council member, the Mayor, the City Attorney, the Finance Director, the District
Fire Chief and at least one Commissioner from the District.
8.2 Joint Annual Meeting. In addition to the meeting(s) referred to in Section 8.1 above, the
Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District #1 Commissioners shall have a joint
annual meeting after, but within 30 days, of the annual report at a properly noticed place
and time to discuss items of mutual interest related to this Restated ILA.
8.3 Representation on_Infergovernmental Boards. The District shall represent the City on
intergovernmental boards or on matters involving the provision of services under this
Restated ILA as reasonably requested by the Mayor. The City reserves the right to
represent itself in any matter in which the interests of the City and the District are not
aligned or whenever any matter relates to the appropriation of or expenditure of City
funds beyond the terms of this Restated ILA.
9. EXISTING AGREEMENTS
9.1 BEM, SNOCOM and SERS. The City currently has contractual relationships with other
entities or agencies including the Department of Emergency Management (DEM) (or
successor), Snohomish County Communications Center (SNOCOM) (or successor), and
Snohomish County Emergency Radio System Agency (SERS) (or successor). The City
shall maintain its representation and financial obligations with those entities or agencies
13
Packet Pg. 309
9.3.a
and will act to represent itself and retain authority to negotiate on its behalf. At the
discretion of the City, the District may provide representation on behalf of the City on
various committees, boards, and/or commissions as requested, as appropriate, and/or
as agreed to by mutual agreement of the parties. The parties shall meet to address any
changes to the foregoing entities that result in a change to the City's representation or
financial obligations.
9.2 Mutual and Automatic Aid. The District shall assume any of the City's remaining
contractual responsibility and obligations for the provision of mutual and automatic aid.
9.3 Full Informations as Basis for Relationship. The City and District agree to coordinate their
individual relationships with other entities and agencies so that the services under this
Restated ILA will be provided in an efficient and cost effective manner. The City and
District agree to keep each other fully informed and advised as to any changes in their
respective relationships with those entities or agencies, whether or not those changes
impact the City and/or the District obligations shall be provided to the other party in
writing in a timely manner that allows a reasonable opportunity to discuss proposed
changes in relationships or obligations.
10, TERM OF AGREEMENT
10.1 20-Year Agreement. The Effective Date of this Restated ILA shall be February 1, 2017.
The Commencement Date of the Agreement was January 1, 2010, This Restated ILA
shall continue in effect until December 31, 2030, unless terminated earlier as provided in
section 11. After December 31, 2030: this Restated ILA shall automatically renew under
the same terms and conditions for successive, rolling five (5) year periods unless
terminated as provided in section 11.
10.2 Material Breach and Wind -Up Period. In the event of a Material Breach of this Restated
ILA, the City and District shall, unless the City and District mutually agree otherwise,
continue to perform their respective obligations under this Restated ILA for a minimum of
twelve (12) months after notice of the Material Breach (the "Wind -Up Period") provided,
however; that the Wind -Up Period shall be (i) ninety (90) days if the Material Breach
involves the City's failure to make the Contract Payment or (ii) 180 days if the City fails
to timely select a Remedial Measure following the District's issuance of a Threshold
Notice; provided further, that during the Wind -Up Period, the City and District shall
coordinate their efforts to prepare far the transition to other methods of providing fire and
EMS service to the City. The City shall be responsible for all Contract Payment
installments required herein until the conclusion of the Wind -Up Period.
11. TERMINATION AND RETURN OF ASSETS
11.1 (Completed. Deleted for clarity]
14
Packet Pg. 310
9.3.a
11.2 Termination — Notice. In addition to terminating this Restated ILA for a Material Breach,
either party may terminate this Restated ILA at any time by providing the other party with
two (2) years written notice of its intent to terminate.
11.3 Termination Costs_ Except as otherwise provided herein, the costs associated with
terminating this Restated ILA shall be borne equally between the parties, or in the event
of a Material Breach, by the breaching party, provided that in the following
circumstances, the cost of termination shall be apportioned as provided below.
11.3.1 Termination Due to Change in Law or by Mutual Agreement. In the event
that this Restated ILA is terminated due to a change in law or by mutual agreement,
each party shall bear its own costs associated with the termination.
11.3.2 Regional Fire Protection Service Authority. In the event that the District,
along with one or more fire protection jurisdictions, elects to create a Regional Fire
Protection Service Authority Planning Committee (`RFA Planning Committee") as
provided in RCW 52.26.030, the District agrees to notify the City of its intent and subject
to mutual approval of the District and other participating jurisdictions, to afford the City
an opportunity to be a participant on the RFA Planning Committee. Declining the
opportunity to participate in the RFA Planning Committee shall not be construed as a
Material Breach on the part of the City. In the event that a Regional Fire Protection
Service Authority (RFA) or another legally recognized means of providing fire and
emergency medical services is created, inclusive of District, the District's powers and
duties under this Restated ILA shall be assigned to the RFA as the District's successor -
in -interest as provided by RCW 52.26.100,
11.3.2.1 If the District forms a RFA with any other agency, the parties shall
confer to determine whether any efficiencies have resulted from the creation of the RFA
that could warrant reconfiguring the service provided to the City.
11.4 [reserved]
11.5 [reserved]
11.6 Duty to Mitigate Costs. The City and District have an affirmative duty to mitigate their
respective costs of termination, irrespective of the party who elects to terminate this
Restated I LA and irrespective of the party who must bear the costs of termination.
11.7 Return of Assets to the City. Regardless of the reason for termination, the City and
District agree that like assets purchased by and transferred to the District as part of the
Agreement shall be purchased by the City as described below. This provision shall not
apply to the formation of an RFA in which both the City and the District are participants.
11.7.1 Purchase Back Rolling Stock. All rolling stock in use by the District at the City
Fire Stations at the time of termination shall be purchased back at a price that considers
the fair market value of the asset and any adjustments to fair market value that would be
15
Packet Pg. 311
9.3.a
fair and equitable, including, for example, City contributions to apparatus replacement,
costs incurred by the District for acquisition, maintenance, and repair, depreciation, etc.
11.7.2 Purchase Back Equipment. All equipment in use by the District at the City Fire
Stations at the time of termination shall be purchased back at fair market value.
11.7.3 tCompleted. Deleted for clarity]
11.7.4 District Employees. The District shall indemnify, defend and hold the City
harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by District personnel, which
arises out of or relate to the time that such personnel were employees of the District,
PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the indemnification shall not apply to any claims arising as
a result of the City's actions during the term of the Agreement or the Restated ILA.
12, DECLINE TO MERGE
12.1 City Declines to Merge. In the event that the District enters into an agreement with any
other fire district or agency that is functionally equivalent to a merger, the City may opt to
terminate this Restated ILA without prejudice or penalty. To exercise this option the City
shall provide written notice to the District of its intent to end the Restated ILA. Such
notice shall be provided not more than ninety (90) days after receiving written notification
from the District in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 that the District
intends to merge with another entity.
12.11A Not a Material Breach. The City's decision to terminate under 12.1 does not
constitute a Material Breach of the Restated 1LA and none of the penalties associated
with a Material Breach shall apply to the City.
12.1.2 12-Month Notice. The City's notice shall provide an effective date of termination
which shall be no more than twelve (12) months after the City officially notifies the
District of its termination, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, and the costs of
termination shall be split evenly between the parties.
12.1.3 City Exit from Agreement. If the City elects to terminate the Restated ILA
because of an impending merger between the District and one or more other jurisdiction,
the City's exit will be under the terms and conditions described in Section 11.7.
13. [deleted]
14. TOWN OF WOODWAY
14.1 Service to Woodway. The City may, in accordance with the terms herein, subcontract
with the Town of Woodway to have the District provide fire and emergency medical
services to the Town of Woodway. The City shall consult with the District in advance of
entering into any such subcontract, and the District shall have the opportunity for input
into any issues that may affect service and/or the cost of providing service. The City
shall provide advance written notice to the District of at least twelve (12) months prior to
any commencement of such service. The City's subcontracting of the District's service to
15
Packet Pg. 312
9.3.a
Woodway shall not be considered an unfunded mandate, and no change in the Contract
Payment shall result from such a subcontract, provided that the City is not requesting
additional staff to serve Woodway. Any and all payments from such a subcontract with
Woodway shall be paid to the City of Edmonds only. The District agrees not to compete
with the City of Edmonds in such negotiations_
14.1.1 If the City is requesting additional staff to serve Woodway, the parties shall
renegotiate the Contract Payment retroactive to the date that the District begins
providing the additional staff. If the parties have not executed an amendment prior to the
commencement of service to Woodway, either party may invoice the Dispute Resolution
procedures in Section 18.1 and 18.2; provided, however, that any adjustment to the
Contract Payment arising out of the Dispute Resolution Procedures shall be retroactive
to the date that the District begins providing the additional staff to serve Woodway. In
this context, failure of either party to participate in, or comply with, the Dispute
Resolution Procedures in Section 18.1 and/or 18.2 shall be deemed a Material Breach.
14.1.2 The City of Edmonds right to subcontract with the Town of Woodway constitutes
the consideration for the City's agreement to incur the additional 9.13% in Exhibit C
initially attributable to Woodway under the Agreement.
14.1.3 At the City's request, the District agrees to work with Shoreline Fire Department
to adjust automatic aid responses into the Town of Woodway.
14.1.4 In the event that the Point Wells development is to become part of the service
area for the District, such event shall be deemed a "Negotiation Threshold", and the
negotiation provisions of 2.2.3 - 2.2.4 shall apply.
15. [Completed. Deleted for clarity]
16. CITY AND DISTRICT ARE INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
16.1 Independent Governments. The City and District recognize and agree that the City and
District are independent governments. Except for the specific terms herein, nothing
herein shall be construed to limit the discretion of the governing bodies of each party.
Specifically and without limiting the foregoing, the District shall have the sole discretion
and the obligation to determine the exact method by which the services are provided
within the District and within the City unless otherwise stipulated within this Restated
I LA.
16.2 Resource Assignments. The District shall assign the resources available to it without
regarding to internal political boundaries, but rather based upon the operational
judgment of the District as exercised within the limitations and obligations of Sections 2.4
through 2.8.
16.3 Debts and Obligations. Neither the City nor District, except as expressly set forth herein
or as required by law, shall be liable for any debts or obligations of the other.
17
Packet Pg. 313
9.3.a
17. INSURANCE
17.1 Maintenance of Insurance. For the duration of this Restated ILA, each Party shall
maintain insurance as follows: Each party shall maintain its own insurance policy
insuring damage to its own fire stations, real and personal property and equipment if
any, and "policy" shall be understood to include insurance pooling arrangements or
compacts such as the Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA). The City shall
maintain an insurance policy insuring against liability for accidents occurring on City
owned property. Such insurance policy shall be in an amount not less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than five -thousand
dollars ($5,000.00). The District shall maintain an insurance policy insuring against
liability arising out of work or operations performed by the District under this Restated
ILA in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a
deductible of not more than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The phrases "work or
operations" and "maintenance and operations" shall include the services identified in
Section 1. Scope of Services, the services of the Fire Marshal and the District Fire
Chief, acting in the capacity of City Fire Chief and any obligation covered by Exhibit 6,
Section 9.
17.2 Claims of Former City Employees. The City has provided proof of coverage that it has
maintained insurance against claims by former City Personnel for incidents and
occurrences which may have occurred prior to the Commencement Date of the
Agreement, including but not limited to, injuries, employment claims, labor grievances,
and other work -related claims. Such insurance was at all times in an amount not less
than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more
than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The City will hold harmless the District and its
insurance provider for any such claims lawsuits or accusations that occurred prior to the
Commencement Date.
17.3 Claims of Former District Employees. The District represents and warrants that it has
maintained insurance against claims by District employees for incidents and occurrences
which may have occurred during the time period prior to the Commencement Date of the
Agreement, including but not limited to injuries, employment claims, labor grievances,
and other work -related claims. Such insurance was at all times in an amount not less
than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more
than five -thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
17.4 Hold Harmless. To the extent each party's insurance coverage is not voided, each party
agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers from any and all claims, costs, including reasonable
attorneys' and expert witness fees, losses and judgments arising out of the negligent
and intentional acts or omissions of such party's officers, officials, employees and
volunteers in connection with the performance of the Agreement or the Restated ILA.
The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of the
Agreement and the Restated ILA.
18
Packet Pg. 314
9.3.a
17.5 Release from Claims. Except as specifically provided in this Restated ILA, and except in
the event of breach of this Restated ILA, the District and the City do hereby forever
release each other from any claims, demands, damages or causes of action arising prior
to the Commencement Date and related to damage to equipment or property owned by
the City ar District or assumed under the Agreement or the Restated ILA. It is the intent
of the City and District to cover this risk with the insurance noted above.
18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
It is the intent of the City and District to resolve ail disputes between them without
litigation. In the event that any dispute between the City and District cannot be resolved
by good faith negotiations between the City and District, then the dispute resolution
provision of this Restated ILA shall apply. Excluded from these dispute resolution
provisions are issues related to the legislative authority of the Edmonds City Council to
make budget and appropriation decisions, decisions to contract, establish levels of
service or staffing under Section 2 of this Restated ILA and Chapter 35.103 RCW and
other policy matters that state law vests with the City Council. The above exclusions
from the dispute resolution process shall not abridge the right of the District to pursue an
increase in the Contract Payment as a result of any decision which, itself, is not subject
to the Dispute Resolution provisions of this Restated ILA. Nothing herein shall prevent
either party from providing notice of termination of the Restated ILA pursuant to Section
11,2 prior to completion of the dispute resolution processes described below; however,
such notice shall not affect any obligations to proceed with the Dispute Resolution
provisions.
18.1 Mediation. Upon a request by either party to mediate a dispute that is subject to the
Dispute Resolution provisions, the parties shall mutually agree upon a mediator. If the
City and District cannot agree upon a mediator within ten (10) business days after such
request, the City and District shall submit the matter to the Judicial Arbitration and
Mediation Service (JAMS) and request that a mediator be appointed. This requirement
to mediate the dispute may only be waived by mutual written agreement before a party
may proceed to litigation as provided within this Restated ILA. Except for unusual
reasons beyond the reasonable control of either party, mediation shall be completed
within ninety (90) days after the mediator is selected. Any expenses incidental to
mediation, including the mediator's fee, shall be borne equally by the City and District.
18.2 Binding Arbitration. If the City and District are unsuccessful in resolving any dispute
subject to the Dispute Resolution provisions through mediation, either party may
demand binding arbitration as provided herein, unless the nature of the dispute is not
subject to arbitration pursuant to other provisions of this Restated I LA.
18.2.1 The arbitration shall be conducted by JAMS in Seattle, Washington or other
mutually agreeable dispute resolution service. The dispute shall be governed by the
selected arbitration service's Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures. The parties
shall agree on a JAMS arbitrator with twenty (20) days from the date the matter is
submitted to JAMS. In the event that the parties fail to agree on a JAMS arbitrator within
19
Packet Pg. 315
9.3.a
such time, then JAMS shall be asked to submit the names of at least three arbitrators.
Each party shall have ten (10) days after receiving the list to strike one name from that
list. JAMS shall select the arbitrator from the names on the list that have not been struck
by either party. The parties may agree on another arbitrator in JAMS or another person
at any time. In the event that JAMS is unable or unwilling to provide an arbitrator and the
parties cannot otherwise agree, then either party may request the Snohomish County
Superior Court to designate an arbitrator.
18.2.2 At any arbitration involving the Contract Payment, the arbitrator shall, as nearly as
possible, apply the analysis used in this Restated ILA and supporting Exhibits to adjust
the Contract Payment. The arbitrator may deviate from such analysis and use principles
of fairness and equity, but should do so sparingly.
18.2.3 Unless the City and District mutually consent, the results of any binding arbitration
session shall not be deemed to be precedent for any subsequent mediations or
arbitrations.
18.2.4 The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon both parties, subject
only to the right of appeal as provided in RCW 7.04; provided, however, that in arriving
at such decision, neither of the parties nor the arbitrator shall have the authority to alter
this Restated ILA in whole or in part.
18.2.5 The arbitrator cannot order either party to take action contrary to law.
18.2.6 The substantially prevailing party, if any, in any binding arbitration action shall be
entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
18.3 Litigation. For disputes that are not subject to binding arbitration, either party may file an
action in Superior Court. Jurisdiction and venue for such actions shall lie exclusively in
Superior Court for Snohomish County, Washington, Each party expressly waives the
right to a jury trial. The party substantially prevailing in any such action ❑r proceeding
shall be awarded its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.
19. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
19.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals which
may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder, shall be in
writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered personally, sent by
electronic mail (provided a read receipt is obtained by the sender), sent by nationally
recognized overnight delivery service, or if mailed or deposited in the United States mail,
sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to:
District Secretary: City Clerk:
Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 City of Edmonds
12425 Meridian Avenue 121 5t" Avenue North
Everett, WA 98208 Edmonds, WA 98020
K11
Packet Pg. 316
9.3.a
Or, to such other address as the foregoing City and District hereto may from time -to -time
designate in writing and deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be deemed complete
upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. Facsimile transmission of any signed
original document and retransmission of any signed facsimile transmission shall be the
same as delivery of an original document.
19.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in the Restated ILA shall preclude the City and
the District form entering into contracts for service in support of this Restated ILA.
19.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Restated ILA shall not be construed to provide any benefits
to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this Restated ILA
shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the Public Duty Doctrine.
The City and District shall cooperate in good faith and execute such documents as
necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Restated ILA.
19.4 Entire Agreement. The entire agreement between the City and District hereto is
contained in this Restated ILA and exhibits thereto. This Restated ILA supersedes all of
their previous understandings and agreements, written and oral, with respect to this
transaction. This Restated ILA supersedes the Agreement except where provisions
have expressly been omitted for clarity and conciseness. Only those exhibits referenced
in this Restated ILA shall continue to be effective.
19.5. Amendment. This Restated ILA may be amended only by written instrument approved
by the governing bodies of the City and District subsequent to the date hereof.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that the formulas for NUUF, UUF, and
TBF may be changed administratively by mutual agreement of the parties if executed by
the Mayor and Council President (for the City) and the District Fire Chief (for the District)
in the event that a significant change occurs which would affect such formulas (e.g. RFA
is formed, changes in dispatch technology); provided however, that any changes to the
formulas shall be consistent with the underlying intent.
Dated this jjday of IPR-
017
SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE ECTION DISTRICT NO. 1
BY:
By:
21
By:
Packet Pg. 317
9.3.a
Approv j to form:
By.
_ (fiz?
❑isthc om
CITY DP EDMONDS
By:
Approved as to form:
By:
City Attomey
22
Attest:
r
a
Packet Pg. 318
9.3.a
►ARMi
Approved as to farm:
By:
District Attorney
CITY O INION1
By: Attest: -
Approved as to form:
By:
City Attorney
22
Packet Pg. 319
9.3.a
EXHIBIT A
ICI: VITIl:T-"1:►1WAN 9]4Ia411►14;1=19311t97.7
1 In consultation with the City, the District Fire Chief shall designate an individual to serve as
City Fire Marshal, and ensure the assignment of necessary personnel to support the needs
and functions of the Fire Marshal as specified in the International Fire Code, City ordinances,
and other fire service -related national, state, and local standards adopted and/or followed by
the City-
2- As employees of the District, the City Fire Marshal and Fire Inspector shall perform all of
the customary roles and duties associated with their positions: fire prevention; fire
investigation; code development, application, interpretation, and enforcement, permit
processes; plans review; records retention, response to public records requests and other
legal summons; fire and life safety public education; and other duties as assigned in the City
and throughout the jurisdictional areas served by the District.
3. The City agrees to pay fifty percent (50%) of the annual personnel cost (wages and benefits)
of {providing one (1) Fire Marshal, and one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the annual
personnel cost (wages and benefits) of providing one (1) Fire Inspector.
4. The City Engine Company Inspection Program shall be maintained in its current form unless
modified by mutual agreement of the parties.
5. The City agrees to provide office space, office furnishings, computers, fax, copier,
printer, telephone landlines, and postal support for the use of the Fire Marshal and Fire
Inspector in Edmonds City Hall,
6. All fees collected for Fire Permits/Special use, Fire Plan Checks, and Construction
Inspections shall be retained by the City.
23
Packet Pg. 320
9.3.a
I WA MIM:1
USE OF FIRE STATIONS
For as long as the Restated ILA remains in effect, the City hereby grants to the District exclusive
use and possession of premises for use as fire stations on the terms and conditions described
below.
Three Fire Stations. The City shall provide use of the three fire stations located at 8429 -
196'h Street Southwest, 275 - 6'h Avenue North, and 23009 - 881h Avenue West in the
City of Edmonds, Washington, PROVIDED THAT the City reserves the right to substitute
these stations with new stations as further described in the Restated ILA.
2. Compliance with Applicable Codes. The fire stations provided by the City shall be
compliant with all applicable codes, including without limitation, the applicable provisions
of the Edmonds City Code and applicable Washington State Standards and regulations
(currently WAC 296-305-06501 et seq.).
3. No Use Charge. No use charge shall be assessed to the District. The parties agree that
the rights and contractual obligations contained within the Restated ILA constitute
adequate consideration for District use and possession of the premises.
4. Utilities and Services. The City shall ensure the supply of all utilities necessary for the
use of the premises, to include: water, sewer, garbage, heating, air conditioning,
electrical power, telephone and information tech noIogylsystem data lines.
4.1
Cost for Utilities. The District shall be responsible for the cost of all utilities used
on the premises, except for those utilities supplied by the City. if a separate meter is
unavailable for any utility that the District is responsible to pay, then the cost shall be
equitably apportioned to the District in a manner agreeable to both parties.
5. Conditions and Repairs. The City agrees to keep the premises and the buildings in good
condition and repair as reasonably requested by the District for use as fire stations
during the term of this Restated ILA at its own expense. The City shall at all times keep
the buildings suitably equipped as fully functioning and operational fire stations.
6. Improvements, Upon District request, the City shall install such reasonable
improvements as are normal and customary in connection with District use of premises
set forth herein. The City shall pay for such improvements.
24
Packet Pg. 321
9.3.a
7. Removal of Personal Property Upon Termination of Agreement. Upon termination of this
Restated ILA, the District shall remove all non -fixed equipment and personal property
placed upon the premises by the District during the period of this Restated ILA unless
those items are subject to repurchase by the City as provided in the Restated ILA. Any
personal property not removed from the fire stations within 60 days after termination of
this Restated ILA shall become the property of the City.
8. Maintenance of Premises.
8.1 Maintenance of the buildings, the premises and all improvements thereon is the
sole responsibility of the City. Such responsibility includes without limitation, repair of
walls, floors, ceiling, interior doors, interior and exterior windows and fixtures, sidewalks,
landscaping, driveways, parking areas, walkways, building exterior and signs.
8.2 City shall maintain in good condition the structural parts of the fire stations and
exterior buildings and structures which shall include emergency lighting, fences,
enclosures, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, foundations, bearing and exterior wails,
subflooring and roof, roof -mounted structures, unexposed electrical, plumbing and
sewerage systems, including those portions of the systems lying outside the premises,
exterior doors, apparatus bay doors, window frames, gutters, downspouts on the
building and the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system servicing the premises.
8.3 All janitorial services for routine cleaning of the buildings shall be the
responsibility of the District.
8.4 All grounds maintenance of the premises, to include fencing, enclosures, gates,
landscape, stairs, rails, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drains, and water retention structures
shall be the responsibility of the City.
9. Insurance and Financial Security.
9.1 The parties agree that the City shall not be responsible to the District for any
property loss or damage done to the District's personal property occasioned by reason
of any fire, storm or other casualty whatsoever beyond the control of the City. The
District shall insure its personal property located on the premises.
9.2 The District shall not be responsible to the City for any loss or damage to the
buildings or premises that is not caused by the sole negligence of the District. The City
shall insure the premises and buildings against such loss or damage. The District shall
repair any damage to the buildings caused by its sole negligence
9.3 In the event of a casualty loss that renders the premises reasonably unsuitable
for the use set forth herein, the City shall provide the District with another suitable
location(s) for the District until such time as the premises have been repaired. The cost
25
Packet Pg. 322
9.3.a
of repairs, and the costs of relocation between the premises and the substitute
locations), shall be borne by the City.
10. Indemnification for Environmental Claims: Each party shall indemnify and hold the other
party harmless from any and all claims, demands, judgments,
orders, or damages resulting from the release of hazardous substances on the premises
caused in whole or in part by the activity of the indemnifying party, its agents,
employees, licensees or invitees. The term "hazardous substances" shall mean any
substance heretofore of hereafter designated as hazardous under the Resource
Conservation and RecoveryAct, 42 U.S.C.Sec. 6901 et sea.; the Federal Water
Pollution Ccntroi Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1257 et seg.; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
2001 et_ _ seg.; the Comprehensive Environmentai Response Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9501 et. Seq.; or the Hazardous Waste Cleanup -Model
Toxic Control Act, RCW 70.105D all as amended and subject to all regulations
promulgated thereunder.
11. Indemnification and Hold Harmless: Each party agrees to protect,
save, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the other party, its officers,
employees and agents from any and all demands, claims, judgments, or
liability for loss or damage arising as a result of accidents, injuries, or other
occurrences on the premises, occasioned by either the negligent or willful
conduct of the indemnifying party, regardless of who the injured party may be.
12. Termination of Agreement. Upon termination of this Restated ILA or any extension
thereof, whether by expiration of the stated term or sooner termination thereon as
provided in the Restated ILA, the District shall surrender to City the premises peaceably
and quietly.
13, Default and Remedies.
13.1 Failure of the City to perform repairs or maintenance
to the buildings or premises as described in 8 above within a reasonable
period after notice by the District shall constitute a Material Breach under the terms of
this Restated ILA. For purposes of this Restated ILA, a reasonable period shall be
construed to mean five (5) business days, for repairs and maintenance that could
feasibly be performed in such time.
13.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if the nature of the repair constitutes an
operational, safety, and/or security emergency which materially affects District use of the
premises or building for their intended purpose, the City shall perform the repair as soon
as possible regardless of the day or hour and no later than forty-eight (48) hours after
receiving notification from the District.
13.3 If the City fails to timely perform the repair or maintenance under the conditions
described above after notification, the District may have such repair or maintenance
performed at City expense. The cost of the repair or maintenance shall be forwarded to
the City, which shall pay the cost within thirty (30) days after notice. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary, the City shall not be in breach of any repair or maintenance
26
Packet Pg. 323
9.3.a
obligation herein if the repair cannot be completed within the time set forth herein so
long as the City is diligently pursuing completion of the repairs.
27
Packet Pg. 324
EXHIBIT C
CONTRACT PAYMENT
9.3.a
Station Costing Model
Station Personnel (FTEs)
FTE Battalion Chiefs
FTE Captains
FTE Firefighter/Paramedics
FTE Firefighters
Firefighter/Paramedics-12 Hour
Firefighters-12 Hour
2017
5ta 16, 17, 2❑ All Cross Staffed\ALS
Average Wage &
Benefits per
FTE Position
2.424 1 186,248
13.746
161,593
18.000
147,936
9,492
133,343
147,936
133,343
Total Positions 41.239
FTE Factor 4.582
Station Staffing 9,600
a
ADD: Administrative Overhead 10%
Maintenance & Operations 10%
Apparatus Replacement 2017
TOTAL SUPPRESSION/EMS CONTRACT COST
2017 Esperance AV 565,469,115 Esperance Est. Property Tax Revenue
ADD:
Additional Staff Paid Separately by the Contracting Agency
Fire Chief
Assistant Chief
Deputy Chief
❑epartment Manager
Executive Assistant
Manager
Professional/5pecialist
Admin Assistant
Technicians
Fire Marshal
Deputy Fire Marshal jinspector]
Count
254,227
213,009
199,030
-
-
-
-
-
0.500
203,408
1.250
169,958
TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS
TOTAL FIRE/EMS SERVICES COST
Cost of living increases based on CPI-W, not Comps
Total Labor Costs
per Position
451,465
2,221,260
2,662,854
1,265,692
270
127
127
062
23
(1,11 ?,ISO)
7,114,436
..7
101,704
212,448
L4,152
Q
28
Packet Pg. 325
9.3.a
EXHIBIT D
APPARATUS REPLACEMENT
29
Q
Packet Pg. 326
9.3.a
EXHIBIT E
Definitions Subject to Administrative Amendments Pursuant to Article 19.5
1. NEIGHBORING UNIT UTILIZATION FACTOR. Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor or NUUF
is the method used by the parties to determine how much time Units associated with one
jurisdiction are Assigned to calls in another jurisdiction. Because the District provides service
across a number of different cities and unincorporated areas, and because those various
jurisdictions make payments to the District for those services, Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor
is relevant even where a District Unit is dispatched to a call that is still within an area served by
the District but outside of the normal area served by that Unit.
NUUF is determined by converting the following fraction to a decimal rounded to the
nearest thousandths:
l►Loll] M
total seconds that non -Edmonds Units are Assigned to calls in Edmonds over the
previous calendar year
total seconds that Edmonds Units are Assigned to calls outside of Edmonds over
the previous calendar year
Formula_ Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of seconds
that non -Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Edmonds (not including Esperance, unless
Esperance is annexed) over the previous calendar year. The denominator shall equal the total
number of seconds that Edmonds Units are assigned to calls outside of Edmonds (Esperance
shall be considered "outside of Edmonds" for the purpose of this calculation unless Esperance
is annexed) over the previous calendar year.
Calculation: Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor shall be calculated separately for the City of
Lynnwood (stations 14 and 15 combined) and any non. -Edmonds unit within the District, e.g.,
Station 19, for as long as Lynnwood and the District are not part of the same Regional Fire
Authority.
Determination of Whether NUUF is in Balance: Unlike the Unit Utilization Factor, the NUUF
need only be calculated on an annual basis after the completion of each calendar year. NUUF
shall be considered balanced if the NUUF falls somewhere between 0.900 and 1.1 00. For
example; if Lynnwood's Units are assigned to calls in Edmonds that total 1,000,000 seconds
during a calendar year, and Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Lynnwood that total
1,095,000 seconds during a calendar year, the NUUF for that year would equal 0.913 and would
be considered in balance. If, on the other hand, the numerator were to remain the same; but the
30
Packet Pg. 327
9.3.a
Edmonds Units are assigned to calls in Lynnwood that total 880,000 seconds, the NUUF for that
year would equal 1.136 and would be considered out of balance.
Special Calculation for 2017: Since this Restated ILA takes effect after January 1, 2017, the
2017 NUUF shall be calculated proportionally for that portion of 2017 following the Effective
Date.
2. TRANSPORT BALANCE FACTOR. Transport Balance Factor (TBF) is the method used by
the parties to determine how frequently Units associated with one jurisdiction transport patients
resulting from calls in another jurisdiction. Because the District provides service across a
number of different cities and unincorporated areas, and because Edmonds is entitled to receive
transport fee revenue for all District transports resulting from calls in Edmonds regardless of
whether the transport is performed by an Edmonds Unit or a non -Edmonds Unit, Transport
Balance Factor is relevant to whether transport fees are being distributed in an equitable
manner. TBF is determined by converting the following fraction to a decimal rounded to the
nearest thousandths:
TBF =
number of transports that non -Edmonds Units provide from calls in Edmonds
over 6 months
number of transports that Edmonds Units provide from calls outside of Edmonds
over 6 months
Formula Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of
transports that non -Edmonds Units provide from calls in Edmonds (not including
Esperance, unless Esperance is annexed) over the previous six-month period. When an
Edmonds Unit and a non -Edmonds Unit both respond to a call in Edmonds and the non -
Edmonds Unit transports the patient, that call may not be counted in the numerator,
even if the Edmonds Unit responded with a non -transport vehicle. The denominator shall
equal the total number of transports that Edmonds Units provide from calls outside of
Edmonds (Esperance shall be considered "outside of Edmonds' for the purpose of this
calculation unless Esperance is annexed) over the previous six-month period.
Determination of Whether TBF is in Balance: TBF shall be considered "balanced" if the
TBF €ails somewhere between 0.900 and 1.100. While TBF is intended to be analyzed
by looking back over the previous six months, during 2017, a special quarterly TBF shall
be calculated that looks at TBF on a quarterly basis and adjusts the calculation method
accordingly. The quarterly analysis shall be performed beginning with the second quarter
31
Packet Pg. 328
9.3.a
of 2017. The quarterly TBF is intended to give the District the ability to analyze the effect
of minor dispatch adjustments before TBF could result in a Threshold Notice being
issued.
3. UNIT UTILIZATION FACTOR
UUF =
Unit Utilization Factor or UUF is the method used by the parties to determine how busy a
particular Unit is. Unit Utilization Factor is determined by converting the following fraction
to a decimal rounded to the nearest thousandths:
number of seconds a Unit is Assigned to all calls over the previous twelve-month
period
31,536,000
Formula Explanation: In this fraction, the numerator shall equal the total number of
seconds a Unit is Assigned to all calls over the previous twelve-month period. The
denominator shall always be 31,536,000 (the number of seconds in a twelve-month
period). Because this contract initially contemplates exactly one Unit at each station, with
each station having multiple apparatus types, the total number of seconds a Unit is
Assigned to all calls shall be the total for all apparatus types used by that Unit. The
activity of the Battalion Chief and Medical Services Officer shall not be counted in the
numerator for any unit. For example, if, over the previous twelve-month period, Engine
20 was Assigned to calls totaling 72,089 seconds, and Ladder 20 was Assigned to calls
totaling 229,320 seconds, and Medic 20 was Assigned to calls totaling 4,008,640
seconds, then the calculation for UUF would be made as follows:
4,310,049
UUF = = 0.1366 (rounded to 0.137)
31,536,000
Frequency of Calculation: Unit Utilization Factor shall be calculated as soon as possible
after the end of each quarter, looking back over the previous twelve-month period.
While UUF is intended to be analyzed by looking back over the previous twelve months,
during the each of the last three quarters of 2017, a special UUF shall be calculated that
looks at UUF on a quarterly basis and adjusts the calculation method accordingly. The
quarterly analysis during 2017 is intended to keep data from the service delivery model
prior to the Effective Date from contaminating the data applicable to the Restated ILA.
32
Packet Pg. 329
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
12425 Meridian Ave S, Everett WA 98208
tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249
www.southsnofire.org
June 2, 2021
City of Edmonds
Attention: Mayor Mike Nelson
Edmonds City Hall
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Threshold Notice Pursuant to Revised and Restated Interlocal Agreement
for Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Dear Mayor Nelson:
I have been asked by the Governing Board of South County Fire to reach out to you in
connection with the above referenced Interlocal Agreement (the "ILA") which was
originally entered into between the City and Snohomish County Fire District No. 1.
The ILA was subsequently assigned from Fire District No. 1 to South County Fire on
October 1, 2017, upon formation of the regional fire protection service authority.
The ILA identifies two factors that are intended to remain in balance, i.e., within a
10% variance. These two factors are designated as the Neighboring Unit Utilization
Factor (NUUF) and the Transport Balance Factor (TBF).
As explained in Exhibit E to the ILA, the NUUF is used to determine how much time
Units associated with one jurisdiction (e.g., South County Fire) are assigned to calls in
another jurisdiction (e.g., the City). The TBF is used to determine how frequently a
Unit associated with one jurisdiction transports patients resulting from calls in
another jurisdiction. Exhibit E to the ILA contains formulas for calculating the NUUF
and TBF. Both factors are considered balanced if the calculation falls between .900
and 1.100.
Pages 22 and 25 of South County Fire's 2020 Annual Report that we presented to you
and City Council on February 23, 2021 showed that the NUUF and TBF are both out of
balance. Our most recent figures indicate that the NUUF is 157% for Units from
Mountlake Terrace and 252% for Units from Lynnwood, and the TBF is 1.135.
Whenever either of these factors is unbalanced, South County Fire is required to issue
a "Threshold Notice" to the City to start the process of evaluating potential Remedial
Measures to bring these factors back into balance. Please consider this letter the
"Threshold Notice" contemplated by Section 2.2.2 of the ILA. This same Section of the
SERVING SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD • MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
9.3.b
Packet Pg. 330
9.3.b
RE: Threshold Notice Pursuant to Revised and Restated Interlocal Agreement
for Fire and Emergency Medical Services
ILA contemplates that South County Fire and the City will meet within thirty (30)
days of issuing this Threshold Notice to determine the following:
a. Methodologies intended to re -balance the NUUF and TBF. Remedial Measures
may include, but shall not be limited to, changes to the staffing mix and/or
levels, adding one or more Units, changing fire response plans within the
computer -aided dispatching (CAD) model, and/or implementing other service
changes; and
b. Adjusting the Contract Payment to account for South County Fire's increased
cost in employing the selected Remedial Measures.
Our staff has been evaluating potential Remedial Measures, and we intend to forward
recommendations to you in advance of our meeting. I would also like to proceed with
scheduling a meeting with you to discuss our suggestions on potential Remedial
Measures and associated cost impacts. Since the ILA provides for this meeting to be
held within thirty (30) days of this notice, we should schedule this meeting no later
than July 2, 2021. Please let me know your availability.
After this meeting occurs, the ILA provides the City with a ninety (90) day period to
select Remedial Measures. We will, of course, remain available during that time, as
needed, to assist the City in its decision -making process.
We look forward to working with you to bring the NUUF and TBF into balance. In the
meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Thad Hovis
Fire Chief
Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 331
9.3.c
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
12425 Meridian Ave 5., Everett WA 98208
tel (425) 551-1200 • fax (425) 551-1249
www.southsnofire.org
June 16, 2021
City of Edmonds
Attention: Mayor Mike Nelson
Edmonds City Hall
1215th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 9820
SUBJECT: Proposed Remedial Measures Pursuant to Section 2.2.3 of the Revised and
Restated Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services (ILA)
Dear Mayor Nelson:
This letter is written in follow up to the Threshold Notice provided to the City of Edmonds
(the "City") on June 2, 2021. Section 2.2.3 of the ILA indicates that SCF will identify
various Remedial Measures which are likely to expeditiously achieve a balancing of the
Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor (NUUF) and Transport Balance Factor (TBF). We have
a meeting scheduled on June 30, 2021 to discuss potential remedial measures.
This letter is written to satisfy South County Fire's obligations under Section 2.2.3 of the
ILA and to make our meeting on June 30 more productive. We hope the information
herein will be useful to you as your team prepares for this meeting.
In order to evaluate which Remedial Measures should be employed, we used 2019 (pre -
pandemic) response data and evaluated the following:
• All responses within the City
• Responses of City units outside the City
• Non -City units responding within the City
• Day vs. night responses
• Non -City units transporting in the City
• City units transporting outside the City
We are happy to provide the full accounting of this information in advance of our meeting
if you would like to review the raw data.
We believe that the Remedial Measures most likely to expeditiously achieve a balancing
of the NUUF and TBF consist of the following:
SERVING SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY • BRIER • EDMONDS • LYNNWOOD • MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
Packet Pg. 332
9.3.c
SUBJECT: Proposed Remedial Measures Pursuant to Section 2.2.3 of the Revised and
Restated Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services (ILA)
1. Add a 24-hour transport unit. The exact station of operation would be at the
discretion of the Fire Chief, as would be his/her determination as to the best use
of resources for response and to fulfill terms of the ILA. This additional unit will
add depth to the City's service area coverage and will put less reliance on stations
from outside the City. Station 19 (Mountlake Terrace) and Stations 14 & 15
(Lynnwood) are stations that cover responses into the City's service area. This will
positively affect the Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood NUUF and the TBF.
2. Increase daytime (0800-2000 hours) response capability by adding a 12-hour
peak activity unit (PAU) within the City. We evaluated the data and considered
other factors:
• Support stations (second, third, and fourth due)
• Proximity to Puget Sound
• Lack of Fire/EMS support from the West (Puget Sound) and South
(Woodway)
• Effective force/weight of response
We recommend that the PAU be assigned at one of the City fire stations. The PAU may be
located at an alternate site at the discretion of the Fire Chief and his/her determination as
to the best use of resources for response and to fulfill the terms of the ILA. This PAU will
help address the lack of Fire/EMS support from both the West and South. It would also
allow the current City fire stations to have better reliability, be less reliant on the support
from the stations located in Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace, and help bring both the
NUUF and TBF into balance.
The cost associated with these changes would be as follows:
The current cost of the ILA in the budget, which includes an estimated COLA for labor in
2021 (which still needs to be negotiated) is $9,014,750. The cost of adding the 24-hour
transport unit, which would take staffing from nine (9) to eleven (11) FTEs is $1,501,212.
The cost of adding the 12-hour PAU would be an additional $750,606. These cost
calculations are based on the current staffing cost formula in the ILA, which uses station
staffing as the basis with M&O and administrative overhead added. See the table below
for a breakdown of cost:
� 2021
Current 9 FTEs 11 FTEs 12 FTEs
ILA Cost $ 9,014,750 $ 10,515,962 $ 11,266,568
City cost increase $ 1,501,212$ 2,251,818
Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 333
9.3.c
SUBJECT: Proposed Remedial Measures Pursuant to Section 2.2.3 of the Revised and
Restated Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services (ILA)
Edmonds Current
MART %[ 1G
Proposed Remedial Measures
If you have any questions about these proposed Remedial Measures in advance of our
meeting, please feel free to contact me.
We look forward to meeting with you on June 30, 2021.
Sincerely,
r
Thad Hovis
Fire Chief
Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 334
9.3.d
/nc. ISCP
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY HALL - THIRD FLOOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0247 - fax (425) 771-0252
www.edmondswa.gov
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
September 14, 2021
Chief Thad Hovis
South County Fire
12425 Meridian Avenue South
Everett, WA 98208
By email to: thovis@southsnofire.org
MIKE NELSON
MAYOR
RE: Request for Extension of Negotiation Deadline Under Interlocal Agreement
Dear Chief Hovis:
As you know, we have been meeting regularly with representatives of the South County Fire
RFA ever since the City received the RFA's June 2, 2021 Threshold Notice pursuant to the terms
of our ILA. The ILA contemplated that 120 days would be a sufficiently long period for the City
to designate Remedial Measures. Under the ILA, if the City fails to designate one or more
Remedial Measures by the 120-day Negotiation Deadline, such failure would be deemed a
Material Breach.
As mayor, I do not have the unilateral authority to execute an amendment to the ILA
incorporating the City's designated Remedial Measures. So, I will need to work with the city
council to gain their approval. But I can commit to you that I will be proposing to the city
council that the City agree to amend the ILA to add Remedial Measures that include either an
additional 24-hour two person unit, or two additional peak activity units. While I cannot
guarantee city council approval of these Remedial Measures, I hope that my past opposition to
decreasing service levels persuades you that I will lobby for these Remedial Measures in
earnest.
Having said that, I would like to have additional time to work with the city council before
formally designating the City's Remedial Measures and without triggering a Material Breach
under the ILA. Therefore, I'm requesting that the RFA grant the City a 30-day extension of the
Negotiation Deadline in the ILA. This extra time would hopefully allow me to convince the city
council that Remedial Measures along the lines of what I have outlined above are the best next
step for the City's relationship with the RFA.
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Packet Pg. 335
9.3.d
Please let me know as soon as possible whether the RFA agrees to this extension request. In the
absence of such an extension, the City would still make its designation of Remedial Measures in
a timely manner, but my ability to deliver an amended ILA could be compromised by not giving
the city council adequate time to digest these proposed changes.
Kind regards,
�,/ikeNelson
Mayor
Cc: Jeff Taraday
Packet Pg. 336
9.3.e
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
12425 Meridian Ave S., Everett WA 98208
tel (425) 551-1200 • fox (425) 551-1249
www.southsnofire.org
September 17, 2021
Edmonds City Hall
Attn: Mayor Mike Nelson
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: 30-Day Extension
Mayor Nelson:
We received your September 14, 2021 letter in which you requested that South County Fire grant the
City a 30-day extension in which to identify a Remedial Measure as contemplated by Section 2.2.3 of the
Revised and Restated Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services (the "ILA"). The
current deadline to identify a Remedial Measure is September 30, 2021. Accordingly, a 30-day
extension would result in a revised deadline of October 30, 2021. Since that day falls on a Saturday, the
actual deadline would be November 1, 2021.
As I indicated during our meeting on September 9, 2021 the authority to grant an extension under the
ILA rests with the Governing Board. I have now had an opportunity to discuss your request with the
Governing Board. The Board appreciates your efforts to date in discussing the information we have
provided and working through the issues with our team. The Board also understands the realities of the
situation, i.e., that you need the support of the City Council in order to execute an amendment to the
ILA to incorporate a Remedial Measure.
The Governing Board has authorized me to communicate that South County Fire will agree to a 30-day
extension. In consideration of granting the City's request, the Governing Board requests that the City
Council allow me and Chief Eastman the opportunity to briefly address the City Council. The purpose of
this would be to make a short presentation on the issues that led to South County Fire's issuance of the
Threshold Notice and the Remedial Measures that we have proposed. We would, of course, be willing
to take questions from Council members at the conclusion of our presentation.
We trust that this request will be looked upon favorably, and we look forward to hearing from you as to
when we might be able to address the City Council.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
Thad Hovis, Fire Chief
Packet Pg. 337
1
9.3.f
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT by and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1, a Washington municipal corporation (the
"District") and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington city (the "City") is for the
provision of fire and emergency medical services (EMS).
WHEREAS, a consolidated Fire and EMS service, by a single vendor or through
a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority (RFA), has recently gained support of most
elected officials in Southwest Snohomish County;
WHEREAS, the City and District agree that a long-term agreement between the
City and the District for fire and emergency medical services is beneficial to the City and
District and their stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, the City and District have a long-term relationship for providing
Mutual and Automatic Aid toward the delivery of fire and emergency medical service;
and
WHEREAS, the City desires to contract with the District to provide fire and
emergency medical services to the City and the District desires to so provide these
services; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City are authorized, pursuant to Chapter 39.34 of
the Revised Code of Washington, to enter into Interlocal Agreements which allow the
District and the City to cooperate with each other to provide high quality services to the
public in the most efficient manner possible.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
contained herein, the City and District hereto agree as follows:
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 1 of 21 November 2, 2009
® SJ "7
-a2,o/a -/v de-70,
Packet Pg. 338
9.3.f
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Services Provided. The District shall provide all services necessary for fire
suppression, emergency medical service, hazardous materials response,
technical rescue, and disaster response to a service area covering the corporate
limits of the City of Edmonds as are provided by the City of Edmonds. In addition,
the District shall provide support services including, but not limited to, fire
marshal, fire prevention and life safety, public education, public information, and
fleet maintenance, payroll and finances, human resources, and legal and risk
management pertaining to the operations and delivery of fire department
services.
1.2 Training, Education, and Career Development. The District will provide training
and education to all firefighter and emergency medical service personnel in
accordance with State, County and local requirements. Furthermore, the District
will offer professional development and educational and training opportunities for
unrepresented and civilian employees.
1.3 _City Fire Chief. The District's Fire Chief shall be designated the City Fire Chief for
purposes of statutory provisions, regulations and the Edmonds City Code.
1.4 District Fire Chief Desi Hates Fire Marshal. The District Fire Chief shall designate
an individual to serve as City Fire Marshal, and shall assign necessary personnel
to support the functions and needs of the Fire Marshal as mutually agreed to and
partially funded by the City (See Exhibit A),
2. STANDARDS FOR SERVICES/STAFFING
E
2.1 Battalion Chief. The City Battalion Chief unit shall be staffed with a minimum of
a
o
one (1) Battalion Chief twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
o
The District agrees to provide Incident Command response for all emergency
N
76
incidents twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
c
2.2 Fire Station Staffing. Fire Station 16 shall be staffed twenty-four (24) hours per
L .
2
day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire captain and two (2)
i
firefighter/emergency medical technicians or firefighter/paramedics. Fire Station
c
17 shall be staffed twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week with
U
a minimum of one (1) fire captain, and two (2) firefighter/emergency medical
technicians or firefighter/paramedics. Fire Station 20 shall be staffed twenty-four
(24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week with a minimum of one (1) fire
captain and two (2) firefighter/emergency medical technicians or
a
firefighter/paramedics.
2.3 Paramedic unit. The City Medic unit wm b-e sta ffea witn a rniniiiiurn o
firefighter/paramedics as currently provided.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 2 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 339
9.3.f
2.4 Level of Service. The District shall provide the same level of service as currently
provided by the City, which is consistent with the City response objectives per the
City's Chapter 35.103 RCW Fire Department Compliance Plan (previously SHB
Compliance Plan 1756) approved by the Edmonds City Council on November 28,
2006. If these response objectives are amended to provide an increased level of
service, the District will make reasonable efforts to meet them, provided that
funding is adequate.
2.5 Annual Reporting. The District agrees to annually report to the City in accordance
with the City's RCW 35.103 Fire Department Compliance Plan.
2.6 Staffing Exceptions. Exceptions to on duty staffing levels may occur in unusual
circumstances such as where there is a significant emergency event(s) in the
District, the City, or other areas which are under a contract for service or
auto/mutual aid agreement with the District. Unusual circumstances and
significant emergencies that affect personnel, equipment, infrastructure and/or
may include, but are not limited to, natural or man-made disasters, a significant
incident, or series of escalating incidents significant to a specific location, multiple
locations, and/or with area or region -wide impact.
2.7 Criteria -Based 9-1-1 Dispatch. It is understood and agreed by the City and
District that the dispatch of units during emergencies is determined by criteria -
based dispatch protocols of the dispatch centers, and automatic and/or mutual
aid agreements. Nothing herein shall require the District to respond first within
the City as opposed to other areas served by the District. The City and District
recognize that responses to emergencies shall be determined by the District
based upon dispatch protocols, the District's operational judgment, and without
regard to where the emergencies occur.
2.8 Level of Service Changes. During the term of this Agreement, service level
o
changes may be mandated that are beyond the control of either party.
N
Additionally, either party may desire to change the service level, including but not
c
limited to, those services identified in Section 1 Scope of Services and Section 2
T
Standards for Services/Staffing. When a service level change is mandated by
0
law, adopted by the Edmonds City Council as the City's response objectives as
required by RCW 35.103, or is mutually agreed to by the parties, the City and the
District will renegotiate the contract payment at the request of either party.
U
Provided that before renegotiation, the District must notify the Union, IAFF 1997,
of the alleged change requiring a change in the level of service and thereafter
negotiate with the Union the impact/affects of such change on the terms and
conditions of employment of bargaining unit personnel.
cc
a
2.9 Response Time Questions. In the event that response times should
consistently exceed the current level of City services, the District Fire
Chief and City Mayor, or their designees, shall meet and confer to address
the cause and potential remedies. In no circumstance will a meet and
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 3 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 340
9.3.f
confer process be prejudicial to the rights of the parties under this
agreement, or upon the Union, IAFF 1997, to bargain any and all
impacts/effects relating to any remedy incident to the increased response
time.
3. USE OF CITY FIRE STATIONS
3.1 Use of City Fire Stations. The City shall retain ownership of existing City fire
L
stations. The City shall provide three City fire stations or replacement fire stations
for use by the District during the term of this Agreement and as described in
Exhibit B. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Agreement and
c
Exhibit B, the provisions of Exhibit B shall control with respect to fire stations and
U
fixtures contained therein.
c
3.2 Fire Station Furnishings. The District shall make a one-time, lump sum purchase
of fire station furnishings that are not built-in or fixed, and consumable and
3
disposable supplies within 30 days after the Commencement Date of this
Agreement. The District shall accept ownership of furnishings that are not built-in
or fixed in "as is" condition but only if the individual furnishing or ensemble are in
a condition acceptable to the District.
a
3.3 Purchase Price. The purchase price for furnishings that are not built-in or fixed
In
was determined by applying a 15-year depreciation schedule to the estimated
U
purchase prices of individual furnishings or ensembles. The purchase price for
the estimated consumable and disposable supplies that will be in the fire stations
on the Commencement Date of this Agreement is based on the acquisition price.
E
The purchase price for furnishings that are not built-in or fixed with appropriate
=
depreciation applied, and the price of consumable and disposable supplies is
E
identified in Exhibit J.
4. ANNUAL CONTRACT AND TRANSPORT FEES PAYMENT TERMS
0
o
4.1 Annual Contract Payment. The City shall annually pay the District a sum referred
to as the Contract Payment for the services provided herein. The amount of the
Contract Payment shall be determined according to Exhibit C. The Contract
Payment shall be paid in equal quarterly installments by January 15, April 15,
July 15 and September 15. Failure to pay quarterly installments in a timely
manner shall be considered a material breach as defined in the Definitions
section of this Agreement.
4.2 Contract Payment Adjustment. The Contract Payment shall be adjusted each
year no later than September 1.
4.3 Annual Percent Increase Based on Labor Costs. The District shall submit to the
City an annual revision to Exhibit C of this Agreement, which shall identify the
Contract Payment for the ensuing year(s). The cost of City Station Personnel
identified in Exhibit C shall be adjusted as changes occur by the percentage
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 4 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 341
9.3.f
increase in labor costs resulting from the negotiated labor agreement between
the District and IAFF Local 1997; provided that the personnel cost shall increase
from one labor agreement to the next no more than the greater of (i) the median
increase in compensation of comparable fire agencies, (ii) the increase in the
Consumer Price Index as measured by the CPI-W Seattle -Tacoma -Bremerton
metropolitan area for the 12-month period ending June 30, or (iii) the percentage
increase in compensation awarded by an interest arbitrator. The phrase
"comparable fire agencies" shall refer to a list of comparables agreed upon by the
Employer and Union through the collective bargaining process or the
comparables accepted by an interest arbitrator in an interest arbitration
proceeding.
4.4 Adjustment Date Not Met. If the labor agreement between the District and IAFF
Local 1997 has not been finalized by December 31 of the year prior to the
upcoming contract for service year, the District Station Personnel costs and the
District Indirect Costs will be adjusted upon execution of the labor agreement but
will be retroactive to January 1 and paid by the City within 30 days of execution
of the labor agreement.
4.5 Annual Indirect Operating Cost Adjustments. The District shall adjust the
Contract Payment costs consisting of Indirect Operating Costs determined by the
following:
• Overhead which shall be 10 percent of the cost of the City Station Personnel
cost;
• Station equipment/maintenance/operation, which shall be 10 percent of the
City Station Personnel cost;
• Fire Marshal allocation at 75 percent of wage and benefit cost of the position,
and Fire Inspector at 100 percent of wage and benefit cost of the position
(See Exhibit A); and
• Apparatus replacement costs based upon the District Apparatus Replacement
Schedule — City Rolling Stock designated as Exhibit D.
The District Indirect Costs identified in Exhibit C shall then be adjusted based
upon the specified percentage of the increased cost of City Station Personnel.
The total of the City Station Personnel cost and the Indirect Costs shall be the
Contract Payment for the ensuing year.
4.6 Annexation. The City's Urban Growth Area does contain property within the
boundaries of the District; however, this provision shall not apply to the
annexation of "islands" as referenced in RCW 35,13.182. Should the City seek to
annex portions of the District, the District will not oppose the annexation. In the
event the City annexes portions of the District, the Contract Payment shall be
increased and shall be calculated by applying the then current District levy rate
and emergency medical services levy rate to the annexed property. The
increased amount shall be added to the Contract Payment as a base for
calculations in future years.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 5 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 342
9.3.f
4.7 Significant Change in Cost of Providing Services. In the event that there is
a material and significant increase or decrease in the costs of providing
services under this Agreement or an increase in such costs as a result of
a legislative or policy decision that is exempt from the dispute resolution
provisions of Sections 18.1 and 18.2, then at the request of either party,
the City and District shall renegotiate this Agreement and the Contract
Payment to fully compensate the District for actual costs incurred
according to the methodology in Exhibit C. In the event that the City and
District are unable to successfully renegotiate this Agreement through
good faith negotiations, then the Dispute Resolution provision of this
Agreement shall apply.
4.8 EMS Transport Fees. The District understands and acknowledges that the City
presently charges fees for basic life support and advanced life support transports
occurring within the City. As the EMS service provider, the District shall receive
and collect all Transport Fees in accordance with District policy for transports that
originate within the City limits. The District shall remit these amounts, less an
administration fee not to exceed the actual cost of collection, to the City
according to the quarterly schedule in Section 4.1. The District shall be
responsible for, and agrees to prepare and provide in a timely fashion, all
necessary or requested documentation and/or reports to the City.
4.9 Creating Unfunded Mandates. The City shall not create any unfunded mandates
for increased service by the District without fully compensating the District for
actual costs incurred.
5. CITY EMPLOYEES
5.1 All City Employees Become District Employees. The District shall become the
employer of all City Fire Department employees, including administrative and
unrepresented uniformed, IAFF members, SEIU members, and civilian
employees of the City Fire Department on the Commencement Date of this
Agreement between the City and the District. The City and District recognize that
during the term of the Interlocal Agreement, the uniformed City Fire Department
employees will be integrated into Local 1997 of the IAFF. Labor -represented
employees will continue in their current positions and job assignments as
recognized by the District, or as agreed through collective bargaining prior to the
implementation of this Agreement. Administrative uniformed employees may be
reassigned to job positions that meet the needs of consolidating the two
organizations. Any civilian City Fire Department employee who is reassigned to a
new position shall be entitled to wages and benefits consistent with, or greater
than, the current wages and benefits provided by the City for such employee's
former position. City personnel shall receive the District's compensation levels
and benefits as of the Commencement Date of this Agreement.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 6 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 343
9.3.f
5.2 Seniority and Rank. Any IAFF member of the City Fire Department shall assume
employment with the District with complete seniority and rank intact. No
additional probationary periods or testing shall be required of any current IAFF
member under the Employees of Merged or Contracted Organization's article of
the Local 1997 Collective Labor Agreement. For purposes of seniority, the "hire
date" of a City Fire Department employee will be the earliest such employee's
hire date(s) with Fire District 1, Medic 7, or the City of Edmonds.
5.3 Transfer of Sick and Vacation Leave. Sick and vacation leave of City employees
shall be transferred and maintained as attached in Exhibit E. The City shall pay
to the District the current value of accrued vacation leave banks as of the date of
the transfer. The City shall also pay the cash -out value of City sick leave banks in
accordance with applicable Union contract or City policy. "Cash -out value" shall
be based on termination by layoff due to lack of work by the City as of the date of
the transfer. The District and City may agree to credit this obligation against
monies owed by the District under this Agreement. These payments are intended
to close out the City's obligations with respect to transferred, accrued leave
banks and the provisions of 5.9 shall not apply to unanticipated costs or
increases associated with the transferred leave banks such as, but not limited to,
increases attributable to changes in statutory or case law relating to the payment
of such banks, their impact on overtime requirements or changes in pension law,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if a transferred employee retires within two (2)
years of the date of the transfer and the Washington State Department of
Retirement Systems (DRS) treats any portion of the leave bank payouts as
excess compensation, the City shall be liable for its proportionate share of such
excess compensation cost as determined by DRS. "Proportionate share" shall be
determined based on the last wage paid by the City and the leave payout cap in
effect as of the date of the transfer and the excess compensation assessment
attributable thereto.
5.4 Layoff Language. For the provisions of layoffs or reduction in force, there shall be
three established Seniority Lists attached as Exhibit F.
• Blended Seniority List consisting of the former members of IAFF Local
1828 (Edmonds Firefighters) and the members of IAFF Local 1997
(Snohomish County Fire District 1 Firefighters).
• Non -Blended Seniority List of IAFF local 1997 (District Firefighters) prior to
the Commencement Date of the Interlocal Agreement between the District
and the City.
• Non -Blended Seniority list of IAFF Local 1828 (Edmonds Firefighters) prior
to the Interlocal Agreement between the District and the City.
5.4.1 Layoff Within First 60 Months of Contract. If a reduction in force becomes
necessary within the first 60 months of this Agreement, the reductions in force
shall be initiated utilizing the Blended Seniority List from the most senior to the
least senior giving each member the first right of refusal. In the event that the
said reduction in force is not accomplished through the Blended Seniority List,
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 7 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 344
9.3.f
the reduction in force shall be incurred upon the least senior members of the
jurisdiction causing the reduction in force. The reduction will be based on the
Seniority Lists established prior to the Interlocal Agreement between the District
and the City.
5.4.2 New Employees. Employees hired after the date of this Interlocal Agreement will
be placed on the bottom of the Blended List and will be first subject to layoff.
5.5 Promotional Language and Probationary Period. The parties agree that two of
three Company Officer promotions required to convert the three -platoon City work
schedule to the District four -platoon work schedule will be made from a
promotional list established by the Edmonds Civil Service Commission and consist
solely of eligible pre -Commencement Date City employees.
5.6 Company Officer Promotion Process. The parties agree that the City Company
Officer promotion process shall occur prior to the Commencement Date of the
Agreement.
5.7 Probation Process for Newly Promoted Company Officers. The parties agree
that newly -promoted City Company Officers transferring employment to the
District on the Commencement Date shall serve the probationary period of the
IAFF 1997 collective labor agreement and District policy, procedures, and
performance standards for Company Officers.
5.8 Im act of A regiment. Each party has undertaken to collectively bargain the
impact of this Agreement upon the respective labor unions which represent each
party's employees. The City and District further acknowledge that the integration
of City employees into the District's organizational structure has been in
conjunction with the respective labor unions which represent each party's
employees, and that the City and District will have reached agreement with
existing labor unions, and with each other, that the seniority rights of City
Personnel will remain intact and will transfer to their employment with the District,
5.9 Former City Employees. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold the District
harmless from any and all demands, claims, or actions by former City personnel,
which arise out of, or relate to, the time prior to the date that such City personnel
became employees of the District; provided, however, that the indemnification
shall not apply to any claims arising as a result of the District's actions under the
Interlocal Agreement.
6. ROLLING STOCK (APPARATUS AND VEHICLES)
6.1 Purchase Rollin_ Stock, tock. The District shall purchase the City Fire Department's
rolling stock 'apparatus and vehicles). The Dlstnct shall accept title and
ownership of such rolling stock in "as is" condition but only if each individual unit
is in a condition reasonably acceptable to the District.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 8 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 345
9.3.f
6.2 Transfer of Title. The City and District shall cooperate and execute such
documents which are necessary to accomplish the transfer of title.
6.3 Rolling Stock Lump Sum Purchase. The District shall make a one-time, lump
sum purchase of City rolling stock within 30 days after the Commencement Date
of this Agreement, specifically for the ladder (1), engines (3), medic unit (1), aid
units (4), utility (1), the 1938 Ford fire engine (1), and six vehicles.
6.4 Purchase Price. The purchase price of each piece of rolling stock shall be the
retail price determined by Fire Trucks Plus, Inc.; or by the Kelly Blue Book; the
acquisition cost of the 1938 Ford Fire Engine; plus the delivered, set-up and
lettered cost of two 2009 Ford E-450s Aid Units manufactured by Braun and
identified in Exhibit G.
6.5 Rolling Stock Records. The sale of rolling stock includes all service and
maintenance, records, and shop manuals for each purchased unit.
6.6 District Apparatus Replacement Schedule. The District has provided current
information regarding existing and proposed Apparatus Replacement Schedule
attached in Exhibit D. The District, in its sole discretion, may elect to purchase
new rolling stock or otherwise assign District rolling stock for use within the City.
6.7 Public Safety Boat. The Public Safety Boat, acquired with a Department of
Homeland Security grant as a county -wide asset and known as Marine 16,
remains the property of the City. Use by the District of Marine 16 for training and
emergencies as a county -wide asset is described in Exhibit H.
7. EQUIPMENT
7.1 Purchase Equipment. The District shall purchase City Fire Department
equipment identified in Exhibit I. Equipment is divided into two categories — (1)
that on the Fire Department Attractive Asset List, and (2) that equipment on-
board rolling stock. There is no duplication between the two lists. The District
shall accept ownership of equipment in "as -is" condition but only if each
individual piece of equipment or ensemble is in reasonably acceptable condition
as determined solely by the District.
7.2 Equipment Lump Sum Purchase. The District shall make a one-time, lump sum
purchase of City equipment within 30 days after the Commencement Date of this
Agreement.
7.3 Purchase Price. (1) The purchase price for items on the Asset List was
i _ i _ ._.__ _ _ _ _ dpp1..i-_a L ,L-liie 4— 46.pbo
determinedFJyiyity sL-aiyiniUCP1VUCXL1Uii w uiV ur 1aQc nrino imin nc
and/or estimated present value for each individual item. Straight-line depreciation
is calculated by taking the value of the asset and dividing it by the expected life
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 9 of 21 November 2, 2009
0
0
N
76
c
0`
L
0
U
�.i
c
E
0
a
Packet Pg. 346
9.3.f
span, then multiplying the expected life span by the age of the asset (value /
years = yearly depreciation x age = depreciation amount). (2) The price for
equipment on -board rolling stock was determined by applying five years of
depreciation based on a ten-year average replacement schedule to the purchase
price of individual items using fire service reference materials including Galls, Life
Assist (EMS hard and soft gear), PMI (technical rescue equipment), and Heiman
Fire Equipment. This equates to 50 percent depreciation to all equipment. The
purchase price and depreciation of each piece of equipment or ensemble is
identified in Exhibit I.
7.4 Equipment Records and Warranties. The sale of equipment includes all service
and maintenance records, and shop manuals. Wherever permitted under the
terms of a contract to purchase a vehicle or equipment transferred to the District
or a warranty relating thereto, the City hereby transfers and assigns its interest
under such warranties to the District. In the event that only the City may exercise
the warranty, the City will cooperate with and use its best efforts to enforce any
warranty regarding equipment provided to the District.
8. OVERSIGHT AND REPORTING
8.1 Agreement Administrators. The District Fire Chief and the City Mayor
and/or their designees, shall act as administrators of this Agreement for
purposes of RCW 39.34.030. During the term of this Agreement, the District Fire
Chief shall provide the Mayor with quarterly reports concerning the provision of
services under this Agreement. The format and topics of the reports shall be
agreed upon by the District Fire Chief and the Mayor. Additionally, two District
Board Commissioner members and two City Council members, along with the
District Fire Chief and the Mayor, shall meet at least once per calendar year, on
or before April 1, for the purpose of communicating about issues related to this
Agreement. The District Fire Chief and the Mayor shall present a joint annual
report to the Edmonds City Council prior to July 31.
8.2 Joint Annual Meeting. In addition to the meeting(s) referred to in Section
8.1 above, the Edmonds City Council and Board of Fire District #1
Commissioners shall meet prior to April 1 of each calendar year at a
properly noticed place and time to discuss items of mutual interest related
to this Agreement.
8.3 Representation on Intergovernmental Boards. The District shall represent the
City on intergovernmental boards or on matters involving the provision of
services under this Agreement as reasonably requested by the Mayor. The City
reserves the right to represent itself in any matter in which the interests of the
City and the District are not mutual or whenever any matter relates to the
apprvpriatlon %f or expendeture of City f"�n�J� la„nYOnrlM the term- of this L�grPement,
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 10 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 347
9.3.f
9. EXISTING AGREEMENTS
9.1 ESCA, SNOCOM and SERS. The City currently has contractual relationships
with other entities or agencies including the Emergency Services Coordinating
Agency (ESCA) for all City; Snohomish County Communications Center
(SNOCOM) for Fire, Police, and Public Works; and Snohomish County
Emergency Radio System Agency (SERS) for Fire and Police. The City shall
maintain its representation and financial obligations with those entities or
agencies and will act to represent itself and retain authority to negotiate on its
behalf. At the discretion of the City, the District may provide representation on
behalf of the City on various committees, boards and/or commissions as
requested, as appropriate, and/or as agreed to by mutual agreement of the
parties.
9.2 Mutual and Automatic Aid. The City and District currently have individual
responsibilities and contractual obligations under their respective agreements
with other fire agencies. The District shall assume the City's contractual
responsibility and obligations for the provision of mutual and automatic aid. At
such time as these agreements are renegotiated and re -executed, the District will
represent the City's interests and shall be signatory to the agreements on behalf
of the City.
9.3 Full Information as Basis for Relationship. The City and District agree to
coordinate their individual relationships with other entities and agencies so that
the services under this Agreement will be provided in an efficient and cost
effective manner. The City and District agree to keep each other fully informed
and advised as to any changes in their respective relationships with those
entities or agencies, whether or not those changes impact the City and/or the
District obligations under this Agreement. Notice of any change in the
relationship or obligations shall be provided to the other party in writing in a
timely manner that allows a reasonable opportunity to discuss proposed changes
in relationships or obligations.
9.4 Dispute Resolution. In the event that any dispute between the City and District
cannot be resolved by good faith negotiations between the City and District, then
the dispute resolution provision of this Agreement shall apply.
10. TERM OF AGREEMENT
10.1 20-Year Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon its
execution by the City and District. The Commencement Date of this Agreement
shall be January 1, 2010. This Agreement shall continue in effect for a period of
twenty (20) years from the Commencement Date, until December 31, 2030,
Ur1e5S terminate -a' earlier as provided
herein. After 'the initial, twenty, (71.1) dcouoir
term, this Agreement shall automatically renew under the same terms and
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 11 of 21 November 2, 2009
a
Packet Pg. 348
9.3.f
conditions for successive, rolling five (5) year periods unless terminated as
provided herein.
10.2 Material Breach and Wind -Up Period. In the event of a Material Breach of this
Agreement, the City and District shall, unless the City and District mutually agree
otherwise, continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement
for a minimum of twelve (12) months after notice of the Material Breach (the
"Wind -Up Period"); provided, however, that the Wind -Up Period shall be 90
(ninety) days if the Material Breach involves the City's failure to make the
Contract Payment; provided further, that during the Wind -Up Period, the City and
District shall coordinate their efforts to prepare for the transition to other methods
of providing fire and EMS service to the City. The City will be responsible for all
payments required herein until the conclusion of the Wind -Up Period.
11. TERMINATION AND RETURN OF ASSETS
11.1 First Five Years. The City and District acknowledge that in entering into this
Agreement, significant financial and personnel resources have been expended.
Therefore, neither the City nor the District may terminate this Agreement within
the first five (5) years following the Commencement Date except for a Material
Breach of this Agreement which the breaching party fails to cure within a
reasonable amount of time after receiving written notice from the non -breaching
party. The City's and the District's intent by this section is to provide both service
stability to citizens and job security to employees.
11.2 Years Six Through Twenty. In addition to terminating this Agreement for a
Material Breach, either party may terminate this Agreement after the first five (5)
years from the Commencement Date by providing the other party with two (2)
years written notice of its intent to terminate during any period of extension.
Notice under this provision may only be given once five years have elapsed after
the Commencement Date.
11.3 Termination Costs. The costs associated with terminating this Agreement shall
be borne by the party who elects to terminate, or in the event of a Material
Breach, by the breaching party, provided that in the following circumstances, the
costs of termination shall be apportioned.
11.4 Termination Due to Change in Law or by Mutual Agreement. In the event that this
Agreement is terminated due to a change in law, each party shall bear its own
costs associated with the termination; or, in the event that the City and District
mutually agree to terminate this Agreement, each party shall bear its own costs
associated with the termination.
'11.5 Regional Fire Psotectign Service Authorit in the event that the District, Glon^y
with one or more fire protection jurisdictions, elects to create a Regional Fire
Protection Service Authority Planning Committee ("RFA Planning Committee") as
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 12 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 349
9.3.f
provided in RCW 52.26.030, the District agrees to notify the City of its intent and,
subject to approval of the other participating jurisdictions, to afford the City an
opportunity to be a participant on the RFA Planning Committee. Declining the
opportunity to participate in the RFA Planning Committee shall not be construed
as a material breach on the part of the City as defined in the Definitions section
of this Agreement. In the even that a Regional Fire Protection Service Authority
(RFA) or another legally recognized means of providing fire and emergency
medical services is created, inclusive of the City and District, this Interlocal
Agreement will be terminated on the effective date of such Agreement, and
neither the City nor the District shall be considered to have committed a material
breach as defined in the Definitions section of this Agreement.
11.6 Duty to Mitigate Costs. The City and District have an affirmative duty to mitigate
their respective costs of termination, irrespective of the party who elects to
terminate this Agreement and irrespective of the party who must bear the costs
of termination.
11.7 Return of Assets to the City. Regardless of the reason for termination, the City
and District agree that like assets purchased by and transferred to the District as
part of this Agreement shall be returned to the City as described below. This
provision shall not apply to the formation of a RFA in which both the City and the
District are participants.
11.7.1 Purchase Back Rolling Stock. All rolling stock sold under this agreement, or
equivalent apparatus and vehicles in use by the District at the time of termination
shall be purchased back using the same process, methods, and conditions under
which the original purchase was made unless otherwise agreed upon by the
parties.
11.7.2 Purchase Back Equipment. All equipment sold under this agreement, or
equivalent equipment in use by the District at the time of termination shall be
purchase back using the same process, methods, and conditions under which
the original purchase was made unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.
11.7.3 Rehire Personnel. In the event of termination within the first five (5) years of this
Agreement by either party for any reason, the City shall rehire the personnel laid
off by the District, up to fifty-four (54) personnel transferred with no loss of
compensation and accumulated benefits. Accrued vacation and sick leave banks
shall be transferred to the City and the District shall pay to the City the current
cash value of the leave banks as determined under the same procedures set
forth in Section 5.3 of this Agreement.
11.7.4 Former District Employees. The District shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless from any and all dernanas, ciauiis, or autlunIS uy IV111reU U1QL111-II
personnel, which arises out of or relate to the time that such personnel were
employees of the District, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that the indemnification shall
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 13 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 350
9.3.f
not apply to any claims arising as a result of the City's actions during the term of
the Agreement.
12. DECLINE TO MERGE
12.1 City Declines to Merge. In the event that the District enters into an agreement
with any other fire district that is substantially equivalent to a merger, the City
may decline to be included, and elect to end the Agreement without prejudice or
penalty. The terms and conditions of that termination include written notice
provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 to the District of the
intent to end the Agreement not more than 90 days after receiving written
notification provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.1 from the
District that the District intends to merge with another entity.
12.1.1 Not a Material Breach. The City decision to not merge does not constitute a
Material Breach of the Agreement and none of the penalties associated with a
Material Breach shall apply to the City.
12.1.2 12-Month Notice. The Agreement will end not more than 12 months after the City
officially notifies the District that it declines to be merged, unless otherwise
agreed to by the parties, and the costs of termination shall be split evenly
between the parties.
12.1.3 City Exit from Agreement. If the City elects to terminate the Agreement because
of an impending merger between the District and one or more other jurisdiction,
the City exit will be under the terms and conditions described in Section 11.7.
13. CITY FIRE DONATION FUND
13.1 Disposition of Fire Donation Funds. Effective on the Commencement Date of this
Agreement, the amount of funds in the Fire Department Donation Fund on
December 31, 2009 shall be forwarded to the District 1 to acquire fire and life
safety tools and equipment not otherwise affordable through the regular budget
process. Tools and equipment subsequently acquired with Donation Fund
monies by the District will be assigned to Edmonds Fire Stations and apparatus
but shall be used without restriction throughout the District service area.
14. TOWN OF WOODWAY
14.1 No Impact on this Agreement. The provision of fire and emergency medical
services to the Town of Woodway by the District has no organizational or
financial impact on the Agreement between the City and the District or the terms
and conditions of said Agreement.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 14 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 351
9.3.f
15. CITY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
15.1 Civil Service Commission Notification. The City acknowledges that the City of
Edmonds Civil Service Commission has been officially advised of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
16. CITY AND DISTRICT ARE INDEPENDENT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
16.1 Independent Governments. The City and District recognize and agree that the
City and District are independent governments. Except for the specific terms
herein, nothing herein shall be construed to limit the discretion of the governing
bodies of each party. Specifically and without limiting the foregoing, the District
shall have the sole discretion and the obligation to determine the exact method
by which the services are provided within the District and within the City unless
otherwise stipulated within this Agreement.
16.2 Resource Assignments. The District shall assign the resources available to it
without regard to internal political boundaries, but rather based upon the
operational judgment of the District as exercised within the limitations and
obligations of Sections 2.4 through 2.8.
16.3 Debts and Obligations. Neither the City nor District, except as expressly set forth
herein or as required by law, shall be liable for any debts or obligations of the
other.
17. INSURANCE
17.1 Maintenance of Insurance. For the duration of this Agreement, each Party shall
maintain insurance as follows: Each party shall maintain its own insurance policy
insuring damage to its own fire stations, real and personal property and
equipment if any, and "policy" shall be understood to include insurance pooling
arrangements or compacts such as the Washington Cities Insurance Authority
(WCIA). The City shall maintain an insurance policy insuring against liability for
accidents occurring on City owned property. Such insurance policy shall be in an
amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a
deductible of not more than $5,000. The District shall maintain an insurance
policy insuring against liability arising out of work or operations performed by the
District under this Agreement in an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000. The
phrases "work or operations and "maintenance and operations" shall include the
services identified in Section 1. Scope of Services, the services of the Fire
Marshal and the District's Fire Chief, acting in the capacity of City Fire Chief and
any obligation covered by Exhibit B, Section 9.
17.2 Claims of Former City Employees. The City has provided proof of coverage that it
has maintained insurance against claims by former City Personnel for incidents
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 15 of 21 November 2, 2009
a
Packet Pg. 352
9.3.f
and occurrences which may have occurred prior to the Commencement Date of
the Interlocal Agreement, including but not limited to, injuries, employment
claims, labor grievances, and other work -related claims. Such insurance was at
all times in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per
occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000. The City will hold
harmless the District and its insurance provider for any such claims, lawsuits or
accusations that occurred prior to the Commencement Date of the Interlocal
Agreement,
17.3 Claims of Former District Employees, The District represents and warrants that it
has maintained insurance against claims by District employees for incidents and
occurrences which may have occurred during the time period prior to the
Commencement Date of the Agreement, including but not limited to injuries,
employment claims, labor grievances, and other work -related claims. Such
insurance was at all times in an amount not less than one million dollars
($1,000,000.00) per occurrence with a deductible of not more than $5,000.
17.4 Hold Harmless. To the extent each party's insurance coverage is not voided,
each party agrees to defend and hold harmless the other party, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' and expert witness fees, losses and judgments arising out
of the negligent and intentional acts or omissions of such party's officers,
officials, employees and volunteers in connection with the performance of this
Agreement. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
17.5 Release from Claims. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, and
except in the event of breach of this Agreement, the District and the City do
hereby forever release each other from any claims, demands, damages or
causes of action related to damage to equipment or property owned by the City
or District or assumed under this Agreement. It is the intent of the City and
District to cover this risk with the insurance noted above.
18. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
18.1 Mediation. It is the intent of the City and District to resolve all disputes between
them without litigation. Excluded from mediation are issues related to the
legislative authority of the Edmonds City Council to make budget and
appropriation decisions, decisions to contract, or establish levels of service under
Section 2.4 of this Agreement and Chapter 35.103 RCW. Policy decisions of the
City Council shall not be subject to review by a mediator; however, this shall not
abridge the right of the District to pursue an increase in the Annual Contract
Payment as a result of such decision. The City and District shall mutually agree
upon a mediator. Any expenses incidental to mediation, including the mediator's
fee, shall be borne equally by the City and District. If the City and District cannot
agree upon a mediator, the City and District shall submit the matter to the
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 16 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 353
9.3.f
Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS) and request that a mediator be
appointed. This requirement to mediate the dispute may only be waived by
mutual written agreement before a party may proceed to litigation as provided
within this agreement.
18.2 Binding Arbitration. If the City and District are unsuccessful in renegotiating the
Contract Payment after having completed mediation, the City and District shall
submit the matter to binding arbitration with the foregoing arbitration service.
Excluded from binding arbitration are issues related to the legislative authority of
the Edmonds City Council to make budget and appropriation decisions, decisions
to contract, or establish levels of service under Section 2.4 of this Agreement and
Chapter 35.103 RCW. Policy decisions of the City Council shall not be subject to
review by an arbitrator; however, this shall not abridge the right of the District to
pursue an increase in the Annual Contract Payment as a result of such decision.
The arbitration shall be conducted according to the selected arbitration service's
Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures. At this arbitration, the arbitrator
shall, as nearly as possible, apply the analysis used in this agreement and
supporting Exhibits to adjust the Contract Payment. The arbitrator may deviate
from such analysis and use principles of fairness and equity, but should do so
sparingly. Unless the City and District mutually consent, the results of any
binding arbitration session shall not be deemed to be precedent for any
subsequent mediations or arbitrations.
18.3 Prevailing Party. In the event either party herein finds it necessary to bring an
action against the other party to enforce any of the terms, covenants or
conditions hereof or any instrument executed pursuant to this Agreement by
reason of any breach or default hereunder or there under, the party prevailing in
any such action or proceeding shall be paid all costs and attorneys' fees incurred
by the other party, and in the event any judgment is secured by such prevailing
party, all such costs and attorneys' fees of collection shall be included in any
such judgment. Jurisdiction and venue for this Agreement lies exclusively in
Snohomish County, Washington.
19. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
19.1 Noticing Procedures. All notices, demands, requests, consents and approvals
which may, or are required to be given by any party to any other party hereunder,
shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given if delivered
personally, sent by facsimile, sent by nationally recognized overnight delivery
service, or if mailed or deposited in the United States mail, sent by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid to:
District Secretary: City Clerk:
Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1 City of Edmonds
12425 Meridian Avenue 121 5th Avenue North
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 17 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 354
9.3.f
Everett, WA 98208 Edmonds, WA 98020
Or, to such other address as the foregoing City and District hereto may from
time -to -time designate in writing and deliver in a like manner. All notices shall be
deemed complete upon actual receipt or refusal to accept delivery. Facsimile
transmission of any signed original document and retransmission of any signed
facsimile transmission shall be the same as delivery of an original document.
19.2 Other Cooperative Agreements. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the
City and the District from entering into contracts for service in support of this
Agreement.
19.3 Public Duty Doctrine. This Agreement shall not be construed to provide any
benefits to any third parties. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing, this
Agreement shall not create or be construed as creating an exception to the
Public Duty Doctrine. The City and District shall cooperate in good faith and
execute such documents as necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of
this Agreement.
19.4 Entire Agreement. This entire agreement between the City and District hereto is
contained in this Agreement and exhibits hereto; and this Agreement supersedes
all of their previous understandings and agreements, written and oral, with
respect to this transaction. This Agreement may be amended only by written
instrument executed by the City and District subsequent to the date hereof.
Dated this 3 day of ovc-,1k, 2009
SNOHOMISH C❑ N'
By:
Com ' sio r
By:
Commissioner
By:
Commissioner
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT N
Commissioner
l�
Commissioner
Attest:
District Secretary
... ::
FLWjW1
.S■ ply q
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 18 of 21 November 2, 2009
a
Packet Pg. 355
9.3.f
CITY OF E MONDS
By: 4��Z�
City Mayor
Approved a t
)5�
By:
City Attar
Attest--,,G• 'd.
City Clerk
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 19 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 356
9.3.f
Definitions
The following definitions shall apply throughout this Agreement.
a. Cam: City of Edmonds.
b. City Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of the City of Edmonds
C. City Fire Department: The Edmonds Fire Department.
d. City Fire Stations: Currently, Fire Station 16, Fire Station 17, and Fire
Station 20.
e. Commencement Date: The date at which the performance and
obligations of the City and District as contained herein begin.
City Personnel: The employees of the City of Edmonds Fire Department
as of the Commencement Date who are transferring employment to the
District.
g. Contract Payment: The annual amount that the City will pay to the District
pursuant to this Agreement.
h. District: Snohomish County Fire Protection District No. 1.
Effective Date: The date this Agreement is executed by the City and
District.
District Fire Chief: The Fire Chief of Snohomish County Fire Protection
District No. 1.
k. Firefighter/EMS Personnel: Full-time, compensated employees,
firefighters, emergency medical technicians, or paramedics
Grid Cards: The electronic file within the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
System, which is used to determine fire station response order for Fire
District 1.
M. Insurance: The term "insurance" as used in this agreement means either
valid insurance offered and sold by a commercial insurance company or
carrier approved to do business in the State of Washington by the
Washington State Insurance Commissioner or valid self-insurance through
a self-insurance pooling organization approved for operation in the State
of Washington by the Washington State Risk Manager or any combination
of valid commercial insurance and self-insurance pooling if both are
approved for sale and/or operation in the State of Washington.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 20 of 21 November 2, 2009
Packet Pg. 357
9.3.f
n. Material Breach: A Material Breach means: the District's failure to provide
minimum staffing levels as described within this Agreement; the City's
failure to timely pay the Contract Payment as described within this
Agreement, or the City's or District's failure to comply within this
Agreement concerning the City's fire stations, equipment and/or
apparatus.
o. Wind -Up Period: The 12 months immediately following formal notification
of a Material Breach by either party except as defined in Section 10.2.
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Service Operations
Page 21 of 21 November 2, 2009
Q
Packet Pg. 358
9.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
November 2, 2009
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in executive session
to receive legal advice regarding pending or threatened litigation. He stated that the executive session was
scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the
Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session.
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Orvis,
Wambolt, Plunkett, Bernheim, Peterson. Olson and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott
Snyder, Attorney Stephanie Croll, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Haakenson
announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in executive session. At 7:15
p.m., Mayor Haakenson again announced to the public that an additional 15 minutes would be needed in
executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:25 p.m.
The regular Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:29 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, REMOVING ITEM 9 FROM THE AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2009.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #114982 THROUGH #115132 DATED OCTOBER 29,
2009 FOR $518,862.77.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 1
Packet Pg. 359
9.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
To those who may question why Community Transit was implementing Swift when they were facing
challenges to their capital and operating budget, she explained Swift was underway before the budget
crisis occurred. Over half of Swift's capital funding came from other sources including federal, state and
local and via a partnership with Everett. A series of grants, partnership funds and fare revenues will pay
approximately 90% of Swift's operating costs through 2012.
She explained Swift is Community Transit's future; not only a major transit improvement on Highway
99, Community Transit's busiest corridor, this higher frequency service is what they intend to bring to
Snohomish County's other congested corridors via a network of Swift lines in the future.
Council President Wilson commented he found it an honor to be appointed to the Community Transit
Board and regretted that time devoted to the City's budget and his day job had affected his ability to
participate.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT, OPTION 4. IN ADDITION TO
CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1, THIS OPTION INCLUDES
SELLING APPARATUS (ENGINES, AID CARS, AND EQUIPMENT), AND KEEPING FIRE
STATIONS, LAND AND TRANSPORT FEES.
Mayor Haakenson suggested staff respond to questions submitted yesterday and today by a
Councilmember and a citizen.
Councilmember Bernheim asked why response times were identified in minutes and seconds in Edmonds'
contract with Fire District 1 for fire service to Esperance but in the proposed contract for fire service, Fire
District 1 was required only to maintain the current level of service. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg answered
the Esperance contract was between the City and Fire District 1 for the City of Edmonds Fire Department
to provide fire service to Esperance, an unincorporated area in Fire District 1. Under the proposed
contract, Fire District 1 would provide fire service to Edmonds. The standards referred to by
Councilmember Bernheim addressed how the City provided service to Esperance under four levels of
service. The proposed contract with Fire District 1 references RCW 35.103, codification of Senate House
Bill 1756, that requires Fire Departments in the State of Washington to adopt standards of response. The
Edmonds City Council adopted the 11 standards in RCW 35.103 in November 2006. Staff has provided
three reports to the Council regarding the Fire Department's performance in meeting those standards. He
summarized RCW 35.103 was referenced in Section 2.4, 2.5 and 2.8 and the contract actually referenced
11 standards.
Mr. Snyder commented this had been a subject of some negotiation between Fire District 1 counsel and
himself. One of the main reasons this contract was different was because the State statute was adopted
after the Esperance contract was approved and prior to the date the proposed contract was drafted. His
intent was to ensure the Council would retain its ability to set the standards and not be locked in by
contract. For example, if the Council wanted to amend the standards by increasing or decreasing levels of
service, the Council would have that right independent of the contract. Fire District 1 wanted the ability
to recover the cost if additional staffing was required to meet the amended response time.
Councilmember Bernheim questioned whether requiring Fire District 1 to meet current levels of service
was too vague and whether the 11 response time standards should be stated instead. Mr. Snyder reiterated
his intent for the Council to retain the legislative discretion to amend the standards as they wished rather
than establish them as a contract term that would be subject to renegotiation. Councilmember Bernheim
pointed out the response times referred to current levels of service and he questioned what the current
levels of service were. Mr. Snyder responded they were the levels the Council had adopted as the City's
service standards.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 3
Packet Pg. 360
9.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
Councilmember Orvis commented that in addition to specifying levels of service, deployment was also
identified as three firefighters at each fire station, a battalion chief and two dedicated medics. Chief
Tomberg agreed.
Staff responded to the following questions posed via email from George Murray:
1. Litigation — If there should be some law suits in relation to fire operations, who is responsible? Is the
town of Edmonds liable and in what ways? I remember the litigation after the warehouse fire in
Seattle when several firemen lost their lives and their families sued Seattle.
Chief Tomberg responded the employer would be responsible in the event of litigation; the
firefighters' employer would be Fire District 1 under the proposed contract. Items 16, 17 and 18 on
page 15 and 16 of the Interlocal Agreement states the City and District are independent municipal
governments, and addresses insurance and dispute resolution. Mr. Snyder explained claims by former
City employees relating to actions taken while the individuals were City employees were the City's
responsibility; once transferred, employees' claims would be defended by the entity that employed
them. If the contract were terminated and the employees transferred back, the City would be
responsible for claims after they transferred back and Fire District 1 would indemnify the City from
claims made prior to that date. He summarized the entity employing and directing the employee was
responsible for liability.
2. Personnel — Why does the city need a fire marshal and a fire inspector when the Fire District is
taking on responsibility for fire service? Do towns in the Fire District have these two positions on
their town staffs? (e.g. MLT & Brier) Are they essential?
Chief Tomberg responded Fire Marshal responsibilities in the unincorporated area of Snohomish
County were the responsibility of the Snohomish County Fire Marshal's office, not Fire District 1. If
Fire District 1 did not serve cities under contracts for service such as Brier and Mountlake Terrace, it
would not have a Fire Marshal. Fire District 1 has a Fire Marshal to serve Mountlake Terrace and
Brier because like Edmonds, they were served by a Fire Marshal before they joined the District and
cities require fire marshal services. Mountlake Terrace and Brier pay Fire District 1 for fire marshal
services. In the Fire District l/Edmonds Interlocal Agreement, Edmonds pays via the contract for a 3/4
time Fire Marshal and a full-time Fire Inspector. Currently the City pays for two full-time positions.
3. Contract — (See attached numbers) Are the numbers shown for the "Contract" projections for
"Option 4" the ones which will be billed to Edmonds? The attached numbers were taken from a page
given me entitled, "Fire District I Contract Proposal — City Operational Savings ", lines named Fire
Budget and Fire Contract.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines responded the amounts listed in the spreadsheet Option 1 v Option 4
are the amounts that are projected to be the contract payment to Fire District 1 that will be billed to
Edmonds.
4. Uneven growth rates. The attached numbers grow at different growth rates (see attachment). I had
thought the expense growth rates would be the same over the years. Why are they different?
Mr. Hines responded the analysis compared 2007 actuals to the 2008 budget. With regard to expense
growth rates being the same over the years, Mr. Hines responded growth rates would be generally the
same but rarely were they the same year-to-year. For example growth in the Edmonds Fire
Department budget was projected to be 3.15% in 2011, 3.87% in 2012, and 3.93% in 2013.
Councilmember Bernheim commented lower growth rates were projected under the proposed contract
than for the Edmonds Fire Department. Mr. Hines answered the contract was based on salaries,
overtime and benefits; the City's Fire Department budget was composed of many other variables in
addition to labor such as uniforms, protective clothing, supplies, small equipment, professional
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 4
Packet Pg. 361
9.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
services, communication, travel, rental and lease, rental and maintenance, etc. Councilmember
Bernheim pointed out in the proposed contract both overhead and equipment were pegged to labor
increases per Exhibit C. Mr. Hines pointed out another variable was Fire District 1's actions to keep
the price down; Fire District 1 may be artificially reducing the price to get the City's business.
5. Annexation — What are the criteria for establishing and changes in billing if annexations occur? I
understand Edmonds has had over 60 and there is one underway now.
Chief Tomberg responded annexations were addressed in Section 4.6 on page 5 of the Interlocal
Agreement. Mr. Snyder explained if property was annexed by the City, the cost of the contract would
be recalculated based on the additional population.
6. Deannexation — How will reductions be treated?
Chief Tomberg was unclear how deannexation would occur.
7. Technology — Every 5 years it's a new world in Technology. This can be a savings and/or expensive.
Today Edmonds deals with it in consultation with other fire departments How will this be handled in
future?
Chief Tomberg answered technology would continue to be addressed with other Fire Departments
and in Snohomish County as it is today. The Fire Department participates in many coordinated
technology efforts including the SnoCom CAD system, the records management system, patient care
reporting, radio purchases, etc. via SERS, SnoCom and ESCA.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented most citizens felt this should be decided via a public vote. He
expressed concern with the participation of some Councilmembers, questioning whether they were parties
of interest. He commented on an area that was interested in annexing to Mountlake Terrace.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
5. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1
CONTRACT, OPTION 4.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF OPTION 4 (CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1,
SELLING APPARATUS [ENGINES, AID CARS, AND EQUIPMENT], AND KEEPING FIRE
STATIONS, LAND AND TRANSPORT FEES, AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT WITH FIRE
DISTRICT 1.
Councilmember Orvis commented the initial proposal was to sell the land and via discussion the Council
decided although contracting with Fire District 1 was a good idea, selling the land was not. He clarified
under Option 4 the City retained the land and fire stations, sold the apparatus and contracted for fire
service personnel with Fire District 1. He was satisfied the service levels were guaranteed because
deployment was identified in the contract and in addition to meeting the City's service requirements, fire
stations must continue to be staffed in the manner they are today. The savings in 2010 will be over
$900,000. He was impressed with the improvements in service such as fewer holes in service due to fire
training, overhead that was service -related rather than administrative -related, the availability of CPR
classes and car seat checks, and the availability of a public liaison officer. With regard to increasing costs,
he felt the proposed contract had more restrictions on cost control than the City's own Fire Department.
He summarized the cost of fire service would increase regardless of whether the City had its own Fire
Department or contracted with Fire District 1.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 5
Packet Pg. 362
9.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
Mayor Haakenson clarified the contract, if approved, would be effective January 1, 2010.
Councilmember Peterson echoed Councilmember Orvis' comments, noting Edmonds was taking an
important step in regionalization. Edmonds was part of a larger community with regard to public safety
and other services. The contract would provide better service to the community and save the City money
as well as allow the City to work more closely with neighboring cities and jurisdictions on important
issues.
Councilmember Olson's aid read a statement from Councilmember Olson that stated she was voting for
Option 4 because it made the most sense after listening to all the experts. This seemed like a great
opportunity for the City.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he had been involved in the Fire District 1 discussions since they
began in May including meetings with Fire District 1, City staff, the Firefighters Union as well as several
discussions and public hearings at the City Council. He also spent a considerable amount of time
analyzing the numbers on his own. The questions he has raised since May have been satisfactorily
answered. He expressed support for Option 4 for two primary reasons; first it will reduce the City's
deficit over the next 7 year planning period by $10 million. Under Option 1 expenses will exceed
revenues by $21.1 million over 7 years; under Option 4 expenses will exceed revenues by only $10.4
million or $10.7 million less. The City's budget will still be in deficit and a levy lid lift will be required
in 2010. Second, service levels will be maintained and he believed gradually enhanced over the coming
years because firefighters would be better trained and morale would improve. He pointed out the
compound annual growth rate of expenses over the 7 year period under Option 1 was 4.08% versus 3.86%
with Option 4.
Council President Wilson commented he would support the motion. He commented the service level
issue was not compelling enough; the primary increase was eliminating holes in service due to training.
With regard to the financial benefit, he acknowledged the numbers pointed in a positive direction, noting
the numbers had varied over the past several months and he was hopeful the recent numbers were
accurate. The primary reason he supported the contract for service was to increase the morale of the Fire
Department employees. This was also an opportunity to place fire service on stable footing; in the future
any budgets cuts would be made to parks or police or a levy would be necessary. He concluded this was
not his ideal situation; he preferred to consider either a Fire District or reverse annex into Fire District 1.
He was hopeful the City did not regret this decision in 10 years.
Councilmember Bernheim commented there had been a lot of questions asked and answered, it had been
a great process and he was satisfied everyone was reaching a well -considered decision. He was confident
the level of service for residents would remain the same, a top priority even above the morale of the Fire
Department employees. With regard to regionalization, he was not convinced about the importance of
regionalization; he felt the City had an obligation to provide fire and police services. He expressed
concern that citizens lost complete voting power over the Fire District 1, a philosophical issue that had not
been adequately addressed. The City's fire service was being turned over to a contractor and voters in the
unincorporated areas of Snohomish County would elect Commissioners that would interpret the contract.
Councilmember Bernheim acknowledged fire service cost a great deal and annual increases have been
substantial. He pointed out much of the City's fiscal crisis was because tax income had not kept pace
with the cost of providing fire service. He preferred to keep the fire service in-house and continue to
manage it. He pointed out the firefighters union's primary reason for supporting the contract with Fire
District 1 was to stabilize funding. He noted the contract pegs overhead, equipment maintenance and
purchase of new equipment to labor costs which he feared would increase more than it would otherwise.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 6
Packet Pg. 363
9.3.g
CORRECTED 12-15-09
He expressed concern that Fire District 1 may be artificially holding the price down, comparing it to the
FIOS offer of $29.95 for six months which obligated consumers without a guarantee regarding future
prices. He feared the City would be in dire straits in 10 years, worrying how to pay for the fire service
because the cost of the contract had increased.
Councilmember Bernheim concluded this issue originated due to the fiscal crisis and as an alternative to
the levy, not the need to improve the City's fire service. In his view the City was giving up control of its
fire service, a fundamental city responsibility to a Fire District whose Commissioners were elected by
voters outside the City without any guarantee of price control and it was only a stop gap measure.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM
VOTING NO.
Tim Hoover, President, Edmonds Firefighters Local 1828, applauded the Council for vetting this issue
well. He commented regionalizing fire service had been 20 years in the making, an effort that had been
halted at the political level in the past. He commended the Council for putting politics aside, considering
the issue, doing their due diligence and reaching a decision. To the Edmonds citizens, Mr. Hoover
commented they did not take the Fire Department's 105 year history lighting. He expressed the Fire
Department's appreciation for the citizens' support over those 105 years. He thanked everyone who
provided public comment and looked forward to serving the community as a regional Fire Department for
the next 105 years.
6. REPORT TO WASHINGTON CONSORTIUM REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL
OF VERIZON NORTHWEST INC. TO FRONTIER COMMUNICATION CORPORATION —
WORKSHOP.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained tonight's meeting was
one of two scheduled meetings regarding the transfer of control from Verizon Northwest Inc. to Frontier
Communications Corporation. Tonight's public workshop was an opportunity for the Council to ask
questions and learn about the proposed franchise transfer. On November 2 the public will have an
opportunity to speak and the City Council will have an opportunity to take action. He introduced Verizon
representatives Raymond Deed, Doug Steading, and Milt Gomad and Frontier Communications Chairman
Ann Burr.
Mr. Clifton reviewed the history of the transfer:
• In August, 2008 - City authorized and granted a Franchise Agreement to Verizon Northwest Inc.
• May 13, 2009 - Verizon announced plans to divest its local wireline communications system to
Frontier Communications Corporation.
• May 19, 2009 - City received a Request for Transfer of Control (Verizon to Frontier).
• Set in motion certain federal requirements and deadlines:
o City (Franchise Authority) has 30 days in which to review Form 394 to determine whether all
necessary information has been provided and is complete.
o City Council has 120 days to take action on request.
o Determine if the Transferee is legally, technically, and financially capable to operate a
Franchise.
Next he reviewed transfer request actions:
• June, 2009 — A Multi -Jurisdictional Consortium was formed.
o Share in legal and technical expertise to analyze transfer of the franchise.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 2, 2009
Page 7
Packet Pg. 364
9.3.h
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/24/2017
Fire District 1 Interlocal Agreement (45 min.)
Staff Lead: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The City of Edmonds had its own fire department for approximately 105 years when the city council
voted on November 2, 2009 to enter into a long-term interlocal agreement (ILA) with Snohomish County
Fire District 1 (FD1) to provide fire and emergency medical services to the city. A copy of the ILA is
attached to this memo as Attachment D. FD1 began providing that service on January 1, 2010.
The Woodway Issue: For the first four years of the contract (2010-2013), FD1 also provided fire and EMS
service to Woodway under a contract. The ILA between FD1 and Edmonds allocated the cost
responsibilities for staffing fire stations 16, 17, and 20 (the Edmonds stations) as follows:
Edmonds = 77.79%
FD1 (because Esperance is within FD1's taxing district) = 13.08%
Woodway = 9.13%
Woodway, however, was not a party to the City's contract with FD1. So, the Woodway portion of the
above cost allocation might have been more of an assumption or aspiration than a reality. On January 1,
2014, Woodway stopped contracting with FD1 and began contracting with the Shoreline Fire District.
Woodway's switch to Shoreline created the prospect of a long-term financial deficit for the fire district's
operation of the Edmonds stations. That condition persists today, almost three years after Woodway
terminated its relationship with FD1. If the present staffing levels were to be continued into 2017,
Woodway's missing share of the cost of operating the Edmonds stations would be $706,266 in 2017
alone. Woodway's absence did not result in any layoffs or cost reductions. And Edmonds continued to
pay 77.79% as it had originally agreed to pay. This left the fire district responsible for 22.21% of the cost
of operating the Edmonds stations. On July 22, 2016, the fire district board adopted by motion a policy
"to seek through negotiation of the cost associated with the operations of all contract city fire stations."
The district cannot unilaterally change the 77.79% allocation of the costs to Edmonds. But we interpret
the board's motion to indicate that the current arrangement is not sustainable and that the ILA would
likely be terminated if the City refused to negotiate a different cost allocation.
The district is willing to allocate all of the tax revenue that it collects from Esperance ($1,117,150 in
2017) to the operation of the Edmonds stations. If Edmonds takes responsibility for the remainder while
also adopting the proposed service changes, Edmonds' allocation of the cost of operating the Edmonds
stations would 83.06%. If Edmonds takes responsibility for the remainder but does not make any
changes to the service, Edmonds' allocation of the cost of operating the Edmonds stations would be
85.55%.
Packet Pg. 365
9.3.h
The Retroactive Invoice Issue: In August of 2014, having recently executed a collective bargaining
agreement with the firefighters union, IAFF local 1828, the District sent the City of Edmonds a $1.67
million invoice for retroactive labor costs under the new CBA. The invoice was retroactive to January 1,
2013. The invoice caused some controversy. And that controversy caused the City to take a close look at
its ILA with FD1. The city council ultimate agreed to pay the invoice on January 27, 2015.
Fitch & Associates Analysis: As part of its effort to thoroughly analyze the FD1 ILA, the City engaged
Fitch & Associates to review the service provided by the District and suggest area where the City might
want to make changes. Steve Knight from Fitch & Associates made a presentation to the city council on
February 23, 2016. The presentation and discussion lasted for about 50 minutes. Fitch & Associates also
prepared an executive summary and data report which were completed in April 2016. Among various
recommendations, Fitch analyzed the status quo as well as several options that the City could consider
in determining whether to make changes to the status quo. On December 13, 2016, the City Council
selected Alternative 2 as the basis to finalize negotiations with the District.
Alternative 2
0 3 firefighters at each station;
0 1 paramedic at each station (1 of the 3 firefighters)
§ Total paramedics on duty citywide = 3
Terms of the Proposed ILA: Alternative 2 has several advantages over the other alternatives including
the status quo. Alternative 2 employs more paramedics than any of the other alternatives, including the
status quo. It also distributes them geographically throughout the city by assigning one paramedic to
each station instead of having all the paramedics operate out of station 17. This should allow at least
one paramedic to respond more quickly to 911 calls by reducing travel time to the incident. Alternative
2 also saves the city a significant amount of money compared to the status quo. The 2017 cost of
Alternative 2 is $7,427,818. The status quo would cost an additional $1,361,275.
Key Deal Points of the ILA: In addition to the staffing mix discussed above, we have highlighted below,
several deal points that we find significant about the proposed ILA. The complete ILA is set forth in
Attachment A. Note that the language of the ILA is still being refined and none of these deals points
should be considered approved by either party at this point.
Woodway (see Section 14): Because the city is essentially being asked to absorb the 9.13% that
the parties had hoped would be paid by Woodway, the district is agreeing to allow the city to
subcontract the district's services to Woodway in hopes of the city being able to recoup some of
that lost revenue at some point in the future.
Negotiation Thresholds (see Section 2.2.1): It is anticipated that call volume will eventually
increase to the point where it may become necessary to add service or make other changes. For
that reason, the parties have agreed upon three metrics that the parties will monitor on an
ongoing basis, any one of which would trigger a new round of negotiations when the metric
exceeds the threshold set forth in the agreement. The metrics have been named Unit Utilization
Factor (UUF); Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor (NUUF); and Transport Balance Factor (TBF).
Each of these is defined in Exhibit E of the ILA with a mathematical calculation.
Esperance Offset (see Sections 4.5, 4.6, and definitions): The parties were not able to identify
the source or methodology behind the 13.08% cost share that was allocated to FD1 for service
of Esperance. Instead of continuing to use what now seems like an arbitrary percentage, the ILA
Packet Pg. 366
9.3.h
contemplates simply that all the FD1 tax revenue from Esperance would be allocated to offset
the cost to Edmonds of operating the Edmonds stations.
City Retains Authority to Set Level of Service In Most Circumstances (see Sections 2.2.2 through
2.2.4 : Language has been added to clarify that the City retains the legislative discretion to
establish the level of service for Edmonds in most circumstances.
Turnout Time (see Section 2.4.1): The City will continue to pursue improvements in turnout
time. While the District does not commit to making improvements in turnout time, it does
commit to understanding what prevents it from making improvements.
Retroactive Invoices (see Section 4.2.2): The City will receive timely invoices even in years for
which the CBA has not yet been finalized, in which case the invoices will set forth reliable
estimates of the eventual Contract Payment. This will allow the City to set money aside and plan
for the forthcoming retroactive invoices.
Staff Recommendation
We recommend that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the proposed ILA.
Attachments:
Revised and Restated ILA
120116 Cross Staffed
ILA redlined against 2016-12-02
COE FD1 ILA 2009
Packet Pg. 367
9.3.i
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
January 24, 2017
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Thomas Mesaros, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Johnson.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 1
Packet Pg. 368
9.3.i
Harbor Square. Another of the students' recommendations was tree box filters including recommended
locations. Tree box filters are helpful because they are underground, do not disturb the sidewalks and
allow water to go into the soil and roots and be filtered before entering the stormwater system. Another
recommendation was a large bioswale by Highway 104 and porous pavement as well as native plant
revegetation. Earth Corp is already doing some revegetation around the marsh. She encouraged anyone
with information about incentives, grants or rebates that would be helpful in getting this done at Harbor
Square to contact SOM.
6. ACTION ITEM
1. FIRE DISTRICT 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the Interlocal Agreement with FD1 is coming to Council for
consideration and action. He reviewed information provided in the Council packet:
Attachment A: Clean proposed version of Interlocal Agreement
Attachment B: Station Costing Model (revised today)
Attachment C: Redlined version of Interlocal Agreement showing changes made since 12/02/16
Attachment D: Existing Interlocal Agreement
He highlighted significant revisions made since the Council last reviewed the Interlocal Agreement:
• Station Costing Model (Attachment C): Revised to reflect 2017 Esperance assessed value
• Three formulas, 1) Unit Utilization factor, 2) Neighboring Unit Utilization factor and 3)
Transport Balance Factor, which are assessed periodically to determine whether to renegotiate the
Interlocal Agreement, were moved to Exhibit E.
o If formulas need to be revised in the future; easier to revise if in an exhibit
• Section 2.2.1: Added a negotiation threshold, Esperance Offset drops by 10% or more over any
consecutive three-year period.
o District's revenue significantly affected by assessed valuation; significant drop in assessed
value results in reduced revenue. In times of significant drops in AV, District may need to lay
off staff (usually administrative staff).
• Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4: most difficult pieces of entire agreement; address what happens when a
reopener occurs
o The District proposes mitigation factors and the City proposes mitigating factors/changes and
if the parties do not reach agreement, the City gets to select the remedial measure.
■ Selection is subject to mediation if the District is unhappy with the City's selection but
not arbitration. Arbitrator could not force a particular level of service
- Exceptions:
1) If parties agree on remedial measure but not on the cost, the cost of the remedial
measure can be subject to arbitration
2) If the District does not like the City's selection, in an extreme case, the District
could terminate the contract. If that happens, triggers a 2-year wind up period.
During 2-year wind-up period, the District would be able to choose the remedial
measure and the parties would share the incremental cost of the remedial
measure. Unlikely to reach that point, more likely would agree on remedial
measure.
Section 2.3: The Council requested language prohibiting 72 hour shifts in Edmonds. FD1's labor
lawyers concerned about strength of that language. Language in Section 2.3 states the City prefers
firefighters not work 72-hour shifts in Edmonds.
o District leadership does not have complete control over this issue. Will need to be negotiated
with the union and could be the subject of interest arbitration
Section 14: City has the right to subcontract fire and EMS services to Woodway
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 4
Packet Pg. 369
9.3.i
o The District requires the City consult with them and accept input prior to entering into a
subcontract with Woodway.
o No change in the contract payment unless City requests additional staff. Requesting
additional staff reopens Interlocal Agreement.
o Historically the City served Woodway with the existing three stations.
o Whether or not the City is serving Woodway, Interlocal Agreement is still subject to same
thresholds (unit utilization factor).
Section 19.5: Allows Mayor and Council President to agree on a change to the formulas. Any
other amendment to the agreement would come to City Council.
o Example: Formulas contemplate Lynnwood and FD1 are two different jurisdictions. If
Lynnwood and FD1 enter into a regional fire authority (RFA), the formulas may need to be
tweaked to reflect the two entities are now one entity.
If the Council agrees with the proposed Interlocal Agreement, Mr. Taraday requested a motion to
approve. FD 1 confirmed if the Interlocal Agreement was approved by Council tonight, they would be
able to make the change by February 1, 2017. If the Agreement is not approved tonight, the date will be
delayed.
Mayor Earling asked about the FD1 Board's meeting to consider the Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Taraday
answered assuming the Council approves the Interlocal Agreement tonight, the District Board will have
opportunity to take action at their meeting on Thursday.
Councilmember Nelson thanked Mr. Taraday for the time and effort he has put into the agreement,
commenting he was not a fan of it. He referred to Section 3.1, use of City fire stations, a new
development in this agreement that has not been talked about, yet reading this agreement, that appears to
be the next priority. He read Section 3.1, "The parties acknowledge that none of these three fire stations
are ideally located and that the City could be better served by two ideally located fire stations" and asked
where that idea came from. Mr. Taraday answered it definitely came from Fitch & Associates and District
leadership shares the opinion about the poor location of the fire stations.
Councilmember Nelson referred to language in Section 3.1 that the location of the three stations,
"contributes to slower turnout times." Mr. Taraday said some the City's fire stations are old; if a new fire
station were built, it would be laid out differently in light of current regulations. The District has
developed an extensive capital facilities plan that included timing personnel exiting the stations. Some
stations have challenges that do not allow firefighters to exit as quickly as they could if they were ideally
designed.
Councilmember Nelson recalled seeing reference to that in the Fitch report. He referred to a map that
showed moving Stations 16 and 20 five to six blocks and eliminating Station 17. He expressed concern
with eliminating a fire station and saying response time to downtown Edmonds would increase when
there is no downtown fire engines or paramedic. Mr. Taraday answered it was conceivable that new fire
stations could be built/relocated and still have three. A full study has not been done about that issue; this
is at the very conceptual level. Because there was thought that maybe it could be done with two stations,
it was included in the Interlocal Agreement. The number of fire stations and the number of units or
firefighters are completely independent. If the Agreement is approved, there will be 9 firefighters working
24/7 in Edmonds. There could be nine firefighters working in two stations instead of three stations. If the
travel times were adequate, there may be operational advantages to having nine firefighters in two station.
He emphasized this was at the very conceptual level and really had not been extensively reviewed.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to definitions in the existing contract that refer to Firefighter/EMS
Personnel and the new contract states only Firefighters. She asked if all Firefighters were EMS personnel.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 5
Packet Pg. 370
9.3.i
Mr. Taraday relayed the definition of Firefighter, "full-time compensated employees, captains,
firefighters emergency medical technicians and/or paramedics."
Councilmember Buckshnis observed Sections 4.3 and 4.4 were moved to Exhibit E. Mr. Taraday
answered Sections 4.3 and 4.4 were relocated in the December draft; the definitions were moved to
Exhibit E. Section 4.4, Adjustment Date Not Met, is now in Section 4.2.2.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if any FD1 Commissioners participated in the negotiations. Mr.
Taraday answered Commissioners Meador and Board Chair McGaughey were present for most of the
negotiations. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Agreement still includes an annual presentation as
well as quarterly meetings. Mr. Taraday said the quarterly meetings are with representatives of the
Council; the Council President may want to appoint representatives to attend quarterly meetings.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to Section 2.3, Shift Arrangements, which states the City prefers
personnel not work 72 hour shift due to fatigue issues. However, the last sentence in that section states,
"The District commits that it will undertake in good faith, pursuant to Chapter 41.45 RCW, to negotiate
successfully for those arrangements, to be implemented." He expressed concern the statement indicated
the District may not be successful in achieving this. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining the District does not
have complete control over this issue and would need to bargain it. If they are not able to reach
agreement, the issue can be taken to interest arbitration to have an arbitrator to rule that 72-hour shifts
should not be allowed. There are comparable jurisdictions that the District could reference to justify its
case; for example Lynnwood does not allow 72-hour shifts. In the end, it is not something the District can
do unilaterally and would need to bargain it and it was subject to interest arbitration under State law.
Councilmember Teitzel suggested removing "successfully" because although the District commits to
undertake in good faith, it may not happen. Including "successfully" presumes it will be successful in
achieving the goal of the negotiation. Mr. Taraday said he interprets the sentence as the District will try to
reach an agreement using their best efforts and good faith. Councilmember Teitzel said if the City
Attorney felt the language was acceptable and the other party knows what it meant, he was comfortable.
Mr. Taraday said he was comfortable with the existing language.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to Sections 3.1, Use of City Fire Stations, recalling FD1
Commissioners told the Council a few years ago that the fire stations were not in the best location and if
they had unlimited amounts of money, they would build new fire stations in different places but it was
talked about as a 20 year goal. She asked if there were any current plans to reduce the number of fire
stations. Mr. Taraday answered the extent of the plan is in the document; it is an idea at this point.
Certainly, if money were no object, it would be great to have ideally located fire stations but there is a
cost to that. It would be up to the City Council to decide if they were interested in taking that on.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said since it is a theory, it may have been better not to include that
section. Mayor Earling said he has no interest or intent to explore the relocation of fire stations in the
City. He viewed it much like the Edmonds multimodal station near the Port which is unlikely to happen
for 2-3 decades. Although the language is included in the Agreement, no one is interested in pursuing it.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said including the language in the Agreement draws attention to it. Mr.
Taraday said the language in the Agreement looks into the future; it is the type of agreement that may be
in effect for decades and tries to anticipate as many issues as possible.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR FIRE AND
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AS PRESENTED BY MR. TARADAY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 6
Packet Pg. 371
9.3.i
Councilmember Nelson commented there is a difference in what he read in the report and what he sees
happening on the ground. He recently spent a second day in the field with the professionals who provide
fire and EMS care, not the number crunchers, but the first responders who treat citizens. What he saw was
concerning; in just one day, there were five requests to send Edmonds units north to cover other stations
because the rest of FD1 was unavailable. The hope is that other stations can cover Edmonds, but they
can't. He relayed hearing on the fire radio dispatch in response to battalion chief's request for another
paramedic, "Medic 14 not available, cross -staffed." He clarified that meant the one paramedic at that
station was not available because he was out on a fire call. This is what happens when the paramedics are
split up all over the City, asking them to respond to fire as well as medical calls. That response will be
heard over and over in Edmond with these cuts because 70% of calls are basic life support (BLS), not
advanced life support (ALS). Paramedics will be busy responding to BLS calls when ALS calls come in.
Councilmember Nelson commented, in addition, twice that morning all four Edmonds fire units were out
on calls and not available to respond to any additional calls in Edmonds. What will happen when only
three Edmonds units will be available with thee cuts? He believed everyone wants the best fire service but
doing more with less should be a last resort when it comes to public safety, especially while every other
City department is growing. There is a difference between not wanting to pay more and needing to pay
more. Healthcare demands are increasing every year and much of it has shifted squarely on first
responders. He has heard, "we're backed into a corner, we have no choice," commenting we always have
a choice. If the Council really wanted to, they could find the funding.
Councilmember Nelson questioned what other contract services the City has, a fair question if the primary
motivation is financial. For example, why does the City spend $42,000/month to contract for legal
services when the City could hire an in-house City Attorney. Nine in ten residents surveyed last year felt
safe in Edmonds and want safety to be a top priority in the coming years. He believed this agreement
would jeopardize their safety; two fewer firefighters and EMTs on duty means less people to respond to
emergencies He asked that the Council wait and find a different way to fund fire costs, put a fire/EMS
levy forward if necessary and not make these cuts to these vital services, prioritize saving lives over
saving money.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER NELSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling recognized the hours Mr. Taraday and Finance Director Scott James spent on the
Agreement, commented it had been a pleasure to work with them. He was provided several briefings and
had an opportunity for input but the work they did and the cooperation from the FD1 lawyer, while heated
sometimes, resulted in a very positive outcome. Mr. Taraday commented they learned a lot.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
7. STUDY ITEMS
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP)
Senior Planner Kemen Lien explained this is the continuation of the SMP update. The City Council sent
proposed alternatives to Ecology in October 2016 and January 10, 2017, Ecology responded to Edmonds.
Ecology representatives, David Pater and Joe Burcar, are here to present their response.
Joe Burcar, SEA Section Manager, NW Regional Office, Department of Ecology, reviewed:
• Chronology
o June 27, 2016 Ecology issued conditional approval with several required changes and one
recommended change.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 24, 2017
Page 7
Packet Pg. 372
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
December 13, 2016
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
N. Bickar, Police Officer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Johnson requested Items 4.4, Board & Commission Reappointments, and Item 5.2,
Dale Hoggins Proclamation, be postponed to a future meeting. Councilmember Teitzel requested Item
7.3, Revision to the January 3, 2017 Extended Agenda, be added to the agenda. City Clerk Scott Passey
advised the Extended Agenda is a planning tool and requests can be submitted to him.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA, POSTPONING ITEMS 4.4, BOARD &
COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS, AND ITEM 5.2, DALE HOGGINS PROCLAMATION, TO
A FUTURE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 2016
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 373
9.3.j
services are cut and EMTs and paramedics are shifted around so they are not available downtown, he
questioned what happened the next time someone walked in needing help. He recognized the electeds
have a tough job building and balancing a budget, but figured the last thing they would do would be to cut
public safety. He was ashamed and embarrassed and said there are other ways to cut the fat. He
questioned the Council raising taxes and then cutting fire service, questioning what was next — raising
water rates and telling him he can only use five gallons a day. Edmonds is growing and more services are
needed; the Council should look to the future and add firefighters, EMTs and equipment, not make cuts to
balance the budget. He was not in favor of raising taxes and preferred the Council figure out to make the
money work. As a business owner outside Edmonds, he suggested some fat could be cut from the City's
second floor.
7. ACTION ITEMS
AWARD OF EDMONDS VETERAN'S PLAZA PROJECT
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite requested the Council award the bid to K-A Construction for
construction of the Veteran's Plaza. The Council packet contain a memo outlining previous action,
current bids that ranged from $290,000 - $472,000 and engineer's estimate of $285,000. She recalled the
Council bids previously rejected bid a few months ago at staffs requests when bids were $450,000 -
$700,000. The citizen committee has been working hard to raise money to construct the Veteran's Plaza;
to date they have raised $505,000. A donation in the amount of $4500 was received in the last two days as
well as commitments for $16,000, reducing the deficit of $67,000 to $47,000. Committee Co -Chair Maria
Montolvo has indicated a donor has committed $50,000 if it is needed. The Committee assures they are
committed to raising the rest of the funds and would like to have the bid awarded so that construction can
begin in January with the project completed in time for Memorial May.
Ron Clyborne, Edmonds, Co -Chair, Veterans Plaza Committee, representing the Edmonds Veterans
of Foreign Wars, American Legion and Vietnam Veteran of America, as well as all veterans past, present
and future, relayed their excitement about building this park plaza to honor and remember all veterans
past present and future.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR THE EDMOND VETERAN'S PLAZA TO K-A
CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZE A 10% MANAGEMENT RESERVE FOR UNFORESEEN
CONDITIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
Councilmember Tibbott said after reviewing the drawings, he was impressed with receiving a bid that
meets the objectives. He was supportive of the bid award and looked forward to completing the project
next year.
Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo, recalling the herculean effort to raise $8500 for the K-9 statue. She
thanked the veterans and other donors, commenting the plaza will be fabulous and she looks forward to its
completion. Mr. Clyborne recalled a Marine Corp saying, "when the going gets tough, the tough get
going." The community got it done, and have a plan for any discrepancy that arises. He pointed out
fundraising began approximately seven months ago and raised $475,000. Fundraising stopped because it
was believed there was enough but was restarted when more money was needed, raising another $45,000.
He assured any discrepancy could be handled.
Councilmember Nelson commented although he was sure the discrepancy could be handled, but if it
couldn't, he was certain the City would find a way to help out. He thanked Mr. Clyborne and all the
veterans for their service. He was sorry the Veteran's Plaza could be done sooner and looked forward to
its completion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 10
Packet Pg. 374
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Taraday explained this is a follow-up to last week's presentation. He reminded the Council what the
project with Fitch Associates was tasked with considering:
• If you were designing the Edmond Fire Department from scratch today, based on the data that
you have today, what would you design?
• How many firefighters would you plan to employ?
• Of those, how many would be paramedics?
Factors to consider include:
Geography of the City and FD1
o Map identifying the stations that Edmonds pays to operate 16, 17 and 20 and the other FD1
and Lynnwood stations.
Type of demand for service
o Primary demand is EMS
■ EMS 55.2%
■ EMS-ALS:30.3%
■ Fire related 9.8%
■ Service 4.6%
■ Special Ops 0.2%
Frequency of demand for service
o Unit hour utilization by unit analysis indicates using 1/3 of the capacity provided by 11
firefighters in 3 stations today = 0.10 utilization rate
0 0.30 = IAFF standard utilization rate
o Consultant concluded actual usage is 0.10%, indicating there is a lot of capacity available in
the system
Equity among the various neighborhoods
o Currently only 2 paramedics for entire City, operating in the same unit at Station 17
o Currently the next closest paramedics are at Lynnwood Station 14 and Mountlake Terrace
Station 19
o Takes only one paramedic call to completely wipe out paramedic services in the City
■ If two heart attacks happen at the same time, the second one waits for either Lynnwood
or Mountlake Terrace to respond
o Under Mayor Earling's recommended proposal, Alternative 2, paramedic proximity improved
with one paramedic located at Stations 16, 17 and 20 as part of a cross -staffed unit
■ Allows for the possibility of three dispatches requiring a paramedic capability
■ Paramedics often double dispatched, but it is not always necessary
- Dispatcher can decide whether double dispatch necessary
Means to evaluate the service over time
o Utilization of 0.25% at any one of three station is the threshold to trigger negotiations with
FD1 to bring utilization rate to a more reliable rate.
Cost (last but not least)
o $1.36 million difference in cost between current staffing and the recommended proposal
Mr. Taraday explained the issue of cost is frustrating for the City and probably for FD1 because neither
party is fully in control of what they pay firefighters because are subject to interest arbitration which
means FD 1 cannot say how much they will pay firefighters. FD 1 does not have the same ability to control
costs that a typical employer has; under State law, labor unions such as IAFF have a lot of power to set
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 11
Packet Pg. 375
9.3.j
compensation levels according to what other agencies are paying. As a result, it costs a lot to maintain a
Fire Department.
Mr. Taraday highlighted the proposed action:
• Motion to direct City attorney to bring back for final action an ILA that contemplates use of Fitch
Alternative 2.
o ILA not ready for approval yet; FD1 and the City still have work to do.
o Helpful for both negotiating teams to get direction/confirmation that the Council supports the
proposed alternative staffing model
■ If the Council does not support the proposed alternate, that will change the negotiations.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK FOR FINAL ACTION AN ILA THAT
CONTEMPLATES THE USE OF FITCH ALTERNATIVE 2.
Councilmember Mesaros commented tonight the Council heard testimony from citizens about the
importance of emergency medical services. He supports the proposal because it increases EMS services,
increasing from two paramedics to three. Several audience members commented on how quickly
emergency services arrived and he pointed out if that were a paramedic call, a second call may have to
wait for a unit from Lynnwood or Mountlake Terrace; this solve that problem.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled in 2009 Lora Petso, Adrianne Fraley-Monillas and she were citizen
advocates opposed to selling the City's Fire Department to FDL They were later selected to assist with
selecting the consultant who would help the Council understand. FD1 Commissioners have said they will
sever the contract with Edmonds if Edmonds does not pay Woodway's share of the cost. A very diligent
and pragmatic process has taken approximately 14 months to complete. The Fitch report is a fresh set of
eyes. FD 1's report, done in February 2016, says about the same thing as Fitch's report. If citizens are
interested in a public safety levy, she will lead that charge, commenting that is what should have been
done in 2009.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said one of objections when the previous Council and Mayor sold the
Fire Department was that the cost would eventually be higher. Although it was easy to say the savings
was only $1.36 million, she questioned where cuts could be made to provide those funds — police, roads?
She pointed out certain revenue sources must be used for certain expenditures. Fire and Police are paid
from the General Fund, a huge cost to the City. The first -year savings are $1.36 million. FD1 firefighters
haven't negotiated their contract this year and she expected costs to increase next year. The City needs to
have some control while still providing a good or same level of service that has been provided in the past.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who Mr. Taraday has been negotiating with and whether it was
with the labor union or the FD1 Commission. Mr. Taraday answered the negotiating team was two FD1
Commissioners, FD1 Chief, Assistant Chief and FD1's attorney. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked
who negotiated with the union. Mr. Taraday answered FD1 leadership. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
asked if the FD1 Commissioner had discussed Alternative 2 with Local 1828. Mr. Taraday answered he
did not think there had been a formal conversation, certainly union membership was aware of the
proposal. FD1 does not need union permission to make this change.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there was potential that staffing issues, layoffs, etc. could be
addressed during FD1 and Local 1828' negotiations. Mr. Taraday answered when FD1 and the union
bargain a contract, many issues are considered, not the least of which is compensation. He reiterated
compensation was driven by comparable fire agencies. FD1 may have aspirations to pay a certain amount,
but in the end under State law they pretty much have to pay what the comps show. Although the City is
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 12
Packet Pg. 376
9.3.j
limited in increasing the levy 1%/year, the interest arbitrators are not limited and can and do award more
than a 1% increase in compensation. The system is set up in a manner that costs will exceed revenue.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Taraday said under the City's current arrangement with FD1,
the City pays for certain minimum staffing levels. FD 1 can assign additional staff to the Edmonds stations
but that does not commit Edmonds to pay for the additional staff. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked
if FD I would need to return to the City if they decided to add staff to the Edmonds fire stations. Mr.
Taraday said he watched the FDI Board meeting on Wednesday; it is extremely unlikely that the Board
would assign staff to Edmonds stations without Edmonds committing to pay for it. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas said she was disturbed by the lack of communication between the Commission and their
labor union, envisioning this may not have been as dramatic if there had been better communication.
Councilmember Tibbott requested staff describe the increase in the EMS levy, where those funds come
from, how they are used, and why that is not enough to cover the current level of service. Finance
Director Scott James responded the 2017 EMS levy is $3,9790,000; the cost for EMS services far
surpasses that levy amount. The EMS levy cannot be raised without a vote. Councilmember Tibbott
observed approximately $4 million is the most that can be raised via the EMS levy and the additional
amount comes from other sources. Mr. James said the cost of Alternative 1 is $7,400,000 which includes
fire service, Fire Marshal, Fire Inspector, apparatus replacement, etc. As Mr. Taraday indicated,
approximately 85% of the services provided are EMS. Applying that 85% to the total cost, approximately
$6 million is for medical -related responses.
Councilmember Tibbott summarized taxes have been raise the maximum allowed by law. Mr. James
agreed, they had been raised to the maximum amount without a vote. He explained EMS is limited to
$050/$1000 assessed value by State law; the 2017 levy will be approximately $0.48/$1000 which is still
not enough to cover EMS services.
Councilmember Tibbott referenced the tax increase voters in Snohomish County approved for fire
protection. Mr. James explained FDI citizens approved an increase; Edmonds is not in FD1 so that
increase does not affect City residents. Residents of Esperance are affected by the increase as are other
properties in FD 1 outside of Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott observed the new ILA with FD 1 would
allow the City to receive funds from Esperance to offset costs. Mr. James said the $7.4 million includes
all costs for the three stations, less the EMS taxes generated by the Esperance area, $1,117,000. The
remainder, $4,727,000 is paid by the City of Edmonds.
Mr. Taraday pointed out under the original agreement with FD1, 13.08% of the three -station cost was
allocated to Esperance; if that were applied to the new levy amount, the $1,117,000 the City receives to
offset the cost via the Esperance property tax revenue would not be enough to pay for 13.08% of the
status quo system delivery model, essentially meaning Edmonds would be subsidizing Esperance
fire/EMS services. Under Alternative 2, the property tax revenue received from Esperance more or less
equals the 13.08% share.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about the revenue source for the former Medic 7 stationed at Stevens
Hospital. Mr. James answered it was his understanding it was the EMS levy and compensation from the
partner cities. He offered to email Councilmembers that information.
Councilmember Teitzel pointed out there have been comments that service in Edmonds will be cut but it
was his understanding there will be no cuts; the 2 FTEs from 11 to 9 would be reallocated elsewhere in
FDL Mr. Taraday agreed, pointing out FDI operates 12 fire stations, 3 of which are in Edmonds. It was
his understanding there is enough need in the employment applicant pool that the proposed changes could
be absorbed elsewhere in FD 1 and there would not be any layoffs.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 13
Packet Pg. 377
Councilmember Teitzel asked about FD1's plans to reallocate those two position and whether they would
possibly allocate one to the Mountlake Terrace fire station thereby improving response time on an ALS
call in the Lake Ballinger area. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding Station 19 currently has 3
firefighters on duty at a time. He asked if Councilmember Teitzel's question was whether FD 1 might
increase that to 4. Councilmember Teitzel answered possibly. Mr. Taraday answered the discussions with
FD 1 leadership have not gotten into that level of detail. FD 1 is the expert on how to deploy crews.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if the two reallocated firefighters could potentially be used to improve
mutual aid response from a station outside Edmonds to an Edmonds call. Mr. Taraday said he could not
speculate regarding how FD1 would reassign those firefighters. Edmonds will not lose any paramedics,
the two existing paramedics will be in different units and a third paramedic will be added.
Councilmember Teitzel observed when the original FD 1 model was developed, Woodway was part of it.
In January 2014 Woodway joined Shoreline Fire and their call demand was shifted to Shoreline. He asked
if the departure of Woodway created excess capacity especially in Stations 17 and. Mr. Taraday did not
know how much call volume was associated with Woodway but whatever that volume was, its absence
represents a reduction in demand.
Councilmember Nelson pointed out there are currently three paramedics on duty in the City of Edmonds
at times, one at Station 20 and the two at Station 17. Mr. Taraday agreed that occasionally happens.
Councilmember Nelson commented because he likes to do his homework, he met with FD1 Chief
Reading, Lynnwood Fire Chief Cockrum, rode on the fire rescue boat and fire engine 16 and responded to
multiple medical calls. He toured the City's oldest and most populated buildings, learning their unique
risks to fire danger. He researched the National Fire Protection Associations standards and even the
consultants' reports for other cities. The Council may think the consultant give them everything they need
to know to make cuts but he questioned what they really knew about the information presented like the
recommendation to remove the downtown fire engine and have less firefighters at night, the graph that
indicates most emergency calls do not happen at night. For example there are very few fire calls at night.
He looked this up and compared it to the national average and it matches. However, something the
consultant's graphs do not show that the national graph do is that although 20% of all fires happen at
night, they account for 52% of all home fire fatalities. He questioned whether the Council really wanted
to downgrade the fire service from a report that downplays fire dangers and suggested telling that to the
families of the four people who died in fires in Everett last winter, the mother who lost her three children
to a fire in Centralia this March, the 15 business owners in downtown Bothell who lost everything this
summer.
Councilmember Nelson continued, the City's firefighter are heroes, but they are not superheroes; they are
mere mortals called upon to do extraordinary tasks. They cannot do their job to protect us with one hand
tied behind their back. One person can do CPR chest compressions 120 times/minute for only so long
before they physically tire out and have to stop; stopping means death. Another person has to replace
them; it is a physically demanding job to save lives. Our firefighters cannot keep us safe if they do not
have a sufficient amount of people and equipment. So are we really enhancing our fire services. The
International Association of Fire Chief s website has webinars on best practices and new developments
from experts. He listed titles of webinars, Track Fire Department Training with a Purpose, Statistical
Methods in Fire Service, Community Risk Reduction, Critical Success Factors for Fire and Rescue
Leaders, Must -Have Policies for Every Fire Department, Fire Prevention Risks in Local Communities and
Critical Questions Every Fire Chief Should Ask Their City/County Managers, a webinar by the
consultants, Stephen Knight and Bruce Moeller, where they state the most important questions for a fire
chief involve understanding the economic and political realities facing your agency, understanding the
economic motivators for requests for efficiencies, developing a framework for navigating the economic
realities of change in your agency. He pointed out that was who the Council was basing the type of fire
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 14
Packet Pg. 378
9.3.j
service the community needs; their job is to give cities cover to make cuts. That is why it matters how the
problem is framed.
Councilmember Nelson said if the Council thinks we should operate as a business, which some
Councilmembers do, then looking for efficiencies is perfectly logical. The Finance Director says this
makes good business sense. The fire consultant looks for return on investment and the City Attorney cite
financial savings. But if the Council is looking for efficiencies as part of a business model, every city
department would fail looking through that lens. As a professor of economics in Forbes Magazine
recently wrote, does it makes sense to run government like a business? The short answer is no. Efficiency
in the private sector means profit. The problem is that not everything profitable is of social value and not
everything of social value is profitable. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corp, Police Department,
Fire Department, libraries, parks, public schools are social value yet they could not exist if they were
required to be profitable. Imagine maintaining the military by selling subscriptions door-to-door. Profit is
the realm of business while unprofitable but socially useful tasks are the responsibility of government.
Somewhere along the way the Council has forgotten what its role is. The Council's function is not
maintain a profit for shareholder; its role is to protect citizens from all injuries however small, large,
likely or unlikely. It has always been expensive to save lives and it always will be.
Councilmember Nelson continued, there is a reason the City Council is tasked with this choice, not the
FD 1 board, not the fire chief, not the consultants. The Council must decide the level of safety for the
community, how much a life is worth to protect. He asked whether this proposal was really the best way
forward for fire service. He believed it was not and believed cutting the number of firefighters and having
only three emergency vehicles available instead of four was very risky. He believed increasing demands
on the paramedics and sharing with neighboring cities will not benefit Edmonds. He believed not holding
FD 1 administration accountable to respond to emergencies with the minimum amount of people within a
specific time like every other city in the country is inexcusable. He believed Edmonds could do better,
find a better way to pay for the best fire service the City can afford. He believed the Council should
prioritize saving lives over saving money and hoped the Council would join him in opposing these cuts.
Council President Johnson recalled testimony about families concerned about protecting their loved ones
and concerns about safety and agreed safety was the number one priority. As her parents aged, she called
the Fire Department on several occasions, many times because she needed assistance picking her parent
up from the floor and fortunately four trips to the hospital that were considered basic life support. One
dreadful call required advanced life support and every second meant the difference between life and
death. She appreciated the work firefighters do and she was a happy customer. Having said that, she
believed having three paramedics cross -trained with firefighters was better than one two -paramedic team.
For that reason she will support the proposal with the idea it will be monitored and possibly there could
be a levy in the future or a different combination of personnel.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she wished Councilmember Nelson was here in 2009 when the City sold
the Fire Department. She emphasized there was a reopener in the ILA. Although Fitch found there was an
underutilization, FD1 is doing a good job. If the City maintains the status quo, FD1 Commissioners have
said they will sever the contract. The City and FD 1 both had reports prepared and both say about the same
thing. If the community is interested in a levy, she will help. She noted one of the issues was firefighters
want a 72-hour work day and some Councilmember do not support that.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER NELSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. Councilmember Nelson left the meeting at 8:59 p.m.
8. STUDY ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 13, 2016
Page 15
Packet Pg. 379
9.3.k
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
Special Meeting
December 6, 2016
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Mary Ann Hardie, HR Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
PRESENTATION
1. PRESENTATION ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
This item was delayed to a future meeting.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: MOVE
ITEM 10.2, 2017 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, TO NEW ITEM 6.3, AND ITEM 9.1, ADOPTION OF
THE 2017 BUDGET & USE OF REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX FUNDS, TO FOLLOW ITEM 6.3.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 380
9.3.k
on the single track. Double tracks would allow trains to go both directions at the same time, resulting in
the activation of a horn for trains traveling north and southbound at the same time. How often that would
occur would require further study but he did not anticipate the number of horns would increase. The
location of the horns will work with double tracking.
Councilmember Teitzel asked whether input had been sought from other communities on Puget Sound
that have installed trackside warning systems. Mr. Williams answered several have been installed near
Lakewood; they are very happy with their operation. Councilmember Teitzel how asked how to ensure
train engineers did not blow their horn manually where entering a zone with a trackside warning system.
Mr. Williams said under FRA rules, engineers have the right to blow their horn if they see fit to do so.
Likely the only time that would happen is if they passed the whistle board and the signal system was not
working or there was something on the track. They are not obliged to do so and are encouraged not to
unless they feel it is necessary. Councilmember Teitzel concluded there would not be the same number of
manual horn blasts plus the trackside warning signals. Mr. Williams said a manual horn would be a rarity,
not a normal activity.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Council President Johnson why she wanted to postpone action for
a week. Council President Johnson said in general, a public hearing is an opportunity to get public input.
Councilmembers also collect information via other methods and delaying a week after the public hearing
provides the Council extra time before making a decision. Although no one spoke at tonight's public
hearing, she and many others are concerned about the return of salmon to the marsh. She did not want to
offend any dog owners or dogs and realized the dog park was a community asset beyond Edmonds, but it
was important to have a thoughtful opportunity to consider whether the amendment is needed.
Consideration may need to be given to monitoring the water for pH. She sees a potential conflict between
dogs and salmon and wanted an extra week for the public to weigh in.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented the Interlocal Agreement with Fire District 1 (FD1) has been in
the works for some time. He introduced Finance Director Scott James and Dr. Stephen Knight, Fitch &
Associates, who was hired to advise the City. The Interlocal Agreement in the packet is the Mayor's
proposed amendment to the Interlocal Agreement with FD L The Council makes the decision whether to
proceed and there are other options if the Council is not satisfied with the Mayor's proposal.
As background, Mr. Taraday explained the City entered into an agreement with FD1 for fire and EMS
services in 2009 and service officially began January 1, 2010. For the first five years of that agreement,
neither party could terminate. Now the agreement is terminable by either party upon two year's notice. In
August 2014 the City received an invoice for $1.67 million attributable to a recently completed collective
bargaining agreement between FD 1 and the union. The agreement was retroactive to 2013 which resulted
in a large invoice. The invoice was somewhat of a surprise to the City; the City agreed to pay the invoice
but decided to take a closer look at fire service in general. As the City needed expertise to assist with that,
staff began researching fire and EMS consultants in April 2015; the City Attorney and Finance Director
invited five firms and a local fire chief to interview and narrowed consultants to three for interviews by
the Mayor and Councilmembers Buckshnis, Fraley-Monillas and Petso in May 2015 and ultimately Fitch
& Associates was selected to guide the City through this process.
Mr. Taraday explained the City and Fitch & Associates agreed on a scope of work and signed a contract
on June 17, 2015. Dr. Knight made a presentation to Council in February 2016 of several different
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 11
Packet Pg. 381
9.3.k
options for configuring fire and EMS service including the status quo. Fitch & Associates finalized its
report in April 2016 and that information was used to begin discussions with FD1 this summer. He was
hopeful the Council would approve of the proposed Interlocal Agreement and take final action next week.
Mr. Taraday displayed a map of FD1, identifying the three fire stations previously operated by City of
Edmonds until the City began contracting with FD1 in 2010, Stations 16, 17 and 20. Because the City
contracts with FD1, the City is essentially being served by an entity with a much larger area so
occasionally Station 19 and Lynwood Station 14 also serve the City. The primary sources of service are
Stations 16, 17 and 20. He described the status quo:
• Station 16: cross staffed engine and aid unit (EMT), total 3 staff members
• Station 17: cross staffed engine and aid unit (EMT) plus a dedicated paramedic unit with 2
paramedics, total 5 staff
• Station 20: cross staffed engine and aid unit (EMT), total 3 staff members
• Total staff on duty citywide 24/7: 11 including 2 paramedics
Mr. Taraday said one of the questions that prompted the City to consider if service improvements could
be made was "What if two ALS calls occur at same time?" He referred to the map of stations, identifying
the paramedic unit at Station 17, no paramedics at Station 16 or 20, explaining with two paramedics on
the same unit, one call wipes out the City's paramedic capabilities which was not viewed as a good
system design. Most of FD1 has a paramedic at each station.
Another question the City considered was how busy are Edmonds fire stations under the status quo? Mr.
Taraday displayed a Unit Hour Utilization by Unit chart, included in Fitch & Associates report to the
City, that measured the unit hour utilization for service at the three Edmonds stations. The utilization
threshold established by the International Association of Firefighters is 0.30; Edmonds stations are at 0.10
or lower utilization, which basically says the current fire stations are not that busy. He assured this was
not criticism of FD1 or firefighters, they do a great job which was confirmed by Fitch & Associates. This
analysis appears to indicate there is some excess capacity. The Interlocal Agreement established 0.25 unit
utilization as a negotiation threshold for when the contract could be revised. Over time it is assumed call
volumes will continue to increase to a point where service needs to be added to ensure firefighters are not
too busy.
Mr. Taraday explained Alternative 1, converting the 24-hour Medic 17 to a peak hour unit, is not being
pursued as this issue is being litigated between FD1 and the union. The union is opposed to part-time
paramedic units and want all paramedic units to work 24-hour shifts.
Alternative 3, which removed the engine from Station 17, reducing the number of engines in Edmonds
from 3 to 2, is also not being pursued. The City has a three -engine capability today and will have three
engine capability under the Mayor's proposed agreement.
Mr. Taraday reviewed Alternative 2, the recommended proposal:
• Station 16: Engine/medic — 3 staff
• Station 17: Engine/medic — 3 staff
• Station 20: Engine/medic — 3 staff
• Total staff on duty citywide 24/7: 9 including 3 paramedics
He displayed a pie chart illustrating the number of incidents, pointing out 30.3% of all calls to FD1 are
EMS/ALS. It was felt the City would be better served by adding paramedic to all stations. In addition to
the advantage of adding a paramedic to each station, there is a financial advantage of going from 11 total
staff to 9, a savings of $1.36 million in 2017. If the City wanted to retain the status quo, another $1.36
million would need to be identified in the budget. He clarified the additional $1.36 million to retain the
status quo includes an assumption that FD1 would no longer be willing to continue with the current
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 12
Packet Pg. 382
9.3.k
arrangement where the City only pays 77.79% of the cost of staffing Edmonds stations. Under the
original Interlocal Agreement with FD1, the cost of operating the three stations was planned to be split
per the following formula:
• Edmonds: 77.79%
Woodway: 9.13
Esperance (FD1): 13.08%
Mr. Taraday reviewed several issues addressed in the agreement:
Woodway
Woodway no longer contracts with FD1 so the revenue that was contemplated in the original agreement is
not being paid by Woodway. It could be argued that is FD1's problem, not Edmonds'. That is true in the
short term but the contract is terminable by FD1 upon two years' notice. FD1 leadership team has made it
clear to the City's negotiating team that the current 77.79% is not sustainable or acceptable going
forward. Technically FD1 probably could be forced to honor that arrangement for two years; however, it
would be invite a different relationship with FD1 and likely result in a notice of termination shortly
thereafter, requiring the parties to return to the bargaining table and a similar proposal. No one wants
there to be a question about who is providing fire service long term; the prospect of a terminal notice
should not be entertained with any seriousness. The FD1 negotiating team has agreed that if Edmonds can
bring Woodway back, the City has the right to subcontract with Woodway. He clarified the FD1 Board
has not yet approved the proposed agreement.
Negotiation Thresholds
The agreement also includes negotiation thresholds that identify when to renegotiate, 1) unit utilization
factor (0.20), 2) neighboring unit utilization factor (how often is Edmonds getting service from Station 14
or 19 or other stations) and 3) transport balance factor (outside Edmonds FD1 unit responds to Edmonds
and transports but does not receiving transport fee).
Out of Balance Transport Fees
The proposed agreement includes a provision if transport fees are out of balance, a portion is withheld
until balanced.
Esperance Offset
Under the original agreement FD1 paid 13.08% to service that area. FD1 is willing to transfer all the
fire/EMS tax revenue collected in this unincorporated area to Edmonds via an offset in the City's payment
to FD 1.
City Retains Authority to Set Level of Service
Language has been added to clarify that the City always retains the legislative discretion to establish the
level of service for Edmonds.
Turnout Time
Fitch & Associates recommended reducing the turnout time in Edmonds stations closer to the national
standard. FD1's standard is 2:15 which is not being met; FD1's turnout time is 2:51. District leadership is
interested in improvement but there are potential financial impacts to improving turnout time. Once a
dollar amount is determined, that information can be presented to the Council and FD1 and the City can
discuss who bears that cost and/or if the turnout standard should be changed.
Retroactive Invoices
The City will receive an invoice on September 1 that establishes a reliable estimate of the eventual
contract payment.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 13
Packet Pg. 383
9.3.k
Outstanding Issues
The agreement includes language in Section 2.3 that FD1 may not be able to agree to. The current
firefighters' shift is 24 hours and the schedule is one day on, one day off, one day on and five days off.
Firefighters may trade days which results in straight 72 hour shifts. This was an issue for the City's
negotiating team due to public safety concerns with working a 72-hour shift. Language in the contract
states staff in Edmonds can only work a maximum 48-hour shift and if necessary, work a third day in
another jurisdiction. This may need to be bargained and because the union does not want to give up the
ability to have a 72-hour shift, FD 1 may not be able to agree to this provision in the agreement.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mayor Earling relayed that
Council President Johnson, Mr. Taraday and he agreed to allow 30 minutes for testimony; due to the
number of audience members present, he asked how many audience members planned to testify. In
addition to 3 on the sign -in sheet, 8-9 indicated they wished to speak. Mayor Earling advised each would
be allowed 3 minutes to testify.
Laura Johnson, Edmonds, thanked the Council for reviewing emergency services to ensure the
community is covered with superior service. As the mom of an EpiPen child, emergency services and
response time are vital. Before taking camping trips, they locate emergency services and the hospital and
have altered plans based on their availability. One of the deciding factors in purchasing a home in
Edmonds was the proximity to emergency services and the hospital. The decision made in 2009 to
contract with FD 1 was beneficial to the City; during 2009 negotiations, the Council made it clear they
would not accept lowering the level of service, even as the City cut other costs due to the recession. After
reading the proposal, she wondered what had changed. Rather than analyzing if a prudent decision was
made in 2009, the review is geared toward cutting costs. Option 2 is a 20% reduction in FTE, going from
11 to 9, although it is packaged as enhancing service through cost cutting. She supported enhancement
which may include reallocation of ALS personnel but enhancement via cost cutting reduction in personnel
is rhetoric that has been tried before, often resulting in less than positive results. In this case, less than
positive results could mean delayed response time and possibly death. Edmonds is growing, increasing
the demand on emergency services and adding traffic which increases response time. The City is in a
good financial position but that will not always be the case and she respected future planning. Cuts should
begin at the bottom with less serious services, not at the top with vital life-saving services. The City
currently has superior service including a 64% heart attack survival rate, one of the top in the nation. She
understood that Option 2 adds additional life-saving personnel but it cuts three fire/BLS trained personnel
which will have an effect on service. She concluded this was not an enhancement, it was a reduction, a
reduction she was not comfortable with and one she urged the Council to reconsider.
Sally Merk, Edmonds, a downtown resident for 29 years, expressed support for maintaining and
possibly increasing fire station personnel. As Mr. Hoover noted in his comments to My Edmonds News,
this pre-2001 standard is very inadequate. In 1997, she called 911 after her husband appeared to be having
a heart attack, administering CPR while her 4-year old watched. The medic unit arrived 7 minutes later to
her home 2'/z blocks from Station 17 because they were at another call. Going back to those standards
could increase the risk of lives lost and another 4-year could lose a parent.
Brian Borofka, Edmonds, said his brother-in-law is a firefighter and he appreciates the training, skills
and risk firefighters take. Having said that, he referred to a letter to Council expressing his and his wife's
support for Alternative 2. After reading the materials prepared by Mr. Taraday and Mr. James and
reviewing the Fitch report, they believe Alternative 2 provides a precautionary approach that provides an
adequate level of service as well as a monetary reduction. An in -home survivor of cardiac arrest, he
assured he did not make that recommendation lightly. Looking at the risks and the needs the City faces,
he and his wife recommend moving forward with Alternative 2.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 14
Packet Pg. 384
9.3.k
David Williness, Edmonds, City of Kirkland firefighter, relayed Option 2 is a bad choice for the City.
The City currently has four emergency response units in service; the recommendation is to reduce that to
three, a significant reduction in available emergency resources. He was satisfied with either a dedicated
medic unit or spreading medics between units, however reducing the four unit system to three units was a
bad idea. This staffing change affects his family's ability to receive emergency medical and fire
suppression services as well as affects firefighters in the City. Not having enough firefighters at a fire
makes it more dangerous for the responding firefighters. He expressed support for maintaining current or
increasing staffing levels. As an Edmonds taxpayer, he would put his dollars behind that support.
A. J. Johnson, representing the firefighters, said when a study is commissioned and the original question
is how to cut costs in public safety instead of what is the best public safety service we can afford, the
result is a flawed study. Over the last week, he has corresponded with most Councilmembers and he
appreciated their responses. However when Councilmembers reply that the proposed plan is an increase
in service, he said they were 100% wrong. Edmonds' population as well as call volumes have increased
over the past six years. He questioned the choice to cut public safety services, pointing out that as cities
around Edmonds are planning for future population growth and trying to meet the needs of their citizens
by adding staff to their Fire Departments, Edmonds is doing the exact opposite. Edmonds' location on
Puget Sound is unique because another jurisdiction cannot respond from the west, making it very
important to appropriately staff the downtown station. FD1 is proud of having one of the highest cardiac
arrest survival rates. Fire personnel are not against single medic staffing but they are opposed to reducing
staffing from 11 to 9. He urged the Council to reconsider.
Drew Gardner, Edmonds, a firefighter/EMT on Whidbey Island, was shocked and saddened to learn
about the proposed fire and medical service cuts the Mayor proposed. His department on Whidbey Island
serves a population less than half Edmonds' population; they have two fully staffed medic units as well as
engines and aid units that operate within the district 24/7/365. Over the last four years, the department has
had a 25% increase in calls due to increasing residential population, similar to Edmonds and the rest of
Western Washington. Their department is considering ways to add more positions to meet the increase in
call volume and meet the community's needs. He urged the Council to think about Edmonds citizens'
needs first; reducing first responder staffing is not an appropriate solution in balancing the City's budget.
The City needs fire and medical services staffing maintained at current levels or increased at Stations 16,
17 and 20 to best serve the citizens of Edmonds. As a taxpayer, he urged the Council to consider his
comments.
Jolanda Matheson, Edmonds, referred to her email to Council stating her concern and appreciated the
responses from Councilmembers Buckshnis and Mesaros. Although the proposal increases paramedics
from two to three, she was concerned about the reduction in EMTs from six to three. She viewed this as a
decrease in service and she did not understand why it would be done when the City's revenues are better
than they were six years ago.
Jim Matheson, Edmonds, said he served on the National Academy of Science Study of the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear disaster. Fukushima Daiichi played the statistics; statistically a tsunami would not happen
so they did not prepare. A reactor to the north that prepared for disaster was undamaged and people
sheltered there when the town was destroyed by a tsunami. He expressed concern with the methodology,
relaying that at Fukushima Daiichi three reactors melted down; fire engines could not drive across the
yard due to debris. Instead of a statistical response, he preferred to see disaster testing. He referred to a
lecture at the library regarding the Cascadia Fault and suggested researching what would be needed in the
event of an earthquake or train disaster. He feared being blindsided by a disaster when the study only
considered business as usual. He referred to the Oakland fire and the amount of resources that would
require. He suggested the recommendation be pressure tested against possible disaster scenarios to see
which configuration performed best.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 15
Packet Pg. 385
9.3.k
Blaire Lynn Scrouse, Edmonds, explained they moved to Edmonds 8'/z years ago from West Virginia
because their son required extensive medical coverage; services unavailable on the east coast were
available at Children's. Her son has 13 different diagnoses including autism and loves the Fire
Department. When they came to this area, they did not expect to stay long; the last five years have been in
Edmonds. When looking for a house, they drew a 20-minute circumference around Children's Hospital.
They spent the next two years in an ambulance, at Children's emergency room, living at Children's or
living in fear when they went out. Moving from Mountlake Terrace which has a great fire department,
they were told how wonderful the Edmonds Fire Department was. She suggested the Council imagine a
child having a seizure lasting over 10 minutes and no longer breathing and the ambulance, paramedics
and firefighters cannot get their quick enough. She emphasized the importance of the Fire Department and
the disservice the Council is doing to the community. She tells people to come to Edmonds because she
believes it's a great place to live but the Council needs to prove they believe it's a great place to live by
not making this proposed change.
Susanna Martini, Edmonds, said she relies on the Fire and Police Departments to help her whenever
something goes wrong. She and her 9-year old daughter were proud to live in Edmonds and although she
does the best she can in her wheelchair, she could not image a life without the support of the Fire
Department. She lives on 3rd Avenue and drove her wheelchair to tonight's meeting. She urged the
Council to look into their hearts and think about raising taxes; she assured she and other taxpayers would
be willing to pay more to support the Fire Department. Firefighters mitigate the public's trauma and she
could not image how strong they have to be to deal with other human being's life and death and major
traumas. As an Edmonds resident, she urged the Council to think about what is happening and keep these
wonderful firefighters in Edmonds.
Strom Peterson, Edmonds, said when he was on the Council in 2009, citizens' number one priority was
not to reduce service in Edmonds. The Council heard that and worked with FD1 and Local 1828 to ensure
service was not reduced and that has proven to be an excellent model to date. Reorganizing staff within
stations is one thing, but reducing the number of staff from 11 to 9 is a reduction in service. After
spending a day training with firefighter, he saw the incredible amount of human power required for even
simplest call. The trains through the City represent impending disaster on the waterfront as does increased
traffic, homelessness, drug addiction and mental health. Cutting public safety is a disservice to the
firefighters as well as the citizens of Edmonds and the surrounding jurisdictions that the City has
interlocal agreements with. He was impressed by the speakers tonight who give a personal and historic
perspective. As the Council looks at the long term, he suggested looking at the possibility of future
regionalization of fire service. If/when those negotiations happen, Edmonds needs to be negotiating from
a position of strength, ensuring Edmonds has the fire service the City wants and the citizens demand.
Mayor Earling declared brief recess.
10. STUDY ITEMS
1. DISCUSSION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Taraday advised that FD 1 Board Chair FD 1 Jim McGaughey and Assistant Chief Brad Reading were
present as resources.
Councilmember Teitzel asked the difference between an EMT and a paramedic with regard to what they
can/cannot do in an advance life service incident such as a severe coronary. Dr. Knight said basic life
support (BLS) EMT can provide lower level acuity treatment plan such bandaging, stopping bleeding,
CPR, etc. Across the country, the trend is to allow BLS to provide greater levels of care than they could
20 years ago. A paramedic provides advanced life support (ALS) and critical interventions such as
inserting respiratory tubes, intratracheal intubation, pharmaceutical medicines and IVs, shocking patients,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 16
Packet Pg. 386
9.3.k
etc., A paramedic provides more capabilities than BLS; the higher the acuity or the more serious a
medical event is, the greater the need for intervention at the paramedic level.
Councilmember Teitzel provided a scenario of someone in north Meadowdale having a critical medical
event and an EMT is dispatched who does not have capability for injections, defibrillation, etc. and
dispatching a paramedic from Station 17 would take several minutes. Dr. Knight said defibrillation can
even be done by a lay person now automatic external defibrillators. The general premise is if a patient
needs ALS care in a timely manner, EMTs would be unable to provide that. However, under the current
system, plenty of treatment can be provided prior to the paramedic level. Councilmember Teitzel
commented response time of a medic is improved via a better distribution of paramedics and they could
cover BLS as well as ALS functions better than they are today. Dr. Knight agreed the overall coverage for
ALS would be vastly improved with a three station model.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to comments during public testimony regarding the ability to raise taxes
to provide more resources to maintain or increase resources for fire services. Finance Director Scott
James explained the deadline to raise property taxes for 2017 was November 30.
Councilmember Mesaros provided a scenario where the paramedic unit at Station 17 is on a call and an
issue arises in downtown Edmonds requiring ALS. Currently Station 14 or 19 would respond; he asked
their typical response time for paramedic support. Mr. Knight said that information is in the report but it
will be longer than with the current station plan. Councilmember Mesaros assumed that response time
would be greatly improved if there were paramedics at Station 16 and 20. Dr. Knight agreed.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to an email he received indicating an Edmonds citizen had gotten a
response from Shoreline; he was unaware the City had an interlocal agreement with Shoreline to provide
service in south Edmonds. Mr. Taraday explained Edmonds has auto aid agreements with all surrounding
jurisdictions except Woodway who does not have any fire/EMS services. Councilmember Mesaros asked
how often Edmonds provides support for other cities. Mr. Taraday agreed there are times when that
occurs; the question is with all the paramedics concentrated at Station 17, they are not as able to quickly
provide service further east. He assumed the City's paramedic response to other jurisdictions may be
limited by virtue of where paramedics are currently located. He suspected by distributing paramedics
evenly with one at each station, Edmonds would be in a better position reciprocate for ALS responses to
neighboring jurisdictions the same as Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace (FD1 Station 19) does with their
paramedics.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if there was a map of EMS calls in a year. Mr. Taraday advised there was
a map for 2014 available at City Hall.
Councilmember Nelson asked who was on the negotiating team for FED1. Mr. Taraday answered the
team has been Board Chair McGaughey, Commissioner Meador, Chief Cockrum, Assistant Chief
Reading, and FD 1's attorney. Councilmember Nelson asked who was on the City's negotiating team. Mr.
Taraday answered it has been primarily himself and Mr. James with consultation with Mayor Earling and
Dr. Knight. Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. Taraday if he had any firefighting experience Mr. Taraday
answered absolutely not. Councilmember Nelson asked Mr. James if he had any firefighting experience.
Mr. James said he did not. Councilmember Nelson observed the City was relying on Dr. Knight for
firefighting experience. Mr. Taraday said when they felt any fire expertise was needed, they consulted
with Dr. Knight. Board Chair McGaughey and Commissioner Meador are also former firefighters.
Councilmember Nelson said they are looking out FD1's interests. Mr. Taraday said they are looking out
for FD1's interests at a certain level but all firefighters are interested in protecting public safety. For
example, when Alternative 3 was originally proposed, the District essentially refused to pursue it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 17
Packet Pg. 387
9.3.k
Councilmember Nelson asked Dr. Knight if he was a medical doctor. Dr. Knight responded he was not;
his Doctorate is in curriculum and instruction with a minor in research and measurement, his Masters is in
public administration, Bachelors in fire and safety engineering and he was a firefighters in St. Petersburg,
Florida for 22 years. Councilmember Nelson commented the negotiations had been pursued privately with
no Councilmembers present.
Councilmember Nelson asked who showed up when an ALS call was received near Station 16 and Station
16 was available. Mr. Taraday answered Station 16 would be dispatched because it is the closest vehicle
and if it was an ALS call, a second unit from Station 17 if they were available. Councilmember Nelson
observed currently there were four units in the City; under the proposal there would be three units. With
one paramedic call, staffing was down to one available unit. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on whether
one or two units are dispatched. Councilmember Nelson asked if the standard was to have two paramedics
respond. Mr. Taraday answered it was standard if they are available and he recalled one of the FD1
negotiators said 90% of the time one paramedic is sufficient and only in a rare instance are two
paramedics needed versus a paramedic and 1-2 EMTs. Councilmember Nelson asked if standard policy
was to dispatch two paramedics. Mr. Taraday answered that is the standard for a medic call but it is not
required.
Councilmember Nelson provided another scenario, a BLS call near Station 16 for a broken arm and
Station 16 is available and asked who responds. Mr. Taraday answered under the new proposal, Station
16 would be dispatched. Councilmember Nelson observed under that scenario, a paramedic is responding
to a BLS call, leaving two stations to respond to an actual ALS call. Councilmember Nelson summarized
these scenarios illustrate the impact of reducing the units from four to three. Mr. Taraday said in the most
recent scenario, there would still be two paramedics available. Currently if there Station 17 paramedics
respond to a call, there are no paramedics available in the City; one ALS call wipes out the entire
paramedic crew. Councilmember Nelson pointed out under the proposal, ALS units would be responding
to BLS calls in Edmonds as well as in Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Brier, whereas now Station 17
is out of the way, inconvenient and responds primarily to Edmonds. Mr. Taraday explained FD1
dispatches according to automatic vehicle locator, always sending the closest unit.
Mayor Earling appreciated that Councilmember Nelson wanted detailed information but it appeared he
was grilling the lawyer. He welcomed general questions but not the debate that would result from trying
to poke holes in the agreement. Councilmember Nelson pointed out Mr. Taraday is an attorney. Mr.
Taraday welcomed the inquiry, assuring no one was trying to hide any of the details about the proposed
change. Councilmember Nelson was asking important questions and he had no problem answering them.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was part of the consultant selection team; the reason for hiring a
consultant was to have someone help the City understand. She asked the credentials of the people that
helped develop options, prepare the report, etc. She assured then-Councilmember Petso, Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas and she left no stone unturned regarding qualifications when interviewing. Dr. Knight
said he began as a firefighter/paramedic and worked his way up the ranks through division chief of
training, division chief of operations and division chief of EMS during his career and retired as an
assistant chief. St. Petersburg is a quasi -metro size department, running about 60,000 calls a year, an ISO
Class I department that is going through accreditation. He also worked for the accreditation group for the
Commission on Fire Accreditation International through the Center of Public Safety Excellence for about
10 years while still with the fire service completing his degrees. He has been doing consulting full-time
for approximately three years.
Other members of the team that assisted include Dr. Bruce Moller, originally a police officer outside
Chicago, who became the fire chief for Broward County, Florida which merged 13 different
municipalities and the ambulance system, then a fire chief of a city similar to Edmonds' size, then serving
as the city manager for 5-6 years before becoming assistant county administrator over public safety in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 18
Packet Pg. 388
another large county with a population of 1 million and 70 fire stations. The quantitative analysis was
done by Dr. Gong Wong who has a PhD in operations research, finance was done by one of the budget
director personnel from Miami Dade Fire Rescue and Guillermo Fuentes, the partner who oversaw the
study, ran Montreal's EMS system, the 5th largest system in the world.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Edmonds was not Dr. Knight's first client. Dr. Knight said in
accreditation and consultant he has done studies for approximately 30 cities and counties. Fitch &
Associates currently has 13 projects in motion and has been doing public safety consulting for 30 years,
has done work in all 50 states, 12 countries and every continent except Antarctica. Councilmember
Buckshnis said Fitch's executive summary and data report is included in the packet. She clarified the City
can no longer do the status quo because the status quo includes Woodway (Exhibit C) and Edmonds
likely will be out of FD1 in two years. Mr. Taraday relayed the FD1 Board passed a motion last summer
indicating they intended to negotiate all the contract cities in a manner to recoup the full cost of the
service. He suggested Board Chair McGaughey could answer that question.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the amount of Woodway's share that the City would take on. Mr. James
answered the contract gives the City the ability to subcontract with Woodway. Councilmember Buckshnis
pointed out that was not an issue yet because Woodway would need two years to get out of their contract
with Shoreline. If the Council moves forward with an alternative, the City must pay Woodway's share,
approximately $983,000. Mr. James said the cost is based on 2014 because FD1 has not settled the
contract with its labor unit. The current estimate is $800,000 and he estimated the status quo would be in
the high $800,000s.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Alternative 2 was actually a hybrid, recalling an alternative was
considered where firefighters would stabilize and FD1 would provide transport. Mr. Taraday said that was
a supplemental medic unit that FD1 was originally considering. FD1 still needs to get over a hurdle with
the union who is opposed to less than 24 hour shifts and does not want to allow peak hour medic units.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked who in management negotiates for the teamsters for Edmonds.
Mr. Taraday answered HR Director Hardie and Sharon Cates, Lighthouse Law Group. Public Works
Director Phil Williams said he also participates. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Ms.
Cates or Ms. Hardie had experience working in the sewage treatment plant. Ms. Hardie said no.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said negotiators depend on the people they are negotiating with to get
information. She asked who negotiates for the Police Department. Ms. Hardie said she currently serves as
the lead, Ms. Cates, Chief Compaan and Assistant Chief Lawless also participate. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas asked if Ms. Cates or Ms. Hardie had any experience with animal control. Ms. Hardie answered
not that she was aware of. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the chiefs had ever done animal
control. Ms. Hardie answered it was possible. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how staff
determined the best way to negotiate a contract; did they assume what the animal control officer did or
did they find out from the other side. Ms. Hardie answered it is a process, working with the management
team as well as the union.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the City will never have people in negotiations who have done
every job. She appreciated Dr. Knight's ability to answer questions and provide technical information. It
was her understanding the fire commissioners have been very helpful to the City in providing
information. She asked whether the City negotiates the effects of a reorganization with Local 1828. Mr.
Taraday answered no, the City does not have a contract with Local 1828, FD1 does. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas asked who negotiates with Local 1828. Mr. Taraday answered it was his understanding
negotiations was done by a lawyer but he was unaware who was on the negotiating team.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assumed FD1 commissioners have some experience in fire services. Mr.
Taraday answered two commissioners do. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed when FD1 is
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 19
Packet Pg. 389
9.3.k
negotiating with Local 1828, there is some experience at the table. Mr. Taraday assumed one of the chiefs
or one of the commissioners is involved in negotiations but he did not know anything about their
negotiation process or who was on the team. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized it is not
abnormal in a negotiation process for one side not to have experience in every aspect.
Council President Johnson recalled Mr. James stating Woodway's cost was in the high $800,OOOs and it
was previously stated FD1 was not interested in carrying that cost and all the costs must be covered by the
contract cities. She felt it was a burden for Edmonds to cover the cost of another jurisdiction, Woodway.
The proposal includes a provision whereby if Woodway returns to FD1, Edmonds could collect their
contribution. Woodway would need two years to end their current contract with Shoreline. She asked if
there had been any discussion about sharing the cost of Woodway with FD1 during the interim so it is not
entirely the City's burden. That would result in a significant savings for Edmonds, up to $400,000/year.
Mr. Taraday responded the primary focus in the negotiation was to contract for the right to subcontract to
Woodway. That was felt to be an appropriate tradeoff given the additional cost the City was being asked
to incur. There are other ways to approach problem and find a solution. He displayed the map of FD 1 and
the three Edmonds stations, pointing out the only FD1 territory anywhere near these three stations is
Esperance. The ask would be to for FD 1 to pay a share of these three stations which exceeds the amount
attributable to Esperance. The City's strategy was to focus on trying bring Woodway back and acquire the
right through negotiations to subcontract to Woodway so that Edmonds is in the driver's seat and has a
higher likelihood of bringing the Woodway dollars back to help finance the three stations.
Council President Johnson appreciated that in the long run but in the short term, it could cost the City
$1.6 million ($800,000/year for the 2 years until Woodway gets out of their contract with Shoreline) to
pay for service Woodway is not receiving. Mr. Taraday responded under Alternative 2, Woodway's share
was $602,000/year. The City has the ability to stand on the existing contract rights and see what happens.
Council President Johnson recalled Mr. Taraday saying that would result in the same negotiations. Mr.
Taraday agreed that was his prediction. Council President Johnson accepted his analysis but was
interested in reducing the cost so it was not a burden to Edmonds. One of the ways would be to share it
with FD1 over the next two years. Mr. Taraday said that is essential what the City would be doing if a
decision was made to stand on the existing contract rights.
Council President Johnson asked if there was something in between that would only cost Edmonds half
the amount to subsidize Woodway. Mr. Taraday said that was not pursued in negotiations, the focus in
negotiations was the right to subcontract to Woodway. The City has the right to stand on the contract
language and theoretically ride it out for two years. What happens at the end of two years is unknown; he
did not foresee FD 1 would let that ride for two years. Council President Johnson understood the team
negotiated the right for Woodway funds go into Edmonds General Fund but Woodway cannot do that
without defaulting on their agreement with Shoreline. As a result, the cost of Woodway's contribution
would be borne entirely by Edmonds for the next two years. Mr. Taraday agreed, commenting it could be
argued that was appropriate given the areas served by Stations 16, 17 and 20.
Mr. Taraday pointed out these issues dovetail nicely in that the City's utilization rate is currently quite
low. The thinking was it would take some time to bring Woodway back but meanwhile, given these unit
utilization rates, the City could pursue Alternative 2 while Woodway is brought back and the utilization
will slowly increase. He anticipated by the time utilization rates reached the point where capacity needed
to be added, it was likely Woodway would be back and essentially whatever service was needed could be
added with Woodway's revenues to help pay for it.
Council President Johnson asked the cost to Edmonds for the next two years to pay Woodway's portion.
Mr. Taraday answered their share of the station labor costs under Alternative 2 are $602,000/year.
Council President Johnson commented that was almost the cost of reorganizing Station 17.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 20
Packet Pg. 390
9.3.k
Councilmember Nelson referred to the comparison of labor contracts to this interlocal agreement,
pointing out that was comparing apple to oranges. Labor contracts and job classifications are not
comparable to the type of fire service the City wants, fire engines and paramedic and how they operate,
call times, turnout times, etc. He referred to Mr. James' October 2014 comments in My Edmonds News
that Edmonds has a unique service model that other cities do not, a dedicated paramedic unit. Dedicated
paramedic unit costs more and it's possible Edmonds could receive the same level service without the
extra expense. That's good common sense. Councilmember Nelson pointed out Mr. James was talking
about getting rid of Medic 17 before Fitch conducted the study and now the recommendation was to get
rid of Medic 17. Mr. James explained when the City received the retro bill, it opened the door for
discussion about how to mitigate this huge cost. FD 1 offered to change the paramedic service, indicating
there was no study showing the levels of service Edmonds was providing. When Edmonds signed the
contract with FD1, it was a prescriptive move, the existing levels of service. He recalled Medic 7 was
originally operated through Stevens Hospital; when Medic 7 disbanded, Edmonds took on the paramedic
service without benefit of a study substantiating the need for a dedicated paramedic unit at Station 17.
Then -Chief Widdis acknowledged without benefit of a study, the City may be over capacity and one way
to save money would be to reallocate the paramedic to three stations, essentially disbanding 17.
Councilmember Nelson said the primary reason this idea came up was the cost. Lynnwood has a
dedicated paramedic; FD1 has a dedicated paramedic unit, Medic 11, the busiest medic in the district; and
King County has world renowned Medic 1. Mr. James said the demands in those areas are different than
Edmonds. He referred to standards of coverage in the contract, FD1 has been unable to meet many of the
fire response standards, and the contact indicates FD1 will work on those standards. Mr. Taraday said
those standards have historically not been met by the City's Fire Department or by FD1. He was unclear
where those standards came from as they do not appear to be realistic, similar to FD1's adopted standard
turnout time of 2:15 and their actual is 2:41. There is always an effort to reach the standard but they are
frequently not met and he did not have an explanation for that.
Councilmember Nelson observed the contract was proceeding with the idea that the standards for fire
response have not been met in the past and there are no plans to meet them in the future. Mr. Taraday said
FD1 will do the best job possible to respond quickly. Councilmember Nelson pointed out there is nothing
holding them accountable. Mr. Taraday said there was discussion about moving to performance based
standards; one of Fitch's overarching recommendations was instead of prescribing the number of
positions, to move to a pay for performance based standard. Everyone thought that was a good idea but a
lot of work would be required to develop a realistic performance based standard, one that was so
consistently achievable that if it was not met, there would be a financial consequence. The parties are not
in position to do that now but no one is abandoning that effort and ultimately want to get to that.
Councilmember Nelson wanted to reach that sooner than later.
Councilmember Nelson said the issue has always been about cost. In reading the Fitch study he
repeatedly saw phrases such as realize savings, original cost productions, financial beneficial, fiscal
analysis, value based analysis, explore fiscal efficiencies, no cost option, equivalent value, at no cost,
minimal no cost options, provide the greatest return on investment, contain costs, reduction in
expenditures, significant fiscal benefit, fiscal advantage, cost free. He compared the report to a stock
prospective due to the number of references to return on investment. He was concerned the primary issue
seemed to be cost. He referred to the cost for Woodway, $1.36 million and the $700-800,000 Edmonds
would be on the hook for. Mr. Taraday referred to Exhibit C that would apply under proposed Alternative
2. Woodway's share of station staffing cost was calculated by multiplying Station Staffing Cost,
$6,601,270, by 9.13%. Woodway's share of the total is calculated by multiplying the total
Suppression/EMS Contract Cost $8,231,586 by 9.13%. He agreed it was a lot of money.
Councilmember Nelson proposed a scenario, in two years Woodway no longer contracts with Shoreline
and agrees to subcontract with Edmonds and asked how much money that represented. Mr. Taraday said
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 21
Packet Pg. 391
9.3.k
the City gets to decide; he anticipated it would be slightly less than what Shoreline charges Woodway
today. Councilmember Nelson commented that large amount may only exist for 1-2 years and it would be
significant less to have the status quo assuming the City subcontracts with Woodway. Mr. Taraday said
his assumption was not necessarily that the City would fully recoup what was formally known as
Woodway's share, the 9.13%, because that may not be a price Woodway was willing to pay. He
suggested Edmonds would be in a position to drive a bargain that Woodway would be hard pressed to
refuse.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the UHU chart and asked how current it was. Dr. Knight answered
2014. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was any indication of increase in the past two years. Dr.
Knight answered overall growth was fairly flat in the last two years, less than 2%. He acknowledged two
years was a short snapshot. Typically Fire Department's increase 3-5%/year nationally so 5% is a more
reasonable projection. Councilmember Tibbott asked if Woodway was part of the service area in 2014.
Dr. Knight answered no.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how the proposed configuration of ALS at three stations compared to other
stations in FD1. Board Chair McGaughey answered with the exception of Station 11 in the far north, FD1
has a paramedic and EMTs at every station. Councilmember Tibbott asked how many firefighters that
represented. Assistant Chief Reading said every station has a minimum of one paramedic, a captain, and
an EMT, sometimes two paramedics depending on staffing. Station 11 near Mariner High School has five
staff, a dedicated medic unit with a minimum one EMT and one paramedic and an engine with three
people including one medic. Station 10 and 21 have peak activity units 12 hours/day to assist with call
load and they each have a paramedic and a firefighter. Councilmember Tibbott asked how FD1 was able
to have 12-hour shifts at those stations. Assistant Chief Reading answered with great difficulty, they are
currently bargaining that with the labor group.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how well Alternative 2 would service Edmonds as it related to having ALS
distributed around the City and response times. Assistant Chief Reading answered distributing paramedics
among stations is done in the rest of the district and the Commission feels that is a better way to provide
the service. Conversely, any time a unit is eliminated, it reduces staffing within the City.
Councilmember Tibbott commented there would also be a reduction in the service area. Assistant Chief
Reading advised Woodway has not been part of the service area since 2012. Councilmember Tibbott
commented the City is looking for a way to right size forces. Distributing ALS services may be a way to
serve the City in a superior way. Assistant Chief Reading said ALS at every station is the way FD1 is
configured and they feel it provides a good level of service. The City's service level is determined by the
City Council and FD 1 tells the City how much that costs.
Councilmember Tibbott was concerned about the possibility of increased population particularly if
Woodway returned. Of the three existing stations, two appear to be in great locations and one is not the
best. He asked which of the three would be the best location for a fourth unit or was there another location
for a fourth unit. Assistant Chief Reading said near Stevens Hospital would be a good location for a
medic unit, either a peak unit or a full-time unit due to the call load in that area.
Assuming continued growth of residential and commercial on Highway 99, Councilmember Tibbott
asked what future service requirement could be anticipated in 5-10 years. Assistant Chief Reading said
there are openers in the contract as Edmonds grows. One of the issues with taller development is ladder
response and dedicated ladders. Edmonds has a cross -staffed ladder aid car at Station 20. There may be a
need for a dedicated later at some point in the south end to help with high-rises.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was elected on the first day the City no longer owned its
Fire Department. She agreed the issue was cost; hiring Fitch & Associates was the result of the City's
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 22
Packet Pg. 392
receipt of a $1.9 million bill and the Council's interest in determining whether there was a better way of
doing business. Early discussions included the City restarting its own Fire Department and the associated
costs, contracting with another Fire Districts such as Lynnwood. Where the discussion finally landed was
figuring out what to do and maintaining FD1. The biggest issue is Woodway and she was unsure the
contract would have been renegotiated if Woodway had not left. FD1 negotiated a contract with
Woodway that allowed them an easy out. There were no provisions in the contract that Edmonds would
pick up the cost of Woodway if they left. Woodway leaving also impacted the $1.9 million bill the City
received.
One of the options is a public safety levy to fund the Fire and Police Departments. Cuts have been made
to the Police Department in the past and before FD 1 took over the Fire Department, there were cuts to the
Fire Department due to a lack of funds to pay for services. Costs are increasing; labor costs are
approximately 80% of the Fire and Police Department budgets. She anticipated the only way to cover the
increasing cost was a public safety levy. In the past, the City put a three-part levy on the ballot; all three
failed because the City did a poor job publicizing them. The City needs to find ways to provide public
safety, roads, and basic necessities such as stormwater and water via a public safety levy. If the City
wants rich services in police or fire, there needs to be a funding mechanism. Citizens are not paying
enough in taxes to afford really good, safe, secure public safety.
Councilmember Buckshnis said to her it was not about the financial analysis but understanding how
firefighters work. In 2009 she was a citizen proponent of not selling the City's Fire Department to FDL
She disagreed the Fitch report read like a prospectus; it talks about the number of Edmonds incidents,
percentage of fire incidents, average calls, what firefighters do. This is a very emotional situation and
because she is not a firefighter, she needed to understand how hard firefighters work, the number of calls,
etc. The annual reports FD1 provides do not provide the details that the Fitch report provided. She
encouraged the public to read Fitch's final report which provides the Council the tools to make good
decisions. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out FD1's attorney is also present tonight. She assured this
has been a collaborative effort for a long time; the Council is trying to trying to figure out the best thing
for the City and the firefighters in the short and long term.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed he was impressed with FD1 and the quality of service they provide. If the
Council approved the reduction of two staff in Alternative 2, he asked whether those individuals could be
reassigned within FD1 or would there be a reduction in head count at FD1. Mr. Taraday said his
understanding is those positions are easily absorbed elsewhere in the District and no one would lose their
job as a result of this change.
Mayor Earling asked whether staff planned to meet with the FD1 representatives again before next week.
Mr. Taraday said no meeting is scheduled, but he anticipated some edits from FD1 on the last draft.
Assuming the City Council is in favor of this proposal, ideally final action would be taken next week. He
requested the Council provide a sense of whether they wanted to continue with Alternative 2 and staff
will bring the agreement back next week for a motion on the contract and any amendments. It was his
understanding FD1 has requested the Council reach agreement so the new agreement could be effective
January 1, 2017. Mr. Taraday suggested Councilmembers pose any technical fire response type questions
tonight as Dr. Knight will not be present next week.
Dr. Knight commented as an outsider to the process, he commended the Council for their transparent,
open process. The team worked with City staff, met with Councilmembers, worked with Chief Widdis to
ensure FD1 had advance notice of anything that was presented publicly, and a presentation was made to
the FD1 Board. The reported looked at the services, applauded FD1 on providing high level services and
found no deficiencies in the service delivery models, but identified potential opportunities for changing
the status quo. He recognized this change was challenging and emotional. The Council could be assured it
had been done in a highly professional and transparent manner.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 23
Packet Pg. 393
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether it was absolutely imperative that the agreement be in
place by January 1, 2017. Mr. Taraday said he could not speak for what FD1 would do if the agreement
was not in place this month. A fair amount of the details in the agreement assume service starts under the
new model on January 1, 2017 so significant redrafting would be required if it did not. He discouraged
delaying the approval of the agreement for a few weeks without a compelling reason and was uncertain
what additional information would be needed as the report was quite thorough. He understood it was a
difficult decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to have a discussion with Council about a
public safety levy anticipating a levy could be completed in a year. Mr. Taraday asked if Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas' thought was to proceed with the levels in Alternative 2 and if a levy passed, the City
could add service. If the levy did not pass, the voters will be saying they do not want to pay for a higher
level of service. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed that was her thinking.
Mr. Taraday said a final draft will be presented to Council for possible action next week.
3. 2016 4TH QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT
Mr. James reviewed the 4th Quarter Budget Amendment:
6 Decision Packages
o Additional costs identified in the replacement of Frances Anderson Center band shell -
$62,275
o Bond refunding savings - $367,000
o Deputy City Clerk out of class pay - $4,120
o Waterfront Access Study - $50,000
o City did not receive a grant from Snohomish County Tourism — $40,000
o Economic Impact Study of the arts in Edmonds - $20,000
$888,526 in revenues
$1,032,008 in expenditures
$143,482 decrease in fund balance
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO APPROVE THE 4TH QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PROSECUTOR'S CONTRACT RENEWAL
Human Resources Director Mary Ann Hardie advised the current contract expired at the end of 2015 with
a 1-year extension to December 31, 2016. HR along with Sharon Cates, Lighthouse Law Group, has been
negotiating the prosecutor's contract with Zachor Thomas. This will renew the contract for two years with
a $50,000 increase in 2017 and a $58,000 increase in 2018. Procedural changes in the court, in the
indigent defense standards, and caseloads has result in increased prosecution service costs. It is further
recommended that the City publish an RFP for prosecutor services by the end of 2017 or early 2018.
Councilmember Mesaros recalled when the City renewed the City Attorney's contract, a process for
evaluating their performance was established. He suggested doing the same for the prosecuting attorney
and to include the evaluation system in the RFQ. Ms. Hardie agreed.
Councilmember Tibbott said one of the messages he heard was the system has changed and there are
more requirements. New information tonight was the State Supreme Court requires the defense attorney
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 24
Packet Pg. 394
9.3.1
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE
ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
CITY OF EDMONDS
2020
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 2006, the City of Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1133,
adopting the performance, policy, standards, and objectives outlined in the Washington
State Legislature Substitute House Bill 1756, as the Edmonds Fire Department's emer-
gency resource deployment and response time objectives.
On November 2, 2009, the City of Edmonds City Council approved an Interlocal Agree-
ment with Snohomish County Fire District 1 (SCFD1) transferring Fire and Emergency
Medical Services responsibilities to SCFD 1. NOTE: As of October 1, 2017, Snohomish
Countv Fire District 1 became South Countv Fire (RFA) and is referred to as South
County Fire in this compliance report. Section 2.5 of the Interlocal Agreement requires
South County Fire to report to the City performance standards as identified in RCW
35.103. The following constitutes this reporting requirement:
2020 COMPLIANCE REPORT CONTENTS
As required by SHB 1756, the 2020 Compliance Report includes four Sections:
• Section 1: Edmonds Municipal Code Chapter 2.12 Fire Department.
• Section 2: South County Fire Policy Statements.
• Section 3: Comparison of 2019 response times to each adopted response stand-
ard.
• Section 4: An explanation of why Council -adopted standards were not met, the
predictable consequences of failing to meet adopted standards, and
steps necessary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compli-
ance.
SECTION1.........................................................................................2
SECTION2.........................................................................................3
SECTION3.........................................................................................4
SECTION4.........................................................................................8
Packet Pg. 395
9.3.1
SECTION 1
EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE
Chapter 2.12
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Sections:
2.12.010 Fire service.
2.12.020 Pre-existing rights and obligations not impaired.
2.12.010 Fire Service.
Fire service is provided to residents of the City of Edmonds by and through a contract with South
County Fire. Whenever any reference is made in the provisions of the Edmonds City Code (ECC)
or Edmonds Community Development Code to "fire chief," "fire marshal," "fire department," or any
other reference to a firefighter or fire services, such term shall include, for the provision of admin-
istrative or other day-to-day fire services, to reference the fire chief, fire marshal and firefighting
services performed for the City by contract by South County Fire.
A. The officials of South County Fire, when performing services by contract to the citizens of
the City of Edmonds and to the city in its corporate capacity, shall exercise any and all
rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of this code
to the same extent and in the same manner as if performed by an employee of the City.
B. Employees of South County Fire shall not be entitled to any wage or benefit provision of
this code, including but not limited to Chapters 2.06 and 2.35 ECC. The Edmonds civil ser-
vice system shall remain in effect, but no employee of South County Fire shall have re-
course to the Civil Service Commission following the termination date of fire department
employees by the City. [Ord. 3762 § 2, 2009].
2.12.020 Pre -Existing Rights and Obligations Not Impaired.
The City Council's determination to contract or not contract for fire services with South County
Fire and the provisions of this chapter shall not impair any existing vested right or vested obliga-
tion created under the provisions of state law or under Chapter 2.50 ECC, Firemen's Relief and
Pension System, Chapter 2.60 ECC, Reserve Fire Fighters' Relief and Pensions Act, Chapter
2.70 ECC, Retirement System, and Chapter 10.30 ECC, Disability Board, as well as the City's
MEBT plan. The rights of any person under such system vested prior to the transfer of fire service
responsibility by contract shall remain in full force and effect and are not impaired by either such
or the adoption of this chapter. [Ord. 3762 § 2, 2009].
2
Packet Pg. 396
9.3.1
SECTION 2
POLICY STATEMENTS
The Fire Department maintains written policy statements that establish the
following:
1. The existence of the Fire Department is verified by Municipal Code 2.12.
X meets requirement does not meet
2. Services that the Fire Department is required to provide are addressed in the Inter -
local Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services.
X meets requirement does not meet
3. The basic organizational structure of the Fire Department is as depicted in the SCF
Organizational Chart approved by the Fire Chief.
X meets requirement does not meet
4. The number of Fire Department employees on duty daily in 2019, at the Edmonds
stations, is 9 personnel as outlined in the Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emer-
gency Services, and as adopted by South County Fire Board of Fire Commissioners
as part of the 2019 SCF Budget.
X meets requirement does not meet
5. The functions Fire Department employees are expected to perform are listed in the
Interlocal Agreement for Fire and Emergency Medical Services, and in the 2020
South County Fire Budget.
X meets requirement does not meet
Packet Pg. 397
9.3.1
SECTION 3
STANDARDS of RESPONSE COMPARISON (STANDARD OF COVER)
To measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events
of "brain death" or "flashover" occur, the Fire Department is required to establish re-
sponse -time objectives and compare the actual department results on an annual basis
against the established objectives. The comparison began in 2007 with a comparison of
the established response objectives against actual 2006 response times for the levels of
response. This year, actual 2020 response time data is compared against the originally
established, Council -adopted 2006 standard. The following section provides the compar-
ison:
Turnout time for all emergency incidents:
Turnout Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a turn out time
standard of 2:45, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did
meet the turn out time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of the Fire
Department incidents experienced a turn out time of 2:34 minutes/seconds.
2A. Response time of the first -arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression
Inrident-
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first engine company at a fire sup-
pression incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of fire sup-
pression incidents had the first engine arrive at the scene within 6:50
minutes/seconds of response time.
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential
fire suppression incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 7:45 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm re-
sponse to a residential fire suppression incident, which the department should
meet 90 percent of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm re-
sponse of 15 firefighters.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the full deployment response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100
percent of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm re-
sponding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 8:39
minutes/seconds of response time. There were 4 incidents in 2020 (5:00, 6:49,
7:25, and 8:39).
4
Packet Pg. 398
9.3.1
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a commer-
cial fire suppression incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 9:00 for the arrival of the full complement of a first alarm re-
sponse to a commercial fire suppression incident, which the department should
meet 90 percent of the time. The Fire Department has adopted a first alarm re-
sponse of 18 firefighters.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the full deployment response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100
percent of fire suppression incidents had the full deployment of first alarm re-
sponding personnel and equipment arrive at the scene within 12:00
minutes/seconds of response time. There were 3 incidents in 2020 (8:07, 9:44,
and 12:00).
3. Response time of the first -arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher -
level capability to an emergency medical incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 5:15 for the arrival of the first emergency medical unit with ap-
propriately trained personnel on board (BLS) to an emergency medical inci-
dent, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of emer-
gency medical incidents had the first -arriving first responder (BLS) arrive at the
scene within 6:31 minutes/seconds of response time.
4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit
to an emergency medical incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:45 for the arrival of an Advanced Life Support unit with ap-
propriately trained personnel (two Paramedics) on board to an ALS emergency
medical incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of emer-
gency medical incidents had the Advanced Life Support (two Paramedics) unit
arrive at the scene within 6:13 minutes/seconds of response time.
5A1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel on board to a
Packet Pg. 399
9.3.1
hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time. 100 percent of haz-
ardous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Op-
erations level personnel arrive at the scene within 11:01 minutes/seconds of
response time. There were 4 incidents in 2020 (2:47, 4:08, 6:20, and 11:01).
5A2. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 12:00 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Hazardous Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a
hazardous materials incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of hazard-
ous materials incidents had trained and equipped Hazardous Materials Techni-
cian level personnel arrive at the scene within X:XX minutes/seconds of re-
sponse time. There were zero incidents in 2020.
5B1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a
technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the
time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 90 percent of tech-
nical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations
level personnel arrive at the scene within 7:13 minutes/seconds of response
time.
5B2. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 12:00 minutes for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately
trained and equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to
6
Packet Pg. 400
9.3.1
a technical rescue incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of
the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of tech-
nical rescue incidents had trained and equipped Technical Rescue Operations
level personnel arrive at the scene within 15:45 minutes/seconds of response
time. There were four incidents in 2020. (14:09, 14:54, 13:37, and 15:45)
6. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine inci-
dent:
Response Time Standard: The Fire Department has adopted a response/travel
time standard of 6:30 for the arrival of the first unit with appropriately trained
and equipped Marine Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine
incident, which the department should meet 90 percent of the time.
Actual Department Comparison for the Year 2020: The Fire Department did not
meet the response time objective 90 percent of the time; 100 percent of marine
incidents had trained and equipped firefighting personnel arrived at the scene
within 10:24 minutes/seconds of response time. There were four incidents in
2020. (00:40, 06:42, 05:07, and 10:24)
7
Packet Pg. 401
9.3.1
SECTION 4
COUNCIL -ADOPTED STANDARDS NOT MET
SHB 1756 requires an explanation when Council -adopted standards are not met, the
predictable consequences of failing to meet the adopted standards, and the steps nec-
essary to correct deficiencies in order to achieve compliance.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS NOT MET
The Council -Adopted 2006 performance standards that were not met in 2020 are:
2A. Response time of the first -arriving Engine Company to a fire suppression
Incident:
Established: 6:30
Actual: 6:50
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential
fire suppression incident
Established: 7:45
Actual: 8:39
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a commer-
cial fire suppression incident:
Established: 9:00
Actual: 12:00
3. Response time of the first -arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher -
level capability to an emergency medical incident:
Established: 5:15
Actual: 6:31
5A1. Response time of the first -arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and
equipped Hazardous Materials Operations level personnel onboard to a haz-
ardous materials incident:
Established: 6:30
Actual: 11:01
5131. Response time of the first-arrivina aDparatus with aDDroDriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident:
Established: 6:30
Actual: 7:31
8
Packet Pg. 402
9.3.1
5B2. Response time of the first-arrivina aaoaratus with aoarooriately trained and
equipped Technical Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical
rescue incident
Established: 12:00
Actual: 15:45
Packet Pg. 403
9.3.m
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
March 23, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Michelle Bennett, Acting Police Chief
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
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 Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. PRESENTATION
1. INTELLECTUAL/DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AWARENESS MONTH
PROCLAMATION
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming the month of March as Intellectual/Developmental
Disabilities Awareness month in Edmonds, Washington, and asking its residents to recognize and include
in all activities our community members with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Chris Brandt, AtWork!, thanked the City for recognizing that people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities have much to contribute to Edmonds by proclaiming March Intellectual/Developmental
Disabilities Awareness Month. AtWork! has supported over 300 people in getting good jobs that matched
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 404
9.3.m
their strengths and abilities. In the last couple of years, AtWork! has expanded to provide services in
Snohomish County and are working hard to support people with disabilities who live here to be fully
included as equal citizens and are looking forward to doing more work in Edmonds. They get people jobs
and support them to utilize their talents to be top notch employees and help businesses get their essential
work done.
Ms. Brandt explained during the pandemic, job coaches supported people with disabilities, many of whom
are essential workers in grocery stores, restaurants and other small businesses, to keep their jobs, to learn
how to use PPE and to learn new techniques for pandemic safety and protocols. Now that the state is phase
3, AtWork! is supporting more people returning to work every day and working with local businesses to
identify their needs and match them with the interests, strengths and dreams of persons with disabilities
who really want to work hard to make a difference in addition to helping communities build inclusive
workforces. As Edmonds proclaims, being included, making a contribution, and having a full and
meaningful life are important to everyone. AtWork! supports people with disabilities to find their place
within the community where they can be part of things, a club, a senior center, a volunteer group, an
employer, a business, and they are excited to continue to find those places in Edmonds and to bring the
robust richness of opportunity, relationships, inspiration and hope that true inclusivity promises.
Shayne Nagel, Director, ARC Snohomish County, was honored and thankful for this opportunity by
Mayor Nelson and Edmonds City Council. ARC is the resource of first choice for individuals with
developmental disabilities and their families regardless of their disability and at all stages of life. There are
10 ARCs in Washington State and 650 around the country. In Washington State, ARCS fiscal investment
ranks 41 st in the country, so the support that individuals receive is not great. Many people do receive support,
but there are also 1200 people waiting for help. The proclamation is a great step towards Edmonds looking
at the importance of people with developmental disabilities and providing support to them. ARC provides
many resources and support to families desperate to receive support services. The support ARC provides is
important for every member of the family including siblings, mom, dad, etc. which is why the proclamation
is so important. She raised her daughter who has severe autism in Edmonds and while it felt there would
never be a chance for her to be independent, they finally got there and she is doing well. Her daughter was
why she got involved with ARC and to ensure in Edmonds and across the county and country that
opportunities are being provided to the most vulnerable.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained her son Dominic, now 29 years old, continues to lives at home
because placement is currently not an option because there is there isn't a placement option for someone
with his skills. She appreciated the City recognizing Intellectual Disabilities Month, and that the City plans
to look for opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities to work for the City. Her son is currently
cleaning COVID; he is good at it and it works well for him. She appreciated the City and the community
looking at creating more jobs for people with intellectual disabilities. She noted the Cheesemonger was
always good at hiring people with intellectual disabilities, but the owners, Maria Montalvo and Strom
Peterson, are closing their shop. She had high hopes that other businesses in Edmonds would be interested
in having people with intellectual disabilities work for them. She thanked Mayor Nelson for the
proclamation, commenting it shines a light on the people with disabilities in the City. She commented her
son pays attention to the issues and votes.
Ms. Nagel commented independence is important but it is also important to feel included in your
community. She suggested when you see a family or a parent, ask if they need a hand. Ms. Brandt suggested
saying hi, how are you doing today?
5. JOINT MEETING
1. ANNUAL JOINT MEETING - SOUTH COUNTY FIRE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 405
9.3.m
Thad Hovis, Fire Chief, South County Fire, said he appreciated the Council having the proclamation on the
agenda, recognizing this important issue affects many in the local communities; he and two other chiefs
have children with lifelong developmental disabilities. He introduced Assistant Chiefs Jason Isotalo and
Mike Fitzgerald; Deputy Chiefs John Chalfant, Bob Eastman, and David Wells; IT Manager Mike
Vermeulen; HR Director Sandra Hollenbeck; and South County Fire Board of Commissioners Greg Urban
(Chair), Chris Teofilak (Vice Chair), Drew Burnett, David Chan, Jim Kenny and Bob Meador.
(Commissioner Mark Laurance was not present.).
Chief Hovis explained tonight's presentation will provide answers the Council asked during the
presentation of the 2020 annual report and the 2020 City of Edmonds annual compliance report last month
as well as a brief update on COVID-19 vaccination efforts in Edmonds. He reviewed:
• Vaccination Update
o Adult family homes: All 23 adult family homes that SCF was assigned in Edmonds are fully
vaccinated with first and second doses.
o Homebound individuals: South County Fire, in partnership with the City of Edmonds Human
Services and Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services divisions identified homebound
individuals. More than 30 homebound residents have been vaccinated and more to follow in
the coming weeks.
o Today we assisted the National Guard to vaccinate more than 60 residents at Ballinger Court
senior living.
o Up next: We will conduct pop-up clinics, in partnership with Homage, at Plaza 44 and other
older adult communities in the City of Edmonds.
SCF staff responded to questions asked at the February 23, 2021 presentation:
How many female firefighters are employed by South County Fire? How does that compare with the
national average?
SCF HR Director Sandra Hollenbeck reviewed:
Diversity Overview
o Progress since the formation of the RFA.
■ Increase in female firefighters
■ Increase in firefighters of color
■ Increase in overall diversity: sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, disabilities,
etc.
o Low turnover rates among uniformed staff*
■ 92% of departures have been for retirement or medical
■ 1 female and no non -white employees have departed for reasons other than medical.
o Firefighters Hires
FD1: 2014-2017
(prior to formation of RFA
South County Fire
since formation of SCF
-5% female
-12% female
-10% non -white
-21% non -white
■ FD1 - 2014-2017
- White, male - 95%
- Non -white, female - 5%
■ SCF - Since 2017
- White, male -70%
- Non -white, female - 30%
o South County Fire vs. National Average
SCF Firefighters National Avg
Career Firefighters
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 406
9.3.m
7% female 4% female
10% non -white 18% non -white
o Captains/MSOs
■ Female compared to non -white
- 2017
• 1.5% female
• 0% non -white
• 6% female
• 4.5% non -white
o Continuous Efforts
■ Continue analysis
■ Source b Candidate Pool *Interviews *Hired
■ Track new hire level of success
■ Analyze, modify, test again
o Leadership and promotions
Chief Hovis recognized the elected Board of Commissioners for their support of the diversity initiative and
the work done by Ms. Hollenbeck and her team.
When does Edmonds assist with response to hell) other stations outside the citv? Please show the number
of exchanges of services between cities.
• Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor (NUUF)
2018
2019
2020
Mountlake Terrace
133%
130%
157%
Lynnwood
202%
210%
252%
RFA
148%
162%
197%
o Neighboring fire units respond into Edmonds more than Edmonds units respond into
neighboring jurisdictions
■ Mountlake Terrace units: 57% more into Edmonds
■ Lynnwood units: 152% more into Edmonds
■ RFA units: 97% more into Edmonds
Deputy Chief Bob Eastman explained in the updated agreement signed in 2017, a matrix was added that
calculates the total time in seconds that a unit is on responses within the City of Edmonds and takes the
units within the City, Stations 16, 17 and 20, and calculates the total time those units were on task within,
for example, the geopolitical boundaries of Mountlake Terrace to develop a ratio. The same is done for
Lynnwood and since the RFA was added, the difference between the City of Edmonds units coming into
the RFA and the RFA units going into the City of Edmonds. Part of the renegotiated contract with Edmonds
was a reduction of two responders on duty and a dedicated medic unit. His understanding, although he was
not part of the negotiations, was Lynnwood was an independent fire department at the time, and there was
an effort made to ensure decisions made did not negatively impact the City of Lynnwood and there needed
to be a way to measure that. It is not at the incident level, but the time units spend on task. The RFA units
were added because one station can predominately be a unit that comes in to support an Edmonds station
just due to proximity. Dispatch sends the closest appropriate unit based on GPS and Automatic Vehicle
Location (AVL) regardless of jurisdiction or station service area to best serve citizens.
Deputy Chief Eastman acknowledged the Lynnwood number in the above comparison is very high but in
SCF's opinion, that does not tell the whole story which is why the RFA number was added. When looking
at the number of units Edmonds has and the number of units the RFA has, some of that is to be expected
when there is an incident that requires a lot of equipment. Edmonds has three units and three staffed stations;
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 407
9.3.m
commercial structure fires, residential fires, rescues, and the most critical ALS patients are staff intensive.
Commercial and residential fires require 15 and 18 people on scene and the most critical ALS patients need
11 people on scene. He summarized NUUF can be confusing, other things have to be considered in
conjunction with it as it is just one piece of a bigger puzzle.
How does Edmonds compare to other cities and RFA stations on response times?
Deputy Chief Eastman reviewed:
• Station Response Times
o Percentage of all calls within 8 minutes or less 2018, 2019, 2020
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2018
69.13
78.14
71.15
73.84
83.45
82.44
78.31
82.08
69.68
68.26
70.64
76.17
71.53
69.69
2019
69.23
77.29
67.48
74.13
80.73
82.71
72
79.73
72.58
66.80
69.5
71.5
72.3
6598
2020
56.42
66.19
54.37
62.18
68.1
75.13
56.4
63.32
58.56
54.41
52.17
59.19
60.37
57.4
o Response time percentages dipped in 2020 due to change in dispatch criteria. SCF has returned
to the rapid method of dispatch.
o Numbers are expected to return to 2018 and 2019 levels in 2021.
• Response time on 90 percent of calls in this category
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2018
9:55
9:15
9:45
9:35
8:39
8:55
9:10
8:53
9:54
10:09
9:56
9:29
9:47
10:05
2019
9:59
9:25
9:49
9:13
8:58
9:02
9:36
9:16
9:47
10:22
9:51
9:45
10:03
10:49
2020
10:37
10:907
10:39
10:20
9:55
9:24
10:33
10:17
10:31
10:54
11:02
10:38
10:31
11:16
o Response times are somewhat related to where stations are located
o Some stations have better response time
■ For example Lynnwood Station 15 is in the center of Lynwood in a high density area and a lot
of calls are within close proximity to the station
o Some stations have slightly longer response times
■ For example Station 23 has slightly longer response times because it is located in a more
residential area.
• Response times
o Percentage of calls within 8 minutes or less in 2020
Brier
Edmonds
Lynn
MLT
County
51.97%
56.19%
73.05%
55.67%
60.31%
■ Numbers in 2020 are approximately 10-15% lower due to COVID A
■ Anticipate higher percentage within 8 minutes in 2021
o espouse times on 90 percent of calls in this category in 2020
Brier
Edmonds
Lynn
MLT
County
11:02
10:40
9:40
10:43
10:32
■ Numbers in 2020 are 30-60 seconds longer due to COVID
■ Anticipate reduction in times in 2021
Standards in the contract are not being met. Is there a plan to address this?
Chief Hovis displayed a map of the stations in Edmonds with staffing prior to January 2017: daily station
staffing of 11
• 3 fire stations within Edmonds
o Station 16 (196t1i)
■ Houses an engine, battalion chief and aid unit
■ 4 personnel on duty including 3 firefighter jump crew/cross staffed
o Station 20 (Esperance)
■ Houses ladder truck cross -staffed with aid unit
■ Backup engine
o Station 17 (downtown)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 408
9.3.m
■ 5 personnel on duty
- 2 person dedicated medic unit
- 3 person jump/cross staffed crew that staffed engine or aid car depending on which
was dispatched
o Marine Unit at Port
• Daily staffing in Edmonds decreased under the current contract, dropping from 11 to 9
o With change in contract in 2017, paramedics in paramedic unit redeployed to all three fire
stations, 16, 17 and 20
Under the current ILA and the contract revised in 2017, the initial term between Edmonds and SCF is 20
years so the contract extends to 2030. To change it would require conferring to address those issues. Fire
station locations cannot be moved; personnel could be added to stations.
Chief Hovis displayed a map of the stations in the RFA, explaining a lot of changes have been made within
the RFA in areas that are not under contract. FD1 used Citygate and Associates in the past to do a staffing
analysis. Since the formation of RFA, staffing has been raised in Lynnwood and unincorporated areas. He
identified "big houses" in the RFA, stations that house a lot of firefighters. Some stations have 5, 6, 7 or 8
personnel but those are not in Edmonds. When units are dispatched via the countywide dispatch agency,
they are dispatched based on AVL which sends the closest unit to the emergency, they generally come from
the bigger stations. Two more personnel have been added at Station 14, 10 and 11 so the daytime staffing
is 62 and nighttime is 56.
As someone who grew up in 20700 block of 86t1i Place West, Chief Hovis pointed out there is no Woodway
fire department, they contract with Shoreline and there is no fire station in Woodway and there is no fire
service coming from the west. To address staffing issues, have more personnel available when calls come
in, and decrease overall response times equates to personnel, availability and apparatus. With the Sound
Transit Link extension and development occurring in Mountlake Terrace, and Station 19 getting very busy,
Mountlake Terrace has had some initial conversations with SCF about what increased staffing would look
like in Mountlake Terrace.
Chief Hovis explained SCF has formed an Intergovernmental Committee composed of SCF staff, three fire
commissioners and the local union president. The committee was formed due to the RFA's interest in the
contract cities, Brier, Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace, formally joining the RFA just as the City of
Lynnwood did in 2017 when the RFA was formed. He and one commissioner from the intergovernmental
committee have had an initial meeting with the executive of each contract city to relay the RFA's great
interest in the city joining the RFA. That meeting was to get a better understanding of each city's current
or future interest in joining the RFA rather than contracting for service like Brier and Mountlake Terrace
have done since 2005 and like Edmonds has done since 2010. The RFA will be having discussions later in
2021 and in 2022 with the cities of Brier and Mountlake Terrace because their initial 20-year contracts end
in 2024. The RFA's desire is for both cities to formally join the RFA by 2024 or earlier. Although the City
of Edmonds' initial 20-year contract term ends in 2030, the RFA looks forward to having these same
discussions with the City of Edmonds well before 2030 if the City is interested in doing so.
Chief Hovis recognized the valued partnership between the two organizations for the past 11 years. He
thanked Edmonds for virtually hosting SCF tonight. As someone who has spent the majority of his life in
Edmonds and grew up here, he appreciates the leadership at the Council and Mayor levels and what they
are to the City.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for all SCF was doing with regard to vaccinations in
the City and all the other programs as well as for their thorough and comprehensive presentations. He
thanked Ms. Hollenbeck for her presentation and the data based on questions asked at SCF's previous
presentation. He asked if the percentages were based on the 283 uniformed firefighters. Ms. Hollenbeck
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 409
9.3.m
said overall hiring is based on the candidate pool and the MSO/captains is the percentage of captains and
MSOs but overall it is based on the 283 firefighters.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the commissioners for attending and Chief Hovis for the presentation.
She referred Chief Hovis' response to her email and her discussions with him and City Attorney Jeff
Taraday today. She recalled in 2009, before she was on the Council, standards for the contract were
developed by former Fire Chief Tomberg, former Councilmember Plunkett and others. She recalled when
personnel was changed based the 2017 Fitch report, the intent was to reanalyze the standards in a year or
so based on new data and the new contract but that was not done. It may be advantageous to develop a
committee to look at the standards to determine if they are still relevant or need to be changed. She asked
Chief Hovis his thoughts on that. Chief Hovis agreed continuously analyzing the needs of the community,
especially 11 years after the initial agreement, there was no better time than the present. He will leave what
that looks like to the Council and Mayor and it could be discussed internally with SCF and commissioners.
Councilmember Olson thanked SCF for their presentation and for answering questions in advance. With
regard to the cost reduction of 9.13% for the Town of Woodway, she said it made sense that there was an
offset and Woodway was paying that at one time, but now that Woodway is not being serviced by SCF,
why should Edmonds absorb the price Woodway used to pay when there is no service provided to
Woodway. Deputy Chief Eastman reiterated he was not part of the negotiations when the agreement was
renegotiated in 2017, but his understanding was that in those conversations, the 9.13% was attributed to
Woodway during the initial agreement, the reduction in the three station cost went away and the only
reduction now in the contract is Esperance, the unincorporated area protected by Station 20 and the 9.13%
is no longer a reduction in the three station cost. The flip side was the City of Edmonds wanted the ability
to subcontract to the Town of Woodway in the future and if that was successful, there would be an exchange
of dollars. The City would collect those funds, not the RFA (or FD 1 at the time) and it would not be
considered a change in service delivery responsibility, SCF would automatically do it as part of the
agreement. He was unaware of the conversations that drove that.
Chief Hovis said Mr. Taraday was part of those negotiations and could be a resource for the Council.
Councilmember Olson summarized even if it hadn't been a good deal, the deal was already negotiated and
therefore a moot point. Chief Hovis agreed since the Town of Woodway has elected to get their fire service
from King County Fire District 4, known as Shoreline Fire Department.
Council President Paine thanked SCF for the level of detail in their presentation. She observed the labor
contract was resolved at the end of last year and asked when the next labor agreement was coming up and
how would that impact the contract. Chief Hovis advised the impacts once those contracts are negotiated
are listed in the current ILA. Negotiations will begin with IFF Local 1828 later this month and into April
for a successor agreement. The prior agreement was through December 31, 2020. Council President Paine
asked him to keep the City posted. Chief Hovis assured he would.
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked all the fire commissioners and fire staff who took the time to attend
the virtual meeting, noting she appreciated the cooperation between the agencies. Chief Hovis commented
he and Commissioner Chan enjoy serving with Councilmember K. Johnson on the Sno9l l Board.
Chief Hovis introduced Karl Fitterer, Assistant Fire Marshal, and Melissa Blankenship, Executive Assistant
to the Board of Commissioners, and thanked them for their efforts.
Commissioner Chan commented the violence in last two weeks makes him sick to his stomach. The top
priority of government service is to protect and keep citizens safe. When he was sworn in as a fire
commissioner, he promised to do his best to protect the safety of all his constituents in South County Fire
including the residents of contract cities like Edmonds. The recent harassments and attacks on Asian
Americans have been extremely dangerous and upsetting. Public servants and elected officials can no longer
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 410
9.3.m
be silent and tolerate hate crimes. He asked everyone to join him in denouncing these acts of violence, to
give support and comfort to Asian Americans within the community who are now living in fear. Standing
up to racists and bullies is not political, it is just human decency and our obligation. He asked attendees to
raise their hands and promise to speak out against all violence.
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Denise & Mark [no last name given] said it has been a disappointing week for the City. The citizens of
Edmonds lost a dedicated professional in Chief Lawless. As Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and
Distelhorst run campaigns to retain their seats on Council, she said many people will question their
leadership and decision -making on behalf of the citizens. Elected officials are supposed to represent citizens
and many spoke out loud and clear about who they wanted for their chief but their ears were closed. She
wished them good luck with their campaigns.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, a former Citizens Housing Commissioner, thanked the City for the opportunity
to serve on the CHC and said he learned a lot. He thanked his fellow commissioners; a diverse membership
that served the City well. However, he was disappointed in the process used to reach the CHC's
recommendations. The CHC used a legislative process to solve problem, a process that was foreign to him
and that he did not think served the commission very well. It was a tool in the City's toolbox that is used
all the time but if there is only a hammer in the toolbox, everything looks like nail. He felt the CHC was
using a hammer to solve something that was not a nail and didn't really know what problem they were
trying to solve. Personally, he would have created a vision statement for the City, developed a set of guiding
principles or values as a starting point and then the process would be subservient to that vision. The CHC
ended up with non-integrated ideas and no clear goal of what they were trying to achieve. The legislative
process was misused, the CHC was siloed into committees that prevented cross -collaboration in public
meetings. A true legislative process documents majority and minority opinions that are sent forward out of
the commission. That was not done so the Council is left with a set of recommendations without any of the
background data or information available to the CHC. He invited the Council to reach out to him, he has
plenty of recommendations as the process moves forward.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Councilmember K. Johnson requested Item 8.3 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
OLSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER.
3. REPORT ON BIDS AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2021
OVERLAY PROGRAM
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 23, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 411
9.3.n
From:
Jeff Taradav
To:
Falk. Nicholas
Subject:
FW: Data that has been provided by SCF
Date:
Thursday, October 21, 2021 5:03:19 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ono
E17 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800.pdf
E20 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000.pdf
E20 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800.pdf
M16 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000.pdf
M16 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800.pdf
M17 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000.pdf
M17 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800.pdf
M20 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000 2.pdf
M20 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000.pdf
M20 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800.pdf
SCF 2020 Apparatus to Edmonds 0800 to 2000.pdf
SCF 2020 Apparatus to Edmonds 2000 to 0800.pdf
E16 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000.pdf
E16 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800.pdf
E17 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000.pdf
1 of 4 for 10/26 public hearing.
Jeff Taraday
600 Stewart Street, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-273-7440
E-mail: ieffPlighthouselawgroup.com
THIS MESSAGE IS PRIVATE AND PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON MEANT TO RECEIVE
THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE DELETE IT AND PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR SEND IT TO ANYONE ELSE.
From: "Eastman, Robert" <rEastman@southsnofire.org>
Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:52 AM
To: Jeffrey Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>, Michael Nelson Edmonds
<michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: "Hovis, Thad" <tHovis@southsnofire.org>, Richard Davis <rdavis@chmelik.com>
Subject: Data that has been provided by SCF
Mayor Nelson & Mr. Taraday,
We are sending you the information and data that we have provided in our previous meetings,
because of the size of some of the documents we will need to send in a few emails. This data is the
maps that show the day/night responses.
Packet Pg. 412
South County Fire
9.3.n
E16 Responses 0800 to 2000 Hours
L'
E16 Responses 0800 to 2000
2020 CAD Data
625 Responses
• E16 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
sRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
Edmonds
Mountlake Terraoe
Woodway
.donMay20,2 Packet Pg. 413
South County Fire
E16 Responses 2000 to 0800 Hours
L'
E16 Responses 2000 to 0800
2020 CAD Data
234 Responses
• E16 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
sRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
Edmonds
Mountlake Terraoe
Woodway
.donMay20,2 Packet Pg. 414
South County Fire
E17 Responses 0800 to 2000 Hours
N
10 4 1',
•
L'
E17 Responses 0800 to 2000
2020 CAD Data
514 Responses
• E17 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
sRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
Edmonds
Mountlake Terraoe
Woodway
.donMay20,2 Packet Pg. 415
South County Fire
E17 Responses 2000 to 0800 Hours
L
E17 Responses 2000 to 0800
2020 CAD Data
242 Responses
• • E17 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800
• Fire Stations
• �' / - Highways & Interstates
• - Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
• s Rivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
• Edmonds
Mountlake Terraoe
Woodway
.donMay20,2 Packet Pg. 416
South County Fire
E20 Responses 0800 to 2000 Hours
N
L'
E2O Responses 0800 to 2000
2020 CAD Data
• 662 Responses
• E20 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000
• Fire Stations -
- Highways & Interstates
• - Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
sRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
Edmonds
Mountlake Terraoe
Woodway
��J--�T%—'Iap_created on May 20, 20 Packet Pg. 4� 7
South County Fire
•
E20 Responses 2000 to 0800 Hours
L'
E20 Responses 2000 to 0800
2020 CAD Data
289 Responses
• •
• E20 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800
• Fire Stations -
/ — Highways & Interstates
• • — Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SN0911
sRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
•
• E'�] South County Fire
Edmonds
Mountlake Terraoe
Woodway
TQM-9 I �=T—
Map created on May 20, 20 Packet Pg. 418
South County Fire
M16 Responses 0800 to 2000 Hours
0-
M16 Responses 0800 to 2000
2020 CAD Data
916 Responses
• M16 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SN0911
SRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
® Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
.donMay20,2 Packet Pg. 419
South County Fire
M16 Responses 2000 to 0800 Hours
e:&W
M16 Responses 2000 to 0800
2020 CAD Data
575 Responses
• M16 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
SRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
® Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
.d on May 20, 2 Packet Pg. 420
South County Fire
M17 Responses 0800 to 2000 Hours
L'
I
Mor
M17 Responses 0800 to 2000
2020 CAD Data
807 Responses
• M17 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SN0911
SRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
® Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
.d on May 20, 2 Packet Pg. 421
South County Fire
M17 Responses 2000 to 0800 Hours
L'
•
M17 Responses 2000 to 0800
2020 CAD Data
393 Responses
• M17 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
SRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
® Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
.d on May 20, 2 Packet Pg. 422
South County Fire
M20 Responses 0800 to 2000 Hours
L'
M2O Responses 0800 to 2000
2020 CAD Data
1192 Responses
• M20 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000
• Fire Stations
/ - Highways & Interstates
• - Major Roads
Streets
• FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
• S Rivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
® Edmonds
•
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
.d on May 20, 2 Packet Pg. 423
South County Fire
M20 Responses 0800 to 2000 Hours
L'
M2O Responses 0800 to 2000
2020 CAD Data
1192 Responses
• M20 2020 Responses 0800 to 2000
• Fire Stations
/ - Highways & Interstates
• - Major Roads
Streets
• FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
• S Rivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
® Edmonds
•
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
.d on May 20, 2 Packet Pg. 424
South County Fire
M20 Responses 2000 to 0800 Hours
N
•
L'
M2O Responses 2000 to 0800
2020 CAD Data
698 Responses
• M20 2020 Responses 2000 to 0800
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
SRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
® Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
.d on May 20, 2 Packet Pg. 425
r
South County Fire
SCF Apparatus Responses to Edmonds
0800 to 2000 Hours
N
L'
SCF Apparatus Responses
to Edmonds - 0800 to 2000
2020 CAD Data
1929 Responses
• CAD 2020 Apparatus into Edmonds0800 to 2000
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
SRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
[rj Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
.d on May 20, 2 Packet Pg. 426
r
South County Fire
SCF Apparatus Responses to Edmonds
2000 to 0800 Hours
N
•
L'
SCF Apparatus Responses
to Edmonds - 2000 to 0800
2020 CAD Data
675 Responses
• SCF 2020 Apparatus into Edmonds 2000 to 0801
• Fire Stations
g
-Highways & Interstates
�� • - Major Roads
Streets
•
FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
SRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
Map created on May 20, 20 Packet Pg. 427
9.3.0
From:
Jeff Taradav
To:
Falk. Nicholas
Subject:
FW: Data that has been provided by SCF
Date:
Thursday, October 21, 2021 5:03:25 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.pna
Edmonds 2020 - E16 2020 Responses by Grid.pdf
Edmonds 2020 - E17 2020 Responses by Grid.pdf
Edmonds 2020 - E20 Responses by Grid.pdf
Edmonds 2020 - M16 2020 Responses by Grid.pdf
Edmonds 2020 - M17 Responses by Grid.pdf
Edmonds 2020 - M20 2020 Responses by Grid.pdf
Edmonds 2020 Incident Locations and Tvoe.pdf
Edmonds 2020 - Apparatus Dispatched and Arrived to Edmonds.odf
Edmonds 2020 - Apparatus Dispatched to Edmonds.pdf
2 of 4 for 10/26 public hearing.
Jeff Taraday
600 Stewart Street, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-273-7440
E-mail: Jeff(@lighthouselawgroup.com
THIS MESSAGE IS PRIVATE AND PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON MEANT TO RECEIVE
THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE DELETE IT AND PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR SEND IT TO ANYONE ELSE.
From: "Eastman, Robert" <rEastman@southsnofire.org>
Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:53 AM
To: Jeffrey Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>, Michael Nelson Edmonds
<michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: "Hovis, Thad" <tHovis@southsnofire.org>, Richard Davis <rdavis@chmelik.com>
Subject: RE: Data that has been provided by SCF
Mayor Nelson & Mr. Taraday,
The overall responses in the City.
e
Packet Pg. 428
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
Apparatus Dispatched into Edmonds
From Stations Outide of the City.
N
W F
s
W 9.3.o
1 • Aid Unit
O Air Unit
O CRP
ODecon, Rescue, Hazmat
- • Engine
• King Co Units MA
OLadder
• • Medic Unit
•
MSO
2020 Incidents - 6952 Apparatus Dispatched
From Outside of Edmonds and Arrived On Scene
Highways & Interstates
Major Roads
Streets
Rivers, Lakes, and Streams
•
Puget Sound
• South county Fire
Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
_• MapereatedonMay9,2021 Packet Pg. 429
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
Apparatus Dispatched into Edmonds
From Stations Outide of the City.
N
W F
s
W 9.3.0
1 • Aid Unit
O Air Unit
O CRP
ODecon, Rescue, Hazmat
- • Engine
• King Co Units MA
OLadder
• • Medic Unit
MSO
t
•. E
t
• —
•• _
-f' 2020 Incidents - 8742 Apparatus Dispatchec
From Outside of Edmonds
Highways & Interstates
Major Roads
Streets
Rivers, Lakes, and Streams
• Puget Sound
• South County Fire
Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
• Map created on May 9, 2021 Packet Pg. 430
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
Engine 16 Responses by Grid
N
w e
s
EF404
1
L•J
•
LF207
9.3.o
2020 Inci encl— s1—
0 E16 2020 Responses
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
O FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
sRivers, Lakes, and Streams
f Puget Sound
iV South County Fire
0 Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
1
r
DF
I—
6
T
11
Map created on May 9, ,,I Packet Pg. 431
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
Engine 17 Responses by Grid
N
w e
s
252 EF25
15'7
EF 02 �I
oil]
-
15 4-
I
•
EF404 �EF405
2
EF
i
EF004 05
�31 _
•
LF207
9.3.o
2020 Inci en s
• Engine 17 2020 Responses
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
O FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
sRivers, Lakes, and Streams
f Puget Sound
South County Fire
0 Edmonds
Mountlake Terraoe
Woodway
1
r
s
D
I �
Map created on May 9, 2,,, Packet Pg. 432
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
Engine 20 Responses by Grid
N
w e
S
EF252
11
LF207
DF
1
508
9.3.o
2020 Incidents
E20 2020 Responses
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
O FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
SRivers, Lakes, and Streams
S Puget Sound
South County Fire
''2rr Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
L
TF 59
T FI
3 ;
•
TF___
�I I— I �� i ! �r l�l� - VMO� L L, . created o���2i J Packet Pg. 433
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
Medic16 Responses by Grid
N
w e
s
EF4041
3
EF354
13�
EF303 EF 0
-in
i
MIA�WOINE-®r -
—� f
�01 LF207
O6 i =
EF207 7` -�
X F110
��EF157
11p
' EF 07
t 'E I DF10 ,�
1
I �l rram�°
05� �' 1
EFO 7 TFO
3 �1,
9.3.o
2020Incidents
• M16 2020 Responses
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
O FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
sRivers, Lakes, and Streams
f Puget Sound
iV South County Fire
0 Edmonds
Mountlake Terraoe
Woodway
1
V-
s
D
Map created on May 9, 2021 1 Packet Pg. 434
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
Medic 17 Responses by Grid
N
WE
S
Waffilffill.. 1
II
0a
ry 1 �
9.3.o
DF s
5
li
2020Incidents
Fire Stations
E
Highways & Interstates
t
V
Major Roads
Q
•
- Streets
S
Jl
S Puget Sound
FIREQUADRANT_SN0911
SRivers, Lakes, and Stream:
South County Fire
U
Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
I"?Woodway
\� 1y
Ewa created on Maya, 2
Packet Pg. 435
9.3.o
South County Fire 2020Incidents
City of Edmonds DF65
• Fire Stations
Medic 20 Responses by Grid 0 M202020 Responses
- Highways & Interstates
N - Major Roads
W E 5DF
DF60 Streets
O FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
S A, Rivers, Lakes, and Streams
Jill, Puget Sound
F 5 South County Fire
t , Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
FF5-� Woodway
1
TF008 F008 BF
NORCOMMLT F011
DF15SB6 0
1 /i Map ted on May 9, 2021 Packet Pg. 436
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
Incident Locations for 2020
N
WE
S
I;-
L`
LT- 4 • r,
.�
•
•
• • "-j ��u,llyl
1
50�VOO
Tr-
2020 Incidents
to
Fire Stations
i
Highways & Interstates
f
M
s=
Major Roads
f�
- Streets
M
S Puget Sound
Q
SRivers, Lakes, and Streams
South County Fire
O
Edmonds
[ Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
E
`
CAD 2020 Incidents in Edmonds
V
FinalCallType
• Structure Fire
Q
• Fire Other
• ALS
• BLS
' Other
Packet Pg. 437
Map created on May 6, 202,
9.3.p
From:
Jeff Taradav
To:
Falk. Nicholas
Subject:
FW: Data that has been provided by SCF
Date:
Thursday, October 21, 2021 5:03:33 PM
Attachments:
imaae001.ina
Edmonds 2020 - Edmonds Stations Transports.pdf
Edmonds 2020 - Edmonds Transports in SCF Area.pdf
Edmonds 2020 - Transport by SCF - Count by Grid.pdf
Edmonds 2020 - Transports by Other SCF Stations.pdf
3 of 4 for 10/26 public hearing.
Jeff Taraday
600 Stewart Street, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-273-7440
E-mail: ieffPlighthouselawgroup.com
THIS MESSAGE IS PRIVATE AND PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON MEANT TO RECEIVE
THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE DELETE IT AND PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR SEND IT TO ANYONE ELSE.
From: "Eastman, Robert" <rEastman@southsnofire.org>
Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:54 AM
To: Jeffrey Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>, Michael Nelson Edmonds
<michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: "Hovis, Thad" <tHovis@southsnofire.org>, Richard Davis <rdavis@chmelik.com>
Subject: RE: Data that has been provided by SCF
Mayor Nelson & Mr. Taraday,
Maps on the transports.
:••
Packet Pg. 438
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
Transports by Edmonds Stations
This Includes 120 Transports from the Esperance Area
N
WE
s
r
9.3.p
2020 Incidents - 397 Transports Outside of City
• Edmonds Stations -Transports in City of Edmonds (2517)
• Edmonds Stations -Transport Outside of Edmonds (397)
• Transports in Esperance
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
Major Roads
Streets
S Puget Sound
O FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
SRivers, Lakes, and Streams
South County Fire
Edmonds
Mountlake Terrace
Woodway
•
PI
Map created on May T, 2021 Packet Pg. 439
Quth County Fire
City of Edmonds
Transports by Edmonds Stations,
Outide of the City of Edmonds
N
w e
s
LF456
EF456
AB807
e
LF207
9.3.p
2020 Incidents - 397 Transports
AB908 A6909
ABs10 B
Including Esperance
Count by Grid
AB 11
: Edmonds Stations -Transport Outside of Edmonds (391
Fire Stations
AB858
AB859
AB860 B
Highways & Interstates
A 61
Major Roads
—
� D 811
Streets
O FIREQUADRANT_SNO911
AB808
AB809 AB810
Rivers, Lakes, and Streams
AB81
` Puget Sound
808 _
G South County Fire
Edmonds
758 AB758 AB759 AB760 AB
Mountlake Terrace
\
Woodway
AB708 6710
11 AB709 AB71;NA
$
DF709 ___ AB710S.Q„
F 3
r
1
DF413
' 1- 161 I(
F19�... _ D TF 2 B 1 F1 ''r�j/Y�-pjF
TF158 �+ t
TF157.4
07
1I7TF�0'
i614
1
... TF008
NORCOMML
� Packet P . 440
Map created on May_7, 2021 g
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
FBI,
9.3.p
Transports by SCF Stations Not
Located In Edmonds by Grid
N
WE
s
I,
EF151
1
7
406
• LF�2
L
LF207
X
V-
2020 Incidents -446 Transports
Count by Grid
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
SPuget Sound
FIREQUADRANT_SN0911
Rivers, Lakes, and Streams
South County Fire
10 Edmonds
0 Mountlake Terrace
0 Woodway
• SCF Stations -Transports in City of Edmonds (466)
Map acedonMay7,2021J Packet Pg. 441
South County Fire
City of Edmonds
Transports by SCF Stations Not Located In Edmonds
L►
r
2020 Incidents - 446 Transports
By Stations Outside of Edmonds
SCF Stations -Transports in City of Edmonds (466
• Fire Stations
- Highways & Interstates
- Major Roads
Streets
SPuget Sound
FIREQUADRANT_SN0911
Rivers, Lakes, and Streams
South County Fire
10 Edmonds
0 Mountlake Terrace
0 Woodway
SCF Stations -Transports in City of Edmonds (466)
Map created on May7, 2021 Packet Pg. 442
9.3.q
From: Jeff Taradav
To: Falk. Nicholas
Subject: FW: Data that has been provided by SCF
Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021 5:04:01 PM
Attachments: imaae001.ona
Edmonds additional data for meeting on 7212021.xlsx
Edmonds meeting 7212021.pptx
4 of 4 for 10/26 public hearing.
Jeff Taraday
600 Stewart Street, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-273-7440
E-mail: ieffPlighthouselawgroup.com
THIS MESSAGE IS PRIVATE AND PRIVILEGED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE PERSON MEANT TO RECEIVE
THIS MESSAGE, PLEASE DELETE IT AND PLEASE DO NOT COPY OR SEND IT TO ANYONE ELSE.
From: "Eastman, Robert" <rEastman@southsnofire.org>
Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 7:56 AM
To: Jeffrey Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>, Michael Nelson Edmonds
<michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: "Hovis, Thad" <tHovis@southsnofire.org>, Richard Davis <rdavis@chmelik.com>
Subject: RE: Data that has been provided by SCF
Mayor Nelson & Mr. Taraday,
This is the information that was provided 7.21.2021
Packet Pg. 443
9.3.q
STA 10
109
3.26%
3.52%
64
2.57%
2.21%
98
4.01%
2.96%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.03%
0.00%
36
1.71%
2.13%
1
1.41%
1.55%
1
0.97%
1.06%
3
7.46%
4.39%
0.00%
0.00%
18
1.48%
1.44%
331
2.27%
2.16%
STA 11
6
0.20%
0.36%
3
0.11%
0.13%
2
0.08%
0.01%
1
0.14%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.03%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2
3.23%
1.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
15
0.10%
0.11%
STA 12
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.04%
0.00%
2
0.12%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3
0.03%
0.01%
STA 14
444
13.07%
12.75%
456
17.67%
19.14%
490
18.94%
18.80%
88
9.48%
8.37%
3
33.30%
21.19%
61
3.43%
1.86%
1337
61.15%
61.83%
11
17.01%
14.51%
53
62.02%
59.66%
6
13.19%
10.91%
0.00%
0.00%
470
40.37%
47.24%
3419
22.98%
23.67%
STA IS
2220
69.41%
71.03%
1522
58.58%
58.07%
1339
55.37%
62.40%
90
10.92%
6.78%
5
55.58%
74.87%
48
2.89%
2.20%
227
10.27%
8.79%
35
68.61%
78.22%
6
7.63%
4.50%
7
12.56%
21.76% 5
83.35%
61.74%
354
30.65%
26.05%
5858
40.66%
39.69%
STA 16
45
1.43%
1.20%
58
2.27%
2.09%
45
1.77%
1.61%
42
4.53%
4.03%
0.00%
0.00%
90
5.08%
4.23%
435
19.85%
21.23%
0.00%
0.00%
18
19.57%
23.81%
2
2.41%
5.19%
0.00%
0.00%
142
11.16%
10.46%
877
5.89%
6.25%
STA 17
6
0.18%
0.05%
13
0.44%
0.47%
20
0.94%
0.51%
22
2.51%
1.90%
0.00%
0.00%
35
2.03%
1.45%
41
2.06%
1.62%
0.00%
0.00%
1
1.04%
2.21%
8
15.69%
4.38%
0.00%
0.00%
18
1.58%
1.46%
164
1.18%
0.88%
STA 18
172
4.73%
4.69%
172
6.98%
6.50%
209
8.27%
6.15%
157
16.58%
17.99%
0.00%
0.00%
148
7.92%
8.35%
12
O.S3%
0.57%
6
12.98%
5.72%
1
1.35%
2.70%
5
7.33%
13.49%
0.00%
0.00%
31
2.95%
1.09%
913
6.13%
5.47%
STA 19
134
4.16%
3.47%
148
5.72%
5.53%
136
5.39%
3.27%
408
42.81%
45.62%
1
11.12%
3.94%
1194
63.92%
70.15%
58
2.47%
1.81%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2
4.56%
1.43% 1
16.65%
38.26%
94
7.77%
7.60%
2166
14.67%
16.23%
STA 20
18
0.53%
0.50%
IS
0.53%
0.51%
22
1.00%
0.60%
Ill
11.94%
14.60%
0.00%
0.00%
265
14.33%
11.03%
37
1.72%
1.69%
0.00%
0.00%
7
7.43%
6.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
27
2.24%
2.62%
502
3.40%
3.19%
STA 21
36
1.04%
0.50%
57
2.34%
1.86%
36
1.47%
1.26%
6
0.62%
0.25%
0.00%
0.00%
2
0.14%
0.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4
7.48%
2.79%
0.00%
0.00%
8
0.69%
0.09%
149
1.04%
0.64%
STA 22
37
1.11%
1.13%
50
1.95%
2.36%
37
1.42%
1.42%
5
0.31%
0.3]%
0.00%
0.00%
3
0.11%
0.37%
1
0.04%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4
5.66%
8.59%
0.00%
0.00%
3
0.34%
0.08%
140
0.92%
0.94%
STA 23
26
0.73%
0.69%
19
0.60%
1.01%
28
1.07%
0.94%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
1
0.02%
0.24%
2
0.09%
0.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2
5.25%
1.25%
0.00%
0.00%
8
0.70%
1.79%
86
0.54%
0.62%
Other
6
0.16%
0.16%
5
0.19%
0.12%
5
0.16%
0.03%
1
0.17%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
2
0.10%
0.01%
2
0.08%
0.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8
15.18%
24.82%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.07%
0.08%
30
0.19%
0.15%
STA 10
130
4.05%
4.11%
101
3.99%
4.50%
116
4.97%
4.43%
2
0.20%
0.14%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.07%
0.01%
32
1.62%
1.71%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2
4.02%
0.32%
0.00%
0.00%
34
2.32%
3.56%
423
2.94%
2.86°%
STA 11
4
0.14%
0.02%
3
0.10%
0.15%
3
0.14%
0.14%
1
0.11%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.06%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
1.66%
0.17%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.06%
0.01%
14
0.10%
0.06%
STA 12
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.11%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.01%
0.00%
STA 14
431
13.28%
12.61%
452
16.5]%
1].55%
40]
1].03%
15.63%
43
3.59%
5.01%
0.00%
0.00%
29
1.80%
1.09%
11
65.21%
66.77% 1
20.1%
21.64%
1 49.96%
41.56%
3
5.97%
80.03%
3
37.05%
98.10%
492
33.85%
38.48%
3111
21.38%
24.14%
STA 15
2197
67.68%
69.64%
1538
56.51%
57.34%
1349
56.61%
64.01%
82
7.15%
6.39%
1 111%
11.1%
52
3.23%
1.97%
201
11.61%
10.63% 2
59.13%
55.07%
1 1.1%
58.44%
6
12.19%
2.09%
4
52.62%
1.73%
413
21.1
25.41%
16
40.14%
39.12%
STA 16
59
1.86%
1.71%
81
3.06%
2.34%
77
3.21%
2.30%
71
6.46%
7.1
0.00%
0.00%
59
3.50%
2.96%
280
13.98%
14.18% 1
20.09%
16.29%
0.00%
0.00%
4
7.99%
2.52%
0.00%
0.00%
287
20.42%
20.02%
919
6.33%
5.51%
STA 17
9
0.30%
0.46%
12
0.43%
0.48%
17
0.71%
0.45%
17
1.50%
2.01%
0.00%
0.00%
26
1.50%
0.67%
42
2.17%
1.85%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2
3.52%
0.38%
0.00%
0.00%
40
2.66%
1.95%
1.
1.11%
0.88%
STA IS
152
4.82%
4.9]%
220
8.30%
6.77%
161
7.31%
5.14%
170
15.19%
14.13%
0.00%
0.00%
145
9.1%
9.19%
12
0.1%
0.1%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4
8.02%
2.25%
1
10.32%
0.1]%
47
3.16%
2.02%
919
6.46%
5.31%
STA 19
121
3.68%
3.35%
136
4.93%
4.4]%
76
3.2]%
2.33%
436
1.27%
41.61%
0.00%
0.00%
1112
67.07%
71.25%
45
2.43%
1.91%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.1%
6
12.26%
1.16%
0.00%
0.00%
62
4.15%
3.92%
1994
13.71%
15.62%
STA 20
21
0.62%
O.R%
25
0.96%
0.87%
20
0.85%
0.50%
274
25.22%
22.4]%
0.00%
0.00%
225
13.52%
12.63%
53
2.87%
1.]2%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5
9.81%
1.58%
0.00%
0.00%
49
3.43%
3.94%
672
4.68%
3.96%
STA 21
53
1.65%
1.04%
64
2.43%
2.86%
53
2.36%
2.00%
1
0.09%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.05%
0.21%
4
0.20%
0.39%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6
13.04%
5.22%
0.00%
0.00%
6
0.42%
0.07%
188
1.33%
1.13%
STA 22
26
0.84%
0.83%
58
2.16%
2.17%
26
1.12%
0.90%
3
0.30%
0.21%
0.00%
0.00%
2
0.13%
0.02%
1
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2
3.97%
0.40%
0.00%
0.00%
7
0.55%
0.22%
125
0.99%
0.66%
STA 23
31
0.96%
0.4]%
15
0.51%
0.3]%
45
1.91%
1.85%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.07%
0.00%
3
0.14%
0.28%
0.00%
0.00%
1.01%
0.00%
1
1.5]%
1.71%
0.00%
0.00%
6
0.38%
OA2%
102
0.69%
0.62%
Other
4
0.13%
0.03%
6
0.24%
0.14%
12
0.51%
0.41%
I
0.11%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.04%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
]
15.98%
1.47%
0.00%
0.00%
2
0.15%
0.03%
331
0.24%1
0.13%
STA 30
115
1.791%
4.17%
111
4.17%
4.11%
131
5.17%
4.71%
0.00%
0.00%
1
1.011
1.00%
27
1.31%
1.61%
4
6.95%
4.87%
33
2.50%
3.18%
423
2.89%
3.05%
STA 11
10
0.29%
0.16%
9
0.33%
0.24%
5
0.21%
0.08%
3
0.26%
0.1]%
3
0.16%
0.09%
0.00%
1.1%
2
3.35%
1.38%
0.00%
0.00%
32
0.21%
0.11%
STA 12
0.00%
0.00%
2
0.08%
0.28%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
1.68%
0.07%
0.00%
O.W%
3
0.02%
0.03%
STA 13
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
N.
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.01%
0.00%
STA 14
370
10.92%
10.54%
353
14.16%
12.46%
374
14.73%
11.63%
52
4.50%
4.12%
37
2.12%
2.11%
1207
60.11
60.70%
6
9.26%
11.33%
397
30.33%
32.11%
2796
19.02%
18.60%
STA 15
2363
69.97%
71.66%
1466
58.84%
59.19%
1"7
57.07%
64.45%
68
5.77%
8.60%
36
2.09%
1.66%
225
11.41%
12.13%
30
I5.76%
14.65%
336
26.09%
23.36%
S9S1
40.67%
42.22%
STA 16
56
1.65%
1.16%
61
2.02%
S7
2.26%
1.82%
83
6.99%
6.04%
83
4.72%
4.32%
347
17.81%
18.70%
1
1.43%
1.06%
323
1.19%
23.1%
1011
1.91%
6.13%
STA 17
22
0.65%
0.41%
16
0.49%
0.67%
0.43%
17
0.70%
0.53%
29
2.46%
1.74%
27
1.62%
0.84%
41
2.09%
1.67%
11
17.71%
8.23%
49
3.78%
3.12%
212
1.47%
0.94%
STA 18
186
5.47%
5.53%
216
8.58%
7.25%
233
9.18%
7.79%
169
14.37%
13.54%
130
7.55%
8.47%
14
0.70%
0.63%
2
3.16%
10.28%
33
2.48%
2.77%
983
6.69%
6.17%
STA 19
109
3.19%
2.79%
126
5.05%
4.77%
107
4.25%
3.54%
459
38.80%
41.25%
1131
65.69%
69.36%
43
2.16%
1.58%
2
3.16%
2.20%
60
4.54%
4.72%
2036
13.89%
15.46%
STA 20
21
0.64%
0.61%
20
0.81%
1.53%
25
1.00%
0.11%
31
26.1
23.94%
265
15.S1%
12.61%
61
3.16%
2.66%
6
9.76%
21.41%
56
4.36%
1..
763
5..%
4.49%
STA 21
40
1.18%
0.96%
51
2.02%
2.57%
51
1.89%
1.81%
3
0.2]%
0.25%
1
1.05%
0.15%
4
1.21%
0.16%
5
1.25%
5.99%
5
0.,
0.60%
160
1.07%
1.03%
STA 22
42
1.21%
1.30%
41
1.61%
3.08%
43
1.68%
1.26%
4
0.35%
0.34%
3
0.18%
0.39%
1
0.05%
0.01%
3
4.96%
2.73%
3
0.25%
0.56%
140
0.94%
1.05%
STA 23
36
1.05%
0.72%
21
0.84%
0.83%
41
1.57%
1.33%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.05%
0.00%
2
0.10%
0.01%
5
7.98%
13.47%
3
0.21%
0.10%
1091
0.73%1
0.61%
STA 10
75
3.01%
3.04%
91
3.84%
1.01%
23
1.96%
2.88%
101
3.85%
3.56%
2
0.11%
0.20%
12
1.88%
1.72%
2
0.11%
0.20%
14
1.78%
2.58%
19
2.00%
2.85%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
13
1.44%
1.57%
352
2.39%
2.68%
STA 11
4
0.17%
0.04%
10
O43%
1.42%
2
0.18%
0.02%
3
0.11%
0.00%
1
0.09%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
21
0.15%
0.17%
STA 12
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.04%
0.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.'
1
0.01%
0.02%
STA 14
314
12.87%
12.58%
281
11.84%
12.30%
532
45.78%
48.06%
371
14.00%
13.95%
50
4.19%
5.61%
88
13.39%
11.51%
36
2.22%
1.86%
41
53.25%
56.12%
627
1.01%
66.05%
0.00%
0.00% 1
30.79%
77.8]%
0.00%
0.00%
332
37.20%
41.97%
3032
20.68%
21.55%
STA 15
1670
68.03%
69.09%
1397
59.77%
57.52%
189
16.28%
11.73%
1580
59.83%
64.36%
63
5.37%
4.67%
430
65.38%
68.53%
22
1.40%
1.19%
89
11.56%
10.58%
90
9.26%
1.14%
1 101.01%
10101%
0.00%
0.00%
11 162%
68.90%
217
23.97%
21.11
5759
39.20%
1.81%
STA I6
50
2.09%
1.64%
49
2.12%
2.00%
269
23.27%
22.53%
57
2.19%
2.32%
91
7.89%
6.07%
6
0.90%
0.49%
73
4.61%
4.73%
169
22.26%
22.16%
164
16.92%
15.86%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
21S
23.96%
23.01%
1143
7.91%
6.89%
STA 17
19
0.80%
0.63%
12
0.51%
0.36%
39
3.36%
2.11
10
0.38%
0.17%
32
2.71
2.59%
5
0.76%
0.14%
26
1.66%
0.17%
26
3.37%
2.96%
11
1.14%
1.04%
0.00%
0.00% 2
69.21%
22.13%
0.00%
0.00%
33
3.61%
2.72%
215
1.48%
0.99%
STA 18
122
4.89%
5.04%
197
].87%
8.27%
IH
1.54%
1.28%
256
9.]2%
].22%
182
15.60%
15.48%
47
7.09%
7.85%
123
7.67%
8.51%
11
1.43%
1.45%
9
1.92%
0.94%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 7.69%
8.90%
IS
1.72%
1.91%
971
6.58%
6.08%
STA 19
98
4.01%
3.40%
150
6.44%
6.25%
48
4.16%
3.43%
125
4.69%
3.51%
436
37.41%
40.65%
42
6.37%
4.99%
117
6].16%
69.16%
26
3.41%
1.93%
16
1.16%
1.14%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
36
3.88%
4.09%
2044
13.95%
14.12%
STA 20
13
0.53%
0.55%
22
0.95%
0.81%
32
2.79%
1.97%
20
0.76%
0.80%
14
25.91
22.91
9
1.37%
0.75%
238
14.10%
12.1
25
3.28%
1.91%
26
2.70%
2.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
31
3.45%
3.01%
720
4.89%
3.74%
STA 21
36
1.48%
1.5]%
78
3.32%
2.91%
2
0.16%
0.1%
52
1.97%
1.91%
2
1.16%
1.1%
8
1.13%
1.76%
1
1.01%
0.01%
2
1.27%
1.14%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.12%
0.03%
182
1.23%
1.19%
STA 22
28
1.14%
1.07%
46
1.95%
1.33%
0.00%
0.00%
34
1.28%
0.19%
3
0.26%
0.39%
6
1.11%
0.61%
4
1.1
0.16%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 7.69%
22.20%
1
0.10%
0.03%
123
0.83%
0.63%
STA 23
22
0.88%
1.24%
15
0.63%
1.14%
2
0.18%
5.26%
30
1.13%
1.15%
2
0.19%
0.68%
5
0.71%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
2
0.25%
0.27%
2
0.20%
0.15%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2
0.24%
0.17%
821
0.SS%1
1.04%
STA 10
62
2.47%
2.46%
63
3.34%
3.06%
54
1.97%
2.00%
112
4.88%
4.42%
1
0.09%
0.03%
10
2.52%
2.96%
1
0.06%
0.09%
44
3.04%
2.86%
0.00%
0.00%
2
4.64%
1.80%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 100.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
6.25%
0.58%
351
2.53%
2.52%
STA Il
2
0.09%
0.03%
13
0.71%
0.53%
3
0.10%
0.06%
5
0.21%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2
0.14%
0.20%
0.00%
0.00%
3
7.38%
3.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
28
0.20%
0.11%
2
0.02%
STA 12 2 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
STA 13
1
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
0.25%
0.01%
1
0.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3
0.02%
0.00%
3099
22.23%
STA 14 350 14.20% 13.74% 214 I1.50% 12.60% 1260 45.90% 50.21% 352 15.03% 15.26% 32 3.07% 5.24% 56 13.84% 14.74% 32 2.13% 2.22% 780 53.29% 54.60% 5 84.35% 95.82% 3 7.03% 6.87% 5 100.00% 100.00% 3 75.42% 94.9]% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 18.75% 48.71%
23.17%
STA 15
1681
67.72%
69.04%
1121
60.04%
56.61%
464
16.83%
14.31
1295
55.29%
59.11%
50
4.78%
4.67%
254
62.22%
65.16%
13
0.85%
0.86%
III
12.55%
12.13%
0.00%
0.00%
27
64.61%
64.94%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3
60.00%
81.05%
0.00%
0.00%
5
31.25%
10.13%
5098
36.56%
37.33%
1188
8.49%
STA 16 51 2.01% 1.7]% 41 2.20% 1.96% 638 23.1]% 21.5]% 57 2.43% 2.15% 50 5.13% 4.18% 10 2.40% 2.33% 43 2.83% 2.3]% 290 19.76% 20.45% 1 15.65% 4.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 18.74% 8.12%
7.51%
STA 1]
9
0.3]%
0.25%
11
0.61%
0.35%
72
2.65%
2.67%
I6
1.69%
O.47%
17
1.62%
1.37%
1
0.25%
0.55%
18
1.20%
1.12%
41
2.81%
2.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
6.25%
2.37%
186
1.34%
1.07%
980
7.01%
STA 18 151 6.02% 6.25% 164 8.79% 10.49% 44 1.60% 1.69% 279 11.89% 10.11 118 11.16% 11.76% 35 8.71% 7.1% 131 8.69% 9.13% 13 0.11% 0.1% 0.00% 0.00% 3 6.91% 8.12% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1 20.00% 15.08% 0.00% 0.00% 1 6.25% 10.99%
6.91%
STA 19
84
3.39%
3.22%
109
5.11%
6.14%
96
3.50%
3.28%
91
3.89%
2.90%
440
42.05%
40.97%
IS
4.42%
2.03%
1045
69.59%
R.08%
34
2.31%
2.16%
0.00%
0.00%
2
4.64%
9.1%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 100.00%
100.00%
2
12.50%
19.11%
1922
13.91%
14.45%
713
5.14%
STA 20 19 0.76% 0.72% 21 1.14% 1.55% 89 3.26% 3.13% 23 1.00% 1.OS% 292 27.91% 26.69% 3 0.]3% 1.17% 214 14.32% 12.02% 50 3.44% 3.48% 0.00% 0.00% 1 2.34% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 1 24.58% 5.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
4.35%
STA 21
26
1.06%
0.71%
63
3.36%
3.89%
13
0.4]%
0.56%
38
1.62%
1.1
1
0.10%
0.16%
5
1.24%
0.86%
0.00%
0.00%
5
0.34%
0.17%
0.00%
0.00%
1
2.45%
4.51%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1
20.00%
3.87%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
153
1.10%
0.98%
106
0.76%
STA 22 26 0.90% 25 1.34% 1.54% 2 0.08% 0.08% 44 1.87% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 6 1.49% 1.31% 3 0.20% 0.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.]0%
STA 23
IS
0.06%
0.60%
0.76%
14
0.78%
0.75%
7
0.25%
0.28%
23
0.98%
0.92%
0.00%
0.00%
6
1.47%
1.34%
0.00%
0.00%
19
1.35%
1.63%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
84
0.61%
0.75%
Other
3
0.12%
0.14%
6
0.30%
0.54%
6
0.21%
0.13%
5
0.20%
0.04%
2
0.18%
0.94%
2
0A8%
0.08%
1
0.06%
0.03%
1
0.07%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%1
261
0.18%1
0.15%
Q
Q
Packet Pg. 444
How many calls?.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: Snohomish County 911 data 1
Packet Pg. 445
What type of calls?.
2016po
2017M
2018M
2019r-
2020
BLS
2965
2975
3008
2983
2628
ALS
1598
1488
1772
1727
1647
Structure Fire
21
31
41
40
29
Fire Other
505
555
481
484
413
Other
205
166
253
252
260
Grand Total
5294
5215
5555
5486
4977
Source: Snohomish County 911 data 2
Packet Pg. 446
Response times
Percentage of calls within
8 minutes or less
82.14%
hi
2016
2017
C7
2018 2019 2020
Source: Snohomish County 911 data
Packet Pg. 447
9.3.q
Neighboring Unit Utilization Factor
280%
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
■ Mountlake Terrace ■ Lynnwood RFA
Source: Snohomish County 911 data
Packet Pg. 448
NUUF
2016 2017 2018 2019
2020 a
U
Mountlake Terrace 147.20% 135.30% 133.07% 130.28% 157.24% 1
O
L
Q
Lynnwood 199.20 % 148.30% 202.06 % 210.41% 280.36%
0
u-
RFA 141.81 % 135.22% 147.61 % 161.60% 196.61%
CD
a
Packet Pg. 449
Transport Balancing Factor
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: Snohomish County 911 data
Packet Pg. 450
Day/Night breakdown for the City of Edmonds'
2017
2018
2019
2020
Night
1689
1808
1793
1595
Day
3526
3747
3693
3382
Total
5215
5555
5486
4977
Night 32.39%
Day 67.61
32.55% 32.68% 32.05%
67.45% 67.32% 67.95%
Source: Snohomish County 911 data
Packet Pg. 451
Day/Night NUUF
NUUF 2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Mountlake Terrace 147.20%
135.30%
133.07%
130.28%
157.24%
Lynnwood 199.20%
148.30%
202.06%
210.41%
280.36%
Lynnwood NUUF Day/Night
2017
2018
2019
2020
m
E
a
Night
145.87%
187.07%
130.70%
114.28%,
Day
149.38%
172.95%
213.36%
384.22%
o
a
L
3
O
a
Mountlake Terrace NUUF Day/Night
2017
2018
2019
2020
N
Night
131.96%
113.53%
125.59%
133.69%
6
r
Day
136.45%
140.58%
132.20%
170.83%
r
o
N
a+
a
Source: Snohomish County 911 data
Packet Pg. 452
SOUTH COUNTY
Grid EF1 57 (Swedish Edmonds)I(S'F"RU
First Arrival
2017 2018 2019 2020
Station 20
124
151
255
223
Station 16
217
191
117
107
Station 14
115
119
101
81
Station 19
36
70
63
28
Station 15
25
25
22
16
CRP
9
56
66
13
Station 10
6
4
10
7
Station 17
14
15
13
7
Station 18
12
13
13
4
Station 21
1
4
9
1
Station 23
1
1
other RFA units
1
KCA164
1
ARU11
1
Station 11
1
1
2
Station 13
1
Station 22
1
1
MSO/Training Day
2
FM
E24
1
Grand Total
561
651
675
491
Second Arrival
2017 2018 2019 2020
Station 14
61
38
81
95
Station 20
40
50
61
43
Station 16
60
61
50
34
Station 19
25
38
29
22
S
14
12
4
5
Station 15
10
12
8
3
Station 10
2
4
2
Station 18
5
4
7
2
FM
1
1
Station 21
1
1
4
Station 22
1
1
CRP
2
Grand Total
216
222
249
207
Grid EF157 Station Order
Station 20
Station 16
Station 19
Station 14
Station 18
Station 17
Station 15
t
r
3
O
U)
Third Arrival
2017
2018
2019
2020
r
Station 20
7
14
5
3
3
Station 14
3
1
5
2
m
Station 16
9
10
3
2
a�
Station 10
1
1
m
Station 15
1
4
9
1
Q
Y)
Station 21
1
4
1
other RFA units
1
V
0
Station 12
c
Station 17
1
2
2
0
E
Station 18
'D
c
Station 19
8
2
2
E
E
Station 22
1
Q
FM
1
Grand Total 30 33 33 11 a
L
m
3
O
a
W
N
O
N
O
N
r
c
m
E
Total Transports in 2020 to Swedish Edmonds 8,55
a
Source: Snohomish County 911 data
Packet Pg. 453
9.3.s
CITY OF EDMONDS
[a]IVA:re1I�1:IIG1919X8181C7
121 5T" AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425.771-0247 • fax 425.771.0252
www.edmondswa.gov
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
f 17C. 1 09
November 1, 2021
Chief Thad Hovis
South County Fire
12425 Meridian Avenue South
Everett, WA 98208
By email to: thovis@southsnofire.org
RE: City's Designation of Remedial Measures under ILA Section 2.2.3
Dear Chief Hovis:
MIKE NELSOI
M AYO
This letter contains the City's designation of Remedial Measures as contemplated by section 2.2.3 of
the City's Interlocal agreement with South County Fire. Beginning on January 1, 2022, the City would
like to add one 24-hour two -person transport unit to be stationed in Edmonds, pursuant to terms that
would be contained within an amendment to our ILA. The City considers this 24-hour two -person
transport unit to be a temporary Remedial Measure whose purpose is to add to the service level while
giving South County Fire time to negotiate the right to convert this 24-hour unit to two two -person
peak hour units (PAUs). The City proposes the addition of two PAUs to be its long-term Remedial
Measure. While we had initially contemplated that this conversion would occur upon a date certain
(see remarks made during the city council meeting of October 26, 2021 referencing January 1, 2023 as
the proposed conversion date), we propose here an alternative arrangement that would give South
County Fire a more flexible deadline to complete those negotiations and the related conversion.
The City's position is that the addition of two PAUs will better balance the NUUF and TBF than the
addition of one 24-hour unit. So, if South County Fire insists on keeping the Negotiation Thresholds as
part of the ILA (the City would like them removed), the City would expect that the parties have at least
two years of data with the two PAUs in service before another Threshold Notice could be issued. For
example, if the additional 24-hour transport unit is converted to two PAUs on January 1, 2023, then a
new Threshold Notice could not be issued until after January 1, 2025. Similarly, if the additional 24-
hour transport unit is converted to two PAUs on January 1, 2024, then a new Threshold Notice could
not be issued until after January 1, 2026. A Threshold Notice issued without two years of data would
• Incorporated August 11,1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Packet Pg. 454
9.3.s
not give the two PAUs a fair opportunity to bring the NUUF and TBF into balance. But this proposal
gives South County Fire some flexibility in the conversion date, which reduces the risk of disruption to
the deployment of PAUs elsewhere in the South County Fire jurisdiction.
We look forward to negotiating an amendment to the ILA that incorporates these Remedial Measures.
Kind regards,
Mike Nelson
Mayor
Cc: Jeff Taraday
• Incorporated August 11,1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Packet Pg. 455
9.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
Special Event Permits and Amendments to ECC Title 4 Licenses
Staff Lead: Scott Passey, City Clerk
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The City of Edmonds has had a special event permit program for many years. The program has been
handled administratively, although there is no adopted city code outlining the process or criteria
governing the issuance of special event permits.
Staff Recommendation
Consideration of an ordinance codifying the special event permit program in the Edmonds City Code
(ECC) and amending various code provisions in ECC Title 4 Licenses. Passage of a resolution adopting a
new City Fee Schedule to add fees relating to special event permits.
Narrative
It is the purpose of the City to establish a formal process for permitting special events that impact city
right-of-way, public property and other facilities or services. It is recognized that these special events
enhance the City of Edmonds community and provide benefits to the citizens through the creation of
venues for expression and entertainment that are not normally provided as a part of governmental
services.
Staff is proposing a new chapter to Title 4 to be known as Chapter 4.100 (Special Event Permits) to
provide a clear and efficient process for permitting special events within the City. This Chapter is
intended to supplement land use and street right-of-way regulations, to provide a coordinated process
for the regulation of certain activities to be conducted in conjunction with special events, and to ensure
that the impacts of the special event do not unduly impact the public's health, safety or welfare. It is
further intended to protect and preserve public infrastructure and city resources, prevent unplanned
disruption of public services, mitigate impacts to the extent feasible and to create a mechanism for cost
recovery without having an adverse effect on those events that contribute to the community.
In addition to adding a new section regarding special events, some sections of Title 4 are proposed for
repeal and others have been refined to reflect current practice. There are also changes to ECC 4.72
Business Licenses to reflect the city's partnership with the State of Washington Department of Licensing.
Finally, Chapter 4.98 Constitutionally Protected Events, has been updated to address the need for
flexibility regarding certain constitutionally protected spontaneous demonstrations.
If the Council adopts the new special event permit code, staff recommends adoption of a resolution
adding permit fees to the City's Fee Schedule, consistent with the policy of recovering costs associated
with reviewing and issuing city permits.
Packet Pg. 456
9.4
Attachments:
Draft Special Events Permits Code
Draft Ordinance Amending Title 4 ECC Licenses
DRAFT Resolution & Attachment to Amend Fee Schedule - Special Event Permit Fees
Packet Pg. 457
9.4.a
Special Events Permits Code
4.100.010 Purpose.
4.100.020 Definitions.
4.100.030 General provisions applicable to all special events.
4.100.040 Permit applications.
4.100.050 Indemnification.
4.100.060 Insurance.
4.100.070 Permit decision.
4.100.080 Appeal of permit decision.
4.100.090 Reimbursement of fees for city sponsored events.
4.100.100 Cleanup deposit.
4.100.110 Suspension and revocation.
4.100.120 Exercise of police power.
4.100.130 Violation — Penalties.
4.100.010 Purpose.
It is the purpose of the City to establish a process for permitting special events that impact city right-of-
way, public property and other facilities or services. It is recognized that these special events enhance the
City of Edmonds community and provide benefits to the citizens through the creation of venues for
expression and entertainment that are not normally provided as a part of governmental services.
This Chapter is intended to supplement land use and street right-of-way regulations, to provide a
coordinated process for the regulation of certain activities to be conducted in conjunction with special
events, and to ensure that the impacts of the special event do not unduly impact the public's health, safety
or welfare. It is further intended to protect and preserve public infrastructure and city resources, prevent
unplanned disruption of public services, mitigate impacts to the extent feasible and to create a mechanism
for cost recovery without having an adverse effect on those events that contribute to the community.
4.100.020 Definitions.
A. "City sponsored event" means a special event for which the city provides some level of sponsorship
and/or support to the primary event organizer/sponsor through the use of city funds, equipment, and/or
other city resources that is not a "city contracted event." City sponsored events may also be special events
that are organized and sponsored in full by the City of Edmonds. Reimbursement for city resources may be
required.
B. "City contracted event" means a special event that typically takes places on an ongoing annual basis
and for which the City and the event organizer/sponsor enter into an event contract to apportion
responsibility for the event, thereby eliminating the need for the event organizer/sponsor to obtain a special
event permit under this Chapter. Such events may be sponsored in part by the city. Examples of city
contracted events include the Garden Market/Summer Market, Edmonds Arts Festival, 4th of July
celebration, Octoberfest, and Taste Edmonds.
C. "Commercial special event" means an activity or occurrence sponsored and operated by one or more
businesses that is conducted primarily for the exchange of goods or services for financial gain. Commercial
special events typically occur upon private property. Examples of commercial special events include
parking lot sales and tent sales, promotional events, and sidewalk sales.
Packet Pg. 458
9.4.a
D. "Emergency response plan" means a plan detailing the expected actions of event management and/or
public safety agencies in the event or threat of an emergency.
E. "Expressive event" or "Constitutionally protected event" means an activity or occurrence in which the
sole or principal purpose is the expression, dissemination, or communication of political or religious
opinion, views or ideas, and for which no fee or donation is charged or required as a condition of
participation or attendance. Examples of expressive special events include political rallies, marches, public
speeches, and political demonstrations. These events are regulated by Chapter 4.98.
F. "Fire marshal" means the city of Edmonds fire marshal or designee.
G. "Parade" means a type of special event involving an organized procession or march of more than 25
persons or 25 objects, or any combination thereof amounting to 25, that temporarily disrupts the general
public's normal use of public streets or sidewalks.
H. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, incorporated or unincorporated association,
organization, or other entity or group of persons, however organized.
I. "Private" or "private event" means an event where persons are specifically and individually invited. It
does not include an event where tickets, invitations, or announcements are available to the public.
J. "Public" or "public event" means a special event open to the public, and includes an event where tickets,
invitations, or announcements are available to the public.
K. "Public amusement" means circuses, carnivals, motion picture shows, exhibitions, concerts, side shows,
plays and other stage shows, amusement parks and any other form of diversion, pastime or recreation
conducted for and open to the public regardless of whether an admission fee or other charge is made for
attendance; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the licensing and inspection of an activity
conducted under the auspices of a bona fide, accredited elementary school, middle school, high school or
college and conducted on the premises thereof in facilities previously inspected and approved for public
assembly.
L. "Right-of-way" means, within the City of Edmonds, all public right-of-way and property granted or
reserved for, or dedicated to, public use for street purposes, together with public property granted or
reserved for, or dedicated to, public use for walkways, paths, trails, sidewalks, and bikeways, whether
improved, unimproved, or unopened, including the air rights, sub -surface rights and easements related
thereto, and over which the City of Edmonds has authority and control.
M. "Run" or "race" means a type of special event involving any race, contest or event, whether of a
competitive or a noncompetitive nature, involving a procession of persons, whether afoot or upon any
vehicle or device propelled by the human body, including but not limited to marathons, fun runs,
walkathons, and bicycle races.
N. "Security" means employees, or other hired personnel, dedicated to maintaining order and ensuring
compliance with the laws of the state of Washington and ordinances of the city of Edmonds.
O. "Site" has the same meaning as set forth in ECDC 21.90.090, as now or hereafter amended, and in
addition in the case of undeveloped property, a land area under common ownership, whether the land area
is comprised of one lot, a combination of contiguous lots, or contiguous fractions of lots.
P. "Special events" include any event which is to be conducted on public property or in a public right-of-
way; and also, any event held on private property which would have a direct significant impact on: (a)
Packet Pg. 459
9.4.a
traffic circulation to and from the event over public streets or rights -of -way; (b) public streets or rights -of -
way near the event, or (c) the need for city -provided emergency services, such as police, fire or medical
aid, as determined by the city. It is presumed that any event on private property which involves: (i) an open
invitation to the public to attend; or (b) anticipated attendance by private invitation of 100 or more people
is an event that will have a direct significant impact on the public streets, rights -of -way or emergency
services. Special events may include, but are not limited to: fun runs and walks, auctions, parades, carnivals,
exhibitions, film/movie events, circuses, outdoor markets, and fairs.
Q. "Tent" means a temporary membrane structure or shelter, such as pop-up canopies, sails, and the like,
as defined in the current editions of the fire and building codes.
4.100.030 General provisions applicable to all special events.
A. Permit Required. Any person desiring to conduct or operate a special event within the City of Edmonds
shall first obtain a special event permit from the city, unless specifically exempt. It shall be unlawful for
any person to sponsor or conduct an event or activity requiring a special event permit without a valid special
event permit. Penalties for violation of the terms of this chapter shall be as specified by this chapter.
B. Consistency with Permit and Law. A special event shall be conducted as described by the special event
permit, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit and in accordance with applicable laws
and regulations.
C. Public and Personal Safety. The configuration and operation of special events shall conform to applicable
laws and regulations, including provisions relating to emergency ingress and egress, barrier -free facilities,
fire prevention, health and sanitation, and the operation of vehicles and equipment.
D. Business Licenses and Taxes. As required by applicable law, special event businesses/vendors shall have
City of Edmonds business licenses and shall record, report and remit taxes.
E. Exemptions. The following activities and occurrences shall comply with applicable laws and regulations,
but are exempt from the permit requirements of this chapter:
1. City contracted events.
2. Funerals and wedding processions.
3. Garage sales and rummage sales.
4. Neighborhood block parties.
5. Special event facilities. Events conducted at a facility designed for special event purposes or at
facilities where such events are normally held, such as churches, event centers, convention centers,
schools, athletic fields, auditoriums, stadiums, theaters, and the like.
6. Governmental activities. Activities conducted by a governmental agency acting within the scope
of its authority.
7. Regularly scheduled events utilizing park and recreation facilities, in accordance with the intended
use of the facility, and with park rules and policies.
Packet Pg. 460
9.4.a
8. A privately scheduled, non -reoccurring event upon private property in a residential zone with up
to 100 persons attending.
9. The temporary sale of seasonal goods when regulated by other statutes, such as Christmas tree
sales, and peddling of farm produce.
10. Expressive events (but see Chapter 4.98 for regulations pertaining to expressive events).
F. Signs.
1. With a special event permit application, applicants may request, and the appropriate director or
designee that would otherwise authorize such signage may authorize, the use of temporary on -site
(on -premises) and off -site (off -premises) signs.
2. Special event signs shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity of the sign. Signs shall not obstruct visibility for motorists
and pedestrians, nor impede access to buildings or property. The installation of signs upon public
property shall be subject to inspection by the building official and/or city engineer.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for installation, maintenance, and removal of all signs.
4.100.040 Permit applications.
A. The administrative services director or designee is authorized to prepare and maintain necessary
application forms and may issue written administrative policies and procedures as needed for the
implementation of this chapter.
B. Applications for special event permits shall be submitted to the administrative services director or
designee, a minimum of 60 days prior to a small event (less than 100 people) and a minimum of 90 days
prior to a major event (more than 100 people). If an event organizer fails to meet these timelines, the
application may still be processed if all affected departments agree to process the application within the
shortened timeframe. Factors in determining whether to allow for processing a late application will include
the impact on city resources and rights -of -way, and conflicts with other already scheduled events.
C. Applications for special event permits shall include written authorization of the property owner. For
special events proposed upon city -owned property, the approval of a special event permit application shall
constitute city authorization to conduct the event upon the property described in the permit application.
D. Applications for special event permits shall be on forms prepared by the administrative services director
or designee and shall include information that any city department processing the application deems
necessary in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to enable it to review the application. The
information requested shall enable the city to assess the scope of the event so as to evaluate the impact of
the event on city resources and the community.
E. Application fee(s) for special event permits are set forth in the City's adopted fee schedule.
4.100.050 Indemnification.
Prior to the issuance of a permit for a special event, the permit applicant and authorized officer of the
sponsoring organization must agree to reimburse the city for any costs incurred by it in repairing damage
to city property and indemnify and defend the city, its officers, employees, and agents from all causes of
Packet Pg. 461
9.4.a
action, claims or liabilities occurring in connection with the permitted event, except those which occur due
to the city's sole negligence.
4.100.060 Insurance.
Prior to the issuance of a permit for a special event, the permit applicant shall comply with the following
insurance requirements:
(1) The permit applicant shall obtain commercial general liability insurance in amounts acceptable to
the city attorney's office.
(2) Written proof of such insurance is required prior to permit issuance. The insurance policy shall be
written on an occurrence basis, shall name the city as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 26,
or coverage at least as broad, and shall be written for a period that includes the timeframe for both the
set-up before and the clean-up following the completion of the event. The applicant shall provide the
city and all additional insureds for this event with written notice of any policy cancellation within two
(2) business days of their receipt of such notice.
(3) Liquor Liability Coverage. Liquor liability coverage must be obtained when liquor is served as a
part of a special event permitted under this chapter.
(a) A vendor hired by the special event permittee to serve liquor must provide evidence of liquor
liability coverage in amounts acceptable to the city attorney's office, naming the city as additional
insured. This insurance coverage is in addition to the special event permittee's overall general liability
requirement.
(b) A special event permittee serving liquor directly shall obtain host liquor coverage as a part of
providing commercial general liability insurance per subsection (1) of this section.
4.100.070 Permit decision.
A. After receiving a completed application in conformance with this chapter, along with the non-refundable
permit application fee, the administrative services director or designee shall consult with all affected
divisions or departments, such as Building, Planning, Engineering, Police, Fire, Public Works, Parks and
Recreation, Finance, and Risk Management. Following consultation with all affected departments and
divisions, the administrative services director or designee may approve, conditionally approve, or deny an
application for a special event permit based upon the provisions of this chapter. When an application is
conditionally approved or denied, the administrative services director or designee shall provide written
explanation of the grounds for the conditions of approval or denial, and the applicant's right of appeal
pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
B. Decision criteria. A permit may be issued to an applicant only if all the following criteria and conditions
for issuance are met:
1. The special event will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare;
2. The special event will not be injurious to property or improvements in the immediate vicinity of
the special event;
3. The special event will not endanger participants, spectators, or the public;
Packet Pg. 462
9.4.a
4. The special event has a traffic management plan or other adequate and appropriate measures in
place to mitigate any traffic safety and mobility issues, including for both vehicles and pedestrians;
5. Adequate and appropriate sanitation and refuse facilities are planned;
6. The special event has adequate and appropriate measures in place to ensure the safe movement,
assemblage and dispersion of people attending the event. Such measures may include the use of
safety guardrails, fences, ropes, barricades, and the like;
7. The special event will not cause excessive or harmful fumes, odor, smoke, noise or light and must
be consistent with Chapter 5.30 entitled "Noise Abatement and Control";
8. The special event will provide for the appropriate collection and disposal of waste, recycling, and
compostables;
9. Adequate plans exist to return the area or routes impacted by the special event to the same
condition or cleanliness as existed prior to the event;
10. Applicant has agreed to the indemnity and hold harmless provisions in the application;
11. Applicant has provided proof of the requisite insurance provisions in the application;
12. For city sponsored events, applicant has agreed to reimburse the city for the provision of
additional city services, including but not limited to the employment of police officers to direct or
block pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or the provisions of standby aid car or fire protection services,
as required.
4.100.080 Appeal of permit decision.
Decisions of the administrative services director or designee are appealable. An appeal of the
administrative services director or designee's decision related to application of this chapter may be filed
with the administrative services director or designee within 10 business days of notification of the decision.
Such appeal shall be filed and processed in accordance with the appeal provisions for business licenses as
provided by Chapter 4.72. The appeal filing fee shall be as specified by the fee schedule.
4.100.090 Reimbursement of fees for city sponsored events.
A. Upon approval of a special event permit application for a city sponsored event, the administrative
services director or designee shall provide the applicant with a statement of the estimated cost of providing
city resources, such as personnel and equipment, for the special event, if applicable. The applicant/sponsor
of the event may be required to prepay these estimated costs ten (10) days prior to the special event. The
special event application fee per the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the city council is a separate
processing fee and is not applicable to the city services fees. City resources may include the use of police
officers and public employees for traffic and crowd control; pickup and delivery of traffic control devices,
picnic tables, and the like; extraordinary street sweeping; and any other needed, requested or required city
service, along with the cost of operating any equipment needed to provide such services.
B. If the actual cost for the use of city resources on the date(s) of the city sponsored event is less than the
estimated cost, the applicant/sponsor will be refunded the difference by the city in a timely manner. If the
actual cost for the use of city resources on the date(s) of the city sponsored event is greater than the estimated
Packet Pg. 463
9.4.a
cost, the city will invoice the applicant/sponsor for the difference, and the invoice shall be paid in a timely
manner.
C. Permit fees and fees for the use of city resources may be waived in part or in full by the city if, in review
of the application, it is found that the city sponsored event is of sufficient public benefit to warrant the
expenditure of city funds without reimbursement by the applicant/sponsor and would not result in the
private financial gain of any individual or "for -profit" entity.
4.100.100 Cleanup deposit.
A. The applicant/sponsor of a special event likely to create a substantial need for cleanup may be required
to provide a cleanup deposit prior to the issuance of a special event permit.
B. The cleanup deposit may be returned after the event if the area used for the permitted event has been
cleaned and restored to the same condition as existed prior to the event within twenty-four (24) hours after
the conclusion of the event.
C. If the property used for the event has not been properly cleaned or restored within twenty-four (24) hours
after the conclusion of the event, the applicant/sponsor shall be invoiced for the actual cost to the city for
cleanup and restoration, which invoice shall be paid in a timely manner. The cleanup deposit shall be
applied toward the payment of the invoice.
4.100.110. Suspension and revocation.
A. In instances in which the special event does not comply with the provisions of this chapter, the terms
and conditions of the approved permit, or other applicable law, the administrative services director or
designee may suspend or revoke an approved special event permit with the issuance of written findings.
B. When necessary to prevent serious injury to persons, property or the public peace, health, safety or
welfare, the administrative services director or designee, fire marshal, building official, development
services director or chief of police, or the designee of each, may suspend or revoke an approved special
event permit effective immediately. The city official or designee shall deliver written notice of suspension
or revocation to the permit applicant/event sponsor or manager.
4.100.120 Exercise of police power.
This chapter is enacted as an exercise of the city's police powers and shall not be construed to impose any
duty owed by the city to any permittee under this chapter or to any member of the public, nor shall any
permit be construed as waiver of any violation of the laws of the city.
4.100.130 Violation — Penalties.
A. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to violate any of the provisions of this chapter or the conditions
imposed upon any permit issued hereunder, which shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days. Each day, or part thereof, during which
any such violations occur or are continued, shall constitute a separate offense.
B. In addition, permits issued hereunder shall be subject to suspension or revocation as provided herein,
and civil abatement proceedings as set forth in Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
Packet Pg. 464
9.4.a
C. In addition, or alternatively, any person violating the provisions of this chapter or the conditions of any
permit issued hereunder shall also subject the permittee to a daily civil penalty in the amount specified by
Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
D. In addition, or alternatively, any person violating the provisions of the chapter or the conditions of any
permit issued hereunder may forfeit their right to hold a special event in the city.
Packet Pg. 465
9.4.b
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF OR AMENDMENT TO
CERTAIN CHAPTERS OF TITLE 4 ECC (LICENSES) AND FOR
THE ADOPTION OF A NEW CHAPTER TO TITLE 4 ECC
RELATING TO SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds has determined that certain
Chapters of Title 4 ECC (Licenses) are obsolete and are no longer required to be maintained in the
code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain revisions to Chapters 4.12
(Peddlers, Solicitors and Street Vendors), 4.52 (Regulations for Adult Entertainment Facilities), 4.68
(Community Antenna Televisions Systems), 4.72 (Business License), 4.90 (Public Markets), and 4.98
(Constitutionally Protected Events) are needed to clarify City requirements, to reflect the repeal of
other sections of Title 4, and to address the need for flexibility regarding certain constitutionally
protected spontaneous demonstrations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a new chapter to Title 4 to be known
as Chapter 4.100 (Special Event Permits) is needed to provide a clear and efficient process for
permitting special events within the City for the benefit of its citizens;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following Chapters of Title 4 ECC (Licenses) are hereby repealed
in their entirety: 4.11 (Motor Vehicle Wreckers); 4.22 (Malt Liquor by the Keg); 4.24 (Game
Licenses); 4.32 (Public Amusements); 4.40 (Public Dances); 4.44 (Teen Dance Halls); 4.48 (Cabaret
Dances); 4.50 (Licensing of Public Massage Parlors and Public Bathhouses); 4.56 (Sound Trucks);
4.60 (Taxicabs); 4.75 (Pawnbrokers); 4.80 (Aircraft Landing Permits); and 4.85 (Horse Taxis).
Packet Pg. 466
9.4.b
Section 2. Chapter 4.12 ECC (Peddlers, Solicitors and Street Vendors) is hereby
amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thfo g ):
4.12.010 Definitions.
A. "Solicitor" or "peddler" means any person who shall sell, offer for or expose for sale, or who shall
trade, deal or traffic in any goods or services in the city by going from house to house or from place to
place or by indiscriminately approaching individuals.
1. Sales by sample or for future delivery, and executory contracts of sale by solicitors or
peddlers are included; provided, however, that this section shall not be deemed applicable to any
salesman or canvasser who solicits trade from wholesale or retail dealers in the city.
2. Any person who, while selling or offering for sale any goods, services or anything of value,
stands in a doorway, any unenclosed vacant lot, parcel of land, or in any other place not used by
such person as a permanent place of business shall be deemed a solicitor or peddler within the
meaning of this chapter, except as noted in subsection (B) of this section.
B. "Street vendor" means any person who shall sell food, flowers, nonalcoholic beverages only, and/or
other goods or services from either a motorized or nonmotorized mobile vending unit.
C. "Motorized mobile vending unit" means a truck, van or other motorized vehicle that incorporates a
kitchen or other food preparation area from which prepared or prepackaged food may be sold.
D. "Nonmotorized mobile vending unit" means a cart, kiosk or other device capable of being pushed
by one person, with at least two functional wheels and positive wheel -locking devices.
4.12.020 License required.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to act as solicitor, peddler or street vendor within the meaning
and application of this chapter unless that person or his/her employer shall have first secured a Cijy of
Edmonds business licensee hemmanner- provided in this ehaflter-. The lieense required bythis ehapter-
is in
addition to ., business heense that may We as required under Chapter 4.72 ECC.
1. Any person who shall sell, deliver or peddle any dairy product, meat, poultry, eel, fish,
mollusk, or shellfish must first obtain a license pursuant to this chapter.
2. No licenses shall be issued or maintained for the sale of poultry or poultry products or meat or
meat products which are adulterated or distributed under unsanitary conditions.
3. No licenses shall be issued for the sale of shellfish unless the vendor can produce a certificate
of compliance as required by RCW 69.30.020.
B. All persons acting as a solicitor, peddler or street vendor shall comply with all laws, ordinances and
regulations, including all Snohomish County health department requirements.
Packet Pg. 467
9.4.b
C. All solicitors, peddlers or street vendors must report any sales made within the city of Edmonds to
the Department of Revenue as sales that have occurred within the city.
The license fees for- peor-ddlers vendors
NMI IN
.
•
I'
WIMMEM III
..,Q
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 468
9.4.b
between the
Edmonds
the Pw4
Edmonds
the
eivy
of
or-
of
and another-
entity,
sueh as
ai4s
,
L',,wth
July „,,rage
fireworks,
Taste ..f
Edmonds,
..1.,ss;,.
, s1,ow.
fA
stimmef market,
of
and
and
Stfeet
in
ffom
the
N
vendors
paftieipatifi
stieh
speeial
events
are also exempt
provisions
of
C
Err n 1
ncvn).
al
J
6. Notwithstanding
the
herein,
exemptions
provided
all exempt
per-sOfis
fffflSt pr-oVide
pr-E)of
of
N
their-
identifieation
by
r+
exempt
status
along
with photo
upon fe"est
a pr-espeetive eustomer-
H
law enf ,-..om
e
t .,FF;,.o
-.
,
U
W
7. Exempt
from
business
lieensing
O
-I.-
per -sons
are
law,
exempt only
eity
requirements
and must
Snohomish
eomply-
GotnAy
r
with all provisions
of
efdinances
and
r-egelations
and all applieable
d
E
C
d
E
a
Aft), fifm
desiFing
to
per -son,
or- other-
organization
seoufe
a solieitef:'s,
peddlef:'s
of: stfeet
vender'sA.
, and
s
follows:
a
c
m
The
address
and telephone
number-
of the
pr-ineipal
w
organization;1.
m
in
ithin
acn
'
nt
ant
CO
name and
address
over-
the last two
yeaf pefied
pr-eeeding
the most
r-eeent;
m
N
C
+.,1
2
applicant;
J
<.i
4. A list
th
U
W
of
—inally
contemplating
solieitation,
peddling
or- street vending
within-
the
Edmonds,
the information
in
this
to
city of
and
r-equir-ed
subsection
(B)
of seetion as
each,
r�
H
5. The
telephone
home)
the individtial
name,
address
a -ad
"mber-
03tisiness
and
of
aefing
as
IA -
B. For-
3vending the
Edmonds to
eaeh per -son seheiting,
peddling or- stfeet within
city of pursuant a
L
independent
employee,
++
fofms-
by the ..;t..
sot f t per -son the
following! 0c1
pr-ovided and shall
ftb, as eaeh suesueh
G
t
(i
r+
Packet Pg. 469
9.4.b
2.
The
telephone
the
fifm
holding
name,
address
and
"mber-
of
per -son,
E)r-
other- or-ga-mization
ipal
0
0;
m
Vl
3
His ..,. her-
age
and
general
per-sonal ,7eseripti,,,...,
o
.-e,l by the
eit-) .
,
C
d
t�
J
the
eity in
the
applieation
fofm;
and
H
<.i
.
U
W
O
N
baekgr-otmd
iwi�estigation
the
Upon
the
for-wafd the
C
of
'
'
ehief of
poliee shall
G1
o „lts of
the investigation
to the
e t y eleflE.
E
C
d
denial
listed
below,
the
the
fee,
issue
requiring
as
eity eler-k
shall, upon
payment
of
pr-eser-ibed
license to
the applicant.
The
city
clerk shall deny
the applicant
the license
if the applicant
1
Committed
;sting frauor-misrepresentation;
E
any et
e
of
L
a)
IL
for
c
-
f
r e
';
>
revocation
a
W
Within
the
10
been
felony
dir-eetly
to-
previous
years,3.
eonvieted
of
a misdemeanor-
of
r-elating
e.
,
CO
btit
not limited
to, those
fnisdemeanofs
and felonies
ifwolving
mofal
,
ffatid ofw
m
,
Vl
C
d
C�
4.
Been
felony
the t"e
defined
in
J
ehafged
with
a misdemeafiorm
ot:
of
subseetion
(D)(3) of
oetio
disposition
f
that ,.ha-ge ;
still
and
pending;
U
W
th4
, a"
denied
lieense
the
this
if
the
r�
applieant
a
under- provisions
of
ehaptef
may
reapply
and
when
H
reasons
for
denial
no
longer
exist; an
r
E. Every peddler- shall be r-equifed to eany the peddler's lieense and display it along with ph
identifieation upon request by a prospective customer or law enfor-eement offie
F. The is to the
eity eler-k authefized pr-em-ulgate ndles regarding manner- and
method of payment,
including a prohibition or- regulation of payment by eheek, and the form of the
application.
L
4.12.050 investigation of applicantsw
E
t
it be the duty the to investigate
ECC 4.12.040, in (i
shall of ehief of poliee eaeh applieant made under-
yr
a
Packet Pg. 470
9.4.b
vender-0 0s.
G. The tFbAh of the faets set feft-h in the apphea4ien; and
4.12.055 Street vendor requirements.
Any person seeking a pefrit City of Edmonds business license for a street vendor license under the
definition of this chapter shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Mobile vending units may be allowed to operate within the following commercially zoned areas
including unzoned property or right-of-way adjacent to or abutting commercially zoned areas:
1. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units: neighborhood business (BN), community
business (BC), planned business (BP), downtown business zones (BD1, BD2, BD3, BD4 and
BD5), commercial waterfront (CW), general commercial (CG, CG2), Firdale Village mixed -use
(FVMU), medical use (MU) and public use (P).
B. In addition to the licensing requirements of this chapter, any street vendor shall be required to
obtain a street use permit. Application fees for street use 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.
C. All advertising shall be placed on the nonmotorized mobile vending unit and will not be allowed on
the street or sidewalk. Maximum sign area allowed shall be 10 square feet.
D. The vending site shall be kept clean and orderly at all times, and the vendor must provide a refuse
container and is encouraged to provide containers for recycling. No portion of a vendor's inventory,
sales equipment, or any other structure or equipment used in the sales or solicitation process shall be
left overnight upon any unenclosed portion of any lot or site within the city, nor upon any public street
or right-of-way.
E. The city reserves the right to limit the number of vending permit sites in any given area of the city.
When the number of permitted mobile vendors reaches 15, a review before the city council is triggered
to determine if the number of mobile vendors should be limited. The city council review may consider
the needs of the public, diversity of products offered for sale, the smooth flow of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic, number of complaints, and locations where the vending units are located.
F. If located on a sidewalk, a minimum clearance of five feet shall be maintained by any street vendor
Packet Pg. 471
9.4.b
G. Street vendors shall not locate within that portion of improved street right-of-way designed for
vehicular traffic or parking. Street vendors seeking to locate in improved street rights -of -way or on
sidewalks shall be oriented toward pedestrian traffic movement or safety. Any application to locate a
street vendor in the street right-of-way shall require approval by the city traffic engineer and shall not
interfere in any way with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety.
H. No mechanical audio or noise making devices and no hawking is allowed. Hawking is the loud,
repeated oral solicitation of business by the vendor or an assistant.
I. Street vendors may operate in parks if they have a concession agreement with the city of Edmonds to
operate on a specific park property.
J. Street vendors are prohibited in residentially zoned areas, and unzoned property or right-of-way
adjacent to or abutting the residentially zoned areas.
K. All street vendors shall comply with all applicable Snohomish County health district requirements.
L. The applicant shall submit with his application a copy of the written approval for the vending site
from the property owner when locating on private property. When locating on a sidewalk within the
right-of-way, the applicant shall have written approval for the vending site from the abutting property
owner and/or tenant. In the event that the property owner or tenant shall disagree, the property owner's
decision shall be final.
1. In the event that the proposed site is on or abuts property owned by the city of Edmonds, the
applicant shall be required to obtain the city's approval. Approvals relating to park property
shall be handled as a request to let a concession under the terms of this chapter. Request for sites
abutting all other public land owned by the city shall be forwarded to the city council for their
review and approval.
2. In the event that the proposed site is on or abuts publicly owned property not owned by the
city of Edmonds, the applicant shall be required to obtain approval from the public entity that
owns the property.
3. In the event that the site for which approval is sought abuts vacant land, the applicant shall
make reasonable written attempts to secure the approval of the property owner. If the applicant
is unable to do so, the city may accept written proof of such attempts and issue a conditional
permit. If a complaint is later received from the owner of the land, the license shall be revoked.
The granting of such a conditional license shall vest no right in the applicant.
M. When locating within a parking lot of a private location, the applicant shall:
1. Identify the location the mobile vending unit will be located and provide a circulation plan.
The location and circulation plan shall require approval by the city traffic engineer to ensure the
vending unit will not interfere in any way with vehicular or pedestrian traffic or safety.
2. Demonstrate that the site will meet the parking requirements of Chapter 17.50 ECDC
excluding the parking space(s) occupied by the mobile vending unit.
Packet Pg. 472
9.4.b
N. The maximum permissible size for any nonmotorized mobile vending unit shall be:
1. Thirty square feet for sidewalk locations; and
2. Fifty square feet for locations within the street or other public right-of-way or when located
on private property.
3. In no event shall any nonmotorized mobile vending unit exceed 10 feet in length.
O. During special events held within the city where food providers are required to pay a fee to
participate (such as the Edmonds Art Festival and Taste of Edmonds), no mobile vending units may be
allowed to operate within one -quarter mile of the special event.
MR-
LLi
4.12.065 Soliciting and peddling restrictions.
All licenses issued pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to the following time and location
restrictions:
A. Fourth of July Fireworks Display. For the purpose of crowd and traffic control on the Fourth of
July, all soliciting after 6:00 p.m. within one mile of the official fireworks display shall take place only
within the confines of the fireworks viewing area as designated by the chief of police on the Civic
Center playfield.
B. No peddler or solicitor shall engage or attempt to engage in the business of peddling at any home,
residence, apartment complex or business that prominently displays a "No Peddlers" or "No
Solicitors" sign or any other similar sign that communicates the occupants' desire to not be contacted
by peddlers.
C. No peddler or solicitor shall engage in the business of peddling between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and
9:00 a.m.
D. Motorized and nonmotorized mobile vending units which are located directly adjacent to
residentially zoned property may not operate between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Motorized
and nonmotorized mobile vending units not located directly adjacent to residentially zoned property
may not operate between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Packet Pg. 473
9.4.b
4.12.070 Carrying of license required.
Stieh heense A City of Edmonds business license shall be carried at all times by each solicitor, peddler
or street vendor for whom issued, when soliciting, canvassing or street vending in the city of Edmonds,
and shall be exhibited by any such solicitor, peddler or street vendor whenever and wherever he or she
shall be requested to do so by any police officer or any person solicited.
Sueh heense mat, be revoked by the eity of Edmonds for- the vielation by either- the employer- or- the
selieiter-, peddler- oF stfeet vendor- of any of the or-dinanees of the eity of Edmonds. The eity of -
Edmonds may also revoke a lieense for- a s4eet ve-n-d-of uadef *-he fellowing eendifiens!
A. Whenever- the detemines that there is for- denying
lieense
eity eler-k eause
license issued to this the
any appheation
the holding4he--
revoking any pursuant chapter-, clerk shall notify
per -son
(3) the lieensee. Netiee to the
the lieense be
requested of personal sefviee on mailed
deemed three days The the
address on shall
fer- the deni
received after- mailing. nefiee shall speeify
4' of a 1:
gr-etfflds
11111111111 Nil
i•
■
Q
Packet Pg. 474
9.4.b
4.12.090 Purchase orders — Form and content.
All orders taken by licensed solicitors; or peddlers ^~ street vend shall be in writing, in duplicate,
stating the name as it appears on the license, the address of both the solicitor, peddler or street vendor
and his or her employer, the terms thereof, and the amount paid in advance, and one copy shall be
given to the purchaser.
4.12.100 Pe-nalties.Penalty for violation.
Any per-sen E)r- per -sons whe N44ate of gail to eamply with a*y of the pr-evisions of this ehapter- shall
upo�eenm-tienofsaid vielatien be punished asprovided in 5.50.020. AnYperson, as defined
herein, and the officers, directors, managing agents, or partners of any corporation, firm, partnership or
other organization or business violating or failingto o comply with any provisions of this chapter shall
be guifty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine in any sum not exceeding
$250.00 or by prisonment for a period not exceeding nine months, or both, and each day of violation
shall constitute a separate offense.
4.12.110 Severability.
Should any section, clause or provision of this chapter be declared by the courts to be invalid, the same
shall not affect the validity of the chapter as a whole, or any part thereof, other than the part declared to
be invalid.
Section 3. Chapter 4.52 ECC (Regulations for Adult Entertainment Facilities),
subsections .030, .060, .070, .080, .100, .110, .250 and .260, are hereby amended to read as follows
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thr-oug ):
4.52.030 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, certain terms and words are defined as follows:
A. "Adult entertainment" shall mean:
1. Any exhibition, performance or dance of any type conducted in an adult entertainment facility
where such exhibition, performance or dance involves a person who is unclothed or in such
costume, attire or clothing as to expose any portion of the female breast below the top of the
areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genitals, or human male
genitals in a discernibly turgid state, or wearing any device or covering exposed to view which
simulates the appearance of any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any
portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genitals, or human male genitals in a
discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered; or
2. Any exhibition, performance or dance of any type conducted in an adult entertainment facility
where such exhibition, performance or dance is distinguished or characterized by a predominant
emphasis on the depiction, description, simulation or relation to the following specified sexual
activities:
Packet Pg. 475
9.4.b
a. Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal; or
b. Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse or sodomy; or
c. Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, anus, buttocks or
female breast; or
3. Any exhibition, performance or dance intended to sexually stimulate any patron and
conducted in an adult entertainment facility where such exhibition, performance or dance is
performed for, arranged with or engaged in with fewer than all patrons in the adult entertainment
facility at that time, with separate consideration paid, either directly or indirectly, for such
performance, exhibition or dance. For purposes of example and not limitation, such exhibitions,
performances or dances are commonly referred to as table dancing, couch dancing, taxi dancing,
lap dancing, private dancing or straddle dancing.
B. "Adult entertainment facilities" shall mean those businesses defined as follows:
1. "Adult arcade": a commercial establishment containing individual viewing areas or booths,
where, for any form of consideration, including a membership fee, one or more still or motion
picture projectors, slide projectors, or other similar image producing machines are used to show
films, motion pictures, video cassettes, slides, or other photographic reproduction of specified
sexual activities or specified anatomical areas.
2. "Adult cabaret": a nightclub, bar, restaurant, theater or auditorium, or similar commercial
establishment, whether or not alcoholic beverages are served, which features adult
entertainment.
3. "Adult motel": a hotel, motel, or similar commercial establishment which:
a. Offers sleeping accommodations to the public for any form of consideration and
provides patrons with closed-circuit television transmissions, films, motion pictures, video
cassettes, slides, or other photographic reproductions which are characterized by the
depiction or description of specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas and are
not rated G, PG, PG-13, NC-13, NC-17 or R by the Motion Picture Association of
America; or the establishment has a sign visible from the public right-of-way which
advertises the availability of this adult type of photographic reproductions; or
b. Offers a sleeping room for rent for a rental fee period of time that is less than 10 hours;
or
c. Allows a tenant or occupant of a sleeping room to subrent the room for a period of time
that is less than 10 hours.
4. "Adult motion picture theater": a commercial establishment or drive-in theater where films,
motion pictures, video cassettes, slides, or similar photographic reproductions characterized by
the depiction or description of specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities and are
not rated G, PG, PG-13, NC-13, NC-17 or R by the Motion Picture Association of America and
are shown for any form of consideration.
Packet Pg. 476
9.4.b
5. "Other adult entertainment facility": any commercial establishment to which any patron is
invited or admitted and where adult entertainment is provided on a regular basis and as a
substantial part of the activities of the establishment.
C. "Barker" shall mean any person who is located at the entrance of or outside of an adult
entertainment facility, and attempts to solicit business for the same by using voice or gestures.
D. "City" shall mean the city of Edmonds, Washington.
E. "Director" shall mean the administrative services director e or his/he designee.
F. "Employee" shall mean any and all persons, including managers, entertainers, independent
contractors, renters, lessees, or sublessees, who work in or at or render any services directly related to
the operation of any adult entertainment facility whether or not such person is paid compensation by
the operator of said business.
G. "Entertainer" shall mean any person who provides live adult entertainment in an adult
entertainment facility, whether or not that person is an employee of the business and whether or not a
fee is charged or accepted for such entertainment, and whether or not that person is nude, semi-nude or
clothed.
H. "Establishment" shall mean any of the following:
1. The opening or commencement of an adult entertainment facility as a new business; or
2. The conversion of an existing business, whether or not an adult entertainment facility, to an
adult entertainment facility; or
3. The addition of an adult entertainment facility to any other existing adult entertainment
facility; or
4. The relocation of any adult entertainment facility; or
5. An existing adult entertainment facility.
I. "Expressive dance" shall mean any dance which, when considered in the context of the entire
performance, constitutes an expression of art, theme, story or ideas, but excluding any dance such as,
but not limited to, common barroom -type topless dancing which, when considered in the context of the
entire performance, is presented primarily as a means of displaying nudity as a sales device or for
other commercial exploitation without substantial expression of theme, story or ideas, and the conduct
appeals to the prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and lacks serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
J. "Manager" shall mean any person who manages, directs, administers, or is in charge of, the affairs
and/or the conduct of an adult entertainment facility.
K. "Nude" or "state of nudity" shall mean the appearance or less than complete and opaque covering
of the human anus, male genitals, female genitals, or the areola or nipple of the female breast. The
Packet Pg. 477
9.4.b
opaque covering shall be made of material or fabric, but shall not include any liquid substance,
including mud, water, lotion, whipping cream, or other such substances that are easily broken down or
removed and do not offer the covering intended for an "opaque covering."
L. "Operator" shall mean the owner, significant stockholder or significant owner of interest, custodian,
licensee, manager, or person in charge of any licensed adult entertainment facility.
M. "Licensed establishment" shall mean any establishment that requires a license and that is classified
as an adult entertainment facility.
N. "Licensee" shall mean a person in whose name a license to operate an adult entertainment facility
has been issued, as well as the individual listed as an applicant on the application for a license.
O. "Person" shall mean and include any individual, firm, joint venture, partnership, association, social
club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver or any other group or
combination acting as a unit.
P. "Semi-nude" shall mean a state of undress in which clothing completely and opaquely covers only
the genitals, pubic region, and areola and nipple of the female breast, as well as portions of the body
covered by supporting straps or devices.
Q. "Specified anatomical areas" shall mean and include any of the following:
1. Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, anus, or areola of
the female breasts or any artificial depiction of the same; or
2. Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered.
R. "Specified criminal activities" shall mean and include any conviction for acts which constitute
sexual crimes against children, sexual abuse, rape, distribution of obscenity or erotic material to
minors, prostitution, pandering, or racketeering.
S. "Specified sexual activity" shall mean and include any of the following:
1. The fondling or other intentional touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, anus, or
female breasts; or
2. Sex acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, including intercourse, oral copulation, or
sodomy; or
3. Masturbation, actual or simulated; or
4. Human genitals or artificial depictions of the same in a state of sexual stimulation, arousal or
tumescence; or
5. Excretory functions as part of or in connection with any of the activities set forth in
subdivisions 1 through 4 of this subsection.
Packet Pg. 478
9.4.b
T. "Transfer of ownership or control" shall mean and include any of the following:
1. The sale, lease, or sublease of an adult entertainment facility, or substantially all of the assets
of an adult entertainment facility; or
2. The transfer of securities which constitute a controlling interest in the adult entertainment
facility, whether by sale, exchange, or similar means; or
3. The establishment of a trust, gift, or other similar legal device which transfers the ownership
or control of the adult entertainment facility, except for transfer by bequest or other operation of
law upon the death of a person possessing the ownership or control.
4.52.060 License required.
A. It shall be unlawful to operate an adult entertainment facility without a valid adult entertainment
facility license, issued by the city for the particular type of adult entertainment to be conducted. The
license or licenses required under this chapter are in addition to a business license that may be required
under Chapter 4.72 ECC.
B. The administrative services director eity ele, or his,he designee, is responsible for granting,
denying, revoking, renewing, suspending, and canceling adult entertainment facility licenses. The
director of the department of planning or his/her designee is responsible for ascertaining whether a
license application for a proposed adult entertainment facility complies with all requirements
enumerated herein and all other applicable zoning laws and/or regulations.
C. An application for an adult entertainment facility license shall be made on a form provided by the
city.
D. The completed application shall contain the following information and shall be accompanied by the
following documents:
1. If the applicant is an individual/sole proprietor, then the individual/owner shall state his/her
legal name and any aliases, stage names, or previous names, date of birth, Social Security
number and submit satisfactory proof that he/she is 18 years of age or older.
2. If the applicant is a partnership, then the partnership shall state its complete name, and the
legal names of all partners, including their dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and whether
the partnership is general or limited, and a copy of the partnership agreement, if any.
3. If the applicant is a corporation, including a limited liability organization, then the corporation
shall state its complete name, the date of its incorporation, evidence that the corporation is in
good standing under the laws of the state of Washington, the legal names, dates of birth, Social
Security numbers of all directors, or principal stockholders, and the capacity of all officers,
directors and principal stockholders; the name of the registered corporate agent, and the address
of the registered office for service of process.
Packet Pg. 479
9.4.b
4. Each officer, director, or principal stockholder shall provide the administrative services
director, or designee, eity 'o,.',4easu fe f with an affidavit attesting to his/her identity and
relationship to the corporation. A principal stockholder shall mean those persons who own 10
percent or greater interest in the adult entertainment facility.
5. If the applicant or any other individual listed pursuant to subsection (D)(1), (2) or (3) has been
convicted of a crime within a four-year period immediately preceding the date of the application,
then the applicant must state the specific criminal act involved, the date of conviction and the
place of conviction.
6. If the applicant or any other individual listed pursuant to this section has, within the last four
years, had a previous permit or license under this chapter or other similar ordinances from
another city or county denied, suspended, or revoked, then the applicant must state the name and
location of the adult entertainment facility for which the permit or license was denied,
suspended, or revoked, the entity denying the same, as well as the date of the denial, suspension,
or revocation.
7. If the applicant or any other entity listed pursuant to this section holds any other licenses
under this chapter or any other permits or licenses from other jurisdictions, including a sexually
oriented business license from another city or county, then the applicant must state the names
and locations of such other permitted or licensed businesses.
8. The single classification of license for which the applicant is filing.
9. The location of the proposed adult entertainment facility, including a legal description of the
property, street address, and telephone number(s), if any.
10. The applicant's mailing address and residential address.
11. Two two-inch by two-inch color photographs of the applicant, including any corporate
applicants, taken within six months of the date of the application, showing only the full face of
the same. The photographs shall be provided at the applicant's expense. The license, when
issued, shall have affixed to it one such photograph of the applicant.
12. The applicant and/or each corporate applicant's driver's license number, Social Security
number, and his/her state or federally issued tax identification number, if any.
13. Each application shall be accompanied by a complete set of fingerprints of each person
required to be a party to the application, including all corporate applicants as defined above,
utilizing fingerprint forms as prescribed by the chief of police or his,Lhe designee.
14. A sketch or diagram showing the configuration of the adult entertainment facility, including
a statement of total floor space occupied by the establishment. The sketch or diagram must be
professionally prepared and accepted by the city, and it must be drawn to a designated scale or
drawn with marked dimensions of the interior of the adult entertainment facility to an accuracy
of plus or minus six inches.
E. Applicants for a license under this chapter shall have a continuing duty to promptly supplement
application information required in the event that said information changes in any way from what is
Packet Pg. 480
9.4.b
stated on the application. The failure to comply with said continuing duty within 30 days from the date
of such change by supplementing the application on file with the administrative services director eit�-
ekerk or his,Lhe designee shall be grounds for suspension of a license.
F. In the event the administrative services director eity ele or his/he designee determines or learns at
any time that the applicant has improperly completed the application for a proposed adult
entertainment facility license, he/she shall promptly notify the applicant of such fact and allow the
applicant 10 days to properly complete the application. (The time period for granting or denying a
license shall be stayed during the period in which the applicant is allowed an opportunity to properly
complete the application).
G. The applicant must be qualified according to the provisions of this section, and the adult
entertainment facility must be inspected and found to be in compliance with health, fire, and building
codes of the city.
H. The applicant shall pay a preliminary nonrefundable processing fee established by resolution at the
time of filing an application under this section. Note: This is a processing fee. License fees shall also
be required in the event the application is approved.
I. The fact that a person possesses other types of state or city permits and/or licenses does not exempt
him/her from the requirement of obtaining an adult entertainment facility license.
J. The application form for licenses issued under this chapter shall contain a provision providing that
under penalty of perjury the applicant verifies that the information contained therein is true to the best
of his/her knowledge.
4.52.070 Investigation and application.
A. Upon receipt of an application properly filed with the administrative services director eity ,
and upon payment of the nonrefundable processing fee, the administrative services director eityelerl£
or his4ie designee shall immediately stamp the application as received and shall immediately
thereafter send photocopies of the application to other city departments or other agencies responsible
for enforcement of health, fire, criminal and building codes and laws. Each department or agency shall
promptly conduct an investigation of the application and the proposed adult entertainment facility.
Said investigation shall be completed within 20 days of receipt of the application by the administrative
services director eit-y eleor hi"e designee, unless circumstances support extending the
investigation. If the investigation is extended, the city shall inform the applicant of the extension and
the reason. The extension shall be for no longer than 10 additional days from the original expiration of
the 20-day time period stated above. At the conclusion of its investigation, each department or agency
shall indicate on the photocopy of the application its recommendation as to approval or disapproval of
the application, date it, sign it, and in the event it recommends disapproval, state the specific reasons
therefor, citing applicable laws or regulations.
B. A department or agency shall recommend disapproval of an application if it finds that the proposed
adult entertainment facility will be in violation of any provision of any statute, code, ordinance,
regulation, or other law in effect in the city, or if the applicant does not meet the conditions as
specified in this chapter. After its indication of approval or disapproval, each department or agency
shall immediately return the photocopy of the application to the administrative services director eit�-
eler-k or his/her designee.
Packet Pg. 481
9.4.b
C. In addition to the license fees set forth in this chapter, an applicant shall pay a charge equal to the
actual cost of fire inspection in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 19.25.025.
4.52.080 Issuance of license.
A. The administrative services director e or his,Lhe designee shall grant or deny an application
for a license within 60 days from the date of its proper filing unless the city or applicant establishes a
good reason for up to a 10-day extension as provided above.
B. Grant of Application for License.
1. The administrative services director eity ele or his/he r designee shall grant the application
unless one or more of the criteria set forth in subsection C of this section (Denial of Application
for License) is present.
2. The license, if granted, shall state on its face the name of the person or persons to whom it is
granted, the expiration date, and the address of the adult entertainment facility. The license shall
be posted in a conspicuous place, at or near the entrance to the adult entertainment facility so
that it can be easily read at any time. The license shall be valid until the end of the year.
C. Denial of Application for License. The administrative services director eity ele or Sher
designee shall deny the application for any of the following reasons:
1. An applicant is under 18 years of age or will be employing a person under 18 years of age.
2. An applicant is overdue on his/her payment to the city of taxes, fees, fines, assessments, or
penalties assessed or imposed against him/her in relation to an adult entertainment facility.
3. An applicant has failed to provide information required by this section or the application for
the issuance of the license, or has falsely answered a question or request for information on the
application form.
4. The applicant has failed to comply with any provision or requirement of this chapter.
5. The applicant has failed to comply with any city codes or zoning regulations, or other state or
federal regulations or court order applicable to an adult entertainment facility.
6. The applicant has been convicted of a felony within the last 10 years involving an adult
entertainment facility including, but not limited to, prostitution, promoting prostitution, and/or
possession of controlled substances as that term is defined in Chapter 69.50 RCW.
4.52.100 Licenses for managers and entertainers.
A. No person shall work as a manager or entertainer at any adult entertainment facility without having
first obtained the appropriate entertainer's or manager's license from the administrative services
director e . Each such applicant shall not be required to obtain an adult entertainment facility
Packet Pg. 482
9.4.b
license, but shall complete an application containing the information identified in ECC 4.52.060 (D)
and comply with the same requirements and procedures as set forth in ECC 4.52.060 through 4.52.080.
A nonrefundable processing fee established by resolution shall accompany the application.
B. It is unlawful for any entertainer, employee or operator to knowingly work in or about or knowingly
perform any service directly related to the operation of an unlicensed adult entertainment facility.
C. The annual fee for such a license shall be established by resolution. The amount shall be used for
the cost of administration and enforcement of this chapter.
D. This license expires annually on December 31 st of each year and must be renewed by January 1 st
of each year. This license shall not be prorated.
E. The applicant must be 18 years of age or older.
4.52.110 Due date for license fees.
All licenses required by this chapter must be issued and the applicable fees paid to the administrative
services director eity ele at least 14 calendar days before commencing work at an adult entertainment
facility, and on an annual basis as described above.
4.52.250 Record keeping requirements.
A. Within 30 days following each calendar quarter, each adult entertainment facility licensee shall file
with the administrative services director " a verified report showing the licensee's gross
receipts and amounts paid to entertainers, models, or escorts, if applicable, for the preceding calendar
year.
B. Each adult entertainment facility licensee shall maintain and retain for a period of two years from
the date of termination of employment, the names, addresses, Social Security numbers and ages of all
persons employed or otherwise retained as entertainers, models, and escorts by the licensee.
4.52.260 Denial, suspension or revocation of license, and appeal procedures.
A. When the administrative services director eity ele refuses to grant a license, or revokes the same,
he/she shall notify the applicant in writing of the same, describing the reasons therefor, and shall
inform the applicant of his right to appeal to the city council within 10 days of the date of the written
notice by filing a written notice of appeal with the administrative services director eity ele containing
a statement of the specific reasons for the appeal and a statement of the relief requested.
B. Whenever the administrative services director eity ele has found or determined that any violation
of this chapter has occurred, he/she shall issue a notice of violation and suspension or revocation
("notice") to the licensee. In addition, the administrative services director eity elerlf shall issue a notice
of suspension or revocation to the licensee under the following circumstances:
1. Where such license was obtained by fraud or false representation of fact;
Packet Pg. 483
9.4.b
2. For the violation of, or failure to comply with, the provisions of this chapter or any other
similar local or state law by the licensee or by any of its agents, employees or representatives,
when the licensee knew or should have known of the violations committed by its agents,
employees or representatives;
3. For the conviction of the licensee of any crime or offense committed at the adult
entertainment facility involving prostitution, promoting prostitution or transactions involving
controlled substances (as that term is defined in Chapter 69.50 RCW), or the conviction of the
licensee's employees, agents or representatives of any crime or offense committed at the adult
entertainment facility involving prostitution, or transactions involving controlled substances (as
that term is defined in Chapter 69.50 RCW).
C. The notice shall include the following:
1. Name(s) of person(s) involved.
2. Description of the violation(s), including date and section of this chapter violated.
3. Description of the administrative action taken.
4. Rights of appeal as set forth above.
D. The notice shall be served either personally or by mailing a copy of the notice by certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the licensee at his or her last known address. Proof of
service shall be made at the time of service by a written declaration under penalty of perjury, executed
by the person effecting the service, declaring the time, date, and the manner by which service was
made. The decision may be appealed to the city council if request for appeal is properly filed with the
administrative services director eity ele within 10 calendar days of receipt of the notice. Said request
shall be in writing, state specific reasons for the appeal, and the relief requested.
E. The suspension or revocation of a license shall be effective at the end of the expiration of any
appeal period, unless there is a written request for an appeal properly filed by the licensee. If there is
an appeal so requested, then the revocation or suspension shall be stayed pending the outcome of the
appeal. This effective date of suspension shall not apply to any fire code violation or building code
violation deemed by the appropriate officials to be a serious risk to health and welfare.
F. Within 10 working days of receiving a timely appeal, the administrative services director e
shall forward the administrative record of the licensing decision to the city council.
G. When an applicant has appealed the administrative services director e erk decision according to
the stipulations herein, the city council shall review the administrative record as soon as possible, but
no later than 30 working days after the city receives the appeal. Written notice of the date, time, and
place of the scheduled meeting will be given to the applicant by the administrative services director
eity eby mailing the same, postage prepaid, to the applicant at the address shown on the license
application, at least five days prior to the meeting.
H. If the licensee appeals the notice to the city council, the licensee shall be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to be heard as to the violation and action taken. The licensee and administrative services
director eity ele or designee his ropresentashall be given an opportunity to argue the merits of
Packet Pg. 484
9.4.b
the appeal before the city council. Oral argument by each party shall not exceed 10 minutes and shall
be limited to the administrative record before the council.
I. The city council shall uphold the administrative services director's e s decision unless it
finds the decision is not supported by evidence in the administrative record.
J. The city council shall issue a written decision within 10 working days of hearing the appeal. The
council may uphold the administrative services director's e s decision and deny the license,
overrule the administrative services director's eerVs decision and issue the license, or remand the
matter to the administrative services director eit-y elerl£ for further review and action. The
administrative services director e shall complete further action or review within 30 working
days of receiving any remand.
K. A decision by the city council shall constitute final administrative review. The applicant or licensee
shall be responsible for the cost of any preparation of the record for appeal.
L. Either party may seek judicial review of a final decision of the city council as provided by law.
Section 4. Chapter 4.68 (Community Antenna Television Systems), subsections .050,
.290, .390, and .400, are hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted
text is shown in strike 4ffe g ):
4.68.050 Acceptance.
No franchise granted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall become effective unless and until
the ordinance granting same has become effective.
Within 30 days after the effective date of the ordinance awarding a franchise, or within such extended
period of time as the council in its discretion may authorize, a franchisee shall file with the
administrative services director eit-y elerl£ its written acceptance of the franchise, in a form satisfactory
to the city attorney, together with the bond and insurance policies required by ECC 4.68.330,
Insurance, and 4.68.340, Performance bond.
4.68.290 Removal and abandonment of property of franchisee.
The city may direct a franchisee to temporarily disconnect or bypass any equipment of a franchisee in
order to complete street construction or modification, install and remove underground utilities, or for
other reasons of public safety and efficient operation of the city. Such removal, relocation or other
requirement shall be at the sole expense of a franchisee.
In the event that the use of any part of the cable system is discontinued for any reason for a continuous
period of 12 months, or in the event such system or property has been installed in any street or public
place without complying with the requirements of the franchise or other city ordinances or the
franchise has been terminated, cancelled or has expired, a franchisee shall promptly, upon being given
10 days' notice, remove within 90 days from the streets or public places all such property and poles of
Packet Pg. 485
9.4.b
such system other than any which the city may permit to be abandoned in place which permission shall
not be unreasonably withheld. In the event of such removal, a franchisee shall promptly restore the
street or other areas from which such property has been removed to a condition reasonably satisfactory
to the city.
Any property of a franchisee remaining in place 90 days after the termination or expiration of the
franchise shall be considered permanently abandoned unless the franchisee has commenced removal
within a reasonable time.
Any property of a franchisee to be abandoned in place shall be abandoned in such manner as the city
shall prescribe. Upon permanent abandonment of the property of a franchisee in place, the property
shall become that of the city, and a franchisee shall submit to the administrative services director eity-
eler-k an instrument in writing, to be approved by the city attorney, transferring to the city the
ownership of such property. None of the foregoing affects or limits franchisee's rights to compensation
for an involuntary abandonment of its property under state or federal law.
4.68.390 Expedited review process — Competitive franchises.
In accordance with the competitive franchise rule adopted pursuant to Part 76 of Title 47 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 76.41, a process for expedited review of franchise applications for
a competitive franchise is hereby established.
A. Application of Rule. Any application for a cable franchise agreement submitted pursuant to 47 CFR
Section 76.41 to the city shall contain the requisite information set forth herein. The mayor and staff
shall evaluate the application and make recommendations to the Edmonds city council based on the
criteria set forth herein.
B. Definitions. As used in this local rule, definitions shall be as follows:
1. "Affiliated entity" or "affiliate" means any entity having ownership or control in common
with the grantee, in whole or in part, including, without limitation, grantee's parent corporations
and any subsidiaries or affiliates of such parent corporations.
2. "CFAR franchise applicant" or "applicant" means an applicant for a cable franchise pursuant
to the provisions of the competitive franchise application rule (CFAR) set forth in Part 76 of
47 CFR Section 76.41, and includes the parent corporation, its subsidiaries and principals.
3. "City" means the city of Edmonds.
4. "Control" is not limited to majority stock ownership, but includes actual working control in
whatever manner exercised.
5. "Interest" includes officers, directors and shareholders owning five percent or more of the
CFAR franchise applicant's outstanding stock or any equivalent voting interest of a partnership
or joint venture.
Packet Pg. 486
9.4.b
6. "Model cable franchise template" means this chapter, containing standard franchise terms and
conditions for cable franchises granted in the city, as the same exists or is hereafter amended
through a process that wi44 commenced in 2008. Franchises granted under the then -existing
Chapter 4.68 shag expired on April 26, 2011, unless an earlier date is was established in the
review process.
7. "Staff' means the persons or positions designated by the mayor for review. The term shall
include any consultant hired by the city to assist in its review.
8. "Parent corporation" includes any entity with ownership or control of the CFAR franchise
applicant.
9. "Principal" includes any person, firm, corporation, partnership, joint venture, affiliates, or
other entity, who or which has control of or interest in a CFAR franchise applicant.
10. "Regulatory authority" includes any governmental or quasi -governmental organization or
entity with jurisdiction over all or any portion of the CFAR franchise applicant or its operations
C. Competitive Franchise Application Submission. A CFAR franchise applicant shall include in its
application detailed written responses to the requisite information set forth in ECC 4.68.400, in
addition to any information required by 47 CFR Section 76.41 (hereinafter collectively the
"application"). A CFAR franchise applicant shall submit an application fee required under ECC
4.68.410 as part of its application to the city. A CFAR franchise applicant shall also provide any
additional information requested by the staff that is relevant to the evaluation of the application under
the criteria adopted herein and applicable law. Completed application and the application fee shall be
filed with the administrative services director eity ele at the following address:
Administrative Services Director City Cie
City of Edmonds
121 — 5th Ave. North
Edmonds, WA 98020
The staff shall accept and review only those applications that include complete responses to every
element of the information required herein. Submission of an application that does not include the
requisite information set forth in ECC 4.68.400 and the application fee shall not commence the time
period set forth in 47 CFR Section 76.41 for granting or denying an application. If the staff requests
any additional information from the CFAR franchise applicant, the time period set forth in 47 CFR
Section 76.41 shall be tolled from the date the information is requested until the date such information
is received by the staff.
The CFAR franchise applicant shall immediately submit additional or updated information as
necessary to ensure the requisite information provided is complete and accurate throughout the staff
review of the application.
Packet Pg. 487
9.4.b
Upon request, the staff will promptly provide access to documents or information in its possession or
control that are necessary for the completion of an application; provided, that the CFAR franchise
applicant does not otherwise have access to such documents or information and that such documents or
information are subject to disclosure under Washington public records laws.
4.68.400 CFAR application requisites.
A. Identification and Ownership Information.
1. Identification of Applicant and Proposed Franchisee.
a. State the name, address, telephone number and web site (if applicable) of the applicant
and the proposed franchisee (if different from applicant).
b. State the name, address, primary telephone number and primary e-mail address of all
individual(s) authorized to represent the applicant before the staff during their
consideration of the franchise(s) requested, including the applicant's primary contact and
any additional authorized contacts.
2. Business Structure.
a. Corporation.
i. If applicant is a corporation, please list all officers and members of the board of
directors, their principal affiliations and their addresses;
ii. Attach a certified copy of the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the
corporation as well as certificates of good standing from the Secretary of State of the
state of incorporation as well as the state of Washington; and
iii. State whether the applicant is directly or indirectly controlled by another
corporation or legal entity. If so, attach an explanatory statement and response to
subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section concerning the controlling corporation.
b. Partnership.
i. If applicant is a partnership, please describe the structure of the partnership and the
interests of general and limited partners.
ii. State whether the applicant is controlled directly or indirectly by any corporation
or other legal entity. If so, respond to subsections (2)(a)(i) and (ii) or (2)(b)(i) of this
section, as applicable, concerning the controlling entity.
3. Experience.
a. Current Franchises. Please list all cable systems operated by the applicant in the last five
years. For each system, include name of system, address, communities served, number of
subscribers, number of homes passed, date of system award, duration (start and end date)
Packet Pg. 488
9.4.b
of franchise, status of construction, and percent of penetration of homes passed as of most
recently available date (include date). Also include name, title, and telephone number of
the system manager and authorized representative of the franchising authority.
b. Pending Franchises. List communities where the applicant or any affiliate currently has
a formal or informal request pending for an initial franchise, the renewal of a franchise, or
the approval of a transfer of ownership. Include names of communities, date of application,
date of expected action, and estimated number of homes. Also include complete contact
information of an authorized representative of the franchise authority.
4. Management Structure. Attach a management/organizational chart showing the management
structure of the applicant. Also, provide a similar chart showing the relationship of the applicant
to all general partners, parent corporations, subsidiaries, affiliates and all other subsidiaries of
parent corporation, including a brief description of each entity's relationship to the applicant.
5. Management Agreement. State whether there are any management agreements existing or
proposed between the applicant and any parent corporation or affiliate related to construction
and operation of the applicant's planned system in Edmonds. If yes, attach a copy of any such
agreement.
B. Legal Qualifications.
1. Media Cross -Ownership. Section 613 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,
47 USC Section 533 (a), and applicable FCC rules prohibit certain forms of media cross -
ownership. Please state whether the applicant or an affiliate directly or indirectly owns, operates,
controls or has an interest in any of the following, or whether the applicant holds or operates any
company or business operating jointly with any of the following:
a. A national broadcast television network (such as ABC, CBS or NBC, etc.).
b. A television broadcast station whose predicted Grade B contour, computed in
accordance with Section 73.684 of the FCC's rules, overlaps in whole or in part in the city,
or an application for license to operate such a station.
c. A telecommunications or telephone company whose service area includes any portion of
the city.
If the response to any of the above is affirmative, state the name of the applicant or affiliate, the
nature and percentage of ownership or interest and the company that is owned or in which the
interest is held.
2. Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Federal law requires cable system
operators to be certified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as being in
compliance with the equal employment opportunity requirements of Section 634(e) of the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 USC Section 554(e). The applicant shall attach any
current FCC certification(s) for its existing cable system holdings, if any, or indicate its intention
to apply for and abide by same.
Packet Pg. 489
9.4.b
3. Franchise Violations. State whether the applicant or any affiliate has been found in violation
by a regulatory authority or franchising authority of any franchise ordinance or agreement,
contract or regulation governing a cable system. If so, identify the judicial or administrative
proceeding, giving the date, name of tribunal and result or disposition of that proceeding.
4. Other Violations. State whether the applicant or any affiliate has been found in violation of
any franchise, ordinance, agreement, permit, contract or regulation by a regulatory authority of
any other type (e.g., public utility commission). If so, identify the judicial or administrative
proceeding, giving the date, name of tribunal and result or disposition of that proceeding.
C. Financial Qualifications.
1. For applicants with existing operations: provide audited financial statements, including
statements of income, balance sheets and cash flow statements, together with any notes
necessary to the understanding of the financial statements for the last three fiscal years for the
applicant and any parent corporation. Please provide associated operating statistics including
distribution plant miles, homes passed, number of basic cable service subscribers, and number of
subscribers to other tiers or services, including digital services, Internet access services,
telephone services and number of premium units, for the operations corresponding to the
financial statements.
2. For all applicants: provide detailed pro forma projections for both applicant's operations in
the city and any regional or national planned operations of which the city is a part for the next
five fiscal years from the date of the application, including balance sheets, income statements,
and statements of cash flows, or, alternatively, at a minimum, detailed projected income and
cash flow statements. Please include associated operating statistic assumptions for these
projections including distribution plant miles, homes passed, number of basic cable service
subscribers, number of subscribers to other tiers or services (e.g., digital service, high-speed
Internet access service, telephone service, etc.), and number of premium units. Also, describe
any other assumptions reflected in the projections, including (a) revenue assumptions, such as
service rates, (b) expense assumptions, such as direct costs of service, staffing levels, or
anticipated cost inflation, (c) capital expenditure assumptions, such as miles of plant to be built
and costs per mile of construction or per subscriber, and (d) financing assumptions, such as
funds to be borrowed and from whom, interest rates, and timing of repayment, or equity
infusions and distributions. Please provide these projections in electronic (Excel spreadsheet)
form as well as in printed form.
D. Technical Qualifications, Planned Services and Operations.
1. Describe the applicant's planned initial and proposed geographic cable service area, including
a map and proposed dates for offering service to each area;
2. If the applicant has or asserts existing authority to access the public right-of-way in any of the
initial or proposed service areas listed in subsection (D)(1) of this section, state the basis for
such authority or asserted authority and attach the relevant agreements or other documentation
of such authority;
Packet Pg. 490
9.4.b
3. Describe with particularity the applicant's planned residential cable services, including basic
cable services, cable programming service tiers, and any additional pay -per -view, on -demand or
digital services; and the projected rates for each category or tier or service;
4. Describe with particularity the applicant's planned system technical design, upstream and
downstream capacity and speed, provision for analog or digital services or packages, distribution
of fiber, and planned count of households per residential node;
5. Describe with particularity the applicant's planned nonresidential cable services;
6. Describe the applicant's planned construction and extension or phase schedule, as applicable,
including system extension plans or policy; describe current status of the applicant's existing or
proposed arrangements with area utilities, including pole attachments, vault, or conduit sharing
agreements as applicable;
7. Describe the applicant's plan to ensure that the safety, functioning and appearance of property
and convenience and safety of other persons not be adversely affected by installation or
construction of the applicant's facilities, and that property owners are justly compensated for
any damages caused by the installation, construction, operation or removal of the facilities; also
state the proposed allocation of costs of installation, construction, operation or removal of
facilities between the applicant and the subscriber;
8. Describe the availability and cost of a device to enable a subscriber to block obscene or
indecent programming; and
9. Describe the applicant's plan to comply with the subscriber privacy protections set forth in
47 USC Section 551.
E. Minimum Franchise Obligations. Please state the applicant's intention to meet each of the following
minimum cable franchise standards:
1. Model Franchises. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of this chapter.
2. Right -of -Way ("ROW") Regulations. The applicant shall stipulate in writing that it will at all
times comply with all applicable and lawful city laws and regulations related to use of the public
ROW within the boundaries of the city.
3. Nondiscrimination. The applicant shall stipulate that it shall not deny cable service to any
group of potential residential cable subscribers in the cable service area proposed by applicant
based on their income.
4. Franchise Fees. The applicant shall pay franchise fees on a monthly basis, unless otherwise
agreed to by the city, at the franchise fee rate established by ordinance for all cable service
providers in Edmonds.
F. City Expectations. The applicant will provide a detailed proposal as part of its application regarding
each of the below provisions to enable the city to determine whether the application meets the cable -
related needs and interests of the city.
Packet Pg. 491
9.4.b
1. Build -Out. The city expects that all residents within a specified cable service area will have
access to applicant's cable services consistent with all applicable local, state and federal laws
and regulations. The applicant shall provide a proposal to provide access to cable services to all
residents in applicant's proposed cable service area within a reasonable time period. Maps of
existing franchise districts are on file with the staff s office or available by contacting the city at
425-775-2525. The staff may reconsider cable service areas proposed by applicant that overlap
the geographic boundaries of existing Edmonds cable franchise districts. Applicant shall clearly
specify all build -out criteria and exceptions.
2. PEG Channel Capacity. The applicant shall provide the same channel capacity as available
under existing incumbent city cable franchise agreements. Channel capacity is not limited to
channels currently in use but shall include all available channels under existing franchise
agreements.
G. Proposed Franchise Terms. The city's model cable franchise template, Attachment A to this rule,
reflects terms and conditions required of other cable operations in Edmonds as of the effective date of
the CFAR. The applicant shall list any proposed amendments to the model cable franchise template
and an explanation as to why the amendment should be considered by the city. These proposed
amendments may either be included in this section of applicant's CFAR franchise application or
shown directly on the model cable franchise template. An electronic copy of the model cable franchise
template may be obtained by calling staff at 425-775-2525 or on the city's web site:
www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
H. Miscellaneous Provisions. State whether the applicant contemplates the provision of any cable
services on its system under an open video systems ("OVS") regulatory regime, within the meaning of
Section 653 of the 1934 Communications Act (47 USC Section 573).
I. Affidavit of Applicant. Each application shall be accompanied by an affidavit substantially in the
form set forth below:
This application of the Applicant is submitted by the undersigned who has been duly
authorized to make the representations within on behalf of the Applicant and certifies the
representations are true and correct.
The Applicant recognizes that all representations are binding on it and that material
misrepresentations or omissions, or failure to adhere to any such representation may result
in a negative staff recommendation to the Edmonds City Council, or denial of a CFAR
Franchise Application by the Edmonds City Council.
Consent is hereby given to the staff and their representatives or agents to make inquiry
into the legal character, technical, financial and other qualifications of the Applicant by
contacting any persons or organizations named herein as references, or by any other
appropriate means.
The Applicant recognizes that information submitted is open to public inspection and
subject to the Washington Public Records Law. We advise the Applicant to be familiar
with the Washington Public Records Act at Chapter 42.56 RCW. The Applicant should
specifically identify any information which the Applicant has deemed proprietary, the
Staff, as appropriate, will tender to the Applicant the defense of any request to compel
disclosure. By submitting information which the Applicant deems proprietary or otherwise
Packet Pg. 492
9.4.b
exempt from disclosure, the Applicant agrees to defend and hold harmless the City of
Edmonds and the staff from any claim for disclosure including but not limited to expenses
including out-of-pocket costs and attorneys' fees, as well as any judgment entered against
the City of Edmonds or the staff for the attorney fees of the party requesting disclosure.
Name of Applicant's Authorized Representative:
Affiant's Signature:
Official Position:
Date:
NOTARIZATION
Subscribed and sworn before me this of , 20
Notary Public for Washington:
My Commission expires:
J. Application Fee. The application fee to cover the reasonable cost of processing application is set
forth in ECC 4.68.410. The fee shall be equal to the actual, reasonable costs of review, and the
application fee shall be considered a deposit against payment or reimbursement of the city's costs.
K. Review Process.
1. Acceptance of Application. Within 10 business days of receipt of an application, staff shall
review the application to ensure all requisite information is included in the application.
a. If the application is not complete, staff will notify the applicant in writing within 10
business days, listing the requisite information that is required to complete the application
and notifying the applicant that the time period for granting or denying the application set
forth in 47 CFR Section 76.41 will not begin to run until such information is received.
b. If the application is complete, staff will notify the applicant in writing within five
business days by certified mail that all requisite information has been received.
2. Staff Review. Staff shall review all completed applications based on the review criteria set
forth herein. If, during the review of an application, staff requires additional information from
the applicant, staff will promptly request the information from the applicant, in writing, along
with a notification that the time period for granting or denying the application set forth in
47 CFR Section 76.41 will be tolled until such information is received by the staff. After
completing the review, staff shall provide an analysis of the application and recommendations to
the Edmonds city council.
3. Public Notification and Opportunity to Comment. The Edmonds city council may hold a
public hearing to provide the applicant and residents in the proposed cable service area prompt
notice and an opportunity to comment on any CFAR franchise application. Notice requirements
for public hearings shall be provided 10 business days in advance; provided, however, that the
Packet Pg. 493
9.4.b
administrative services director " may shorten or alter these requirements as needed to
meet the deadline for a council decision set forth in 47 CFR Section 76.41, unless the applicant
and the staff agree to extend the deadline.
4. Review Criteria. The staff may recommend to the city council denial of an application of any
of the following exists:
a. The applicant does not have the financial, technical, or legal qualifications to provide
cable service; or
b. The applicant will not provide adequate public, educational, and governmental access
channel capacity, facilities, or financial support, as evidenced by the most recent needs
ascertainment conducted by or on behalf of the staff or other relevant study of community
needs; or
c. The applicant will not meet the city's minimum reasonable build -out requirements; or
d. The applicant's proposed terms do not comply with applicable federal, state and local
laws and regulations including, but not limited to, local customer service standards or
relevant existing city contractual obligations; or
e. Applicant has made material misrepresentations or omissions, or has failed to adhere to
any such representations.
5. Length of Franchise. A franchise granted under these provisions shall expire on the date
established in the review process, in no event later than April 26, 2011, the same date as any
underlying, nonexclusive cable franchise previously granted by the city. This franchise length
has been established in order to permit full assessment of the needs of the city and its citizens as
permitted by 47 USC Section 521, et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder as this
chapter is revised.
Section 5. Chapter 4.72 ECC (Business License) is hereby amended to read as follows
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thr-o g ):
4.72.010 Definitions.
In construing the provisions of this chapter, save when otherwise declared or clearly apparent from the
context, the following definitions shall be applied:
A. Person. The term "person" shall include one or more persons of either- s& M gender, corporations,
partnerships, associations, or other entity capable of having an action at law brought against such
entity, but shall not include employees of of persons licensed pursuant to this chapter.
B. Business. The term "business" includes all services and activities engaged in with the object of
pecuniary gain, benefit or advantage to the person, or to any other person or class, directly or
indirectly, whether part-time or full-time.
Packet Pg. 494
9.4.b
C. Engaging in Business. The term "engaging in business" means commencing, conducting, or
continuing in business, and also the exercise of corporate or franchise powers, as well as liquidating a
business when the liquidators thereof hold themselves out to the public as conducting such business.
1. This section sets forth examples of activities that constitute engaging in business in the city,
and establishes safe harbors for certain of those activities so that a person who meets the criteria
may engage in de minimis business activities in the city without having to pay a business license
fee. The activities listed in this section are illustrative only and are not intended to narrow the
definition of "engaging in business" in subsection (C) of this section. If an activity is not listed,
whether it constitutes engaging in business in the city shall be determined by considering all the
facts and circumstances and applicable law.
2. Without being all-inclusive, any one of the following activities conducted within the city by a
person, or its employee, agent, representative, independent contractor, broker or another acting
on its behalf, constitutes engaging in business and requires a person to register and obtain a
business license:
a. Owning, renting, leasing, maintaining, or having the right to use, or using, tangible
personal property, intangible personal property, or real property permanently or
temporarily located in the city.
b. Owning, renting, leasing, using, or maintaining an office, place of business, or other
establishment in the city.
c. Soliciting sales.
d. Making repairs or providing maintenance or service to real or tangible personal property,
including warranty work and property maintenance.
e. Providing technical assistance or service, including quality control, product inspections,
warranty work, or similar services on or in connection with tangible personal property sold
by the person or on its behalf.
£ Installing, constructing, or supervising installation or construction of real or tangible
personal property.
g. Soliciting, negotiating, or approving franchise, license, or other similar agreements.
h. Collecting current or delinquent accounts.
i. Picking up and transporting tangible personal property, solid waste, construction debris,
or excavated materials.
j. Providing disinfecting and pest control services, employment and labor pool services,
home nursing care, janitorial services, appraising, landscape architectural services, security
system services, surveying, and real estate services including the listing of homes and
managing real property.
Packet Pg. 495
9.4.b
k. Rendering professional services such as those provided by accountants, architects,
attorneys, auctioneers, consultants, engineers, professional athletes, barbers, baseball clubs
and other sports organizations, chemists, psychologists, court reporters, dentists, doctors,
detectives, laboratory operators, teachers, veterinarians.
1. Meeting with customers or potential customers, even when no sales or orders are
solicited at the meetings.
m. Training or recruiting agents, representatives, independent contractors, brokers or
others, domiciled or operating on a job in the city, acting on its behalf, or for customers or
potential customers.
n. Investigating, resolving, or otherwise assisting in resolving customer complaints.
o. In-store stocking or manipulating products or goods, sold to and owned by a customer,
regardless of where sale and delivery of the goods took place.
p. Delivering goods in vehicles owned, rented, leased, used, or maintained by the person or
another acting on its behalf.
3. If a person, or its employee, agent, representative, independent contractor, broker or another
acting on the person's behalf, engages in no other activities in or with the city but the following,
it need not register and obtain a business license:
a. Meeting with suppliers of goods and services as a customer.
b. Meeting with government representatives in their official capacity, other than those
performing contracting or purchasing functions.
c. Attending meetings, such as board meetings, retreats, seminars, and conferences, or
other meetings wherein the person does not provide training in connection with tangible
personal property sold by the person or on its behalf. This provision does not apply to any
board of directors member or attendee engaging in business such as a member of a board
of directors who attends a board meeting.
d. Renting tangible or intangible property as a customer when the property is not used in
the city.
e. Attending, but not participating in, a "trade show" or "multiple vendor events." Persons
participating at a trade show shall review the city's trade show or multiple vendor event
ordinances.
f. Conducting advertising through the mail.
g. Soliciting sales by phone from a location outside the city.
4. A seller located outside the city merely delivering goods into the city by means of common
carrier is not required to register and obtain a business license; provided, that it engages in no
Packet Pg. 496
9.4.b
other business activities in the city. Such activities do not include those in subsection (C)(3) of
this section.
The city expressly intends that engaging in business include any activity sufficient to establish nexus
for purposes of applying the license fee under the law and the Constitutions of the United States and
the state of Washington. Nexus is presumed to continue as long as the taxpayer benefits from the
activity that constituted the original nexus generating contact or subsequent contacts.
D. Rental Unit. The term "rental unit" shall mean a separate room or apartment leased for human
occupancy and contained within a single structure, and shall include the operations of rooming houses,
boarders within private residences and the operation of bed and breakfast establishments.
E. Private Residence. The term "private residence" shall mean a separate, freestanding structure leased
for residential purposes and human occupancy by one "family" as defined by ECDC 21.30.010.
F. Day. The term "day" when used in this chapter shall refer to days on which the city of Edmonds
City Hall is open for business. Any day which is defined as a holiday by ordinance and any day on
which City Hall has been closed by e��ee�for business shall not constitute a "day."
G. Business Licensing Service. The term "Business Licensing Service" or "BLS" means the office
within the Washington State Department of Revenue providing business licensing services to the city
4.72.020 Business License Required.
It shall be unlawful for any person to operate, engage in or practice any business in the city of
Edmonds without first having obtained a business license from the city. If more than one business is
located on a single premises, a separate license shall be required for each separate business conducted,
operated, engaged in or practiced.
4.72.021 Threshold exemption.
To the extent set forth in this section, the following persons and businesses shall be exempt from the
registration, license and/or license fee requirements as outlined in this chapter:
A. Any person or business whose annual value of products, gross proceeds of sales, or gross income of
the business in the city is equal to or less than $12,000 and who does not maintain a place of business
within the city, i.e., a non-resident applicant, shall be exempt from the general business license
requirements in this chapter. The exemption does not apply to regulatory license requirements or
activities that require a specialized permit.
B. Nonprofit organizations or corporations with tax exempt status under 26 USC Section 501(c)(3)
shall require a nonprofit business license but are exempt from a license fee.
4.72.023 Registration of transient accommodations.
Repealed by Ord. 3900.
4.72.030 Procedure.
Packet Pg. 497
9.4.b
A. Application for the business license shall be made to the Washington State Business Licensing
Service, and must include all information required for the licenses requested, and total fees due for all
licenses requested, as well as the handling fee required by RCW 19.02.075.
B. The administrative services director eity ele or designee shall receive all applications for city
business licenses. The administrative services director eity or designee shall cause an
investigation of the completed application to be made by the proper city officials and shall grant or
refuse to grant the license within 15 days of the date of receipt of the application information. If an
application is refused, the reason for refusal shall be designated on the application. The application fee
shall not be refunded, except under the following circumstances:
1. An applicant requests cancellation of a license application from the city within five business
days of submitting an application to the Business Licensing Service.
4.72.040 Fee — Terms — Penalty.
A. Business licenses required to be obtained pursuant to this chapter expire on the date established by
the Business Licensing Service. The renewal application must be submitted to the Business Licensing
Service, and must contain all information that may be required for all licenses being renewed, and the
total fees due for all licenses being renewed, as well as the handling fee required by RCW 19.02.075.
B. The annual amounts of fees for the city business licenses issued hereunder shall be as follows:
1. The fee for an application for a new business license for any business that is not a home
occupation, as provided in ECDC 20.20.010, to be operated from any real estate within the city
of Edmonds shall be $125.00;
2. The fee for an application for a new business license for a new home occupation business, as
provided in ECDC 20.20.010, to be operated from any residential real estate within the city of
Edmonds shall be $100.00;
3. The fee for an application for a new business license for any other business conducted for,
under contract with or by providing services to any person within the city, to be operated in
locations outside the city limits, shall be $50.00; and
4. The fee for an application for an annual renewal of a city business license shall be $50.00 for
any business operated within the city of Edmonds.
5. A nonprofit business license application shall be exempt from a license fee; provided, that the
business provides proof of tax exempt status under 26 USC Section 501(c)(3).
6. The term and respective fee amount for a license may be prorated to accommodate
synchronizing of the city license expiration date with the business license account expiration
date established by the Business Licensing Service.
C. All businesses required to renew licenses hereunder shall obtain the same and pay all fees required
on or before the expiration date established by the Business Licensing Service. Any business which
fails to renew and pay the license fees within said period of time shall, in addition to any other
Packet Pg. 498
9.4.b
penalties provided in this chapter, be assessed the penalty for such late application and/or payment
required by RCW 19.02.085. Failure to renew a license within 120 days after expiration will result in
the cancellation of the license. In order to continue business in the city, reapplication for the license is
required as provided in this chapter.
D. Repealed by Ord. 3036.
4.72.050 Ineligible activities.
Notwithstanding any provisions hereof to the contrary, a license hereunder may not be issued to any
person who uses or occupies or proposes to use or occupy any real property or otherwise conducts or
proposes to conduct any business in violation of the provisions of any ordinance of the city of
Edmonds or the statutes of the state of Washington. The granting of a business license shall in no way
be construed as permission or acquiescence in a prohibited activity or other violation of the law.
4.72.055 Denial of license — Hearing.
In the event that a license is denied under this chapter based on the provisions of ECC 4.72.050, or for
any other lawful reason, the applicant may request a hearing. Such request shall be in writing and filed
within 10 days of the date of written denial by the city of a license application. A hearing shall be
scheduled within 30 days before the hearing examiner. The hearing shall proceed in the following
format:
A. The applicant/appellant shall present proof of the nature of the activities which it seeks to conduct
pursuant to a business license in the city of Edmonds.
B. The city shall have the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
activities are in violation of a provision of any ordinance of the city of Edmonds, or the general
statutes of the state of Washington.
C. The applicant/appellant may then present any rebuttal testimony which it wishes to present.
The hearing examiner shall enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law. No motion for
reconsideration shall be available to either party. Appeal of the final decision shall be to the
Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the applicable laws of the state of Washington.
4.72.060 Revocation or suspension.
The mayor or his designee may, at any time, suspend or revoke any license issued hereunder whenever
the licensee or officer or partner thereof has been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of
violating any statute of the United States or the state of Washington or any ordinance of the city of
Edmonds upon the business premises stated in the license or in connection with the business stated in
the license; where the business activity violates ECC 4.72.050; or where the place of business does not
conform to the ordinances of the city of Edmonds. Prior to such suspension or revocation, the
permittee shall be provided an opportunity for a hearing. The licensee shall be notified in writing by
sending a written notice to the address stated on the license of the intention of the city to revoke or
suspend said license. The applicant may then appeal by filing written notice with the administrative
services director eity ele or designee within 10 days of the notice of revocation or suspension. The
administrative services director eity ele or designee shall schedule a hearing within 20 days before
Packet Pg. 499
9.4.b
the hearing examiner. The licensee may appear at that time and be heard in opposition to such
revocation or suspension.
4.72.065 Transfer or sale of business — New license required.
Upon the sale or transfer of any business licensed by this chapter, the license issued to the prior owner
or transferor shall automatically expire on the date of such sale or transfer and the new owner
intending to continue such business in the city of Edmonds shall apply for a new business license
pursuant to the procedures established by this chapter.
4.72.070 Penalty for violation.
Any person, as defined herein, and the officers, directors, managing agents, or partners of any
corporation, firm, partnership or other organization or business violating or failing to comply with any
provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by
a fine in any sum not exceeding $250.00 or by imprisonment for a period not exceeding nine months,
or both, and each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense.
Section T Chapter 4.90 ECC (Public Markets), subsections .020, .050, .090, and .100,
are hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in smoke
4.90.020 Activities requiring a license.
It shall be unlawful for any person to own, use or permit property to be used as a public market until
the market and site have been licensed under this chapter. No person shall then sell or offer for sale
products at any location in conjunction with a market activity until sponsor has been duly licensed and
each vendor submitted to the city. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to authorize activities to be
conducted in accordance with the market's activities unless appropriately licensed as required under
another provision of this code; provided, however, that business license requirements are limited as
provided in ECC 4.90.050. A special event permit under Chapter 4.100 ECC and a City of Edmonds
business license under Chapter 4.72 ECC shall be required before a public market may begin
operating , pawnbrokers and dealers of seeendhand oods shall not eendtiet aetivities in
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale goods at a public market unless such
person has been listed on the application fee of the licensee and paid the processing requirement
specified herein.
B. All structures employed on the site shall comply with the requirements of the State Building Code,
including but not limited to the Uniform Building and Fire Code elements.
Packet Pg. 500
9.4.b
C. The activities of the public market shall be limited to daylight hours on Saturday and Sunday of
each week within public rights -of -way, but extended hours are allowed up to 10:00 p.m. for any day of
the week if the market takes place outdoors on private property or public property not located within
public rights -of -way. Operational hours related to activities of the public market are not limited when
the market takes place within a fully enclosed building.
4.90.050 Sponsor licensee — Business license required when.
The sponsor of a market shall be required to obtain a City of Edmonds business license and a special
event permit before the market may begin operating,
. . ;#ended to sen,e as a master- heense authorizing limited business aefivities. Vendors at the
markets renting or leasing space from the mastersponsor licensee are not required to have a city
business license unless they engage in other business activities subject to licensing under the
provisions of this title. By way of illustration and not limitation, a .
B—.4 business license shall be obtained by any vendor who conducts business activities beyond the
premises licensed as a public market and/or outside of the time for which the license is issued. For
example, a business operating from a booth on the premises licensed as a public market during the
days of approved market operation shall not require a business license to conduct such activities. If,
however, the vendor conducts other business activities subject to the provisions of Chapter 4.72 ECC,
the person conducting such activities shall be duly licensed in accordance with the provisions of that
chapter.
4.90.090 Application for license.
Each applicant for a license to operate a public market shall file an application with the administrative
services director eity ele accompanied by the license fee provided for in ECC 4.90.070. The
application shall be in writing and submitted on a form prepared by the administrative services director
e and signed by the applicant. The application shall give the applicant's nonprofit
organization's business address and principal business location, a copy of documents indicating its
charitable nonprofit status as well as the residence address and phone number of the applicant's agent.
In addition to such other information as the administrative services director "shall require, the
application shall be accompanied by:
A. A plot plan showing the location of any outdoor facilities or activities. Adequate parking and
ingress and egress shall be maintained during the course of this temporary special event. Adequate
precautions shall be put in place to prevent vehicular access to pedestrian pathways within the confines
of the activity. Applications to utilize a site or lot already occupied by an existing business shall show
on the plot plan the location of all parking required to be provided under the provisions of Chapter
17.50 ECDC for such business.
Packet Pg. 501
9.4.b
B. A list of each and every vendor participating or anticipated to participate in the market for which
the license is sought shall be submitted to the administrative services director e . The listing
shall include the vendor's name, address and business phone number together with a general
description of goods and/or services offered by each vendor. Any changes in the list of vendors shall
be provided to the administrative services director e in a minimum of three business days prior
to the date of the proposed change (i.e., the first date at which the new vendor will participate in the
market).
C. Provisions for event management and garbage control shall be addressed in a management plan. All
tables, tents, booths, signs and other structures associated with the market shall be removed from
public rights -of -way at the end of each day; provided, however, that approved outdoor storage may be
provided between the close of business the day a public market is held and commencement of business
the following morning on public land not located within public rights -of -way or on private property.
D. Garbage receptacles shall be strategically located and have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
vendors and estimated members of the public in attendance. In addition the area shall be kept clean of
rubbish, garbage, junk, waste paper, plastic, styrofoam cups, sacks, food and other waste. The city of
Edmonds encourages the use of recycling receptacles and products whenever possible. The license
holder shall be responsible to keep the area clean. The area to be kept clean shall include the area
immediately surrounding sidewalks and public streets.
E. Temporary signage announcing the event shall be approved on the site in the licensing process in
accordance with the requirements of ECDC 20.60.080.
F. The fire marshal shall designate appropriate fire lanes through the licensed area on the plot plan.
These fire lanes are intended for pedestrian use and shall be kept free of structures, debris or other
blockage. Failure to maintain appropriate fire lanes shall be cause for immediate revocation of the
license. The police chief may, in his or her sole discretion, require that security personnel be provided
by the public market during times and in a number designated by the police.
4.90.100 Records.
The named licensee sponsor of the public market shall maintain a record of all vendors participating in
the event. Such record shall be available for inspection by the administrative services director e4t�-
e4erk or a designated agent during normal business hours of city offices (that is, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Section 8. Chapter 4.98 ECC (Constitutionally Protected Events) is hereby amended to
read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike *'weugh):
Packet Pg. 502
9.4.b
Chapter 4.98
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED EVENTS / EXPRESSIVE EVENTS
4.98.010 Definitions.
A. "Constitutionally protected events" or "expressive events" include any event, such as political or
religious activity, intended primarily for the communication or expression of ideas, in which no fee or
donation is charged as a condition of participation or attendance, and that is teJae conducted on public
property or on a public right-of-way; and, also, any such event held on private property which would
have a direct significant impact on traffic congestion or traffic flow to and from the event over public
streets or rights -of -way; or which would significantly impact public streets or rights -of -way near the
event; or which would significantly impact the need for city -provided emergency services, such as
police, fire or medical aid.
B. "Use" shall mean to construct, erect, or maintain in, on, over or under any street, right-of-way, park
or other public place any building, structure, sign, equipment or scaffolding, to deface any public right-
of-way by painting, spraying or writing on the surface thereof, or to otherwise occupy in such a
manner as to obstruct the normal public use of any public street, right-of-way, park or other public
place within the city, including a use related to special events.
4.98.020 Permit required.
A. A permit from the city is required for any constitutionally protected events or expressive events as
defined in this chapter. Such permit shall be in lieu of any other city permit, including but not limited
to special event, parade, street use and park use permits as they may be required by ordinance.
B. Contents of Application. The applicant must file the application in writing on a form supplied by
the city to the license officer, setting forth:
1. Contact information of the applicant, including but not limited to name, telephone number and
address;
2. The date, time, and expected duration of the event;
3. The probable number of participants;
4. The place or route of the event, including a map and written narrative of the proposed route;
5. A description of all public ways proposed to be blocked;
6. A description of the measures to be taken to protect participants and the general public from
injury, including traffic control and crowd control, emergency medical services, fire and life
safety services and emergency communication systems;
7. A description of the measures to be taken to ensure cleanup of any litter or damage resulting
from the event;
8. The number and location of portable sanitation facilities, if any;
Packet Pg. 503
9.4.b
9. A certification that the applicant will be financially responsible for any cost to the city
resulting from breach of any condition of the permit;
10. A certification that the applicant will not sponsor or encourage any commercial activity
unrelated to First Amendment rights during the event;
11. A description of the types and number of vehicles to be used in the special event;
12. Insurance and surety bond information, if any;
13. Any other additional information required to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
C. A constitutionally protected event permit is not required for the following:
1. Parades,
athletie events or- other- speeial events that oeeuf exelusively on eity pr-epefty and are
sponsored or „"ete i f l ^ part by the eity. Parades of the military forces of the United
States of America or the State of Washington.
2. Funeral and wedding processions.
3. Groups required by law to be so assembled.
4. Gatherings of 25 30 or fewer people in a city park, unless merchandise or services are offered
for sale or trade.
5. Other similar events and activities which do not directly affect or use city services of
property.
D. Any person desiring to obtain a constitutionally protected event permit shall apply for such a permit
by filing an application with the city at least 72 hours 60 days prior to the date on which the event is to
occur.
E. Waiver of Application Deadline.
1. Good Cause. Upon a showing of good cause or at the discretion of the city, the city shall
consider an application that is filed after the filing deadline if there is sufficient time to process and
investigate the application and obtain police and other city services for the event. Good cause can be
demonstrated by the applicant showing that the circumstance that gave rise to the permit application
did not reasonably allow the participants to file within the time prescribed.
2. Spontaneous Demonstration. The City shall waive the 72-hour application deadline in those
instances in which a permit is sought for a spontaneous demonstration responding to a local, national
or international event, within 72 hours after the event has occurred.
F. No Fee. No application or permit fee shall be required in order to obtain a permit for a
constitutionally protected event or expressive event.
Packet Pg. 504
9.4.b
4.98.030 Grounds for denial of application — Limited.
A. The eit-y may deny . ap plic ,tio f a eensfitutionally proteeted event po,.mi No permit shall be m
denied by the citv except upon the following grounds: c
A. The event location or desired parade route conflicts with another event for which a permit has 14
already been issued; or as
.r
B. The proposed event location or route would unreasonably prevent or block the provision of v
emergency services within the City of Edmonds or would unduly disturb the convenience of the public w
0
in the use of public streets and sidewalks. w
c
al
In the event that a permit is denied for the reasons stated in subsection A or B of this section, the City E
of Edmonds shall work with the applicant to find an unencumbered time, date, location, or route d
suitable to the applicant. The requirement of a permit for constitutionally protected events or a)
expressive events shall not be used or administered to prevent the exercise of free speech by and Q
individual or rg_oup of individuals so long as the event or route is reasonable as to its time, place and
manner. It is the policy of the City of Edmonds to permit, encouragepromote the lawful exercise
of free speech by all of it citizens regardless of the content thereof. E
L
a)
IL
c
m
>
doeuments; or- the appheant deelar-es of shows an unwillingness or- inability to eemply with the w
reasonable tenns or eonditions eontained in the proposed permit;
a
if4eaaaee in the immediate
infringe the
of M work
vieinity,
or- tiar-easenably upon rights of
C
C�
J
3. The
disfupt
the tr-affie
proposed evei4 would
tinfeasenably
orderly or- safe eir-eulation of
as -V
leinjur-y
damage he;
W
would ei# an tweasenal
risk of
or-
to the p 0
4. The
in,
illegal that thfeaten
++
proposed eventwould
engage adveea4e,
or- eneoufage aetivities
L7.1'
4.98.040 Permit conditions — Appeal.
ns
L
reasonable fe"ifements eeneefaing the time, plaee and
mannef of the event, and stieh fequir-ements as
Q
++
f ll,.,, ing nditions apply t all . ,antit+tti .n lly pfoto ted
a 0 ,.o....�+ ,;ts:
cC
G
t
(i
1. Alter-ation of the time, of the event
on the event applie4ion :9
pl-aeemer
proposed
a
Packet Pg. 505
9.4.b
5. Complianee with any other- applieable fedeful, state or- Weal law of t:egttlatioa.
B—.The applicant shall have the right to appeal the denial of a permit or a permit condition. A written
notice of appeal shall be filed within three business days after receipt or personal delivery of a notice
of denial or permit conditions from the city. Receipt of notice of denial or permit conditions shall be
presumed three days after the same is mailed with USPS postage prepaid and certified. The written
notice of appeal shall set forth the specific grounds for the appeal and attach any relevant documents
for consideration. The hearing examiner shall hear the appeal on the record provided from the
designated city official and upon public comment given at the scheduled hearing before the examiner.
The hearing shall be scheduled for the earliest possible hearing date after receipt of a timely and proper
notice of appeal. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final.
4.98.050 Revocation of permits.
A. Any permit issued under this chapter may be summarily revoked by the city at any time when, by
reason of disaster, public calamity, riot or other emergency or exigent circumstances, the city
determines the safety of the public or property requires such immediate revocation. The city may also
summarily revoke any permit issued pursuant to this chapter if the city finds that the permit has been
issued based upon false information or when the permittee exceeds the scope of the permit or fails to
comply with any condition of the permit.
B. Notice of such action revoking a permit shall be delivered in writing to the permittee by personal
service or certified mail at the address specified by the permittee in the application. To the extent that
written notice by personal service or certified mail is not likely to achieve timely actual notice, any
other reasonable form of notification intended to achieve the same shall suffice.
A. it shall be unlawffil fer- any per -son to sponsor or conduct an event requiring a eonsfitutionally
pr-oteeted event petqnit pufstiant to this ehapter- unless a valid pefmit has been issued and remains in
effeet fer- the event. it is unlawful fer- any per -son te pai4ieipate in stteh an event with the knewledge
that the sponsor- of the event has not been issued a r-equir-ed, valid pefmit or- with knowledge tha4 a
�ess!ersrssrs: !�essrsas!rs!rs
trsr� sisers.
----
10
Packet Pg. 506
9.4.b
S500.00 E)r- by imprisenment of not more than 90 days, E)r- both stleh fine and iMpr-isEffiffleflt.
-F
N
C
4.98.070 Savings clause.
J
If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, part or portion of this chapter is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
.r
validity of the remaining portions of this chapter.
v
c�
w
0
Section 9. Anew Chapter 4.100 (Special Event Permits) is hereby adopted to read as
follows:
c
d
E
Sections:
c
E
a
4.100.010 Purpose.
4.100.020 Definitions.
N
4.100.030 General provisions applicable to all special events.
4.100.040 Permit applications.
m
4.100.050 Indemnification.
a
4.100.060 Insurance.
4.100.070 Permit decision.
w
4.100.080 Appeal of permit decision.
w
4.100.090 Reimbursement of fees for city sponsored events.
4.100.100 Cleanup deposit.
co
4.100.110 Suspension and revocation.
4.100.120 Exercise of police power.
y
4.100.130 Violation — Penalties.
d
J
4.100.010 Purpose.
t�
U
W
It is the purpose of the City to establish a process for permitting special events that impact city right-
of-way, public property and other facilities or services. It is recognized that these special events
W
enhance the City of Edmonds communi and provide benefits to the citizens through the creation of
~
.
venues for expression and entertainment that are not normally provided as a part of governmental
aM
5
services.
c
This Chanter is intended to supplement land use and street right-of-wav regulations. to Drovide a
coordinated process for the regulation of certain activities to be conducted in conjunction with special
events, and to ensure that the impacts of the special event do not unduly impact the public's health,
safety or welfare. It is further intended to protect and preserve public infrastructure and city resources,
prevent unplanned disruption of public services, mitigatepacts to the extent feasible and to create a
mechanism for cost recovery without having an adverse effect on those events that contribute to the
commumty.
4.100.020 Definitions. M
E
A. "Citsponsored event" means a special event for which the cily provides some level of sponsorship
and/or support to the primary event organizer/sponsor through the use of city funds, equipment, and/or a
other city resources that is not a "city contracted event." City ponsored events may also be special
Packet Pg. 507
9.4.b
events that are organized and sponsored in full by the City of Edmonds. Reimbursement for cit
resources may be reauired.
m
B. "City contracted event" means a special event that typically takes places on an ongoing annual basis
and for which the City and the event organizer/sponsor enter into an event contract to apportion
responsibility for the event, thereby eliminating the need for the event organizer/sponsor to obtain a
special event permit under this Chapter. Such events may be sponsored in part by the ci . Examples of
,
city contracted events include the Garden Market/Summer Market, Edmonds Arts Festival, 4th of July
celebration, Oktoberfest, and Taste Edmonds.
U
U
w
C. "Commercial special event" means an activity or occurrence sponsored and operated by one or more
o
businesses that is conducted primarily for the exchange of goods or services for financial gain.
Commercial special events typically occur upon private property. Examples of commercial special
d
events include parking lot sales and tent sales, promotional events, and sidewalk sales.
E
c
a)
D. "Emer e�ncy response plan" means a plan detailingthe he expected actions of event management and/or
a
.
public safety agencies in the event or threat of an emergency_
E. `Expressive event" or "Constitutionallyprotected event" means an activity or occurrence in which
the sole or principal purpose is the expression, dissemination, or communication of political or religious
E
opinion, views or ideas, and for which no fee or donation is charged or required as a condition of
participation or attendance. Examples of expressive special events include political rallies, marches,
IL
c
public speeches, and political demonstrations. These events are regulated by Chapter 4.98.
w
F. "Fire marshal" means the city of Edmonds fire marshal or designee.
m
a
G. "Parade" means a type of special event involving an or ang ized procession or march of more than 25
y
persons or 25 objects, or any combination thereof amounting to 25, that temporarily disrupts the general
public's normal use of public streets or sidewalks.
w
c
a�
H. "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, incorporated or unincorporated association,
organization, or other entity or group of persons, however organized.
U
U
w
I. "Private" or "private event" means an event where persons are specifically and individually invited.
It does not include an event where tickets, invitations, or announcements are available to the public.
J. "Public" or "public event" means a special event open to the public, and includes an event where
•S
tickets, invitations, or announcements are available to the public.
C
m
K. "Public amusement" means circuses, carnivals, motion picture shows, exhibitions, concerts, side
shows, plays and other stage shows, amusement parks and any other form of diversion, pastime or
recreation conducted for and open to the public regardless of whether an admission fee or other charge c
is made for attendance, provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the licensing and inspection -2
of an activity conducted under the auspices of a bona fide, accredited elementary school, middle school, O
high school or college and conducted on the premises thereof in facilities previously inspected and L
approved for public assembly_
L. "Right-of-way" means, within the City of Edmonds, all public right-of-way and property granted or m
reserved for, or dedicated to, public use for street purposes, together with public property granted or E
reserved for, or dedicated to, public use for walkways, paths, trails, sidewalks, and bikeways, whether
improved, unimproved, or unopened, including the air rights, sub -surface rights and easements related
thereto, and over which the City of Edmonds has authority and control. a
Packet Pg. 508
9.4.b
M. "Run" or "race" means a type of special event involving any race, contest or event, whether of a
competitive or a noncompetitive nature. involving a procession of persons. whether afoot or upon anv
vehicle or device propelled by the human body, including but not limited to marathons, fun runs,
m
walkathons, and bicycle races.
to
c
a�
N. "Security" means employees, or other hired personnel, dedicated to maintaining order and ensuring
compliance with the laws of the state of Washington and ordinances of the city of Edmonds.
O. "Site" has the same meaning as set forth in ECDC 21.90.090, as now or hereafter amended, and in
.r
v
addition in the case of undeveloped property, a land area under common ownership, whether the land
v
w
area is comprised of one lot, a combination of contiguous lots, or contiguous fractions of lots.
o
N
r
P. "Special events" include any event which is to be conducted on public property or in a public right-
C
of -way; and also, any event held on private property which would have a direct significant impact on:
E
(a,) traffic circulation to and from the event over public streets or rights -of -way; (b) public streets or
C
rights -of -way near the event, or (c) the need for city provided emergency services, such as police, fire
d
E
or medical aid, as determined by the city. It is presumed that any event on private property which
involves: (i) an open invitation to the public to attend; or (b) anticipated attendance by private invitation
of 100 or more people is an event that will have a direct significant impact on the public streets, rights-
y
of -way or emergency services. Special events may include, but are not limited to: fun runs and walks,
E
auctions, parades, carnivals, exhibitions, film/movie events, circuses, outdoor markets, and fairs.
a
Q. "Tent" means a temporary membrane structure or shelter, such as pop-up canopies, sails, and the like,
c
as defined in the current editions of the fire and buildingcdes.
w
4.100.030 General provisions applicable to all special events.
a
A. Permit Required. AU person desiring to conduct or operate a special event within the Cif of
Edmonds shall first obtain a special event permit from the city, unless specifically exempt. It shall be
unlawful for any person to sponsor or conduct an event or activity requiring a special event permit
without a valid special event permit. Penalties for violation of the terms of this chapter shall be as
specified by this chapter.
v
w
B. Consistency with Permit and Law. A special event shall be conducted as described b, the special
event permit, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit and in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations. am
C. Public and Personal Safety. The configuration and operation of special events shall conform to
gpplicable laws and regulations, including provisions relating to emergency ingress and egress, barrier -
free facilities, fire prevention, health and sanitation, and the operation of vehicles and equipment.
D. Business Licenses and Taxes. As required by pplicable law, special event businesses/vendors shall
have City of Edmonds business licenses and shall record, report and remit taxes.
E. Exemptions. The following activities and occurrences shall comply with applicable laws and L
regulations, but are exempt from the permit requirements of this chapter:
c
m
1. City contracted events. E
2. Funerals and wedding processions.
a
Packet Pg. 509
9.4.b
3. Garage sales and rumma eg sales.
4. Neighborhood block parties.
N
5. Special event facilities. Events conducted at a facility designed for special event purposes or
C
a)
at facilities where such events are normally held, such as churches, event centers, convention
i
centers, schools, athletic fields, auditoriums, stadiums, theaters, and the like.
d
6. Governmental activities. Activities conducted by a governmental agency acting within the
.r
v
scope of its authority.
w
0
7. Regularly scheduled events utilizing park and recreation facilities, in accordance with the
to
intended use of the facility, and with park rules and policies.
aa)
E
8. A privately scheduled, non -reoccurring event upon private property in a residential zone with
C
Lip to 100 persons attending.
a)
Q
9. The temporary sale of seasonal goods when regulated by other statutes, such as Christmas tree
sales, and peddling of farm produce.
E
10. Expressive events (but see Chapter 4.98 for regulations pertainingto o expressive events).
a
F. Sim
C
w
1. With a special event permit application, applicants may request, and the appropriate director or
designee that would otherwise authorize such signage may authorize, the use of temporary on -site
a
(on -premises) and off -site (off -premises,) signs.
y
2. Special event signs shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor injurious
c
to grope or improvements in the vicinity of the sign. Signs shall not obstruct visibility for
.
motorists and pedestrians, nor impede access to buildings or property. The installation of signs
i
upon public property shall be subject to inspection by the building official and/or city engineer.
v
U
W
3. The applicant shall be responsible for installation, maintenance, and removal of all signs.
4.100.040 Permit applications.
m
A. The administrative services director or designee is authorized to prepare and maintain necessary
gpplication forms and may issue written administrative policies and procedures as needed for the
implementation of this chapter.
B. Applications for special event permits shall be submitted to the administrative services director or
designee, a minimum of 60 days prior to a small event (less than 100 people) and a minimum of 90 days
prior to a major event (more than 100 people). If an event organizer fails to meet these timelines, the O
application may still be processed if all affected departments agree to process the application within the L
shortened timeframe. Factors in determining whether to allow for processing a late application will o
include the impact on city resources and rights -of -way, and conflicts with other already scheduled
events. m
E
C. Applications for special event permits shall include written authorization of the property owner. For
special events proposed upon city -owned property, the approval of a special event permit application a
Packet Pg. 510
9.4.b
shall constitute city authorization to conduct the event upon the property described in the permit
application.
m
D. Applications for special event permits shall be on forms prepared by the administrative services
director or designee and shall include information that any city department processingthe he application
deems necessary in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare to enable it to review the
application. The information requested shall enable the city to assess the scope of the event so as to
evaluate the impact of the event on city resources and the community_
c�
E. Application feels for special event permits are set forth in the City's adopted fee schedule. v
w
0
4.100.050 Indemnification. w
c
d
Prior to the issuance of a permit for a special event, the permit applicant and authorized officer of the E
sponsoring organization must agree to reimburse the city for any costs incurred by it in repairing damage M
d
to cityj2roperty and indemnify and defend the city, its officers, employees, and agents from all causes E
of action, claims or liabilities occurring in connection with the permitted event, except those which occur
due to the city's sole negligence.
N
4.100.060 Insurance. E
L
a)
IL
Prior to the issuance of a permit for a special event, the permit applicant shall comply with the following
insurance requirements:
w
(1) The permit applicant shall obtain commercial general liability insurance in amounts acceptable
to the ci • attorney's office. 0.
(2) Written proof of such insurance is required prior to permit issuance. The insurance policy shall y
be written on an occurrence basis, shall name the city as an additional insured using ISO form CG
20 26, or coverage at least as broad, and shall be written for a period that includes the timeframe for
both the set-Lipbefore and the clean -Lip following the completion of the event. The a licant shall J
p p � v
provide the city and all additional insureds for this event with written notice of any policy v
w
cancellation within two (2) business days of their receipt of such notice.
m
(3) Liquor Liability Coverage. Liquor liabili • coverage must be obtained when liquor is served as ~
a part of a special event permitted under this chapter.
c
(a) A vendor hired by the special event permittee to serve liquor must provide evidence of liquor
liability coverage in amounts acceptable to the city attorney's office, namingthe he city as additional
insured. This insurance coverage is in addition to the special event permittee's overall general
liability requirement.
(b) A special event permittee serving liquor directly shall obtain host liquor coverage as a part of :.
providing commercial general liability insurance per subsection (1) of this section. o
4.100.070 Permit decision.
E
A. After receiving a completed application in conformance with this chapter, along with the non-
refundable permit application fee, the administrative services director or designee shall consult with all a
affected divisions or departments, such as Building, Planning, Engineering, Police, Fire, Public Works,
Packet Pg. 511
9.4.b
Parks and Recreation, Finance, and Risk Management. Following consultation with all affected
departments and divisions. the administrative services director or desianee may approve. conditionally
approve, or deny an application for a special event permit based upon the provisions of this chapter.
When an application is conditionally approved or denied, the administrative services director or designee
shall provide written explanation of the grounds for the conditions of approval or denial, and the
a)_
applicant's rightppeal pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
d
B. Decision criteria. A permit may be issued to an applicant only if all the following criteria and
conditions for issuance are met:
v
c�
w
1. The special event will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare;
o
N
r
2. The special event will not be injurious to property or improvements in the immediate vicinity
d
of the special event;
E
c
3. The special event will not endanger participants, spectators, or the public;
a)
E
4. The special event has a traffic managementplan or other adequate and appropriate measures
in place to mitigate any traffic safety and mobility issues, including for both vehicles and
pedestrians;
E
L
5. Adequate and appropriate sanitation and refuse facilities are planned;
a)
a
c
m
6. The special event has adequate and appropriate measures in place to ensure the safe movement,
w
assemblage and dispersion of people attending the event. Such measures may include the use of
safety guardrails, fences, ropes, barricades, and the like;
a
CO
7. The special event will not cause excessive or harmful fumes, odor, smoke, noise or light and
must be consistent with Chapter 5.30 entitled "Noise Abatement and Control";
a�
8. The special event will comply with all applicable ordinances relating to food service containers
and utensils and provide for the appropriate collection and disposal of waste, recycling, and
v
compostables;
w
9. Adequate plans exist to return the area or routes impacted by the special event to the same
m
condition or cleanliness as existed prior to the event;
10. Applicant has agreed to the indemnity and hold harmless provisions in the application;
11. Applicant has provided proof of the requisite insurance provisions in the application;
12. For city sponsored events, applicant has agreed to reimburse the city for the provision of
additional city services, including but not limited to the employment of police officers to direct
or block pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or the provisions of standby aid car or fire protection
services, as required.
4.100.080 Appeal of permit decision. m
E
Decisions of the administrative services director or designee are appealable. An appeal of the
administrative services director or designee's decision related to application of this chapter may be filed a
Packet Pg. 512
9.4.b
with the administrative services director or designee within 10 business days of notification of the
decision. Such anneal shall be filed and processed in accordance with the anneal provisions for business
licenses as provided by Chapter 4.72. The meal filing fee shall be as specified by the fee schedule.
N
4.100.090 Reimbursement of fees for city sponsored events.
C
a)
J
A. Upon approval of a special event permit application for a city sponsored event, the administrative
services director or designee shall provide the applicant with a statement of the estimated cost of
providing city resources, such as personnel and equipment, for the special event, if applicable. The
v
applicant%sponsor of the event may be required to prepay these estimated costs ten (10) days prior to the
v
w
special event. The special event application fee per the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the city
o
council is a separate processing fee and is not applicable to the city services fees. City resources may
include the use of police officers and public employees for traffic and crowd control; pickup and delivery
aa)
of traffic control devices, picnic tables, and the like; extraordinary street sweeping; and any other needed,
E
requested or required city service, along with the cost of operating any equipment needed to provide
C
such services.
Q
B. If the actual cost for the use of city resources on the date(s) of the citysponsored event is less than
v
the estimated cost, the applicant/sponsor will be refunded the difference by the city in a timely manner.
If the actual cost for the use of city resources on the date(s) of the city sponsored event is greater than
E
the estimated cost, the city will invoice the applicant/sponsor for the difference, and the invoice shall be
a
paid in a timely manner.
C
w
C. Permit fees and fees for the use of city resources may be waived in part or in full by the ci if, in
,
review of the application, it is found that the city sponsored event is of sufficient public benefit to warrant
the expenditure of city funds without reimbursement by the and would not result in
CO
the private financial gain of any individual or "for -profit" entity.
m
4.100.100 Cleanup deposit.
N
aCi
J
A. The applicant/sponsor of a special event likely to create a substantial need for cleanup may be
v
required to provide a cleanup deposit prior to the issuance of a special event permit.
w
B. The cleanup deposit may be returned after the event if the area used for the permitted event has been
cleaned and restored to the same condition as existed prior to the event within twenty-four 24, hours
~
after the conclusion of the event.
5
C. If the property used for the event has not been properly cleaned or restored within twenty-four (24)
hours after the conclusion of the event, the applicant/sponsor shall be invoiced for the actual cost to the
city for cleanup and restoration, which invoice shall be paid in a timely manner. The cleanup deposit
shall be applied toward the payment of the invoice.
4.100.110. Suspension and revocation.
A. In instances in which the special event does not comply with the provisions of this chanter. the terms "
and conditions of the approved permit, or other applicable law, the administrative services director or C
designeey suspend or revoke an approved special event permit with the issuance of written findings. E
B. When necessary to prevent serious injury to persons, property or the public peace, health, safety or Q
welfare, the administrative services director or designee, fire marshal, building official, development
Packet Pg. 513
9.4.b
services director or chief of police, or the designee of each, may suspend or revoke an approved special
event permit effective immediately. The city official or designee shall deliver written notice of
suspension or revocation to the permit applicant/event sponsor or manager.
4.100.120 Exercise of police Dower.
This chapter is enacted as an exercise of the citespolice powers and shall not be construed to impose
any duty owed by the ci , to any permittee under this chapter or to any member of the public, nor shall
any permit be construed as waiver of any violation of the laws of the city.
4.100.130 Violation — Penalties.
A. It shall be a misdemeanor for M person to violate any of the provisions of this chapter or the
conditions imposed upon M permit issued hereunder, which shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed
one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment not to exceed nine1(90) dgys. Each day, or part thereof,
durine which anv such violations occur or are continued. shall constitute a separate offense.
B. In addition. permits issued hereunder shall be subiect to suspension or revocation as provided herein
and civil abatement proceedings as set forth in Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
C. In addition, or alternatively, any person violating the provisions of this chapter or the conditions of
anv permit issued hereunder shall also subiect the Dermittee to a dailv civil penalty in the amount
specified by Chapter 20.110 ECDC.
D. In addition, or alternatively, any person violating the provisions of the chapter or the conditions of
any_permit issued hereunder may forfeit their right to hold a special event in the cit .
Section 10. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity
or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 11. 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:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 514
9.4.b
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
11-IIA
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 515
9.4.b
Ordinance No.
as follows:
On the
fi 04105 El :f'L/] go '71 0[�[4 plor1a
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
day of 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
_. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF OR AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN
CHAPTERS OF TITLE 4 ECC (LICENSES) AND FOR THE ADOPTION
OF A NEW CHAPTER TO TITLE 4 ECC RELATING TO SPECIAL
EVENT PERMITS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of 2021.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 516
9.4.c
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY'S
DEVELOPMENT -RELATED FEES AND CHARGES TO ADD FEES
RELATING TO THE CITY'S SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS.
WHEREAS, ECDC 15.00.020 provides for the establishment and amendment of certain fees
charged by the city by resolution; and
WHEREAS, extensive effort has been made by city staff to analyze the full costs associated with
city permitting and service activities; and
WHEREAS, the city council has previously established and affirms as its goal that permit fees
shall be set to cover the costs of processing and issuing permits and requests for service; and
WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 1442 in December 2019, which adopted a
schedule of fees to be charged in relation to permit issuance and other development activity; and
WHEREAS, the city council has adopted Ordinance to document in the Edmonds City
Code the requirements for obtaining permits from the city to hold Special Events; and
WHEREAS, city staff has established the costs associated with issuing such permits; and
WHEREAS, this resolution is intended to add the new Special Event Permit fees to the city's
schedule of fees and to replace Resolution 1442; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The fees and charges for services set forth in the schedule attached as Exhibit A
to this Resolution, which is incorporated herein by this reference, are hereby adopted, along with
the referenced tables which are also included therein, and shall be effective on and after
September 1, 2021.
Section 2. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution or any fee or charge
for service adopted or amended hereby should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court
of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase, or any fee or charge adopted or
amended hereby.
Section 3. Resolution 1442 shall have no further effect as of September 1, 2021 as the fees
adopted by Resolution 1442 are being replaced by the fees adopted herein.
RESOLVED this day of 2021.
Packet Pg. 517
9.4.c
CITY OF EDMONDS
MAYOR, MIKE NELSON
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
Packet Pg. 518
I 9.4.c I
FEES ASSOCIATED
WITH DEVELOPMENT
'r-11 C. 1 S C) v
Building —Engineering —Planning -Fire
121 5t" Ave N, Edmonds WA 98020
425.771.0220
FINAL DRAFT 4.22.21 FOR 2021
Packet Pg. 519 1
I 9.4.c I
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERMIT FEES
Building / Planning / Engineering / Fire
City Technology Fee for each permit application.................................................................................. $40.00
Credit Card Transaction Fee.......................................................................................................................... 3%
Development Review Committee Meeting.................................................................................................. $0
Pre -Application Meeting................................................................................................................... $1,000.00
(50% applied toward future plan check fee for that specific project only)
Recording Fee (for recording documents with Snohomish County) ......................... Recording Cost + $110.00
Violation Compliance Fee................................................................................ $250.00 or up to 5x Permit Fee
Residential State Building Code Surcharge Fee..................................................................................... $6.50
.................................................................................................................. Each additional dwelling unit $2.00
Commercial State Building Code Surcharge Fee................................................................................... $25.00
.................................................................................................................. Each additional dwelling unit $2.00
(not applicable to certain minor permits such as plumbing, mechanical, re -roof)
PLAN REVIEW & INSPECTION FEES:
Plan review is calculated at 85% of the building permit fee and includes up to 3 reviews per division/ department.
Commercial/ Multi -family/ Residential: Plan review fee includes Building, Planning, Fire & Engineering reviews
General plan review fee per reviewing department/division....................................... $110.00/hr (1 hr min.)
plus peer review fee if applicable
Plan review for re -submittals after the 3rd review.......................................................................... $110.00/hr
Development Project Peer Review (Peer Review)................................................................................ $110.00
plus cost of consultant review fee charged for outside consultant peer review services when
City staff lacks the expertise to review a specific project or aspect of a project.
General Inspection Fee per department/division............................................................................$110.00/ea
Re -Inspection Fee.............................................................................................................................$110.00/ea
Engineering Inspection Fee*............................................................................ 3.3% of Value of Improvements
*Applies to Civil Site Improvements, such as Subdivisions, Commercial & Multi -Family Permits
Stormwater Engineer Review Fee................................................................................................... $130.00/hr
Transportation Engineer Review Fee.............................................................................................. $130.00/hr
Utility Engineer Review Fee............................................................................................................ $130.00/hr
REFUNDS:
The City may authorize refunding of any permit fee paid which was erroneously paid or collected. The City
may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done
under a permit issued in accordance with the applicable code(s). The City may also refund not more than 80
percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review fee has been
paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing is done. Refunds shall not be granted of any fee on
an expired permit. Any application for a refund must be made in writing and describe the circumstances to
justify. Refunds for permit fees covered by 19.70.025 ECDC may be authorized by the Building Official. The
Planning Manager may authorize refunds of Planning fees or service charges. The City Engineer may
authorize refunds of Engineering fees or service charges.
Packet Pg. 520 1
I 9.4.c I
BUILDING PERMIT FEES
Accessory Dwelling Unit Compliance (ADU)..........................................................................................
$405.00
Adult Family Home Compliance(AFH)...................................................................................................
$550.00
Alternate Methods Review........................................................................................
$110.00/hr + Peer Review
Appeal of Building Official Interpretation..............................................................................................
$970.00
Cellular Communication and Facilities...................................................................................................
TABLE 1
Changeof Use.........................................................................................................................................
$510.00
Demolition (Residential Primary Structure)...........................................................................................
$300.00
Demolition (Commercial Primary Structure)..........................................................................................
$500.00
Demolition (Secondary Structure or Interior Only).................................................................................
$150.00
Dock/Marina/Floats...............................................................................................................$200.00+TABLE
1
Fence......................................................................................................................................................
$100.00
Hot Tub/Spa (Single-Family)...................................................................................................................
$200.00
Manufactured Coach Installation - Commercial (Federal
HUD Label) ................................................... $500.00
Manufactured Home Installation (Federal HUD Label)..........................................................................
$550.00
ParkingLot.............................................................................................................................$200.00+TABLE
1
Re -roof (Commercial)......................................................Valuation
based on $2.00 per square foot +TABLE 1
Re -roof (Residential - includes sheathing)..............................................................................................
$100.00
Retaining Wall (Commercial)..........................................................................................
$740.00 + Peer Review
Retaining Wall (Residential)............................................................................................
$300.00 + Peer Review
Solar/Photovoltaic (Residential).............................................................................................................
$120.00
Solar/Photovoltaic (Commercial) - Valuation does not include
cost of solar panels or inverters......... TABLE 1
Swimming Pool (Pre -manufactured, above ground)..............................................................................
$120.00
Swimming Pool (In-Ground)...................................................................................................................
TABLE 1
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (Commercial Only
— valid for 60 days) ........................................ $330.00
SIGNS:
Sign (Per sign excluding specific sign categories listed below).............................................................. $165.00
Blade Sign (Includes all blade signs in proposal)............................................................................................. $0
Pedestrian Sign (Includes all pedestrian signs in proposal)..................................................................... $80.00
PoleSign(persign).................................................................................................................................$825.00
Murals (Includes all murals in a proposal)............................................................................................. $165.00
*Planning ADB Design Review may apply
ESLHA DESIGNATED PROPERTIES:
Additional fees associated with development in the North Edmonds Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area (ESLHA)
ESLHA Administrative Fee.................................................................................................................$2,385.00
ESLHA Consultant Review....................................................................Full cost of review is paid by applicant.
Deposit at Application for Peer Completeness Review................................................................... $500.00
Deposit at Full Application............................................................................................................ $2,500.00
Deposit at Re -submittal if additional Peer Review is needed ...................................................... $1,500.00
ESLHA Minor Project Administrative Processing Fee........................................................................... $300.00
ESLHA Submittal Packet......................................................................................................................... $15.00
0
r
a�
E
c
m
E
Q
c
0
N
r
E
L
W
a.
r
c
a�
u.l
U
W
a
Packet Pg. 521 1
I 9.4.c I
MECHANICAL PERMITS:
BASEPERMIT FEE: .................................................................................................................................. $50.00
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE:
For the installation or relocation of each:
FURNACE - Forced -air or gravity -type, including ducts and appliance vents ........................................
$30.00
AIR HANDLER - Including ducts (Diffusers, blowers, etc.)
Up to and including 10,000 cfm (4719 L/s).....................................................................................
$30.00
Over 10,000 cfm (4719 L/s) including ducts....................................................................................
$40.00
GAS HEATER - Suspended, recessed wall or floor -mounted unit..........................................................
$30.00
HYDRONIC HEATING SYSTEM...............................................................................................................
$150.00
APPLIANCE VENT- (Type B, BW, L gas vent, etc.)..................................................................................
$15.00
INCINERATOR..........................................................................................................................................
$50.00
VENTILATION AND EXHAUST
Fan connected to single duct (Bath, laundry, kitchen exhaust, etc.) ..............................................
$15.00
Each system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system .............................
$15.00
HOOD - Type 1, Type 2, Fume Hood including ducts..........................................................................
$150.00
GAS PIPING: (New or relocated)
Gas -Piping systems of 1 to 5 outlets.....................................................................................................
$30.00
Each additional outlet over 5...................................................................................................................
$5.00
BOILER OR COMPRESSOR
Up to and including 50 HP (176 KW)..................................................................................................... $50.00
Over50 HP (176 kW)........................................................................................................................... $100.00
ABSORPTION SYSTEM, AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM OR HEAT PUMP
Up to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW)................................................................................. $50.00
Over 1,750,000 Btu/h (512.9 kW)....................................................................................................... $100.00
OTHER FEES:
Commercial Plan review hourly fee................................................................................................ $110.00/hr
Each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the IMC for which no other
fee is listed (Fire dampers, ductless mini- split systems, etc.).......................................................... $30.00
0
r
a�
E
c
m
E
Q
c
0
N
E
W
d
r
c
a�
w
U
W
a
Cn
Packet Pg. 522 1
I 9.4.c I
PLUMBING PERMITS:
BASE PERMIT FEE: ....................................................................................................................................... $50.00
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE:
For the installation, alteration, repair, addition or relocation of each: ....................................................... $15.00
Plumbing fixture (on one trap or a set of fixtures on one trap)
Drain w/in footprint of building (rainwater systems, roof deck drains, etc.)
Water Heater (includes expansion tank)
Re -pipe - Drain, vent or water piping (each fixture served)
Water Service Line (replacement or repair)
For the installation, alteration, repair, addition or relocation of each:
Water treating equipment (water softener)..........................................................................................
$35.00
Backflow protective device - 2" and smaller.........................................................................................
$35.00
Backflow protective device - Over 2"....................................................................................................
$45.00
Graywater system or reclaimed water system (in addition to fixture fee)
........................................... $65.00
Non -grease waste pre-treatment interceptor (oil/water separator, etc.)
.......................................... $110.00
Medical gas piping system serving 1 to 5 inlet/outlet(s) for a specific gas
......................................... $110.00
Each additional medical gas inlet/outlet............................................................................................
$15.00
Grease Trap (HGI Inside Building).........................................................................................................
$220.00
Gravity Grease Interceptor (GGI))........................................................................................................
$770.00
OTHER FEES:
Commercial plan review fee hourly fee
PARK IMPACT FEES:
Single -Family ......................................
Multi -Family .......................................
Non -Residential Development .........
Residential Administrative Fee...........
Commercial Administrative Fee.........
..... $110.00/hr
IMPACT FEES
................................................................ $2,734.05 per Dwelling Unit
................................................................ $2,340.16 per Dwelling Unit
...........................................................................$1.34 per square foot
................................................................................................... $50.00
................................................................................................. $100.00
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES:
Refer to City Code & Handouts to calculate impact fee. The following applies in addition to impact fee:
Residential Administrative Fee................................................................................................................$50.00
Commercial Administrative Fee............................................................................................................$100.00
Independent Fee Calculation —Transportation Engineer Review ...................................................... $260.00
plus peer review fee as applicable.
Packet Pg. 523 1
I 9.4.c I
GRADING PERMIT FEES
PLAN REVIEW:
CUBICYARDS
PLAN REVIEW FEE
50 cubic yards or less
$55.00
(when located in a designated critical area)
51 to 100 cubic yards
$110.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards
$220.00
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards
$440.00
$440.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $110.00 for
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards
each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards
$1,430.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $110.00
for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
200,001 cubic yards or more
$2,530.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards, plus $110.00
for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
PERMIT FEE:
CUBIC YARDS
PERMIT FEE
Base Permit Fee
$35.00
50 cubic yards or less
$110.00
(when located in a designated critical area)
51 to 100 cubic yards
$110.00
101 to 1,000 cubic yards
$110.00 for the first 100 cubic yards, plus $25.00 for each
additional 100 cubic yards, or fraction thereof.
$335.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $45.00 for each
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards
additional 1,000 cubic yards, or fraction thereof.
$740.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $65.00 for
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 cubic yards or more
$1,325.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $100.00 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Packet Pg. 524 1
I 9.4.c I
FIRE PERMIT FEES
FIRE SPRINKLER PERMITS:
Residential IRC Structures
New Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems.............................................................................................. $300.00
Residential Fire Sprinkler System Alteration........................................................................................ $200.00
Commercial & Multi -Family Fire Sprinkler Systems
Newsystems........................................................................................................................ $300.00 + TABLE 1
Modifications:
1 to 5 sprinklers....................................................................................................................................
$250.00
6 to 25...................................................................................................................................................
$500.00
26 or more...........................................................................................................................
$300.00 + TABLE 1
Additional inspections/plan review as required..............................................................................$110.00/hr
FIRE ALARM PERMITS:
New fire alarm system........................................................................................................
$300.00 + TABLE 1
Emergency Responders Radio System (DAS).....................................................................
$100.00+TABLE 1
Modifications:
1 to 5 initiating devices, Communicator (AES, Cellular).....................................................................
$250.00
6 to 25, including panel replacement...................................................................................................$500.00
26 or more...........................................................................................................................
$300.00 + TABLE 1
Additional inspections/plan review as required..............................................................................$110.00/hr
TANK PERMITS:
Residential fill, remove or install (per each).........................................................................................
$200.00
Commercial fill, remove or install (per each).......................................................................................$450.00
OTHER FIRE PERMITS:
Fire Suppression Systems:
Commercial Hood Suppression System (per system)....................................................................
$325.00
Standpipe........................................................................................................................................
$450.00
FireConnection.....................................................................................................................................
$500.00
FireOperational...................................................................................................................................$100.00
Fire fees include plan review and inspections.
Packet Pg. 525 1
I 9.4.c I
PLANNING AND LAND USE FEES
GENERAL:
Type I (Staff decisions, no notice)........................................................................................................... $275.00
Type 11 A (Staff decisions with notice).................................................................................................... $970.00
Type IIIA (ADB/Hearing Examiner)........................................................... Hearing Examiner Cost + $2,000.00
Type I I I B (Hearing Examiner)...................................................................... Hearing Examiner Cost + $2,000.00
Type IV (Rezone, Development Agreement)....................................................................................... $7,000.00
Type V (Plan & Edmonds Community Development Code Amendments) .......................................... $7,000.00
LotLine Adjustment............................................................................................................................
$1,050.00
Short Subdivision Preliminary Approval..............................................................................................
$3,225.00
Short Subdivision Civil Plan Review.....................................................................................................
$3,050.00
Short Subdivision Final Approval.........................................................................................................
$1,590.00
Subdivision Preliminary Approval..............................................................
Hearing Examiner Cost + $6,510.00
Subdivision Civil Plan Review..............................................................................................................
$4,670.00
Subdivision Final Approval.................................................................................................................
$1,590.00
ModificationRequest.............................................................................................................................
$970.00
Minor Change to Approved Plat.............................................................................................................
$275.00
Major Change to Approved Plat.....................................................................
Same as Original Application Fee
PRD Preliminary Approval...................................................................................................................
$6,510.00
PRDFinal Approval..............................................................................................................................
$1,590.00
ADB Design Review —Signs .................................................................................................................... $970.00
Staff Design Review if project exceeds SEPA threshold......................................................................... $970.00
Landscape Plan Inspection Fee................................................................................................... 1% of Estimate
SEPAReview........................................................................................................................................... $740.00
SEPA Planned Action Compliance Review (Hwy 99)..............................................................................$275.00
EISReview..................................................................................................................................................... Cost
Outdoor Dining, Amateur Radio............................................................................................................. $275.00
Critical Areas Checklist Application........................................................................................................ $110.00
Critical Areas Checklist Update................................................................................................................ $55.00
Critical Areas Variance / Reasonable Use Application ............................... Hearing Examiner Cost + $7,640.00
Critical Areas Study Admin.............................................................................................. $110.00/hr (min. 1 hr)
Critical Areas Contingent Review (See ECDC 23.40.195 for more detail on fees) ................................ $970.00
Shoreline Contingent Review (See ECDC 24.80.100)............................................................................. $970.00
Planning Fee not categorized............................................................................................................ $110.00/hr
Request for Reconsideration.................................................................................................................. $275.00
Note: When an application is heard by the Hearing Examiner (HE), the cost of the hearing is billed to the applicant.
APPEALS:
Appeal of Staff Decision (Type I, II or Hearing Examiner)...................................................................... $450.00
Appeal of Type IIIB Decision to City Council.......................................................................................... $550.00
Appeal of Notice of Civil Violation.......................................................................................................... $970.00
ADB = Architectural Design Board
HE = Hearing Examiner
SEPA = State Environmental Policy Act
EIS = Environmental Impact Statement
PRD = Planned Residential Development
Packet Pg. 526 1
I 9.4.c I
ENGINEERING FEES
MISCELLANEOUS FEES:
Backflow Prevention Compliance Fee ..........................................
Developers Agreements...............................................................
Fire/ Aid Sign Address Fabrication Fee .........................................
Street Sign Fabrication Fee...........................................................
Water and Sewer Availability Letters ............................................
Latecomers Agreement.................................................................
LID Sewer Agreement...................................................................
Variance from Underground Wiring ............................................
Special Event Permit Fee (small event / less than 100 people) ..
Special Event Permit Fee (major event / more than 100 people)
GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES:
• Water GFC's are based on meter size:
....... $165.00
....... $220.00 + $110.00/hr + City Attorney Fees
$100.00/ea
$200.00/ea
.... $65.00/ea
....... $220.00 + $110.00/hr + City Attorney Fees
....... $220.00 + $110.00/hr + City Attorney Fees
....... $330.00 + $110.00/hr + City Attorney Fees
............................................. $50.00/ea
............................................ $125.00/ea
Water and sewer GFC's shall be paid by each new customer connecting to the utility systems.
Storm GFC's shall be paid by the applicant for ESU's added or created by development.
Meter Size General Facility Charge
Y4„ $5,050.00
ill $12, 624.00
11/2 " $25,248.00
2" $40,397.00
GFC's for Single Family Residences only: Fee is based on meter size required for domestic demand (typically %")
GFC shall not be based on meter upsizing for fire sprinkler system only.
• Sewer Utility GFC........................................................... $4,417.00 per ERU
A single family residential development = 1.0 ERU per dwelling unit
A multifamily residential development = .67 ERU per dwelling unit
Applicants for non-residential development shall pay a GFC equal to the ERU determination that is made by
the Public Works Director.
• Stormwater Management GFC........................................ $799.00 per ESU
A single family residential development with up to 5,000 sf hard surface area = 1.0 ESU
All other construction calculated according to a ratio of 1.0 ESU per 3,000 sq ft of new, replaced or new
plus replaced impervious surface area.
Packet Pg. 527 1
I 9.4.c I
RIGHT-OF-WAY FEES:
Right -of -Way Construction Permit..................................$330.00 + Inspection Fees
Right -of Way Minor Construction Permit ......................$110.00 + Inspection Fees
Street Restoration for Water Meter Installation .........$1,000.00 + Street Overlay Cut Penalty Fee if applicable
(Excluding Private Development Projects)
Street Overlay Cut Penalty Fee......................................$220.00 + ROW Permit Fees
+ Add'I per SQYD charge times overlay cut multiplier
Encroachment Permit....................................................$330.00 + Recording Fees
Street Use Permit............................................................$110.00 + Bistro Dining Fees if applicable
Bistro Dining Fees..............................................................$30.00 Annual Fee + Monthly ROW Use Fee
@ $0.50/ SQ FT x 12.84% (leasehold tax)
Alley, Sidewalk, Parking Disruption/ Closure Fees .......... $220.00 + ROW Permit + Monthly Closure Fees
Closure fees charged for any activity that occupies or closes, sidewalks, parking spaces(s), parking lanes(s) or
other paved area of a street/road for more than 72 hours. Monthly portion of Fee [$ per month] = 1% of
assessed value per square foot of abutting property x right of way area [SF] disrupted/closed. If
disruption/closure affects any portion of the area of a parking space, the area of disruption closure is calculated
based upon the area of a full parking space.
SEWER FEES:
General
New Commercial & Multi-Family....................................$220.00 + Inspection Fees Facility
New Single Family...........................................................$110.00 + Inspection Fees Charges May
Apply
Repair - Full Line Replacement.......................................$110.00 + Inspection Fees
Repair - Partial Line Replacement...................................$110.00 (Includes 1 inspection
+Add'I Inspection Fees, if applicable)
Special Conditions (Grinder Pumps, Ejectors).................$110.00 + Sewer Fees + Utility Engineer Review
Drainage Permit (Pool, Hot Tub, Jacuzzi)..........................$55.00 Each Occurrence
STORMWATER FEES:
Stormwater Permit..........................................................$330.00 + General Inspection Fees
WATER METER FEES:
Meter Size
Meter Fee
Installation of New Service & Meter* 3/4"
$2,920.00
1"
$2,970.00
1%"
$6,220.00
2"
$6,390.00
*General Facility Charges may apply
GFC = General Facility Charge ESU = Equivalent Service Unit
ROW = Right of Way ERU = Equivalent Residential Unit
Packet Pg. 528 1
9.4.c
ICC VALUATION TABLE
O
August 2019
Adopted by City of Edmonds effective Jan 1, 2020
c
m
E
Q
roup (2018 International Building Code)
C
O
A-1 Assembly, theaters, with stage 246.61 238.50 232.82 223.18 209.86 203.80 216.12 191.69 184.50 r
E
A-1 Assembly, theaters, without stage
225.65
217.54
211.85
202.22
189.15
183.09
195.16
170.98
163.79
O
A-2 Assembly, nightclubs
191.96
186.56
182.12
174.70
164.94
160.39
168.64
149.29
144.33
d
C
A-2 Assembly, restaurants, bars,
190.96
185.56
180.12
173.70
162.94
159.39
167.64
147.29
143.33
>
banquet halls
W
A-3 Assembly, churches
226.69
218.58
212.89
203.26
191.60
185.54
196.20
173.43
166.24
.O
A-3 Assembly, general, community halls,
C.
190.63
182.52
175.84
167.20
153.09
148.07
160.14
134.97
128.78
libraries, museums
N
A-4 Assembly, arenas
224.65
216.54
209.85
201.22
187.15
182.09
194.16
168.98
162.79
N
d
B Business
197.81
190.62
184.70
175.70
160.65
154.63
168.95
141.15
134.99ILL
E Educational
207.77
200.59
194.83
186.43
173.71
164.91
180.01
151.89
147.25
r
E
O
a
F-1 Factory and industrial, moderate
hazard
117.60
112.19
105.97
101.84
91.54
87.26
97.61
75.29
70.95
C
F-2 Factory and industrial, low hazard
116.60
111.19
105.97
100.84
91.54
86.26
96.61
75.29
69.95
d
uJ
H-1 High Hazard, explosives
109.99
104.58
99.35
94.22
85.14
79.87
89.99
68.89
0.00
H234 High Hazard
109.99
104.58
99.35
94.22
85.14
79.87
89.99
68.89
63.56
4)
H-5 HPM
197.81
190.62
184.70
175.70
160.65
154.63
168.95
141.15
134.99
N
1-1 Institutional, supervised environment
197.83
191.05
185.12
177.91
163.28
158.81
178.06
146.98
142.33
3
1-2 Institutional, hospitals
330.92
323.73
317.81
308.81
292.72
0.00
302.06
273.22
0.00
t
0
N
1-2 Institutional, nursing homes
229.68
222.49
216.58
207.57
193.53
0.00
200.83
174.02
0.00
N
1-3 Institutional, restrained
224.86
217.67
211.75
202.75
188.96
181.94
196.00
169.45
161.29
N
IL
1-4 Institutional, day care facilities
197.83
191.05
185.12
177.91
163.28
158.81
178.06
146.98
142.33
d
M Mercantile
142.95
137.54
132.11
125.68
115.38
111.83
119.62
99.73
95.77
Q
O
0
R-1 Residential, hotels
199.70
192.92
186.99
179.78
164.90
160.43
179.93
148.60
143.96
�+
C
d
R-2 Residential, multiple family
167.27
160.49
154.56
147.35
133.71
129.23
147.50
117.40
112.76
E
R-3 Residential, one- and two-family
154.28
150.09
146.35
142.65
1 137.55
133.92
140.30
128.74
121.24
t
0
R-4 Residential, care/assisted living
Q
197.83
191.05
185.12
177.91
163.28
158.81
178.06
146.98
142.33
facilities
06
S-1 Storage, moderate hazard
108.99
103.58
97.35
93.22
83.14
78.87
88.99
66.89
62.56
C
O
S-2 Storage, low hazard
107.99
102.58
97.35
92.22
83.14
77.87
87.99
66.89
61.56
r
2
O
U Utility, miscellaneous
84.66
79.81
74.65
71.30
64.01
59.80
68.04
50.69
48.30
H
ILL
Square Foot Construction Costs a'b'`
C
a. Private Garages use Utility, miscellaneous f. Sunroom (unheated) = $28.00
b. For shell only buildings deduct20 percent g. Deck Ramp, Stairs, Trellis, Porch = $20.00 per sq. ft. d
E
c. N.P. = not permitted h. Dock = $35.00 per sq. ft. v
O
d. Unfinished basements (Group R-3) = $22.45 persq. ft. i. Unheated Storage = $25.00 per sq. ft. r
e. Carport = $25.00 per sq.ft. Q
Packet Pg. 529
I 9.4.c I
VALUATION BASED BUILDING PERMIT FEES
TABLE 1
Total Valuation**
Residential
Commercial
$1 to $500
$100 Base fee + $30
$100 Base fee + $36
$100 Base fee + $30 for the first $500 + $3 for
$100 Base fee + $36 for the first $500 + $3.60 for
$501 to $2,000
each additional $100, or fraction thereof to and
each additional $100, or fraction thereof to and
including $2,000
including $2,000
$100 Base fee + $75 for the first $2,001 + $14 for
$100 Base fee + $90 for the first $2,001 + $16.80
$2,001 to $25,000
each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to and
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
including $25,000
and including $25,000
$25,001 to
$100 Base fee + $400 for the first $25,001 + $10
$100 Base fee + $480 for the first $25,001 + $12
$50,000
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
and including $50,000
and including $50,000
$50,001 to
$100 Base fee + $650 for the first $50,001 + $7
$100 Base fee + $780 for the first $50,001 + $8.40
$100,000
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
and including $100,000
and including $100,000
$100,001 to
$100 Base fee + $1,000 for the first $100,001 +
$100 Base fee + $1,200 for the first $100,001 +
$500,000
$6 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof
$7.20 for each additional $1,000, or fraction
to and including $500,000
thereof to and including $500,000
$500,001 to
$100 Base fee + $3,400 for the first $500,001 +
$100 Base fee + $4,080 for the first $500,001 + $6
$1,000,000
$5 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof
for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof to
to and including $1,000,000
and including $1,000,000
$1,000,001 and
$100 Base fee + $5,900 for the first $1,000,000 +
$100 Base fee + $7,080 for the first $1,000,000 +
up
$4 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof
$4.80 for each additional $1,000, or fraction
thereof
The Building Valuation Data table shall be updated on January 1 st of each year to the latest version as published by ICC.
**See Valuation Table located on previous page.
TABLE 1 -VALUATION BASED APPLICABLE PERMITS:
Commercial Structures: New, Additions & Remodels Garages & Carports
Residential Structures: New, Additions & Remodels Swimming Pools (In -Ground)
Accessory Structures (Greenhouse/Shed) Cell Communications/ Cellular Facilities
Deck, Stairs, Ramps Other permits types as determined
Commercial: Hot/Tub and Spas, Solar/ Photovoltaic Systems, Re -roofs & Tenant Improvements
Plus: $6.50 Residential State Surcharge Fee per permit and $2 per each dwelling unit
$25.00 Commercial State Surcharge Fee per permit and $2 per each dwelling unit
Packet Pg. 530 1