2022-04-26 City Council - Full Agenda-3151o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
tn.. ISLP REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
APRIL 26, 2022, 7:00 PM
PERSONS WISHING TO JOIN THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY IN LIEU OF IN -PERSON ATTENDANCE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AUDIENCE COMMENTS CAN CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING
ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261
OR COMMENT BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
THOSE COMMENTING 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. WHEN YOUR COMMENTS ARE CONCLUDED, PLEASE LEAVE THE ZOOM MEETING AND
OBSERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE MEETING ON THE COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE.
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL
MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39.
"WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH)
PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE
HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL
CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
3. ROLL CALL
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. Joint Meeting with the Planning Board (30 min)
2. 2021 Prosecutor's Office Annual Report (30 min)
5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT REGARDING ANY MATTER NOT LISTED ON THE
AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO
Edmonds City Council Agenda
April 26, 2022
Page 1
THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE CLEARLY YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2022
2. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
3. Approval of claim checks.
4. Confirm Appointment of Candidate to a Board/Commission
5. Confirm Appointment of Candidate to a Board/Commission
6. Edmonds Public Facilities District Resolution and Financial Info
7. Written Public Comments
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Extension of Interim Public Works Director Appointment (5 min)
2. Award Construction Contract for the 2022 Overlay Program (10 min)
3. 2022 April Budget Amendment (10 min)
4. ARPA Funding Status (30 min)
5. Proposed Ordinance Adding New Chapter, Chapter 5.70 entitled "Unlawful Occupation of Public
Property (30 min)
6. Tree Code Update (30 min)
9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
1. Outside Boards and Committee Reports (0 min)
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
April 26, 2022
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Joint Meeting with the Planning Board
Staff Lead: Alicia Crank
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
The City Council meets periodically with the Planning Board in a joint meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Planning Board will be meeting with the Council in a joint meeting. The Board will provide a brief
update on its activities and future work. Planning Board presentation provided in Attachment 1.
Attachments:
Joint PB CC meeting 4_26_22
Packet Pg. 3
Edmonds City Council
Plann
1
ing
Board 3 int Meet
Tuesday, April 26, 2022
ing
L
0
4
IL
as
04
04
(D
04
(D
IL
AL 0 Amik 0 0
• Who We Are
• Where We Are
• Member
Background
• Individual Priorities
• PB Priorities
• Q&A with City
_ Council
L
MM�
W
4wG
• 7 Planning Board Members�,� \
• 1 Alternate Member
(pending)
• 1 Student Representative
Packet Pg. 6
St clentsto R etirecl
• Alicia - Chief Development Officer for
AtWork!/ Community Event Planner
• Judi - Executive Director for the
Washington Association of Sewer &
Water Districts
• Lily - High School Student
• Matt - Aspiring Squirrel Trainer
• Mike - Retired Marketing Communication
Professional
• Rich - Investment Company Professional
• Roger - Retired Sound Transit
• Todd - Mission Planning Executive
a
Packet Pg. 7
4.1.a
Uptown to The Bow
Our Planning Board
represents various parts of
the Edmonds community
s 11MI AN 0 r�
Stamm
Overlook Park
;P
THE HGWYL
OF EaMONDS -9
Ed rn ors
WInCo Foods
Wood w ay
Richmond
Beach
altwater Park
Iq
Espe2 nce
C C,
Lyn no
Mai
S Te
;Ara Whole
ECHD LAKE
Shoreline
_..i
z
11
aborative
t Is
Individival -
Everyone on the Planning Board
has not only unique skillsets, but
goals they'd like to achieve
based on their own interests
and experiences for the
betterment of our community.
r
M
r
.r *
R
O
m
C
a
C
M
IL
C
N
NI
NI
E
U
U
m
IL
C
c
m
_ E
t
U
M
Packet Pg. 9
a
C. w
s
1, !
e
Persona
Goals
• Housing policy / zoning
• Engagement on long range planning issues
• Code updates on existing codes as well as
updates on emerging issues / proactive vs
reactive
• Meaningful, convenient, equitable and
accessible public engagement
0
an smas
MYS
R
of k N- 11 No or
�� ■
— -7
J22
is
shy
• No -
` r_ — No
_ f
Plm No
' T -
No
"0
ti
J
Packet Pg. 11
a
Our Work Over
the Past Year
Virtual Meetings
Meeting attendance was also more
consistent
Increase of public engagement/comments
Updates
1.Tree Code
2. Residential Occupancy Standards
3.Outdoor Dining Ordinance
Broadened Applicability
of Unit Subdivision
Process
Fun with Plans
1.Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
2.Capital Improvement Prograr
3. Parks, Recreation and Open
(PROS) Plan
Lent Our Voices To
• Proposed Veterans Plaza memorial
sculpture
• City level public engagement
proposal
• Code amendments to multifamily
design standards
S membership and terms in line with
idP Aoki,
a
Extended
Agenda
April - June
}
• Waterfront Study Presentation
• Development Activity Report
• 2024 Comp Plan Update Scoping
• Wireless Code Update Introduction
o Public Hearing
• Equitable Outreach Plan
e
ys• ,
• Waterfront Study Presentation
• Development Activity Report
• 2024 Comp Plan Update Scoping
• Wireless Code Update Introduction
o Public Hearing
• Equitable Outreach Plan
e
ys• ,
c
c
ea
d
all
NI
N
I
01
w+
U
CD
-�
a
Packet Pg. 13
4.1.a
Pending For Future Consideration in 2022
In no particular order
• Implementation /code updates concerning trees and the UFMP
• Climate Action Plan update and public outreach
• Housing policies and implementation (incl Multifamily Design)
• Comprehensive Plan update preparation and gap analysis
• Subdivision code updates
• Community Development Code Amendments / Re -Organization
• Neighborhood Center Plans &implementation (esp. 5 Corners)
• Low impact / stormwater code review and updates
• Sustainable development code(s) review and updates
• Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
o a. Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies
o b. Parking standards
• Parkland Acquisition
• ADA Transition Plan
• CIP/CFP
1
r��
Email: Planning@edmondswa.gov
Lo
(L
otas
04
04
CD
CI4
(D
IL
0
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
2021 Prosecutor's Office Annual Report
Staff Lead: Emily W. for Zachor Thomas, Prosecutor's Office
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: Emily Wagener
Background/History
The City contracts for prosecution services with Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S.. Each year, the prosecutor's
office provides a presentation and an annual report to Council.
Staff Recommendation
None.
Narrative
Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. is providing a presentation along with a report for 2021 services. The 2021
report is attached.
Attachments:
Edmonds Report of the Prosecutor 2021
Packet Pg. 16
4.2.a
Attorneys at Law:
Zachor & ThomasInc. P.S.
> >
City of Arlington
James M. Zachor
City of Edmonds
Yelena I. Stock
Chad W. Krepps
City of Lake Stevens
Jeffrey D. Leeper
Prosecuting Attorneys
Hana Lee
City of Lynnwood
Carolyn L. Miller
The Sunset Building
City of Mill Creek
Winston U. Choe
23607 Highway 99, Suite 11)
City of Monroe
Legal Assistants:
Edmonds, WA 98026
City of Mukilteo
Erin M. Ortega
Tel. 425.778.2429
City of Oak Harbor
Alisa Das
FAX 425.778.6925
Alena C. Stock
City of Sultan
Town of Woodway
TO: The Edmonds City Council
RE: 2021 Report of the City of Edmonds Prosecuting Attorney
Date: April 21, 2022
Introduction
Zachor, Stock & Krepps, Inc., P.S. (aka ZSK) formed in October 2021. The principals of
the firm are James M. Zachor, Yelena I. Stock and Chad W. Krepps. The current principals and
employees are all previous employees of the law firm of Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. Zachor &
Thomas, Inc., P.S. held the prosecution services contract for the City of Edmonds from 2003 until
2021.
Personnel
ZSK currently employs seven (7) attorneys, one (1) full time legal assistant and two (2)
part-time legal assistants. In 2021, of those seven attorneys, two (2) attorneys were assigned full
time and one (1) part time to the prosecution of City of Edmonds cases. Beginning in 2022, ZSK
will have three (3) full time attorneys dedicated to the prosecution of Edmonds cases and a fourth
part-time who will handle appeals, extreme risk protection orders, charging reviews and drug,
felony and firearm civil forfeitures. Those attorneys are:
Yelena I. Stock
Ms. Stock is a principal/shareholder and vice president of ZSK. She is a first generation
Honduran American and first child in her family born in the United States after her parents
immigrated to the United States in the in the mid- 1970s. Ms. Stock is also a United States Navy
Veteran having served as a gunnersmate for five years in active duty and two years as a
torpedosmate in the Navy Reserves. Ms. Stock has been an attorney since May 2009. She began
her career at Zachor at Thomas in 2009. In 2014, she left Zachor and Thomas for the City of
Seattle prosecutor's office. There she quickly excelled and became one of the City of Seattle's top
trial attorneys, with a special emphasis on prosecuting crimes of domestic violence. During her
tenure there, she also gained experience and knowledge, handling cases in many of the various
Packet Pg. 17
4.2.a
therapeutic court programs offered by the City of Seattle. In June of 2019, she came home to
Zachor and Thomas and brought with her knowledge and experience in prosecuting DV cases, but
also her knowledge and experience with therapeutic courts. Ms. Stock the supervising attorneys
and handles the bulk of all City of Edmonds criminal matters from arraignment to jury trial and
motions. Ms. Stock also handles legal updates and training for the Edmonds Police Department.
Winston U. Choe
Mr. Choe is a first generation Korean American and among the first of his siblings born in
the United States. Mr. Choe is also the first in his family to graduate from college. He has been a
practicing attorney for almost 6 years after having passed the bar in October of 2015. Mr. Choe
believes justice is about fairness and keeping the community safe. To that effect, he has dedicated
nearly half of his life to both public service and advancement of non-profit organizations. This
includes teaching youth group students at his local church and volunteering at the Korean
Community Service Center (partnered with KCBA) in Edmonds providing legal advice to
underprivileged families regarding criminal and other legal issues.
Winston also has a diverse background of professional experiences, having worked for the a`
Honorable Jack Nevin, of Pierce County Superior Court, as a judicial extern, as well as externing N
for the King County Prosecuting Attorney Office (KCPAO), Homicide Division. He also came to
ZSK/Z&T as a former defense attorney, now becoming a prosecutor to serve his community as an N
advocate for victims of crime. Mr. Choe has primarily been prosecutor for the City of Edmonds N
L
for the last year. r
Hana Lee
Hana is originally from South Korea. She graduated from the St. John's University, New
York in 2010 with a degree in Hospitality Management. She graduated from Seattle University
with her Juris Doctorate in May of 2017. She passed the bar in September of 2017 and was
admitted to the Washington State Bar in November of 2017. While working at a hotel in New York
City, she has witnessed the disadvantages and prejudices guests endured because they did not
speak English well enough to advocate for themselves. These experiences led to her decision to
pursue a career as a prosecuting attorney. She has been with ZSK/Z&T since August of 2018 as
an Associate Attorney after being admitted to the bar. She was also actively engaged in the MAP
(Mental Health Alternatives Program) in Marysville Municipal court. She is currently serving the
cities of Lynnwood, Sultan, Lake Stevens, and Arlington.
James M. Zachor
Mr. Zachor has been an attorney since October 2009. He is a principal/shareholder and
president of ZSK. His primary responsibilities are defending the City of Edmonds on RALJ
appeals, extreme risk protection orders, and representing the police department in drug, felony and
firearm forfeitures. He also handles the out -of -court administrative functions required by the court.
Packet Pg. 18
4.2.a
Mr. Zachor is also active in assisting Ms. Stock in preparing the legal updates and trainings for the
police department. He is the primary point of contact for police officers needing review of
search/arrest warrants or with charging/arrest questions and is "on -call" 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. Mr. Zachor is responsible for all charging review cases.
Courts and the COVID-19 Pandemic
The calendar year 2021, like 2020 was a unique time for not just court operations but the
world. In 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic continued to cripple the world with new variants
appearing every few months. However, like in 2020, Edmonds Municipal Court was a leader in
preserving the fabric of the criminal justice system and preserving through uncertain times. The
court remained open and accessible to both defendants and the public.
Case Filing Comparison
Below is a chart comparison for the years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 for criminal
and civil case filings. Several significant changes in the law and policy, both statewide and locally,
had a significant effect on the criminal case filings. Cases such as Pierce v DOL, reduced the
number of DWLS 3 filing by reinstating driver's licenses across the state where the suspension
was based on failing to pay traffic tickets. Other cases such as State v Blake (and subsequent N
legislation) not only required that cases be diverted in favor of treatment and services prior to the
filing of criminal charges, but also decriminalized many "personal use" items of drug N
paraphernalia. o
Traffic
Infractions
Non-
Traffic
Infractions
DUI/Physical
Control
Other
Criminal
Traffic
Criminal
Non-
traffic
Total
Total
Criminal
Filings
2017
3825
53
90
331
502
4801
923
2018
4547
29
144
328
466
5514
938
2019
2804
38
135
343
507
3827
985
20
1 32
1 105
1 183
1 512
1 2651
800
2021
2,212
1 20
1 65
1 72
318
1 2687
455
DWLS 3: Council Resolution, Diversion/Relicensing Program Update
Discussions and implementation of the DWLS 3 diversion program has slowed waiting to
see the full effect of the Pierce v DOL court decision and ESSB 5226 (which goes into effect
January 2023). The prosecutor's office has not been requested to appear at any meetings regarding
the DWLS 3 diversion program since November of 2021.
Packet Pg. 19
4.2.a
Jury/Bench Trials
In 2021, the Edmonds Municipal Court had 171 cases set for trial. Of those 171 cases set
for trial, 4 cases ended up at jury trial. Two jury trials resulted in not guilty findings (DUI and
Assault 4 DV), one was dismissed on a half-time motion for lack of jurisdiction, and one resulted
in a guilty finding but the jury finding was overturned by Judge Rivera. In 2021, the Edmonds
Municipal Court had 1 case set for bench trial and ended up at bench trial. That case was a 3-day
bench trial on a stalking -DV and stalking (non DV) case.
Appeals
Appeals are the result of either the defendant or prosecutor appealing a decision either from
a judge or jury that they believe is against the rule of law. Most often, appeals are a result of a
defendant being found guilty after a jury trial. In Washington, defendants have what is called a
direct appeal or appeal as a matter of right, meaning the defendant has a right to appeal the finding y
L
of guilty to a higher court. Appeals from jury trials often take several months to a year to process
for transcriptions, reviewing, brief writing, and oral arguments before the court are conducted. N
Currently, there is only one City of Edmonds case pending appeal. That appeal was from a three- a
day bench trial on a case that involved charges of stalking —domestic violence and stalking non- N
domestic violence. The transcript is 444 pages long and had over 60 exhibits offered and admitted
at trial.
Body Worn Camera Pilot Program
Currently, the Edmonds Police Department is conducting a pilot program concerning the
use, effectiveness and cost of police officer worn body cameras. ZSK is working with the
Edmonds Police Department to find an effective and streamlined way to process the massive
amounts of data that the program is creating. The pilot phase has revealed that it takes large
amounts of resources and time to process the evidence. We anticipate this to exponentially
increase upon full BWV implementation. Currently, it takes several hours to download the files,
which causes computer/data congestion and delay in discovery and review. Additionally, all our
clients who use Axon currently are working with our office to categorized us as a partner agency.
This will allow for easier access, viewing, and an efficient discovery process.
Review of Old and Outstanding Bench Warrants (State v. Gelinas bench warrant)
In collaboration with the public defender's office, the parties worked to review a significant
number of old (and some newer) bench warrants. This review took several months to complete,
but in the end 300+ bench warrants were reviewed. Many older cases 5+ years old were dismissed
or closed as a result of this project.
Packet Pg. 20
4.2.a
Prospects for 2022
Communi Court — Edmonds Municipal Court has restarted its community court under the same
terms as pre-COVID court.
Blake Diversions and misdemeanor VUCSA prosecution — Since the change in laws in July of
2021 requiring 2 diversions of criminal VUCSA charges, there are many individuals who will soon
qualify for review of criminal charges. Our office has received its first review of these cases and
we anticipate this year to receive many more.
Notable Cases
In 2021, the prosecutor's office had several notable cases.
Two Successful prosecutions of Extreme Risk Protection Orders. An Extreme Risk Protection p
Order (ERPO) is a civil protection order that prohibits the possession, control or purchasing of a c
firearm. In 2017, Mr. Zachor was the first prosecutor in Snohomish County to obtain and ERPO
against a suicidal individual intending to harm himself with a firearm. Mr. Zachor was able to put c
that experience to use and was able to successfully argue for and obtain two Extreme Risk a`
Protection Orders that now prohibit two dangerously ill individuals from obtaining firearms, both o
of which presented a significant danger to the Edmonds community and its citizens. `=
Stalking DV and Stalking_(Non DV) bench trial. The City successfully had a guilty finding for
Stalking DV at Bench Trial. This was a private counsel case where the City was represented by
Ms. Stock and Ms. Lee. This case was a very scary Stalking DV case that had two victims. This case
was a 400-page police report, 2 search warrants, across Snohomish and King County, 21 witnesses (8 of
which testified), and 67 Exhibits (50+ were admitted as evidence). There were 11 Edmonds Police Officers
that were involved in the investigation and 5 of them testified. The Bench Trial took 3 days. During which
time the officers were flexible enough to have a 3.5 and a 3.6 hearing right in the middle of trial. This
case is currently on appeal in the Snohomish County Superior Court and the trial transcript consists
of 444 pages.
Domestic Violence Coordinator, Ms. Jill Schick, was an invaluable asset to the successful
prosecution of this case. During the 2 years this case was pending (due, in part, to referral and
decline from Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office, competency evaluation delays, mental health
assessments, and case investigation). Ms. Schick kept the victims on board, informed, and gave
support to them the entire time pending and during post -conviction until her departure from the
department.
Domestic Violence Prosecution
Domestic Violence prosecution took a substantial hit with the loss of a vital person in the
process. Jill Schick, the City's Domestic Violence Coordinator retired at the end of 2021. Ms.
Schick was the voice of Domestic Violence victims in Edmonds. It was through her that the wants
Packet Pg. 21
4.2.a
desires and needs of those victims were heard by not only the prosecutor's office, but also the court
and those perpetrating the abuse. It was more than a job to Ms. Schick; it was her passion. She
reviewed every DV case whether criminal charges were filed or not. She viewed every case as
uniquely different. She contacted all victims in charged cases and remained in contact with them
every step of the way. She also reached out to the appropriate parties on DV case where criminal
charges were not filed. She reached out and helped create safety plans and assisted victims with
obtaining resources.
With her retirement, the City lost the most important person in the successful prosecution of DV
cases. She was an unsung hero in the daily fight against the horrors of Domestic Violence.
Without her dedication, passion, compassion, care and attention to the needs of DV victims in
Edmonds, many would still be subject to the abuse of a loved one.
Currently, the City has not filled her position. Every day that goes by without someone like Jill
Schick, a domestic violence victim suffers. Every day that goes by with that position vacant results
in the prosecution of DV cases being that much more difficult. Every day that goes by without
someone to take on that role continues to significantly alter the cost of prosecution. A prosecutor
can only do so much for victims of domestic violence, but with a DV coordinator supporting a DV
victim, the hope can be restored and voices better heard.
The City needs to make filling this position a priority. If it chooses not to, this office will file a
request for an increase in the contract amount to that this office can contract with someone to fill
that need as it substantially alters the needs, expectations, and conditions of the contract.
Loss of Officer Tyler Steffins
Our office extends our deepest condolences to his loved ones. He has left a void in the Edmonds
family, and he will be greatly missed, especially by the police department and our office. We
thank him for his service to this community.
Res lly submitted this 21th day of April 2022
James M. Zachor
WSBA 41688
Zachor, Stock & Krepps, Inc., P.S.
N
O
N
Packet Pg. 22
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2022
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
04-19-2022 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 23
7.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
April 19, 2022
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Vivian Olson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr.
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5t1i Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Tibbott read the City Council Land Acknowledge 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.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT UPDATE
Katie Curtis, Director, Prevention Services, presented Working Together for a Healthy and thriving
Edmonds:
• Community Data and Trends
o Strategic Goal: Build a More Sustainable Organization
■ Balanced budget due to legislature's investment in foundational public health services
■ Building for the Future
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 1
Packet Pg. 24
7.1.a
as nndngelnar.
03 open & honed
R0900n9141e u9e n unlcaban
of resaurrea mm�
li
05 0""tp,R
R. a fcnm
prlven 4 by di—Ity. cq,EtyyI ',
&fnclu5lon
o Strategic Goal: Reduce the rate of communicable diseases and other notifiable conditions
■ Countywide trends for 2021 vs 2020
- Chlamydia
- Gonorrhea H
- Hepatitis B & C 1
- HIV (new cases) H
— Pertussis 1
- Syphilis T
- Tuberculosis H
■ COVID-19: Looking Ahead
- Focused on preserving hospital capacity
- Preparing for vaccines become available for younger children
- Recent lifting of masking requirements in most settings
■ Treating or Reducing Chronic Disease and Injuries
Opioid-Related Deaths by type
Snohomish County, 2006.2021*
r2020 & 2024 daW are preliminary as of 2r24/22)
me
me
W1
10n
sc
0
2M6
2D07 20D8 2oD9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2D16 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
All Drugs Heroin Rx Opieids Synthetic Opioids —All Opioids
Source: Washinc"n SUe Depaftmeflt of Heahh
■ Countywide trends for 2021 vs. 2020
- Drug Overdoses H
- Youth Suicides J
■ Adult Fatality Reviews - SHB 1074
- Define case: fatality or near -fatality, causes and manner of death
- Assemble cases review team
- Identify data collection tool to guide case review
- Review available data
- Develop recommendations for prevention programs or policies
o Strategic Goal: Provide High Quality Environmental Health Services
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 2
Packet Pg. 25
7.1.a
■ Edmonds Trends for 2021
- 235 Annual Food Permits
- 346 Food Inspections
- 23 Food Complaints
- 66 Year-round and 46 Seasonal Pool Inspections
- 4 Septic Complaints
- 8 Solid Waste Complaints
Environmental Health
- New resources coming online due to new state funds
- Working on an initiative to digitize our paper records
- Food safety code revision took effect March 1 st
- School safety inspections in progress
- Solid waste complaints on nuisance
- Front counter is fully open
o Strategic Goal: Improve Maternal, Child & Family Health Outcomes
■ Outreach & Education Activities - 2021
- 330 Families Provided w/ Access to Baby & Child Dentistry Info
- 600+ Child Care Consultations
- 1,192 Children w/ Special Health Care Needs Services Performed
- 3,635 STARS Courses Completed
- 3,891 People & Providers Reached w/ Oral Health Outreach
o Strategic Goal: Address Ongoing, Critical Public Health Issues
■ Updating the Community Health Assessment
Ways to Get Involved
ARCS FOR HEALTHY RIDS
�y
�� Annual
Well -Child Visits
ABCs FOR HEALTHY KIDS
Brush and
Floss Daily
Daily
(kjL __
DGNHHIAOAC111401SAT
www.si"d.org/activrdes
DATE
TOPIC
Jan 3
A
Annual Well Child Checks
Jan 17
B
Brush & Floss Daily
Jan 31
C
Covid & Flu Vaccines
Feb 14
D
Drink More Water
Feb 28
E
Eat Fruits and Vegetables
Mar 14
F
Focus on Physical & Mental Health
Mar 28
G
Get Babies to Sleep Safely
Apr 11
H
Have a Plan
Apr 25
1
Inspect Living Spaces
May 9
J
Just Breathe
May 23
K
Keep Things Locked Up
Jun 6
L
Learn to Swim
Jun 20
M
Move Your Body
• For more information, please contact:
o Katie Curtis
Prevention Services Director
425.339.8711
KCurtis@snohd.org
o Shawn Frederick, MBA
Administrative Officer
425.339.8687
SFrederick@snohd.org
DATE
TOPIC
Jul
N
No Sunburns Allowed
Jul 18
O
Open to New Things
Aug 1
P
Prepare for Takeoff
Aug 15
Q
Questions are Healthy
Aug 29
R
Ready for School
Sep 12
S
Social Media Smart
Sep 26
1 T
I Tough Conversations
Oct 10
U
Under Pressure
Oct 24
V
Vaccinate
Nov 7
W
Wash Your Hands
Nov 21
X
X-Ray Vision
Dec 5
Y
You Are Important
Dec 20
Z
Zzzzz - Healthy Sleep Habits
Councilmember Tibbott commented he has the privilege of serving on the Snohomish Health Board.
Observing that more funding is available for the Snohomish Health Board, he asked about incremental
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 3
Packet Pg. 26
7.1.a
increases in the Health District's budget in the coming years. Ms. Curtis answered with the foundational
public health funding, the District was awarded funding in each biennium including a couple million this
year which will increase through 2025. The focus is on communicable disease, vaccines, epidemiology
and in 2023-2025, some of the money is focused on maternal and child health programs. The District is
particularly happy to receive those funds because there has not been dedicated funding in the past that
focused on parents and babies programs and it will be a good way for the District to begin growing in that
area.
Councilmember Tibbott said he knew the District would use the funds wisely for programs that have been
neglected in recent years. He asked about the percentage increase going back to 2018/2019. Ms. Curtis
said she has been with the District since 2007 as it collapsed programs; she anticipated it was at least a
100-150% increase in funding. It is a substantial amount of money that allows the District to make gains
as well as thank cities for propping up the District and to advise that funding from cities is no longer
needed due to the dedicated funding. Councilmember Tibbott summarized it was very encouraging to
have a dedicated source of funding for these important programs.
With the current rise in COVID cases and this being the new norm, Councilmember L. Johnson asked
what guidance or recommendations the District has for dining out in addition to being fully vaccinated
and specifically for those who are too young to be vaccinated or who are immunocompromised. Ms.
Curtis commented there are some great restaurants in Edmonds and sometimes it is not feasible to have an
outdoor option. The best advice is for people who are not feeling well, even if it just a little sore throat or
runny nose, to stay home. COVID is sneaking up on people and they may think it is just seasonable
allergies or a mild cold. Short of opening all the doors and windows and running fans and filters, it is just
the way buildings have been built. She encouraged people who were not feeling well to stay home.
Councilmember L. Johnson summarized anything that can be done to increase airflow and ventilation
would be a positive. Ms. Curtis agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed there has been a huge issue with fentanyl overdoses nationwide; a
recent Seattle Times article described what is happening in communities and high schools. She asked if
the District had information regarding Snohomish County, recognizing it is a very serious issue because it
takes only a little fentanyl to overdose. Ms. Curtis answered the multi -agency coordination (MAC) group
is focused on opioids and fentanyl. The District is always seeking grants to continue and to build on their
work. The District received a HRSA grant focused in the Darrington/Sky Valley area and just applied for
a grant through SAMHSA to assist with that work. The District is always looking for more funding and
partners because it is a huge problem.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed one of the youth commissioner brought up the idea of Narcan training
to prevent overdoses. She asked if that training was available for high schools. Ms. Curtis said there is
Health District staff able to train on the use of Narcan; the District recently purchased Naloxone. She
offered to follow up with Councilmember Buckshnis after the meeting regarding that training.
Councilmember Buckshnis offered to connect her with the appropriate administrative person.
Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. Curtis for the great work she and the team at the Health District do to
keep everyone safe. He was interested and impressed by the decrease in youth suicides in recent years and
asked if she had any insight into what had been done right or the reason for that success so that trend
could continue. Ms. Curtis said she got that same question when presenting to the Lynnwood City
Council yesterday and staff is following up on it. The District has a lot of partnerships and has done a lot
of outreach and education in the community; she offered to follow up with him regarding the specifics
following the meeting.
2. 2021 PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE ANNUAL REPORT
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 4
Packet Pg. 27
7.1.a
Kathleen Kyle, Executive Director, Snohomish County Public Defender Association, explained the
Association is a 48-year old non-profit organization in Snohomish County providing public defender
services and specific to Edmonds, for adult misdemeanor cases in Edmonds Municipal Court. She
reviewed:
• Why right to counsel so important
o "Of all the rights that an accused person has, the right to be represented by counsel is by far
the most pervasive for it affects his ability to assert any other rights he may have." United
States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 654 (1984)
• Why funding public defense is important
o Required by law
o Required by a just society
o Work to ensure the most vulnerable are treated with consideration
o Mission to provide the highest quality of representation to people facing loss of liberty
• 2022 and 2023 Budget Proposals
o Cost Drivers
■ Increased staffing & overhead costs
■ Difficult to forecast workload trends due to COVID Emergency
■ orders and impacts to enforcement priorities due
■ Opposing trends:
- Increased number of pending cases
- Decreased number of incoming referrals
- Increased need for community support
- Decreased availability of community services
0 2021 $31,764.56/month
0 2022 $33,545/month
0 2023 $36,290/month
Photo of 2021 Defenders and 2022 Edmonds Team
• Review insights
o Cases Assigned by Year
■ 2017: 621
■ 2018: 634
■ 2019: 669
■ 2020: 557
■ 2021: 483
o Comparing 2020 to 2021 Case Assignments
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2020
144
85
173
155
2021
155
130
103
106
o Comparing Top 3 Case Types in 2021 to 2020
Theft
Assault
DUI
2021
124
73
44
2020
114
65
57
o 2021 Investigation and Social Worker Requests
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Investigation
49
80
22
23
Social Work
3
24
10
12
o Reduced DWLS 3 Prosecutions year-to-year comparison
■ 2019: 165
■ 2020: 94
■ 2021: 19
0 2022 Open Assignments by attorney
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 5
Packet Pg. 28
7.1.a
■ Open caseload: 124
■ Open caseload: 151
■ Open caseload: 159
OTHER WORKLOAD MEASURES
Increased 51 Dismissals
Discovery interpreter
LL Requests 'A'
o Education/Training
■ 22 continuing legal education classes
■ 24 SCPDA coffee breaks
■ 19 antiracism training sessions
Current challenges
o Increase in volume and types of discovery
o Impact to workload
■ The law office assistants who receive and log each item.
■ The law office assistants who redact discovery for clients to review.
■ IT who builds and maintains the servers and database systems where documents are
stored.
■ Legal assistants who assist in organizing discovery in preparation for trials and
sentencings.
■ Attorneys, investigators, and social workers who have to review it.
o State v. Blake - Simple drug possession laws are unconstitutional
■ Photo of Blake re -sentencing and vacate team
■ Scan and SCPDA will assist with vacating prior drug conviction
o Coordinate multiple systems
■ Mitigate impact to vulnerable people & public and private investment when systems
intersect:
- Courts
- Service Organizations
- Medical and Behavioral Health Services
- Churches
- YWCA
- Job Support Organizations
- Food Banks
- Housing Programs
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 6
Packet Pg. 29
7.1.a
- Other public programs
Community Involvement
o Snohomish County Human Services — Trueblood Housing Vouchers
o Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County
o Snohomish County Juvenile Court Cultural Advisory Committee
o Snohomish County Corrections Citizen Advisory Committee
o Washington State Bar Association, Council on Public Defense
o Washington State Sex Offender Policy Board, subcommittee members
o Washington Defender Association
o Washington Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys
o Washington State Bar Association Character and Fitness Board
o Teach in programs at UW School of Law and Edmonds College
o Public defenders volunteer at:
■ Cocoon House, board member
■ Snohomish County Legal Services, board member
■ Washington Innocence Project, board member
■ Puget Sound Prisoner Support
■ Washington State Sex Offender Treatment Provider Committee
■ American Academy of Trial Lawyers Fellow — Natalie Tarantino
■ Guest lecturers at University of Washington, Seattle University, and Edmonds
Community College
Jackson High School Mock Trial Coaches
Councilmember Paine asked if recent legislative changes will have any impact on SCPDA's workload,
noting Edmonds' Police Department will be adding body cameras. She asked if Ms. Kyle could forecast
things for the betterment of the entire criminal justice system. Ms. Kyle answered the interesting thing
about looking at historical public defender data is that it is not predictive of future work trends; the forces
that control the tap are not based on history. She did not anticipate any change as a result of the legislative
changes although she has been wrong in the past. For example, she was the director in 2020 who allowed
two work for home days and then the pandemic hit and staff is all hybrid all the time and has made that
switch. With regard to the legislative changes regarding law enforcement reform and use of force, she did
not know if that impacted Edmonds, whether Edmonds Police Department changed their protocols based
on that. She was unsure it would be more back to business as usual because HB 1310 had been amended
to answer some of law enforcement's concerns.
Ms. Kyle continued, the legislature is asking them to get creative with what were formerly thought of as
street crimes, drug use, homelessness, etc. Edmonds is trying some experiments such as community court
which has resulted in some successes; people who have struggled for a long time and in looking at what
had been tried before, success would not have been predicted, yet in 2022, they are finding sobriety and
are in recovery and recovery can happen any day. She encouraged remaining curious and describe what is
seen and not be quick to a conclusion about why. Their biggest concern is the lack of community
resources including the mental health component. There are no providers taking new patients who are low
income and those people absolutely end up as people that they see. The more creative that prevention
measures can be and not use the criminal justice system for these behaviors, the better; viewing it as a
systemic thing and not an individual thing. She compared it to lead paint in the 1970s and the food chain
and obesity, systemic issues.
Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. Kyle for the great work the public defenders do. He recognized some
populations need this service more than others and he appreciated the SCPDA providing that service. He
noted cases assigned by year were trending down but the budget was trending up and asked about less
work more cost. Ms. Kyle said if they got to that threshold, yes. They are watching it, including meeting
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 7
Packet Pg. 30
7.1.a
with the auditor the City's hired to review those numbers. It is not as simple as looking at the incoming
number of cases, it is also the things being juggled and the ones in the system appearing for probation. If
that trend continues, SCPDA will reduce staffing in Edmonds and reduce public defender costs.
Councilmember L. Johnson said two things stood out to her including Ms. Kyle's comment about the
most vulnerable may have the worst outcome and not using the criminal justice system for systemic
issues. When talking about poverty and specifically those who are unhoused and everything that comes
with that, she asked what is the best way to address that. Some people are very uncomfortable with seeing
people who are unhoused and want it addressed in a certain way. Ms. Kyle said housing is the key; if the
intent is housing the unhoused, they need a home to go to, but that requires being creative as it is not a
one size fits all. For example, someone who is unhoused because they are autistic and no longer have
family support, need a different housing option than a shelter with ambient noise that may dysregulate an
autistic person but would be good for a person who just needs recovery as being in a community can be a
positive for people in recovery. It is important to see people as individuals and recognize their strengths.
Generalizations are used as a way to wrap our head around things, but these are human beings who are
complex and have the possibility of success.
Ms. Kyle continued, one of the hardest parts of working with unhoused populations is many of them have
lost hope. As one thinks of a chronically unhoused person or someone who doesn't want help, it is
because they have been harmed previously and are taking survival protective action and maybe the
behaviors that people don't like to see is just that trauma showing up and they need to be asked about
their path. There are 41 navigation teams in Snohomish County; there needs to be housing to navigate
them to. Creating opportunities through education is important; Edmonds College has some great low
barrier programs to help with basics such as how to sign up for medical insurance, how to get into
college, etc. Every year of education is likely a protective action and the less likely a person will be her
client and more likely they will be out in the community earning a living and supporting themselves. The
City is trying to be creative such as establishing the community court and a court calendar for people to
get relicensed and consider their ability to pay. The highest crime they see referred is Theft III; getting
creative around diversion programs for simple thefts is important. The stereotypical way of thinking is
that if people are punished, they will stop the behavior. However, as public defenders they see that
punishment does not change behavior, relationships change behavior and their needs to be investment in
those relationships.
Mayor Nelson thanked Ms. Kyle for sharing their social worker with the City's homelessness taskforce
earlier this year.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION AS
ITEM 8.1 AND TO RENUMBER THE REMAINING COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEMS. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for in -person audience comments.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 31
7.1.a
Christi Flynn, Edmonds, representing her husband and her neighbors the McLaughlin, spoke about
Perrinville Creek, fish, City structures and their properties. Their properties, west of Talbot Road at the
end of Perrinville Creek before it goes beneath the railroad tracks, have been significantly impacted by
the creek in the last two years. Exhibit A in her handout is an overview map from a report the City did in
2010 studying similar issues. Increased heavy rain events and resulting stormwater runoff create
damaging high water flows in the creek when coupled with the undersized and/or improperly maintained
City structures, culverts and crossings. Tons of sediment, large rocks and wood debris are flushed
downstream choking out potential salmon habitat and damaging properties. For the last 18 months, they
have been working with the Edmonds public works department to find a long term solution to the
flooding, fish habitat and property destruction. They seek a collaborative and cooperative process with all
the stakeholders involved.
Ms. Flynn continued, they strongly believe any plan for the creek must include the following, 1) they
basically agreed to a concept shown or known as option/alignment C in the handout in 2021. However,
details such as making it more natural looking, more sinuous, possibly backup bypass issues and
maintenance issues may need to be worked out. 2) a mitigation plan or diversion plan for the huge volume
of water and sediment that flows through the creek during heavy rainfall events. Former Public Works
Director Phil Williams informed them that 73% of the water in the creek originates in Lynnwood. During
heavy rain events, rushing waters erode the banks in South County Park sending tons of sand and rock
through the creek which end up damming and blocking the City's structures in the creek and ruining any
hope of salmon habitat. 3) a substantially improved culvert or crossing under the railroad tracks. 4)
replace and lower the culvert under Talbot Road. The current configuration is a barrier to high flows
downstream and any fish migration upstream. As property owners, they want to work with the City and
all stakeholders in a common-sense approach. It is does not make sense to carve out a new, temporary
creek bed through their properties. She submitted written materials
Chris Walton, Edmonds, referenced the project at Main Street & 6t'', and said consideration needs to be
given to where the town wants to be in 10-20 years and have a vision for that. He was concerned because
developers and real estate development organizations throughout the region are changing the town fast
and not necessarily in a great way. They have a lot of money and can influence people who make
decisions; the only thing that can be done to slow the negative effects of developers is to have very good
codes, a vision, and a good architectural review board that keeps them from using the maximization of
profits as the only goal. He was not anti -business, but the reality is maximizing profits results in pushing
the limits of codes as far as possible. He felt Main Street was a good example of where the City is not
headed in the next 10-20 years, where there will be an immensely dense downtown with a lot of people in
condos, very limited businesses with only high end restaurants and wine bars, and pushing out the type of
businesses that are needed in Edmonds. He urged the council to create a solid vision and communicate
that vision to the engineering groups creating the codes to preserve the quality of Edmonds going
forward.
Lynda Fireman, Edmonds, commented Edmonds is a small town with historic roots. It is a suburb and
not Seattle which is why people are drawn to live and visit. The business core is very small and now BD2
is not required to have a commercial first floor. She cited a comment from the developer that the high
density of the proposed project is seen as a guide for further development allowed and encouraged by the
comprehensive plan. She asked if there was a secret plan to change the zoning and increase density for
RM 1.5 on this square blook and for the rest of Edmonds. After reading through all the ordinances and
council meetings, there is never enough time set aside to have a clear and transparent City plan to align
the wishes of the residents with the need to increase the density for revenue. Everything is pushed through
without attention to detail or consideration of the ramifications on surrounding properties. She questioned
why these three lots downtown were mixed commercial if the intent was always to allow multifamily
building. Ordinance 3955 clearly states permitted residential uses for downtown mixed commercial are
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 9
Packet Pg. 32
7.1.a
single family dwelling and multiple dwelling units but they have to be located on the second floor behind
the first 45 feet from the sidewalks. Staff has said that was not the intent of the ordinance, it was different
than what was written further on, apparently an interpretation. As she understood it from a legal
perspective, intent is not the law. Clarifying it now after the fact when this is a current development issue
cannot be legal, there is too much doublespeak. Citizens deserve clarity and to know the true intent of the
mayor's intention and his direction to staff.
Ms. Fireman asked that the emergency ordinance be extended so that design standards can be properly
addressed. She was not asking for the ordinance to be extended for a maximum of six months and not to
have the developer and his architect involved as it is a conflict of interest. If it takes a year or more, so be
it; the city council has the power to have it done right once and for all. Interim and future design features
should require the scale be addressed; scale is the relationship of a building in terms of size, height, bulk,
density and aesthetics to its surroundings. A building scale is contextual in nature and is a key factor in
determining how well it blends in with the neighborhood. The comprehensive plan says stereotype, boxy,
multiple unit residential buildings are to be avoided and it's essential that commercial developments
continue to harmonize and enhance the residential small town character that the citizens of Edmonds so
strongly desire to retain. She questioned what else was waiting in the pipeline that would use these
interim design standards before the design standards and comprehensive plan is looked at again and how
long will that take and whether it would be after all the 25 identified parcels had been developed. She
gestured toward a wall in council chambers, stating it likely was not even 25 feet high; looking across
from her condo, the wall will be 40 feet high and she will not be any further away from it than the chairs.
Greg Brewer, Edmonds, said an important decision is about to be made concerning permittable uses in
BD2 mixed commercial zone. If 100% residential is allowed to be built there, the ability to protect and
grow diversity and equity in that important zone is at stake. Losing ground floor commercial will have
devastating effects on the ability of businesses to grown and thrive in a zone set aside for them by the
predecessors. Ground floor commercial must be protected. The City is changing rapidly as more
restaurants and services fill the downtown core extending up Main Street to the BD2 zone. With the new
construction of the Commons on the corner and Civic Park nearby, the intersection at 6t' & Main will
soon have an even greater prominence for the downtown. It is indeed the eastern gateway to the
downtown business district. As he read through the memorandum that City planners and city attorney put
together to justify 100% residential, he saw more evidence toward keeping ground floor commercial in
the BD2 zone. Both sides of Main Street east of 6t' currently have businesses with 9 on the north side and
at least 2 on the south side, an extension of the business corridor. Eliminating commercial on the north
side will permanently destroy this corridor.
Mr. Brewer referred to page 11, paragraph 1 of the memorandum which states, in the core area the intent
was to avoid extending the designated street front along areas where there are significant residential uses.
There are few residential uses near this intersection. Conversely, designated street fronts should be
reserved for areas where there are businesses on both sides of the street. It makes perfect sense to extend
the line east on Main and include this part of the BD2 zone. There are a couple areas of town where this
extension could help clarify the code and eliminate the need to rewrite spot zoning for BD2 areas left
behind. Regarding the blue line identifying the designated street front, on page 12 it states council has the
legislative discretion to alter the designated street front map if it sees fit to do so. Recognizing it as a no
brainer; he asked the council to extend the line and save the eastern gateway to the downtown core for
business on the ground floor. Businesses are already across the street and it is by far the easiest way to
clean up the confusion.
Jenna Jotika Nand, Edmonds, spoke regarding a troubling trend of underage prostitution along the
Highway 99 corridor, specifically being facilitated by bikini barista shops. She interviewed multiple
young women who claim they are of age but look to be between 12 and 14 years old. These young
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 10
Packet Pg. 33
7.1.a
women are heavily tattooed and are often functionally illiterate. This is a scrouge in the community where
she grew up and was a girl scout, not a place where girls are supposed to be selling sex in barista shops
claiming they are 18 years old when they have clearly not even gone through puberty. This is a very
sensitive topic that has to be approached in a way that the young girls do feel they are being criminalized
but to target the pimps. She would like the City to make an effort to review business licenses and L&I
compliance with all of these underage prostitution joints that are springing up on Highway 99, specifically
in the Edmonds section of Highway 99, but it is a problem from Everett to Seattle. She was shocked to
see one of these prostitution joints spring up in Edmonds.
Robert Stivers, Edmonds, said he loves living in Edmonds has been here for nearly a half century.
Downtown is like one of Rick Steves' precious backdoors to Europe but in the USA and its history goes
back to the 19t' century. A visitor once compared it to Main Street in Disneyland, only more real. It is his
go -to place for shopping and services; he loves stopping at Teri's Toybox to see the latest models of
exotic animals, seeing what David Varnau and Andy Eccleshall have created, the wonders of geology in
the Wishing Stone, buying a gift card for his wife at Sound Styles, and getting train tickets at the Amtrak
station, all essentially public spaces, one of the reasons why cities exist. Edmonds has a pedestrian scale
vibrant downtown and public spaces like parks and playing fields. The City needs more public spaces as
the population increases especially downtown; it does not make sense to increase one without increasing
the other. The proposed development flies in the face of this; it is the beginning of the alteration of
downtown Edmonds culture. He urged the council not to erode space dedicated to public uses or erode
downtown Edmonds with increased population without also providing this type of space. He also did not
want to walk under private balconies having lived in New York City too long for that, or go by streetside
private reserves even down an alley. He supported utilizing for private use the most underutilized of all
developable spaces in the modern city, the rooftops. Acknowledging it would cost more for a developer,
the future of downtown Edmonds is at stake and the result will be a healthier and cleaner downtown with
public spaces to accommodate all who want to visit and the preservation of the unique Edmonds
downtown culture.
Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, spoke regarding the BD2 moratorium and BD2 design standards. The
minutes of the April 2, 2013 city council meeting are clear, only BD4 was presented to the council with
having two options, either commercial on the ground floor or multifamily only. She quoted from page 7
where Rob Chave stated clearly for the councilmembers to understand, "in the BD4 there are two options,
a commercial building that requires the 15 foot step -back or a multifamily building up to 30 feet with a
front yard setback." She pointed out he never mentions nor is there any reference during the entire city
council meeting before the ordinance is passed that BD2 also has these two options, only BD4 has the
second use of multifamily clearly defined and referenced in writing in the code and there are different
standards if either commercial or multifamily only. BD2 is not included in that exception. If the intent
was that BD2 could also have both interpretations, why did Mr. Chave not say that? Because it never
could. Only BD4 is clarified in the code that there are different parameters, setbacks, design standards and
density with the multifamily only option versus commercial. She questioned why BD2 was not done at
the same time. There is nothing in writing to clearly define that there are two options in the BD2 just like
BD4. The staff -created multifamily only areas in the BD2 zone will now have the most intense density of
any multifamily building in any downtown zoning. The reason is they are attempting to use the
commercial zoning to go right up to the sidewalk with entirely residential.
Dr. Dotsch urged the council to think about these newly zoned 28 multifamily lots within the BD2
subarea now having the highest density anywhere downtown. To say this is somehow a transition area is
incorrect as it goes from the less intense density of BD1 to this new BD2 designation that is much denser
to then the adjacent surrounding RM-1.5 zoning which is less dense. She imagined this ring of 28 lots
being out of sorts with downtown density, use and bulk from Sunset Avenue, down 2" d South, down 3'
Avenue North, on 6t' Avenue and up Main Street and Dayton Street with the solution for the setback idea
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 11
Packet Pg. 34
7.1.a
to actually shrink the current 15 foot setback to only 5 feet from the RM-1.5 middle housing zone
adjacent to these lots. The neighbors might want to know that their homes next to this newly defined
zoning is putting these giant housing projects only 5 feet from their property line with decks and roof top
decks hanging over their homes. This is not a small change, but newly created zone with new zoning
requirements. Consideration also needs to be given to the increased density and massing on these 28
downtown lots and whether it even complies with the GMA or is compatible with current infrastructure
including public facilities and services needed to serve these developments. She urged the council to
make a fully informed decision tonight; if councilmembers were unable to say they were fully informed,
she urged them not to allow this public process to be stopped by removing a full and fair discission of
what this will truly look like. Just like the connector discussion sped up before the public really knew the
impact and many councilmembers helped stop that from happening. Once these decisions are allowed to
go ahead without clarity, it is hard to pull back, but it can be done.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said on April 5t' after the public hearing was closed, the city council took
unplanned and unannounced action which upset citizens and resulted in citizens speaking out from the
audience. New information including staff opinions about historical legislative intent were discussed after
the citizens' time to comment ended. During the public hearing, he asked city council how citizens were
supposed to know how to prepare public comments for the public hearing as neither the public notice nor
the agenda packet identified the findings the council was to consider adopting. Council did not answer his
question but added an additional unannounced element to the public hearing process that citizens were
also unaware of before the public hearing. He asked the council to address this conduct and take steps to
ensure it never happens again during the middle of a public hearing. Next, Mr. Reidy said state law states
a moratorium may be renewed for one or more six month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held
and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. He referred to the use of the word "renewal," which
is different than extension. Renewal allows for a new moratorium as opposed to the mere extension of
extra time to the pervious moratorium. A moratorium adopted without a work plan may be effective for
not longer than six months. A moratorium can be for one month, two months, four months, any length of
time not longer than six months. This fact was known to the Edmonds city council prior to council's vote
to pass Ordinance 4247 on February 15t''.
Mr. Reidy continued, as this fact was known upfront, it was critical that city council established a proper
time period for the original moratorium. Edmonds city council chose two months; this was allowed by the
not longer than six months authority provided by the statute. Once Edmonds city council made its legal
choice of two months, that time period could not be extended. Who would imagine Edmonds city council
thinking a moratorium could be extended rather than replacing the original moratorium with a new
moratorium. Making it worse, council failed to adopt findings of fact justifying the original moratorium
before it expired. Council also failed to justify continuing the original moratorium after the April 5t'
public hearing up to April 15t''. He urged the council to read the emergency declaration in Ordinance 4218
and questioned whether there was really an emergency if the council had the legal right to merely extend
the four months effective period of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 and do so without holding a subsequent
public hearing and making findings of fact. He questioned whether the council is being advised that they
can have their cake and eat it too. He urged the council to stop abusing the moratorium and interim zoning
process, citing Ordinance 4210 as another great example.
Mayor Nelson described the procedures for virtual audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, referred to the tree ordinance, stating trees are legally the property of
those whose land they grown on and can only be given voluntarily to the City by owners for protection.
Edmonds has placed the public burden of tree canopy coverage on a small group of property owners by
seizing and then charging them for the rights to their trees and the land they shadow. She provided an
analogy; the City decides your neighbors would benefit from more vehicles. Although neighbors have
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 12
Packet Pg. 35
7.1.a
their own cars, your family's vehicles are seized and given to them. You cannot touch your vehicles or the
ground they shadow until you've paid your car's worth to the City. Still responsible for taxes and
insurance on something you can't use without paying for it a second time, you sell, but new owners can't
use the vehicles until they've paid the City their worth and the worth of their shadows. Edmonds has done
this with their trees. Stealing once by taking, twice by charging. With 1,962 acres, last month's tree
canopy assessment shows a 118 acre increase since the 2017 report of 1,844 acres. At 34.6%, Edmonds
has had a 4.3% increase in canopy since the 30.3% reported in 2017. Fearful that Edmonds' tree canopy
would decrease below 30%, council passed a year of emergency moratoriums and the tree ordinance last
year. The canopy increase to 34.6% gives no justification for taking tree rights from all vacant property
owners while they comply with the 30% tree retention requirement. Shoreline just changed theirs from
20% to 25% retention.
Ms. Ferkingstad continued, Edmonds is blatantly violating the takings clause of the 5th Amendment of the
constitution written to protect citizens from governmental taking without compensation. Edmonds has
seized rights to 100% of the trees on all vacant single family zoned properties and then requires owners
pay for appraisals and $3,000 to $12,000 for each tree before allowing removal to build homes. Property
owners have to purchase replacement trees or pay an additional $2,000 for each tree and then the City
continues to control rights for all remaining trees on the private properties indefinitely. The rights and
freedom to maintain trees on private property that all Edmonds homeowners enjoy have been stolen from
vacant property owners and future homeowners. The year delay and tree ordinance takings and charges
have harmed citizens, couples who wish to divide and sell their property for retirement, owners with the
intention of building desperately needed single family homes and those who want to buy them, and her
family trying to build their three homes. For a year she has pleaded with the council to uphold the
constitution; the council has not done that and her family is running out of precious time. She urged the
council to restore their property rights to be equal to theirs and to rescind the illegal tree ordinance.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding fish and the environment. Environmental priorities should be
set by a transparent public process and she wholly objected to council assertions that seek to create new
environmental priorities that are not consistent with those developed through public process and in
alignment with the Washington Administrative Code. With regard to environmental priorities, scientists
often disagree on data and resource managers disagree on how data should be used when making
decisions. The council appears to support only one source of information with no presentation from
WDFW on their process for determining fish use in conjunction with the tribes and informed by science,
no presentation from the Lake Ballinger Forum, no presentation from other resource managers and
scientists, but myopic focus on one designation when it supports further investment and the desires of a
downtown interest group. It looks at select life stages of one species of the six salmon species covered by
the culverts case in the setting of other environmental concerns, climate change and public health for the
Edmonds community. While she respected WRIA 8 resource managers, the environment is a much
broader conversation than a WRIA 8 designation and there are many more resource managers and
resident scientists who can speak to the issue of salmon as well as other facets of the environment. These
are scientists and resource managers the City has chosen not to listen to or use information from.
Ms. Seitz guessed the City did not ask the tribes if they would prefer the tidal channel be re -engineered
through a contaminated site in order to avoid impacts to the marina. The WRIA 8 designation does not
extend more than 300 feet upstream from Puget Sound so while this designation is held up as the only
designation that matters for the marsh, there appears to be no value in the lack of designation when other
priorities are identified in western and the widest areas of the City. The only place where the lack of
designation by WRIA 8 seems to make a difference to the City council is when it is in the more diverse
east side of the City. The public was asked about several environmental priorities during the PROS Plan
process and when asked, the marsh ranked last. If the council truly felt the survey was biased, why didn't
those who support the marsh jump at the opportunity for the public process she had been asking for?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 13
Packet Pg. 36
7.1.a
When the City and council chooses to forego the public feedback for an interest group or its own desires
for the marsh, it misses a critical opportunity to right -size the project, but it is also a subversion of the
public trust for the PROS Plan process and the purpose of granting agencies in valuing named projects as
a metric of community support. Projects without community support fail all the time; every granting
cycle, good projects that have the support of their communities fall below the grant funding line. What the
council is doing by subverting public feedback and not seeking to have a public process to gain support
for the marsh is in all likelihood the worst possible outcome for salmon if projects that actually have
community support are not funded. Holding a public process is also a funding critical for WRIA 8, so if
selected, this process would help not hurt grant funding for the marsh. Next week she will speak on public
process and equity.
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, thanked Natalie Seitz for thinking outside the box and demanding
a clear say in the priorities. She thanked Senator Marko Liias for all the work he has done to get funding
for Highway 99. She met with Senator Liias last week to thank him for his efforts to get $22 million to
work on Highway 99, a fantastic start to the future of the area. She thanked Mayor Nelson and his staff
and County Councilmember Stephanie Wright for being part of this process and talking to the legislature
about the needs of the Highway 99 area. She thanked Councilmembers Paine and L. Johnson for their
support of the PROS Plan, comprehensive plan, budget and equity for residents who live in uptown
Edmonds; she appreciated their ethics, values and concern, stating everyone needs to continue pushing
forward to continue the work done on Highway 99. She looked forward to developing plans for the area.
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING (AUDIT EXIT CONFERENCE) OF
MARCH 29, 2022
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 31, 2022
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 5, 2022
4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE
PAYMENTS
5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT
6. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LACEY GRAY
7. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
8. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATE TO A BOARD/COMMISSION
9. CONFIRM APPOINTMENT OF CANDIDATE TO A BOARD/COMMISSION
10. HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER POSITION REVISION
it. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE
GROUP TO PROVIDE CAPITAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT,
ENGINEERING & INSPECTION SERVICES
12. FEBRUARY 2022 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 14
Packet Pg. 37
13. APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH SCJ FOR HWY 99
GATEWAY -REVITALIZATION STAGE 2 PROJECT
14. PARK PLANNER AND CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION
APPROVAL
15. LEAD BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATOR JOB DESCRIPTION
16. RESOLUTION EXTENDING TEMPORARY EMERGENCY SICK LEAVE POLICY
17. PROCEDURE FOR ACCEPTING WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
18. WWTP PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. EXECUTIVE SESSION: POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(D
At 8:38 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(l)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 20 minutes and would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex as well as virtually. Elected officials present at the executive session were Mayor Nelson, and
Councilmembers K. Johnson, Tibbott, Buckshnis, Paine, Olson, L. Johnson, and Chen. Others present
were City Attorney Jeff Taraday. At 8:59 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session would be
extended for 15 minutes to 9:14 p.m. At 9:14 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session would
be extended for 10 minutes to 9:24 p.m. At 9:24 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced the executive session
would be extended for 10 minutes to 9:34 p.m. The executive session concluded at 9:34 p.m.
Mayor Nelson reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:34 p.m.
Mayor Nelson announced in conferring with Council President Olson, it was agreed to move the ARPA
Funding Status and Special Event Permits and Amendments to ECC Title 4 Licenses to a future meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO DELETE ITEMS 3 AND 4. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. RESOLUTION TO ADOPT FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE BD2 MORATORIUM
(Previously Azenda Item 8.1)
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained any time a city council adopts a moratorium, the statute requires
findings be adopted to justify the moratorium. It is not a question of whether to adopt findings, but
whether the findings reflect the council's belief in terms of why the moratorium was adopted and whether
they clearly and fully articulate the bases for the moratorium. Item 8.1 in the packet contains a draft
resolution with several whereas clauses that represent his best effort to capture what he believes to be
many of the council's concerns, but he may not have captured all of them. Therefore, the council is free to
amend, add, or remove whereas clauses, but ultimately the resolution in some form should be adopted
tonight with possible amendments by the city council.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADD A WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT STATES SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF,
WHEREAS SOME COUNCILMEMBERS FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO RECONSIDER
WHETHER THE DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP SHOULD BE EXTENDED.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 38
7.1.a
Councilmember Tibbott recalled during council deliberations and looking at the map, councilmembers
realized the development of downtown has filled out and his question was what would it take to extend
the blue line to other areas of the City thereby extending the street front.
Council President Olson expressed her full support for this change, commenting a lot has changed in the
downtown over the years. One specific recent change is the Commons and that is one direction in which
the line should be extended because it has become almost a hub of the commercial district.
Councilmember Paine asked whether the timing mattered as part of the findings, whether it was during
the first part of the moratorium or mid -moratorium. Mr. Taraday answered the council has six months of
moratorium authority. Justifications on day 1 of the moratorium for initially enacting it may be different
than on day 60 or day 90 if the council decides to continue the moratorium. The justifications do not have
to be the ones that were anticipated on day 1; anything from day 1 to present would be acceptable to
include in the resolution.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion. She noted some councilmembers were
around during the BD discussions. The gist of the 2013 ordinances and the latest Ordinances 3955 and
3918 dealt with something that fulfilled the economic development plan and strategic goals, to create
synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, implementing a retail core. Adding this
will help; there is already a very dense downtown and multifamily housing is needed throughout the City.
She referred to the Edmonds City Council approved minutes of November 4, 2013 where Stephen Clifton
talked about public safety with the office space and the central gathering place coming into the Commons.
The vision was for a retail core in the downtown area.
Councilmember Chen expressed support for extending the blue line, however, he wanted to see a vibrant
downtown with mixed use. The BD2 zone was intended to be mixed use so he would like to see that type
of development where commercial and residential are mixed for that purpose.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not support the motion. This is a new concern that never came up
with the other two projects in a similar area of the BD2 zone. By extending it, commercial only would be
allowed, but there would be no requirement for mixed use or multifamily. The City limits where
multifamily is allowed and this is one more attempt to further limit it. These concerns were not expressed
before and are an example of the way the community has repeatedly reacted to multifamily development.
Councilmember Paine said she was troubled by this last minute addition. It is trying to create a solution
that is very short sighted before there is additional information from an economic and residential needs
assessment of the community. It is clearly no longer 2013 and she does not support this addition to the
whereas clauses as the council is not operating with good information.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON
VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
City Clerk Scott Passey advised that was Resolution 1490.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 39
7.1.a
3. INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY -ONLY BUILDINGS IN THE
BD2 ZONE (previously Item 8.2)
Senior Planner Mike Clugston provided an update on the status of the design standards for multifamily
only buildings in BD2. Since the April 5' meeting where there were comments on several of the design
standards, staff took the standards to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) who were generally in favor
of the proposed language with a couple of tweaks. Staff s recommend is to approve the interim design
standards in Exhibit 2 via the ordinance in Exhibit 3. With regard to materials, which was one of the
design standards, no change was recommended; the ADB and the public seemed to like the concept of
materials used on these types of buildings. Similarly, for the street side amenity space, the concept that
provides a setback was well received and no changes are proposed.
Mr. Clugston continued, there were no concerns with the private amenity space generally, but there was
some concern with roof top decks. As a result a small change was proposed to the roof top deck areas as
outlined in the packet. Previously a roof top deck would be allowed to fulfill the amenity space
requirement; that was changed to say it could not be used to fulfill the amenity space requirement, but
could be provided. Another question raised was whether roof top decks should be allowed to the edge of
the roof; the building code allows railings at the edge. There was some concern from the council, public
and the ADB who felt some setback of the railing would be useful for safety and proposed a 5-foot
setback as a starting point. He recalled a setback for the railing was also suggested by a member of the
public at the April 5' meeting.
Mr. Clugston continued, another question was raised about whether the roof top deck should be counted
toward the private amenity space requirement. There was some concern that a developer would put all the
50% amenity space on the roof, thereby depriving some individual residences of balconies, decks and
patios. The revised language changes the ability to use the roof top deck to meet the amenity space
requirement; a roof top deck is still allowed, but all the private amenity space has to be provided with
individual units or at the ground level meeting the existing standards in the proposed language. He
summarized with the feedback from council, the ADB and the public, the design standards are generally
pretty good and would result in improved projects in multifamily only buildings in BD2.
Council President Olson said she not sure she was against the idea of a roof top deck but was not sure she
was ready to say they absolutely should be allowed. Her concern was with building heights, a cultural
value in Edmonds. When building heights were increased 5 feet at one point, the idea wasn't to allow
increased levels of living units, but to allow for some roof modulation or slope so the roofs were not all
flat because that is not a great design in the Pacific Northwest. Things can be placed on a roof top deck,
even if they aren't permanent, such as umbrellas and furniture. If part of the desire to keep building
heights at a certain level is to be respectful of views due to the slope throughout the lower level of
Edmonds, she had an issue with roof top decks in the context of the community value of avoiding
increasing building heights due the impact on views. She summarized she was uncertain she was ready to
allow roof top decks as an amenity.
Mr. Clugston responded a number of exceptions to the height are allowed such as an architectural feature
that can cover 5% of the roof area on a BD building, elevator penthouses, solar panels, etc. He
summarized the height limit such as 30 feet is not an absolute drop dead maximum as things can project
above it. Using that information, staff determined roof top decks fit with that concept particularly if the
railings are transparent and there are no permanent structures on the roof top.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 40
7.1.a
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin said staff is not wed to the concept of roof top decks
as part of the interim design standards. The most recent revision excludes roof top decks from the
required private amenity space and they are happy to exclude roof top deck from the interim design
standards. The multifamily design standards are a 2022 work plan item which will provide more time to
delve into it. The focus of the interim design standards is setback, articulation, and more green space on
multifamily buildings.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not sure if she was in favor of roof top decks; Edmonds is not
Seattle and Seattle has a lot of them. She might be interested if they were recessed further than five feet.
She recalled complaints the City received about the visibility of a tent on a business's roof for a long
period of time due the slope. She supported having more research done because Edmonds is unique and
she anticipated roof top patios could get out of hand. There are rooftop patios in many large cities and she
was not sure Edmonds was large enough for that yet.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO
APPROVE THE REVISED INTERIM DESIGN STANDARDS IN EXHIBIT 2 AND ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE IN EXHIBIT 3.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented this is the third time the council has worked on this and the issues
that were raised last week have been addressed. Staff came forward with what the council requested and
further amendments can be made.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE BY REMOVING THE ROOF TOP PORTION AS IT IS
WORTHY OF FURTHER DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. AMENDMENT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Paine expressed support for the product as amended, noting there is an opportunity for
greater review by the public and another public process. This is a good interim proposal and it was her
understanding the process would take about nine months which would allow for a good public process.
A MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO AMEND TO
CHANGE THE CURRENT SECTION D OF 22.43.080 TO E AND ADD A NEW SECTION D
THAT READS, SOME ROOF MODULATION IS REQUIRED WITH PREFERENCE FOR STEP
DOWNS THAT FOLLOW THE SLOPE WHEN SLOPE EXISTS.
Council President Olson said that was one of the features she notices and likes when she is downtown and
prefers to see. The history of allowing an additional 5 feet in height was to allow slope on roofs or
modulation so buildings were not square boxes and were a more attractive design. She recognized these
were interim design standards, but some projects will vest under these interim design standards.
Councilmember Paine asked how much slope modulation there was in other parts of Edmonds. She was
concerned this would be disparate if it was only required in one of the business districts, noting it was not
required for single family residences. She asked if any other zoning districts in the City required
modulation on the slope.
Council President Olson offered a point of clarification, that was not the amendment. Her motion was
some roof modulation is required with preference for step-downs that follow the slope when slope exists,
it would not be a mandate.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 41
7.1.a
Councilmember Paine said she was still curious about the answer to her question, whether this existed in
any other zones. Mr. Clugston answered in the RM zones the base height maximum was 25 feet and an
additional 5 feet was allowed with a roof pitch of 4:12 or greater. That was also permitted in BC zones.
Councilmember Chen asked if there were any buildings in the City that had roof top amenities. Mr.
Clugston answered roof top decks were allowed in other zones but the only one he was aware of was the
new building at Westgate. Councilmember Chen said that could be a wonderful feature with enough
setback. He supported respecting people's privacy by having enough distance from the edge of building
so that people were looking at the water and mountain views and not into other people's windows.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
CHEN, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AMEND WITH REGARD TO GROUND FLOOR STREET FRONTS, TO EXTEND THE STREET
FRONT TO THE ABUTTING CORNERS AROUND THE INTERSECTION TO INCLUDE
STREET FRONTS IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THE EFFECT WOULD BE TO EXTEND WHERE
THERE IS COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN THOSE LOCATIONS.
THERE ARE THREE PLACES ON THE MAP WHERE IT IS EXTENDED TO ALL FOUR
CORNERS AND FOUR PLACES WHERE IT IS NOT. FOR EXAMPLE MAIN AND 6TH, IT
STOPS RIGHT AT 6TH AND THERE ARE TWO OTHER CORNERS THAT DO NOT HAVE
STREET FRONT AND THREE OTHER PLACES THAT SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA.
Mr. Taraday asked if the intent was to have that brought back or have an ordinance drafted tonight that
would accomplish that. Councilmember Tibbott said he was open to asking Mr. Taraday to bring and
ordinance back to council for review. Mr. Taraday said he would need to work with planning staff on that;
that type of an amendment would be difficult to adopt tonight. If the intent is to have that in place before
lifting the moratorium, the moratorium would need to be extended. The complexity involved with a map
amendment of that nature would be difficult to do at 10:15 p.m. without long extensions of the meeting. If
the council extended the moratorium for a month, it would give him time work with the planning division
to bring back an ordinance that would accomplish that. If that was the case, there would need to be other
amendments made to the ordinance currently before the council such removing language in Section 2 that
lifts the moratorium.
Council President Olson asked if the council was otherwise satisfied with the design standards, could the
section about the moratorium be struck while staff is figuring out the designated street front. Mr. Taraday
answered the council has options, 1) adopt the design standards as just amended and lift the moratorium,
or 2) adopt the design standards as just amended and keep the moratorium in place. Adopting the design
standards and keeping the moratorium in place will require two separate ordinances. As he was not
certain how the discussion/vote would go, as a precaution, he prepared an ordinance to extend the
moratorium for a month so it was ready if the council needed it. If council wants to adopt the design
standards as amended and keep moratorium in place, a motion would need to be made to approve the
version of the ordinance that he sent the council by email this afternoon that contains immediate effect
language, not the packet version of the ordinance. Section 2 of that ordinance which repeals the
moratorium would need to be deleted. He summarized if the council likes the design standards as
amended and does not want to repeal the moratorium, that could be accomplished by deleting Section 2 of
the ordinance he sent council this afternoon.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 19
Packet Pg. 42
7.1.a
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
ACCEPT THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS AMENDED TONIGHT AND OTHERWISE
REPRESENTED IN THE ORDINANCE SENT THIS AFTERNOON BY EMAIL WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF DELETING SECTION 2 THAT LIFTS THE MORATORIUM.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed there was an motion on the floor to approve the ordinance in the
packet. Mr. Taraday agreed the ordinance was moved originally and assumed the version of the ordinance
was the one he sent this afternoon. Councilmember L. Johnson said her motion was to approve the
ordinance in the packet. Mr. Taraday clarified the packet version will not take effect prior to the
expiration of the moratorium. A version of the ordinance needs to be adopted which takes effect
immediately which is why he sent out a revised version this afternoon. The revised version does not
change any of the substance of the design standards, it is contains a declaration of emergency and has an
immediate effect clause. He asked whether the maker of the motion was okay substituting that version for
the version in the packet. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was unable to give that at this point
without reading what was emailed.
Mayor Nelson observed there was already a motion on the floor and this is another motion. He suggested
addressing the main motion.
Council President Olson began to make an amendment, to have Section 2 deleted that lifts the
moratorium. She asked if the emergency clause could be removed if the moratorium was not lifted. Mr.
Taraday said if the council wanted to prevent developments vesting to the preexisting standards, the
ordinance needs to take effect immediately. The packet version does not take effect immediately; the
council would need to adopt the version he sent this afternoon in order for it to take effect immediately.
He offered to highlight the change to the ordinance in the packet.
Councilmember L. Johnson clarified the version Mr. Taraday sent this afternoon does not lift the
moratorium, it allows the design standards to take immediate effect. Mr. Taraday answered it does both;
the council probably will want the design standards to take immediate effect either way unless a separate
ordinance is adopted that extends the moratorium. If a separate ordinance is adopted to extend the
moratorium, then the design standards ordinance does not need to be an emergency.
The motion was clarified as follows:
Councilmember L. Johnson was open to changing the motion to include what was emailed to the
council now that she had had a chance to look at it, provided that that lifts the moratorium. The
seconder, Councilmember Paine agreed as long as it lifted the moratorium.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she would like to see all of this in writing and give citizens an
opportunity to participate. She was concerned that at 10:25 p.m., the council was attempting to approve
something that was sent this afternoon and then making amendments to it. She preferred to have the
ordinance in the packet. She did not support the motion but wanted to have the moratorium extended so
this could be fixed and everyone could see it in writing in the packet. She asked what needed to be done
to make that happen. Mr. Taraday said the council would want to adopt the other ordinance he emailed
this evening, not the afternoon one, that extends the moratorium for a month.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the council would have to wait to do that until the motion the floor
was addressed. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion as she
believed there needed to be a public process, the public had not read the ordinance and she had only read
it quickly.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT WE TABLE THIS MOTION.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 20
Packet Pg. 43
7.1.a
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND THE MORATORIUM ONE MONTH.
Council President Olson observed there was an ordinance that does that. She offered to read the
ordinance.
Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, asking where this was on the agenda. Council
President Olson answered this was one of the things the council can do. Councilmember L. Johnson said
the council tabled this item.
Mr. Taraday explained the motion to adopt the ordinance that adopts the interim design standards was
tabled. If the council wants to take alternative action regarding the moratorium, it can do so, it can amend
agenda, etc. A majority of the council can do whatever it wants during a regular meeting. Councilmember
L. Johnson observed it was not on the existing agenda.
Council President Olson asked if it was the council's desire to take vote to add this to the agenda or could
it be done via a head nod. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council did not take action via head
nods.
Council President Olson restated her motion:
TO ADD THE ITEM TO THE AGENDA AND EXTEND THE MORATORIUM.
Councilmember Paine said adding this to the agenda at 10:26 p.m. was a rather thin nail to hang the
transparency hat on.
Councilmember Chen said the council needs more time and cannot vote on something that was sent in the
afternoon. He did not support the motion.
Council President Olson offered to withdraw the motion and plan a special meeting on Thursday.
Councilmember Chen said that would be more appropriate.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she like to take this vote tonight and did not want to have a special
meeting on Thursday for this one item. It is part and parcel of what the council has discussed tonight
related to adopting a resolution to adopt the findings in support of the BD2 moratorium. The motion
would be to extend moratorium and she favored taking that action tonight.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND 10 MINUTES TO 10:40. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS L. JOHNSON
AND PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
FOR AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE
MORATORIUM OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BD2
ZONE LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT AS IMPOSED BY
ORDINANCE 4247 AND EXTENDED BY ORDINANCE 4253.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 21
Packet Pg. 44
7.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was following through on what Councilmember K. Johnson said.
There is a moratorium in place, this is the formal action to extend it for one month. If the council does not
take this action, the moratorium will expire on Thursday and she did not think the city attorney and staff
would have the necessary materials completed in time for a continued meeting on Thursday. She
preferred to either approve extending the moratorium and if not, it will end on April 21 and the interim
building standards will take effect. This will give time to do what needs to be done in terms of getting
packet materials done and extending the moratorium.
Councilmember L. Johnson did not support the motion. She found it interesting that the council just
tabled something based on being unable to review something that was received at 5:00 p.m., yet would
vote on a document that was received during the council meeting which she has not had an opportunity to
review.
Councilmember Paine preferred to come back on Thursday. There is a chance to have enough public
process to get through the tail end of the moratorium. Moratoriums are damaging to the City's reputation
and progress on building, things that are normally allowed. She felt it was shortsighted and that the
council would not get that much more information about what the business practices need to look like
within a month as that is a much bigger study.
Councilmember Chen agreed that the council needs to come back on Thursday. It is late at night and all of
a sudden the council wants to pass a motion to extend the moratorium. He was not comfortable
supporting that.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT
AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday explained a 4-3 vote adopts the ordinance, but does not take immediate effect with a 4-3 vote
and will take effective 5 days after passage and publication. If the council does not meet on Thursday to
take some other action, the moratorium will end at the close of business on Thursday and on Friday a
developer theoretically could vest an application pursuant to the prior development standards. If the
ordinance takes effect five business day after publication, next Wednesday, that leaves four business days,
Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, for a developer to vest an application. The council could take
other action on Thursday that would take immediate effect, but five votes are required for an ordinance to
take immediate effect.
Council President Olson began to make a motion to add back Items 3 and 4 that were deleted so they
could be discussed at the special meeting on Thursday, and then concluded a motion was not necessary.
4. ARPA FUNDING STATUS (Previously Item 8.3)
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
5. SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS AND AMENDMENTS TO ECC TITLE 4 LICENSES
(Previously Item 8.4)
Due to the late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting.
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 22
Packet Pg. 45
7.1.a
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson announced he was appointing Lee Reeves to the Economic Development Commission.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Olson encouraged the public to google Holocaust Remembrance; there are special
events, many of which are virtual. It is important to see how hate taken to an extreme can have such
horrible consequences, commenting commented it was better to address that when it was small.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Parks & Public Works Committee minutes which included a very
important discussion about upcoming Parks and Public Works projects. A couple of handouts were
provided that the committee will review again at their next meeting and he intended to make the checklist
available to the public. He invited feedback on materials that citizens would like to see regarding Parks
and Public Works projects.
Councilmember K. Johnson acknowledged the three recent high holy days, Easter, Passover and
Ramadan, and extended her congratulations and best wishes to everyone who participated in those high
holy days.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented developers are not the enemy. Anyone fortunate enough to be
housed is housed because of work by a developer. It appears many accept developers maximizing profits
when they build huge single family homes, but not when they wish to build multifamily homes. Why? If
the true concern was about business, she questioned why there was not more concern about the largest
business district on Highway 99. Instead everything seems to speak to the goal of not allowing expanded
and very much needed multifamily housing options.
Councilmember Paine congratulated and welcomed the newest ADB members who are extraordinarily
well qualified and she was glad they were joining the ADB. She expressed her dismay at some of the
behavior in the executive session; it was very disrespectful and should never happen. Everyone are peers
and should not be making derogatory comments toward one another. It happened tonight in the executive
session and it should not happen anywhere.
Student Representative Roberts announced Earth Day is this Saturday. Information about a work party at
the beach from 10-12 is available on the Parks and the Youth Commission's webpages He hoped
everyone was able to attend that fun event.
Mayor Nelson advised there are four different City event on Saturday which is the day after Earth Day,
April 22'
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:39 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
April 19, 2022
Page 23
Packet Pg. 46
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Megan Menkveld
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Lori Palmer
Background/History
Approval of replacement check #65033 dated April 18, 2022, payroll checks #65034 through #65041 for
$15,527.79 dated April 20, 2022, payroll direct deposit for $646,827.42, benefit checks #65028 through
#65047 and wire payments for $647,718.36 for the pay period April 1, 2022 through April 15, 2022.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
04-01-22 to 04-15-22 benefit checks summary
04-01-22 to 04-15-22 payroll earnings summary
Packet Pg. 47
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,045 - 04/01/2022 to 04/15/2022
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
65042
04/20/2022
bpas
BPAS
5,388.43
65043
04/20/2022
epoa2
EPOA-POLICE
5,842.50
65044
04/20/2022
epoa3
EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT
698.26
65045
04/20/2022
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
3,289.07
65046
04/20/2022
teams
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763
4,442.00
65047
04/20/2022
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
5,879.84
25,540.10
Bank: wire - US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
3351
04/20/2022
awc
AWC
342,790.71
3354
04/20/2022
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
28,916.07
3355
04/20/2022
us
US BANK
125,267.26
3356
04/20/2022
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N317761
118,283.43
3358
04/20/2022
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
6,101.79
3360
04/20/2022
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
819.00
622,178.26
Grand Totals: 647,718.36
7.2.a
N
m
Direct Deposit
0.00
d
0.00
m
0.00
0.00
c
0.00
f°
0.00
0
L
0.00
a-
O
R
O
L
Direct Deposit
Q-
a
Q
0.00
0.00
0.00
E
0.00
E
0.00
0.00
y
Y
V
d
0.00
v
0.00
w
c
a�
N
N
4
O
O
N
N
O
O
4/21/2022 Packet Pg. 48
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,045 (04/01/2022 to 04/15/2022)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
111
ABSENT
NO PAY LEAVE
108.00
0.00
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
580.50
24,139.09
122
VACATION
VACATION
1,534.28
75,216.80
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
78.00
3,638.08
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
61.00
2,566.31
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
189.48
7,776.06
129
SICK
Police Sick Leave L & 1
92.00
4,057.58
130
COMP HOURS
Holiday Compensation Used
29.50
1,184.99
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
10.00
559.72
132
JURY DUTY
JURY DUTY
7.00
440.78
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
24.00
752.33
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kelly Day Used
160.00
6,895.53
152
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME BUY BACK
1.75
64.01
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
212.04
10,465.63
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
16.00
1,037.80
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
15,859.44
698,476.42
191
REGULAR HOURS
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS
4.00
5,912.37
194
SICK
Emergency Sick Leave
8.00
288.18
195
REGULAR HOURS
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
96.00
3,046.68
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
140.00
6,247.52
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
15.25
496.68
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
36.00
2,038.65
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
15.00
1,361.87
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
403.75
30,798.13
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
9.25
658.30
400
MISCELLANEOUS
MISC PAY
0.00
-104.21
403
MISCELLANEOUS
PREMIUM PAY
0.00
48,248.75
405
ACTING PAY
OUT OF CLASS - POLICE
0.00
507.50
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
381.05
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
1,055.45
600
RETROACTIVE PAY
RETROACTIVE PAY
0.00
4,815.58
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 1.0
62.50
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5
188.25
0.00
902
MISCELLANEOUS
BOOT ALLOWANCE
0.00
150.00
903
MISCELLANEOUS
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
0.00
450.00
04/21/2022 Packet Pg. 49
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,045 (04/01/2022 to 04/15/2022)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
acc
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCREDITATION PAY
0.00
140.39
acs
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT
0.00
148.12
colre
MISCELLANEOUS
Collision Reconstructionist
0.00
92.72
cpl
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAINING CORPORAL
0.00
185.44
crt
MISCELLANEOUS
CERTIFICATION III PAY
0.00
308.91
ctr
MISCELLANEOUS
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM
0.00
220.00
deftat
MISCELLANEOUS
DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOR
0.00
171.68
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
254.04
det4
MISCELLANEOUS
Detective 4%
0.00
895.02
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
720.18
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
772.80
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
6,343.68
firear
MISCELLANEOUS
FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR
0.00
461.43
k9
MISCELLANEOUS
K-9 PAY
0.00
273.06
less
MISCELLANEOUS
LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR
0.00
88.70
Iq1
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2%
0.00
941.49
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
523.60
Ig12
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 9%
0.00
4,295.45
Ig13
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 7%
0.00
945.39
Ig14
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 5%
0.00
706.98
Iq2
LONGEVITY PAY
LONGEVITY PAY 4%
0.00
259.00
Iq4
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
440.49
Iq5
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3%
0.00
1,446.77
Iq6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
274.61
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
360.52
Iq8
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 8%
0.00
252.04
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
127.02
ooc
MISCELLANEOUS
OUT OF CLASS
0.00
431.45
pds
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
103.70
pfml
ABSENT
Paid Family Medical Leave
30.08
0.00
pfmp
ABSENT
Paid Family Medical Unpaid/Sup
81.88
0.00
pfms
SICK
Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK
24.04
1,104.05
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
2,624.34
poldif
REGULAR HOURS
2.5% Differential Pay
0.00
2.61
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SER
0.00
201.50
04/21/2022 Packet Pg. 50
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,045 (04/01/2022 to 04/15/2022)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
sdp
MISCELLANEOUS
SPECIAL DUTY PAY
0.00
329.16
sqt
MISCELLANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT
0.00
201.50
sop
MISCELLANEOUS
Special Ops Serqeant
0.00
151.13
St
REGULAR HOURS
Serqeant Pay
0.00
151.13
traf
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAFFIC
0.00
127.02
vap
VACATION
Vacation Premium
100.00
3,836.76
20,176.99 $974,537.51
Total Net Pay: $662,354.92
7.2.b
c
O
L
CU
0-
4-
0
L
E
E
L
R
a)
0
L
R
Q
N
N
LO
T.-
4
O
O
r
N
N
T.-
9
O
04/21/2022 Packet Pg. 51
7.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Approval of claim checks.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of re -issued claim check #252116 dated April 14, 2022 for $8,907.76 and claim checks #252117
through #252215 dated April 21, 2022 for $1,848,305.37.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
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:
aurora mkpl reissue
claims 04-21-22
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 04-21-22
Packet Pg. 52
7.3.a
vchlist
04/14/2022 3:30:19PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
252116 4/14/2022 078787 FW WAAURORA MARKETPLACE LLC 12132021
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Page
0
PO # Description/Account Amoun
LITTLE CITY HALL SECURITY DEPC
Little City Hall Security Deposit
001.000.60.557.20.45.00 4,453.8£ ui
Little City Hall First Month's Rent
m
001.000.60.557.20.45.00 4,453.8£ u
Total: 8,907.7E E
R
Bank total : 8,907.7E
0
Total vouchers : 8,907.7E
0
L
Q
El
N
N
L
Q
E
L
0
L
Y
E
V
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 1
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
252117
4/21/2022
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
56479
WWTP: 4/12/22 PEST CONTROL SE
4/12/22 Pest Control Service
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
77.0( �.
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
8.0E
Total:
85.W
E
252118
4/21/2022
078469 AGUIRRE, RAUL
68625
SPANISH INTERPRETER 1A058764;
M
SPANISH INTERPRETER 1A058764;
U
001.000.23.512.51.41.01
100.0E o
Total:
100.0E R
0
252119
4/21/2022
071634 ALLSTREAM
18319880
C/A768328
Q.
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
a
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
1,333.6" ..
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
CM
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
10.5, N
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
Iq
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
10.5, y
Total :
1,354.6! E
.�
252120
4/21/2022
070976 AMERESCO INC
CS-12
WWTP: THRU 3/31/22 CONSTRUCT
THRU 3/31/22 CONSTRUCT. SERV-1
423.100.76.594.35.65.10
427,625.6, E
Retainage
M
423.100.223.400
-21,381.2E
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
423.100.76.594.35.65.10
44,473.0E
PF-12
WWTP: THRU 3/31/22 PROF SERV
THRU 3/31/22 FINAL DESIGN SERV
423.100.76.594.35.41.00
110,854.2E
10.4% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.35.41.00
11,528.81
Total:
573,100.5(
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252121 4/21/2022 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC
252122 4/21/2022 078900 ANNIE TIEU
252123 4/21/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 2
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
7265283
RETIREE PREMIUMS - APRIL
LEOFF
009.000.39.517.20.23.10
7,976.1'
FIRE
-71
001.000.39.517.20.23.10
1,259.7; Y
7306915
RETIREE PREMIUMS - MAY
LEOFF
m
009.000.39.517.20.23.10
7,976.1' E
FIRE
R
001.000.39.517.20.23.10
1,259.7( U
Total :
18,471.61 O
8-50073
UB OVERPAYMENT REFUND
R
0
UB overpayment refund
Q.
411.000.233.000
146.5E Q
Total:
146.5f N
N
656000154934
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
T-
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
27.9' N
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
2.9( .2
656000156391
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
c
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6- E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1'°
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
r
Q
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1'
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
6.1'
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.Of
10.4% Sales Tax
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252123 4/21/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 3
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1;
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.61
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6z
10.4% Sales Tax
U
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6z E
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
_M
0.6,
10.4% Sales Tax
o
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6' >
656000156397
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
o
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
Q-
a
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.2� Q
FLEET DIVISION MATS
N
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.1( N
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
0.9 � c
10.4% Sales Tax
N
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1.9� •�
656000170977
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
27.9"
10.4% Sales Tax
E
t
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
2.9( u.
656000217759
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
Q
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
63.6�
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
6.6�
656000217761
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
27.9'
10.5% Sales Tax
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252123 4/21/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 4
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
2.9'
656000219484
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6'
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
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' O
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1' 0-
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
a
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
6.0£ Q
10.5% Sales Tax
N
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1, N
10.5% Sales Tax
N
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6, c
10.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6, •�
10.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6z
10.5% Sales Tax
m
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6z E
10.5% Sales Tax
@
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6E Q
656000219485
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.2�
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.1(
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
0.9£
10.5% Sales Tax
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252123 4/21/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 5
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
2.0'
656000221086
WWTP: 4/13/22 UNIFORMSJOWEL
Mats/Towels $52.68 + $5.53 tax @ 1
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
52.6E
Rentals & Prep Charges $29.91 + $ 3
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
29.9-
10.5% Sales Tax
E
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
5.5�
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
3.11 o
656000221090
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
o
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
27.9" a
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
2.9< N
656000223292
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
N
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
1.6' c
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
6.1' .
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
6.1'
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
6.1- E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
U
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
6.1' Q
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
&M
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
0.1 ;
10.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
0.6z
10.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6z
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 6
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
252123
4/21/2022
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
10.5% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6z
10.5% Sales Tax
-71
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6z u)
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.6E u
656000223293
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
E
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
_M
9.2�
FLEET DIVISION MATS
O
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.1( >
10.5% Sales Tax
o
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
1.5 1 a
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1.4, N
Total:
485.51 N
T-
N
252124
4/21/2022
001699 ASSOC OF WA CITIES
94375
2022 AWC D&A MEMBERSHIP
v
PARKS
y
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
123.3, .E
STREET
111.000.68.542.90.49.00
431.E ,;
WATER
m
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
308.3< E
SEWER
U
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
370.0( r
STORM
Q
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
500.0(
FLEET
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
61.6 ,
Total :
1,795.0(
252125
4/21/2022
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
80242
ROUGH BOX - ANTHONY
ROUGH BOX - ANTHONY
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
738.0(
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
252125 4/21/2022 001801 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO (Continued)
252126 4/21/2022 075263 AVR PRODUCTION SERVICES LLC 04302022
252127 4/21/2022 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC
252128 4/21/2022 002100 BARNARD, EARL
252129 4/21/2022 074307 BLUE STAR GAS
252130 4/21/2022 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC
16605
39
1327543
23205
23212
23355
7.3.b
Page: 7
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
Total :
738.0(
WINTER MARKET DJ SERVICES 20
WINTER MARKET DJ SERVICES 20
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
1,200.0( ui
Total :
1,200.0(
m
SERVICE AWARDS
t
U
SERVICE AWARDS
E
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
751.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
o
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
78.8E R
Total:
829.8E o
L
REIMBURSEMENT
a
REIMBURSEMENT
Q
001.000.39.517.20.23.20
423.9" N
Total :
423.91 T-
N
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 520.50 GF
0
FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 520.50 GF
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
1,533.9z •�
Total :
1,533.9z
E21JA. SERVICES THRU 4/2/22
m
E21JA. SERVICES THRU 4/2/22
E
421.000.74.594.34.41.00
7,388.5( U
EODC. SERVICES THRU 4/2/22
r
EODC. SERVICES THRU 4/2/22
Q
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
26,779.7£
EODC. SERVICES THRU 4/2/22
125.000.68.595.33.41.00
4,833.7(
E22JA. SERVICES THRU 4/2/22
E22JA. SERVICES THRU 4/2/22
421.000.74.594.34.41.00
65,401.7E
Total :
104,403.7;
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 8
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
252131
4/21/2022
075342 BORUCHOWITZ, ROBERT
04012022
PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES - MAF
MARCH SERVICES
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
1,112.5(
Tota I :
1,112.5(
252132
4/21/2022
069454 BOSS CONSTRUCTION INC
E4FE.RETRELEASE
E4FE. RETAINAGE RELEASE
E4FE. RETAINAGE RELEASE
422.000.223.400
74,479.8,
Total :
74,479.81
252133
4/21/2022
078361 BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES LLC
6088-R109781
WWTP: PO 752 VALVE REMOVAL R
PO 752 VALVE REMOVAL RIGGING
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
1,650.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
171.6(
Total :
1,821.6(
252134
4/21/2022
078841 BRAUN CONSULTING GROUP
2276
CONSULTING RETAINER
MARCH RETAINER
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
4,000.0(
Total:
4,000.0(
252135
4/21/2022
072158 BRAVO ENVIRONMENTAL NW INC
69405
WWTP: PO 804 REMOVE DEBRIS F
PO 804 REMOVE DEBRIS FROM TA
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
3,220.2(
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
338.1 ,
Total:
3,558.3,
252136
4/21/2022
072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
10267 YOGA
10267 YOGA INSTRUCTION
10267 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
1,355.9(
Total :
1,355.9(
252137
4/21/2022
078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J
10278 TRAINING
10278 PERSONAL TRAINING INSTP
10278 PERSONAL TRAINING INSTF
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
18.0(
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252137 4/21/2022 078083 078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J
252138 4/21/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 9
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
Total :
18.0(
28343876
HS C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE09644
PM C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE08178:
001.000.63.557.20.45.00
31.9E ui
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.63.557.20.45.00
3.3, t
28380467
CANON 2501 F
U
contract charge 4/1 - 4/30/2022
E
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
26.4z
10.5% Sales Tax
o
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
2.7E -R
28380469
WATER SEWER COPIER
0
Water Sewer Copier
0.
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
CL
54.7z Q
Water Sewer Copier
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
54.7' N
10.5% Sales Tax
N
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
5.7E Iq
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
5.7z E
28380470
PW ADMIN COPIER
f°
PW Office Copier for 4/1 /22-4/30/22
U
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
66.1 E y
PW Office Copier for 4/1 /22-4/30/22
E
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
37.4� U
PW Office Copier for 4/1 /22-4/30/22
f°
r
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
37.4� Q
PW Office Copier for 4/1 /22-4/30/22
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
26.4E
PW Office Copier for 4/1 /22-4/30/22
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
26.4E
PW Office Copier for 4/1 /22-4/30/22
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
26.4E
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
6.9E
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252138 4/21/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 10
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
10.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
3.9z
10.5% Sales Tax
-71
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
3.9z u)
10.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
2.7E u
10.5% Sales Tax
E
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
2.7E 'ca
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
2.7E O
28380471
INV 28380471 - EDMONDS PD
4/22 CONTRACT - FAXBOARD
o
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
36.0, a
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
3.7E N
28380476
COPIER APRIL'22
N
COPIER APRIL'22
04
001.000.23.512.51.45.00
212.5E c
10.5% Sales Tax
rn
001.000.23.512.51.45.00
22.3, •�
28380477
INV 28380477 - EDMONDS PD
4/22 CONTRACT-3AP01257
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
175.9,'
4/22 CONTRACT - 3AP01253
E
t
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
175.9E u.
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
36.9E
28380479
P&R C5750 COPIER: CONTRACT OE
P&R C5750 Copier: Contract Number
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
227.0z
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
23.8z
28380480
C/A 572105-1 CONTRACT# 06619
Finance dept copier contract charge
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 63
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252138 4/21/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
252139 4/21/2022 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC
252140 4/21/2022 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 11
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
227.0z
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
23.8z ..
28380483
INV 28380483 - EDMONDS PD
4/22 CONTRACT - 38C01511
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
191.7E
10.5% Sales Tax
E
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
28380484
FLEET COPIER
Fleet Copier
o
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
35.0
10.5% Sales Tax
o
L
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
3.6E a
28380485
P&R C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE0793,
Q
P&R C257iF Copier: Contract Numbe
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
N
35.0 � N
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
3.6� c
28380488
PM C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE08178
P&R C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE0793,
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
29.0£
10.5% Sales Tax
a ;
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
3.0E
Total:
1,915.91 E
U
4
STATE LOBBYIST APRIL 2022
f°
r
STATE LOBBYIST APRIL 2022
Q
001.000.61.511.70.41.00
3,750.0(
Total :
3,750.0(
V041568
SURFACE PRO 8
Surface Pro 8
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
1,195.9�
10.4% Sales Tax
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
124.3£
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 12
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
252140
4/21/2022
069813 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
(Continued)
Total :
1,320.3,
252141
4/21/2022
078902 COLEMAN OIL COMPANY LLC
2204-001353
FLEET - FUEL/ DIESEL & REGULAR
DIESEL 3,200 GALLONS
511.000.77.548.68.34.10
14,745.4<
DELIVERY FEE
511.000.77.548.68.34.11
275.0(
DELIVERY FEE
511.000.77.548.68.34.10
275.0(
REG FUEL 7,600 GALLONS
511.000.77.548.68.34.11
31,803.7:
Total:
47,099.1E
252142
4/21/2022
062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC
RO47077
UNIT 664 - REPAIR DAMAGES
UNIT 664 - REPAIR DAMAGES
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
1,822.1 E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
189.5(
Total :
2,011.6!
252143
4/21/2022
075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC
0346708-IN
UNIT 121 - PARTS
UNIT 121 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
24.8,
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2.5E
Total :
27.4(
252144
4/21/2022
006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
3377001
E22CG/ RFQ AD
E22CG/ RFQ AD
112.000.68.595.64.41.00
399.2E
E22CG/ RFQ AD
125.000.68.595.33.41.00
171.1 ,
Total :
570.4(
252145
4/21/2022
074444 DATAQUEST LLC
17857
BACKGROUND CHECKS - MARCH
BACKGROUND CHECKS
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 13
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
252145
4/21/2022
074444
DATAQUEST LLC
(Continued)
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
470.0(
WWTP BACKGROUND OVERAGE -
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
15.0(
BACKGROUND OVERAGE - PETER
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
15.0(
Total:
500.0(
252146
4/21/2022
073823
DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC
508669
E21 DA. SERVICES THRU3/26/22
E
E21 DA. SERVICES THRU3/26/22
126.000.68.595.61.41.00
414.1 0
E21 DA. SERVICES THRU3/26/22
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
261.4, p
Total:
675.61 Q.
a
Q
252147
4/21/2022
075160
DIMENSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
42248
PROJECTOR LAMP REPLACEMENT
Projector lamp replacement
N
001.000.23.512.51.48.00
1,918.0( N
10.4% Sales Tax
Iq
001.000.23.512.51.48.00
199.4 1 N
Total:
2,117.41, E
.i
252148
4/21/2022
064531
DINES, JEANNIE
22-4155
CITY COUNCIL MTG, SPECIAL CITY
Special City Council Mtg Minutes
001.000.31.514.31.41.00
961.2(
Total:
961.2( t
U
ca
252149
4/21/2022
007253
DUNN LUMBER
8549058
PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027
Q
PM SUPPLIES: CARRIAGE BOLTS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
31.31
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
3.2'
Total:
34.5�
252150
4/21/2022
074674
ECOLUBE RECOVERY LLC
1911020122
FLEET - REMOVAL OF USED OIL FII
FLEET - REMOVAL OF USED OIL FII
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 14
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
252150 4/21/2022 074674 ECOLUBE RECOVERY LLC
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
85.0(
Tota I :
85.0(
252151 4/21/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
2976
FAC MAINT - CITYWIDE SUPPLIES
ui
FAC MAINT - CITYWIDE SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
75.8E
10.5% Sales Tax
U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.91 E
Total:
83.8! Z
252152 4/21/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
1-00025
WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY/ METI
O
WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY WATE
�a
o
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
468.4( Q.
1-00575
OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / ME-
Q
OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / ME-
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
139.5E N
1-00655
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST
T-
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST
N
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
56.3E
1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON
E
E
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON
w
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
836.7�
1-00875
SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST/ METER 11
SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 11
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3f
1-00925
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AV
+a,
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AV
Q
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
61.2z
1-00935
WATERFRONT CENTER 220 RAILRi
WATERFRONT CENTER 220 RAILRi
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
114.7,
1-01950
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE,
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE,
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
56.3E
1-02125
SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ M
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 15
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
252152 4/21/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3f
1-03710
SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST/ METER'
SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST/ METER'
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E
1-03900
SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / MET[
SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / MET[
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E
1-03950
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (NORTH) 200
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
o
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
1,272.8" R
1-05125
SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METE
o
SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METE
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E Q
1-05285
SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / MI
SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / MI
N
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E
1-05340
SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / MET[
c
SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / MET[
y
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E
1-05350
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200
T
OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200
a ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
127.4( y
1-05650
CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71.
E
CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71.
U
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3f r
1-05675
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP /
Q
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,295.4'
1-05700
SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER',
SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER',
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E
1-05705
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST/ MEl
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
124.5(
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252152 4/21/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 16
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
1-09650
SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST/ METER i
SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER i
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E ..
1-09800
SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METE
SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E
1-10778
FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75:
E
FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75,
M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3f
1-10780
SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER!
o
SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER !
R
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E o
L
1-13975
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
a
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
Q
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
689.1 N
1-16130
SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METEI
N
SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METEI
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E c
1-16300
SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / MET[
y
SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / MET[
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E
1-16420
LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 6'
a ;
LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 6'
m
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E E
1-16450
CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 1
U
CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 1
r
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
68.7� Q
1-16630
SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST/ METER
SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST/ METER'
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E
1-17475
SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / MET[
SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / MET[
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E
1-19950
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
252152 4/21/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
1-36255
252153 4/21/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR216880
A R217145
AR217710
AR217842
AR217964
7.3.b
Page: 17
PO # Description/Account Amoun
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
122.3E
SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METE
SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
56.3E
Total:
6,505.2'
MK5532 C165 CONTRACT CHARGE
t
U
Contract overage charge 3/01/2022 -
E
001.000.31.514.31.45.00
482.1 , Z
10.5% Sales Tax
o
001.000.31.514.31.45.00
50.6, R
AR217145 - EDMONDS PD
0
NRGA003259 - PRINTER - SNIFFEN
0.
001.000.41.521.10.35.00
299.5( Q
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.35.00
31.4. N
P&R COPIER USAGE: C2571F
N
P&R COPIER USAGE: C2571F: Acco
Iq
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
34.5� y
10.5% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
3.6< 2
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
Maintenance 04/21/22 - 05/20/22 Car
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
307.2( E
10.5% Sales Tax
U
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
32.2E r
CANON 5750
Q
bw overage 3/16 - 4/15/2022
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
1.91
bw overage 3/16 - 4/15/2022
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
1.91,
bw overage 3/16 - 4/15/2022
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
1.9<
clr overage 3/16 - 4/15/2022
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
21.6E
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
252153 4/21/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued)
AR217972
AR217977
AR218112
252154 4/21/2022 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 172881
252155 4/21/2022 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH951166
7.3.b
Page: 18
PO # Description/Account Amoun
clr overage 3/16 - 4/15/2022
001.000.61.557.20.45.00 21.6E
clr overage 3/16 - 4/15/2022
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
21.6E
10.5% Sales Tax
U
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
2.4E u
10.5% Sales Tax
E
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
2.4E 'ca
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
2.41 O
P&R COPIER USAGE: C57501
P&R COPIER USAGE: C57501: accot
o
001.000.64.571.22.45.00
90.3E a
10.5% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.64.571.22.45.00
9.4� N
PM COPIER USAGE: C2571F
N
PM COPIER USAGE: C2571F: Accou
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
62.8, c
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
6.6( •�
C250 OVERAGE
b/w overage March 2022
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
1.7,
clr overage March 2022
E
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
24.0z
t
u.
10.5% Sales Tax
r
Q
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
2.7(
Total :
1,517.3,
DEV SVCS - PROF SVCS
Climate Action Plan Update-
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
1,340.0(
Total :
1,340.0(
E22CG/ RFQ AD
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 19
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
252155
4/21/2022
009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
(Continued)
E22CG/ RFQ AD
112.000.68.595.64.41.00
146.8�
E22CG/ RFQ AD
125.000.68.595.33.41.00
62.9E
Tota I :
209.8'
252156
4/21/2022
072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC
172913
APR-2022 SUPPORT SERVICES
Apr-2022 Support Services
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
265.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
27.8'
Total:
292.&
252157
4/21/2022
078226 GEIGLE SAFETY GROUP INC
220406-004c
WWTP: RBAGAN SAFETY COURSE
RBAGAN SAFETY & HEALTH COUR
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
190.3-
Total :
190.31
252158
4/21/2022
012199 GRAINGER
9249446015
PM SUPPLIES: VALVE REPAIR KITS
PM SUPPLIES: VALVE REPAIR KITS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
934.7(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
97.2,
Total :
1,031.9:
252159
4/21/2022
078896 GS HEATING & COOLING
BLD2022-0339
PERMIT FEE REFUND
Permit fee refund (BLD2022-0339)-
001.000.257.620
80.0(
Tota I :
80.0(
252160
4/21/2022
074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS
1233397
OLD PW - SECURITY
OLD PW - SECURITY
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
55.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
5.7f
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 72
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
252160 4/21/2022 074722 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS (Continued)
252161 4/21/2022 074804 HARLES, JANINE 284610
252162 4/21/2022 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC
252163 4/21/2022 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT
16024545
16024548
16024551
16033153
Description/Account
Total ;
PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI
PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
WATER - PARTS/ COUPLINGS
WATER - PARTS/ COUPLINGS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
WATER - PARTS
WATER - PARTS
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
WATER - INVENTORY/ 2" BALLCOR
WATER - INVENTORY/ 2" BALLCOR
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
WATER - INVENTORY 2" METER SE
WATER - INVENTORY 2" METER SE
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.20
Total
27 REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.29.00
Total :
7.3.b
Page: 20
Amoun
60.71
300.0( ui
300.0(
m
t
U
E
980.0(
0
101.91
0
Q.
2,026.6E Q
210.71 N
N
565.91 o
N
E
58.8( .M
z
c
3,196.6E E
t
U
332.4.E
r
7,473.2E Q
192.7�
3,021.0(
3,213.7<
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252164 4/21/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 21
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
10034
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
29.5E
10.3% Sales Tax
-71
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
3.0z u)
1514835
BRACKETTS NO. SUPPLIES
BRACKETTS NO. SUPPLIES
m
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
42.5z E
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
_M
4.3E
1521619
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
O
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
18.9 1 o
10.3% Sales Tax
a
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.9E Q
2015556
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ TOOLS & l
N
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ TOOLS & l
N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
72.8z N
10.3% Sales Tax
c
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.5(
3015445
NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St
NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
15.6'
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.6( E
3025074
NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St
@
NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE - St
r
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
13.6< Q
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.4(
3510333
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
114.9"
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
11.8�
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252164 4/21/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 22
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
3510388
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
25.1 -
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
2.5�
3523015
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ PLIERS
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ PLIERS
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4.6' O
4014094
NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE -
St
NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE -
Sl
o
L
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
60.8z a
10.3% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6.2, N
4026269
CITY PARK - SHOP SUPPLIES
N
CITY PARK - SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
30.8z c
10.3% Sales Tax
W
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
3.1 E .
5010511
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
a ;
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
75.9"
10.3% Sales Tax
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.8, u
5524315
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
r
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
Q
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
35.3E
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
3.6z
6023443
NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE
St
NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE
St
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.7z
10.3% Sales Tax
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 23
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
252164 4/21/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
1.1'
6520788
CITY PARK - SUPPLIES
CITY PARK - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
87.9z
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.0E
7010244
FAC MAINT SHOP - SUPPLIES
E
FAC MAINT SHOP - SUPPLIES
M
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
77.8�
10.3% Sales Tax
o
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8.0, �a
8621291
SEWER - SUPPLIES/ COUPLINGS E
o
SEWER - SUPPLIES/ COUPLINGS E
a
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
43.3E Q
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
N
4.4, N
8625841
FIRE STATION 16 - SUPPLIES
FIRE STATION 16 - SUPPLIES
c
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
93.3,
10.3% Sales Tax
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.6,
9091887
BRACKETT NO. - SUPPLIES
a ;
BRACKETT NO. - SUPPLIES
m
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
80.3E E
10.3% Sales Tax
U
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
M
8.2E r
Total :
1,074.9z Q
252165 4/21/2022 061013 HONEY BUCKET
0551821535
FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE'
FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE'
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
-131.6E
0551885899
FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE'
FLEET - COVID ADDITIONAL HONE'
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
-75.2<
0552678395
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 76
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252165 4/21/2022 061013 HONEY BUCKET
252166 4/21/2022 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 24
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
111.6E
0552682334
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH PAF
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH HOI
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
-350.3,
0552688802
PINE RIDGE PARK HONEY BUCKET
PINE RIDGE PARK HONEY BUCKET
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
252.1+'
0552694084
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
o
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
644.9�
R
0552694085
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
o
YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET
a
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
439.6(
Q
0552694086
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
N
N
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
346.0(
0552694087
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
c
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE
y
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4.
.
0552694088
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
T
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
a ;
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
120.4E
y
0552694089
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
E
WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
240.3E
@
r
0552694090
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
Q
MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
1,514.1 ,
Total:
3,232.8E
CD22-02
HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY SERVIC
HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY SERVIC
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
500.0(
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 77
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
252166 4/21/2022 076488 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG (Continued)
252167 4/21/2022 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3553655
252168 4/21/2022 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10099462
300-10099471
252169 4/21/2022 076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC W3Y0200011
252170 4/21/2022 078250 KAUFER DMC LLC
7.3.b
Page: 25
Description/Account Amoun
Total : 500.0(
OFFICE PAPER
COPY PAPER
001.000.61.557.20.31.00 77.2z ui
COPY PAPER
001.000.21.513.10.31.00 77.2z
COPY PAPER
U
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
77.2z
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.31.00
8.0 S
10.4% Sales Tax
R
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
8.0< p
10.4% Sales Tax
Q.
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
8.0z Q
Total :
255.8,
N
N
FLEET - SUPPLIES/ WIRE, LUGS &
N
FLEET - SUPPLIES/ WIRE, LUGS &
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
43.0( y
10.5% Sales Tax
E
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
4.5, .2
PM: MOTOR TUNE-UP, SAFETY GL)
PM: MOTOR TUNE-UP, SAFETY GL)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
115.61 E
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
12.1°
Total :
r
175.3( Q
WWTP: 2/26-4/1/22 SERVICES
2/26-4/1/22 SERVICES2/26-4/1/22 SI
423.000.76.535.80.41.00 839.6(
Total : 839.6(
BUSINESS BOOSTER WEB HOSTIf\
BUSINESS BOOSTER WEB HOSTIN
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 78
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 26
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
252170
4/21/2022
078250 KAUFER DMC LLC
(Continued)
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
300.0(
Tota I :
300.0(
252171
4/21/2022
078901 KOPP, TIM
03/31/2022
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES
REIMBURSEMENT FOR WSDATES
001.000.64.576.80.49.00
75.0(
REIMBURSEMENT FOR WSDATES
001.000.64.576.80.43.00
61.3(
Total :
136.3(
252172
4/21/2022
067568 KPG PSOMAS INC
3-22422
PLANNING -PROF SVCS
Edmonds Interim Design Stds-
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
2,972.0(
Total :
2,972.0(
252173
4/21/2022
078898 LANG, LIAM
3/22 3/29 MONITOR
3/22 3/29 PICKLEBALL GYM MONIT(
3/22 3/29 PICKLEBALL GYM MONIT(
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
90.0(
Tota I :
90.0(
252174
4/21/2022
073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
Apr-2022
04-2022 LEGALS FEES
04-2022 Legal fees
001.000.36.515.41.41.00
53,953.0(
Total:
53,953.0(
252175
4/21/2022
078345 MANTLE CLOTHING
INV-00819
INV-00819 - EDMONDS PD - HAUGF
INSULATED JACKET - SWAT
001.000.41.521.23.24.00
205.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.23.24.00
21.3,
Total :
226.3:
252176
4/21/2022
077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC
TG60608
EOMA/ SERVICES THRU4/2/22
EOMA/ SERVICES THRU4/2/22
332.000.64.594.76.41.00
3,639.0,
EOMA/ SERVICES THRU4/2/22
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 79
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
252176 4/21/2022 077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC (Continued)
252177 4/21/2022 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC 0261646
252178
252179
252180
4/21/2022 078848 MERRIMAN MUNICIPAL CONSULTING 2022-03
4/21/2022 077915 MURADYAN, TSOVINAR
4/21/2022 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
OTF MURADYAN
0649954-IN
0650472-IN
7.3.b
Page: 27
PO # Description/Account Amoun
125.000.64.594.76.41.00
1,086.9£
Total :
4,726.0(
E201 PO - PARTS/ RED/BLUE LIGHT
ui
E201 PO - PARTS/ RED/BLUE LIGHT
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
392.7( t
10.5% Sales Tax
U
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
41.2z
Total:
433.9z Z
INTERIM CSED DIRECTOR - MARCI
O
CONSULTING
R
o
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
16,910.0( Q.
Total :
16,910.0( Q
OTF MURADYAN CONTRACT FOR f
N
OTF MURADYAN CONTRACT FOR I
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
1,000.0( N
Total :
1,000.0( c
WATER/ SEWER - SUPPLIES/ 02 SI
E
WATER/ SEWER - SUPPLIES/ 02 SI
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
120.0(
WATER/ SEWER - SUPPLIES/ 02 SI
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
120.0( t
Freight
@
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
8.3, Q
Freight
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
8.3,
10.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
13.4£
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
13.4£
WATER/ SEWER - SUPPLIES
WATER/ SEWER - SUPPLIES
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 80
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 28
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
252180
4/21/2022
064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
76.5(
WATER/ SEWER - SUPPLIES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
76.5(
10.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
8.01
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
8.01'
Total :
452.7j
252181
4/21/2022
070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
10449979
GONAVIA FEES - MARCH
MARCH FEE
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
25.0(
10449980
FSA - MARCH
MARCH FSA FEES
001.000.22.518.10.41.00
207.5(
Total :
232.5(
252182
4/21/2022
024001 NC MACHINERY
SECS0727412
UNIT 9 - PARTS/ WASHER
UNIT 9 - PARTS/ WASHER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
35.9,
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
20.7E
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
5.9E
Total :
62.6:
252183
4/21/2022
078847 NEWNUM, BETSY
10383 YOGA
10383 YOGA INSTRUCTION
10383 YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
112.7E
Total :
112.7E
252184
4/21/2022
065720 OFFICE DEPOT
234877723001
INV 234877723001 - ACCT 9052043'
PAPERMATE BLK PENS-DISCOUN-
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
27.3E
3 X 3 POST IT NOTES 18/PK
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 81
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 29
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
252184
4/21/2022
065720 OFFICE DEPOT
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
68.8,
5 X 2 POST IT NOTES 24/PK
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
27.21
BILK RETRACTABLE PENS- 36/PK
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
29.21
10.4% Sales Tax
U
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
15.8E E
236855398001
INV 236855398001 ACCT 90520437
M
PUBLIC WORKS - 5- CASES OR CC
z
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
214.3z o
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
22.5' 0-
Total:
405.% a
a
252185
4/21/2022
072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS
3685-197638
UNIT 61 - FUEL PUMP
..
UNIT 61 - FUEL PUMP
N
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
62.9� N
10.5% Sales Tax
4
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
0
6.6' y
Total:
69.6( E
.i
252186
4/21/2022
078781 PETTIT, MAUREEN C
10202 10203 CLOGGING
10202 10203 CLOGGING CLASS IN;
10202 CLOGGING CLASS INSTRUC
c
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
104.5( E
10203 CLOGGING CLASS INSTRUC
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
237.7E°
Total :
r
342.2E Q
252187
4/21/2022
071783 PIGSKIN UNIFORMS
2022-10
INV 2022-10 - EDMONDS PD - HAU(
SUMMER WT JUMPSUIT W/EXTRA;
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
540.0(
8.6% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
46.4z
2022-21
INV 2022-21 - EDMONDS PD - B.PE�
SUMMER WT JUMPSUIT W/EXTRA:
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 82
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
252187 4/21/2022 071783 PIGSKIN UNIFORMS (Continued)
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
8.6% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Total :
252188
4/21/2022 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY
2D11448
WWTP: 10/12/21 CREDIT FOR RETI
10/12/21 CREDIT FOR RETURN OF
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
2K18210
STORM - PARTS FOR PUMP STATIC
STORM - PARTS FOR PUMP STATIC
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
2R56652
WWTP: PO 813 RELAYS, MARKER
PO 813 RELAYS, MARKERS
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Tota I :
252189
4/21/2022 073231 POLYDYNE INC
1631908
WWTP: PO 717 POLYMER (CLARIFI
PO 717 POLYMER (CLARIFLOC)
423.000.76.535.80.31.51
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.51
Total
252190
4/21/2022 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS
03870
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR
422.000.72.531.90.41.50
Total
252191
4/21/2022 071559 PUBLIC SAFETY PSYCHOLOGICAL SV
2235
PSYCH EVALS FOR ACOP
7.3.b
Page: 30
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 83
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 31
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
252191
4/21/2022
071559
PUBLIC SAFETY PSYCHOLOGICAL SV
(Continued)
PSYCH EVALS FOR ACOP CANDID)
001.000.22.521.10.41.00
1,230.0(
Tota I :
1,230.0(
252192
4/21/2022
068697
PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC
2022-118
01 SUBSCRIPTION FEES
Q1 FEES
001.000.22.521.10.49.00
857.0(
PSTI22-78
POLYGRAPH EXAMS
POLYGRAPH EXAMS FOR ACOP C/
001.000.22.521.10.41.00
760.0(
Tota I :
1,617.0(
252193
4/21/2022
070955
R&R STAR TOWING
159008
UNIT 818 - TOW FROM PUBLIC WO
UNIT 818 - TOW FROM PUBLIC WO
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
184.0(
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
19.3,
Total :
203.3:
252194
4/21/2022
078283
REINTEGRATED MEDIA
435
A/V TECH SUPPORT
Council Hybrid Meetings AV Tech sup
001.000.11.511.60.41.00
2,318.7E
Total :
2,318.7E
252195
4/21/2022
078906
RIVERA, WHITNEY
04122022
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES - WMR
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES - FLIGHT T(
001.000.23.512.51.43.00
353.6(
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES - FLIGHT T(
001.000.23.512.51.43.00
358.6(
Total :
712.2(
252196
4/21/2022
068657
ROBERT HALF
59798191
TEMPORARY HELP WEEK ENDING
Temp Position at Customer: Bookkee
001.000.31.514.31.41.00
2,440.9,
59814564
TEMPORARY HELP WEEK ENDING
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 84
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 32
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
252196
4/21/2022
068657 ROBERT HALF
(Continued)
Temp Position at Customer: Bookkee
001.000.31.514.31.41.00
1,525.6-
Total :
3,966.5:
252197
4/21/2022
066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC
S3-7182534
UNIT 35 - PARTS/ FAN AND MOTOR
UNIT 35 - PARTS/ FAN AND MOTOR
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
105.8(
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
11.1-
Total :
116.91
252198
4/21/2022
066918 SEDOR, NORMAN
28
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.29.00
6,000.0(
Total :
6,000.0(
252199
4/21/2022
071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP
B15054589
MAR-2022 CLOUD SERVICE CHAR(
Mar-2022 Cloud Service Charges
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
1,255.0<
10.5% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
131.7E
Total :
1,386.81
252200
4/21/2022
075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC
3657
PUBLIC DEFENDER CONTRACT - N
MARCH CONTRACT
001.000.39.515.93.41.00
42,021.7(
3682
SNOCO PDA RECS/COPY FEE
SNOCO PDA RECS/COPY FEE
001.000.39.515.93.41.00
18.1 E
3683
SNOCO PDA RECORDSl A0758520
SNOCO PDA RECORDS 1 A0758520
001.000.39.515.93.41.00
67.0E
Total :
42,106.9:
252201
4/21/2022
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200651644
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 85
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252201 4/21/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 33
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
555.3E
200723021
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
29.4E
201184538
HICKMAN PARK
HICKMAN PARK
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
201383270
CITY PARK GAZEBO
CITY PARK GAZEBO
o
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.5E R
201431244
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
o
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
a
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
21.5, Q
201790003
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH
ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH
N
N
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
22.6E
202114484
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL
c
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL
y
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
152.2.E .
202540647
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
20.6< y
205184385
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / N
E
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / N
U
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
22.5( r
220547574
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
Q
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
76.6E
221732084
VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597
VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
75.5E
223283185
UPTOWN CITY HALL - 23632 HIGHV
Uptown City Hall - 23632 Highway 99
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
76.9�
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 86
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252201 4/21/2022 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
252202 4/21/2022 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
81253
81274
252203
4/21/2022
037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE
May-21
252204
4/21/2022
071585 STERICYCLE INC
3005962677
252205 4/21/2022 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 10906
252206 4/21/2022 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 180034365-00
252207 4/21/2022 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
0.1 .
7.3.b
Page: 34
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
Total :
1,098.6:
PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
952.0( ui
ILLEGAL DUMP FEES
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
5.0(
WWTP: 3/17/22 HAZARDOUS WASI
U
3/17/22 HAZARDOUS WASTE
E
423.000.76.535.80.47.66
60.0(
Total:
1,017.0( o
MAY-2022 FIRE SERVICES CONTRi
>
May-2022 Fire Services Contract Pay
0
Q.
001.000.39.522.20.41.50
784,987.6E c
:S
Total :
784,987.61
INV 3005962677 - CUST 6076358 - E
N
MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE
N
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
10.3E c
Total:
10.3E E
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR APF
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR APF
r
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
650.0( aa)
Total:
650.0( E
U
WWTP: PO 806 SCREWS, WASHEF
f°
r
WWTP: PO 806 SCREWS, WASHEF
Q
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
36.3 ,
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
3.8'
Total :
40.1 f
WATER/ SEWER - T-SHIRTS
WATER/ SEWER - T-SHIRTS
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
502.6'
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 87
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
252207
4/21/2022
040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
(Continued)
WATER/ SEWER - T-SHIRTS
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
96108
WATER/ SEWER - T-SHIRTS
WATER/ SEWER - T-SHIRTS
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
WATER/ SEWER - T-SHIRTS
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
10.5% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.24.00
10.5% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.24.00
Total:
252208
4/21/2022
042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE
29
REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
Total
252209
4/21/2022
075496 VALERIE INC
04302022
WINTER MARKET MANAGER SERV
WINTER MARKET MANAGER SERV
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
252210
4/21/2022
075155 WALKER MACY LLC
P3282.04-47
EOMA. SERVICES THRU 3/25/22
EOMA. SERVICES THRU 3/25/22
332.000.64.594.76.41.00
EOMA. SERVICES THRU 3/25/22
125.000.64.594.76.41.00
Total
252211
4/21/2022
047665 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
01630118
WWTP: PRANDOLPH 6/1-5/31/23 MI
7.3.b
Page: 35
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 88
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
252211 4/21/2022 047665 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION (Continued)
252212 4/21/2022 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
252213 4/21/2022 078302 WEBER, CAROL
252214 4/21/2022 073018 WINFIELD SOLUTIONS LLC
252215 4/21/2022 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
PO # Description/Account
PRANDOLPH 6/1-5/31/23 MEMBER;
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
Total
12715442
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total
15
VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI
VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
64945403
PM SUPPLIES: FERTILIZER
PM SUPPLIES: FERTILIZER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
253-011-1177
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
7.3.b
Page: 36
Amoun
120.0(
120.0(
N
m
t
1,802.7E U
.R
1,992.01, o
R
0
L
Q.
500.0( Q
500.0( "
N
N
T-
N
269.6E o
N
E
28.0z
297.65
a:
c
m
E
t
6.41 @
Q
24.4E
24.4E
24.4E
24.4E
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 89
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
252215 4/21/2022 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
99 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
99 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.b
Page: 37
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
24.4E
425-712-0417
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
35.6:
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
35.61'
425-712-8251
PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX,
E
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
16.8,
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
o
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
84.0
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
o
L
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
70.6, a
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
Q
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
70.6, N
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN'
N
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
94.1 E
425-745-4313
CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M
0
CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION
�
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
137.4E .
425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
T
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
a ;
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
110.0<
425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE
E
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI
U
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
71.1E r3
425-776-2742
LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACC[
Q
LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
26.4.E
Total:
881.3:
Bank total :
1,848,305.3�
Total vouchers :
1,848,305.3,
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 90
vchlist
04/21 /2022 11:49:25AM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
7.3.b
Page: 38
Amoun
Page: 38
a
Packet Pg. 91
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
7.3.c
Protect
Accounting
Funding Project Title Number
Moor174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560
2018 Lorian Woods Stu
SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Proiect c516
19 Std■j Maintenance Proi
Engineering
Project
Number
WIM
E21FB
EBGA
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
019 Traffic Calming
STR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
HIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
EBJB
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
STR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
STR
2020 Overlay Progra
i042
EOCA
STR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
STR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
STR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
STR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
STR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21CA
STR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
i062
E21 DB
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i060
E21CC
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
E21CD
STR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
WTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
i059
E21CB
STR
2022 Guardrail Program
i073
E22AC
STR
2022 Overlav Pro or
i063
E22CA
STR
2022 Pedestrian Safety program
i072
E22DA
STR
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
i065
E22CC
STR
2022 Signal Upgrades
i070
E22AA
STR
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
i066
STR
2022 Traffic Calming Program
i071
E22AB
ILILTILITIES
2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study
STR
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
i064
E22CB
20th Adaptive
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STR
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
i052
E20CB
9 STR
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
ui
v
m
t
v
E
.2
v
0
R
0
L
Q
Revised 4/20/2022 Packet Pg. 92
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
7.3.c
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
Moor 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
-
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
Mill
i025
E7CD
ADA Curb Ramps
STR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E91FA
ikelink Pro
STR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
EODC
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase
STR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
itywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield esi
EOMA
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E41FE
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
STM
Edmonds Marsh Water Qualit&Proje
c564
E21 FE
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
WTR
Elm St. Waterlin
c561
E21JB
STR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
E21 DA
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
STR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STR
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th)
i067
E22CE
STR
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
i068
E22CF
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
s011
ESGB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
STR
Minor Sidewalk Pr ogr
i017
E6DD
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
E20FC
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
SWR
Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project
c566
E22GA
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
WTR
Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project
c565
E22JA
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
STM
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
c563
E21 FD
STM
Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project
c567
E22FA
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
ui
m
t
U
E
.2
v
0
R
0
L
Q
Q
Revised 4/20/2022 Packet Pg. 93
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
7.3.c
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding Project Title
Number
Number
h nual Sewer Replacement Project
FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
— 562
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
STIR SR 104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th
i069
E22CG
STIR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055
E20CE
UTILITIES Standard Details Updates
010
ESNA
STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
"TM Stormwater Comp Plan Update
0
STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1DA
�Trackside Warning System
UTILITIES Utility Funds reserve Policies Study
s029
E22NA
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) V
PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA
IrPRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
E47C
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
REIV Yost & Seaview Reservoir A ssmer`
WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades
m160
E22JB
PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility
E21FA
ui
m
t
U
E
.2
v
0
R
0
Q.
Q
Revised 4/20/2022
Packet Pg. 94
7.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding Number
Number Protect Title
STR EOAA
i046 2020 Guardrail Installations,
STIR EOAB
i047 2020 Traffic Sianal Unarades
OA 2020 Traffic Calming
STIR
EOCA
i042
2020 Overlay Program
2020 Waterline Overlay
STIR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
STIR
EODC
i050
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
EOJB
& Seaview Resejj2ILAssessm�
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
c368
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STIR
ElDA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
i052
76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD)
STIR
E20CE
i055
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
TM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
STIR
E21AA
i056
2021 Traffic Calming
i057
2021 Guardrail Installations
STIR
E21 CA
i051
2021 Overlav Program
i059
SW R E21 CC
i060
E21 CD
i061
STIR E21 DA
i058
i062
PRK E21 FA
c556
STM E21 FC
21 FD
STM E21 FE
SWR
WTR
E21 GB
E21JA
E21JB
s028
c563
c564
c559
c562
c558
c561
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
= St. SW Slope Stabilization.
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
Fhase 3 StorlWtility Replacement Project
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
Phas Annual Sewer Replacement Project'
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
vi
d
z
E
0
0
L.
a
0.
a
Revised 4/20/2022 Packet Pg. 95
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
7.3.c
Engineering
Project
Funding Number
STR E22AA
Project
Accounting
Number Protect Title
2022 Signal Upgrades
STR
E22AB
i071
2022 Traffic Calming Program
_AR
E22AC
IF73
STR
E22CA
i063
2022 Overlay Program
0066
E22CB
M
2022 Waterline Overlay Progra
STR
E22CC
i065
2022 Sewerline Overlay Program
E22CD
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
STR
E22CE
i067
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th)
E22CF
i068
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
STR
E22CG
i069
SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th)
i072
2022 Pedestrian Safety program_
STM
E22FA
c567
Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project
III
werline Replacement Proiec
WTR
E22JA
c565
Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs an grades
UTILITIES
E22NA
s029
Utility Funds reserve Policies Study
UTILITIES
_VNB
s030
2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study
STR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
E4FC
c435
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
STM
E4FD
c436
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
TM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
WWTP
Sewendwater Monitoring
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
TR
Trackside Warning System
STR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
STM
E517D
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
ayton St. Utility Rep cement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E5KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
Standard Details Updates �
STR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
i015
issive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
Revised 4/20/2022
Packet Pg. 96
a
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
7.3.c
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Protect Title
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
STR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
228th St. SW ements
STR
E7CD
STM
E7FA
STM
E7FG
i025 89th PI W Retainina Wall
Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m013
PRK
E7MA
c544
PRK
E7MA
c
PRK
E7MA
m103
STR
E8AB
i028
STR
E8CA
i029
STR
E8CC
i031
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
2019 Waterline Replacement
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
220th Adapti
76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
STR
E8DB
i033
ADA Curb Ramps
i=Rnr.
JQ38th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
STM
E8FA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
E8FB
4th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
STM
E8FC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
wr
2019 Sewer nt Project
WTR
E8JA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
E8JB
s020
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Updat
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
Ir
2019 Traffic Calming
STR
HAD
i045
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
E9CB
i043
2019 Waterline Overlay
STR
E9DA
i040
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
ISTR
E9DC
i044
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
STM
E9FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
vi
d
z
E
0
0
L.
a
0.
a
Revised 4/20/2022 Packet Pg. 97
7.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
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
Y
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
U
STM
E41FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
E
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
R
U
STIR
ESAA
c470
Trackside Warning System
o
WTR
ESKA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
o
STIR
ESDA
c474
Bikelink Project
L
a
STIR
ESDB
c478
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
Q
STM
ESFD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
N
WWTP
ESHA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
v
WTR
ESJB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
N
L
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
E
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III
3
z
STM
E7FB
c495
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
L
a
PRK
E7MA
c496
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
WTR
E7JA
c498
2019 Waterline Replacement
D
2,
FAC
E9MA
c502
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
SWR
EBGA
c516
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
L
STM
EBFB
c521
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
LL
WTR
EBJA
c523
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
STM
EBFC
c525
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
PRK
EOMA
c536
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
Q
PRK
E7MA
c544
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
STM
EOFA
c546
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
STM
EOFB
c547
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
SWR
EOGA
c548
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
EOJA
c549
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
PRK
EOMA
c551
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
STM
E20FC
c552
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
PRK
E21FA
c556
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
WTR
E21JA
c558
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
SWR
E21GA
c559
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
Revised 4/20/2022
Packet Pg. 98
7.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
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
STM
E22FA
c567
Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR
E6AB
i015
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
STR
E6DD
i017
Minor Sidewalk Program
STR
E7AB
i024
Audible Pedestrian Signals
STR
E7CD
i025
89th PI W Retaining Wall
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
E21AA
i056
2021 Traffic Calming
STR
E21AB
i057
2021 Guardrail Installations
STR
E21 DA
i058
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
WTR
E21 CB
i059
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
ui
m
z
U
E
.2
U
0
R
0
L
a
a
Q
Revised 4/20/2022 Packet Pg. 99
7.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
SWR
E21CC
i060
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
STM
E21CD
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)
t
STR
E22CF
i068
Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th)
U
E
STR
E22CG
i069
SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th)
'2
STR
E22AA
i070
2022 Signal Upgrades
U
o
STR
E22AB
i071
2022 Traffic Calming Program
STR
E22DA
i072
2022 Pedestrian Safety program
a
STR
E22AC
i073
2022 Guardrail Program
Q
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
N
PRK
E7MA
m103
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
N
STM
E71FA
m105
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
v
0
WTR
E22JB
m160
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades
UTILITIES
ESNA
solo
Standard Details Updates
E
SWR
ESGB
s0l l
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
Z
STR
E6AA
s014
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
a
STM
E6FD
s017
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
STM
EBFA
s018
2018 Lorian Woods Study
�+
UTILITIES
EBJB
s02O
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
STM
E91FA
s022
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
m
STR
EODA
s024
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
Ui
GF
EONA
s025
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
c
a�
WTR
EOJB
s026
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
E
STM
E21 FC
s028
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
UTILITIES
E22NA
s029
Utility Funds reserve Policies Study
Q
UTILITIES
E22NB
s030
2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study
Revised 4/20/2022 Packet Pg. 100
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
7.3.c
Project
Accounting
Funding
Project Title
Number
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
STM
174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
STM
Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project
c567
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
STM
Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project
c563
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
STM
Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project
c564
STR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
STR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
STR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
STR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
STR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
STR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
Engineering
Project
Number
E4MB
E9MA
EONA
EBMA
EOMA
EOMA
E7MA
E7MA
E7MA
E21 FA
EBFB
E21 FB
E22FA
EBFA
EBFC
E21 CD
E9FA
E21 FD
E4FE
E4FD
E7FG
E7FA
E20FC
E21 FC
EOFB
ESFD
EOFA
E7FB
E6FD
E4FC
E21 FE
E9AA
E9AD
EOAA
EOCA
EODB
EODA
ui
m
z
U
E
U
0
R
0
L
Q
a
Q
Revised 4/20/2022 Packet Pg. 101
7.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
STR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA
STR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STR
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
E1CA
STR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
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)
i069
E22CG
STR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
STR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
STR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
STR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
EODC
STR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
STR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
E21 DA
STR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
STR
Minor Sidewalk Program
i017
E6DD
STR
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
E20CE
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1DA
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
ui
m
z
U
E
U
0
R
0
L
Q
a
Q
Revised 4/20/2022 Packet Pg. 102
7.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number
STIR
2022 Signal Upgrades
i070
E22AA
STIR
2022 Traffic Calming Program
i071
E22AB
STIR
2022 Pedestrian Safety program
i072
E22DA
STIR
2022 Guardrail Program
i073
E22AC
STIR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
STIR
220th Adaptive
i028
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
s0l 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
E21GA
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
UTILITIES
Utility Funds reserve Policies Study
s029
E22NA
UTILITIES
2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study
s030
E22NB
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
WTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
i059
E21CB
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
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades
m160
E22JB
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
ui
m
z
U
E
0
R
0
a
a
Q
Revised 4/20/2022 Packet Pg. 103
7.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Confirm Appointment of Candidate to a Board/Commission
Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
Cemetery Board Position #4 is currently open due to a retirement. Mayor Nelson interviewed candidate
Richard Marin and is recommending his appointment.
Staff Recommendation
Confirm appointment of Richard Marin to Cemetery Board Position #4.
Narrative
Mr. Marin has a long-standing history of involvement in the Edmonds community, previously serving on
other City Boards/Commissions. He has attended a Cemetery Board meeting and is interested in serving
on the Board.
Packet Pg. 104
7.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Confirm Appointment of Candidate to a Board/Commission
Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
The Planning Board Alternate Position is currently open due to a resignation. Mayor Nelson interviewed
Candidate Mary Beth Tragus-Campbell and is recommending her appointment.
Staff Recommendation
Confirm appointment of Mary Beth Tragus-Campbell to the Planning Board Alternate Position.
Narrative
Ms. Tragus-Campbell has a broad base of knowledge and experience and is eager to contribute to the
important work of the Planning Board.
Packet Pg. 105
7.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Edmonds Public Facilities District Resolution and Financial Info
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Dave Turley
Background/History
Representatives from the Edmonds Public Facilities District make periodic reports to Finance Committee
and City Council.
Staff Recommendation
For your review, included in today's packet is Resolution #2021.04 of the PFD authorizing the execution
and delivery of an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Development of the Edmonds Center for
the Arts. Also included is the Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement for Development of the
Edmonds Center for the Arts. Finally, a copy of the PFD's financial report for 2021 is also included.
Attachments:
1. Resolution #2021.04 Execution_ Delivery of Amendment to Interlocal
2. Edmonds _2021 Bonds _ILA amendment 2
3. EPFD ECA FY2021 Annual Report Package
Packet Pg. 106
7.6.a
RESOLUTION NO. 2021.04
A RESOLUTION of the Board of Directors of the Edmonds Public Facilities
District authorizing the execution and delivery of an amendment to Interlocal
Agreement for Development of the Edmonds Centre for the Arts, and providing
for other related matters.
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Public Facilities District (the "District"), the City of Edmonds
(the "City"), the Snohomish County Public Facilities District (the "County PFD"), and Snohomish
County (the "County" and collectively, the "Parties") entered into an Interlocal Agreement dated
November 4, 2002, recorded with the Auditor of the County of Snohomish, State of Washington
under recording number 200211060003 (the "Original Interlocal Agreement"), to provide for the
development of a Regional Center as defined in RCW 35.57.020 known as the "Edmonds Centre
for the Arts" (the "Regional Center"); and
WHEREAS, in 2005, the Parties entered into the First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement
for Development of the Edmonds Centre For The Arts to extend the required operational date to
March 31, 2007; and
WHEREAS, subsequently, the Parties entered into Addendum No. 1, Addendum No. 2,
and Addendum No. 3 to the Original Interlocal Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 164, Laws of 2017, the Legislature extended the time
period for the sales and use taxes imposed under RCW 82.14.390 from a maximum 25-year term
to a maximum 40-year term; and
WHEREAS, the City issued limited tax general obligation bonds (the "2002 Bonds") to
finance a portion of developing the Regional Center, payable in part from payments made by the
District under the Original Interlocal Agreement, and the City subsequently issued limited tax
general obligation refunding bonds (the "2012 Bonds") to refund the then -outstanding 2002
Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the District has requested that the City defease and refund the outstanding
2012 Bonds to modify the debt service requirements of the outstanding 2012 Bonds; and
r
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2021, the City issued its Limited Tax General Obligation N
Refunding Bonds, 2021B (Taxable) (the "2021 Bonds") and used a portion of the proceeds,
together with other available funds, to defease and refund the outstanding 2012 Bonds; and
0
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Original Interlocal Agreement (as previously
amended and as further amended, the "Interlocal Agreement") to conform the intergovernmental
payments to be made by the District to the City to the debt service payable on the 2021 Bonds and
any limited tax general obligation refunding bonds issued by the City in the future to refund the
2021 Bonds, as provided herein;
a
Packet Pg. 107
7.6.a
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT, as follows:
Section 1. Approval of Second Amendment; Confirmation of Pled. The Board
hereby approves the Second Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Development of the
Edmonds Centre for the Arts (the "Second Amendment"), substantially in the form attached hereto
as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The Executive Director of the District is
hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Second Amendment to the other Parties
thereto, substantially in the form attached hereto with only those modifications as determined by
the Executive Director of the District to be necessary.
As provided in the Interlocal Agreement, the District hereby confirms its obligation and
agreement to collect and remit all Sales and Use Taxes (as defined in the Interlocal Agreement)
and other intergovernmental payments to the City at the times and in the amounts set forth in the
Interlocal Agreement, and such Sales and Use Taxes and intergovernmental payments have been
and are hereby confirmed to be pledged for such purpose. Solely for purposes of
RCW 35.57.020(4) and RCW 82.14.390(4), the District hereby confirms that the Interlocal
Agreement is a "bond" evidencing the District's payment obligations thereunder.
Section 2. General Authorization. Upon the passage and approval of this resolution,
the proper officials of the District are authorized and directed to execute all other documents and
certificates, and to undertake all action necessary for the prompt execution and delivery of the
Second Amendment and to carry out the terms of the Interlocal Agreement and this resolution.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective upon its approval as
provided by law.
ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Edmonds Public Facilities District at an open
public meeting thereof held this 2nd day of December, 2021.
P EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT
� / �Cc, , �02,1
David Brewster
Board President
by Board , cmber:
Ray Liaw
Board Vice President
2
Dated
zo- r 3).
Dated
N
O
N
C
r
0
m
r
c
a�
E
z
U
2
r
Q
Packet Pg. 108
7.6.b
SECOND AMENDMENT
TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF THE EDMONDS CENTRE FOR THE ARTS
This Second Amendment to Interlocal Agreement for Development of the Edmonds
Centre for the Arts (this "Second Amendment") is made and entered into as of
November 23, 2021, among the City of Edmonds, a city duly organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington (the "City"); the Snohomish County
Public Facilities District, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Washington (the "County PFD"); Snohomish County, a political
subdivision of and duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington
and the Charter of Snohomish County (the "County"); and the Edmonds Public Facilities
District, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the
laws of the State of Washington, established by the City of Edmonds (the "City PFD").
RECITALS
A. The City, County PFD, County, and City PFD (collectively the "Parties")
entered into an Interlocal Agreement dated November 4, 2002, recorded with the Auditor of the County of Snohomish, State of Washington under recording number 200211060003
(the "Original Interlocal Agreement"), to provide for the development of a Regional Center
as defined in RCW 35.57.020 known as the "Edmonds Centre for the Arts" (the "Regional c
Center"); and
E
M
B. In 2005, the Parties entered into the First Amendment to Interlocal
Agreement for Development of the Edmonds Centre For The Arts to extend the required
operational date to March 31, 2007; and
0
m
C. Subsequently, the Parties entered into Addendum No. 1, Addendum No. 2, N
and Addendum No. 3 to the Original Interlocal Agreement, as amended by the First N
Amendment thereto; and
D. Pursuant to Chapter 164, Laws of 2017, the Legislature extended the time
period for the Sales and Use Taxes imposed under RCW 82.14.390 from a maximum 25-
year term to a maximum 40-year term; and
E. The City issued limited tax general obligation bonds (the "2002 Bonds")
to finance a portion of developing the Regional Center, payable in part from payments to
be made by the City PFD under the Original Interlocal Agreement, and the City
subsequently issued limited tax general obligation refunding bonds (the "2012 Bonds") to
refund the then -outstanding 2002 Bonds; and
F. The City PFD has requested that the City defease and refund the
outstanding 2012 Bonds to modify the debt service requirements of the outstanding 2012
FG:54375383.3
Packet Pg. 109
7.6.b
Bonds, and the City Council of the City has found that it is in the best interests of the City
and its taxpayers to issue limited tax general obligation refunding bonds (the "Refunding
Bonds") to be used, together with other available funds, to defease and refund the
outstanding 2012 Bonds; and
G. The Parties desire to amend the Original Interlocal Agreement, as
heretofore amended (the "Interlocal Agreement"), by this Second Amendment to conform
the intergovernmental payments to be made to the City by the City PFD to the debt service
payable on the Refunding Bonds and any limited tax general obligation refunding bonds
issued by the City in the future to refund the Refunding Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
I. Amendment of Section A of the Interlocal Agreement. Section A of the
Interlocal Agreement is hereby amended to include the following definitions:
Bond or bond means each limited tax general obligation bond or
limited tax general obligation refunding bond issued by the City to
finance the development of the Edmonds Centre for the Arts.
Finance or finance means to finance or refinance.
2. Replacement of Exhibit B-3. Exhibit B-3 of the Interlocal Agreement is
hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:
The amount of the intergovernmental payments to be made to the
City by the City PFD shall equal the debt service payable on the
bonds outstanding from time to time, as set forth in a schedule
provided by the City to the City PFD and acknowledged and agreed
to in writing by the City PFD.
3. Second Amendment Supersedes Inconsistent Provisions; Ratification. This
Second Amendment supersedes and controls any inconsistent provisions in the
Interlocal Agreement. Except as otherwise amended as provided herein, the
remaining terms of the Interlocal Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed.
This Second Amendment shall become effective upon execution by each Party and
filing with the Snohomish County Auditor.
FG:54375383.3 2
N
C
N
E
c
a�
E
M
J_
I
c
0
m
Packet Pg. 110
7.6.b
Attested:
City Clerk
FG:54375383.3
EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES
DISTRICT
Im
Executive Director
CITY OF EDMONDS
Im
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Bond Counsel
Packet Pg. 111
7.6.b
SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES
DISTRICT
Chair, Board of Directors
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
County Executive
Approved as to form:
LIN
FG:54375383.3
4
County Prosecutor
N
C
N
E
C
N
E
m
a
J_
I
C
O
m
Packet Pg. 112
ANNUAL REPORT CERTIFICATION
7.6.c
Edmonds Public Facility District
(Official Name of Government)
2764
MCAG No.
Submitted pursuant to RCW 43.09.230 to the Washington State Auditor's Office
For the Fiscal Year Ended 12/31/2021
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION:
Official Mailing Address
410 Fourth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Official Website Address
www.ec4arts.org
Official E-mail Address
lori@ec4arts.org
Official Phone Number
(360) 535-9567
AUDIT CONTACT or PREPARER INFORMATION and CERTIFICATION:
Audit Contact or Preparer Name and Title Lori Meagher Accountant
Contact Phone Number
425.275.9487
Contact E-mail Address
accounting@ec4arts.org
I certify 5th day of April, 2022, that annual report information is complete, accurate and in conformity
with the Budgeting, Accounting and Reporting Systems Manual, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
having reviewed this information and taken all appropriate steps in order to provide such certification. I
acknowledge and understand our responsibility for the design and implementation of controls to ensure
accurate financial reporting, comply with applicable laws and safeguard public resources, including
controls to prevent and detect fraud. Finally, I acknowledge and understand our responsibility for
immediately submitting corrected annual report information if any errors or an omission in such
information is subsequently identified.
Signatures
Lori Meagher (accounting@ec4arts.org)
Packet Pg. 113
7.6.c
Edmonds Public Facilities District
ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021
Packet Pg. 114
7.6.c
r
2
�L
u
N
N
d
r
u
R
LL
V
7
a
E
0
L
L
0
Q
NN�
LPL
d
Q.
r-
0
Q
NN�
LPL
i
a
r
N
O
N
LL
a
U
LU
a
L-
a.
LU
M
C
N
E
t
V
fC
Q
Packet Pg. 115
7.6.c
Contents
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS -
Statement of Net Position
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position
Statement of Cash Flows
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE 1 —SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
NOTE 2 — CAPITAL ASSETS
NOTE 3 —
LONG-TERM DEBT
NOTE 4 —CHANGES
IN LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
NOTE 5 —
OTHER INCOME
NOTE 6 —
PENSION PLAN
NOTE 7 —
LONG-TERM RENTAL AGREEMENT
NOTE 8 —
DEPOSIT DISCLOSURE & INVESTMENTS
NOTE 9 —
RISK MANAGEMENT
NOTE 10—
FINANCIAL CONDITION
NOTE 11—SUBSEQUENT
EVENTS
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Packet Pg. 116
7.6.c
MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Edmonds Public Facilities District (the District) presents this Management's Discussion and Analysis
of its financial activities for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021. The Management's
Discussion and Analysis is designed to:
• Assist the reader in focusing on significant financial issues.
• Provide an overview of the District's financial activity.
• Identify changes in the District's financial position (its ability to meet future years'
challenges).
The Management's Discussion and Analysis focuses on the current year's activities, resulting changes
and currently known facts. Therefore, it should be read in conjunction with the District's financial
statements.
OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The financial statements provide information about the District's overall financial position and results of
operations. These statements, which are presented on the accrual basis, consist of Management's
Discussion and Analysis (this section), the Statement of Net Position; the Statement of Revenues,
Expenses and Changes in Net Position; Statement of Cash Flows; and the Notes to the Financial
Statements.
The District is a business -type activity, the purpose of which is to construct, maintain and operate a
performing arts center within the boundaries of the City of Edmonds. Business -type activities provide
specific goods or services to a group of customers that are paid for by fees charged to those customers.
There is a direct relationship between the fees paid and the services rendered. The District is also
supported by a legally separate entity, a 501(c)(3) not -for -profit corporation called Edmonds Center for
the Arts (ECA), the purpose of which is to assist the District with community outreach, audience
development and securing contributions from private sources to help support the operation of the
performing arts center. ECA's financial activities are included within the Financial Statements of the
District, as the non-profit is a blended component unit of the District.
Packet Pg. 117
7.6.c
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Statement of Net Position
The Statement of Net Position presents information on all the District's assets, deferred
inflows/outflows of resources and liabilities, with the difference between the two reported as net
position. This statement is like the balance sheet of a private sector business. Over time, increases or
decreases in net position may serve as useful indicators of improvement or deterioration in the
District's overall financial position. Nonfinancial factors should also be considered to assess the
position of the District.
Condensed Statement of Net Position
Current and other assets
Capital assets(net)
Total assets
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions
Total assets and deferred outflows of resources
Current and other liabilities
Long-term liabilities
Total liabilities
Deferred inflows of resources related to pensions
Total liabilities and deferred inflows of resources
Net Position
Net investment in capital assets
Restricted
Unrestricted
Total net position
2021 2020
$1,867,294 $637,019
10,592, 278 10,452,654
12,459, 573 11,089,672
126,296 143,489
$12,585,869 $11,233,161
$1,257,608
5,724,056
6,981,864
535,873
$1,406,680
6,105,066
7,511,746
108,664
$7,517,737 $7,620,410
$4,060,497
1,043,646
(36,012)
$4,101,920
985,585
(1,474,755)
$5,068,130 $3,612,750
Packet Pg. 118
7.6.c
Condensed Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position
The Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position presents increases (revenues and
gains) and decreases (expenses and losses) in the District's net position during the current year.
2021 2020
Revenues
Operating revenues $1,513,578 $1,689,533
Non - operating revenues 2,213,325 1,030,291
Total Revenues $3,726,903 $2,719,824
Expenses
Operating Expenses $2,015,449 $2,355,172
Non - operating expense 255,991 146,215
Total Expenses $2,271,440 $2,501,387
Change in net position 1,455,380 218,438
Net position - beginning 3,612,750 3,394,313
Net position - end of period $5,068,130 $3,612,750
Analysis of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position:
Revenues:
The District's operating revenues decreased $175,955 or—10.41% in 2021. This net change was
due primarily to a decrease in contributed revenue from individual donors. Edmonds Center for
the Arts remained closed and its programs dormant for the first three quarters of 2021. Without a
series of stage presentations and education/community outreach programs to support, private
donations fell by nearly 27% year -over -year.
The District's non -operating revenue increased significantly in 2021, however, climbing $1,183,034
or 114.83%. Three key factors contributed to this growth. The district received support in the
amount of $710,450 from the Federal Government for pandemic relief through the Shuttered
Venue Operators Grant (SVOG) program administered through the Small Business Administration
(SBA). Other contributing factors to the growth in non -operating revenue included additional
sources of government relief from the State of Washington, Snohomish County, and the City of
Edmonds, as well as increased revenue from the District's ongoing State Sales Tax rebate.
Expenses:
Total operating expenses for the district decreased $339,723 or—16.86% over the prior period. The
district continued to employ strict labor and operating cost controls in 2021 to counteract limited
operating revenue from ticket sales, rental activities, and contributions resulting from the impacts of
the pandemic on business activities.
Net Position & Capital Assets:
The total net position of the District (assets in excess of liabilities) at December 31, 2021, was
$5,068,130. There was an increase of $1,455,380 or 40% compared to December 31, 2020. As
Packet Pg. 119
7.6.c
referenced above, this growth was due primarily to pandemic relief funds received from various
government sources.
The largest component of the District's net position remains its investment in capital assets, less debt
related to the acquisition of these assets. These assets, such as buildings and equipment, are used to
provide services to the citizens of Edmonds and the surrounding region.
Of the District's total net position on December 31, 2021, $1,043,646 was restricted. This restricted
portion increased by $58,061 or 6% in 2021, and the District's unrestricted net position increased by
$1,438,743, or 98% (See Note 1 (f)). Any remaining, unrestricted net position of the District may be used
for facility maintenance, capital repair/replacement, and functions of District operations such as employee
salaries, programming, advertising, and supplies.
Notes to the Financial Statements
The Notes to the Financial Statements are integral to the financial statements. They immediately follow
the Financial Statements in this report, and they provide additional disclosures essential to
a full understanding of the statements.
FINANCIAL CONDITION, RESULTS AND OUTLOOK
Operating Performance
As of January 1, 2021, the State of Emergency declared by Washington State Governor Jay Inslee in March
2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic remained in effect. Precautionary measures to slow the
spread of the virus continued well into the summer months. These measures included limiting or canceling
public events and requiring citizens to remain at home except to meet basic needs and serve essential
functions. The district's part-time production, box office, and front -of -house staff remained furloughed
and all regular administrative team members continued to work half-time through September 2021.
The district presented a limited number of outdoor events June -August 2021. During this period, full- and
part-time district staff slowly began to return to standard work hours in preparation for the opening of the
2021-2022 Season in September. On September 161", Edmonds Center for the Arts held its first
presentation in the auditorium since March 2020 — Marty Stuart & His Fabulous Superlatives — to a sold -
out audience. As of April 2022, the district has experienced steadily increasing attendance for its season of
presentations despite two resurgent waves of the virus in the fall and winter months.
Despite the devastating impact of the pandemic on its operation between March 2020 and September
2021, the district's overall financial position improved substantially in 2021. In addition to relief received
through the SVOG program (see Analysis of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Position above), and
other forms of government relief, the District was also able to refinance a portion of its long-term debt in
November 2021 with assistance from the City of Edmonds. These were the two most significant factors in
the dramatic positive shift in the District's overall financial condition.
Management continues to assess the implications and the long-term financial impact of the pandemic on
the organization and cash projections for the future. As it evaluates the future, the organization remains
focused on the recovery of its business activities — ticket sales for its series of presentations, rental
activities, concessions sales, and the development of contributed revenue to support its education and
Packet Pg. 120
7.6.c
community engagement programs. Welcoming patrons and families safely back to the theatre and
rebuilding a robust audience is critical to the long-term growth and success of the District.
In FY 2021, the District incurred an operating loss before depreciation of $146,875, compared to the
previous year in which it incurred a loss before depreciation in the amount of $33,703. As referenced
above, the primary reason for this operating loss was a drop in contributed revenue from individuals
due to a reduction in programming and fundraising activity resulting from the impacts of the pandemic.
Strategic Planning: In June 2017, the District and the Not -For -Profit Boards and staff embarked on a
planning process to update the organization's Strategic Business Plan for the five-year period of 2019 —
2023. The District and Non -Profit Boards officially approved the 5-year Strategic Business Plan at a joint
Board meeting in December 2018. In 2019 and 2020, District department heads and board committees
began implementing work plans based on the Strategic Business Plan objectives. These plan objectives
focused primarily the further development of earned revenue by developing new rental business,
expanding the non-profit donor base, analyzing the net profit of presented events before sponsorship,
stewardship of District assets and the development of external partnerships.
The District's ability to meet its Strategic Business Plan objectives in the latter half of the 2019-2023
implementation timeframe was impeded by the effects of the pandemic. It has also become clear that
strategic priorities and goals set forth in 2019 have changed significantly, also as a result of the pandemic.
Surveys have revealed that patterns of audience engagement may be forever changed, and the performing
arts industry nationwide is in the process of recognizing and reacting to these changing patterns.
The District, therefore, plans to begin a new strategic planning process in 2022. Audience and community
surveys and focus groups, along with careful research and identification of emerging trends will be critical
to the planning process. District leadership expects to complete its next strategic plan by December 2023
for implementation in 2024.
Non -Operating Performance
The District's Intergovernmental Revenue, which funds its long-term debt, comprises sales tax rebates
from the State of Washington, contributions from Snohomish County Public Facilities District established
by inter -local agreement, and a portion of any net operating revenue generated by the business activities
of Edmonds Center for the Arts.
Between 2011 and 2017, the District's annual bond debt services was met, in part, with assistance from
the City of Edmonds in the form of loans as prescribed in a Contingent Loan Agreement (CLA) between
the two entities signed in 2008 (see Note 3 in the accompanying Notes to the Financial Statements).
Under the terms of the CLA, the City of Edmonds is contractually obligated to advance to the District, as a
loan, the amount of any shortfall in the District's Debt Service Fund each year. The City of Edmonds
pledges its full faith and credit thereto. The City must provide the same contingent financial support to
the District for the life of the bonds, or until such assistance is no longer required.
As of 2018, the District no longer required assistance from the City of Edmonds to meet its annual debt
service obligations, and has made incremental payments on this series of loans. In 2021, the District
met its long-term bond debt obligations and made a loan payment to the City in the amount of
$50,000. It is anticipated that the District will make a payment on this loan in the amount of $100,000
in December 2022.
Packet Pg. 121
7.6.c
Increased Sales Tax Revenues: Since 2014, the City of Edmonds and Snohomish County have
experienced significant annual growth in sales tax revenues. As macro -economic conditions continue to
improve, even in light of the pandemic, the sales tax rebates the District receives from the State of
Washington and from Snohomish County Public Facilities District have increased and have helped to
close the gap between non -operating revenue and annual debt service payments due.
Extension of Public Facilities District Legislation: In 2017 the Washington State Legislature passed
House Bill 1201, and the Bill was subsequently signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee in April 2017
extending the sales tax rebate for Public Facilities Districts by a period of 15 years from 2027 to the year
2041. The extension of this funding source provided the District with the opportunity to refinance a
portion of its long-term debt. In November 2021, the District collaborated with the City of Edmonds to
refinance bonds originally issued in 2002. This refinancing extended the repayment terms for this
portion of the District's long-term debt to 2041. This extended loan period combined with a low
interest rate will help free a significant portion of the District's annual non -operating revenue for capital
maintenance, replacement, and improvements, or for operations as required.
REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
The following Financial Statements are designed to provide users with a general overview of the District's
financial performance as well as to demonstrate accountability to its citizens, investors, creditors, and
other customers. If you have a question about this report, please contact Edmonds Public Facilities
District, 410 Fourth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington, 98020, (425) 275-4485.
Packet Pg. 122
7.6.c
ASSETS:
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Statement of Net Position
As of December31, 2021
Cu rre nt Assets:
Cash and Cash Equivalents- Unrestricted
1,045,333
Cash and Cash Equivalents- Restricted
379,815
Customer Accounts Receivable
56,225
Pledges Receivable
27,531
Due from Other Governments
226,819
Inventory
5,270
Prepayments
127,302
Total Current Assets
$ 1,867,294
NoncurrentAssets:
Land $ 3,444,985
Construction in Progress -
Buildings, Equipment, Furniture and Other Depreciable Assets 15,420,758
Accumulated Depreciation (8,711,376)
Net Pension Asset 438,012
Total Noncurrent Assets $ 10,592,278
TOTALASSETS
$
12,459,573
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred Outflows Related to Pensions
126,296
$
126,296
LIABILITIES:
Current Liabilities:
Accounts Payable
$
108,861
Wages and Benefits Payable
99,194
Unearned Ticket Sales and Other Unearned Revenue
509,376
Liabilities for Customer Deposits
37,975
Accrued Interest
7,991
Current Portion of Long -Term Liabilities
494,211
Total Current Liabilities
$
1,257,609
Noncurrent Liabilities:
Loan Payable to First Financial NW Bank
$
1,962,672
Contractual Obligationtothe City of Edmonds
2,570,000
Loan Payable to the City of Edmonds
1,066,897
Liability for Compensated Absences
82,859
Net Pension Liability
41,839
Total Noncurrent Liabilities
$
5,724,256
TOTAL LIABILITIES
$
6,981,864
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred Inflows Related to Pensions
535,873
$
535,873
NET POSITION:
Net Investment in Capital Assets
4,060,497
Restricted
1,043,646
Unrestricted
(36,012}
TOTAL NET POSITION
$
5,068,130
The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement
r
v
�L
U
N
d
r
U
R
LL
v
7
a.
E
O
L
O
N
Packet Pg. 123
7.6.c
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Position
For the Period Ended December31, 2021
Operating Revenues:
Ticket Sales and Fees
$ 228,380
Rentals
298,601
Education and Outreach
11,824
Concessions
25,661
Co ntri b utio ns
929,109
Advertisi ng
1,300
Facilities
18,703
Total Operating Revenue
$ 1,513,578
Operating Expenses:
Artist Presentations and Theatre
$ 154,580
Rentals
8,910
Education and Outreach
39,326
❑evelopment
137,393
Advertising and Marketing
43,633
Payroll, Taxes and Employee Benefits
11210,278
Pension Expense underGASB68
(306,927)
Facilities Maintenance and Utilities
155,507
Contracted Services
5,895
Supplies and OtherOperating Expenses
211,859
Depreciation
354,996
Total Operating Expenses
$ 2,015,449
Operating Income (Loss) $ (501,871)
Non -operating Revenue and (Expenses):
Intergovernmental Revenue
$ 1,012,712
Grant Revenue
1,200,152
Interest Expense
(133,356)
❑ebt Issuance Cost
(91,686)
Interest Earned
461
Loss/Gain on Stock Realized
(84)
Loss/Gain on Fixed Assets
(30,949)
Non -Operating Income (Loss)
$ 1,957,251
TOTAL NET INCOME (LOSS) $ 1,455,380
BEGINNING NET POSITION $ 3,612,750
END OF YEAR NET POSITION $ 5,068,130
The notes to thefi nancial statements are an integral part of this statement
Packet Pg. 124
7.6.c
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended December 31, 2021
Cash Flows from Operating Activities:
Ticket Sales
301,452
Rental Receipts
292,253
Concession Sales
25,661
Contributions Received
1,031,630
Payments to Artists
(270,595)
Payments to Suppliers
(467,418)
Payments to Employees
(1,174,844)
Other Outside Payments
(186,921)
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities
$
(444,138)
Cash Flowsfrom Noncapital Financing Activities:
Cash borrowed from the City of Edmonds
$
1,335
Cash flows from noncapitalfinancing activities
$
1,335
Cash Flows from Capital and Related Financing Activities
Receipt of sales taxes & other intergovernmental payments
948,582
Receipt of gra nt revenue
1,200,152
Refi nance of Edmonds Bonds
2,680,000
Pri nci pal pai d on long-term debt
Contractual obligation to the City of Edmonds
(2,585,440)
Principal paid Da ns ou nd
(23,157)
Principal paid loan payable City of Edmonds
(48,665)
Principal paid to FFNFB
(280,141)
Interest paid on long-term debt
(141,290)
Debt Issuance Cost
(91,686)
Netcashffowsfromnoncapitalfinancing activities
$
1,658,795
Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
Interest received on i nvestments
461
Loss on sale of investment
(84)
Loss/Gain Fixed Assets
(30,949)
Net cash provided by investing activities
$
(30,572)
Totai adjustments
$
1,184,821
Beginning Cash
$
239,327
Ending Cash
$
1,424,148
Reconciliation of Operating Lossto Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities
Operating Loss
$
(501,871)
Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation
354,996
Changes in assets and liabiI ities:
Accounts Receivables
(65,255)
Inventory
-
Prepayments
(67,779)
Account Payable
16,107
Salaries & Benefits Payable
59,305
Compensated Absences
15,721
Unearned revenues
41,245
Unearned customer deposits
9,120
Pension Liability
(306,927)
Net cash provided by operating activities
$
(444,138)
The notes to the financial statements area r) integral part of this statement.
Packet Pg. 125
7.6.c
NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE 1— SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The accounting and reporting policies of Edmonds Public Facilities District (referred to hereafter as the
"District"), which conform to generally accepted accounting principles for governments as prescribed by
the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), are regulated by the Washington State Auditor's
Office. The District's financial statements are comprised of the accounts of the District per se, a
government body, and its private -sector not -for -profit affiliate, Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA). The
District's significant accounting policies are described below.
ECA follows accounting standards promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. It applies
those standards by utilizing guidance contained in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
Audit and Accounting Guide, "Not -for Profit Entities." Financial statements for ECA alone are included in
its Form 990, filed annually with the Internal Revenue Service. Copies of Forms 990 filed by ECA for the
three most recent years may be downloaded without charge from the website of Guidestar, Inc.
(http://www.guidestar.org/).
For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of
resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of all state
sponsored pension plans and additions to/deductions from those plans' fiduciary net position have been
determined on the same basis as they are reported by the Washington State Department of Retirement
Systems. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized
when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.
For purposes of calculating the restricted net position related to the net pension asset, the District includes
the (net pension asset only/net pension asset and the related deferred outflows and deferred inflows/net
pension asset and related deferred inflows).
A. Reporting Entity
The Edmonds Public Facilities District was established under the authority of the Laws of the State of
Washington, 1999, Chapter 165, pursuant to Ordinance No. 3358 of the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed on April 24, 2001. Under RCW 35.57 the City has authority to form a public facilities district for the
purposes, inter alia, of acquiring, constructing, operating, promoting, and financing a regional center.
Edmonds Public Facilities District developed a performing arts center within the city of Edmonds called
Edmonds Center for the Arts that provides for meetings, conferences, community events, sporting events,
trade shows, and artistic, musical theatrical, or other cultural exhibitions, presentations or performances to
the City, the County, and the entire state and their residents. Edmonds Center for the Arts is a strong
contributor to the economic vitality of the region and is a source of great pride to the community and its
patrons, staff, and volunteers. The District is a municipal corporation in the State of Washington. It is a
discrete component unit of the City of Edmonds. Its governing board is appointed by the City Council of
Edmonds and comprises of five members who serve staggered four-year terms, with one term renewal
permitted.
ECA is a not -for -profit corporation organized and operated in conformity with Section 501(c) (3) of the
Internal Revenue Code. ECA's activities are limited to providing support for the District and its performing
arts center. ECA conducts various activities to raise funds, primarilyfrom private- sector sources, including
Packet Pg. 126
7.6.c
individuals, corporations and other businesses, and foundations. Its eighteen -member Board of Directors
is appointed by the Board of the District for three-year terms renewable two times. ECA Board members
provide advice and counsel to the entity. ECA's financial activities are included within the Financial
Statements of the District, as the non-profit is a blended component unit of the District.
Edmonds Center for the Arts is grateful to host our performances and programs on the
culture -rich indigenous lands of the Coast Salish people. On behalf of our staff, Boards, and
volunteers, we are committed to working with local tribes to acknowledge and honor their
ancestral lands.
B. Basis of Accounting
The District uses the economic resources measurement focus and full accrual basis of
accounting, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when incurred.
Regardless of the timing of the cash flows.
The District's operating expenses include all costs associated with its presenting, rental and
concessions businesses, as well as the costs associated with administration and fundraising. Financial
costs, principally interest expense, are recorded as non -operating expenses.
The District receives and records operating revenue from the sources described below. Sales tax rebate
receipts, intergovernmental revenues, as well as interest and other investment revenues as non -
operating revenues.
(1) Ticket Sales to ECA Presentations are recorded as a liability, "Unearned Revenue," until the date of
the performance. Ticket revenue is therefore recognized as earned on the date of each performance.
Tickets returned by patrons prior to performances are reclassified as contribution revenue at amounts
equal to the original ticket sale price and placed back into ticket inventory for resale.
(2) Rental Revenue is derived from rentals of the auditorium, as well as other spaces in the facility.
Rentals received in advance are recorded as "Unearned Revenue," a current liability on the Statement
of Net Position. Unpaid rents are recorded as accounts receivable.
(3) Sales Tax Revenue and Intergovernmental Revenue are recorded as non -operating revenues on the
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position. District sales tax revenue represents a
rebate of a portion of State of Washington sales taxes assessed and collected within the District.
Intergovernmental revenue consists of the proceeds of an Inter -Local Agreement between the City of
Edmonds, Edmonds Public Facilities District, Snohomish County, and the Snohomish County Public
Facilities District. That agreement provides for rebates of sales taxes assessed and collected elsewhere in
Snohomish County to public facilities districts in the county, including the District.
Under the agreements which generate these revenues, they must be used first to pay the annual
principal and interest on the District's long-term debt. The debt that must be so serviced comprises the
District's 2021 Contractual Obligation to the City of Edmonds (see Note 3). Loan payable to First Financial
Northwest Bank (see Note 3). Loan payable to the City of Edmonds (see Note 3). In any fiscal year in
which the Sales Tax and Intergovernmental Revenues exceed the amounts required to service those
three liabilities, the excess may be used by the District for operations, capital expenditures, or other debt
reduction.
Packet Pg. 127
7.6.c
In the event the District lacks sufficient non -voted debt capacity to incur indebtedness resulting from a
loan from the City, the District shall incur indebtedness for an amount equal to the District's remaining
non -voted debt capacity, if any, and any loan amount greater than the District's then -remaining non -voted
debt capacity shall be deemed an equity payment by the City to the District in exchange for an interest in
the Regional Center, which need not be repaid. Within 60 days after any such equity payment by the City,
the District shall deliver to the City a quitclaim deed conveying to the City a tenancy -in -common interest in
the Regional Center. Such interest shall be a percentage ownership interest in the Regional Center, the
numerator of which shall be the sum of such equity payment and the costs of transferring title and
recording such quitclaim deed, and the denominator of which shall be the aggregate original principal
amounts of: (a) the Refunded Bonds, (b) all bonds issued by the City to finance the Regional Center, and
(c) any other bonds issued by the District to finance the Regional Center (excluding from clause (c) the
Note, the Prior Note (as defined in the Original Agreement) and any bonds, or any portion thereof, issued
to refinance bonds issued by the City or the District to finance the Regional Center).
The Sales Tax and Intergovernmental Revenues are recorded as revenue during the fiscal period in which
they are assessed. Revenues earned but not yet received are recorded as receivables.
(4) Contributions are the principal revenue source for Edmonds Center for the Arts. They are received
in three different forms: cash donations, donation of financial instruments, and donated performance
tickets. Contributions are recorded as revenue when they are in the form of voluntary unconditional
promises to give. ECA records donations as revenue on the date of receipt. ECA's policy is to sell
donated financial instruments immediately thereafter. Donated tickets are placed back into inventory
for sale to the public.
C. Cash and Cash Eauivalents
In the statement of Net Position, Cash and Equivalents includes cash in the bank and short-term
investments held in the Washington State Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), these investments
are reported at amortized cost.
D. Receivables
Customer accounts receivable consist of amounts due from private individuals or organizations for
goods and services. Pledged receivables consist of amounts due on promised contributions. The
amount due from governments consists of sales tax and sponsorships. Total receivables are listed below
Customers $ 56,225
Pledges from Private Sources $27,531
Due from Government $226,819
Total Receivables $ 310,575
E. Inventories
Inventories consist primarily of goods held for sale as concessions. Inventories are valued at historic
cost under the FIFO identification method. Balance at 12/31/2021, $5,270. This resulted in no change
from 2020.
Packet Pg. 128
7.6.c
F. Restricted Assets
These accounts contain resources for debt services, grants, and facilities. Specific debt service reserve
requirements are described in (Note 3).
The District implemented a facility ticket fee in 2017 which are designated for specific purposes generally
not part of the Operating Budget. Specifically, for the sole purpose of making capital improvements, or to
make emergency maintenance outside of the normal day to day operations of the facility with
authorization from the EPFD Board.
The amount due from governments consists of sales tax, contributions made from Snohomish County Tax
and Lodging, Edmonds Arts Commission, City of Edmonds - Lodging Tax (posted to revenue but not
collected) and Donor restricted cash.
The restricted assets are composed of the following:
Cash — Debt Service
$ 317,321
Cash — Facilities
61,004
Cash- Endowment Fund
490
Due from Governments
226,819
Net Pension Asset
438,012
Total Restricted Assets $1,043,646
G. Compensated Absences
Employees who work 30 or more hours per week earn compensated vacation each pay period based on
the number of hours worked. The amount of paid leave an employee can earn depends on their length of
service with the organization and the number of hours they are regularly scheduled to work each week. A
maximum of 30 unused vacation days may be carried over from one year to the next.
Due to the Pandemic, the Board authorized management to extend the accrual of compensated absences
to employees who worked 30 hours or more prior to March 2020, and whose hours were reduced to 20 or
more hours still accrue as though they work 30 or more hours per week. This enhanced accrual returned
to the pre-covid accrual rate when eligible staff returned to full time working status.
The Districts long term year's liability at December 31, 2021, was $82,859. This resulted in an increase
of $15,721 from 2020.
H. Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources
In the Statement of Net Position, Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources is related to pensions. (See Note
6.)
NOTE 2 — CAPITAL ASSETS
Capital assets include land, buildings, equipment, and technology/software. The District capitalizes
purchased items having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition value more than $2,000.
Purchased assets are recorded at cost when placed in service. The Districts major capital asset is its 2006
Packet Pg. 129
7.6.c
renovated auditorium and the un -renovated building structure (Building). The Board approved an updated
Capital Asset policy that provided for extending the depreciable life of an asset, when it is determined that
such asset will be in use past the life originally established. Until 2021, the building is being depreciated
over a 25-year life using the straight- line method. Starting in 2021, the life has been extended by an
additional 10 years, resulting in reduced depreciation expense in the current year, compared to prior year of
$270,435. Other capital assets are depreciated over a period of 15 years or less using the straight-line
method. Land and construction in progress are not depreciated. Donated Assets are valued at acquisition
cost
If replacement or disposal of an item that is a part of the 2006 original building renovation component or
other renovation project that does not specially identify the item, and such acquisition cost cannot be
determined in the records, an Inflation Calculator(https://www.usinflationcalculator.com) based on the
current cost of the new item shall be used to estimate the original acquisition cost of the disposed
of/replaced asset. The accumulated depreciation taken to date shall be calculated from this estimated
original acquisition cost. After removing accumulated depreciation, a gain or loss of the disposal would be
recognized. The new asset component will be depreciated over the remaining life assigned to the original
asset.
The Schedule of Capital Activity that follows shows beginning and ending balances, as well as the changes in
capital assets and accumulated depreciation during the year ended December 31, 2021.
Schedule of Capital Asset Activity
Balance Balance
1/1/2021 12/31/2021
Increases Decreases
Land
3,444,885
3,444,885
Construction in Progress
162,146
87,557
(249,703)
0
Total capital assets, non -depreciable:
$3,607,031
87,557
(249,703)
$3,444,885
Capital assets, depreciable: Building
14,606,794
140,969
(71,246)
14,676,517
Equipment, Furniture & Technology
635,607
'
108,734
744 241
'
Total capital assets depreciable:
$15,242,301
249,703
(71,246)
$15,420,758
Less accumulated depreciation for:
(7,988,334)
(311,439)
40,297
(8,259,476)
Building and Renovations
Equipment, Furniture & Technology
(408,344)
(43,557)
(451,901)
Total accumulated depreciation:
(8,396,678)
(354,996)
40,297
(8,711,377)
Total net depreciable capital assets:
$6,845,623
(115,923)
(30,949)
$6,709,381
Total capital assets, net:
$10,452,654
(27,736)
280,652
$10,154,266
Packet Pg. 130
7.6.c
NOTE 3 — LONG-TERM DEBT
In 2008, Edmonds Public Facilities District issued Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds in the amount of
$4,000,000. The bond proceeds were used to refund the District's outstanding balance on its 2005 General
and Revenue Obligation Line of Credit ($3,883,804). The remaining proceeds were used to pay bond issuance
costs and a portion was placed in reserve for future debt payments. The Bonds were issued pursuant to
chapters 35.57 and 39.46 of the Revised Code of Washington and Resolution No. 27 adopted by the District's
Board of Directors. When the Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds were issued, the District entered into
a Contingent Loan Agreement (CLA) with the City of Edmonds (the City) providing credit support for the
bonds.
The CLA (original agreement dated July 14th, 2008) states that the City pledges its "full faith, credit and
resources" in an "absolute and unconditional" obligation to lend money to the District for paying debt service
on the bonds.
The total principal and interest due on the CLA at December 31, 2021, is $1,166,887. Interest accrues on the
outstanding balance at the Local Government Investment Pool rate as determined as of the last day of each
month in which the loan is outstanding and shall change monthly as of the first day each month in which the
loan is outstanding. Unless paid earlier, all loans shall mature on December 315Y, 2028.
Resolution No. 2018-2, adopted on October 25, 2018, and entitled "A resolution of the District providing for
the issuance of a note in the principal amount of not to exceed $3,000,000, to provide funds with which to
repay and redeem in a current refunding of its outstanding Sales Tax Obligation and refunding bonds, 2008,
and pay the costs of issuance of the note and administering the refunding plan;
The 2008 Sales Tax Obligation and Refunding Bonds were refinanced in 2018. The District borrowed
$2,803,516 from First Financial Northwest Bank.
The Amended Contingent Loan Agreement (CLA):
This first amended and restated CLA is dated November 15th, 2018, and amends and restates the CLA dated
July 14th, 2008 (the original agreement), by and between the City of Edmonds and the District. The City of
Edmonds and the District entered into this agreement solely for the purpose of providing credit support for
the District's Loan (promissory) note, 2018 issued in the amount of $2,803,516. Under the new CLA the
District did not borrow any funds. The loan amount did not exceed the amount necessary to refund the
Refunded 2008 Bonds and pay the cost of issuance and sale of the note.
Loan: First Financial Northwest Bank outstanding as follows:
Interest Balance Paid in Balance
Issue Name Rates 12/31/2020 2021 12/31/2021
First Financial Northwest
3% $2,523,164 $280,141 $2,243,023
Bank
Packet Pg. 131
7.6.c
Following is a table which reflects debt service to maturity for the Contractual Obligation to the
First Financial Northwest Bank:
Year Principal Interest Total
2021 280,352 76,957 357,308
2022 280,352 68,219 348,571
2023 280,352 59,692 340,043
2024 280,352 51,164 331,516
2025-2029 1,401,756 128,048 1,529,806
$2,523,164 $384,080 $2,907,244
Contractual Obligation to the City of Edmonds 2021:
In 2002, Edmonds Public Facilities District became obligated under an inter -local agreement with the City
of Edmonds to apply its receipts of sales tax revenues to the City over the life of the City's Limited General
Obligation Bonds issued in 2002. A major portion of the proceeds of that bond issue was used for the
acquisition, renovation, and initial operation of a Performing Arts Center by the District.
On October 12, 2012, the City of Edmonds refunded the 2002 Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding
Bonds with a face amount of $5,650,000. The 2012 Refunding Bonds and related interest are a liability of
the City of Edmonds and are not reported as liability of the District. However, the District remains
contractually obligated to the City of Edmonds to continue to apply its sales tax receipts to the City under
the Inter -local agreement as per the schedule below. The liability to the City has been appropriately
recorded on the District's Statement of Net Position as "Contractual Obligation to the City of Edmonds."
The amount of the District's obligation to the City at the date of refunding was $4,965,000 with interest
rates ranging from 1.75% to 3.0%, depending on the maturity of each principal installment. The bonds are
scheduled to be retired in annual amounts beginning in 2013 and continuing through 2026. These bonds
are been refunded in 2021 as described in the next paragraph.
In 2021, the District requested that the City of Edmonds refinance the above -noted 2012 bonds with
taxable bonds that would reduce principal payments annually and extend annual principal payments until
2041. On November 23, 2021, the 2012 bonds were refinanced by the City of Edmonds with new taxable
bonds (2021 Refunding Bonds) with a principal of $2,680,000 with interest rates ranging from 2.0% to
2.6% depending upon the maturity of each principal installment. This transaction required that the 2012
bonds be placed in an escrow with interest payments made until they can be called and paid in December
2022. The related financing and escrow costs of $91,686 are recognized in 2021 as Debt Issuance Costs
shown in the non -operating section of the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position.
On the District's Statement of Net Position, this new bond is shown under "Contractual Obligation to the
City of Edmonds".
Packet Pg. 132
7.6.c
District Contractual Obligation to the City of Edmonds currently outstanding is as follows:
Issue Name Interest Balance Paid in 2021 Balance
Rates 12/31/2020 12/31/2021
2012 Refunding Bonds 1.75-3.0% $2,585,000 $0 $0
2021 Refunding Bonds 2.0-2.6% $0 $0 $2,680,000
Following is a table which reflects debt service to maturity for the Contractual Obligation to the
City of Edmonds (2021 Refunding Bonds):
Year
Principal
Interest
Total
2022
$110,000
$60,429
$170,429
2023
110,000
56,915
166,915
2024
115,000
54,715
169,715
2025
115,000
52,415
167,415
2026-2041 2,230,000 471,807 2,701,807
$2,680,000 $696,281 $3,376,281
In 2018, a promissory note was issued with Dan Sound to facilitate the purchase of the District's Meyer
Melodie sound array for use in the theater. The purchase of this equipment was funded by a Snohomish
County Grant awarded in 2018 for theater upgrades. A portion of the grant was allocated as a $30,000
down payment for the upgrade, and a promissory note was issued at zero percent interest for the
remaining balance. The District has benefited from this arrangement as previously when an artist's
contract required enhanced sound equipment, the District would be required to rent this equipment. By
owning this sound equipment, the District saves on average over $20,000 a year inclusive of the annual
payments noted below. The Note payable to Dan Sound will be fully paid in February 2022.
Promissory Note to Dan Sound currently outstanding is as follows:
Interest Balance Paid in Balance
Issue Name Rates 12/31/2020 2021 12/31/2021
Note Payable to
0% $27,017 $23,157 $3,860
Dansound
Packet Pg. 133
7.6.c
NOTE 4 — CHANGES IN LONG-TERM LIABILITIES
During the year ended December 31, 2021, the following changes occurred in long-term
liabilities:
(Note: Amounts include current portion of long-term debt components)
Issue Name
Balance
12/31/2020
Additions
Reductions
Balance
12/31/2021
Due in
2022
First Financial Northwest
2,523,164
(280,141)
2,243,023
Bank
280,352
Contractual Obligation: City
of Edmonds (2012 Refunding
(2,585,000)
0
0
Bonds)
2,585,000
Contractual Obligation: City
of Edmonds (2021 Refunding
0
2,680,000
2,680,000
110,000
Bonds)
CLA - City of Edmonds
1,215,552
1,335
(50,000)
1,166,887
100,000
Note Payable to Dan Sound
27,017
(23,157)
3,860
3,860
Net Pension Liability
390,704
(348,865)
41,839
0
Compensated Absences
67,138
15,721
82,859
0
Total Long -Term Liabilities
$6,808,575
$2,697,056
($3,287,163)
$6,218,468
$494,212
NOTE 5 — OTHER INCOME
The District received a $53,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in 2020. This grant program
originates from the federal government's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and is
administered locally by the Snohomish County Human Services Department. This grant funded the removal
of barriers to existing ADA accessible seating locations and created a new equitable accessible seating
location in the District's auditorium. One outcome of this important project was the establishment of a
clear pathway in the center of the auditorium to allow for the movement of patrons from one side of the
theatre to the other, further improving accessibility and safety. These modifications doubled the amount of
ADA accessible seating available on the main level of the theater and established a new accessible seating
position and companion seat in the center of the house. The project launched in the 3rd quarter of 2020
and was completed in early 2021. The District received $34,477 in 2021 for this project, and the balance
was received in 2022 upon completion of the work.
The District also received a $500,000 multi -year grant from the Snohomish County Lodging Tax Advisory
Committee (LTAC) in FY 2021. The purpose of this grant is to help increase tourism by supporting
improvements to the District's facilities and infrastructure. Through this grant program, the District is
reimbursed for expenses up to $100,000 each year for five years beginning in 2021 and continuing through
2025. Eligible expenses include ongoing debt service associated with the District's original renovation
project in 2006, and/or new maintenance, repairs, and improvements made to the District's facilities during
the grant period. In 2021, the District allocated the full amount of $100,000 to help service existing debt.
Packet Pg. 134
7.6.c
In July 2021, the District received a significant grant in the amount of $710,450 through the Shuttered
Venue Operators Grant (SVOG) program. This program, administered by the Small Business Administration,
was passed by Congress as part of the Economic Aid Act signed into law on December 27, 2020. The
purpose of this grant program was to provide relief to entertainment venues, arts organizations & cultural
institutions across the United States who had been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. In May
2021, the District was invited to apply for supplemental funding from this same grant program. Additional
funding in the amount of $355,255 was ultimately approved and was received in November 2021.
The combined total income received from these sources in 2021 was $1,200,182.
NOTE 6 PENSION PLANS
The following table represents the aggregate pension amounts for all plans for the year 2021:
Aggregate Pension Amounts — All Plans
Pension liabilities
$(41,839)
Pension assets
$438,012
Deferred outflows of resources
$126,297
Deferred inflows of resources
$(535,873)
Pension expense/expenditures
$(247,262)
State Sponsored Pension Plans
Substantially all Edmonds Public Facilities District full-time and qualifying part-time employees participate in
one of the following statewide retirement systems administered by the Washington State Department of
Retirement Systems, under cost -sharing, multiple -employer public employee defined benefit and defined
contribution retirement plans. The state Legislature establishes, and amends, laws pertaining to the creation
and administration of all public retirement systems.
The Department of Retirement Systems (DRS), a department within the primary government of the State of
Washington, issues a publicly available annual comprehensive financial report (ACFR) that includes financial
statements and required supplementary information for each plan. The DRS ACFR may be obtained by writing
to:
Department of Retirement Systems
Communications Unit
P.O. Box 48380
Olympia, WA 98540-8380
Or the DRS ACFR may be downloaded from the DRS website at www.drs.wa.gov.
Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS)
PERS members include elected officials; state employees; employees of the Supreme, Appeals and Superior
Courts; employees of the legislature; employees of district and municipal courts; employees of local
governments; and higher education employees not participating in higher education retirement programs.
PERS is comprised of three separate pension plans for membership purposes. PERS plans 1 and 2 are defined
benefit plans, and PERS plan 3 is a defined benefit plan with a defined contribution component.
Packet Pg. 135
7.6.c
PERS Plan 1 provides retirement, disability and death benefits. Retirement benefits are determined as two
percent of the member's average final compensation (AFC) times the member's years of service. The AFC is
the average of the member's 24 highest consecutive service months. Members are eligible for retirement
from active status at any age with at least 30 years of service, at age 55 with at least 25 years of service, or at
age 60 with at least five years of service. Members retiring from active status prior to the age of 65 may
receive actuarially reduced benefits. Retirement benefits are actuarially reduced to reflect the choice of a
survivor benefit. Other benefits include duty and non -duty disability payments, an optional cost -of -living
adjustment (COLA), and a one-time duty -related death benefit, if found eligible by the Department of Labor
and Industries. PERS 1 members were vested after the completion of five years of eligible service. The plan
was closed to new entrants on September 30, 1977.
Contributions
The PERS Plan 1 member contribution rate is established by State statute at 6 percent. The employer
contribution rate is developed by the Office of the State Actuary and includes an administrative expense
component that is currently set at 0.18 percent. Each biennium, the state Pension Funding Council adopts
Plan 1 employer contribution rates. The PERS Plan 1 required contribution rates (expressed as a percentage of
covered payroll) for 2021 were as follows:
PERS Plan 1
Actual Contribution Rates
Employer
Employee*
January —June 2021
PERS Plan 1
7.92%
6.00%
PERS Plan 1 UAAL
4.87%
Administrative Fee
0.18%
Total
12.97%
6.00%
July — December 2021
PERS Plan 1
10.07%
6.00%
Administrative Fee
0.18%
Total
10.25%
6.00%
PERS Plan 2/3 provides retirement, disability and death benefits. Retirement benefits are determined as two
percent of the member's average final compensation (AFC) times the member's years of service for Plan 2 and
1 percent of AFC for Plan 3. The AFC is the average of the member's 60 highest -paid consecutive service
months. There is no cap on years of service credit. Members are eligible for retirement with a full benefit at 65
with at least five years of service credit. Retirement before age 65 is considered an early retirement. PERS Plan
2/3 members who have at least 20 years of service credit and are 55 years of age or older, are eligible for early
retirement with a benefit that is reduced by a factor that varies according to age for each year before age 65.
PERS Plan 2/3 members who have 30 or more years of service credit and are at least 55 years old can retire
under one of two provisions:
• With a benefit that is reduced by three percent for each year before age 65; or
With a benefit that has a smaller (or no) reduction (depending on age) that imposes stricter return -to -
work rules.
Packet Pg. 136
7.6.c
PERS Plan 2/3 members hired on or after May 1, 2013 have the option to retire early by accepting a reduction
of five percent for each year of retirement before age 65. This option is available only to those who are age 55
or older and have at least 30 years of service credit. PERS Plan 2/3 retirement benefits are also actuarially
reduced to reflect the choice of a survivor benefit. Other PERS Plan 2/3 benefits include duty and non -duty
disability payments, a cost -of -living allowance (based on the CPI), capped at three percent annually and a one-
time duty related death benefit, if found eligible by the Department of Labor and Industries. PERS 2 members
are vested after completing five years of eligible service. Plan 3 members are vested in the defined benefit
portion of their plan after ten years of service; or after five years of service if 12 months of that service are
earned after age 44.
PERS Plan 3 defined contribution benefits are totally dependent on employee contributions and investment
earnings on those contributions. PERS Plan 3 members choose their contribution rate upon joining
membership and have a chance to change rates upon changing employers. As established by statute, Plan 3
required defined contribution rates are set at a minimum of 5 percent and escalate to 15 percent with a
choice of six options. Employers do not contribute to the defined contribution benefits. PERS Plan 3 members
are immediately vested in the defined contribution portion of their plan.
Contributions
The PERS Plan 2/3 employer and employee contribution rates are developed by the Office of the State
Actuary to fully fund Plan 2 and the defined benefit portion of Plan 3. The Plan 2/3 employer rates include a
component to address the PERS Plan 1 UAAL and an administrative expense that is currently set at 0.18
percent. Each biennium, the state Pension Funding Council adopts Plan 2 employer and employee
contribution rates and Plan 3 contribution rates. The PERS Plan 2/3 required contribution rates (expressed as a
percentage of covered payroll) for 2021 were as follows:
PERS Plan 2/3
Actual Contribution Rates
Employer 2/3
Employee 2*
January —June 2021
PERS Plan 2/3
7.92%
7.90%
PERS Plan 1 UAAL
4.87%
Administrative Fee
0.18%
Employee PERS Plan 3
Varies
Total
12.97%
7.90%
July — December 2021
PERS Plan 2/3
6.36%
6.36%
PERS Plan 1 UAAL
3.71%
Administrative Fee
0.18%
Employee PERS Plan 3
Varies
Total
10.25%
6.36%
The District's actual PERS plan contributions were $35,548 to PERS Plan 1 and $59,664 to PERS Plan 2/3 forthe
year ended December 31, 2021.
Packet Pg. 137
7.6.c
Actuarial Assumptions
The total pension liability (TPL) for each of the DRS plans was determined using the most recent actuarial
valuation completed in 2021 with a valuation date of June 30, 2020. The actuarial assumptions used in the
valuation were based on the results of the Office of the State Actuary's (OSA) 2013-2018 Demographic
Experience Study and the 2019 Economic Experience Study.
Additional assumptions for subsequent events and law changes are current as of the 2020 actuarial valuation
report. The TPL was calculated as of the valuation date and rolled forward to the measurement date of June
30, 2021. Plan liabilities were rolled forward from June 30, 2020, to June 30, 2021, reflecting each plan's
normal cost (using the entry -age cost method), assumed interest and actual benefit payments.
• Inflation: 2.75% total economic inflation; 3.50% salary inflation
• Salary increases: In addition to the base 3.50% salary inflation assumption, salaries are also expected
to grow by promotions and longevity.
• Investment rate of return: 7.4%
Mortality rates were developed using the Society of Actuaries' Pub. H-2010 mortality rates, which vary by
member status, as the base table. The OSA applied age offsets for each system, as appropriate, to better tailor
the mortality rates to the demographics of each plan. OSA applied the long-term MP-2017 generational
improvement scale, also developed by the Society of Actuaries, to project mortality rates for every year after
the 2010 base table. Mortality rates are applied on a generational basis; meaning, each member is assumed to
receive additional mortality improvements in each future year throughout their lifetime.
There were no changes in assumptions since the last valuation. There were changes in methods since the last
valuation.
• For purposes of the June 30, 2020 Actuarial Valuation Report (AVR), a non -contribution rate setting
valuation under current funding policy, the Office of the State Actuary (OSA) introduced temporary
method changes to produce asset and liability measures as of the valuation date. See high-level
summary below. OSA will revert back to the methods outlined in the 2019 AVR when preparing the
2021 AVR, a contribution rate -setting valuation, which will serve as the basis for 2022 ACFR results.
• To produce measures at June 30, 2020, unless otherwise noted in the 2020 AVR, OSA relied on the
same data, assets, methods, and assumptions as the June 30, 2019 AVR. OSA projected the data
forward one year reflecting assumed new hires and current members exiting the plan as expected.
OSA estimated June 30, 2020, assets by relying on the fiscal year end 2019 assets, reflecting actual
investment performance over FY 2020, and reflecting assumed contribution amounts and benefit
payments during FY 2020. OSA reviewed the actual June 30, 2020, participant and financial data to
determine if any material changes to projection assumptions were necessary. OSA also considered
any material impacts to the plans from 2021 legislation. See the 2020 AVR for more information.
Discount Rate
The discount rate used to measure the total pension liability for all DRS plans was 7.4 percent.
To determine that rate, an asset sufficiency test was completed to test whether each pension plan's fiduciary
net position was sufficient to make all projected future benefit payments for current plan members. Based on
Packet Pg. 138
7.6.c
OSA's assumptions, the pension plans' fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all
projected future benefit payments of current plan members. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return
of 7.4 percent was used to determine the total liability.
Long -Term Expected Rate of Return
The long-term expected rate of return on the DRS pension plan investments of 7.4 percent was determined
using a building -block -method. In selecting this assumption, the OSA reviewed the historical experience data,
considered the historical conditions that produced past annual investment returns, and considered Capital
Market Assumptions (CMA's) and simulated expected investment returns provided by the Washington State
Investment Board (WSIB). The WSIB uses the CMA's and their target asset allocation to simulate future
investment returns at various future times.
Estimated Rates of Return by Asset Class
Best estimates of arithmetic real rates of return for each major asset class included in the pension plan's
target asset allocation as of June 30, 2021 are summarized in the table below. The inflation component used
to create the table is 2.2 percent and represents the WSIB's most recent long-term estimate of broad
economic inflation.
Asset Class
Target Allocation
Long -Term Expected
Real Rate of Return
Arithmetic
Fixed Income
20%
2.20%
Tangible Assets
7%
5.10%
Real Estate
18%
5.80%
Global Equity
32%
6.30%
Private Equity
23%
9.30%
100%
Sensitivity of the Net Pension Liability/(Asset)
The table below presents the District's proportionate share of the net pension liability calculated using the
discount rate of 7.4 percent, as well as what the District's proportionate share of the net pension liability
would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is 1-percentage point lower (6.4 percent) or 1-
percentage point higher (8.4 percent) than the current rate.
PERS 1
1% Decrease
6.40%
Current Rate
7.40%
1% Increase
8.40%
2,080,441,000
1,221,234,000
471,917,000
0.003426%
71,276
41,839
16,168
PERS 2/3
(2,837,869,000)
(9,961,609,000)
(15,828,012,000)
0.004397%
(124,781)
(438,012)
(695,958)
Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position
Detailed information about the State's pension plans' fiduciary net position is available in the separately
issued DRS financial report.
Packet Pg. 139
7.6.c
Pension Liabilities (Assets), Pension Expense, and Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of
Resources Related to Pensions
At June 30, 2021, the District reported its proportionate share of the net pension liabilities as follows:
Liability (or Asset)
PERS 1 $41,839
PERS 2/3 $(438,012)
At June 30, the District's proportionate share of the collective net pension liabilities was as follows:
Proportionate
Share 6/30/20
Proportionate
Share 6/30/21
Change in
Proportion
PERS 1
.007533%
.003426%
.004107%
PERS 2/3
.008757%
.004397%
.004360%
Employer contribution transmittals received and processed by the DRS for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021,
are used as the basis for determining each employer's proportionate share of the collective pension amounts
reported by the DRS in the Schedules of Employer and Nonemployer Allocations.
Pension Expense
For the year ended December 31, 2021, the District recognized pension expense as follows:
Pension Expense
PERS 1 $(151,149)
PERS 2/3 $ (96,113)
Deferred Outflows of Resources and Deferred Inflows of Resources
At December 31, 2021, the District reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources
related to pensions from the following sources
PERS 1
Deferred Outflows
Deferred Inflows
of Resources
of Resources
Differences between expected and actual
$
$
experience
Net difference between projected and actual
$
$(46,428)
investment earnings on pension plan investments
Changes of assumptions
$
$
Changes in proportion and differences between
$
$
contributions and proportionate share of
contributions
Contributions subsequent to the measurement
$21,044
$
date
TOTAL
$21,044
$(46,428)
Packet Pg. 140
7.6.c
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from the District's contributions subsequent to
the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended
December 31, 2022. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related
to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows:
Year ended
December 31:
PERS 1
2022
$(12,299)
2023
$(11,270)
2024
$(10,656)
2025
$(12,203)
2026
$0
Thereafter
$0
PERS 2/3
Deferred Outflows
Deferred Inflows
of Resources
of Resources
Differences between expected and actual
$21,274
$(5,370)
experience
Net difference between projected and actual
$0
$(366,075)
investment earnings on pension plan investments
Changes of assumptions
$640
$(31,106)
Changes in proportion and differences between
contributions and proportionate share of
$47,263
$(86,895)
contributions
Contributions subsequent to the measurement
$36,076
$0
date
TOTAL
$105,253
$(489,446)
Deferred outflows of resources related to pensions resulting from the District's contributions subsequent to
the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the year ended
December 31, 2022. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related
to pensions will be recognized in pension expense as follows:
Year ended
December 31:
PERS 2/3
2022
$(100,963)
2023
$(94,386)
2024
$(95,656)
2025
$(106,033)
2026
$(12,272)
Thereafter
$(10,959
Packet Pg. 141
7.6.c
ALL PLANS
Deferred Outflows
Deferred Inflows
of Resources
of Resources
Differences between expected and actual
$21,274
$(5,370)
experience
Net difference between projected and actual
$0
$(412,502)
investment earnings on pension plan investments
Changes of assumptions
$640
$(31,106)
Changes in proportion and differences between
$47,263
$(86,895)
contributions and proportionate share of
contributions
Contributions subsequent to the measurement
$57,120
$0
date
TOTAL
$126,297
$(535,873)
r
L
U
N
0
m
r
U
0
u_
2
a
E
0
L
L
0
Q
N�
LPL
d
cn
Q.
0
Q
N�
LPL
i
Q
r
N
O
N
LL
a
U
W
a
LL
d
W
M
C
N
E
t
V
fC
Q
Packet Pg. 142
7.6.c
NOTE 7 — LONG-TERM RENTAL AGREEMENT
In 2006, the District entered a long-term rental agreement with a customer for the use of some of its
facilities on designated future dates. The initial term of the agreement was ten years, which expired on
October 31, 2018, with the tenant having options to renew for three successive five- year terms. The tenant
exercised its option, and the agreement now extends through December 31, 2023, with options for two
additional five-year terms. The rent is received in monthly payments to the District and totaled $50,010 in
2021, which is included in "Rental Revenues" on the District's Statement of Revenues, Expenses and
Changes in Net Position.
In light the current pandemic this long-term renter's access to the facilities was restricted due to state
mandated health protocols. During this period, the District was able to maintain some portion of its revenue
through a pro -rated rental rate. This adjusted rental rate was negotiated by granting the renter limited
access to the rental spaces as well as taking advantage of the facility's outdoor space and use of its parking
lot.
The tenant has every intention on renewing the agreement beyond 2023: rents for the year 2022 through
2023 will be:
Year 2022 $94,571
Year 2023 $97,408
NOTE 8 — DEPOSIT AND INVESTMENTS
Credit Risk. The District complies with state law which requires all investments of the District's funds be
obligations of the U.S. Government, U.S. agency issues, Obligations of the State of Washington,
repurchase agreements, prime banker's acceptances, the Washington State Local Government Investment
Pool (LGIP), and time certificates of deposit with authorized Washington State banks.
Custodial Credit Risk - Deposits. All District and ECA deposits are insured by Federal Depository
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) coverage limits.
The standard insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership
category. The FDIC provides separate coverage for deposits held in different account ownership categories.
Depositors may qualify for coverage over $250,000 if they have funds in different ownership categories
and all FDIC requirements are met. All deposits that an accountholder has in the same ownership category
at the same bank are added together and insured up to the standard insurance amount.
Investments. The district is a participant in the Local Government Investment Pool was authorized by
Chapter 294, Laws of 1986, and is managed and operated by the Washington State Treasurer. The State
Finance Committee is the administrator of the statute that created the pool and adopts rules. The State
Treasurer is responsible for establishing the investment policy for the pool and reviews the policy annually
and proposed changes are reviewed by the LGIP advisory Committee.
Investments in the LGIP, a qualified external investment pool, are reported at amortized cost which
approximates fair value. The LGIP is an unrated external investment pool. The pool portfolio is invested in a
manner that meets the maturity, quality, diversification, and liquidity requirements set forth by the GASB 79
for external investments pools that elect to measure, for financial reporting purposes, investments at
amortized cost. The LGIP does not have any legally binding guarantees of share values.
Packet Pg. 143
7.6.c
The LGIP does not impose liquidity fees or redemption gates on participant withdrawals.
The Office of the State Treasurer prepares a stand-alone LGIP financial report. A copy of the report is
available from the:
Office of the State Treasurer, PO Box 40200, Olympia, Washington 98504-0200, online at
http://www.tre.wa.gov.
As of December 31, 2021, the District held $315,401 in the LGIP at amortized cost.
NOTE 9 — RISK MANAGEMENT
Edmonds Public Facilities District is a member of the Enduris Washington (Pool). Chapter 48.62 RCW provides
the exclusive source of local government entity authority to individually or jointly self -insure risks, jointly
purchase insurance or reinsurance, and to contract for risk management, claims, and administrative services.
The Pool was formed July 10, 1987, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 48.62 RCW, Chapter 200-100 WAC,
and Chapter 39.34 RCW when two counties and two cities in the State of Washington joined together by
signing an interlocal governmental agreement to fund their self -insured losses and jointly purchase insurance
and administrative services. For the Pool's fiscal year ending August 31, 2021, there were 539 Enduris
members representing a broad array of special purpose districts throughout the state.
The Enduris' program provides for various forms of joint self-insurance and reinsurance coverage for its
members: Liability coverage, which includes: General Liability, Automobile Liability, Public Officials' Errors
and Omissions liability, Terrorism liability and Employment Practices liability; Property coverage, which
includes: Building and Contents, Mobile Equipment, Boiler and Machinery, and Business Interruption/Extra
Expense; Automobile Physical Damage coverage; Cyber coverage; Crime blanket coverage; Named Position
coverage; and an Identity Fraud reimbursement program. Pollution coverage is provided on a "claims made"
coverage form. All other coverage is provided on an "occurrence" coverage form.
Members are responsible for a coverage deductible or co -pay on each covered loss. Each policy year
members receive a Memorandum of Coverage (MOC) outlining the specific coverage, limits, and
deductibles/co-pays that are applicable to them. In certain cases, the Pool may allow members to elect to
participate in the programs at limits, coverage, deductibles, and co -pays that are specific to their needs.
Enduris is responsible for payment of all covered losses above the member retention, up to the Pool self -
insured retention (SIR). Enduris acquires excess/reinsurance from unrelated insurance companies to cover
losses above the Pool's SIR up to the coverage maximum limit of liability. The tables below reflect the Pool's
SIR, reinsurance limits and member deductibles/co-pays by coverage type.
Packet Pg. 144
7.6.c
Coverage
Liability:
Comprehensive General
Liability
Automobile Liability
Public Officials Errors and
Omissions Liability
Terrorism Liability(2)
Employment Practices Liability
Coverage Type Pool Excess/ Reinsurance Member
Self -Insured Deductibles/
Retention Limits Co -Pays (1)
Per Occurrence
$1 million
$20 million
$1,000 - $100,000
Per Occurrence
$1 million
$20 million
$1,000 - $100,000
Each Wrongful Act
$1 million
$20 million
$1,000 - $100,000
Member Aggregate
$20 million
Per Occurrence
$500,000
$0
$1,000 - $100,000
Pool Aggregate
$1 million
Fully funded by Pool
Per Occurrence
$1 million
$20 million
20% Copay(3)
Member Aggregate
$20 million
(1) Members may request or be required to pay a higher deductible than the minimum for certain coverage and certain types of losses require a
specific co -pay or deductible
(2) Terrorism liability is fully funded by the Pool i.e. no excess/reinsurance is procured.
(3) Members pay a 20% co -pay of costs up to a maximum of $100,000. By meeting established guidelines, the co -pay may be waived.
Property (2)
Buildings and Contents
Mobile Equipment
Boiler and Machinery (3)
Per Occurrence
Per Occurrence
Per Occurrence
$250,000
$250,000
Varies
$800 million
$800 million
$100 million
$1,000 - $250,000
$1,000 - $250,000
Varies
Business Interruption (BI)/ Extra
Per Occurrence
$250,000
$100 million (BI)/
$1,000 - $250,000
Expense(EE) °
$50 million (EE)
Sublimit(5):
Flood
Per Occurrence
$250,000
$50 million
$1,000 - $250,000
(shared by Pool
members)
Earthquake
Per Occurrence
5%; $500,000
$10 million
$1,000 - $250,000
maximum
(shared by Pool
members)
Terrorism Primary
Per Occurrence
$250,000
$100 million/ Pool
$1,000 - $250,000
member
Pool Aggregate
$200 million
Packet Pg. 145
7.6.c
rerrorism Excess Per Occurrence $500,000 $600 million/Pool
member
APIP Per Occurrence
$1.2 billion/APIP
APIP Aggregate
$1.4 billion/APIP
Automobile Physical Damage(6) $25,000;
Per Occurrence $100,000 for $800 million $250 - $1,000
Emergency Vehicles
Crime Blanket(') Per Occurrence $50,000 $1 million $1,000
Named Position (8) Per Occurrence $50,000 $1 million $1,000
Cyber (9) Each Claim $100,000 $2 million 20% Copay
APIP Aggregate
$25 million
Identity Fraud Expense Member Aggregate $0 $25,000 $0
Reimbursement (10)
(1) Members may request or be required to pay a higher deductible than the minimum for certain coverage and certain types of losses require a
specific co -pay or deductible.
(2) Property coverage for each member is based on detailed property schedule. Scheduled items are covered to the extent of the cost of repair or
replacement pursuant to the excess/reinsurance policy terms. Under the Alliant Property Insurance Program (APIP) Reinsurance carriers cover
insured losses over $250,000 to the limit of $800 million except for certain types of sub -limited property losses such as flood, earthquake, and
terrorism.
(3) Boiler and Machinery self -insured retention for the Pool varies depending on motor horsepower.
(4) Business Interruption/ Extra expense coverage is based on scheduled revenue generating locations/operations. A limited number of members
schedule and the rest are limited to $500,000 of coverage with a $2.5 million Pool maximum for undeclared exposure. The waiting period
(deductible) is typically 24 hours but there are exceptions specific to the type of exposure covered.
(5) This sublimit list is simplified and is not all-inclusive. In addition, sub -limits are often shared or aggregated by all pool members and, in a few
cases, are shared by all APIP members. Deductibles often vary by coverage sub -limit.
(6) Auto Physical Damage coverage includes comprehensive, named perils and collision. Coverage for each member is based on a detail vehicle
schedule.
(7) Crime Blanket coverage (also referred to as "Employee Dishonesty Coverage with Faithful Performance" of $2,500 is provided to each
member. Member's may elect to "buy -up" the level of coverage from $5,000 to $1 million.
(8) Named Position coverage is optional. Members may elect to schedule various employees, directors, and commissioners, with individual limits
of between $5,000 and $1 million.
(9) Cyber coverage is included under the Pool's Property program. Members are subject to a 20% co -pay per loss and the Pool's SIR is tiered
between $50,000 and $100,000 depending on the insured/members property TIV with an 8 hour waiting period. By meeting established
guidelines, the co -pay may be waived. The reinsurance maximum limit of liability is $2 million, with various declared sub -limits.
(10) Identity Fraud Expense Reimbursement coverage is purchased by Enduris. Member claims do not have a deductible. There is a $25,000 limit
per member.
The District believes its various property and casualty risks are covered appropriately by its Enduris
Membership. The amount of settlements has not exceeded insurance coverage in the last three years.
NOTE 10— FINANCIAL CONDITION
The Board of Directors and Management of Edmonds Public Facilities District are confident that the financial
condition of the District is stable, and that the strategies outlined in the Management's Discussion and Analysis
Packet Pg. 146
7.6.c
section of this report will lead to long-term financial stability.
Further, the recently adopted extension of the Public Facilities District legislation by the State of Washington will
conservatively provide an estimated $16 Million in new projected revenue. This new law extends the current
legislation establishing and governing Public Facilities Districts, including the related sales tax rebate, by a
period of 15 years beyond its original sunset date (2026) to the year 2041. The extension of this funding
source will provide the District with several options for re -funding or refinancing long-term debt for capital
maintenance, replacement, or improvements.
The District continues to focus on revenue development through new programming, the acquisition of
multi -year capital investment grants, continued partnership with the City of Edmonds and expansion of
rental activities within the facilities.
This chart provides a two-year look at actual revenues for Fiscal Years 2020-2021 from these three
intergovernmental revenue streams.
Tax Revenue 2020-2021
Tax Revenue Source:
2020
2021
State of Washington Direct Sales Tax Rebate
$335,538
$411,931
Snohomish County "Tier 1" Agreement
$324,871
$338,928
Snohomish County "Tier 2" Agreement
$238,464
$261,853
Total:
$898,873
$1,012,712
In FY 2010, the State Auditor's Office began to express concern about the overall financial condition of the
District. The 2008 housing crisis and the Great Recession that followed had a devasting impact on the
District's non -operating revenues. Non -operating revenues consist primarily of a rebate to the District of a
small portion of the sales taxes collected by the State of Washington within the boundaries of the City of
Edmonds and Snohomish County. This revenue stream, which had been conservatively projected to increase
3.6% annually, fell by -17% and -9% respectively in 2008 and 2009. The lingering effects of these dramatic
reductions in non -operating revenue were felt by the District for more than a decade.
In 2011, the District's sales tax revenue stream began to recover. The average year -over -year growth rate
was 8.1% between 2011 and 2021. But despite the strong growth in non -operating revenue during this
period, it was not until 2018 that non -operating revenue finally returned to sufficient levels to fully cover
non -operating expenses (primarily debt service).
Fiscal Year 2021 marked a critical turning point for the District. In November 2021, in partnership with the
City of Edmonds, the District refinanced a significant portion of its long-term debt. Per Washington State
Law, the District is required to have a portion of its original capital debt (first issued in 2002) outstanding
through the year 2041 in order to continue to qualify to receive the State Sales Tax Rebate. Refinancing this
portion of long-term debt and extending the terms to 2041 helped reduce the District's annual debt service
by 34%.
As the District's annual debt service has declined, non -operating revenues continue to climb. The District's
Packet Pg. 147
7.6.c
direct sales tax rebate from the State of Washington grew 20.5% in 2021. In this same year, the District also
received the first of five annual installments of $100,000 from the Snohomish County Lodging Tax Fund, a
multi -year commitment that may be invested in capital maintenance/improvements or debt service as
needed.
The District's net non -operating revenue is projected to exceed $700,000 in 2022. It is anticipated that net
non -operating revenue will continue grow each year by 4% or more. Washington State Law allows the
District to invest these funds in the "construction, maintenance, and operation" of its facilities.
Management is confident that sufficient funds will be available to meet the District's capital and operating
needs, and that the Financial Condition of Edmonds Public Facilities District is healthy and will remain so for
the foreseeable future.
NOTE 11—SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
The Board of Directors and Management of Edmonds Public Facilities District have identified and acted
upon several opportunities following the close of this reporting period which will help to further
strengthen the District's financial position.
• Partnership with the City of Edmonds: In January 2022, the District received operating support from
the City of Edmonds in the amount $50,000. Annual operating support from the City validates the
importance of the District to the City's continued economic growth and cultural vitality.
• Pandemic Relief Funds: The District has received notification that Snohomish County Council
approved a $250,000 allocation of a portion of its American Rescue Plan funds for Edmonds Public
Facilities District for FY 2022. These funds will help the District continue to recover from the impacts
of the pandemic on its operations.
• Multi -Year Foundation Grant: In March 2022, the District received a commitment from the Hazel
Miller Foundation to provide $150,000 ($50,000 per year for three years) to support its expanding
education and community engagement programs.
• As the District emerges from the pandemic and returns to full operation, trends in ticket sales and
attendance have been increasingly positive. Sales in 2022 have recently reached 90% of the tickets
sold and revenue earned in 2019. Management is confident that ticket sales, rental revenue, and
contributions will continue to recover in 2022 and should return to or exceed previous levels by the
end of FY 2023.
Packet Pg. 148
7.6.c
REgW RED 511P P L EM ENTARY I N PO RMATIC N
Employer's proportion of the net pension liability (asset) %
Employer's proportionate share of the net pension IiabiI ity $
Covered payroll $
Employer's proportionate share of the net pension liability
as a percentage of cowered payroll %
Plan fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total
pension liability %
Edmonds Pubic Facilities District
Sc red u le of Proporti on ate Sh are of the Net Pensi on Li a hi I ity
PERS 1
As of J u ne 30, 2021
Last 10 Fiscal Years*
V
L
2021
2020
2014
2018
2077
2016
2015
�+
N
B
0.003426%
0.007533%
O.006779%
0.006595%
0.006117%
0.005395%
0005002%
(n
91,995
265,955
260,675
294,099
290,256
289,737
251,651
M
U.
577,295
1,042,941
965,643
9M,485
832,051
661,838
593,133
V
7
15.94%
25.50%
26.99%
32.66%
34.99%
43.79%
44.87%
d
E
O
8&74%
69.64%
67.12%
6322%
6124%
57.03%
59.10%
L.
4—
r-
O
Notes to Sdredule:
Q)
sU n5I a fu 111"ear trend is corn pi led, on ly information for those yea rs awa i la ble is presented.
Q1
R
Sch ed u I e of Proportion ate Sh a re of th e N et Pension Li a hi I ity Y
t�
PERS 2f3
a
As of June 30, 2021
O
Last 10 Fiscal Years' 0-
2021 2020 2039 201E 2017 2016 2015
EMPICYWsproportionOfthegem petsionliabil"(assm) % 0_pp4,397% O_pp9754% 0_pp9757% 0_ppE.25% 0_p082OE% 0JE905M 0_pp6463% C
C
i
&WIcyerspnlportioimesham of#wFh [perisionIiabilily S F43SAM 124,74E 1110= 143A% 2E5�M 347AM 230-427 U
L
u
corerea payroll S sn�95 >.Oq�g1 9�,643 gppgg Ss3�33 C
u
&WIoyers pnlportiorme share ofthe net pension I iabililyas a C
peRerrrage of Covered paWDI I % -75-97% 1196% 2LM% 1591M 3421FA 5253% 39-50%
0
Plan fiduciary net position as a percemage Ofdw total pension `
liability % 12(1791[ 9722% 9777% 9577% 9097% 9582% E9- %
Nan% L Sdddc
'thail a full 10-yearuerd is compiled, only infoFuMion fortlrose years amilable is presar[ed_
Packet Pg. 149
7.6.c
RF398AR® SUPPI BIENrARY t 111`01 A11M!
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Schedule of Employer Contributions
PIERS 1
For the year ended December 31, 2021 .-.
Last 10 Fiscal Years* V
L
B
N
2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 4)
SbAutxily or conk-d h lly required contributions $ 35y48 36.244 54.012 46.231 41,117 34- W 26,654 LL
0
Contributions in relabontndw sbidxiIV or conhBdualIV
m
requiredcontributions
$ 35>U 36.244
54.012 46.231 41.117 34- W 26.654 3
a
E
0
Contribution deficiency {excess}
$ 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 L.
0
0.
Covered payml l
$ 865A59 756.953
1A93.650 913.402 900,087 724.116 597.937 4)
Conk ihutions as a of covered I I
P P�
X -4_11X -4_79X
-494X -5.06X -4S7X A77X -4_46X 0)
Notes to Sdmmh&:
'Until a full 1GIEWt W is compiled, only information fDFNKGe years available is presentrd
Packet Pg. 150
7.6.c
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Statutori I or contractu al I requi red contri buttons
Contributions in relation tothestatutoriIyor contractually
required contributions
Contribution deficiency (excess)
Covered payroll
Contributions as a percentageof covered payroll
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Sched ul a of Empl dyer Contributi on s
PERS 2/3
For the year ended December 31, 2021
t1
Last10 Fiscal Years* s=
r
t�
N
B
to
2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2},
t0
$ 59,664 59,951 84,504 68,500 59,684 45,112 34,212 LL
V
7
a
$ 59,664 59,951 84,504 68,500 59,684 45,112 34,212
O
w
$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
N
$ 865,059 756,953 1,093,650 913,402 900,087 724,116 597,937
% -6.90% -7.92% -7.73% -750% -6.63% -6.23%-5.72°%
Notes to Schedule:
*Until a full 10-year trend is compil ed, only informationfor thoseyears avaiIableis presented.
Packet Pg. 151
7.6.c
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Schedule 01
For the year ended December 31, 2021
2764
401
Operations
3081900
Restricted Net Position -
$985,s
Beginning
2764
401
Operations
3086000
Net Investment in
$4,101,9;
Capital Assets -
Beginning
2764
401
Operations
3088900
Unrestricted Net Position
($1,474,75
- Beginning
2764
401
Operations
3131100
Local Retail Sales and
$1,012,7
Use Tax
2764
401
Operations
3218000
Concessions
$25,61
2764
401
Operations
3370000
Local Grants,
$134,4' r
Entitlements and Other
Payments
w
2764
401
Operations
3474000
Event Admission Fees
0
$240,21 v,
m
2764
401
Operations
3479000
Other Fees
$20,O1
2764
401
Operations
3611000
Investment Earnings
u
$+ U
2764
401
Operations
3613000
Gains (Losses) on Sale
($8
of Investments
a.
E
2764
401
Operations
3620000
Rents and Leases
$298,61 o
2764
401
Operations
3670000
Contributions and
$784,61 o
Donations from
°-
a�
Nongovernmental
Sources
2764
401
Operations
3340690
State Grant from Other
$144,51
State Agencies
a
2764
401
Operations
3311100
Federal Direct Grant
$1,065,6' o
from Department of
Commerce
2764
401
Operations
3730000
Gains (Losses)
($30,94 a
2764
401
Operations
5017500
Depreciation, Depletion,
$354,91 Q
Amortization - Cultural
o
and Recreational
Facilities
Q
2764
401
Operations
5981010
Other Operating
U
$1,000,6; w
Expenses
o
a.
2764
401
Operations
5981020
Other Operating
$209,6, w
Expenses
"'
2764
401
Operations
5981030
Other Operating
c
$211,8! E
Expenses
2764
401
Operations
5981040
Other Operating
c�
$238,3 a
Expenses
2764
401
Operations
5081900
Restricted Net Position -
$1,043,6,
Ending
2764
401
Operations
5086000
Net Investment in
$4,060,41.
Capital Assets - Ending
2764
401
Operations
5088900
Unrestricted Net Position
($36,01
- Ending
2764
401
Operations
8100000
Current Assets
$1,424,1,
2764
401
Operations
8200000
Other Current Assets
$443,1,
2764
401
Operations
8300000
Noncurrent Assets
$10,592,2'
2764
401
Operations
8400000
Deferred Outflows
$126,21
2764
401
Operations
8500000
Current Liabilities
$1,257,61
Packet Pg. 152
2764
401
Operations
8600000
Noncurrent Liabilities
2764
401
Operations
8700000
Deferred Inflows
2764
401
Operations
3918000
Intergovernmental
Loans
2764
401
Operations
5917370
Debt Repayment -
Cultural and Community
Activities
2764
401
Operations
5927380
Interest and Other Debt
Service Cost - Cultural
and Community
Activities
2764
401
Operations
5947360
Capital
Expenditures/Expenses -
Cultural and Community
Activities
7.6.c
W
$5,724,2!
$535,8
($48,66
$303,21
$225,0,
Packet Pg. 153
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Schedule of Liabilities
For the Year Ended December 31, 2021
7.6.c
Beginning
ID. No. Description Due Date Balance Additions Reductions Ending Balan
General Obligation Debt/Liabilities
251.11
Contractual Obligation to the City of 11/30/2021
Edmonds 2012
251.11
Contractual Obligation to the City of 12/1/2041
Edmonds 2021
263.98
Interfund Loan
Total General Obligation Debt/Liabilities:
Revenue
and Other (non G.O.) Debt/Liabilities
263.92
First Financial Northwest Bank 12/31/2029
263.92
Dansound 2/28/2022
259.12
Compensated Absences
264.30
Pension Liablility
263.93
Contingent Loan to the City of 12/31/2028
Edmonds
Total Revenue and Other (non G.O.)
Debt/Liabilities:
Total Liabilities:
2,585,000
-
2,585,000
-
2,680,000
-
2,680,0
682,475
346,900
1,029,375
3,267,475
3,026,900
3,614,375
2,680,0
2,523,164
-
280,141
2,243,0
27,017
-
23,174
3,8
67,138
15,721
-
82,8
390,704
-
348,865
41,8
1,215,552
1,335
50,000
1,166,8
4,223,575
17,056
702,180
3,538,4
7,491,050
3,043,956
4,316,555
6,218,4
Packet Pg. 154
7.6.c
MCAG NO. Edmonds Public Facilities District
Schedule 19
Labor Relations Consultant(S)
For the Year Ended December 31, 2021
Has your government engaged labor relations consultants? X Yes _ No
If yes, please provide the following information for each consultant:
Name of firm:
Name of consultant: Renee Gaumond
Business address:
1420 Lowell Avenue
Bellingham WA 98229
Amount paid to consultant during fiscal year: 1,395.00
Terms and conditions, as applicable, including:
Rates (e.g., hourly, etc.) $30.00 per hour
Maximum compensation allowed
Duration of services 04/30/2021 to 07/31/2021
Services provided
To Assist in Programming for 2021/2022 season — Director of Programming Maternity Leave
Packet Pg. 155
7.6.c
MCAG NO. Edmonds Public Facilities District
Schedule 19
Labor Relations Consultant(S)
For the Year Ended December 31, 2021
Has your government engaged labor relations consultants? X Yes _ No
If yes, please provide the following information for each consultant:
Name of firm: JD & Associates LLC
Name of consultant: Michelle M Osborne
Business address:
2310 14th Avenue East
Seattle WA 98112
Amount paid to consultant during fiscal year: 4,500.00
Terms and conditions, as applicable, including:
Rates (e.g., hourly, etc.)
Maximum compensation allowed
Duration of services 01/01/2021 to 12/28/2021
Services provided
Diversity Training Consultant
Packet Pg. 156
7.6.c
Schedule 21
LOCAL GOVERNMENT RISK -ASSUMPTION
For the Year Ended December 31, 20_
1. no Does the entity self -insure for any class of risk, including liability, property, health and welfare,
unemployment compensation, workers' compensation? (yes/no)
If NO, STOP, you do not need to complete the rest of this Schedule.
If YES, continue below.
a. Which class of risk does the entity self -insure? Check all that apply.
Liability
Property
Health and Welfare (medical, vision, dental, prescription)
Unemployment Compensation
Workers' Compensation
Other - please describe:
b. Does the entity self -insure as an individual program? (yes/no)
i. If answered YES, does the entity allow another separate legal entity into its self-
insurance program(s)? (yes/no) For example, employees of a different organization
participate in a health and welfare program of a city.
If so, list the entity or entities:
C. Does the entity self -insure as a joint program? (yes/no)
_ If answered YES, list the other member(s):
BARS MANUAL
CASH BASIS
PT CH PAGE
4 3 57
Packet Pg. 157
7.6.c
2. Does the entity administer its own claims? (yes/no)
3. Does the entity contract with a third party administrator for claims administration? (yes/no)
4. Did the entity receive a claims audit in the last three years, regardless of who administered the
claims? (yes/no)
5. Were the program's revenues sufficient to cover the program's expenses? (yes/no)
6. Did the program use an actuary to determine its liabilities? (yes/no)
EXAMPLE
Number of
claims
Number of
Total amount
Description of Risk Type
received
claims paid
of claims paid
during the
during the
during the
period
period
period
Liability (automobile)
354
279
$104,366
Description of Risk Type
Number of
claims
received
during the
period
Number of
claims paid
during the
period
Total amount
of claims paid
during the
period
EFF DATE SUPERSEDES
1-1-11 1-1-10
BARS MANUAL
CASH BASIS
PT CH PAGE
4 3 57
Packet Pg. 158
7.7
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Written Public Comments
Staff Lead: City Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Beckie Peterson
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Public comments submitted to email address publiccomments@edmondswa.gov between April 15,
2022 and April 20, 2022.
Attachments:
Written Public Comments 4 26 22
Packet Pg. 159
7.7.a
Edmonds City Council Public Comments 4/26/2022
From: Will Magnuson
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 1:28 AM
To: Planning; Council; Public Comment (Council)
Subject: Re: Development codes
Greetings,
The last resolution regarding the development code to pass was a measure supported by a 3-4
minority to provide a loop hole for submission of development application prior to
new(hopefully) design codes and standards. This is shameful of the council members support.
Where is the support of diversity, opportunity, community and the environment by council?
Form follows function still applies to design and should apply to council's action. Focusing on
materials, minor modulations and rooftop decks is a waste of all our time.
What do we want new development to provide to residents, visitors and community alike? How
will it function in our community? How will new development provide opportunity, diversity,
social and environmental benefits? That should be your focus.
Let's cut to the chase. You'll need to raise building heights to provide the economic ability for
the developer to provide the necessary components which will be required under new
comprehensive and community based development guidelines thus providing a vibrant and
sustainable community. I know it's the third rail of Edmonds politics, but it is the financial
reality if we want better development.
It's our small beautiful place on this amazing little planet. You can make it better. Please take the
time and effort to do so.
Thank you,
Will Magnuson
From: Lily Milwit
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2022 10:14 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Kristiana
<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Chen, Will <will.chen@edmondswa.gov>; Tibbott, Neil
c
as
E
0
U
2
IL
c
m
Packet Pg. 160
7.7.a
<Neil.Tibbott@edmondswa.gov>; Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Olson, Vivian
<Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>; Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine @edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Laura
<Laura.Johnson@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Tristia Bauman
Subject: Letter in Opposition to Edmonds' Proposal to Prohibit Use of Public Space for Shelter
Hello,
I write on behalf of the National Homelessness Law Center to oppose the proposed ordinance that
would prohibit camping in public spaces in Edmonds. The National Homelessness Law Center has been
advocating and litigating against laws, like this one, that criminalize people experiencing homelessness
for their status as unhoused. Both public policy and constitutional precedent advise against policies that
N
punish people for being unsheltered and that prevent them from life -sustaining activities such as
sleeping. More details supporting our opposition to this proposal are included in the attached letter. We
E
are eager to work with the Mayor's office and City Council on replacing this proposal with policies and
°
U
practices that effectively and humanely address homelessness in your community. Please feel free to
2
reach out with any questions.
0
a
All the best,
c
Lily
0
Will Magnuson
Mon 4/18/2022 1:37 PM
To:
• Planning;
• Council;
• Public Comment (Council)
I am confused why the city council seems to be intent on expediting a development code
amendment to appease developers. Some city council members stated these intentions
directly at the last city council meeting. The representative planning department members
appeared to support the urgency to expedite amendments to also benefit developers. The
developers will be fine. It's the citizens, community, and the future of Edmonds that needs
to prioritized. I've been in development for decades and can attest that good developers
appreciate good guidelines to promote heathy development. I love building and good
design and I also love the potential of Edmonds. City council needs to have an honest
discussion with the community and citizens of Edmonds on what the city requires and how
appropriate development standards can provide mutual benefits. I understand this is a big
lift for those who prioritize their political future over the city's future, but an honest
discussion needs to address the community priorities for future development and how good
development code can benefit the sustainability and livability of Edmonds. Again, why is
2
Packet Pg. 161
7.7.a
there never enough time to do it right the first time, but always plenty of time to fix it
again(and again and again and again....)
Council, please ensure that the development standards are written to provide a permanent
framework for future growth and sustainability of Edmonds which will also provide the
reliability and confidence that the entire community including developers deserve.
Thank you,
Will Magnuson
3
a�
E
E
0
U
V
0
a
c
as
e
Packet Pg. 162
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Extension of Interim Public Works Director Appointment
Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson
Department: Human Resources
Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson
Background/History
Robert English has been appointed as the Interim Public Works Director and his 6 month appointment
will expire on May 10, 2022.
Staff Recommendation
Approve Extension of Robert English as Interim Public works Director for 6 months from May 10, 2022 or
until a hire is made, whichever comes sooner.
Narrative
Per Edmonds City Code 20.10.040 (b), the Mayor is requesting an extension of this interim appointment
as the City is currently in the process of interviewing candidates for this position. Interviews for this
position are set to occur the first week in May. This will then be followed by the Mayor's interview,
Council interviews, and background checks.
While this process is moving forward it is unlikely that a hire will occur prior to the expiration of Mr.
English's interim assignment on May 10, 2022.
The Mayor is requesting to extend Mr. English's appointment for 6 months or until such time as a hire is
made, whichever comes sooner.
Packet Pg. 163
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Award Construction Contract for the 2022 Overlay Program
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Emiko Rodarte
Background/History
On April 12, 2022, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was
forwarded to a future City Council meeting for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Award a construction contract to JB Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of $1,242,914.00 and authorize a
management reserve of $124,290 for the 2022 Overlay Program.
Narrative
This project is a continuation of the City's efforts to rehabilitate and preserve its roadway
network by paving various area streets. This year's project will use roadway, stormwater, and
sewer utility funds to pave approximately 6.8 lane -miles of City streets.
On April 19, 2022, the City received three construction bids for the 2022 Overlay Program. The
bids ranged from a low of $1,242,914 to a high of $1,734,893. The bids have been tabulated and
are attached as Exhibit 1. JB Asphalt, Inc submitted the low responsive bid in the amount of
$1,242,914. The engineer's estimate was $1,259,747. A review of the bidder's record has been
completed and responses are positive.
The project costs are being funded by REET (Funds 125 & 126), Street Construction (Fund 112),
Stormwater Utility Fund (Fund 422), and Sewer Utility (Fund 423). A project construction
budget is attached as Exhibit 2.
Construction is expected to begin in late May/June and be completed by late summer.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Bid Tabulation
Exhibit 2 - Construction Budget
2022 Overlay Map
Packet Pg. 164
8.2.a
City of Edmonds 2022 Overlay Program
BID TAB
4/21 /2022
ITEM #
ITEM
QTY
UNIT
ENGINEER
JB Asphalt
GRANITE CONSTRUCT
LAKESIDE IND
UNIT COST
COST
UNIT COST
COST
UNIT COST
COST
UNIT COST
COST
1
Unexpected Site Changes
1
EST
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
2
Record Drawings Minimum Bid $500.00
1
LS
$
1,500.00
$
1,500.00
$
2,500.00
$
2,500.00
$
600.00
$
600.00
$
1,500.00
$
1,500.00
3
SPCC Plan
1
LS
$
750.00
$
750.00
$
1,500.00
$
1,500.00
$
600.00
$
600.00
$
1,500.00
$
1,500.00
4
Mobilization
1
LS
$
120,000.00
$
120,000.00
$
75,000.00
$
75,000.00
$
131,500.00
$
131,500.00
$
86,000.00
$
86,000.00
5
Project Temporary Traffic Control
1
LS
$
125,100.00
$
125,100.00
$
118,000.00
$
118,000.00
$
222,000.00
$
222,000.00
$
290,000.00
$
290,000.00
6
Portable Changeable Message Sin
42
DAY
$
100.00
$
4,200.00
$
250.00
$
10,500.00
$
83.00
$
3,486.00
$
70.00
$
2,940.00
7
Remove Asphalt Pavement Adjacent to Concr
1
EST
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
8
Pavement Repair Excavation Incl Haul, Base
100
SY
$
75.00
$
7,500.00
$
180.00
$
18,000.00
$
300.00
$
30,000.00
$
100.00
$
10,000.00
9
Planin Bituminous Pavement
36292
SY
$
6.00
$
217,752.00
$
5.50
$
199,606.00
$
6.70
$
243,156.40
$
7.75
$
281,263.00
10
HMA Cl 3/8" PG 58H-22 with Aramid Fiber
1940
TON
$
130.00
$
252,200.00
$
135.00
$
261,900.00
$
190.00
$
368,600.00
$
185.00
$
358,900.00
11
HMA Cl 1/2" PG 58H-22 with Aramid Fiber
2625
TON
$
125.00
$
328,125.00
$
130.00
$
341,250.00
$
160.00
$
420,000.00
$
170.00
$
446,250.00
12
HMA Cl 1/2" PG 58H-22
200
TON
$
115.00
$
23,000.00
$
150.00
$
30,000.00
$
155.00
$
31,000.00
$
170.00
$
34,000.00
13
Fabric Reinforcement
1458
SY
$
20.00
$
29,160.00
$
9.00
$
13,122.00
$
11.00
$
16,038.00
$
7.50
$
10,935.00
14
HMA Berm
1552
LF
$
5.00
$
7,760.00
$
3.00
$
4,656.00
$
7.00
$
10,864.00
$
10.00
$
15,520.00
15
ISpeed Cushion
3
EA
$
500.00
$
1,500.00
$
3,100.00
$
9,300.00
$
1,700.00
$
5,100.00
$
2,900.00
$
8,700.00
16
Adjust Catch Basin
57
EA
$
500.00
$
28,500.00
$
100.00
$
5,700.00
$
630.00
$
35,910.00
$
750.00
$
42,750.00
17
Adjust Manhole
48
EA
$
500.00
$
24,000.00
$
250.00
$
12,000.00
$
630.00
$
30,240.00
$
750.00
$
36,000.00
18
Adjust Water Valve Box
39
EA
$
400.00
$
15,600.00
$
600.00
$
23,400.00
$
555.00
$
21,645.00
$
660.00
$
25,740.00
19
Adjust Water Meter Box
1
EA
$
600.00
$
600.00
$
900.00
$
900.00
$
487.00
$
487.00
$
600.00
$
600.00
20
Adjust Gas Valve Box
4
EA
$
600.00
$
2,400.00
$
500.00
$
2,000.00
$
458.00
$
1,832.00
$
600.00
$
2,400.00
21
Adjust Cleanout
3
EA
$
350.00
$
1,050.00
$
600.00
$
1,800.00
$
515.00
$
1,545.00
$
625.00
$
1,875.00
22
Erosion/Water Pollution Control
1
LS
$
10,000.00
$
10,000.00
$
6,500.00
$
6,500.00
$
21,000.00
$
21,000.00
$
2,000.00
$
2,000.00
23
Raised Pavement Marker Type 2
22
EA
$
25.00
$
550.00
$
40.00
$
880.00
$
50.00
$
1,100.00
$
60.00
$
1,320.00
24
Adjust Monument Case and Cover
27
EA
$
500.00
$
13,500.00
$
750.00
$
20,250.00
$
486.00
$
13,122.00
$
600.00
$
16,200.00
25
Install Monument, Monument Case, and Cov
27
EA
$
1,000.00
$
27,000.00
$
2,450.00
$
66,150.00
$
1,870.00
$
50,490.00
$
1,500.00
$
40,500.00
TOTALS
$
1,259,747.00
$
1,242,914.00
$
1,678,315.40
$
1,734,893.00
Packet Pg. 165
8.2.b
ANusI H. I I N
2022 Pavement Preservation Program
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
BUDGET
STREET
SEWER
STORM
TOTAL
Contract Award
$
1,171,825
$
41,230
$
29,858
$
1,242,914
Construction Management,
Inspection, & Testing (15%)
$
175,770
$
6,180
$
4,480
$
186,440
Management Reserve (10%)
$
117,180
$
4,120
$
2,990
$
124,290
TOTALS
$
1,464,775
1 $
51,530
$
37,328
$
1,553,634
CONSTRUCTION FUNDING
FUNDING
STREET
SEWER
STORM
TOTAL
Fund 112 - Street
$ 452,590
$ 452,590
Fund 125 - REET 1
$ 524,930
$ 524,930
Fund 126 - REET 2
$ 505,770
$ 505,770
Fund 422 - STORM
$ 50,829
$ 50,829
Fund 423 - SEWER
$ 52,639
$ 52,639
TOTALS
$ 1,483,290
$ 52,639
$ 50,829
$ 1,586,758
E
U
Q
Packet Pg. 166
Roadway Funded
B Water Funded
Sewer Funded
Q Storm Funded
13th Way -End to 8th Ave
7th PI - S End to N End
8th PI-S End to 15th
226th-100th to E End
Robin Hood -Humber to 106th
Humber -Nottingham to Robin Hood
Nottingham -Humber to Robin Hood
Friar Tuck -End to Nottingham
Alan A Dale -Friar Tuck to Robin Hood
Little John -Robin Hood to End
231st-106th to End
Cem
2022 Overlay Pro -pram
.228th to 220th
92nd-228th to 220th
241 st1242nd
Packet Pg. 167
8.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
2022 April Budget Amendment
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Marissa Cain
Background/History
Amend the 2022 Ordinance No. 4250
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve Ordinance No. XXXX amending the 2022 Budget
Attachments:
2022 April Budget Amendment Ordinance
2022 April Budget Amendment Exhibits - Final
Packet Pg. 168
8.3.a
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4250 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 2022 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. 4250 adopting the final budget for the fiscal
year 2022 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, and D adopted
herein by reference.
1
Packet Pg. 169
8.3.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:
M.
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, MIKE NELSON
2
Packet Pg. 170
8.3.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2022, 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. 4250 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 , 2022.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
3
Packet Pg. 171
8.3.a
EXHIBIT "A": Budget Amendment Summary (April 2022)
FUND
NO.
FUND
DESCRIPTION
2022
BEGINNING
FUND BALANCE
REVENUE
EXPENDITURES
2022
ENDING
FUND BALANCE
001
GENERAL FUND
12,908,490
44,760,353
52,360,872
5,307,971
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
370,037
225,000
260,490
334,547
011
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND
-
-
-
-
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
1,784,770
-
1,784,770
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
16,299
5,900
10,399
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
4,610,222
545,000
4,065,222
017
MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND
844,866
-
-
844,866
018
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
-
200,000
200,000
-
019
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND
-
-
-
-
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
193,873
167,210
45,800
315,283
111
STREET FUND
731,490
1,751,930
2,315,780
167,640
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/I MP ROVE
2,075,270
13,684,871
12,868,796
2,891,345
117
MUNICIPAL ARTSACQUIS. FUND
659,041
216,701
195,380
680,362
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
51,231
84,410
100,900
34,741
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMITFUND
80,358
26,540
26,880
80,018
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
12,768
1,550
3,000
11,318
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
85,338
29,590
28,200
86,728
125
PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT
3,375,343
2,271,020
4,589,688
1,056,675
126
SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND
2,799,839
2,261,030
2,483,667
2,577,202
127
GIFTS CATALOG FUND
294,795
82,750
78,400
299,145
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV
211,509
182,430
220,561
173,378
136
PARKSTRUST FUND
168,837
4,330
50,000
123,167
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD
1,100,900
43,520
25,000
1,119,420
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
10,362
10,290
11,900
8,752
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTFUND
23,181
79,349
87,680
14,850
141
AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND
143,441
65,000
-
208,441
142
EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND
4,727,492
4,856,549
6,077,492
3,506,549
143
TREE FUND
20,487
215,330
214,800
21,017
211
LID FUND CONTROL
-
-
-
-
231
2012 LTGO DEBTSERVICE FUND
-
611,370
611,370
-
332
PARKS CONSTRUCTION
4,848,045
3,822,685
7,614,418
1,056,312
421
WATER
26,413,506
11,018,136
11,490,988
25,940,654
422
STORM
15,081,583
7,877,897
9,619,649
13,339,831
423
SEWER/TREATMENT PLANT
48,428,426
24,820,083
29,529,856
43,718,653
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
843,961
1,988,700
1,988,710
843,951
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
8,999,440
1,925,920
1,950,371
8,974,989
512
Technology Renta I Fund
889,194
1,153,570
1,539,022
503,742
Tota Is
142,804,394
124,438,114
147,140,570
120,101,938
�L
Q
N
N
O
N
a
N
E
t
v
M
r
Q
Packet Pg. 172
8.3.a
EXHIBIT "B": Budget Amendments by Revenue (April 2022)
FUND
NO.
FUND
DESCRIPTION
Adopted
Budget
Ord.#4240
1/1/2022
Adopted
Amendment
Ord.#4249
3/1/2022
Adopted
Amendment
Ord.#4250
3/15/2022
Proposed
Amendment
Ord.#
2022
Amended
Revenue
Budget
001
General Fund
$ 44,204,863
$ (35,000)
$ 470,845
$ 119,645
$ 44,760,353
009
Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
225,000
-
-
225,000
011
Risk Management Reserve Fund
-
-
012
Contingency Reserve Fund
014
Historic Preservation Gift Fund
016
Building Maintenance Fund
017
Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund
-
-
018
Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund
200,000
200,000
019
Edmonds Opioid Response Fund
-
-
-
104
Drug Enforcement Fund
167,210
167,210
111
Street Fund
1,751,930
-
1,751,930
112
Combined Street Const/Improve
13,359,021
325,850
13,684,871
117
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
216,701
-
216,701
118
Memorial Street Tree
-
-
120
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
84,410
84,410
121
Employee Parking Permit Fund
26,540
26,540
122
Youth Scholarship Fund
1,550
1,550
123
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
29,590
29,590
125
ParkAcq/Improvement
2,271,020
2,271,020
126
Special Capital Fund
2,261,030
2,261,030
127
Gifts Catalog Fund
82,750
82,750
130
Cemetery Maintenance/Improv
182,430
182,430
136
Parks Trust Fund
4,330
4,330
137
Cemetery Maintenance TrustFd
43,520
43,520
138
Sister City Commission
10,290
10,290
140
Business Improvement District Fund
79,349
79,349
141
Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund
65,000
65,000
142
Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund
4,856,549
4,856,549
143
Tree Fund
215,330
215,330
211
Lid Fund Control
-
-
231
2012 LTGO Debt Service fund
611,370
611,370
332
Parks Construction
3,822,685
3,822,685
421
Water
11,018,136
11,018,136
422
Storm
8,277,897
(400,000)
-
7,877,897
423
Sewer/Treatment Plant
16,001,340
8,818,743
24,820,083
424
Bond Reserve Fund
1,988,700
-
1,988,700
511
Equipment Rental Fund
1,925,920
1,925,920
512
Technology Rental Fund
1,153,570
1,153,570
617
Firemen's Pension Fund
-
-
-
Totals
$ 114,938,031
$ (235,000)
$ 9,615,438
1 $ 119,645
1 $ 124,438,114
r
C
d
E
C
d
E
Q
d
Cf
3
m
�L
Q
Q
N
N
O
N
�L
Q
Q
N
N
0
N
a
N
E
t
v
M
r
Q
Packet Pg. 173
8.3.a
EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendment by Expenditure (April 2022)
FUND
NO.
FUND
DESCRIPTION
Adopted
Budget
Ord. #4240
1/1/2022
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #4249
3/1/2022
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #4250
3/15/2022
Proposed
Amendment
Ord. #
2022
Amended
Expenditure
Budget
001
General Fund
$ 49,246,551
$ (1,677)
$ 126,661
$ 2,989,337
$ 52,360,872
009
Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
260,490
-
260,490
011
Risk Management Reserve Fund
-
-
012
Contingency Reserve Fund
-
-
014
Historic Preservation Gift Fund
5,900
5,900
016
Building Maintenance Fund
980,000
(435,000)
545,000
017
Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund
-
-
-
018
Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund
200,000
200,000
019
Edmonds Opioid Response Fund
-
-
104
Drug Enforcement Fund
45,800
-
45,800
111
Street Fund
2,254,676
61,104
2,315,780
112
Combined Street Const/Improve
12,542,946
325,850
-
12,868,796
117
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
181,880
13,500
195,380
118
Memorial Street Tree
-
-
-
120
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
100,900
100,900
121
Employee Parking Permit Fund
26,880
26,880
122
Youth Scholarship Fund
3,000
3,000
123
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
28,200
-
28,200
125
ParkAcq/Improvement
4,279,876
309,812
4,589,688
126
Special Capital Fund
1,922,273
561,394
2,483,667
127
Gifts Catalog Fund
78,400
-
78,400
130
Cemetery Maintenance/Improv
220,561
-
220,561
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
87,680
87,680
141
Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund
-
-
-
142
Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund
1,250,000
4,727,492
100,000
6,077,492
143
Tree Fund
214,800
-
-
214,800
211
Lid Fund Control
-
-
231
2012LTGO Debt Service Fund
611,370
-
611,370
332
Parks Construction
7,321,018
293,400
-
7,614,418
421
Water
11,110,498
365,396
15,094
11,490,988
422
Storm
8,638,202
(400,000)
1,443,238
(61,791)
9,619,649
423
Sewer/Treatment Plant
15,656,812
13,855,689
17,355
29,529,856
424
Bond Reserve Fund
1,988,710
-
-
1,988,710
511
Equipment Rental Fund
1,942,460
-
7,911
1,950,371
512
Technology Renta I Fund
1,447,422
91,600
-
1,539,022
617
Firemen'S Pension Fund
-
-
-
-
Totals
$122,484,205
1 $ (201,677)
$ 22,164,032
1 $ 2,694,010
1 $ 147,140,570
r
C
d
E
C
d
E
Q
d
Cf
3
m
�L
CL
Q
N
N
O
N
�L
Q
Q
N
N
O
N
a
N
E
t
v
M
r
Q
Packet Pg. 174
EXHIBIT "D": Budget Amendment Summary (April 2022)
8.3.a
Fund Number
Proposed
Amendment
Changein
Revenue
Proposed
Amendment
Change in Expense
Proposed
Amendment
Change in Ending
Fund Balance
001
2,989,337
(2,989,337)
016
119,645
(435,000)
554,645
111
61,104
(61,104)
142
100,000
(100,000)
421
15,094
(15,094)
422
(61,791)
61,791
423
17,355
(17,355)
511
1 7,911
1 (71911)
Total Change
119,645
1 2,694,010
1 (2,574,365)
r
C
d
E
C
d
E
Q
d
Cf
3
m
�L
Q
Q
N
N
O
N
�L
Q
Q
N
N
O
N
a
N
E
t
V
M
r
Q
Packet Pg. 175
8.3.b
New Item for Council to Consider (April 2022)
Budget Amendment for: April 19, 2022
Description: The City's Contract with South County Fire was updated, and approved by Council on January 25. The new contract
calls for an annual amount of $9,419,852, an increase of $1,569,015. (This can be found on Packet Page 282 of the
January 25, 2022 Council Packet.) This amendment is to increase the annual budget for the city's Fire Contract by that
amount.
Budget Amendment Type
Date of Discussion or Budget Approval?
How is this amendment funded?
What is the nature of the expenditure?
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Finance
Increase budget for revised contract with South County Fire
Dave Turlev
New Item For Council To Consider
Jan 25 2022
100% Ending Fund Balance
On -Going
Operating
Fund F 001 GENERAL
Name:
Fill out on -going costs & revenues
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.39.522.20.41.50
Intergovernmental Svcs - Fire District Contract
$ 1,569,015
$ 1,569,015
$ 1,569,015
$ 1,569,015
$ 1,569,015
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
$ 1,569,015
$ 1,569,015
$ 1,569,015
$ 1,569,015
$ 1,569,015
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
$
$
$
$
$
Total Revenue Increase (Decrease)
$
S
$
$
$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
$ (1,569,015)
$ (1,569,015)
$ (1,569,015)
$ (1,569,015)
$ (1,569,015)
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
1 $ (1,569,015)
$ (1,569,015)
$ (1,569,015)
$ (1,569,015)
$ (1,569,015)
Packet Pg. 176
New Item for Council to Consider (April 2022)
8.3.b
Budget Amendment for: April 19, 2022
Description:
WCIA provided the City with a preliminary estimate of what the assessment would be for the 2022 fiscal year, which
we included in the 2022 proposed budget. The actual assessment that we received in January was higher. This budget
amendment is to increase the city budget for the updated WCIA assessment.
Finance
ITitle: IUDdate budget for revised invoice amount from WCIA I
Dave
Budget Amendment Type
Date of Discussion or Budget Approval?
How is this amendment funded?
What is the nature of the expenditure?
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
New Item For Council To Consider
New Item
100% Ending Fund Balance now
On -Going
Operating
Fund MULTIPLE FUNDS
Name:
Fill out on -going costs & revenues
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.39.518.90.46.00
WCIA Insurance Allocation
$ 127,622
$ 127,622
$ 127,622
$ 127,622
$ 127,622
111.000.68.542.90.46.00
WCIA Insurance Allocation
61,104
61,104
61,104
61,104
61,104
421.000.74.534.80.46.00
WCIA Insurance Allocation
15,094
15,094
15,094
15,094
15,094
422.000.72.531.90.46.00
WCIA Insurance Allocation
(61,791)
(61,791)
(61,791)
(61,791)
(61,791)
423.000.75.535.80.46.00
WCIA Insurance Allocation
(663)
(663)
(663)
(663)
(663)
423.000.76.535.80.46.00
WCIA Insurance Allocation
18,018
18,018
18,018
18,018
18,018
511.000.77.548.68.46.00
WCIA Insurance Allocation
7,911
7,911
7,911
7,911
7,911
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
$ 167,295
$ 167,295
$ 167,295
$ 167,295
$ 167,295
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
$
$
$
$
$
Total Revenue Increase (Decrease)
$
$
$
$
$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
$ (127,622)
$ (127,622)
$ (127,622)
$ (127,622)
$ (127,622)
111.000.68.508.30.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
(61,104)
(61,104)
(61,104)
(61,104)
(61,104)
421.000.74.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
(15,094)
(15,094)
(15,094)
(15,094)
(15,094)
422.000.72.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
61,791
61,791
61,791
61,791
61,791
423.000.75.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
(17,355)
(17,355)
(17,355)
(17,355)
(17,355)
511.000.77.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
1 (7,911)
(7,911)
(7,911)
(7,911)
(7,911)
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
1 $ (167,295)
$ (167,295)
$ (167,295)
$ (167,295)
$ (167,295)
Packet Pg. 177
New Item for Council to Consider (April 2022)
8.3.b
Budget Amendment for: April 19, 2022
Description: Given the difficulties encountered while distributing 2020 CARES fund grants to the Edmonds business community,
the retirement of the Community Services Director who administered the CARES and ARPA grants, part-time
status of the interim Community Services Director who was not here during 2021, and an Administrative Services
Deputy Director who joined the City after CARES and ARPA grants had been disbursed, this budget amendment
proposes an additional $100,000 for audit and grant management of the 2021 and 2022 ARPA funds distribution, to
come from ARPA funds as it directly supports the administration of ARPA funds.
Budget Amendment Type
Date of Discussion or Budget Approval?
How is this amendment funded?
What is the nature of the expenditure?
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Grant manager tasks might include:
1. Risk assessments
2. Management of the Federal Grants Audit
3. Review and approval of grant contracts
4. Recommend better audit procedures
5. Conduct or consult on audit meetings
6. Manage audit requests to/from the SAO and the City
7. Provide feedback to Finance
8. Time consuming tasks related to ARPA management where the City lacks resources
Services
Grant Mai
Menkveld
New Item For Council To Consider
100 % Ending Fund Balance
One -Time
Operating Jh
Fund I 142 EDMONDS CARES
Name: FUND
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
142.000.39.557.20.41.00
Professional Services
$ 100,000
$
$
$
S
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
$ 100,000
$
$
$
S
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
$
S
$
$
S
Total Revenue Increase (Decrease)
$
S
$
$
S
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
142.000.39.508.30.00.00
Fund Balance
$ (100,000)
$
$
$
S
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
$ (100,000)
$
$
$
S
Packet Pg. 178
Previously Discussed by Council (April 2022)
8.3.b
Budget Amendment for: April 19, 2022
Item Description:
With the start of the OpenGov Budget, Reporting and Transparancy implementation, the next step is acquiring
remaining ERP system. As mentioned/discussed at previous Council meetings, a Project Manager is necessary to lead
that search. This position would be contracted as a professional service for 3 to 6 months.
Finance received an intial quote from Plante Moran of $45,000, which is an estimated 170 hours of work at a blended
rate of $265, and intends to contact at least two other firms. The total budget request is $60,000 since there are other
firms yet to contact. This offers flexibility in engaging in the right partnership even if it is greater than $45,000.
Here is a sample of Project Manager work:
1. Develop detailed project plan
2. Establish project collaboration center (SharePoint)
3. Schedule and moderate status meetings
4. Develop solution criteria and define the decision -making process
5. Conduct additional due diligence activities
6. Review contracts and Statements of Work
7. Assist in transition to implementation
Department:
Administrative Services
Fund
Name:
001 GENERAL
Division:
Finance
Title:
ERP Proiect Manager (Pre-ImDlementation)
�Preparer: Megan Menkveld
Budget Amendment Type Previously Discussed By Council
Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? Dec. 14, 2021 (Committee); Jan. 14, 2022 (Committee); Jan. 25, 2022 (Council)
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
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.31.514.23.41.00
Professional Services
$ 60,000
$
$
$
S
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
$ 60,000
$
S
$
$
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
$
S
$
$
$
Total Revenue Increase (Decrease)
$
S
S
$
S
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
$ (60,000)
S
S
$
S
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
$ (60,000)
$
S
$
S
Packet Pg. 179
8.3.b
Budget Amendment for: April 19, 2022
Description:
Budget Amendment Type
Date of Discussion or Budget Approval?
How is this amendment funded?
What is the nature of the expenditure?
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
This request is for additional funds needed to hire Temporary staffing to cover the workload for a person who is on
administrative leave. Because this is paid leave, we do not have salary savings to offset this expenditure.
Finance hired a Temp through Robert Half starting full-time at $60 per hour. The City has a standing contract with
Robert Half. With a weekly rate of $2,400 ($60 per hour X 40 hours), if the temp is here for 6 months (26 weeks) it
would be $62,400. While we do not know how long the temp will be needed, this request is to cover an initial 6 month
period. If more is needed we may request another budget amendment at that time.
Administrative Services
Finance
Temporary Staff
Megan Menkveld
Item For Council To Consider
100% Ending Fund Balance ir
One -Time
Operating
Fund I 001 GENERAL
Name:
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.31.514.23.41.00
Professional Services
$ 62,400
$
$
$
$
Total Expenditure Increase Decrease
$ 62,400
$
$
$
$
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
$
$
$
$
S
Total Revenue Increase Decrease
$
S
$
$
$
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.308.00.000.00
Fund Balance
$ (62,400)
S
$
$
$
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase(Decrease)
$ 62,400
$
$
$
$
Packet Pg. 180
8.3.b
New Item for Council to Consider (April 2022)
Budget Amendment for:
April 19, 2022
Item Description:
The City contracts with the Sound Salmon Solutions to provide monthly habitat
restoration events in our parks. The program scope, number of locations and
volunteer efforts has more than doubled in the past two years. To support the
program's expansion, an increase of $5k is required to cover the cost of additional
time and materials (i.e. plants) needed.
Department:
Parks, Recreation, Cultural & Human Services
Fund
Name:
001 GENERAL
Division:
Recreation
Title:
Sound Salmon Solutions
Preparer:
Angie Feser
Budget Amendment Type
New Item For Council To Consider
Please select when the budget was approved
Date of 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
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.64.571.21.41.00
Professional Services
$ 5,000
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
$ 5,000
$ -
$ -
$
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
Total Revenue Increase (Decrease)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.39.508.00.000.00
Ending Fund Balance
$ (5,000)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
$ (5,000)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Packet Pg. 181
New Item for Council to Consider (April 2022)
8.3.b
Budget Amendment for: April 19, 2022
Item Description: The Salmon Safe Certification Project, approved in the 2021 budget will incur all of
the related expenditures in 2022. No expenditures were made in 2021 so the full
contracted amount of $38,800 is being requested.
Department: Parks, Recreation, Cultural & Human Services
Division: Administration Fund
001 GENERAL
Title: Salmon Safe Certification Project Name:
Preparers lAngie Feser
Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider
Please select when the budget was approved 2021 Adopted Budget
Date of 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
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
00 1.000.64.571.21.4 1.00
Professional Services
$ 38,800
$
S
$
$
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
$ 38,800
$
S
S
S
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
S
S
S
$ -
Total Revenue Increase (Decrease)
$ -
$ -
$
S -
$ -
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.39.508.00.000.00
Ending Fund Balance
$ (38,800)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
$ (38,800)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Packet Pg. 182
New Item for Council to Consider (April 2022)
8.3.b
Budget Amendment for: April 19, 2022
Description:
Budget Amendment Type
Date of Discussion or Budget Approval?
How is this amendment funded?
What is the nature of the expenditure?
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Additional Professional Services budget to complete work that is unscheduled and requires expedited action.
Additional Repair and Maintenance budget to address building operational issues that require service contractor
repairs or equipment replacement to maintain continuity of business.
Public Works
Facilities
and Maintenance
Thom Sullivan
New Item For Council To Consider
100% Ending Fund Balance
One -Time
Operating
Fund F 001 GENERAL
Name:
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Professional Services
$ 233,000
$
$
S
S
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Repair and Maintenance
432,000
016.000.66.518.30.48.00
Repair and Maintenance
(665,000)
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
S
$
S
S
$
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
$
$
$
S
$
Total Revenue Increase (Decrease)
$
$
S
S
S
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
$ (665,000)
$
$
S
S
016.000.66.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
665,000
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
$
$
S
S
$
Packet Pg. 183
New Item for Council to Consider (April 2022)
8.3.b
Budget Amendment for: April 19, 2022
Description:
Budget Amendment Type
Date of Discussion or Budget Approval?
How is this amendment funded?
What is the nature of the expenditure?
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Repair and Maintenance annual service agreements and regulatory compliance required services as well as, annual
Professional Services required to maintain building systems and safety. See attached sheet for details:
Public Works
Facilities
Facilities Man:
Thom Sullivan
New Item For Council To Consider
100% Ending Fund Balance
One -Time
Operating
Fund F 001 GENERAL
Name:
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.66.518.30.48.00
Repair and Maintenance
$ 293,500
$
$
S
S
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Professional Services
168,000
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
$ 461,500
$
S
S
$
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
$
$
$
S
$
Total Revenue Increase (Decrease)
$
$
S
S
S
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
001.000.39.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
$ (461,500)
$
$
S
S
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
1 $ (461,500)
$
I S
S
$
Packet Pg. 184
8.3.b
New Item for Council to Consider (April 2022)
Budget Amendment for: April 19, 2022
Description: I Washington State Dept. of Commerce Grant award for new solar plant
Department:
Public Works
Fund
Name:
016 BUILDING
MAINTENANCE
Division:
Facilities
Title:
Facilities Manager
Prevarer:
Thom Sullivan
Budget Amendment Type
New Item For Council To Consider
Date of Discussion or Budget Approval?
11/17//2022
How is this amendment funded?
Reimbursed by Grants or Outside Agencies
What is the nature of the expenditure?
One -Time
Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital?
Capital
Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
016.000.66.518.30.41.00
Professional Services
$ 80,000
$
$
S
S
016.000.66.518.30.48.00
Repair and Maintenance
150,000
Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)
$ 230,000
$
$
S
S
Revenue Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
016.000.334.00.000.00
WA DOC Grant
$ 119,645
$
$
$
$
Total Revenue Increase (Decrease)
$ 119,645
1 $
$
$
S
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
Account Number
Description
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
016.000.66.508.00.00.00
Ending Fund Balance
$ (110,355)
$
$
$
S
Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)
1 $ (110,355)
$
1 $
1 $
I$
Packet Pg. 185
8.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
ARPA Funding Status
Staff Lead: Shannon Burley
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Shannon Burley
Background/History
Section 4 of Ordinance No. 4229, passed by the City Council on July 20, 2021, set out the provisions for
utilizing the City's allocation of federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding to mitigate the local
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. These provisions divide the total funding of $11,893,099 into six
accounts, A through F, to concentrate the expenditure of funds into specific areas of interest.
City Council subsequently passed Ordinance. 4237, on November 1, 2021, to "clarifying the availability
of the grant funds and increasing the parameters of grant recipient eligibility".
During the latter part of 2021 and the first 2 months of 2022, programs within each Account designated
in Ordinance No. 4229 have progressed through startup phases with funding being committed and
expended per the terms of the ordinance.
Suggested wording edits and possible reallocations were discussed at the 4/12/2022 Finance Committee
Meeting.
Staff Recommendation
1) Discuss possible edits to Ordinance wording to eliminate unintended restrictions to disbursing
funds - see attached slides for detail.
2) Discuss possible reallocation of ARPA funds between categories and determine if optional public
hearing is desired - see attached slide for detail.
Please note that any suggested changes to the existing funding allocations will require the additional
amendments to the wording of the attached draft Ordinance.
Narrative
Attachments:
1) ARPA Funding Status Graphs
2) Suggest reallocation of funds
Attachments:
Ordinance 4237 - Amends Ordinance 4229 SB Comments
ARPA Discussion 4 19 22
Packet Pg. 186
8.4.a
ORDINANCE NO.4237
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 earning for housing
expenses, food, medical bills,childcare, internet access, and other household
expenses. Up-to-4004iHouseholds may receive grants of up to $2,500 in 2021 �no
2022. r"Households mayreceive grants of up to $2,500 in 2023 and
2024.
2. Utility Bill Support. Up to $150,000 for one-time grants to households in amounts
up to $1,000 €ef- } to
O�
N
N
d
t�
C
to
C
:a
L
O
to
C
N
E
a
ti
M
N
N
U
C
M
c
— '
Commented [MD7]: Would propose to eliminate
L. :r
of households limitation. Based on experience, mo:
O
households do not qualify for the maximum funding
.. nt.
Accordingly, we run out of number of household ca
+'
C
before we run out of money.
01
E
t
t)
r�
r�
Q
Packet Pg. 187
8.4.a
150 hattseholds ., 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 up to
$5,000 each earning nomore than 40% of Edmonds Median Income for
housing repair,) especially focused on energy -saving measures such as roof
repair, window replacement, HVAC repair/replacement, etc. Up to 200 grants
a4 up ,. $5,000 each
To be eligible for grants. households must meet one of the two following
parameters:
1) Eearn no more than 60% of EdmondsMedian Income. with priority given
2) Qualify for assistance under one of the listed programs on the U.S.
Department of the Treasury Final Rule for the State and Local Fiscal Recovery
Funds (SLFRF) program, as an impacted or disproportionately impacted
Section 2. Subsection 4.C.3 of Ordinance 4229 is hereby amended as follows (deletions
are indicated by strike 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 $10,000 in othergrants,
tax credits or other financial assistance.
2
N
M
r
CO
C
Commented [BS2]: I appears this is targeting tho
are disproportionately impacted as defined below (t]
e
extreme of the two measures, should update to refle
ILL
a
a
a
rn
C
E
Formatted: No underline, Underline color: Aut,
C
color: Auto, Character scale: 100%
C)
Formatted: Indent: Left: 1.21", First line: 0"
m
O�
N
le
Commented [MD3]: Based on Final Rule, we we V
propose that a household qualifying under one of th,
categories would qualify for assistance for our grant M
C
L
O
rn
C
N
E
a
ti
M
N
N
v
C
tC
C
'a
L
O
r
C
d
E
t
v
M
a
Packet Pg. 188
8.4.a
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):
3
R
a1
c
'a
C
3
LL
Q
IL
Q'
Q
N
r�
C
O
E
E
O
0
m
Cn
CD
I
N
N
d
t�
C
c0
C
L
O
a
ti
M
N
N
V
C
C
L
0
C
a)
E
L
:i
a
Packet Pg. 189
8.4.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 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:
W
Q
Packet Pg. 190
8.4.a
Cu
a�
c
c
a_
Q
a
Q
w
c
a�
E
E
0
U
00
I
N
N
d
V
C
R
C
L
0
Ch
E
a
f+
a
Packet Pg. 191
112C. 10,9v
City of Edmonds City Council Meeting. April 19, 2022
Discussions for this agenda item:
1) Language edits to the City's Ordinance
to facilitate support p
2) Possible reallocation of ARPA funding categories.
Packet Pg. 192
Suggested Ordinance Changes: Ordinance No 4237
Based on actual experience, the language in the Ordinance setting both a "per
unit" dollar amount and a total number of "units" imposes an unforeseen limitation on
getting funding out to customers. For example with Household Support: 3
Ca
Current language - Household Support Example:
"Household support: Up to $3,000,000 for Grants to households earning for housing
expenses, food, medical bills, childcare, internet and other household expenses. Up to 40
households may receive grants up to $2,500 in 2021 and 2022. Up to 200 households may a
receive grants up to $2,500 in 2023 and 2024." N
NI
CD
I
Issue: Not all households have enough expenses to be eligible for the full $2,500. C
O
Accordingly, we hit the number of households limitation of 400 before we reach the fully 3
authorized annual funding limitation. y
0
a
IL
Possible new language: a
Household support: Up to $3,000,000 for Grants to households earning for housing
expenses, food, medical bills, childcare, internet and other household expenses. Up to 40
# _Households may receive grants up to $2,500 to a total Household Support expenditure of a
$1, 000, 000 in both 2021 and 2022. ► ►n to inn h Households may receive grants up to $2, 50
to a total expenditure of S500.000 in both 2023 and 2024. "
7, Packet Pg. 193
Suggested Ordinance Changes: Ordinance No 4237
Based on actual experience, it may be difficult for clients to provide adequate
documentation to show earnings in order to meet the 60% Edmonds Median Income
Limitation.
Current language: Household Support
"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%."
Issue: It may be difficult for some households to provide documentation (W2, 1099, or
other verified means) to determine if they meet the 60% requirement.
Possible new language:
"To be eligible for grants, households must meet one of the two following parameters:
1) earn no more than 60% of Edmonds Median Income, with priority given to households
earning at or below 40%, or
2) qualify for assistance under one of the listed pro_qrams on the US Department of
Treasury Final Rule for the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) program, as ar
impacted or disproportionately impacted household or community/ "
a
ww�
Packet Pg. 194
Listed programs on the US Department of
Treasury Final Rule for the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) program:
In recognition of the difficulties cities were experiencing with qualifying clients to
Receive funding, Treasury's Final Rule established the following:
Impacted households. Treasury will recognize a household as impacted if it otherwise qualifies for
any of the following programs:
o Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
o Childcare Subsidies through the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Program
o Medicaid
o National Housing Trust Fund (HTF), for affordable housing programs only
o Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), for affordable housing programs only
Disproportionately impacted households. Treasury will recognize a household as disproportionately
impacted if it otherwise qualifies for any of the following programs:
o Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
o Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
o Free and Reduced -Price Lunch (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast (SBP) programs
o Medicare Part D Low-income Subsidies
o Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
o Head Start and/or Early Head Start
o Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
o Section 8 Vouchers
o Low -Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
o Pell Grants
o For services to address educational disparities, Treasury will recognize Title I eligible
schools36 as disproportionately impacted and responsive services that support the school
generally or support the whole school as eligible
Packet Pg. 195
Staff Recommended Changes to ARPA allocations:
• Combine $1,000,000 Housing Repair Program with
Household Support Grants and allow home repair as part of
Household Support Grant Program ($500,000 per year in
2023 & 2024 = $1M per year).
• Increase Non -Profit Support by $200,000
• Add $500,000 in Green Infrastructure to cover the Yost Park
Stormwater Mitigation (budgeted in REET, construction in
2022), this allows the funding to be available for future
projects.
• Reduce Green Streets by $400,000 ($600,000 remaining)
• Reduce Perrinville Creek by $300,000 ($3,200,000
remaining)
Packet Pg. 196
I 8.4.b I
Total ARPA Funds - $11,893,099
. $212,01
City Expenditures - 6.3% $488 84
- $ 50,000
Household Support - 34.9%
$1,050,0001
0 $244,36
Business Support - 9.5% $56 LIO
07
$1,125,
= $420,E 00
Nonprofit Support - 4.2% $420,E 00
$500 000
. $199,999
Job Retraining - 5.0% $60 ,000
$60 ,000
$0
Green Infrastructure - 40.1% $0
$0
■ Spent by 4/12/2022
AL- in
$4,15
Edmonds Marsh: $750,000
Perrinville Creek: $3,500,000
Green Streets: $600, 000/ $400, 000*
$4,768,099
$1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000
Committments @ 4/12/2022 ■ Funds Allocated to Cate Pat
Packet Pg. 197
8.4.b
Household Support Subcategories - $4,1SO,000
Housing Repair Support - 24.0%
Utility Bill Support - 3.6%
Household General Support - 72.4%
1,000,000
1,000,000
$3,000,000
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,00(
■ Spent by 4/12/2022 Committments @ 4/12/2022 r' Funds Allocated to Category
Packet Pg. 198
8.4.b
Small Business Support - 55.6%
Tourism Support - 26.6%
General Business Support - 17.8%
Business Support Subcategories - $1,125,000
$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000
$700,00(
■ Spent by 4/12/2022 Committments @ 4/12/2022 ■ Funds Allocated to Category I
Packet Pg. 199
Discussion
.* I
Packet Pg. 200
USE OF FUNDS
Recipients may use SLFRF funds to:
•Replace lost public sector revenue, using this funding to provide government
services up to the amount of revenue lost due to the pandemic.
*Respond to the far-reaching public health and negative economic impacts of the
pandemic, by supporting the health of communities, and helping households, small
businesses, impacted industries, nonprofits, and the public sector recover from
economic impacts.
*Provide premium pay for essential workers, offering additional support to those
who have and will bear the greatest health risks because of their service in critical
sectors.
Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure, making necessary
investments to improve access to clean drinking water, to support vital wastewater and
stormwater infrastructure, and to expand affordable access to broadband internet
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds I U.S. Department of the
Treasury
Packet Pg. 201
8.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Proposed Ordinance Adding New Chapter, Chapter 5.70 entitled "Unlawful Occupation of Public
Property
Staff Lead: Patricia Taraday, Lighthouse Law Group
Department: City Attorney's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
Like the surrounding area, the City of Edmonds is experiencing a shortage of affordable housing which
directly correlates with the size of the unhoused population. The city has made efforts to expand its
human services by adding a Human Services Division, growing its partnerships with local non-profit
organizations for the purpose of improving the coordination of existing services, including programs
specifically aimed at improving the lives of the unhoused residents of the city and utilizing CARES and
ARPA funding to provide household support grants intended help keep people in their homes.
The mayor authorized a task force to analyze the complex issues of the unhoused residents of the city.
The task force supports the continuation of offering human services and enhancing available shelter for
unhoused residents. Further, the task force recommends providing wrap -around services to support
individuals utilizing the shelters.
Courts have made it clear that it is unconstitutional to criminalize the state of being unhoused when no
available shelter exists. However, in those instances when shelter is made available to an individual who
is unhoused, and that individual refuses shelter, the city can enforce its laws.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt Ordinance No. XXXX, adding a new Chapter 5.70 entitled "Unlawful Occupation of Public
Property" to the City Code.
Narrative
The ordinance seeks to provide the city with an enforcement mechanism when an unhoused individual
unlawfully occupies public property or stores personal property on public property. The ordinance can
only be enforced after available shelter has been offered to the individual and the individual refuses the
shelter space. Available shelter is defined within the ordinance to comport with the current law.
The ordinance also allows the city to remove the personal property of an individual when storage has
been deemed unlawful and when the city provides the individual with notice along with an opportunity
to be heard. All procedures related to the removal of storage are to be further developed by the Chief
of Police. This allows for flexibility should laws change and should opportunities for storage shift as well.
While criminal sanctions are set forth in the ordinance, the ordinance also allows for community service
Packet Pg. 202
8.5
or work crew to be implemented instead of the imposition of a monetary penalty.
Attachments:
Unlawful Occupation of Public Property Ordinance 4-20-22 - Finall
Packet Pg. 203
8.5.a
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON ADDING A NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 5.70,
TO THE EDMONDS CITY CODE ENTITLED "UNLAWFUL
OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY'
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI, Section 11 of the Washington Constitution and RCW
35A.11.020, the City of Edmonds is authorized to regulate public property; and
WHEREAS, public property is intended to be used by the public for public purposes,
including daily City operations, park recreational use, pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular
transportation and other public uses; and
WHEREAS, like the surrounding region, the City of Edmonds is facing a shortage of
affordable housing which has led to an increase in the unhoused population; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has taken great strides in expanding its human services
by adding a component of human services to the Deputy Parks and Recreation Director position
and by growing its partnerships with local non-profit organizations for the purpose of improving
the coordination of existing services, including programs specifically related to improving the lives
of the unhoused residents of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds authorized the creation of a task force to analyze the
complex issues related to the unhoused residents of the City of Edmonds; and
Packet Pg. 204
8.5.a
WHEREAS, the task force overwhelmingly supports and prioritizes the offering of human
services, including available shelter, to the unhoused residents of the City of Edmonds as part of
the provision of wrap -around services necessary to support the City's unhoused residents; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits
cities from enforcing ordinances criminalizing camping on public property when there is no
available shelter; and
WHEREAS, while complying with Martin v. City of Boise, this Ordinance seeks to
establish a compassionate approach to assist the unhoused residents of our City by first offering
human services, including available shelter, and only causing the penalty provisions to be enforced
when available shelter is refused; and
WHEREAS, available shelter is defined as public or private space available for overnight
shelter at no charge to individuals or family units experiencing homelessness and to which the City
will facilitate the transport of individuals or family units experiencing homelessness; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this matter during a regular public meeting
and has given careful review and consideration to this matter and finds that it is in the best interests
of the City of Edmonds to adopt this Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Pg. 205
8.5.a
Section 1. A new chapter of the Edmonds City Code, chapter 5.70, entitled "Unlawful
Occupation of Public Property" is hereby added to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which
is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full.
Section 2. 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 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect
thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MICHAEL NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Pg. 206
8.5.a
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the day of , 2022, 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
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER, CHAPTER 5.70, TO THE EDMONDS
CITY CODE ENTITLED "UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC
PROPERTY'
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this day of , 2022.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 207
8.5.a
ATTACHMENT A
Chapter 5.70
UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
Sections
5.70.010 Purpose
5.70.020 Definitions
5.70.030 Unlawful occupation of public property
5.70.040 Unlawful storage of personal property on public property
5.70.050 Rules
5.70.060 Penalty for Violations
5.70.010 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the
residents of Edmonds, those with insecure housing situations and those who are
unhoused, by ensuring that those who occupy public spaces overnight are provided with
available human services, including available overnight shelter, and only if such available
human services are refused, shall the City enforce the provisions of this chapter.
5.70.020 Definitions
"Available overnight shelter" means a public or private shelter, with an available
overnight space, open to an individual or family unit experiencing homelessness at no
charge and to which the city facilitates the transport of the individual or family unit
experiencing homelessness. If an individual or family unit cannot use available space
because of the individual or family member's sex, familial or marital status, religious
beliefs, disability, or a shelter's length -of -stay restrictions, the space is not considered to
be available. The space is also not considered to be available if an individual has
attempted to secure a bed at the shelter by lining up in advance of the shelter opening for
the day and has denied entry due to lack of available space. The space is considered
available if the individual could not use the space due to voluntary actions such as
intoxication, drug use or unruly behavior.
"Occupy" means to evidence an intent to remain in a place, at least overnight, by way of
pitching, erecting or setting up tents, huts, shelters, bedding or the like.
"Personal property" means an item(s) recognizable as belonging to a person, has apparent
utility or value in its current condition, and is not hazardous or unsanitary.
Packet Pg. 208
8.5.a
"Public property" means all City -owned property including parks, streets, rights -of -way,
sidewalks or any other public areas of which the City has a property interest.
"Store" means to put aside or accumulate for use when needed, to put for safekeeping, or
to place or leave in a location.
5.70.030 Unlawful occupation of public property
It is unlawful for any person to occupy public property overnight when the City has
provided opportunities for human services that include available overnight shelter, and the
services are refused.
5.70.040 Unlawful storage of personal property on public property
A. It is unlawful for any person to store personal property overnight on public property
when the City has provided opportunities for human services that include available
overnight shelter, and the services are refused.
B. Removal of personal property. Unlawfully stored personal property can be removed
by the City after the City provides necessary notice along with an opportunity to be
heard. The City shall facilitate storage of personal property if required by law.
5.70.050 Rules
The chief of police is hereby authorized to adopt rules, regulations, administrative
policies, and procedures for implementing the provisions of this chapter.
5.70.060 Penalty for violations
A. Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is a misdemeanor, and shall be
punished as follows:
1. First Offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall,
upon conviction of such violation, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or
by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
2. Second Offense. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter,
upon conviction of such violation, a second time within a five-year period shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by
imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. One
hundred dollars of the fine and one day of imprisonment shall not be suspended or
deferred.
3. Third or Subsequent Offense. Every person who violates any of the provisions of
this chapter, upon conviction of such violation, a third or more times within a five -
Packet Pg. 209
8.5.a
year period shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than
$1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or by both such fine and
imprisonment. Five hundred dollars of the fine and five days imprisonment shall
not be suspended or deferred.
4. If a person is unable to pay the monetary penalty set forth in subsections (1), (2)
or (3) of this section, the court may order performance of a number of hours of
community service or work crew in lieu of a monetary penalty.
Packet Pg. 210
8.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Tree Code Update
Staff Lead: Deb Powers
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Deb Powers
Background/History
Trees are an important feature in urban landscapes for the multiple benefits they provide that
contribute to a healthy, vibrant, and livable community. Recognizing this, Edmonds has taken many
steps to manage its urban forest resource. In 2019, Edmonds adopted its Urban Forest Management
Plan (UFMP), an adaptive management plan that outlines these steps towards achieving a sustainable
urban forest. Since then, these UFMP goals have been accomplished:
GOAL
1A
Update tree regulations related to development
1C
Ensure tree protection in critical areas (ongoing efforts)
1E
Enforce City regulations on tree cutting (ongoing efforts)
1F
Establish a tree bank or fund
1H
Consider need for dedicated City Arborist
11
Report at least every 10 years on canopy coverage
2C
Develop and maintain an inventory of trees in key public places
2D
Update the 2015 Street Tree Plan
4B
Support Tree Board public education materials, tree planting/care, reporting, etc.
4C
Provide public information/guidance on tree values, maintenance, selection
5A
Provide compatible tree lists
5D
Ensure development codes require native trees/vegetation are planted in critical areas
For context, the Edmonds Planning Board (PB) began working on UFMP Goal 1A in 2020: update tree
regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest and to consider
changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. The PB made its final
recommendation for draft development -related tree codes to the City Council in early 2021. A detailed
description of the development -related tree code amendment process and links to all related public
meeting memos and minutes are available on the City's Tree Code Updates project web page.
In response to public feedback, the PB recommended to the City Council that a second phase of code
Packet Pg. 211
8.6
amendments, outside the scope of UFMP Goal 1A, address property owner tree removals not related to
development activity. The City Council concurred and also expressed a desire to consider regulating
property -owner tree removals in what was referred to as "Stage 2" tree code amendments.
Staff provided six options for Stage 2 code amendments limiting tree removals on private property, to
be presented at the May 18, 2021, City Council meeting:
Require a fee permit for removal of any significant tree (6 inch or larger DBH) on private
property. This option would require additional staff resources.
Allow the removal of a certain number of significant trees on a given property over a certain
time period. For example, two significant trees may be removed from a property per year. This
option does not require a paid permit but would require submittal and approval by the City to
track tree removal to ensure more than the allowed number of trees are not removed. This
option will require additional staff resources.
Allow for the removal of a certain number of trees with a diameter of less than 24 inches
diameter at breast height (DBH) to be removed on a given property over a certain time period.
Similar to number 2 above, but only allows the removal of smaller trees without a paid permit.
More documentation will need to be provided to the City with this option to review the
diameter of trees proposed for removal.
Require a paid permit for removal of more than the allowed number of trees over a certain
period of time or trees with a 24 inch or great DBH. For this option and number 1 above, criteria
will need to be established for the permit review. When would the City deny a requested tree
cutting permit? Or is it just allowed with a permit? Do the permitted tree removals require
replanting where the allowed tree removals do not, thus a fee is required for the additional
review?
For all of the above options, review could include a review of tree retention as in Chapter 23.10
ECDC. Does a property need to retain at least 30% of the trees with the allowed removals in
Options 2 and 3? Or only when a permit is required?
Consider whether all residential properties should be required to have a minimum number of
trees or tree coverage, perhaps with certain exceptions.
However, the discussion of options did not take place until the June 1, 2021, City Council meeting.
Although the meeting minutes reflect that the City Council did not provide a consensus decision, the
discussion does indicate there was a preference for Bullets 2 and 3, summarized as: allowing the
removal of a limited number of trees on a given property within a certain time frame, with no or low
permit fees. Also, there was support for tracking tree removals to gain more information.
The August 24, 2021, City Council meeting minutes indicate that the Council felt sufficient direction was
provided to staff on Stage 2 code amendments for the PB to move forward. The Stage 2 Code
Amendment Project related to property owner tree removals has been identified in the 2022-2023
Development Services Work Plan.
Project Objectives, including an expanded scope to amend the development -related tree codes are
discussed under the Narrative section below.
Staff Recommendation
Packet Pg. 212
8.6
Affirm the 4 primary Objectives for Stage 2 tree code amendments:
1. Preferred options for property owner tree removals.
2. Minor changes to the existing development -related code.
3. Establish a tree canopy cover policy goal in the Comprehensive Plan
4. Limit project scope to a regulatory/policy framework
Narrative
The following objectives form a preliminary project scope for the Stage 2 Tree Code Update:
ective 1- Develop property owner tree code amendments under the preferred options.
Based on the City Council's preferred options, the Planning Board is poised to begin the Stage 2 tree
code amendments to determine the following:
Threshold or maximum number of trees allowed to be removed at one time
An appropriate amount of time between allowed tree removal activity
Whether tree size should be factored into tree removal limitations (i.e.: Landmark trees)
If the number of allowed tree removals should vary by property size
If/when a permit is required
ective 2 - Revise the existine development -related code usine data -driven. minor revisions to Chapter
23.10 ECDC.
Staff recommends that Chapter 23.10 ECDC, the "Stage 1" development -related tree code, is amended
to:
Reflect data in the recent tree canopy cover assessment, such as defining and regulating
"groves" as a result of the loss of "forest patches" with development.
Address issues and challenges that have arisen since adoption, such as unclear code
interpretations due to the inconsistent use of terms and definitions in the code.
Update the code so it is efficient and practical to use, such as converting text to charts
where needed.
Maintain consistency with current industry standards and Best Management Practices, such
as the definition of a "hazard" tree.
Objective 3 - Establish a policy goal with performance measures and indicators for a healthy, sustainable
urban forest (in the Comprehensive Plan) appropriate for the community.
Currently, Edmonds' tree codes do not serve as a means for achieving a specific underlying urban
forestry policy goal established in the Comprehensive Plan. Although ECDC 23.10 tree codes are loosely
related to various Comprehensive Plan goals, the code should support a specific, appropriate tree
canopy cover goal that can be measured/monitored over time, as basis for the intent and purpose of
tree regulations. Staff may need to tie this Objective into the pending Comprehensive Plan update
project.
Further, UFMP Goal 113, to adopt a policy goal of no net loss to overall tree canopy... has not been
implemented.
Objective 4 - Limit Proiect Scope to Actions/Items within a Policy or Regulatory Framework.
While working on the Stage 1 draft code, the City Council recognized that other actions would help
achieve "tree canopy objectives" and provide "net ecological gain." Staff was requested to identify these
measures and provide a timeline for implementing them. Two tables (one in summary form and one
Packet Pg. 213
8.6
more detailed) in response to this request were presented at the February 16 and in some form at May,
June, and August 2021 City Council meetings. Staff noted the grey -shaded items could be considered
within the regulatory framework of code amendments:
ITEM
TIMING
Inventory of downtown trees
Completed
Inventory of other public trees
2022 or TBD
Street Tree Plan update
Currently underway
Tree canopy assessment
Completed
Heritage Tree Program TB
Q3 2021-Q4 2021
Tree Canopy Goal
Q3 2021
Assessment of staffing and other resource needs
Q2 2021 -2022 or TBD
Explore incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Explore other incentive programs
2022 or TBD
Open space acquisition
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Tree retention on private property not related to development
Currently underway
Partnerships with other organizations TB
Q3 2021-2022 or TBD
Annual reports to City Council TB
Ongoing
Tree giveaway program TB
2022 or TBD
View corridors
2022 or TBD
Wildlife & Habitat Corridors (through critical area regulations)
Q3 2021-2022 or TBD
Expanded public education & Information TB
Q3 2021-2022 or TBD
Stormwater & Watershed analysis
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Other tree -related issues
2022 or TBD
Examine tree -related equity issues
Ongoing
The non -shaded items are duplicated UFMP goals that are programmatic, event- and project -related in
nature, rather than actions within a regulatory or policy framework. Some are within the codified
powers and duties of the Tree Board (shown with TB symbol). Others, such as conducting a tree canopy
cover analysis and downtown street tree inventory, have been completed. "Open space acquisition" is
supported by the adopted tree code with the establishment of the Tree Fund. Staff recommends that
the prior actions/issues previously raised by Council remain as originally intended, as UFMP goals or
Tree Board responsibilities, to pursue as resources allow.
Process - Timeline and Public Outreach/Engagement Plan
The following tasks have been identified for developing a more detailed Timeline and Public Outreach
Packet Pg. 214
8.6
Plan for ECDC 23.10 code amendments:
TASKS
Initial project scoping: develop a preliminary work plan that includes project objectives
Finalize project scope, adopt through Resolution
Develop a robust Public Outreach and Engagement Strategy
o Use the Equitable Engagement Framework model
o Hold a Tree Board retreat and consider joint Planning Board -Tree Board meetings
o Identify internal and external stakeholders, special interest groups
o Identify capacity/opportunities for multi -media approach: special events, workshops, public
meetings (including public hearing), mailings, community survey.
o Identify responsibilities for managing web content, social media, project listserv, etc.
Develop list of potential amendments based on project objectives, staff, PB/TB, CC feedback and
categorize by policy level impact.
Compile Data, Related Policy/Documents, Conduct Analysis
o What code changes are needed from canopy study findings?
o Do decision -making bodies want to see case studies for current code/tree retention with
development - what's an acceptable number? criteria?
o What data will help with property owner tree removal codes?
o Is there any other analysis the PB/TB would find useful?
Project milestones based on approved Objectives
o Comp Plan revision?
o Public meeting dates (PB/TB, City Council) with adequate time for packet preparation
o Mandated: Public noticing per WA Dept of Commerce, SEPA addendum
o Public outreach events/deadlines
o Review and comments on official draft, revisions based on feedback,TB review, PB
recommendation to City Council
SEPA Review
City Council review/adoption
Implementation phase, including internal training and public education
City Council Considerations
Are the proposed code amendment Objectives acceptable, or does Council feel there are missing
elements?
Next Steps
With Council feedback, staff will develop a final project scope for Stage 2 Chapter 23.10 ECDC code
amendments and commence the project with the Planning Board.
Attachments
1- May 18, 2021 City Council Memo
2- June 1, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes
3- August 24, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes
Attachments:
Attachment 1: May 18, 2021 City Council Memo
Attachment 2: June 1, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 215
8.6
Attachment 3: August 24, 2021 City Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 216
8.6.a
Edmonds City Council
Agenda Memo
`11C. 1 gy-
Meeting Date: May 18, 2021
Agenda Subject: Tree Code Stage 2
Staff Lead / Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
Author:
Introduction
During review of the development related tree regulations update in the first half of
2021, the City Council expressed a desire to expand the scope of the tree regulations.
Staff identified a number of Stage 2 tree related actions (Exhibit 1). A few of these
identified actions could pertain to subsequent code development including tree
retention on private property (not related to development), view corridors, wildlife &
habitat corridors, and a Heritage Tree Program. Before embarking on the next stage of
tree code development staff and the Planning Board will need direction from the
Council on the potential approaches to pursue during code development.
Tree Retention on Private Property Not Related to Development
The Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) notes that about 83% of the City's canopy
is located on private residential properties. Given that the preponderance of the City's
urban forest is located on private property, these properties are critical in meeting a
goal of no net loss of the City's urban forest canopy. Goal LA of the UFMP provides:
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on
the urban forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and
penalties for code violations
Stage 1 one of the tree regulations update focused on this first goal in the UFMP.
Interest was expressed from members of the Planning Board, City Council, and public in
expanding tree regulations to address trees on private property that is not being
developed and does not have critical areas present. Some options for tree retention
code on private property include those below. Note that most, if not all, of these
options would require more resources (staffing, consultants or both).
-
City of Edmonds caR City Council
Packet Pg. 217
8.6.a
1. Require a fee permit for removal of any significant tree (6 inch or larger DBH) on
private property. This option would require additional staff resources.
2. Allow the removal of a certain number of significant trees on a given property
over a certain time period. For example, two significant trees may be removed
from a property per year. This option does not require a paid permit but would
require submittal and approval by the City to track tree removal to ensure more
than the allowed number of trees are not removed. This option will require
additional staff resources.
3. Allow for the removal of a certain number of trees with a diameter of less than
24 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) to be removed on a given property
over a certain time period. Similar to number 2 above, but only allows the
removal of smaller trees without a paid permit. More documentation will need
to be provided to the City with this option to review the diameter of trees
proposed for removal.
4. Require a paid permit for removal of more than the allowed number of trees
over a certain period of time or trees with a 24 inch or great DBH. For this
option and number 1 above, criteria will need to be established for the permit
review. When would the City deny a requested tree cutting permit? Or is it just
allowed with a permit? Do the permitted tree removals require replanting
where the allowed tree removals do not, thus a fee is required for the additional
review?
5. For all of the above options, review could include a review of tree retention as in
Chapter 23.10 ECDC. Does a property need to retain at least 30% of the trees
with the allowed removals in Options 2 and 3? Or only when a permit is
required?
6. Consider whether all residential properties should be required to have a
minimum number of trees or tree coverage, perhaps with certain exceptions.
Heritage Tree Program
Goal 1.D of the UFMP is to develop a voluntary Heritage Tree Program. A Heritage Tree
Program is a way to recognize unique or special trees and to recognize stewardship of
the urban forest by local property owners. While the UFMP notes a voluntary Heritage
Tree Program, the level protection provided to designated heritage trees is not noted.
Below are some options for consideration with a Heritage Tree Program.
1. A completely voluntary program where a property owner must sign a
nomination form for a specific tree and provide protection of the tree while it is
designated as a heritage tree. However, if the property owner so desires, the
heritage tree may be removed from the heritage tree program and removed
consistent with the City's adopted tree regulations. This is similar to the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places where the property must sign a nomination
Page 2 of 6
-
Packet Pg. 218
8.6.a
form and follow certain rules while a property is on the register, but the property
owner also has the option to remove a register property.
2. A voluntary program where a property owner must sign a nomination form.
Then once a tree has been designated as a heritage tree, that tree must be
protected and could not be removed unless the tree became a hazard or
3. Another less voluntary option would be to allow tree to be nominated as a
heritage tree and protected without the owner signing a nomination consent
form. There are some serious property rights issues that would need to be
evaluated if this option were pursued.
View Corridors
During review of the tree regulations, several comments were submitted concerning
trees obstructing views. The UFMP recognizes views are an important aspect of living in
Edmonds (at least in some areas) but does not provide any specific goals related to view
protection.
The City's Comprehensive Plan and policies recognize the protection of public views
(views from parks or view corridors down streets and street ends) but does not
specifically address private view protection. View protection may be established
through private view protection easements limiting the height of vegetation and
structures on one property to protect views on another. Private view easements may
be purchased and are sometimes set up during a subdivision or before a person sells a
piece of property. These easements are private easements however and not regulated
or enforced by the City of Edmonds. Enforcement of view easements is a civil matter
between the property owners to which the easement applies.
Should the City pursue regulations regarding trees and views, it should be noted that
the City would then become an arbitrator between two (or more) property owners. To
some people, trees are the view while to others trees block the view. Below are some
options for consideration in incorporating some view aspects into the tree regulations.
Furthermore, Washington State has very strong protections granted to private property
rights, and the City will have limited ability to enforce restrictions on one property to
protect the view afforded another.
1. Not all areas of the City are blessed with views. The City may consider
establishing "view sheds" or "view areas" within the City where views are given
extra consideration when a tree planting plan is being developed. Options for
the "view areas" may include:
a. Limiting the mature height of trees being planted to the allowable height
of the zone in which the tree is being planted. In single family zones, this
would mean that trees planted in a "view area" could not be taller than
25 feet when that tree reaches maturity. This is a blanket approach which
Page 3 of 6
-
Packet Pg. 219
8.6.a
may have unanticipated down -sides, such as not allowing for native
species that grow taller.
b. Require a "view corridor" over a percentage of the property line where
trees could not be planted. For comparison, the Shoreline Master
Program requires a view corridor be maintained across 30 percent of the
average parcel width. This would not result in an unobstructed view, but
will preserve some view while allowing the planting of trees that reach a
taller mature height.
2. Establish "view areas" where trees may be removed if they grow up into a view.?
The City could establish a process where a property owner who has lost views a
that once existed when they purchased the property to require the trees on their D
a�
property that have grown into their view to be removed or trimmed to 0
reestablish the view.
a�
a�
L
If the City pursues developing regulations with regard to private views, other factors ~
such as critical areas must also be taken into consideration. For example, north E
Edmonds view shed is associated with significant slopes (potential landslide hazards are
slopes 40% and greater) as well as a historic landslide area that has specific regulations
that apply to development in that area (Chapter 19.10 ECDC — Earth Subsidence and o
Landslide Hazard Areas) in addition to critical area regulations. The mechanical and
hydrogeological benefits which trees and other vegetation provide to maintain slope
stability and reduce erosion are well documented. r
Equity Issues
Edmonds is a varied city that has developed over many years. In some areas, large
swaths of native trees have been cut — as part of intense urban development or
sometimes to afford maximum views. Elsewhere, many trees remain, due to limited
incentives to remove them or perhaps the landscape did not encourage their removal
(e.g. steep slopes or stream corridors). If the City pursues regulating trees on private
property beyond what is already done through the critical areas code, equity concerns
should be considered. For example, is it fair to insist that those property owners who
have large stands of trees remaining be solely responsible for the continued cost of tree
maintenance and upkeep while those who have already cleared their property (whether
for view or other considerations) do not bear any costs? A balancing of private property
rights with public benefit and an equal sharing of related costs needs to be part of the
discussion.
Wildlife & Habitat Corridors
Protection and enhancement of wildlife & habitat corridors was raised during review of
the tree regulations. While tree retention is important everywhere, it is particularly
Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 220
8.6.a
critical in the stream and wildlife corridors. These areas are largely protected by the
City's critical area regulations. However, much of the City was developed prior to the
establishment of critical area or other environmental regulations.
One option to improve wildlife and habitat corridors would be to work with landowners
to improve the quality of the City's stream and wildlife corridors. Currently, the City's
stormwater crews are the primary contact with streamside landowners and have been
providing landowners with best management practices such as the information
provided on the City's stormwater website. The City could also partner with
organizations like Stream Keepers to help educate streamside property owners. Over
the past several years the City has been supporting Students Saving Salmon which has
been doing excellent documenting the state of the City's streams and working with
a
property owners and streamside maintenance and planting. A percentage of the tree
M
vouchers from the Tree Fund program could be targeted for planting within stream and
a�
c
wildlife corridors.
a�
a�
The City's critical area code has regulations regarding corridor protection in the wetland
L
section (ECDC 23.50.040.F) and the 30% native vegetation requirement in ECDC
E
23.90.040.0 is intended to help protect wildlife and habitat corridors.
If the intent is to protect, enhance, expand, or establish wildlife corridors in upland
areas not associated with critical areas more information and criteria for the type of
o
habitat we are trying to protect or establish needs to be determined. For instance, the
critical area code defines "habitats of local importance" as:
areas that include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species
has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the
species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of
high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and
movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability
or high vulnerability to alterations such as cliffs, talus, and wetlands. In urban areas
like the city of Edmonds, habitats of local importance include biodiversity areas and
corridors, which are characterized by a framework of ecological components which
provides the physical conditions necessary for ecosystems and species populations to
survive in a human -dominated landscape.
These habitats of local importance are usually associated with a "species of local
importance" which the critical area code defines as:
those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity
to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species.
No species of local importance or habitat of local importance has been identified in the
City of Edmonds. If the City wants to pursue establishing wildlife corridors beyond those
currently described in the critical areas regulations and best available science report,
additional studies will be required.
Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 221
8.6.a
Other information that will be important for improving wildlife and habitat corridors will
be the canopy assessment the City will be conducting. The canopy assessment could
identify existing corridors and areas where planting should be a priority for providing
connections that may have been lost.
Incentives
No net loss cannot be achieved via regulation alone. Apart from Goal LA of the UFMP
which relates to developing regulations to retain trees during development, there are
no goals in the UFMP that address developing regulations for private property that are
not being developed. Rather the UFMP Goal 3 discusses developing incentives for
private property. Goal 3 provides:
Goal 3 - Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city recognizes that voluntary
public participation must be encouraged. The following actions will support this
objective.
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore
establishment of:
A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes;
and/or
ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or
iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree
planting and protection.
C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners
that maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees
Rather than pursing the regulations for tree retention on private property not related to
development, the City could focus its efforts on developing incentive programs for
protecting and planting trees on private property. Even if the City pursues tree
regulations for private property not related to development, it should be combined with
incentive programs.
Page 6 of 6
a�
r
a
M
a�
0
U
d
a�
L
0
E
a�
U
c
0
0
U
-
Packet Pg. 222
her a picture of a DADU and it looks like just another house. She was concerned about upzoning and not
having transition zones. Citizens need to know where and how rather than everything being carte blanche.
Hearing no opposition, Ms. Hope assumed there was Council consensus to proceed with those items and
schedule a special study session.
3. STAGE 2 TREE ISSUES
Development Services Director Hope said this is a follow up on an issue the Council has considered over
several months. The Council adopted new regulations related to development following up on the UFMP
and other work. Council has also been interested in doing things beyond that.
ar
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien explained when the Council was working on tree code
�a
regulations that applied to developing sites, a number of Stage 2 items were identified for future updates.
Some are underway now and nearing completion such as Inventory of Downtown Trees, Street Tree Plan
o
Update, and Tree Canopy Assessment. He displayed a list of Upcoming Tree -Related Items and Timing,
explaining the shaded items will go to the Planning Board and the Planning Board has requested clear
L
direction from Council on those items.
Item
Timing
Inventory of downtown street trees
Q2 2021-Q3 2021
Inventory of other public trees
2022 or TBD
Street Tree Plan update
Q2 2021-Q4 20221
Tree canopy assessment
Q2 2021-Q3 2021
Heritage Tree Program
Q32021-Q4 2021
Tree Canopy Goal
Q3 2021
Assessment of staffing and other resource needs
Q2 2021 -2022 or TBD
Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Exploration of other incentive programs
2022 or TBD
Open sace acquisition
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Tree retention on private property (not related to development)
Q4 202
Partnerships with other organizations
Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD
Annual reports on City tree activities
Q2 2021
Treegive-away program
2022 or TBD
View corridors
2022 or TBD
Wildlife & habitat corridors
Q3 2021-Q4 2021
Expanded public education & Information
Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD
Stormwater & watershed Analysis
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Other tree -related issues
2022 or TBD
Mr. Lien reviewed:
Tree Regulations on Private Property
o Goal 1 - Maintain or enhance citywide canopy coverage
The city has limited information about the condition of the urban forest. Success with this
objective will be achieved with enhanced management of public trees and a deeper
understanding of the population of trees on private property. The following actions will support
this objective:
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban
forest and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code
violations
o Goal 3 -Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
N
0
N
T
m
c
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 223
8.6.b
To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the city recognizes that voluntary public
participation must be encouraged. The following actions will support this objective.
Equity
o Edmonds is a varied city that has developed over many years.
o In some areas, large swaths of native trees have been cut — as part of intense urban development
o Elsewhere, many trees remain, due to limited incentives to remove them or perhaps the
landscape did not encourage their removal (e.g. steep slopes or stream corridors)
o Equity concerns should be considered
o A balancing of private property rights with public benefit should be considered
Options for Tree Retention on Private Property Not Related to Development
1. Require fee permit for removal of any significant tree (6 inch DBH)
2. Allow X number of trees on a given property to be removed over a period of time
Q.
3. Allow X number of trees less the 24 inch DBH to be removed over a period of time
4. Require paid permit for removal of more than the allowed number of trees and for removal of
24 inch DBH trees
°
U
5. Review retention requirements for all of the above, or only when permit is required?
6. Consider whether all residential properties should be required to have minimum number of
trees
,
Heritage Tree Program
o UFMP Goal LD Develop a voluntary heritage tree program
1. Completely voluntary program. Designated Heritage Tree to be removed from Heritage
Tree Program at owners desire
2. Property owner voluntarily designates Heritage Tree, but Heritage Tree must be protected
and only removed if hazard or nuisance
3. Anyone may nominate a Heritage Tree regardless of property owner's consent and
Heritage Tree must be protected
Views
o UFMP recognizes views, but does not include in specific goals related to view protection
o Public view corridors vs. private view protection U
o City would be arbitrator between property owners c
o State has strong protections regarding private property rights and city will have limited ability N
to enforce restrictions on one property to protect the view afforded another
o Other considerations include critical areas
View Options
o Establish "view sheds" or "view areas"
a. Limit mature tree height to allowable zoning height
b. Require a "view corridor" over a percentage of the property line where trees could not be E
planted
o Establish process where trees may be removed if they grow into a view in a "view area" a
o If city pursues regulations regarding private views other factors need to be considered such as c
critical areas m
Habitat Corridors
o Largely protected by critical areas
o Education
■ Stormwater crews
■ Partner with organizations such as Stream Keepers and Students Saving Salmon
o Critical area Habitat and Species of Local importance
o Tree canopy assessment
Incentives
o Goals 3 — Incentivize protecting & planting trees on private property
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 224
8.6.b
To ensure success with enhancing the tree canopy, the City recognizes that voluntary public
participation must be encouraged. The following actions will support this objective:
A. Have a program of giving away trees and/or tree vouchers for use in Edmonds
B. For properties that retain a certain amount of tree canopy cover, explore establishment of:
i. A property tax "rebate" applicable to the City portion of property taxes; and/or
ii. A stormwater utility fee reduction; and/or
iii. Other techniques that provide a financial recognition of the benefits of tree planting
and protection.
C. Develop a certification/awards program to publicly recognize property owners that
maintain a certain amount or type of healthy trees
m
Mr. Lien relayed staff was seeking direction from direction from Council on what they wanted to see in the
Stage 2 Tree Update related to the options for tree retention on private property not related to development:
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why it was necessary to charge any fees when the goal was to keep track
m
v
of trees being cut down. She asked why the City would want to require a fee permit for 6 inch tree. Mr.
Lien referred to the list of options on page 186 for tree retention on private property not related to
aa)
development. He was not recommending a fee, but that was one of the options for Council to consider.
N
With that option, if someone wanted to remove a tree, a permit could be required with a minimal fee.,'
Options 2 would not require fee permit but would require documentation. Property owners would be
c
allowed to remove X trees of any size per year; it would not require a permit or fee, but documentation
would need to be submitted so the City could track it and ensure they were not asking to remove more than
0
the number of trees they were allotted. Option 3 would allow property owners to remove X number of
a)
smaller trees. Option 4 would require a permit to remove more than the allowed number of trees or removal
of 24" DBH trees. If permits are required for removal, even the 24" DBH trees, it will be necessary to
establish criteria; why would the City say no to removing those trees, are they allowed outright, is a permit
required to review a replanting plan, etc. Options 5 and 6 refer to retention requirements and a minimum
v
number of trees on the property. He summarized a fee permit for any tree removal is option as well as no
fee but documentation.
t�
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred Options 1, 2 and 3. She recognized those will be labor intensive and
N
N
asked whether an analysis had been done regarding additional staff. Ms. Hope said the exact amount of
r
staffing depends on which option the Council selects. There would need to be an urban forester or arborist
position to oversee this as well as 1-2 additional staff or more if a more complex process was selected.
There are a lot of costs associated with tracking regardless of whether a fee is charged. c4
Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the unintended consequences she has witnessed with the
emergency ordinance regarding 24" landmark trees. Homeowners reporting their neighbors to the City for
cutting a big tree. She wanted citizens to feel comfortable that they could remove some trees and to
understand the environmental reasons for retaining trees. She preferred a no fee permit and only monitoring.
Ms. Hope recalled some Councilmembers were interested in staff talking with people who wanted to cut
trees and explaining their options. That is a great idea but will also require staff resources.
Council President Paine agreed with either free or low cost permitting for trees. She supported some type
of permitting process so the City can track what is happening with trees. Before adopting requirements, it
will be important to have the canopy assessment to provide a measurement. The Council can then determine
a canopy goal/target and how to reach that canopy. Education will be helpful to many homeowners. The
program will require resources include urban forestry staff, code enforcement, permit review, and staff who
to provide education.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 225
8.6.b
Council President Paine asked if the Planning Board was seeking direction from the Council about a
Heritage Tree Program. Ms. Hope said the Planning Board was interested in direction from the Council
about a Heritage Tree Program. Mr. Lien said the Heritage Tree Program is separate from regulations for
tree retention on private property. The Heritage Tree Program would be a recognition type program, two
separate code updates. The Planning Board is seeking direction from Council regarding tree retention on
private property not related to development. He provided the six options to give Council something to
consider.
Councilmember Olson agreed with not requiring a fee. She recalled Bill Phipps referencing Kirkland's code
and what he like about it was there was no fee and the city took responsibility for planting elsewhere for
some of the trees being removed. There is greater incentive for a property owner to identify the trees they;
want to remove and get counsel from the city arborist or other knowledgeable source regarding alternatives
to removing a tree. The time the Council has spent on the tree code has been very valuable and she thanked
staff and citizens for being patient with the time it takes to synthetize inputs and develop good policy. Some
of points that have resonated with her are the difficulty to enforce prohibitions, people who are determined
v
to take trees down and people who love trees and therefore bought property full of trees and end up being
penalized.
aa)
Councilmember Olson referred to the question raised during Audience Comments about why the City is
a,'
doing this. She said the environmental component was the driver, trees are an important part of carbon
c
sequestration and a component in climate change. Protecting the tree canopy not only helps with that but
also enhance the aesthetics. With regard to a Heritage Tree Program, she would support a site specific tree
program and if it is required in the UFMP, she would support a voluntary program. With regard to views,
she referred to vegetation used as a fence. The City legislates how high fences can be, and if someone uses
vegetation as a fence, it should not be allowed to be 20 feet tall and block their neighbor's light or view.
Mr. Lien said the City has regulated hedge height in the past, but that was removed from the code before
he came to the City 13 years go. Regulating hedge height requires the City to be arbitrator between
v
neighbors; one person wants the hedge for privacy and the other wants the hedge removed for view reasons.
Councilmember Olson commented the code could be clear if vegetation used as a fence blocked views, it
U
needed to comply with the fence height regulations. That did not mean a property owner could not have a
tree in that area, but they could not use a hedge as a fence.
N
Councilmember K. Johnson thanked Mr. Lien for taking a comprehensive look at the Tree Code Stage 2,
T
incorporating a range of options and asking the Council to narrow it down for the Planning Board. She was
unsure if that was what staff wanted or if the Planning Board wanted to continue to look at the range of
c4
options. Ms. Hope said staff was not asking Council to eliminate any of the options tonight, but to determine
m
next steps for the Planning Board to begin that work. All the other items will come back to the Council in
E
the future.
n
Mr. Lien said the Planning Board was seeking clear direction from the Council regarding what direction to
go and what to look at. Tree retention on private property not related to development is the most difficult.
If the Council wants to pursue a Heritage Tree Program, that is pretty easy and there are a few options. With
regard to tree retention on private property, Council appeared to be interested in an option that did not
require a fee; tracking tree removal with no fee. Additional Council direction is needed regarding when a
permit is required, whether it is above X number of trees or is it not allowed and a property owner can only
remove two trees, or is it limited by size, etc. He asked when a permit would be required.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with moving the Heritage Tree Program to the Planning Board. She
was also interested in wildlife and habitat corridors, relaying her understanding that they were protected
under the critical area ordinance but there are large trees in parks and other areas so she encouraged the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 226
Planning Board to tackle that issue. Wildlife and habitat corridors are important for the tree canopy as well
as salmon recovery efforts.
Council President Paine agreed with having the Planning Board look at a Heritage Tree Program. She
supported a free or low cost tree permit for removal of any significant trees, and suggested having the
Planning Board consider Options 2 and 3 along with data from the canopy assessment. She also agreed with
looking at wildlife and habitat corridors.
Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with providing general direction to the Planning Board regarding
Options 2 and 3 and have them consider a no cost tracking permit. The clock is ticking on the emergency
ordinance so there is some pressure to ensure the 24" and larger trees are addressed via an update from the
Planning Board that will come to Council. He expressed support for Option 1 for a Heritage Tree Program.
He has seen how some of the more restrictive options such as Option 3 have been used with buildings where
people have applied for landmark status on something they do not own and have no interest in and how that
has been weaponized.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with a Heritage Tree Program. She recalled the Floretum Garden Club
and the Tree Board had discussed that and Councilmember Olson provided an example of program that did
not need to be codified. She supported doing districting or establishing view/no view areas in the UFMP.
Edmonds' real estate market is flourishing and houses with trees are priced differently than houses with
views. She was not sure how to diplomatically address view versus no view in the code. She agreed with
focusing on wildlife and habitat corridors, no net loss and net ecological gain. A lot of it is related to critical
areas but there are also wildlife corridors in non -critical areas. With regard to incentives, she was concerned
with opened up a ball of wax, especially related to stormwater issues. She summarized habitat, permitting
and view corridors were her top three.
Councilmember L. Johnson recommended approaching this as a shared responsibility; the overwhelming
responsibility should not be on one subset of the community or homeowners over another. She agreed with
Options 2 and 3 for tree retention on private property not related to development, noting the canopy
assessment will guide that. The canopy assessment will also guide Option 6, whether all residential property
should be required to have a minimum number of trees. Without the information provided by the canopy
assessment, it is difficult to decide.
With regard to a Heritage Tree Program, Councilmember L. Johnson supported Options 1 or 2 related to a
voluntary program. With regard to view corridors, this is related to the equity issue and providing a balance.
A number of properties have already been cleared, is it fair to put the burden on those who have not yet
removed trees? It will be a delicate balance and will depend on the canopy assessment. She questioned what
constitutes a view corridor, observing there are a lot of different views. She referred to comment related to
light and asked whether access to light was prioritized for someone living in a view corridor but not for
other homeowners which she felt was an inequity issue. The City does not want to be in the business of
defining and regulating views and should leave that up to homeowners to do amongst themselves. With
regard to wildlife and habitat corridors, she cited the importance of education and incentives. She supported
certification for wildlife and habitat corridors similar to a Heritage Tree Program. She was not sold on
incentives but neither did she want to rule them out. She would support incentives that were easier to do
and did not require as much staff time to monitor.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not prepared to provide her arguments for and against options
tonight. She misunderstood what the Council was doing with this agenda item and will not be stating her
preferences but is listening to everyone else and has a good understanding of their priorities.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 227
8.6.b
With regard to the issue of light, Councilmember Olson agreed that related to equity; it could arise anywhere
and was not exclusive to the bowl. Blocking light can be an issue for someone's garden. She strongly
favored incentives, agreeing they were complicated to figure out but that was the way to go. The
environment is important, and instead of spending money on enforcement and punishment, she preferred
to provide incentives for having the right tree in the right place. She felt the City could get better results
with incentives rather than punishments.
Mr. Lien said he did not assume the Council would complete this tonight; it was intended to provide some
guidance. The Council has provided clear direction on the Heritage Tree Program. The direction regarding
tree retention on private property not related to development seemed to be no permit but tracking for the
removal of a certain number of trees. He will come back to Council to discuss views and habitat corridors;
in more depth so Council can provide clearer direction. Council agreed. Mr. Lien referenced comments
regarding light, noting some jurisdictions have regulations related to solar access..
m
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. He relayed Council President Paine and he conferred during the v
recess and decided Item 8.5 would be postponed to a future meeting.
L
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, N
TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. d
4. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
CHAPTER 17.75 ECDC, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION
IN CHAPTER 17.70 ECDC
Development Services Director Shane Hope advised this is not about outdoor dining on sidewalks or streets.
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this is a Planning Board recommendation on an interim ordinance
c
Council adopted at the end of December related to outdoor dining. Although the ordinance was listed, it
v
was not included in packet. He displayed the one -page ordinance and explained on private property, dining
v
is allowed as an outdoor use. Until the interim ordinance, an additional 10% of the indoor seating was
allowed as outdoor seating or 12 seats whichever was greater and beyond those limits a Conditional Use
N
Permit (CUP) was required. He commented 10% of the interior seating or 12 seats was not very much and
r
especially during COVID, it came to the City's attention that restaurants needed more flexibility. A CUP
goes to the Hearing Examiner and costs thousands of dollars and takes up to three months for approval,
making any significant outdoor dining cost and time prohibitive for a typical restaurant/small business.
Mr. Chave explained the interim ordinance adopted by Council removed the requirement for a CUP,
clarified the need for a building permit for any structures, and for retaining any ADA accessible parking
spaces. The original code did not have a limitation on the amount of outdoor dining; the interim ordinance
had a limit up to 50% of the existing interior seating and up to 30 seats. The interim ordinance was more
generous than what was allowed without a permit, but not as open ended as the original code. The Planning
Board held a public hearing and recommended making the interim ordinance permanent. A public hearing
at City Council is scheduled on June 15t''
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how 30 seats versus 40 or 20 was decided when the original was 12. Mr.
Chave it was 12 or 10% of the indoor seating whichever was more. Thirty seats seemed like a reasonable
number, it could be lower or higher. The 50% was not a magic number but it clearly indicates that outdoor
dining was to be a secondary part of the overall operation, not the main part. Under the interim code, the
additional outdoor dining could be 50% of the interior or 30 seats. For example, a small takeout place with
just a kitchen and no interior seating could have 30 outdoor seats.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 228
8.6.c
when they get to Edmonds, but there will be subtext via color, font, and other elements that can match and
contrast to tell a story about Edmonds. He recognized it was important to the Council to have
cohesiveness with the existing signs and certain elements should resonate, but they do not have to be
exactly the same. The team will do their best including more outreach to determine if the signs are on
right track and bring that information back to Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she liked the vertical signs better than the horizontal signs. The city of
Shoreline is on 205t' and the Edmonds sign will be across the street. She agreed the signage should be
unique and she like inspiration signage that brings color, texture, artistic.
m
2. LANDMARK TREE ORDINANCE EXTENSION
c�v
a
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained there is an ordinance in the packet that was presented for Council
consideration; however, he recommend the Council not take action on it tonight because the Council
c
needed to have a public hearing before it can be extended. Mr. Lien and he had a discussion about the
v
ordinance when he was heading out of town on vacation and did not had the statute in front of him. He
L
apologized for not realizing that earlier. When this ordinance was first adopted, there was a thought that
~
only six months would be needed to develop something more permanent and move on to adopting a
permanent regulation governing landmark trees. The City is obviously not at that point. His recollection
was staff has sought direction regarding where the Council wants to go or what staff should be trying to
draft, but the Council has not yet given staff clear direction to staff on that issue. From his perspective the
a�
Council was not even close to being able to adopt a permanent regulation governing landmark trees.
as
To frame the discussion, Mr. Taraday suggested after hearing from Mr. Lien tonight, the Council
deliberate on whether they want to reprioritize some work in order to get a permanent landmark tree code
developed in the next six months which he understood would require a significant reprioritization of
o'
work, or whether to just allow things to return to the way they were six months ago and allow the
v
landmark tree regulation process to work its way through the normal course of business. There is a lot of
v
work going through the Planning Board and Planning Department and it was not clear to him whether this
was a high enough Council priority to be the subject of another interim ordinance. If so, he requested the
N
Council advise staff. He was concerned that in the absence of a priority change and given the trajectory
'
that this effort has been on, there could be repeated extensions without making any real progress which is
cm
not how interim regulations are intended to be used and he would advise against doing that.
3
a�
Environmental Program Manager Kemen Lien said the key part of what Mr. Taraday said related to the
a
timeline for the next stage of the tree code. The general direction received during the first stage of the tree
code update was the Council wanted a tree code that applied more broadly to all properties in the City
whether they was being developed or not. The first stage of the tree code update was implementing the
E
z
first goal of the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or
other development impacts on the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and
a
penalties for code violations. Clear direction was provided on that and the first update was tree
regulations that strictly focused on development. He provided that focused code update to the Planning
Board last September and the Council adopted the last version in July 2021, a total of 10 months.
z
c�
If there is a tree regulation that will apply more broadly throughout the City and have a larger
r
a
impact/reach, Mr. Lien said that type of update needs to have broad public engagement and will take
more time. Staff does not have a lot of clear direction regarding that next stage. The interim ordinance
that was being considered tonight was for landmark trees but during discussion of the next stage, there
was interest in reviewing all tree removals. There was also discussion about potential view impacts but
not a lot of clear direction. Another approach would be to begin the public engagement before drafting
code; getting input from Edmonds citizens regarding what they would like to see in a tree code that
applies more broadly and weave that into the next phase of the code update.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 229
8.6.c
Mr. Lien advised that interviews were conducted for the urban forest planner position yesterday and an
offer will be made to a really good candidate. It will likely be at least a month before that person can be
hired. Having one person solely focused on trees will help this move forward rather than adding it to his
job.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was currently not at home so she did not have the history of the Tree
Board's efforts at hand. She recalled there was a designated timeframe and she asked for that to be sent to
her today. She expressed concern that suddenly staff was saying Council had not provided clear direction,
but she felt the Council had. She would like to further define the language in the flexible subdivision
design in 20.048.075. She was perplexed by tonight's discussion and asked if the intent was to start over
at square one and what happened to all the planning documents initiated through the Tree Board and the
Council last year or this year.
13
0
Mr. Lien said the code Councilmember Buckshnis was referencing was 20.75.048, the flexible v
m
subdivision design; that is in code and has been adopted. That first stage of the code update was based on L
Goal 1A of the UFMP strictly focused on reducing clear cutting and other development impacts on the ~
urban forest. When Stage 1 of the code update started, staff presented the scope to Council in July 2020;
began discussion with the Planning Board in September, the Planning Board held a public hearing in
December and forwarded a recommendation to Council in January 2021 and the Council begin g
discussions in January//February. During that review, there were a lot of comments that the code update
was not broad enough and needed to be expanded to cover situations beyond development. In June 2021,
staff brought back the Stage 2 topics to be considered such as tree removal not associated with
development. A few options were discussed at that time. With regard to review on other properties, there was consensus that the Council wanted that review, but not what that review would look like such as c
requiring a permit for all tree removals. With regard to views, the discussion was all over the board �00
regarding how views would be addressed in the next stage of the update. He concluded many of the topics
were discussed, but he did not feel clear direction was provided at that time.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if he was referring to clear direction from Council or from citizens. She
thought Council has been giving clear direction for a long time. Mr. Lien answered from the Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council approved 20.75.048 but never any language for amendments.
She would like to discuss and refine the development aspect of things. The landmark tree ordinance is
backfiring because trees are going down all over and there is no enforcement. She recalled she did not
vote the last two times because it penalizes citizens instead of developers. She thought Stage 2 of the tree
code would be done by September/October and now it sounds like there's nothing. She concluded she
was completely mystified.
Councilmember K. Johnson inquired about enforcement since there was a moratorium for landmark trees.
Mr. Lien answered staff has been implementing the landmark tree interim ordinance; landmark trees can
still be removed if they are nuisance or hazard trees. Staff has been reviewing arborist reports with regard
to nuisance and hazard landmark trees. Staff does enforce the tree code including the landmark tree
interim ordinance. People call frequently when tree cutting is occurring and planning staff, code
enforcement or building officials in the field visit those properties.
Mr. Lien clarified some of the tree cutting that has occurred since the interim ordinance went into effect
was the result of developments vested prior to adoption of the new tree code and prior to the effective
date of the interim ordinance. Subdivisions have five years from preliminary approval to begin
development; for example, a development that was approved 2-3 years ago under the old tree code is just
now getting to the development stage and removing trees. He assured staff was enforcing the tree code
and the interim ordinance.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 230
8.6.c
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how many violations had been cited. Mr. Lien answered he knew of
two violations in regard to the interim ordinance, only one may have been related to the landmark tree
ordinance or potentially the other moratorium on subdivision properties that restricted cutting trees on
properties being subdivided. He did not think any were related to the landmark tree ordinance, one was a
critical area and the other was related to the moratorium ordinance.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how practical this moratorium has been. Mr. Lien answered it has
prevented 24" trees from being removed. The word is out, staff get calls all the time from property owners
that haven't heard about it until told by their neighbor. Nuisance and hazard 24" trees are being cut as Z
well as trees on developments vested prior to the adoption of these codes.
a
Councilmember K. Johnson commented it was great news that an urban forester had been hired. She
supported getting more public input even after this has been discussed for years. She personally thought c
the moratorium had done more harm than good; she hears so many trees being cut down in her v
m
neighborhood and although they may not be landmark trees, the word is out, if you want to get rid of a L
tree, do it now. She would not support this ordinance when it comes back because she believed more ~
needed to be done to protect citizens and there needed to be better enforcement. She loves trees,
particularly protecting large native trees, but did not see that this has accomplished that goal. She will
keep her mind open to that possibility based on Mr. Lien's comments, but she did not see that the g
moratorium had done what it was intended to do, save trees. a)
Councilmember Olson said she came to tonight's meeting with three reasons for not supporting this and
Mr. Taraday's comments addressed a lot of them. She originally voted for a six-month Band-Aid until a
code for private property could be developed because that seemed reasonable, but not only has that part of
the code not been started, a public input process is planned which she totally supports. Ms. Seitz'
comments have been valuable to her thought process and there are things that could help direct a code that
is better received and more incentive based rather than enforcement based. She also expressed concern
with treating this like an emergency ordinance when it wasn't and holding a hearing until after fact. From
her personal case studies, she did not share the opinion that this has been more of a positive than a
negative. Possibly some bigger trees are being protected, but there are a lot of big trees between 12-24".
She recalled three parties making comment to the effect that they were going to take down the 12-24"
trees before they would be protected forever. She was not sure the bigger trees were always the better
trees. She supported the ordinance originally, believing it was a reasonable thing to do, but no longer
believed it was serving the purpose of protecting and encouraging the tree canopy and is working counter
to that. She did not plan to support the ordinance tonight and was unlikely to support it in the future.
Councilmember Distelhorst said he would definitely like see it prioritized as he preferred not to regulate
through ongoing temporary extensions. He voiced his support for a reprioritization if necessary so there
can be a permanent code regarding landmark trees, trees that have been here the longest, can be here into
the future and take the longest to grow. Recognizing the exponential benefit these trees provide, he was
interested in prioritizing a long term landmark tree code and expressed support for shuffling work if
necessary.
Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson said she was also perplexed because she remembered sitting
through numerous Council meetings and meeting with directors on this and being repeatedly shown a
schedule of how this would be accomplished and the Council providing input. This emergency ordinance
was supported by the Administration. The message the Council is receiving now is totally different than
the message they received before. She has been communicating her desires to protect the old growth as
much as possible. It was not particularly comfortable protecting them through emergency ordinance and
she had hoped the City was well on the way to a real plan to accomplish this and now is hearing staff has
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 231
8.6.c
no idea what the Council wants. She recalled staff describing at meetings how this would be
accomplished and other meetings where Council provided feedback. She concluded she was really
confused and said there needed to be better communicating between the two branches.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine expressed frustration, commenting this was the first she was hearing about this and
feared a lot of momentum had been lost. She was unclear where the momentum was lost, recalling the
City was marching down a great path, having an interim approach to preserving the largest trees, the ones
that will not easily grow back due to the climate crisis. So much progress has been made this year; it was
a priority for the Administration and the Council to do tree preservation in large blocks. She said some of
her questions have never answered; for example, how many permits are vested where everything can be
removed, including every last blade of grass. Mr. Lien said he did not have that information, but could
track it at least for subdivisions that are vested and maybe multifamily sites.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine said it was terribly frustrating to see large swaths of trees coming down. Another
m
c
thing the Council wanted to prioritize was the use of incentives such as stormwater fees to reduce the
v
m
impact of preserving tree canopy. The Council has been supportive of alternative methods and doing
L
updated subdivision planning for land use practices to build housing in a more creative way. She did not
~
want to throw the baby out with bathwater and did not understand why the process was returning to zero.
She asked when the tree canopy assessment would be available, anticipating that would assist with
database decision making as most properties are privately held and not under development. Mr. Lien
g
answered the tree canopy assessment is underway and should be completed by the end of September.
a�
Mayor Pro Tern Paine asked for a practical timeline to complete Stage 2 of the tree canopy work. She
acknowledged it involved the Planning Board and other staff and Administration time. She recalled there
was a path to get this done in a year or so. She recognized COVID had slowed things, and asked what
would be a reasonable time to go through the Planning Board and public hearings. Mr. Lien asked if she
was talking about the code or the canopy assessment. Mayor Pro Tern Paine answered she meant the
Stage 2 of the code. Acting Development Services Director Rob Chave said there is a short summary in
the cover memo in the packet describing some of the things that are underway. The problem is there are a
lot of moving parts. Staff has been working on a number of things such as the tree canopy assessment,
street tree plan, establishing a tree fund, and hiring a urban forest planner who can devote all their time to
this effort. The one thing that will take the most time because it will require a lot of public outreach is any
code regulating private property which is different from a landmark tree ordinance. He recalled the last
time a proposal generated by the Tree Board came forward, it created a hailstorm of criticism from
general public.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine interrupted, saying she was on the Tree Board at that time and part of their charter
was a comprehensive tree code which included private property. Mr. Chave said a lengthy public outreach
is critical before bringing forward a tree code that addresses what happens on private property. The
Planning Department has been inundated with people asking questions, wanting assessment done of their
trees, etc. There is a lot of engagement by the community but there are a lot of different opinions and it is
difficult to know what the community expects until that outreach is done. The regulations related to
landmark trees can be completed sooner, but without clear direction regarding regulating trees on private
property, it will take a lot of time to figure out. There are a lot of pieces of the tree code that are moving
forward, but the private property piece, other than landmark trees, is a big question mark.
Mayor Pro Tern Paine asked what would be required and how much time would it take to resuscitate and
extend the landmark tree interim ordinance one more time. Mr. Taraday answered the Council can use the
ordinance in the packet to do that, there just needs to be a public hearing first. The only real question is
how quickly that public hearing can be noticed and he deferred to Planning staff to answer that question.
Alternatively if that timeline was not acceptable, the Council could entertain the possibility of an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 232
8.6.c
emergency ordinance of a different scope adopted at a special meeting in the next few days that would
take immediate effect. The exact same substance cannot be adopted without first holding a public hearing.
Mr. Lien advised the soonest a public hearing could be scheduled would be September 14t' if notice was
sent to the Herald tomorrow.
Councilmember K. Johnson relayed two requests, 1) Mr. Taraday hold an executive session to discuss the
legal ramifications; this had been requested but it had not been scheduled, and 2) consider alternatives to
the landmark tree moratorium, specifically ways to incentivize retaining landmark trees. The Council has
typically put aside $300,000 in the budget for open space; the Council could consider during the budget
process making one-time payments to people who own landmark trees to reduce their taxes. She was
interested in alternatives that were more palatable, helpful and positive to the community.
a
Council President Pro Tern L. Johnson requested an update on what was referred to at one time as
upcoming tree related items and timing. She recalled this was last reported to the Council on June 1st and
c
was what the Council has been using to gauge progress. The upcoming tree related items included view
v
m
corridors, open space acquisition, and other things that staff mentioned earlier that they had not received
L
direction on. She disagreed that direction had not been given. She requested an update on that timeline
~
and whether the timing of some items needed to be adjusted from what was reported in June.
Mr. Lien He displaved State 2 Upcoming Tree -Related Items:
Item
Timing
Inventory of downtown street trees
Q2 2021-Q3 2021
Inventory of other public trees
2022 or TBD
Street Tree Plan update
Q2 2021-Q4 20221
Tree canopy assessment
Q2 2021-Q3 2021
Heritage Tree Program
Q3 2021-Q4 2021
Tree Canopy Goal
Q3 2021
Assessment of staffing and other resource needs
Q2 2021 -2022 or TBD
Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions L
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Exploration of other incentive programs
2022 or TBD
Open space acquisition
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Tree retention on private property (not related to development)
Q4 2021
Partnerships with other organizations
Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD
Annual reports on City tree activities
Q2 2021
Tree give-away program
2022 or TBD
View corridors
2022 or TBD
Wildlife & habitat corridors
Q3 2021-Q4 2021
Expanded public education & Information
Q3 2021 — 2022 or TBD
Stormwater & watershed Analysis
Q4 2021-2022 or TBD
Other tree -related issues
2022 or TBD
Mr. Lien explained the above was a timeline developed by former Development Services Director Shane
Hope. He commented on the items highlighted in gray which were discussed at the June 1st Council
meeting:
• Heritage Tree Program - clear direction was provided about moving forward and it will
potentially be completed in Q4 2021
• Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions - identified for Q4 2021 — 2022
• Tree retention on private property - will require robust public engagement. Director Hope
identified that as potentially being completed in Q4 2021; when this list was developed, he
thought that a little ambitious.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 233
8.6.c
• \View corridors - identified for 2022 or TBD.
• Wildlife & habitat corridors - identified for Q3-4 2021. He is tying wildlife and habitat corridors
to the tree canopy assessment which will be completed in late September.
Mr. Lien commented on the progress of other items on the list:
• Street plan update — in process
• Inventory of downtown street trees — completed
• Assessment of staffing and other resource needs — ongoing. Hopefully Urban Forester starting
soon
• Tree give-away program — tied to tree fund. Some current subdivisions applications will have fee-
in -lieu -tea
a
Mr. Lien referred to a May 18, 2021 memo regarding Tree Code Stage 2 and options identified for Tree
Retention on Private Property Not Related to Development. Goal LA of the UFMP provides: °
U
A. Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts on the urban forest m
and to consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations 2
Mayor Pro Tem Paine interrupted, stated this is not the time for an update. She suggested they work
tomorrow to identify a date for an update and a solid outreach plan to discuss this with the community.
Council President Pro Tem L. Johnson clarified her request was for staff to come back with an update as
given the information the Council was provided tonight, she assumed some changes had been made. She
recalled a slide provided to the Council at one point stated outreach and public engagement would start
Q3, it is now the middle of Q3. She was not expecting those answers tonight, but requested some thought
be given to it. If staff felt they did not have clear direction, although she felt she has given direction, she
was perplexed why they did not ask again because the Council has been clear this is a priority. She
recalled speaking rather passionately at the beginning of the year about her frustration that the Council
just keeps talking about this and not doing anything. She thought staff and the Council was on a path to
doing something and now it feels like they are moving backward. She concluded she was confused and
frustrated as well.
Councilmember Buckshnis emphasized many cities have very good tree codes that address private
property. This was one of criticisms that Council had of the Administration when the UFMP was prepared
as well as the Tree Board because it glossed over the private property aspect. She thought the Council had
provided clear direction and now she is baffled.
Mayor Pro Tem Paine proposed concluding this discussion and she will work with staff to find a date to
come back quickly with more information, an update and to get questions answered. The Council agreed.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MOVE
ITEM 9.4, COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE, TO OCTOBER 5TH
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the rules could be considered in September since their approval has
been put off for over a year. Mayor Pro Tem Paine said she would try for September 28ch
Councilmember K. Johnson acknowledged there were more agenda items than time allowed. She
suggested delaying outdoor dining because the Council was unlikely to finish by 10 p.m. at rate they were
going.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON AND MAYOR PRO TEM PAINE VOTING YES; AND
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 24, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 234
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 04/26/2022
Outside Boards and Committee Reports
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Beckie Peterson
Background/History
Outside Boards and Committee Reports will be added to the end of the Council meeting packet for the
last meeting of the month.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Council is asked to review the attached committee reports/minutes from Councilmembers
Tibbott, Paine and Buckshnis.
Attachments:
02.03.22 Board Minutes Community Transit
BOH HO REPORT 20220412
LB Draft Meeting Minutes 2.15.2022
LB Meeting Minutes 1.19.2021
LB Meeting Minutes 4.13.2021
LB Meeting Minutes 12.14.2021
Meeting Minutes 6.29.2021
Port Of Edmonds _ Commission Meeting Agenda 3_14_22
Port Of Edmonds _ Special Commission Meeting & Staff Retreat Agenda 3_22_22
Packet Pg. 235
9.1.a
MELco ummco nitytran�
Board Members Present
Council Member Kim Daughtry
Mayor Joe Marine
Council Member Tom Merrill
Mayor Jon Nehring
Lance Norton
Mayor Sid Roberts
Council Member Jan Schuette
Council Member Stephanie Wright"
Board Members Absent
Council Member Jared Mead
Others Present***
Geri Beardsley
Roland Behee
Laurie Boyd
Melissa Cauley
Tim Chrobuck
Carla Freeman
Mike Gallagher
Al Hendricks
Matt Hendricks
Mike Holmes
Ric Ilgenfritz
Joe Kunzler
Mary Beth Lowell
Peter Majkut
Molly Marsicek
Kyoko Matsumoto Wright
Deb Osborne
Susan Pain
Cesar Portillo
Juanita Shuler
Kris Simmons
Mason Thompson
Jim Williams
Rachel Woods
Minutes
Board of Directors' Meeting
Thursday, February 3, 2022
Remote Meeting*
3:00 p.m.
City of Lake Stevens
City of Mukilteo
City of Snohomish
City of Marysville
Labor Representative, non -voting
City of Stanwood
City of Arlington
Snohomish County
Snohomish County
CT -Director of Administration
CT -Director of Planning & Development
CT -Coach Operator
CT -Manager of Regional Programs & Projects
CT -Chief Technology Officer
CT -Acting HR Manager
City of Brier, Alternate
CT -Legal Counsel
CT -Legal Counsel
Guest
CT -CEO
Self
CT -Director of Comm. & Public Affairs
CT -Coach Operator
CT -Director of Customer Experience
City of Mountlake Terrace, Alternate
CT -Chief of Staff
City of Edmonds, Alternate
CT -Director of Employee Engagement
CT -Exec. Support/Records Mgmt. Specialist
CT -Coach Operator
City of Bothell, Alternate
CT -Interim Director of Transportation
CT -Executive Board Administrator
*In response to COVID-19 and per the Governor's Proclamation 20-28 Open Public Meetings Act, the meeting was held remotely.
**Joined meeting in progress.
***Names of those who were confirmed as attendees are included, others who attended remotely without submitting their names
Packet Pg. 236
9.1.a
Board of Directors' Meeting
February 3, 2022
Page 2
Call to Order
Chair Daughtry called to order the February 3, 2022, Board of Directors' remote meeting to order at 3:00
p.m. The Chair noted the meeting was recorded and livestreamed.
Roll Call of Members
The Executive Board Administrator called roll. Attendance was as noted above. A quorum was present.
Public Comment
One written comment was provided by Joe Kunzler and routed to the Board in advance of the meeting
Peter Majkut, Coach Operator, shared his concern about the negative impacts of the number of missed
trips and coach operators working extra hours to fulfill scheduling needs.
Laurie Boyd, Coach Operator, shared concerns about rider behavior on coaches and asked for the agency
to look at additional safety measures including driver barriers, compression time after events and
increased presence of transit police and service ambassadors.
Kris Shannon, Coach Operator, was concerned about driver safety and increased rider drug use and
violence, particularly on the Swift Blue Line. Some of her suggestions included giving drivers on Swift
additional pay, hazard pay, installing driver barriers, an increased presence of ambassadors, and the
option for drivers to have 4/10 shifts.
Joe Kunzler spoke in support of the coach operators' comments.
Mayor Nehring supported enforcing fare policy and creating a safe environment for coach operators.
Council Member Schuette asked about transit police coverage and their roles. Mayor Roberts, Council
Member Merrill, Mayor Marine, and Mayor Frizzell made comments recognizing the present-day
challenges and supporting a safe environment for employees and riders. The Board requested a report
from staff on this topic.
Chief Executive Officer's Report
CEO Ilgenfritz provided the following report:
CEO Ilgenfritz appreciated drivers coming forward to share their concerns regarding coach operator
safety. He expressed his commitment to employee and customer safety and assured the Board they
would receive an overview of initiatives underway and data regarding this topic in the future.
CEO Ilgenfritz welcomed the 2022 Board of Directors and Board alternates.
An update was provided on the agency COVID response. The agency case trend mirrored the community
and cases appeared to be peaking. Adjustments were made to increase support of employees including
COVID supplemental leave and regular meetings with union representatives. Ridership was at
approximately 50% of pre -pandemic levels. Bus service adjustments were made with a focus on service
reliability. Mayor Nehring asked about service levels. Council Member Schuette asked about the source of
employee COVID cases.
Mark Holmes was introduced as the new Community Transit Chief Operating Officer, starting March 21.
He made brief comments and stated he was grateful for the opportunity and eager to begin.
2
Packet Pg. 237
9.1.a
Board of Directors' Meeting
February 3, 2022
Page 3
The Swift Orange Line Capital Investment Grant was currently being reviewed by FTA headquarters and
plans for a groundbreaking event in April were in motion.
CEO Ilgenfritz's recent activities included participating in Governor Inslee's Washington transit executives'
forum regarding fleet electrification. Locally, state of the city addresses were underway. Long Range Plan
work continued and the public survey would go out later this spring. The first Joint Policy Committee
meeting with the city of Everett was scheduled for mid -February. W
0
Earlier that day, a surplus paratransit vehicle was donated to Snow Goose Transit. Mayor Roberts and
Council Member Schuette were thanked for attending this celebratory occasion.
as
Committee Reports E
E
Strategic Alignment & Capital Development Committee v
Mayor Marine reported on the January 20, 2022, meeting. The Committee reviewed and forwarded one item o
to the Board's action agenda, RFP #2021-082, Swift BRT Shelter Manufacturing and Parts Support. The 0
Committee reviewed and forwarded two items to the Board's consent agenda, RFP #2021-096, Cleaning -aL
Services for Bus Stop Shelter/Park & Ride Facilities and RFP #2021-076, Bus Tire Lease and On -Site Tire o
Maintenance Services. The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, February 16, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. m
as
Executive Committee o
Chair Daughtry reported on the January 20, 2022, meeting. The CEO provided his report, and an
executive session was held for labor negotiations. The next Executive Committee meeting was scheduled N
for February 17, 2022, at 11:30 a.m. c
Finance, Performance, and Oversight Committee
Council Member Schuette reported on the January 20, 2022, meeting. The Committee reviewed and
forwarded one item to the consent agenda, approval of Resolution No. 02-22, Adopting the Existing Drug
& Alcohol Policy. The Committee reviewed and recommended approval of the December 2021 payroll and
monthly expenditures. The committee reviewed the December 2021 diesel fuel and sales tax reports. The
next meeting was scheduled for February 17, 2022, at 2:00 p.m.
Consent Calendar
Mayor Marine moved to approve items A through J on the consent calendar.
a• Approve minutes of the January 6, 2022, Board of Directors' Meeting.
b• Approve minutes of the January 20, 2022, Board of Directors' Quarterly Workshop.
C. Approve Resolution No. 02-22, Adopting the Existing Drug & Alcohol Policy.
d. Award RFP #2021-096, Cleaning Services for Bus Stop Shelter/Park & Ride Facilities.
e. Award RFP #2021-076, Bus Tire Lease & On -Site Tire Maintenance Services.
f. Approve vouchers dated December 3, 2021, in the amount of $5,421,761.25.
g. Approve vouchers dated December 10, 2021, in the amount of $2,198,301.59.
h. Approve vouchers dated December 20, 2021, in the amount of $2,995,193.81.
i. Approve vouchers dated December 30, 2021, in the amount of $2,910,763.30.
j. Approve December 2021 Payroll:
i. Direct Deposits Issued, #406740-409001 in the amount of $5,563,368.63.
ii. Paychecks Issued, #107716-107764 in the amount of $69,946.64.
3
Packet Pg. 238
9.1.a
Board of Directors' Meeting
February 3, 2022
Page 4
iii. Employer Payroll Tax Deposits in the amount of $592,930.59.
iv. Employer Deferred Compensation for IAM in the amount of $13,564.71.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Nehring and passed unanimously.
Action Items
RFP #2021-082. Swift BRT Shelter Manufacturina & Parts SUDDort
Melissa Cauley, Manager of Regional Programs & Projects, provided an overview of the Swift bus rapid
transit (BRT) manufacturing kit master contract and updated station design. A future action would be
provided to the Board to purchase shelter kits for the Swift Orange Line project from this Master Contract.
Motion made by Mayor Marine that the Board of Directors authorize the Chief Executive Officer to
negotiate and award master contract RFP #2021-082, Swift BRT shelter manufacturing and parts
support to Dimensional Innovations, Inc. The motion was seconded by Council Member Schuette
and passed with unanimous approval.
Authorization for a one-year labor contract extension between Community Transit and the Amalgamated
Transit Union (ATU) Local 1576
Carla Freeman, Acting HR Manager, reviewed the terms of the ATU contract extension. The parties
agreed that the financial security of ATU represented members should be bolstered in these uncertain
times, and their steadfast contributions to maintaining essential public transportation service during a
pandemic should be recognized. The funds were included in the 2022 adopted budget.
Motion made by Mayor Nehring that the Board of Directors approve Resolution No. 03-22,
Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute and implement a one-year labor contract
extension between Community Transit and the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1576. The
motion was seconded by Mayor Roberts and passed with unanimous approval.
CEO Ilgenfritz recognized the employees represented by ATU and thanked the Board for their support of
employees.
Chair's Report
Chair Daughtry thanked the Board and recognized staff for their comradery and support during his tenure
as Board Chair.
Board Communications
Mayor Nehring welcomed Mr. Holmes and thanked CEO Ilgenfritz for attending the Marysville state of the
city address. He thanked Chair Daughtry for his service as Board Chair this past year.
CEO Ilgenfritz presented a plaque on behalf of the agency to thank Council Member Daughtry for his
service as Board Chair. He was appreciative of the partnership in his first year as CEO and the counsel he
provided.
Mayor Frizzell welcomed Mr. Holmes, she looked forward to her position on the Community Transit Board
Mayor Marine congratulated Chair Daughtry and thanked staff.
11
Packet Pg. 239
9.1.a
Board of Directors' Meeting
February 3, 2022
Page 5
Mayor Roberts welcomed Mr. Holmes and thanked the Chair. He enjoyed participating in the Snow Goose
vehicle donation event.
Council Member Schuette welcomed Mr. Holmes and thanked Chair Daughtry. She thanked staff working
with the Arlington Arts Council.
Mr. Norton thanked Chair Daughtry for his leadership and to Mayor Marine for Chairing the Strategic
Alignment Committee.
Council Member Gallagher thanked the Chair and congratulated Mr. Holmes.
Council Member Paine and Mayor Thompson were looking forward to serving as alternates and welcomed
Mr. Holmes.
Executive Session
An executive session was called for current or potential litigation (RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)), at 4:11 p.m. for
ten minutes. Action was not expected following executive session. At 4:21 p.m., the executive session was
extended five minutes. At 4:26 p.m., the executive session ended, and the regular meeting resumed.
Other Business
Election of Board Officers
Board officers were elected every February for a one-year term.
Council Member Schuette nominated Mayor Marine for Board Chair. A vote was taken, and a
unanimous ballot passed electing Mayor Marine as Board Chair for a one-year term.
Mayor Marine nominated Council Member Schuette for Board Vice Chair. A vote was taken, and a
unanimous ballot passed electing Council Member Schuette for a one-year term.
Council Member Schuette nominated Council Member Merrill for Board Secretary. A vote was
taken, and a unanimous ballot passed electing Council Member Merrill as Board Secretary for a
one-year term.
Selection of Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Representatives
Chair Daughtry provided an overview of the role and the status of the PSRC Transportation Policy Board
Chair Daughtry agreed to continue as the Puget Sound Regional Council representative. A vote
was taken, and a unanimous ballot passed electing Council Member Daughtry for a one-year term.
Council Member Schuette agreed to continue as the Puget Sound Regional Council alternate. A
vote was taken, and a unanimous ballot passed electing Council Member Schuette for a one-year
term.
The next regular Board meeting was scheduled for March 3, 2022, at 3:00 p.m.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
5
Packet Pg. 240
9.1.a
Board of Directors' Meeting
February 3, 2022
Page 6
Rachel Woods
Executive Board Administrator
Packet Pg. 241
SNOHOMISH
HEALTH DISTRICT
WWW.SNOHD.ORG
b 4-
A
9.1.b
Y
0
Health Officer's Report d
COVID-19 Update o
L
Cu
0
m
Board of Health
0
r
a
COVID-19 Weekly Case Counts
e
14,000
tN
Q) 12,000
0
U 10,000
0
'D 8,000
E
Z 6,000
4,000
2,000
Snohomish County COVID-19 Cases by Onset Date
15,577
00' 00' 00' 00' Off' 00' 00' Off' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' Off' 00' Off' 00' Off' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' Off' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00'
L\b\`L�LO\� \bLO\(L \�\(L ��\(L \�L�0\`L�Lb\(L �O\(L�L�\(L \�\`L�L�\`L �b N°\� \`'\`L \q
0 `L
0, L`
� Antigen PCR Grand Total
Through April 9, 2022
572
M1
0
CL
E
E
0
U
c
N
-a
ca
0
m
a�
3
O
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
a
w
w
O
x
2
O
00
c
m
E
t
c�
a
Packet Pg. 243
Snohomish Health District
COVID-19 Weekly Case Counts
a M
Through April 9, 2022
572
M I —
Week
Number of cases
Weekly Case Rate
2f6j2022-211212022
2745
331
211312022 - 2 f 19/2022
1407
169
2/20/2022 - 2f 26/2022
784
94
212712022-3f5j2022
566
68
3f 6f 2022 - 3112/2022
381
46
3/13/2022 - 3/19/2022
355
43
3/20/2022 - 3/26/2022
432
52
3 f 27/2022 - 4 f 2j2022
560
67
4 f 3 j2022 - 4 j9j2022
572
69
0
CL
0
E
E
0
U
c
N
0
m
3
N
0
N
N
O
N
0
a
w
w
0
x
0
m
a
Packet Pg. 244
Snohomish Health District
9.1.b
COVID-19 7-day Case Rate
2,000
M
1,600
0
0
0 1,400
0
0
1,200
N
1,000
N
800
ry
600
A
400 21
200
Snohomish County COVID-19 Weekly Case Rates per 100,000 by
Symptom Onset Date
1,876
O`1 O`1 O`� OO`� O� 00 O`� 00 O`1 O`� O`�
b\\0\\3\\1\\�\kry1\\�\\ �\ \` \\,\b\`�\\q\1\3\\1\\�\\ \'00\\�\\�\O\q\�y\�\0\�\\�\�\�\\\\�\\ b\\�
`L 0 , D tk 5 b O �b q q Z, �� .r0, `L `L O
O`ti0 00� O`ti� 0` O`1� �1 �" r1� � 0` O`ti� 0`ti 0`ti �`ti �`ti 0`L rL`1 O`ti�
\`1\0 \\\\\ \�\� \�5\�\fib\0\0b� \b\`�1� �0IN �\0\0\�r' 0"�q�q\�\O\\1\\O� O\\� \\0\b\ \�00\�\b0\00\0\b\0\�O\0\�
�\\
Through April 9, 2022
Packet Pg. 245
Snohomish Health District Mm�
COVID-19
BA.2 Proportions Increasing
100"
Lw
75-
� JO
2c.
0-
Omicran P 5%)
Fib27�1, 05.22
BA.2 (33.6%)
BA2 (45%)
BA.2 (75.9%)
Omcron (66.5%)
Omicron (65%)
Omicron (24.1%)
Mar 06-1;ar 12.22 Mal 1311ar 19.22 Mar 20-Mar 26.22
Specimen calktion dotes
Washington State
140%
90°,6
s0a�
70%
4
�1
60%
rn
E
¢ 50%
w
40%
7
30%
20%
10% �•{
0%El
ZZ5 4
United States
O
CL
d
E
E
O
U
c
cv
N
L
MO
W
3
O
N_
O
N
N
O
N
O
a
w
w
O
x
0
W
C
m
E
t
a
Snohomish Health District
Packet Pg. 16_j
COVID-19 BA.2 Replaces Omicron
3000.
, FDDD-
O
Ci
S'f C G G SY f4 O S"4 C f'.I 4 4i TY t Ci G N G SY O r 15 .
D 4###* F f¢ 4 Uf VJ O O Z Z O❑# Z
Splacwn 11 GoRecNin week
Through April , , ----
vat
Alpha
Ma
Delia
Epsilon
Ell
Gamma
IOU
Kappa
MU
ZEi8
Omicron
64 2
Omer
Snohomish Health District
Packet Pg. 247
9.1.b
COVID-19 Hospitalizations
Snohomish County COVID-related Hospitalizations by Week of Illness
Onset
N
O 300
a
N_
250
.Q
N
0 200
150
a 112
C� 100 71
56
0
> 50 25
° I��I�ill�l��lllll�illllll��l I I II� I�IIII U 0
61' O`l O`1 6 O� O`�' O`l O� (Z 1 O`� 6 O`� 6 O`1 Off' O`1 O`� 6 6 Off' O`1 Off' O`1' O� O`1 O� O`l Off' O`1 O`1 O`1 O`� O`l
\` `V�O\`L�`5\``L�`5\`L� \`LSO\(L��\ \O\`v�`�\ b\,11
'b L�q\ �'5\'v�A\'L `\`L��\f L (b\` - \\'\ ��\ �\q\`L'`5\ \b\`L�yO\ \�\`LSO\ �\`\`L�5\f L�q\(L�`�" b\`L�`�" b\`L
1 `L `L O O t b 5 b 1 1 4� q q O 1 1 � I , 1 `L `L O O
Z \`LO tlO�l' �LO�, �LO�• t10�' �O� t10�' �LO�, �LO�• \`LO �O� \`LO �O�L \`LO tlO�l' �O� c10�' �O� t10�" t10�' �O� O`L� c10�' O�� t10�" O`L� \`LO �O`l' t10�' t10"'
\��\ O\ \�r\ q\gq\�q O\O�\ 3\
Through April 2, 2022
Packet Pg. 248
Snohomish Health District
9.1.b
COVID= 19 Hospitalization Rate
Snohomish County COVID-19 Hospitalization Case Rate per 100,000
by Week of Illness Onset
35.0 32.8
0
0
Q 30.0
0
25.0
Q 20.0
Q) 15.0 13.4
a
10.0 8.4 6.6
0 3.0
5.0
N_
a 0.0
O\1o\pO\,1O\`1O\`1O\0�\`1O\,O\`P,\,1O\`1O\�O\`1O\`1O\`1O\`1O\0�\`1O\�O\�O\0O\`1O\`10\,10\�O\`lO\`1O\`1O\`1O\�O\`1O\0O\0O
= O \�l \fib \� \� \`L��\� \`l� \�0�\`LD \ \`L�l b\fib\1q \ \��A\5 IbP q\� q\`L p\q(,\,r � \b
Through April 2, 2022
Week
Number cases
Rate
2/6/2022 - 2/12/2022
94
11.1
2/13/2022- 2/19/2022
64
7.6
2/20/2022- 2/26/2022
48
5.7
2/27/2022 - 3/5/2022
39
4.6
3/6/2022 - 3/12/2022
27
3.2
3/13/2022 - 3/19/2022
22
2.6
3/20/2022 - 3/26/2022
22
2.6
3/27/2022 - 4/2/2022
25
3.0
Snohomish Health District
Packet Pg. 249
COVID-19 Hospital Census
Snohomish County Facilities
Snohomish County Point -in -Time COVID-19 Hospital Census
250
N
0
N_
200
Q
N
0
>
150
}
N
0
CL
01
p
100
O
U
50
z
0 11 1 1 1111 11111 111
�\h\�&1L 411
Through April 9, 2022
Snohomish Health District
Packet Pg. 250
9.1.b
COVID-19 Deaths
Snohomish County
SELECT COUNTIES
r7 search
Okanogan County
Pacific County
Pend Oreille County
❑ Pierce County
❑ San Juan County
❑ SkagitCounty
❑ Skamania County
S Snohomish County
❑ Spokane County
❑ Stevens County
❑ Thurston County
❑ Unassigned
❑ Wahkiakum County
❑ Walla Walla County
-1 Whatcom County
Click on "Tabular View"
to see and download the
data.
DEATH COUNTS
i 7-Day Rolling Average • Deaths Incomplete
14
12
10
6
4
2
0
Jul 202C !an 2'12', Jul2021 Jan 2022
Specimen Collection Date
7 of 12,566 deaths do not have an assigned county. Deaths from the last 3-4 weeks may not yet be reported.
https://doh.wa.gov/emergencies/cov/d-19/data-dashboard
Packet Pg. 251
Snohomish Health District
=ME=
COVID= 19 Long Term Care
Outbreak Associated Cases 8
Snohomish County Long-term Care Facility Outbreak
Associated COVID-19 Cases by Onset Date
350
300
250
0
U 200
0
a) 150
D
100
Z 50
41
24 35
40
3
0
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
-■3----
N N
O O
N N
N
O
N
--
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
-.1�1■■1�1111.■111�■_.■■I
ZV
O
N
N N
O O
N N
ZV
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
FN
N N
O O
N N
FN
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N N
N N
O O
N N
a
M
N--
10
N
O
N
N
M
O
N
M
M
I�
Lo
'
U')
7
L
a
N
N
z
'0�
10
N
O
--
� r�
N
00
N----
M
't
O
M
^
a
N
O
10
7
O
O
M
O
M I�
7 N
N
u)
N
N
00
N
N
Lo
N
,
o,
N
LO
M
01 N
M
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
,
N
O
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
N
N O
O N
N
O
,
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
N O
O N
ZV
O
N
O
N
,
N
O
N
O
N
N
N N
'
N
'
N
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
N N
N O
O N
M
N
I�
�_
M
N__
M-_
N
N__
-t
M
N
N__
LO
N
N
a
N
M
N
10
N
O't
N
N
c0
(V
U')
a
N
N
N
N
0
O
N
O
N
O O
N N
O
N
O__
N
N-_
N__
0
O-_r�-_r�
M
N
C`')
N
N
CM N
N
O')
'IT
LO
10
r�
c0
C�,
N��
O
O
N
�
N
�
E
N
N
M
Through April 2, 2022
Packet Pg. 252
Snohomish Health District
9.1. b
COVID-19 School Outbreak
Associated Cases
Snohomish County School (K-12) Outbreak Associated COVID-
19 Cases by Onset Date
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200 171 67 156183152118175136105136121118 87 138 89 159 59
1�11�1�1111 1 103 011
1308
875 918
1 1 1719
411
208
I99
' 41 32 21 17 23 g
00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' Off' Off' 00' 00' Off' Off' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00'
Through April 2, 2022
i � Packet Pg. 253
Snohomish Health District
COVID-19 Going Forward
• Prevent severe disease, death and disability
• Protect healthcare system capacity
CDC"s COVID-19 Community levels and Indicators
New Cases
(M 100.0w POOVIdkiGn in Indicators
the 7 days
Fewer than 200
200 or more
New COVID-19 admissions per 100,000
population (7-day total)
Percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by
O I€}-19 patients (7-day average)
New COVID-19 admissions per 100,000
population (7-day total)
Percent of staffed inpatient beds occupied by
COVID-19 patients (7-day average}
Low
_10,0
• lU„�1
N �.
NA
Medium
iC.0-1-Q.19
10.0-14. 9%
<10.o
<10.0%
The COVID-19 community level is determined by tyke higher of the inpatient beds and new admissions indicators,
based on the current level of new cases per 100,000 population its the past 7 days
Packet Pg. 254
Snohomish Health District
COVID=19AVaccine Coverage
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
COVID-19 Vaccination Status Among Snohomish County
Residents
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' \05\�f� 0'��b1 0�0'\� \0b' \�3 00q qq��, O O pO O O O� O� O� O p
�\O6O1�O\OO�O�O\OOO �\OOOOP`0''\`00t\0`L"c\f0
'� \00'
Number of people fully vaccinated
� Number of people partially vaccinated
Percent of Snohomish County residents 5 years of age and older that initiated vaccine series
Percent of Snohomish County residents 5 years of age and older that are fully vaccinated
31OK (54%) of 575K fully -vaccinated individuals have received an additional dose.
Through April 2, 2022
� Packet Pg. 255
Snohomish Health District
9.1. b
Discussion
0
a
am
m
m
E
E
0
U
c
N
L
0
IM
N
O
N
N
O
N
H
O
a
w
w
O
x
O
m
c
m
E
t
c�
Q
Snohomish Health District
mmEPacket Pg. 256
9.1.c
LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM MINUTES
Remote meeting via videoconference (Zoom)
February 15, 2022 2PM to 3:00 PM
Call to Order
Chair, Steve Woodard called the Lake Ballinger Forum Meeting to order at 2:00pm
I. Roll Call - Welcome and Introductions
a. Approval/updates today's agenda
b. Approval of minutes from December 14, 2021 meeting
Attendee-,-
• Steve Woodard — Councilmember, Forum Chair, Mountlake Terrace
• Jeff Johnson — Mayor, Lake Forest Park
• Diane Buckshnis — Councilmember, Edmonds
• Tracy Furutani, Councilmember, Lake Forest Park
• Keith Scully — Mayor, Shoreline
• Eric LaFrance — PW Director, Mountlake Terrace
• Laura Reed — Stormwater Program Manager, Mountlake Terrace
• Philip Hill — City Administrator, Lake Forest Park
• Kari Quaas — Community Engagement Manager, Snohomish Conservation District
• Zack Richardson — Surface Water Engineer II, Shoreline
• Jeff Betz — Rec & Parks Director, Mountlake Terrace
• Patrick Johnson — Stormwater Technician, Edmonds
• Jake Johnston — Johnston Group, LLC
• Warren McAndrews — Edmonds Resident
• Julie Rose — Edmonds Resident
• Andrew Silvia — Lake Forest Park Project Manager
II. Lake Ballinger high water levels
Patrick Johnson — Stormwater Technician, Edmonds updated the Forum pertaining to the
water level in Lake Ballinger, he displayed a gauge from the Edmonds webpage showing the
water level elevation during 2021-2022 winter storms. During the holiday snow event,
precipitation froze, then melted and increased the lake level, which rose approximately 30
inches within the week. This caused Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace residents to experience
high water levels on the lake, and some flooding due to the high level rain fall and snow. He
shared pictures from the south end of the lake from local residents of lake flooding. He also
showed a picture of a property closest to the lake (uninhabited) and mentioned that the City of
Edmonds is looking into demolishing the building reconstructing the area for a green space.
Patrick remarked that lake level rise is a constant issue every winter.
Packet Pg. 257
9.1.c
Diane Buckshnis — Councilmember, Edmonds questioned if there is weir issue that's
causing the flooding, or anything that can be done or help with the flooding.
Laura Reed — Stormwater Program Manager, Mountlake Terrace
Responded that the issue of whether the weir was holding back water from the lake was
examined by the Army Corp of Engineers back in 2010, and they reported that physically
removing the weir would only affect the Lake by 0.1 of a foot. Even if the weir was
completely taken out, what is controlling the lake level is the 1-5 culvert.
Zack Richardson — Surface Water Engineer II, Shoreline — remarked that WSDOT will
have to replace the I-5 culvert.
Warren McAndrews — Edmonds resident, commented that from his research he understands
that WSDOT has to replace three of the culverts with a larger pipe across I-5 and the designs
process will start in 2023, with construction projected to start in 2025.
III. Review of Lake Ballinger Forum's work plan
Laura Reed, Stormwater Program Manager, discussed a list of projects that have benefit
for the watershed.
Current Forum Work Plan
• Develop hydraulic & hydrologic model from Hall Lake to Lake Ballinger (Hall
Creek model to be funded by MLT in 2022)
• Ballinger Park Hall Creek Restoration Project (USACE & MLT — at 95% design
phase; construction in 2023)
• Mathay - Ballinger Regional Infiltration Facility Project ( Edmonds- planning
phase)
• Lake Ballinger Aquatic Weed Control (MLT & Edmonds; Ecology grant will be
funded in 2022)
IV. Federal funding landscape
Jake Johnston — Johnston Group, commented on the Federal funding options that are
obtainable for the Forum. He focused on "what tools would be available to the Forum
and what tools have changed over the past few years." He stated if the Forum has projects
that fit into the habitat restoration category, new tools can be deployed. He expressed that
over the last few years there has been a radical reprioritization of watershed
improvements relating to federal and state funding priorities. Part of that is the emphasis
on culvert fish barrier removal that's happened in the state of Washington. He remarked
that there is a renewed focus on the types of issues that benefit watershed management.
1.) Congress has reinstated its ability to do directive funding. Within the FY22
Packet Pg. 258
9.1.c
development there is a limited number of grant opportunities. Congress is taking 1/2
of 1% from certain Federal discretionary grant accounts and determining where
projects should go, through an open and competitive process. This would be a great
opportunity to get a relatively low federal investment with very low federal oversight.
Grants are generally between $1 million to $3 million in scope, and they represent
roughly 50% of the total cost of a project. However, if the Forum is looking for
assistance to complete a project, or is challenged by a funding gap and isn't using
other sources of Federal money, this process is an excellent tool to explore.
2.) FY23 ear marking process is not yet opened, but expected to open mid -March with
applications due towards the end of April (timelines are estimated).
3.) The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill was enacted in the fall of last year, and it has
done some distinctive things, some are material for the Forum to consider as it looks
through it projects.
a.) A new program (led by Congressman Rick Larson and Senator Maria Cantwell)
which the Forum has been advocating for many years, has been "authorized."
It's the first time a brand new Culvert Replacement Program was created and it
has received authorization for over the next five years at $750 million annually.
This is a top priority of the Forum's delegation, and it's to be used as a federal
match for some of the efforts taking place locally. It can also be used to augment
what is happening in Washington, with the renewed emphasis on funding made
available for these types of watershed replacement projects. This is a great new
federal program. However there's a downside to federal projects, and not a lot
yet about administering the program has been revealed. But it's an opportunity
for the Forum to make their voice heard, and to take a hard look and shape the
program as a useful tool for the Forum.
b.) Two federal programs that could be applicable tools to support with south end
flooding on the Lake Ballinger.
Property Acquisition Funding through FEMA — if the land needs to be
acquired there is Federal money that could assist with this on a relatively
accessible basis.
2. Within the Infrastructure Bill Program there is a radical increase in funding
for a $1 billion annualized grant program (Administered by the Department of
Interior) competitive grant program only for municipalities. It is a water
storage and conveyance infrastructure program. If water storage capacity is
part of the plan for lake flooding management, this maybe another opportunity
available for the Forum.
Packet Pg. 259
9.1.c
Diane Buckshnis — Councilmember, Edmonds asked if there is anyone reaching out on how
to determine whether the Forum can be fast tracked on getting the culverts done, has anyone
reached out to federal legislatures.
Jake Johnston — Johnston Group, replied that the Forum as an entity and its members as
individual municipalities have been having a good conversation with the delegation for a
number of years, which has led to the federal funding opportunity to solve this problem. The
first action to begin with is identifying projects that need to be funded. The second goal was
to setup Federal funding opportunities in a way that makes them useful to the Forum.
V. On -going watershed nlannina efforts
Laura Reed — Stormwater Program Manager, Mountlake Terrace — Expressed that
Ecology is requiring that all jurisdictions above a certain population size in western
Washington do an in-depth watershed inventory and complete data collection to be turned
in by end of March 2022. Laura stated that she is looking specifically at Hall, McAleer
and Lyons Creek watersheds in terms of which basin will be selected for future
stormwater investment. Currently, Hall Creek is at the top of her list.
Zack Richardson — Surface Water Engineer II, Shoreline commented that McAleer Creek
is a basin that will progress to the next stage of City of Shoreline's data analysis.
However, Boeing Creek is a strong candidate for stormwater investment because it's
entirely in the Shoreline jurisdiction. No final decision has been made as of yet.
Patrick Johnson — Stormwater Technician, Edmonds stated that Edmonds completed their
data collection process and public outreach process, and are waiting for the final survey
results to come in. Lake Ballinger, the Halls Creek basin are potential basins, as well as
the Edmonds Marsh, and the Shell/Hindley Creek watershed.
Andrew Silvia — Lake Forest Park Project Manager, commented that the City of Lake
Forest Park watershed inventory is being created by a consultant. They are prioritizing
and honing in on which watershed is the best candidate for future stormwater
management action efforts.
VI. Forum Support for 251h Ave NE/Ballinger Creek Project
Keith Scully — Mayor, Shoreline commented that the 25t' Ave NE/Ballinger Creek area is
not within the same watershed that feeds Lake Ballinger and it's not technically within the
Forum jurisdiction. The site is an old maintenance yard inherited from King County along
with arch -shaped an undersized concrete pipe that goes under the road and carries the creek.
This site is a prime example of something done wrong to the environment that the City of
Shoreline is making an attempt to fix. The site has contaminated soil, a gas tank, and the creek
is forced into a tiny little spot, with zero habitat. The City received funding from the voters to
look at potential for restoration for the site and the park next to it, as a potential stormwater
Packet Pg. 260
9.1.c
park. The City would like to use this opportunity to restructure and incorporate some habitat
enhancements.
The next phase of this project is to ask the Army Corp of Engineers for 100k to do a feasibility
study. The City of Shoreline would like petition to the Forum and ask for a letter of support.
This is intended to be a Shoreline, Army Corp of Engineers, and WDOT project for funding.
Mayor Scully believes the support of the Forum is crucial because of its relationship with the
Army Corp of Engineers and ultimately because the area in question is right next to Lake
Ballinger and this project is similar to some of the others the Army Corp had ongoing with the
Forum.
Zack Richardson, Surface Water Engineer II, Shoreline remarked that this is a really cool
project. The project proposes approximately 1,500 feet of in -stream restoration, which
starts at Brugger's Bog Park. Currently, the outlet of the creek is a zero -passage fish
barrier - no fish are getting through. The plan is to develop roughly 600 feet of new
daylighted stream channel, enhance habitat within 230 feet of new fish passable culvert,
and restore floodplain within adjacent City properties. The project also includes repair of
a failing WSDOT retaining wall adjacent to the lower stretches of creek.
Diane Buckshnis — Councilmember, Edmonds proposed a motion for the letter of support be
composed by the Forum for the City of Shoreline's project, which was voted upon and
received unanimous approval by the Forum.
VII. Announcements & Updates
Laura Reed, updated the Forum on the Lake Ballinger Ecosystem Restoration Project for
Mountlake Terrace. She announced that work is at 95% design submittal stage and is
undergoing formal review for permits and starting the contracting process. Earthwork on
the project will begin 2023.
I-5 Culvert Replacement, WSDOT is currently gathering preliminary design information
and design work will begin in 2023.
VIIL Public Comment
Warren McAndrews — Edmonds Resident, remarked that he continues to receive
complaints about the glare from the fishing pier. He also spoke of lakeshore residents'
concerns regarding a pontoon boat on Lake Ballinger, he wasn't sure if it was electric or
gas powered, but it was throwing a huge wave around. The lake has a ban on internal-
combustion engines, and he is asking whether it would be possible to add a no wake zone
rule for these type of boats.
Jeff Betz — Rec & Parks Director, Mountlake Terrace, remarked that there are
jurisdictional differences and code changes on Lake Ballinger concerning speed. In
County code there is a maximum of 8 miles per hour speed limit on the lake (also applies
to multiple lakes within the county.) The code for Edmonds indicates reasonable speed,
do not disturb others, and for Mountlake Terrace there is no code. He said: "We are
Packet Pg. 261
9.1.c
looking into who has the ability to make code changes but it will take some time."
Julie Rose — Edmonds Resident asked whether there were storage and conveyance
opportunities provided by the Ballinger Park Hall Creek Restoration project. She asked if
there were, if those project components could be added, since there is already funding.
Laura Reed — Stormwater Program Manager, Mountlake Terrace remarked that because
of the type of funding through the Army Corp of Engineers for this project (habitat
restoration only) adding flood storage not possible with this project.
Julie Rose — Edmonds Resident asked about public comment on the viewing platform on
the northwest corner of the lake.
Jeff Betz — Rec & Parks Director, Mountlake Terrace — Viewing platform design hasn't
started but it's anticipated to start this year. He said the process would involve public
comment.
Jake Johnston — Johnston Group, commented that Rob Larson is pleased with the work
between the Army Corp of Engineers and Mountlake Terrace.
IX. Determine Topics for next meeting
• Ways of increasing meeting announcements for more public input
• Possibility for WSDOT involvement in the Forum meetings. Warren said he would
reach out to his contact at WSDOT regarding it.
X. Determine date and location of next meeting
The next meeting will take place on May 17, 2022 at 2:00 pm on Zoom.
XI. Adjournment — 3:23 p.m.
Packet Pg. 262
9.1.d
LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM
MINUTES
City of Mountlake Terrace
Remote Meeting Via Teleconference
January 19, 2021
Welcome and Introductions
a. Approval/updates today's agenda
b. Approval of minutes from November 17, 2020 meeting
Attendees:
• Diane Buckshnis — Councilmember, Edmonds
• Mark Phillips — Councilmember, Forum Vice -chair, Lake Forest Park
• Steve Woodard — Councilmember, Forum Chair, Mountlake Terrace
• Laura Reed — Stormwater Program Manager, Mountlake Terrace
• Patrick Johnson — Stormwater Technician, Edmonds
• John Featherstone —Surface Water Utility Manager, Shoreline
• Cory Roche, Community Services Coordinator — Lake Forest Park
• Jeff Betz — Recreation & Parks Director, City of Mountlake Terrace
• Kari Quaas — Community Engagement Project Manager, Snohomish Conservation
District
• James — Resident
• Ed Boehmer — Mountlake Terrace resident
• Warren McAndrews — Edmonds resident
• Julie Rose — Edmonds resident
• Angela Ewert — Representing Jared Mead, Councilmember, Snohomish County
• Phillip Hill — City Administrator, Lake Forest Park
• Derek Fada — Environmental & Surface Water Supervisor, Lynnwood
• Tricia Shoblom — Lakes Specialist, Department of Ecology
• Ken Courtmanch — Parks Supervisor, Mountlake Terrace
High lake levels — resources are available
Patrick Johnson, Edmonds Stormwater Technician, discussed the fact that there has been an
unusually large amount of rain in the past few weeks, a condition that City of Edmonds is
describing as an "atmospheric river." Due to the extensive flooding experienced in other parts
of Edmonds, he was surprised that the number of residents who have called or emailed with
flooding concerns has been lower than in past years. He suggested that this may be due to a
combination of factors, including dry periods between storms, the weir being kept clear of
debris, and the September 2020 lily removal with burlap barrier to prevent regrowth at the
lake outlet.
Packet Pg. 263
9.1.d
Patrick then invited residents to comment on flooding that they have experienced. Warren
McAndrews, Edmonds resident, stated that he had observed flooding was a foot higher last
year during heavy rains. Julie Rose, Edmonds resident, commented that her crawl space and
lawn were flooded, and that lake residents with fixed docks had to make some adjustments to
prevent damage, but that it was "a lot less scary" than last year's high water on Lake Ballinger.
Laura Reed, Mountlake Terrace Stormwater Program Manager, said she would gather data
on high water levels at the McAleer Creek weir to present to the Forum at the next meeting.
III. Updates on maintenance of McAleer Creek for lake flood prevention
Laura Reed, Mountlake Terrace Stormwater Program Manager, briefed the Forum on the
following activities by Mountlake Terrace Operations Crews to keep McAleer Creek between
Ballinger Lake and 1-5 clear of obstructions that might cause flooding.
McAleer Creek is walked weekly all year to look for obstructions, and more frequently during
wet weather. This winter 3 beavers have been relocated and 1 beaver dam has been removed.
The 1-5 culvert is being checked during high water periods, upstream and downstream. The
water flow appears to be moving quickly out of Lake Ballinger and through McAleer Creek.
IV. Improvements to Ballinger Park —fishing pier, boat launch, viewing platform, creek restoration
Jeff Betz, Mountlake Terrace Recreation and Parks Director, provided the following updates:
•Environmental and recreation improvements are at the 90% design phase for the fishing
pier, boat ramp, boat dock/launch, and shoreline improvements on east side of Lake
Ballinger.
oJeff anticipates construction will be able to start July 1- August 31. This is the period
where construction is allowed to occur in order to protect fish. The Lake Ballinger
swimming beach would be closed during construction.
eThe restroom at the Lake Ballinger swimming beach has been installed with final concrete
work scheduled for next couple of months.
eThe design of the new asphalt pathways is being finalized and will be going out to bid
soon.
•Grants have been submitted for the Ballinger Park west side project aspects. Jeff Betz
provided the following updates:
o Early indications of grant applications indicate this project has scored well, so
the project may receive funding. The final decision is anticipated by June,
2021.
o Premera will donate $100,000 towards project.
o Viewing platform
■ New viewing platform is not yet funded. Community involvement for
Packet Pg. 264
9.1.d
project will be 2022. If funded, the viewing platform would be
constructed in summer 2022 or 2023.
■ The viewing platform design will need to be vetted by residents and
project aims to hear from all voices on the location and design.
■ The Parks department is aware that there are concerns from residents
about the viewing platform. Warren McAndrews, Edmonds resident,
confirmed this understanding.
■ The Ballinger Park/Hall Creek Restoration project is a different project
on the north end of the lake.
o The next step in the process is to hire an engineering firm to help with the
project including community meetings where residents will review 30, 60, 90%
designs.
o Ed Boehmer, Mountlake Terrace resident, asked: Will the beach area closure
force people to the north end of the park to recreate? Is that acceptable?
■ Jeff Betz stated that more signage will be added in the NGPA (native
growth protection area) and more education will be provided to
people on where to swim.
o Warren McAnders asked: Can we install split rail fencing to protect new
plantings?
■ Jeff Betz replied that we can but not near the Hall Creek area. Once
plantings go in during the Hall Creek project the plants will be
protected.
V. Announcements
• Kari Quaas, Snohomish Conservation District Community Engagement Project Manager,
stated that the annual Snohomish Conservation District native plant sale is taking place now,
along with a youth art contest.
• Angela Ewert, representative for Snohomish County Councilmember Jared Mead, stated that
Councilmember Mead wanted to attend the Forum meeting but was unable due to an emergency
wisdom tooth extraction.
• Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds Councilmember asked if the ILA (interlocal agreement) needed to be
revised each time a new member joins.
• Laura Reed replied no, the ILA is drafted to allow latecomers to the group. The Forum is
expected to add the City of Shoreline and Snohomish County soon.
• John Featherstone, Shoreline Surface Water Utility Manager, expects that the Forum ILA will be
signed by the City of Shoreline on January 25t" during the next council meeting.
VI. Public Comment
• Ed Boehmer, Mountlake Terrace resident, thanked to Jeff Betz and Parks folks for trimming up trees
and increasing the feeling of safety in Ballinger Park.
• Mark Phillips, Lake Forest Park Councilmember asked: Does Mountlake Terrace use Beavers
Northwest to relocate the beavers? This is a company that relocates beavers from places they are
not wanted to places they are wanted.
Packet Pg. 265
9.1.d
• Laura Reed committed to discussing the organization and beaver removal with Tim Nye,
Mountlake Terrace Storm Supervisor, and getting back to the Forum on the result at the
next meeting.
• Kari Quaas stated that Snohomish Conservation District can also connect the Forum with
other resources for beaver relocation.
• Julie Rose, Edmonds resident, stated that there was a plan in the early 2010s that outlines steps to
flood mitigation. She asked if the Forum can get updates on where we are in this plan.
• Laura Reed confirmed with Julie that she was referring to the 2009 Greater
Ballinger/McAleer Creek strategic action plan, and committed to reviewing the plan and
presenting what has been accomplished since the plan was written and what remains to be
completed at the next Forum meeting.
VII. Determine date and location of next meeting
The next meeting will take place on April 13th at 2 pm on Zoom.
VIII. Adjournment
Packet Pg. 266
9.1.e
LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM MINUTES
Remote meeting via videoconference (Zoom)
April 13, 2021 2PM to 3:30PM
Call to Order
Chair, Steve Woodard called the Lake Ballinger Forum Meeting to order at 2:00pm
II. Roll Call - Welcome and Introductions
a. Approval/updates today's agenda
b. Approval of minutes from January 19, 2021 meeting
Attendees:
• Diane Buckshnis — Councilmember, Edmonds
• Mark Phillips — Councilmember, Forum Vice -chair, Lake Forest Park
• Steve Woodard — Councilmember, Forum Chair, Mountlake Terrace
• Keith Scully — Councilmember, Deputy Mayor, Shoreline
• Laura Reed — Stormwater Program Manager, Mountlake Terrace
• Patrick Johnson — Stormwater Technician, Edmonds
• John Featherstone — Surface Water Utility Manager, Shoreline
• Cory Roche, Community Services Coordinator, Lake Forest Park
• Jeff Betz — Recreation & Parks Director, City of Mountlake Terrace
• Kari Quaas — Community Engagement Project Manager, Snohomish Conservation District
• Bob White — Lynnwood resident
• Ed Boehmer— Mountlake Terrace resident
• Warren McAndrews — Edmonds resident
• Julie Rose — Edmonds resident
• Derek Fada — Environmental & Surface Water Supervisor, Lynnwood
• Ken Courtmanch — Parks Supervisor, Mountlake Terrace
• Zack Richardson — Surface Water Engineer, Edmonds
• Dale Jeremiah — Mountlake Terrace resident
III. High lake levels — McAleer Creek gauge 2020-2021
Laura Reed, MLT Stormwater Program Manager, discussed the water elevation level at the
McAleer Creek weir. She presented a graph of lake level elevation data for fall 2019 through
spring 2021 from the McAleer Creek level gauge (located at the McAleer Creek weir.) The weir
elevation is adjusted by MLT ops crews four times a year, by adding or removing boards from
the weir opening. The collected level data shows that during the winter months, when the
weir level is at the lowest level, the lake level always exceeds the weir height, indicating that
the weir does not hold back any water on the lake. If the McAleer Creek weir were to be
removed, level in the winter on Lake Ballinger would likely remain at a similar level.
Packet Pg. 267
9.1.e
Diane Buckshnis asked if the agreement in place dates back to 1950's, should the forum now
revisit and modernize the adjudication? Laura Reed answered that she had asked MLT's
lawyer what would be involved in reopening the 1982 adjudication, and that it would be
complicated as it requires the approval of lakeshore residents and also the approval of Lake
Forest Park residents who might also be affected. Zack Richardson stated that it was his
understanding that the 1982 adjudication was driven by citizens bringing the 1942
agreement to the court due to dissatisfaction with the lake level at that time. Any change
to the existing 1982 agreement would bring up current lake level concerns as well as concerns
regarding downstream flows concerns. There are competing needs on both sides of the weir.
Keith Scully asked whether the weir obstructs fish passage. Laura Reed responded that
the weir is submerged in the winter, and that the weir likely is not a fish barrier at other
times of year, though it has not been evaluated. There are fish barriers downstream on
McAleer Creek. Many prior fish barriers have been removed through capital
improvement projects by the City of Lake Forest Park.
IV. Updates on maintenance of McAleer Creek for lake flood Drevention
Laura Reed updated the Forum on the new beaver relocation strategy for McAleer Creek.
Beavers regularly attempt to build dams in McAleer Creek, and these dams if left in the creek
can cause flooding of homes on Lake Ballinger. McAleer Creek is inspected weekly all year by
MLT field crews for obstructions, and is more frequently inspected during wet weather.
Possibly due to the work of hard work of volunteers and city contractors to remove invasive
water lilies at the mouth of McAleer Creek last fall, water seems to have moved efficiently out
of Lake Ballinger through McAleer Creek in winter 2021.
MLT staff have discussed options for beaver relocation with a non-profit, Beavers Northwest,
but that organization does not carry out beaver removal, only services designed to allow
property owners to live more harmoniously with beavers. Beavers Northwest was able to
provide a referral to another organization that does trap and relocate beavers from areas
where they are not wanted to areas where beavers are desired. This is the Tulalip Beaver
Project, a grant -funded effort by the Tulalip Tribes. This service is not available until June 2020
(due to the lack of a place to house the beavers temporarily and the fact that many of the
beaver relocation areas are at higher altitude and too cold until summer for relocation.
Mountlake Terrace will work with the Tulalip Beaver Project to trap and relocate beavers from
McAleer Creek throughout the summer months. Beaver trapping in the winter months will
have to be handled separately as the Tulalip Beaver Project does not trap in the winter.
Mark Philips asked whether there was an immediate need to deal with the beaver issue. Laura
Reed responded that yes, there is an immediate need, due to the high level of dam -building
observed on McAleer Creek and the risk of flooding on the lake caused by the dams.
Julie Rose, commented that it does not take long for beavers to make an impact. The beavers
within only a week's time built a dam on McAleer Creek that caused her yard to flood.
Packet Pg. 268
9.1.e
V. Update on 2009 Strategic Action Plan Part 1
Laura Reed, addressed the request for a review of the actions outlined in the 2009 Strategic
Action Plan, with updates on work accomplished by the Forum up to 2021.
■ Flood -proofing of homes on south end of Lake Ballinger — Funded and carried out by
homeowners.
■ FEMA floodplain boundary mapping at Lake Ballinger — no longer necessary due to 2020
FEMA update.
■ Lake Ballinger weir modification —An evaluation of the impact of the McAleer Creek weir
on lake level written in 2008 recommended that the weir level be lowered to the level of
the 1-5 culvert inlet. The potential hydraulic impact of this change is currently being
evaluated by city staff at Edmonds. MLT staff are supportive of this modification.
■ Water quality protection — Currently being carried out through updates to city code, spill
prevention, annual maintenance, and public education. These are on -going efforts by each
of the Forum member cities, and part of each municipalities' stormwater permit with
Ecology.
■ Hypolimnetic system — Restart of this system was a priority of the Forum in 2009. Despite
a request from the Lake Ballinger Association, Ecology declined to approve restart of the
system.
■ Water quality monitoring — Volunteer monitoring of the lake is on -going, as part of the
Snohomish County lake monitoring program. Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds each pay
half of the annual cost of this program to Snohomish County.
■ Lake Ballinger Restoration Project Phase III — This report was the basis for the
hypolimnetic system in the 1980s.
■ Low Impact Development (LID) retrofit of existing infrastructure — As new development
occurs, Forum cities require developers to use LID facilities and practices wherever they
are feasible. Snohomish Conservation District also provides technical and construction
support for LID facilities such as rain gardens and biofiltration features.
VI. Improvements to Ballinger Park —fishing pier, boat launch, viewing platform, creek restoration
Jeff Betz, Mountlake Terrace Recreation and Parks Director, provided the following updates
■ Environmental and recreation improvements are at the 90% design phase for the fishing
pier, boat ramp, boat dock/launch, and shoreline improvements on east side of Lake
Ballinger. Construction is anticipated to begin this summer, July 1- August 31.
■ A new, universally -accessible playground will be installed near the senior center.
■ Along the west side of Ballinger Park, new asphalt pathways will be constructed to connect
to Army Corps of Engineers work to restore Hall Creek and associated wetland areas.
■ Grants have been submitted for the Ballinger Park west side projects.
■ Early indications from the grant application reviewers indicate this project has scored well,
so the project may receive funding. The final grant decision is anticipated by June 2021.
■ Premera will donate $100,000 towards the project.
■ Viewing platform
Packet Pg. 269
9.1.e
■ The new viewing platform is not yet funded. Community involvement and input on the
viewing platform is scheduled for 2022. If funded, the viewing platform would be
constructed summer 2022 or 2023.
■ The viewing platform design will need to be vetted by residents, and project aims to hear
from all voices on the location and design.
■ The Parks Department is aware that there are concerns from residents about the viewing
platform. Warren McAndrews, Edmonds resident and Lake Ballinger Association chair
confirmed this understanding.
■ The Ballinger Park/Hall Creek Restoration project is a different project, jointly funded by
the Army Corps of Engineers and Mountlake Terrace, and is located in Ballinger Park on
the north end of the lake.
Mark Philips asked if the last part of the project will include wetlands near Halls Creek. Jeff
Betz replied that MLT will not be doing any projects in the wetlands, but that the Army Corps
will be working only around the west side ponds and Halls Creek. Mark Philips asked for an
update on the Army Corps project timeline. Laura Reed responded that the project has been
approved and funded by the Corps and Mountlake Terrace, and construction is scheduled to
take place in the summer of 2023. Engineering and design work is ongoing currently.
Warren McAndrews, Edmonds resident, asked whether the fishing pier design was finalized,
particularly regarding how far it will go into the lake. He also asked about the time frame for
the viewing platform, whether any date for review of alternatives for people to vote on had
been set. Jeff Betz stated that the project, called the West Side Viewing Platform Project, is
still in the funding stage. Agreements are anticipated to be signed this fall, and the project will
start working on public engagement the following year. No design has started.
Warren McAndrews asked: is the fishing pier size locked down? Jeff Betz replied that the
image of the fishing pier (displayed as a screen share) was 100% design, and that construction
permits are being submitted. The pier will be shorter than the Ballinger Park master plan
recommended.
Julie Rose, Edmonds Lakeshore resident, commented that the existing playground gets
flooded, and wanted to make sure whenever the new playground is installed
consideration is given to how full the creek gets during the rainy season. She requested
assurance that the new playground location will be in a dryer area. Jeff Betz responded
that the northern playground is probably the oldest playground in the city, that the upper
playground drainage is not good, and that it will be going away. For the new playground
site, there is a requirement to have proper drainage under the playground. The soil test
completed in that area shows that it is relatively stable and well -drained. The design of
the new playground was left it up to the designer. They were asked to be creative.
Julie Rose commented that since the park will be closed for lake access from July to August
315t, if parking is not available, there will be an influx of people who will want to park
somewhere. Parking is a concern, if there is no parking on NE side, then it seems likely
that the NW side will be inundated. Is there a parking plan in place? Jeff Betz, stated that
Packet Pg. 270
9.1.e
there will be locations identified for public parking access. Signs will be installed, and the
goal is to educate the public. People will be directed to the Senior Center for parking. Ed
Boehmer, Mountlake Terrace lake resident, commented that the Edmonds area roads on
near the lake are narrow and unsuitable to park many vehicles. Parking is a big problem.
Flooding of the trails is also a concern during the winter, and further discussion to address
the issue is needed.
VII. 2021 Lake Ballinger invasive weed control update
Laura Reed, updated the Forum regarding the activities of the Ballinger Invasive
Committee (BIC). The citizen/staff/technical expert steering committee met in February
2021. The team confirmed the desire to spend the remaining Ecology grant funds on one
more treatment of Florpyrauxifen-benzyl (ProcellaCOR) herbicide to treat Eurasian
watermilfoil May 4t", 2021. Notification of herbicide treatment in Lake Ballinger went out
in early April. Laura also shared a summary of grant budget and expenditures as the
Ecology grant winds down in June 2021.
VIII. 2020 revenue & expenditures for the lake management district
Laura Reed shared 2020 revenue from funding collected from lakefront property owners
vs. actual expenditures by Mountlake Terrace for inspection and maintenance of the
McAleer Creek channel inside the Nile Golf Course, weir level adjustment, beaver
management, and other costs.
IX. Announcements/Updates
Marc Philips discussed a letter of support for a culvert replacement project to provide fish
passage on McAleer Creek in Lake Forest Park.
Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds Councilmember, commented that infrastructure is deteriorating,
and that the Forum may need to plan a global letter about the status of our culverts,
bridges, and weirs. Since the Forum has four jurisdictions, this may help to win support
for funding infrastructure replacement. She encouraged the Forum to watch what is
happening with regard to infrastructure across the nation, and for the Forum to consider
collaboration on grant funding opportunities.
John Featherstone, Surface Water Utility Manager for Shoreline provided an update as to
the Lake Ballinger drainage and Echo Lake areas. Recently Shoreline staff found a
residential sanitary sewer that was connected to a municipal storm drain discharging into
Lake Ballinger. It was disconnected and is now the sewage is being delivered to the
sanitary sewer system. This means one less source of pollution for Lake Ballinger. John
also discussed the fact that Shoreline is now requiring phosphorous treatment for new
development in the Lake Ballinger drainage basin. This treatment requirement should
help both Echo Lake and Lake Ballinger. Shoreline has passed a law to prohibit feeding of
waterfowl in parks. This rule is intended to change behavior of the public, and is not
focused on enforcement but on public education on the problems that accompany
excessive numbers of waterfowl around local lakes. Monitoring of stormwater quality
Packet Pg. 271
9.1.e
coming into Echo Lake are ongoing.
Ken Courtmanch, MILT Parks & Facility Superintendent, commented that on April 24tn
there will a Ballinger Park plant removal and clean up for Earth Day.
X. Public Comment
Warren McAndrews: Is hypolimnetic system coming into the lake at Hall Creek shut off?
Laura Reed: No, that part of the hypolimnetic system (the intake at the Hall Creek weir)
is still passively operating.
Warren McAndrews: Is it possible to lower the McAleer Creek elevation to the metal rim of the
weir (remove all the boards), or to remove the metal or concrete bottom of the weir?
Zack Richardson: This is still being researched. The elevation of the metal rim is not driving the lake
level, the system control is the restriction of the 1-5 culvert.
Julie Rose commented that the culvert under 1-5 is really a problem that she would like to see
addressed.
XI. Determine date and location of next meeting
The next meeting will take place on June 29t" at 2 pm on virtually on Zoom. Mountlake
Terrace will send out invites.
XII. Adjournment
Packet Pg. 272
9.1.f
LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM MINUTES
Remote meeting via videoconference (Zoom)
December 14, 2021 2PM to 3:00 PM
Call to Order
Chair, Steve Woodard called the Lake Ballinger Forum Meeting to order at 2:03pm
I. Roll Call - Welcome and Introductions
a. Approval/updates today's agenda
b. Approval of minutes from September 21, 2021 meeting
Attendee-,-
• Steve Woodard — Councilmember, Forum Chair, Mountlake Terrace
• Mark Phillips — Councilmember, Forum Vice -chair, Lake Forest Park
• Diane Buckshnis — Councilmember, Edmonds
• Tom French — Councilmember, Lake Forest Park
• Laura Reed — Stormwater Program Manager, Mountlake Terrace
• Derek Fada— Environmental & Surface Water Supervisor, Lynnwood
• Kari Quaas — Community Engagement Project Manager, Snohomish Conservation
District
• Zack Richardson — Stormwater Engineer, Edmonds
• Rikki Fruchantie — Community Relations Specialist, Mountlake Terrace
• Stefan Grozev — Surface Water Program Specialist, Shoreline
• Warren McAndrews —Edmonds Resident
• Rich Chung — Resident
• Andrew Silvia — Project Manager, Lake Forrest Park
IL Lake Ballinger level monitoringback ack up and running
Zack Richardson, Stormwater Engineer, updated the Forum pertaining to the lake level
monitor located on the City of Edmond's website. The monitor measures lake level. It
malfunctioned because of an upgrade issue and has been restored. If anyone notices it being
down again, please contact the City of Edmonds.
Mark Phillips — Councilmember, asked how high the level got during heavy precipitations at
McAleer Creek.
Zack Richardson, responded that there was a lot of rain, but the difference of this year rain in
comparison to last year's rain is intensity, last year the rain was stretched out for a longer
period of time, this year the rain fell in a shorter period of time. When lots of rain falls during
a short amount of time, this can cause flooding.
Packet Pg. 273
III. Updates McAleer Creek maintenance -flood prevention
Laura Reed, Stormwater Program Manager, checked with Tim Nye, Storm and Street
Supervisor at MLT, and confirmed that no beaver activity has been detected in McAleer Creek
at the outlet of Lake Ballinger. The McAleer corridor through the Nile golf course is checked
multiple times throughout the year (particularly frequently during the winter), to determine if
it is clear. One tree has fallen across the creek in the golf course, but it isn't blocking the flow,
and the crews will be deal with it when the weather is drier. The creek was also checked
downstream of I-5, and appeared to be flowing strongly (not backed up) during the maximum
flow period. From KOMO News reporting, since October 17.73 inches of rain have fallen.
The average is usually 12.65 inches. No significant flooding has been noted in Mountlake
Terrace.
IV. Algae bloom update
Laura Reed, Stormwater Program Manager, exhibited photos of past algae blooms that
exhibited characteristics of toxic algae, also known as blue-green algae or cyanobacteria.
Typically, this type of material looks like paint in the water. One picture was from the north
end of Lake Ballinger, and one picture was from the new fishing dock. She asked that if lake
residents or lake users see anything like this, to please inform her if the potential toxic algae is
in Mountlake Terrace, or if it is in City of Edmonds, to let Patrick Johnson know. A quick
response is necessary for potential toxic algae blooms, to reduce risk of harm to public health.
She displayed a flow chart of the potential toxic algae response protocol, part of which
includes signs posted at the edge of lake as an advisory that the lake may be unsafe for people
or pets.
Mark Phillips, Councilmember, suggested modifying the signage to — "Disregard fish guts
elsewhere or "off site".
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember, asked if there has been communication with other agencies
regarding this situation, particularly the Snohomish County noxious weed people.
Laura Reed replied that she is in contact with the Snohomish County lake specialists, and that
they manage the water quality lake monitoring program for Lake Ballinger. There is a grant
program from Ecology for algae treatment, but it requires an extensive treatment plan, the
development of the plan can frequently cost 2-3 times as much as the treatment itself.
V. Scope of new Ecology grant application for invasive aquatic weed control
Laura Reed displayed a summary of the 2022-2023 Invasive Aquatic plan control grant:
Grant focus —public outreach on lilies, herbicide treatment of milfoil
• Public outreach - 4 permanent signs in parks to, flyers to lake residents and a
training/volunteering 2022 summer event ($6,000)
Packet Pg. 274
9.1.f
Monitoring - annual and as -needed plant surveys of the lake ($1,500)
Herbicide —1 ProcellaCOR application in 2023 to control Eurasian watermilfoil,
whole lake edge ($15,500)
• Administration — quarterly financial and progress reporting; herbicide permit;
contract procurement and management; schedule/budget/scope control; and final
report to Ecology ($3,000)
Total grant ask: $26,000 of which 25% will be in -kind contribution of city staff time.
Warren McAndrews —Edmonds Resident asked if the Hall Creek inlet to Lake Ballinger
was included in the scope of the grant application. Laura Reed responded by thanking
Warren for making her aware of milfoil presence in this shallow area of the lake that's not
frequently accessed, and replied that the estimate includes herbicide treatment of the lake area
downstream of the weir on Hall Creek where it flows into Lake Ballinger.
VI. Ballinger Park Hall Creek Restoration Project
Laura Reed communicated that big changes to Ballinger Park are coming in the next 2 years.
The scope of the project is to remove invasive plant native species, build a new creek channel,
and increase habitat diversity in the creek channel and in the wetlands and ponds. Being
discussed is a design that allows people to see from the community center to the boardwalk.
Herbicide will need to be used to suppress invasive plants in the park so that native plantings
can survive, because there is an extremely well -entrenched invasive population.
Mark Philips, Councilmember, asked if re -channeling of the stream would be helpful for
the functioning of the creek. Laura Reed replied that more variety in habitat areas for fish,
diverse plant life, and more area for amphibians will restore more natural function to the creek
area.
VIL Announcements & Updates
• Mark Philips, Councilmember, Forum Vice -chair, Lake Forest Park is retiring from the
Forum. He advocates that the Forum continue to work on a strategy going forward on
how to leverage Jake Johnson's understanding of the federal funding landscape.
• Kari Quaas — Community Engagement Project Manager, Snohomish Conservation
District expressed a "thank you" to the City of Mountlake Terrace for their participation
and support during Orca Recovery Day.
• Diane Buckshnis — Councilmember, Edmonds recommended that the Forum collaborate
on efforts to find funding for improving infrastructure.
Packet Pg. 275
9.1.f
VIII. Public Comment
Warren McAndrews —Edmonds Resident, expressed concern about the fishing pier
polished aluminum reflecting and causing glare for the lake resident. He asked if there's a
way to have it painted a different color.
Rikki Fruchantie — Community Relations Specialist, MLT commented that there has been
discussion concerning this matter, and this issue will be followed up with council.
IX. Determine Topics for next meeting
• How did we fare during the winter storms
• Have Jake Johnson come to discuss federal funding landscape
X. Determine date and location of next meeting
The next meeting will take place on February 15, 2022 at 2:00 pm on Zoom.
XI. Adjournment — 3:01 p.m.
Packet Pg. 276
9.1.g
LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM MINUTES
Remote meeting via videoconference (Zoom)
June 29, 2021 2PM to 3:00 PM
I. Call to Order
Chair, Steve Woodard called the Lake Ballinger Forum Meeting to order at 2:02pm
II. Roll Call - Welcome and Introductions
a. Approval/updates today's agenda
b. Approval of minutes from April 13, 2021 meeting
Attendees-
• Mark Phillips — Councilmember, Forum Vice -chair, Lake Forest Park
• Steve Woodard — Councilmember, Forum Chair, Mountlake Terrace
• Keith Scully — Councilmember, Deputy Mayor, Shoreline
• Laura Reed — Stormwater Program Manager, Mountlake Terrace
• Andrew Silvia — Project Manager, Lake Forest Park
• Patrick Johnson — Stormwater Technician, Edmonds
• John Featherstone — Surface Water Utility Manager, Shoreline
• Cory Roche, Community Services Coordinator, Lake Forest Park
• Jeff Betz — Recreation & Parks Director, City of Mountlake Terrace
• Kari Quaas — Community Engagement Project Manager, Snohomish Conservation District
• Bob White — Lynnwood resident
• Julie Rose — Edmonds resident
• Ken Courtmanch — Parks Supervisor, Mountlake Terrace
• Zack Richardson — Surface Water Engineer, Edmonds
• Cheyenne Covington — Osborn Consulting Inc.
III. Updates on Maintenance of — McAleer Creek for lake flood prevention
Laura Reed, MLT Stormwater Program Manager, discussed the inspections of the McAleer
Creek channel which being conducted weekly by MLT field crews to locate any creek
obstructions. A trapper under contract to the city caught a 70 pound beaver, and the Tulalip
Tribe beaver relocation team has relocated it to another area up in the mountains. Laura reported
that there haven't been any particular problems with obstructions in the creek. That is the only
beaver that we have had to relocate since the last forum meeting.
There is an agreement in place to relocate the beavers between May and October. It can't
be done in the winter, because the places where beavers are relocated to are usually frozen
over in the winter. Steve Woodard commented that it was impressive that a 70 pound
beaver was able to go unnoticed for so long, and wished the beaver and his legacy well.
Packet Pg. 277
9.1.g
IV. Volunteer lake monitoriniz and invasive weed control
Laura Reed updated the Forum regarding a May 4th herbicide application on Lake Ballinger.
Following the herbicide application, residual herbicide sampling was carried out by Julie Rose.
No residual amount of herbicide was detected in the samples collected from the lake. On June
16th there was a meeting with the Ballinger Invasive Committee, they discussed the path forward
after this current Ecology grant is completed at the end of June. There is interest in applying for
a new grant through Ecology for invasive aquatic plant control. Laura will be responsible for
applying for a new grant; applications are due in November/December 2021. Focus of the new
grant application will be on herbicide application as needed to control the Eurasian water
milfoil, and also on encouraging and educating people about removal of fragrant water lilies
(particularly in removing the flowers of fragrant water lilies on the lake.) This limits their
growth, and is not difficult for your average person. In the future, the steering committee is
considering putting up signs such as "it's time to pick the flowers." This is a method that has
been effective in other locations.
Julie Rose, Edmonds Resident/Lake Monitor Volunteer commented that lake monitoring it is
going well. But in her opinion the lake did not look great when she last sampled at during the
end of June heat wave. Julie displayed an example of the dissolved oxygen monitoring sheet;
showing how the salmon get stressed when oxygen is low in the lake (as it is during hot
temperatures.) Julie mentioned that she has not observed any fish die -offs in the lake this
summer. When monitoring, she measures water clarity (affected by the amount of algae in the
water), dissolved oxygen, temperature, and number of lake users. She also periodically collects
water samples.
Kari Quaas, Community Engagement Project Manager, Snohomish Conservation District
asked if the new educator can meet with Julie and go out to obtain water quality samples for as
part of the new Lake Ballinger curriculum.
V. Upcoming watershed planning efforts
fforts
Zack Richardson, Surface Water Engineer, Edmonds discussed a new upcoming NPDES permit
requirement that for all jurisdictions: watershed planning. The process of completing these
requirements involves several watershed assessment steps, including working with other
jurisdictions when watersheds overlap city boundaries.
VI. New Ecology guidance for treating phosphorus in storm water
John Featherstone, Surface Water Utility Manager, Shoreline discussed with the Forum that
Ecology has a new high performance bioretention soil mix (HPBSM) which treats and
removes phosphorus. Ecology plans to incorporate HPBSM and add new information from
studies on bioretention soil mix into the storm water manual. Current research is underway
through Ecology grants and the Stormwater Action Monitoring program. These studies include
Packet Pg. 278
9.1.g
researching performance and longevity of the bioretention default mix, and whether it can
provide removal of other pollutants. Both in Lake Ballinger and Echo Lake have excess nutrient
issues which can create algae blooms. Bioretention facilities using this kind of soil mix can
reduce phosphorous, one of the most frequently -found nutrients. Phosphorous treatment is now
required for new development around Echo Lake to reduce algae blooms.
Some components of new guidance from Ecology:
New standards for public/private bioretention with underdrain designs within
watersheds, restricting use of conventional BSM and requiring HPBSM
Opportunities to retrofit existing public/private bioretention with underdrain
designs within watersheds
Opportunities to install bioretention in areas where it might previously have been
restricted due to phosphorous export potential
VIL Algae bloom response
Laura Reed discussed toxic algae bloom on the lake. She reminded the Forum that if an
algae bloom is spotted, people should contact the stormwater contact for the city in
either Edmonds or Mountlake Terrace, depending on where the bloom is found.
VIII. Announcements/Updates
• Steve Woodard shared that the City of Mountlake Terrace had the honor of hosting
32°d District Representative, Jesse Solomon.
• Laura Reed was contacted by reporter from MLT News interested in doing a creek
tour of Hall Creek.
IX. Public Comment
N/A
X. Determine Topics for next meeting
Zack Richardson, proposes discussing the situation with an abandoned home on the south-
east side of Lake Ballinger.
XI. Determine date and location of next meeting
The next meeting will take place on September 21, 2001 at 2:00 pm. Location TBD/via
Zoom or the new Mountlake Terrace City Hall.
XII. Adjournment — 2:59 p.m.
Packet Pg. 279
4/20/22, 10:31 AM Port Of Edmonds I Commission Meeting Agenda 3/14/22
10 MAR COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA 3/14/22
Posted at 16:36h in Commission Notices by Editor 6
PORT OF EDMONDS COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
March 14, 2022 7:00pm
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. FLAG SALUTE
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Agenda
B. Approval of February 28, 2022 Meeting Minutes
C. Approval of Payments
D. Authorization for Executive Director to Write Off $1,942.43 and Send Account to Collections
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For any issues not already on the Agenda; 3 minute limit)
V. POSSIBLE ACTION
VI. INFORMATION
A. Retreat Agenda
B. Boatyard Permit — Renewal Status
VII. CITY OF EDMONDS REPORT
Vill. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
IX. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The Port of Edmonds will return to in person Commission Meetings, effective March 14, 2022. Social distancing
recommended, mask optional.
Or join us remotely via Zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/2091238949
or Audio / Mobile 1 253 215 8782 US Meeting ID: 209 123 8949
https://www.portofedmonds.org/commission-meeting-agenda-3-14-22/ I Packet Pg. 280
4/20/22, 1:47 PM Port Of Edmonds i Special Commission Meeting & Staff Retreat Agenda 3/22/22
16 MAR SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING &
STAFF RETREAT AGENDA 3/22/22
0
Posted at 13:42h in Commission Notices
m
(https://www.portofedmonds.org/category/commission/) by Editor 6
(https://www.portofedmonds.org/author/adminre/)
E
E
0
U
Port of Edmonds Special Commission Meeting & Staff Retreat
March 22, 2022 9am In -Person & Zoom
L
0
m
SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING
.y
CALL TO ORDER — Commissioner David Preston 9:00 — 9:15
7
0
FLAG SALUTE
N
C
CONSENT AGENDA
N
NI
M
A. Approval of Agenda
a�
PUBLIC COMMENTS
COMMISSION & STAFF RETREAT
INTRODUCTIONS —Bob McChesney
STRATEGIC PLAN — Discussion 9:15 — 9:45
A. Mission Statement
B. Other Discussion
NORTH PORTWALK / SEAWALL PROJECT 9:45 — 10:30
— Dennis Titus / CG Engineering
A. Engineering / Architectural Issues
B. Project Schedule
BREAK 10:30 — 10:45
NORTH PORTWALK / SEAWALL PROJECT 10:45 — 11:45
— Dennis Titus / CG Engineering
A. Permitting Report T
B. Cost Estimate
WORKING LUNCH 11:45 — 12:30
https://www.portofedmonds.org/special-commission-meeting-staff-retreat-agenda-3-22-22/ 1 Packet Pg. 281
4/20/22, 1:47 PM Port Of Edmonds I Special Commission Meeting & Staff Retreat Agenda 3/22/22
A. Harbor Square — Brittany Williams
NEW ADMINSTRATION / MAINTENANCE BUILDING 12:30 — 1:45
— Katerina Prochaska / Jackson Main Architecture 0
CL
A. Design Review; No changes allowed
m
B. Permit Status
T
C. Project Schedule E
D. Cost Estimate v
c
E. LEEDS and Salmon Safe
PROJECT FINANCING —Tina Drennan 1:45 — 2:45
A. Cash Flow Model
B. Grant Opportunities
C. Forward Look
WRAP UP DISCUSSIONS 2:45
The Port of Edmonds has returned to in person Commission Meetings. Social distancing
recommended, mask optional. Or join us remotely via Zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/2091238949 (https://us02web.zoom.us/j/2091238949)
or Audio + 1 253 215 8782 US Meeting ID: 209 123 8949
Public comments can be made either in person or via Zoom during the public comments
portion of the meeting. Comments will be limited to three minutes. Additionally, public
comments can be emailed to publiccomment@portofedmonds.org prior to the meeting and
they will be entered into the official public record.
Comments submitted on the day of the meeting cannot be guaranteed inclusion in that
meeting but will then be included in the next meeting.
r
TAGS: Administration and Maintenance Building
(https://www.portofedmonds.org/tag/administration-and-maintenance-building/),
North Portwalk and Seawall Project (https://www.portofedmonds.org/tag/north-
https://www.portofedmonds.org/special-commission-meeting-staff-retreat-agenda-3-22-22/ 1 Packet Pg. 282
4/20/22, 1:47 PM Port Of Edmonds I Special Commission Meeting & Staff Retreat Agenda 3/22/22
portwalk-and-seawall-project/), Project Financing
(https://www.portofedmonds.org/tag/project-financing/), Special Commission
Meeting & Staff Retreat 2022 (https://www.portofedmonds.org/tag/special- N
commission-meeting-staff-retreat-2022/), Strategic Plan 0
m
(https://www.portofedmonds.org/tag/strategic-plan/)
rw
https://www.portofedmonds.org/special-commission-meeting-staff-retreat-agenda-3-22-22/ 1 Packet Pg. 283