Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2017-04-04 City Council - Full Agenda-1871
1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 7 o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 4, 2017, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of March 28, 2017 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 28, 2017 3. Approval of claim and payroll checks. 4. Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles and surplus city equipment 5. Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement with Murray, Smith & Associates for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project 6. Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with The Blueline Group to provide Capital Project Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services for 2017 7. February 2017 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report 8. Adoption of Resolution Amending the City Fee Schedule related to Blade Signs and Pedestrian Signs 9. Adoption of Ordinance Amending the Sign Code (ECDC 20.60) PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. SnoCom-SnoPac Consolidation Task Force Update (30 min.) AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS ACTION ITEMS 1. ILA Snohomish County Waterfront Redevelopment (10 min.) 2. Shoreline Master Program (45 min.) 3. Motion to initiate an RFP process to obtain a baseline planning site -specific scientific study of the Edmonds Marsh Watershed to be paid for from the Council funds (10 min.) 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. SnoPUD Redundancy Power Agreement - WWTP (10 min.) 2. Crumb Rubber extension of moratorium (30 min.) 3. City Council Meeting Format and Council Committee Structure (30 min.) 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Agenda April 4, 2017 Page 1 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda April 4, 2017 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of March 28, 2017 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: 03-28-2017 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 28, 2017 Elected Officials Present Mike Nelson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Tom Mesaros, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Mayor Dave Earling Elected Officials Absent none Staff Present Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Director Al Compaan, Police Chief Jeff Taraday, City Attorney 1. CALL TO ORDER/CONVENE IN JURY MEETING ROOM At 6:40 p.m., the City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW 42.30.140(1)(a) The Council then adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room to discuss collective bargaining per RCW 42.30.140(1)(A). At 6:59 p.m. the executive session concluded. ADJOURN At 6:59 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of March 28, 2017 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: 03-28-2017 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 5 4.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES March 28, 2017 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Thomas Mesaros, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 4.1 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda item approved IS as follows: 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2017 Councilmember Buckshnis requested the following clarification to page 17 of the minutes: I would like to apologize for not fully understanding Chevron's two-phase clean-up process and Mr. Scordino did not file an injunction to stop cleanup of phase 1; however, according to Chevron's public affairs manager, his appeal has placed phase 2 on hold. Her statement is as follows. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 1 Packet Pg. 6 4.2.a We were planning to begin the next phase of cleanup work at the former Unocal Edmonds Terminal site in late/Fall 2016, but the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit needed for the work was appealed by Mr. Scordino. Due to the appeal, we placed the work on hold. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 2017 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. 2016 ANNUAL REPORT - SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT ONE Fire District 1 Commissioners present: Jim McGaughey (Chair), Jim Kenney, Bob Meador, and Richard Schrock. Commissioner David Chan was not present. Fire District 1 staff present: Brad Reading, Fire Chief; Doug Dahl, Deputy Chief of Operations; Bob Eastman, Assistant Chief, Gregg Sieloff, Assistant Chief of Training; Shaughn Maxwell, Deputy Chief of EMS; Kevin Zweber, Fire Marshal; and April Richards, Executive Assistant to the Board of Fire Commissioners. Fire District 1 Commission Chair McGaughey read the following statement: In regard to Fire District 1 and our commitment not only to our fire department, our staff and our nearly 200 line personnel but to the cities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Lynnwood and Mukilteo, Fire District 1 has a strong commitment to acceptance and support of all of our citizens regardless of ethnicity, religious, sexual orientation or immigration status. We fully understand and are in agreement with the City of Edmonds in regard to their commitment to their community as well. Your community is part of ours, as are the cities of Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Lynnwood and Mukilteo. There is an expectation of those that elected us and that is to represent their fire department and their communities in the most respectable manner. You can rest assured that our values and our commitment to honor diversity will always continue to remain of utmost importance at Fire District 1. Fire Chief Brad Reading introduced FD1 Commissioners Jim Kenney, Bob Meador and Dick Schrock. He expressed appreciation for staff, Mayor Earling, City Attorney Jeff Taraday and Finance Director Scott James working with them on the new contract. He explained FD1 has been in a blended management with the City of Lynnwood since July 2016. The 2016 numbers are based on the old deployment with Medic 17; the new deployment format began in February 2017. FD1 is still learning and tweaking the New World system to get accurate numbers. As soon as FD1 has a few more months of the new deployment, he will report to the City on how the new deployment is working. Deputy Chief of EMS Shaughn Maxwell provided 2016 highlights related to: • Emergency Medical Services o Cardiac arrest save rate is among the highest in the country: 53% vs. 37% o Key to improving is increasing bystander CPR o In 2016, we trained 1,038 citizens in CPR ■ Includes CPR and AED training at the Edmonds Senior Center, Madrona and Maplewood Schools and citizens at several community events in Edmonds o Created dive emergency checklist o Teddy Bear clinic at Station 17 ■ Children caring for a teddy bear to desensitize them to emergencies making them more comfortable during an emergency response • Community Paramedic Outreach Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 2 Packet Pg. 7 4.2.a o Innovative falls and mental health programs, including the use of veterans. o Nearly 2,000 contacts. o White House meeting. o Presented at Pinnacle EMS Leadership Conference Disaster preparedness 0 300+ attendees at the Count Me In Town Hall at Edmonds Community College. 0 348 attendees at ReadySnoCo and Ready Sunday workshops. 0 275 attendees at Map Your Neighborhood Ambassador Workshops 0 120 attendees at ReadyFest Open House at Edmonds Fire Station 17 Councilmember Nelson recalled a comment during last year's presentation regarding the infrequent use of AEDs and asked whether that had improved since last year and what could be done to get people to use AEDs. Deputy Chief Maxwell said over 70% of cardiac arrests occur in the home, only 1-5% occur in public. AEDs are currently located in schools, airports, etc.; he is trying figure out other locations that have long hours such as coffee shops and community hubs. Assistant Chief of Training Gregg Sieloff reported one of the tasks he was faced with in the blended management was blending the two organizations' training division so they operate seamlessly as if there were no borders between Lynnwood and FDL A Training Advisory Committee was formed with members from FD1 and Lynnwood who rewrote the probationary manual and task books and developed a new hose manual and ladder company operations manual. Another challenge was in 2016 the Snohomish County Fire Chiefs adopted a new Incident Management System (IMS) policy; it hadn't been updated since 1985. The IMS is based on a blue card, a program out of Phoenix/Sacramento and adapted for Snohomish County. Training has been conducted at the command level and first responders to ensure they understand the terminology. It is a countywide policy that all agencies have adopted, the first time that has been done in his 37-year career. Assistant Chief Sieloff reviewed 2016 highlights related to training: • Blue Card training (incident command) • Red Card training (wildland firefighting) o A grant written by former Fire Chief Cockrum funded wildland firefighting training for 90 firefighters Pump operator training o Pump operator manual rewritten because the two agencies did it differently. Fire Marshal Kevin Zweber provided 2016 highlights related to: • Fire Prevention o Incidents and investigations Date Incident Location Est. Loss Cause 02/23/16 House fire 23491 94t $75,000 Overloaded electrical space heater 03/27/16 School fire 9300 236th St $200,000 Undetermined 04/9/16 House fire 931 Puget Way $100,000 Under investi ation 05/12/16 Motel fire 22201 Hwy 99 $5,000 Accidental 05/30/16 Car fire 8123 236th St SW $2,500 Arson 06/08/16 City Park Car/Utility Building Fire 600 3` Ave S $80,000 Arson Total property loss 1 $462,500 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 3 Packet Pg. 8 4.2.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the individuals involved with the arsons had been caught. Fire Marshal Zweber said one was a car fire which appeared to be juveniles and the police investigation of the City Park fire did not identify anyone. He continued his review: o Inspections ■ Annual inspections - 1,001 ■ New Business Inspections - 234 ■ Re -inspections - 214 o Permits ■ Special event/tank removal operational permits - 92 ■ Construction permit inspections - 618 ■ Major projects - Building 10 (50 Pine Street) - Memory Care - 210t' & 72nd - R2 Fire Alarm Project - Pre -construction work - Magic Toyota - Lynnwood Mazda - Westgate Mixed use - Madrona Elementary o Public Education and Events ■ 1,121 students reached in school presentations. ■ 656 citizens attending fire department events. ■ 7,915 citizens reached at community events Councilmember Buckshnis asked the minimum residential square footage that requires sprinklers. Fire Marshal Zweber answered 3,000 square feet of "fire area" which is the living area, excluding the garage, but including any covered projection greater than 4 feet. He commented on a 14,000-square foot single family house under construction on Talbot Road. Fire Chief Reading recognized Kim Schroeder, FD1's Public Educator for over 30 years who will be retiring this spring. FD 1 is in the process of hiring a new employee. Deputy Chief of Operations Doug Dahl provided 2016 highlights related to: • Response by call type o Structure Fire: 1% o Fire Other: 9% o MVC: 4% o ALS: 29% o BLS: 53% o Other: 4% Total incidents in the City (calls within the City's boundaries and could include multiple units responding to same incident) 0 2013: 4,804 0 2014: 4,718 0 2015: 5,291 0 2016: 5,216 Deputy Chief Dahl reviewed the Compliance Report, advising a copy of the 2015 report was provided to Councilmembers for comparison (in response to Councilmember Buckshnis' request last year): • Total turnout time: Better than standard o Standard: 2:45 minutes on 90% of all calls Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 9 4.2.a o Actual 2016: 2:38 minutes o Actual 2015: 2:39 minutes • First arriving fire engine on fire response: better than standard o Standard: 6:30 minutes travel time for arrival first engine on 90% of fire calls o Actual 2016: 6:17 minutes o Actual 2015: 6:49 minutes • Residential fire deployment of full first -alarm assignment: did not meet standard o Standard: 7:45 minutes travel time for arrival of all first -alarm response vehicles and personnel (15 firefighters) on 90% of residential fire calls o Incident 1: 6:53 o Incident 2: 8:10 o Incident 3: 8:43 • Commercial fire deployment of full first -alarm assignment: did not meet standard o Standard: 9:00 minutes travel time for arrival of all first -alarm response vehicles and personnel (18 firefighters) on 90% of commercial fire calls o Incident 1: 5:21 o Incident 2: 5:21 o Incident 3: 7:23 o Incident 4: 9:05 o Incident 5: 11:24 • Basic Life Support (BLS) response: did not meet standard o Standard: 5:15 minutes travel time 90% of time o Actual 2016: 5:57 o Actual 2015: 5:15 Advanced Life Support (ALS) paramedic response: Did not meet standard o Standard: 6:45 minutes travel time o Actual 2016: 7:11 o Actual 2015: 6:49 Council President Mesaros commented it would be interesting to see statistics for five years such as a bar chart to illustrate the trend on meeting standards. It would also illustrate whether changes that are being made are effective. Deputy Chief Dahl agreed, noting there has been a major change in how data is gathered. Council President Mesaros suggested asterisking the date of the change in the data base. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the response time and asked if that was an Edmonds fire station response or any response from FD1. Deputy Chief Dahl answered it was the first unit to arrive. Chief Reading said it could also be a response from Shoreline or Lynnwood. Councilmember Tibbott asked to what extent station locations is a factor. Chief Reading answered the Fitch study indicated there could be better fire station locations. Station location definitely has an effect but how much was unknown. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was great that turnout time and response time was being met. He presumed there was a physical limit that could not be exceed with regard to turnout and response time based on staffing, training, equipment, etc. and asked how much better than standard could be achieved. Deputy Chief Dahl referred to the Fitch study which stated some agencies use one minute as a standard. He did not think FD 1 could ever get to one minute but they continually seek ways to improve. He did not think much below two minutes would be realistic; it is a long way to get there and there are many factors involved. A consultant is preparing a capital facilities plan that looks at that which includes measuring stations, how doors open, where restrooms located, etc. and will make recommendations regarding improvement. He summarized the standard can be established at whatever time an agency wants; for Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 10 example, Seattle has a one minute standard but meet that standard less than 17% of the time. These standards were established in 2005 at what was felt to be realistic and the actual has hovered in that area. He believed FD1 could do better over time and commissioners push that point often. Councilmember Nelson read from the Response Times in Edmonds section of the report, "In an emergency every second counts." and Section 3 of the Standards of Response Comparison (Standard of Cover) which states, "To measure the ability to arrive and begin mitigation operations before the critical events of "brain death" or "flashover" occur, the Fire Department is required to establish response -time objectives, and compare the actual department results on an annual basis against the established objectives." He reviewed the 2014, 2015 and 2016 reports and found the following trend: 2 standards were not met in 2014, 4 were not met in 2015, and 6 were not met in 2016. He expressed concern that the standards are continually not being met, but there appears to be no accountability. Although there may only be 1-2 in each type of incident, it only takes one incident for there to be a catastrophic loss of life. He asked how that could be addressed. Deputy Chief Dahl answered although Edmonds numbers are not high, overall there is a 10-12% increase in call load every year; one factor is as call loads increase, response times also increases. Chief Reading agreed the biggest factor is call load increases. The standards were developed in 2005 based on call loads and staffing in 2003 and 2004 when call loads were considerably lower. Call loads continue to increase as do transport times due to wait times at the hospital that takes units out of service. Councilmember Nelson remarked maybe if more people were on duty. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented none of the current Councilmembers were on the Council when these performance standards were established; she and Councilmember Buckshnis arrived about the time the fire department was sold to FDL She asked if Edmonds' performance standards asked too much as compared to national standards. Chief Reading said the new contract does not refer to these standards; with the new deployment, they will be reevaluated and FD1 will work with the City to create new ones. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she had never heard a good explanation regarding how the standards were established. Deputy Chief Dahl said he was on the committee that set the standards; the legislature passed a new law that required standards be established. FD1 ran the numbers from 2004 to determine how they did 90% of the time and that was used as a starting point and they have not been changed since 2005. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remarked the standards are 10-12 years old, looking at the standards should be a priority, otherwise the data becomes almost unusable. Chief Reading said it is still a benchmark to show increases or decreases. As soon as some time has passed with the new deployment, FD 1 will work with the City to develop new standards. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what technical rescue response entailed. Deputy Chief Dahl answered there are two phases, the operational level which would be comparable to BLS; all members are trained at that level of rescue response. The new phase is the technician level response with responders who are trained at a much higher level. The District's technical rescue truck which actually serves the county, is stationed at the Martha Lake station on 164th. The county (FD1, Lynnwood, Mukilteo) has a technical rescue team; in a technician response, members come from other agencies. For example, if someone is over the bank, there is operation level response to do an assessment but the technicians with the tools and ability to go over the cliff come from other agencies further away. Technician response to Edmonds takes a little longer as they can only come from one direction. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the report that indicated there were two incidents in Edmonds. Deputy Chief Dahl recalled one was a person who fell down a bank in Meadowdale. Technical response includes high angle, confined space, trench rescue, ice rescue, and surface water rescue. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 11 Deputy Chief Dahl said hazmat is the same type of response; an operations level response followed by a county hazmat team comprised of members from multiple agencies. The hazmat unit is station in Everett and there is a decon unit in the northeast area of FD1. Assistant Chief Bob Eastman provided a progress report on the Lynnwood / Fire District 1 Regional Fire Authority Planning Committee. The committee was formed at the end of 2016 and began holding meetings in October 2016 and have had a very aggressive meeting schedule, holding 2-3 meetings per month. They are close to having a draft plan before the planning committee for consideration; he was hopeful outstanding issues would be resolved at the next 1-2 meetings. If the FD1 Board and the City of Lynnwood approve the plan, the intent is to go to the voters in the August 2017 primary election Council President Mesaros thanked FD 1 for their report and looked forward to establishing new standards. 2. COMMUNITY TRANSIT PRESENTATION Emmett Heath, Community Transit CEO, introduced Todd Morrow, Deb Osborne and Barbara Earl. His report will provide the Council a high-level update of what has happened since the public transit expansion plan was approved by voters in November 2015. He commended Mayor Earling who has served on the Community Transit Board longer than any other official, from 1992 to 2002 and again for the past 5 years. Mayor Earling has a reputation among Community Transit staff for being a very thoughtful, customer -minded board member. He has also been a long-time participant on the Sound Transit Board; his experience on both boards gives him a broad perspective about public transportation that adds value as a member of the Community Transit Board. Mr. Heath recalled comments by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas during their last presentation about a family member that uses dial -a -ride service and how valuable it was to her family as well as a nephew who lives in Everett and puts his bicycle on the Swift Blue Line, takes Swift to Edmonds and then bicycles to her house. He has retold those stories many times internally at Community Transit. Mr. Health commented on Community Transit's long-time partnership with Edmonds, participating in many civic events. Community Transit recently participated in the Edmonds Downtown Crossing Coalition providing a financial contributor to that project as well as their Planning Director Joy Munker participated in the coalition at Mayor Earling's invitation. Last October, Community Transit celebrated its 40th anniversary; in 1976, Edmonds was one of 7 original charter members who formed the Public Transportation Benefit Area. Since the ballot measure in 2015, Community Transit has been regularly expanding service, including adding service in March and September 2016, less than 4 months after the election. Earlier this month Community Transit added 45 new bus trips, many of which are in south county, providing additional mid- day and extra trips later at night on the Swift Blue Line on Highway 99 as well as the local Route 101 on Highway 99. Two weeks ago Community Transit announced to the Board they will begin outreach on the next series of expansion proposals that would take place in September 2017 and March 2018. Those proposals include a new south county route to the Boeing manufacturing area and the new Swift Green Line that will intersect the existing Blue Line at Airport Road. He reviewed how transit helps our economy grow and protects our quality of life: • More than 60% of transit riders on Community Transit are going to work or school • PSRC estimates an additional 240,00 new residents in Snohomish County by 2040 • Mayor Earling's State of the City Address said 5,500 of those new residents will reside in Edmonds by 2035 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 12 4.2.a 4200 Edmonds residents board buses in Edmonds daily Community Transit serves a vital community mission: to transport people who do not have their own means of transportation Their goals in working with Edmonds and other jurisdictions is to protect the quality of life in the county and communities Mr. Heath described Community Transit, the pRide of Snohomish County: • Provide approximately 38,000 total rides every weekday • A notable number of customers reached out to Community Transit on Bus Driver Appreciation Day, offering thanks for the professional and friendly service the coach operators provide • Map of Edmonds' current transit service and population density that is within 1/4 mile of bus stop o 1/4 mile is what most users consider convenience walking distance to public transit • Serve 184 bus stops, 71% of city's population lives within 1/4 mile access to public transportation • Operate 10 bus routes - 2 commuter to downtown, 1 to UW, and 7 local • Operate 563 bus trips through Edmonds on weekdays • Swift service on Hwy 99 runs every 12 minutes on weekdays, and every 20 minutes afterhours and on weekends • Swift makes it easy for residents to connect to the three subarea anchor points on Highway 99 - International, Gateway and Health Districts • Community Transit remains alert for opportunity to improve east -west connectivity Mr. Heath displayed a system map for the Edmonds area, identifying local bus service and commuter service: • Route 196 — travels from 196t", stopping near ECC and on to Alderwood Mall • Route 116 — serving Edmonds Community College, Alderwood Mall, Lynnwood Transit Center and Ash way Park & Ride and east to Mill Creek • Route130 — Aurora Village to Shoreline providing connection to King County Metro and points south and north and east to Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood • Route 416 — direct commuter service to downtown Seattle. • Edmonds Park and Ride on 212th Mr. Heath explained ridership is growing: • Carried over 10 million riders last year, about a 2% increase over prior year • Ridership growth achieved in spite of fact public transportation ridership down nationwide o Only 2 major metropolitan areas in United States have shown ridership increases; Snohomish County -King County metropolitan area had the highest rate of public transportation growth in United States. o The rest of United States is suffering from low gas prices and economies not as robust as the Puget Sound area o Recent Seattle Times headlines stated Snohomish and Pierce counties were the first and second fastest growing counties in the United States in 2016 • Have been adding service for 4 years. • Proposition approved in August 2015 provided substantial new revenue to accelerate expansion. • Sunday and holiday service was restored in 2015 • In 2016 a significant expansion included two new routes, beginning north of Quil Ceda Village, east bound through Marysville, south on Hwy 99, westbound to the 1-5 corridor at the Ash Way Park & Ride, a first effort to establish east -west connectivity in that corridor and open Hwy 9 as a new parallel corridor to 1-5 Mr. Heath described plans for service expansion: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 13 • Improving transit connections through Snohomish County • New Route 107 from Lynnwood transit center and Boeing Paine Field manufacturing center • More weekday trips to Seattle and UW • Improved Sunday service with more frequent buses and extending service later in the evening, targeting principally retail employment • Extending Route 105 to mimic the Paine Field routing of the new Swift Green Line scheduled to open in 2019 • Extending Route 196 to Ash Way Park & Ride Mr. Heath described the buildout of the Swift network: • Swift Blue Line implemented in 2009 • Has exceed ridership expectations, carrying 1.7 million people, more than any other route in the system. One out of six riders on the system use that corridor. • Swift offers faster travel time, frequent departures, real time information about next bus departure time via Smartphone, off -board fare payment and station dwell time of about 10 seconds • With the implementation of the Green Line, Swift will be a network • Green Line will connect the Bothell Canyon Park job center (25,000 jobs) with the Boeing manufacturing center in the north (65,000 aerospace jobs). • Green Line crossing Blue Line at Hwy 99 provides first network opportunity, first opportunity to use fast and reliable high capacity transit to reach Canyon Park, Aurora Village, Everett and Seaway transit center near Boeing's main gate. • Green Line is a very large capital project. Have applied for a federal grant to help defray cost. • President Trump recently announced a high level structure of his budget that suggested curtaining or eliminating historical funding for public transportation. Construction of Swift Green Line is not dependent on the federal budget. • Two weeks ago Mayor Earling and others accompanied Todd Morrow to Washington D.C. and met with the congressional delegation who are very supportive of this project and have pledged their continuing support for the federal grant. Mr. Heath described Community Transit's future network: • Envision future network of Swift high capacity transit lines that crisscross the county. • Network will be essential to move people east and west to rail heads in the 1-5 corridor when link light rail arrives at Lynnwood transit center in 2023 and later in Everett • Extension of Blue Line from Aurora Village south and east on 185th to tie into the link light rail station at 185th • Expect to complete Orange Line, bus rapid transit on 196th east to the Lynnwood transit center, north to Ash Way Park & Ride and east to Mill Creek by 2023 when link gets to Lynnwood o Feasibility study will begin soon to gather ridership estimates, identify potential terminal and station locations on the corridor and help identify the northerly routing from the Lynnwood transit center to 164th • Following the Orange Line feasibility study, feasibility study will begin for the Red Line, from the Everett station north to Marysville on Highway 529 • In the process of updating long range plan, a 20-year vision of the build out of the public transportation network in Snohomish County • Continuing to purchase buses and hire employees; expect to hire over 200 coach operators • Light rail extensions north and implementation of high capacity transit lines to feed rail will lead to a significant redeployment of existing commuter service to the south in an expanded local network Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 9 Packet Pg. 14 4.2.a Councilmember Johnson relayed her continuing concern that an opportunity was missed by not connecting the Blue Line down SR-104 to the Edmonds Station and ferry. She was concerned about extending south to 185th in King County and not making that connection to the rail. Community Transit connects to the Everett rail but not to Edmonds rail. There are many potential riders in apartment complexes along SR-104. This is included in the City's Comprehensive Plan but has not been addressed. Mr. Heath summarized her concern: riders originating on the waterfront and getting train riders up to the rail head in the I-5 corridor. Councilmember Johnson clarified her concern was extending the Blue Line from the Everett station to the Edmonds station. Mr. Heath said a spur off the Blue Line on SR-104 has not been evaluated. The way to get something like that considered is to express interest and a belief that there is potential for ridership; he will relay the request to Community Transit's planners. Community Transit is in the process of a major outreach on existing service proposal. Input from that process is used to refine plans for future expansion. Councilmember Nelson appreciated Mr. Heath's comment about plans to redeploy buses locally and as feeders as link light rail is extended north. He relayed his understanding that Community Transit was currently the second largest fleet of double decker buses in the United States and asked if they planned to be number one any time soon. Mr. Heath answered if they are not number one now, they will be shortly. Community Transit was the first to demonstrate the success of a double tall bus in Snohomish County. Sound Transit saw that and have begun purchasing double tall buses for their commute services. Community Transit will operate all Sound Transit's double tall buses out of Snohomish County. Community Transit's current bus acquisition calls for a 100 vehicle double tall fleet in the short term. Councilmember Nelson asked if there were any clearance issues. Mr. Heath answered there can be; routes have to be carefully vetted to ensure clearance is not a problem and that operating facilities can accommodate the additional height. They are principally a commute vehicle and the I-5 corridor and major arterials generally do not have height limitations. Councilmember Tibbott asked why the Swift Line stops at the King County border, requiring people living in south Snohomish County to transfer. Mr. Heath agreed it required a transfer to a King County Metro Rapid Line, their version of BRT. Community Transit was formed as a Transportation Benefit Area that serves Snohomish County and the boundary between Snohomish and King counties serves as a barrier to extending services. Councilmember Tibbott said that was a hindrance to riders using that bus line. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether any studies have been done on how extending bus service impacts traffic on I-5 or Highway 99. Mr. Heath acknowledged there are a lot of studies; they all indicate expanded public transit will not reduce congestion but it will slow down how fast it gets worse. Congestion is best dealt with by a very effective network of transportation that includes public transportation, good road infrastructure, freight mobility, commuter rail, light rail, pedestrian, cyclists, etc. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether Edmonds' street maintenance or lack of, impacts Community Transit and its ability to deliver services. Mr. Heath answered it is important their vehicles have good street infrastructure to operate on, not just pavement in a good state of repair but also coordinated signals as well as systems that extend the green light to get a bus through an intersection. Some of those signal control systems exist on the Blue Line on Highway 99; it will be a standard feature of the Green Line. A jurisdiction's street infrastructure is very important to the operation of their vehicles. They have very close partnerships with road jurisdictions and share planning information many years into the future. For example, the Orange Line on 196th will be reconstructing 128th at I-5; Community Transit has been working with Lynnwood in anticipation of that project for 10 years. In conjunction with Lynnwood, Community Transit will be making major street improvements that will benefit the entire transportation Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 10 Packet Pg. 15 4.2.a network including general purpose traffic and providing faster speeds and better reliability for public transit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she has taken the bus from Highway 99 to the ferry and ridden the ferry; there are buses that reach the ferry but not Swift service. Mr. Heath explained a feasibility study is being conducted for the Swift Line to inform the location of the terminals and stations. A western terminal for the Orange Line which will generally be on 196t' has not yet been clearly identified. Until the feasibility study is completed, it is unknown how far west that will extend. To this point the conversations have anticipated a terminal somewhere in the vicinity of Edmonds Community College. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remarked it is fun to follow the Swift Line down Highway 99 because it changes the lights. She thanked Community Transit for continuing to provide DART/paratransit services. Her son has ridden it three times/week for the past four years, providing him total independence to and from work. Her nephew still puts his bike on the Swift Line from Everett to come to her house. Many people may not be aware of the services Community Transit provides. She is a believer in transit and it personally benefits her family. Councilmember Buckshnis said her husband was relocated Seattle and often takes the train. However, due to the train's limited schedule, he often takes a bus from Seattle to the Lynnwood transit center and then down 196`h to Edmonds. He enjoys riding the bus and does not mind that it is not a Swift Line. She is a supporter of public transit, having grown up in Portland, Oregon. With regard to the federal budget challenge, Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding if that budget passes, it could result in billions of lost funding for light rail for this region. If that happens and it delays the buildout of light rail to Lynnwood and/or Everett, he asked whether Community Transit BRT would be able to absorb the capacity that would have gone to light rail. Mr. Heath answered no, light rail provides a significantly higher capacity than BRT. The loss of link light rail into Snohomish County would be a significant loss. Public transportation has enjoyed very strong support from the federal delegation and he expected that to continue; as recently as two weeks ago, they reaffirmed their commitment to these projects. The President does not act unilaterally to adopt the budget; that is done by Congress and Congress has historically shown support for transportation. It is a non -partisan issue; regardless of affiliation, people need to get to their destination. He remained optimistic that Sound Transit will move north and Community Transit will develop its system to help serve those riders. With regard to Councilmember Johnson's comment about Swift down SR104, Council President Mesaros said he is a regular Sounder rider. He agreed it would be nice to have service extended so that others living along SR-104 could easily reach the train station and the ferry as well as connect to other Community Transit lines near the Edmonds train station. There is also an opportunity to connect with the train to Vancouver BC every morning at 8:07. Council President Mesaros commented on the artificial barrier to service at the county border. People in this area utilize businesses and services in Richmond Beach. He described a senior couple who used transit to visit a doctor in Richmond Beach who first had to travel to Edmonds Community College to reach a connection to take them across the border, resulting in 2 hours each way for a 20-minute doctor visit. He recommended eliminating that artificial barrier and suggested Community Transit and King County consider that in their strategic plans. Mr. Heath said the Orange Line is proposed to operate on 196th and although it is unknown how far west it will extend, that would be the logical extension of BRT, probably not the Blue Line. Regarding the artificial barrier, Mr. Heath said all the transit agencies in Puget Sound area do an excellent job coordinating and integrating their service. They all cross boundaries; King County Metro comes to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 11 Packet Pg. 16 4.2.a Boeing, Community Transit has a robust commute market, a one seat ride to Seattle, and via a partnership with Everett, the Blue Line crosses into Everett. Mayor Earling relayed one Community Transit board member will be very interested in extending the 196d` Orange Line into downtown Edmonds. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Todd Zuckey, Tulalip, Marine and Near Shore Program Manager, Tulalip Natural Resources Department, said he has worked with the Tulalip Tribe for 15 years; they have extensive experience studying exactly the marsh system Edmonds has. He worked with the Skagit River System Cooperative doing multiple studies across Whidbey Island and Snohomish County on pocket estuaries. As the Council proceeds with a decision on SMP buffers, he urged the Council to be cautious about the repercussions of their decision, primarily because not everything has been vetted. The Council is considering one portion of a system, the buffer system; other factors affect the marsh such as daylighting the stream, multiple property owners, a very developed watershed and stormwater draining into the system. He recommended the Council delay a final vote and offered to discuss details and research so the Council is better informed when making this decision. He recommended developing a watershed management plan or a master plan for the marsh to vet what is occurring between both stakeholders and Ecology. Tulalip has experience; it took them 20 years and $17 million to restore 850 acres in the Snohomish Estuary. They worked on a sustainable land strategy, a cooperation between the Tribe and farmers to restore river areas for salmon. Edmonds is within the Tribe's usual and customary area which is their traditional hunting and fishing grounds and the Tribe has an interest in ensuring that this habitat is protected and restored so that future generations retain the treaty resources. Denise Hotchkiss, Edmonds, speaking on behalf Leslie Brown, Edmonds, said on March 2" d, the Edmonds Beacon reported a sexual harassment lawsuit against the Police Department had been settled. It cost Edmonds citizens not only tax dollars but the loss of a valued and well -respected police officer. Since then, she learned of two other pending lawsuits against the Police Department and the City, one filed in 2015 by the victim of a sexual assault by an Edmonds Police officer and another recently by a Police Department employee whose request for accommodation was denied when she reported a health issue. These lawsuits will likely cost the taxpayers again. It was her understanding that sexual harassment in the Edmonds Police Department continues in the form of comments, jokes and rude remarks made toward officers. If true, it is a reflection of a culture that the police chief and his supervisors have been unable or unwilling to address. While officers are responsible for reporting, they may be reluctant to do after seeing that it cost one young woman her career while the perpetrators often receive little or no discipline which can lead to a continuation of the behavior. It is the responsibility of police leadership to listen, see and acknowledge problems and taken steps to resolve them permanently. Despite a strong labor union, requirements for arbitration and legal protections, the cost of a lack of accountability is too great. She requested the City Council start an objective investigation, conducted by someone outside the department, to determine whether sexual or any other forms of harassment or discrimination are occurring and if so provide recommendations to permanently stop it. Officers and police staff should be able to work in environment of trust and confident in their leaders, not in a culture of juvenile behavior, subject to harassment and in fear of appraisal. The citizens of Edmonds should expect nothing less. She looked forward to hearing from the Council regarding how they intended to proceed. Alison Starke, Edmonds, expressed concern about the harassment in the Police Department. Sexual harassment is classified as a form of sexual discrimination under Title 7 of the Civic Rights Act of 1964. The US Equal Opportunity Commission defines it as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that interferes with one's employment or work performance or creates a hostile or offensive work environment. In law enforcement where officers work long hours and conduct dangerous task, sexual harassment lowers job satisfaction and negatively Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 12 Packet Pg. 17 4.2.a impacts mission, safety and results. According to the National Council for Research on Women, women are nine times more likely than men to quit their jobs, five times more likely to transfer and three times more likely to lose jobs because of harassment; Officer Sackville is unfortunately now part of these statistic. She was personally harassed by police officers in another agency and could attest to the fear and confusion and feeling of who to turn to when the police are the ones harassing you. The citizens of Edmonds and female police officers deserve better. In light of current lawsuits, it appears the current police leadership is unwilling or unable to effectively put an end to harassment within the department. She asked the City Council to take appropriate measures by initiating an inquiry by qualified outside investigators or agencies to determine whether harassment continues to take place and take appropriate action if it is. Mike Shaw, Edmonds, relayed his understanding that another marsh option was in the works and he applauded the effort, intent and intelligence of those involved. Considering where the Council began with the SMP and where it is now, it seems logical to conclude more time is needed to get it right for Edmonds and for the marsh. He urged the Council to give due consideration of all the factors in the SMP and ensure the Council had enough time. He wished there was a way to eliminate a residential option for Harbor Square. He knows there are 1-2 Councilmember who disagree but the more people there are at Harbor Square, the more detrimental the impacts will on the marsh and the more difficult and expensive it will be to mitigate the impacts. Residences at Harbor Square would be almost a worst case scenario. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, retired NOAA fisheries, employed for 32 years, in his later years as the deputy regional administrator for the Northwest, clarified why he appealed the NPDES permit. First, his entire appeal was related to hydrology of the marsh. When the tide gate is open, saltwater flows into the marsh during high tide. Where the Unocal operation is occurring, they are dumping their fluid discharge into that area. When tide gate is closed which keeps saltwater from entering the marsh, it also prevents freshwater from moving out; any water added to the creek area enters the marsh. That was the subject of his appeal of the Unocal discharge permit. When Ecology put out the draft NPDES permit for public comment, he pointed out nothing in their documentation acknowledged the hydrology of the marsh or Willow Creek. Further all their statements were to the effect that all water discharged from the site goes straight to Puget Sound. Ecology finally said they reevaluated the issue and would restrict discharge to periods when the tide was below six feet, essentially meaning discharge would only occur when the water goes to Puget Sound. Chevron immediately disagreed with Ecology restricting their permit. Ecology told him his only recourse was to appeal the permit so that's what he did. He felt Ecology was disregarding facts, their own assessments were incomplete, they did not take the marsh into account, and they had nothing to base any statement that the discharge would not affect the marsh. His appeal is available on Ecology's website for the Unocal cleanup; there are a lot of statements being made about what he appealed and he suggested the Council and public read the actual documents. Keely O'Connell, Edmonds, restoration ecologist with a Masters in marine and estuarian science from Western, said she has been supporting the City for the past seven years, helping facilitate the daylighting of Willow Creek project to help restore the Edmonds Marsh. She acknowledged the complexity of determining a buffer. Although the term best available science is used, it is difficult to know what that is and where to obtain it. The natural environment itself is very challenging and complex, adding in the urban environment, it is incredibly difficult. She expressed appreciation for the dedication of Council, City staff and the incredibly passionate and engaged community. With regard to Options C and D, although there are effective elements in both, she believed there could be unintended consequences if the Council adopted D. The first being stormwater; regional science of Puget Sound recovery knows contaminated stormwater is the number one challenge to the recovery of Puget Sound as well as a challenge in Edmonds Marsh where untreated stormwater flows directly into the marsh. Any buffer width, particularly on the Harbor Square property, will not address removing contaminants from stormwater because the trees in a buffer would be on top of the pipe system conveying the untreated stormwater from Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 13 Packet Pg. 18 4.2.a the source into the marsh; all that water would continue flow under the trees, not allowing the trees to remove the contaminants. Removing those contaminants would require additional elements such as low impact development (LID) which include bioswales and rain gardens, elements not generally not allowed in buffers unless written into the SMP. The second challenge is buffer averaging. Using Willow Creek daylighting through Marina Beach as an example, buffer averaging was needed to make all the park elements work and not allowing buffer averaging would change that project. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reported on a speaker at the Floretum Garden Club knowledgeable about the marsh who pointed out the Council has not stated what it wants to accomplish with the buffer. He referred to another presentation about birds in the marsh that indicated planting trees on the edge of marsh reduces birds' line of sight. He recommended the Council include in its regulation no trees on the edge of the marsh and no tall buildings because both create shadows and cause problems for wildlife. He concluded the Council did not have enough information to make a good decision. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. STUDY ITEMS AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND SURPLUS CITY EQUIPMENT Public Works Director Phil Williams reviewed a list of City equipment and vehicles that can be sold as surplus: Equipment: • 1984 Onan 30 KW portable generator • 1994 Olympian 35KW portable generator • 2006 Toro riding mower Vehicles: • 2001 Dodge 1 ton flatbed • 2001 Dodge 1 ton flatbed • 2002 Ford F-450 flatbed • 2003 Ford F-250 flatbed • 2002 Dodge Stratus • 1989 RTA SWAT bus • 2011 Ford Crown Victoria • 2011 Ford Crown Victoria • 2011 Ford Crown Victoria • 2011 Ford Crown Victoria It was the consensus of the Council to forward the item to the Consent Agenda for approval at the next Council meeting 2. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES FOR THE FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECT City Engineer Rob English relayed the City has two reservoirs, a 1.5 million gallon tank built in 1960 and a 3.5 million gallon tank built in 1979. In late 2015, the City hired Murray, Smith & Associates to do an evaluation primarily from operational and structural basis. The initial evaluation revealed concerns from a structural standpoint, specifically seismic loads and further investigation was needed. A supplemental agreement was approved in spring 2016 to do additional work that included geotechnical investigation to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 14 Packet Pg. 19 4.2.a determine soil bearing capacity of the site as well as look at the tank welds and operational possibilities. The as -built drawings for the tanks were located and from that were able to determine the type of material and fitness of the material of the shell. That information led to a good outcome; it is not necessary to replace the tanks but there need to be operational, recoating and modifications to the tanks to continue their lives. This supplement is for completing the design and construction documents before advertising the project. The entire scope of improvements for both tanks is identified on page 2 of the agreement. He highlighted major tasks: • Recoating interior and exterior of both tanks • Modify overflow piping, an operational issue that meets meet seismic loading • Make operational adjustments to improve the freeboard, distance between the roof and water operation level, related to seismic slosh • Miscellaneous improvements relate to piping, improving roof access, installing railing on the roof for safety • Adding fall protection to the interior ladder of the tanks • Upgrade the roof system on the 1.5 million gallon tank The fee for the design work is $170,000 plus a $16,000 management reserve. The plan is to advertise the project in January 2018 and construction within a few months of advertising. Councilmember Tibbott asked what longevity could be expected with these maintenance and operational fixes. Mr. English answered the coating system has a 20 year life; both tanks were recoated in 1994. From an operational standpoint to meet flow demands, the City is going through the Water Comprehensive Plan update which includes looking at the need of the system from a volume standpoint. From a structural standpoint, with continuing recoating and structural improvements, the life will be beyond 20 years but it is difficult to say exactly. Public Works Director Phil Williams said standards can also change; regulations may hasten the end of life for the tanks. Staff is confident this investment will buy a lot of years if growth projections are accurate. He anticipated at least 2-3 decades. It was the consensus of the Council to forward the item to the Consent Agenda for approval at the next Council meeting 3. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP TO PROVIDE CAPITAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING & INSPECTION SERVICES FOR 2017 City Engineer Rob English explained in late 2015 the City issued an RFQ to provide construction management support services to the engineering division for the 2016 and 2017 capital program. The type of services provided under this supplement include field inspection services and monitoring of improvements, daily inspection reports and project management services. The fee for the proposed supplemental agreement is $185,800 which includes a $20,000 management reserve that will be used on three projects including the 2017 sewer main replacement project, one schedule of work for the 2016 sewer main project, and the Northstream pipe abandonment project. Staff recommends forwarding this item to the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Teitzel thanked the team for their work on the signal cabinet on SR-104. Mayor Earling recognized Public Works, Police Department, and Engineering, commenting it was a magnificent effort to get the cabinet operational in 24 hours. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 15 Packet Pg. 20 It was the consensus of the Council to forward the item to the Consent Agenda for approval at the next Council meeting 8. ACTION ITEM 1. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Senior Planner Kernen Lien recalled at last week's public hearing, four options were discussed. Another option has been produced that City Attorney Jeff Taraday will review. March 30 is the due date for the response to the Department of Ecology. Today is March 281h and he doubted it would be completed tonight and recommended the Council request until April 30 to respond to Ecology. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO EXTEND THE DATE FOR A RESPONSE TO ECOLOGY UNTIL APRIL 30, 2017. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Nelson explained he, Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Taraday who reached out to DOE have been trying to find a path forward with the SMP. The proposed option will protect the marsh while meeting the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and hopefully final approval from Ecology. The proposal has two parts, 1) Option M, and 2) a separate Council -funded site -specific study. Mr. Taraday explained Option M is the result of an effort to take the position of the majority of the Council on the substantive issues and repackage it in a way that would be acceptable to Ecology and perhaps also to Mayor Earling and the three Councilmembers who were in the minority last fall. The goal was to provide a draft as a starting point for amendments if necessary and hopefully the draft is close enough without major amendments. He was hopeful having a starting point would streamline the process and eliminate confusion although the Council was under no obligation to work from this draft. Mr. Taraday explained the draft clarifies that the buffer would be modified through a shoreline conditional use permit (CUP) process, clarifies that buffer width would be set at a level adequate to mitigate adverse impacts from a proposed project on the shoreline ecology functions of the marsh adds a new definition of building setback and adds a new Footnote 19 to correspond with Footnote 18 in the bulk and dimensional standards table for the UMU IV environment. There is no reference to a scope of work for a site specific study in this option such as was previously referred to as Exhibit C. The assumption is the City Council would contract for a planning level, site specific study of the marsh to establish 2017 baseline ecology conditions. Mr. Taraday explained by performing that planning level study now, a future project level study would only need to address the impacts of the proposed project upon the existing baseline conditions. The City Council would also control the scope of work of the planning level study. It could be that something very similar to Exhibit C would be used to request proposals from qualified firms, but those firms might suggest changes to the scope of the work contemplated in Exhibit C. The planning level study would happen on a completely separate track from the SMP; the City Council would ultimately control the timing, the consultant selection process and scope of work for the study which would be performed at City expense. Mr. Taraday reviewed Option M: Option M. 110 foot fixed buffer with possible alternate buffer width derived from a scientific site - specific study. Option M for Marsh has a default II0 foot buffer and 15 foot setback for the UMU IV area at the Edmonds Marsh unless amended through the shoreline conditional use process. This option clarifies that Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 16 Packet Pg. 21 the buffer starts at the outer edge of the Marsh wetland (i.e., the buffer starts at the Marsh edge of the berm at the property to the north known as the Harbor Square complex). This option allows consideration of an alternate buffer proposal at a later date if the alternate buffer is derived from a site -specific scientific study that analyzes a project's impacts upon the baseline conditions of the shoreline environment under applicable the legal standards of the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology s Guidelines. In addition to the shoreline condition use process, this project -level scientific site -specific study would need to accompany a proposed master plan prior to Council consideration of the master plan. The default 110 foot buffer width or an any alternate buffer width that might be approved would not be further reduced or exempted by any SMP or CAO provisions including but not limited to, ECDC 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer] or ECDC 24.40.020 [additions to structures]. This option also clarifies that the buffer is separate from the setback for structures, and that the 15-foot setback starts at the outer edge of the buffer. Option M is implemented by the following changes to the SMP. 1. Modify the 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table and footnote 18 as shown below. New footnote 19 is added. Shoreline Development horeline Area Designation Urban Mixed Use IV All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Building Setback 15 Buffer 11018,19 Recreation Building Setback 15 Buffer 11018, 19 Residential Development Building Setback NA Buffer NA Transportation and Parking Building Setback 15 Buffer 11018' 19 All Other Development Building Setback 15 Buffer 11018,19 Footnote 18: The Urban Mixed -Use IV environment has a default II0 foot buffer that starts at the outer edge of the Edmonds Marsh where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or at the wetlandlupland edge. An alternate buffer width may be established at the project stage through a shoreline conditional use permit if a site -specific scientific study determines that the default buffer is not necessary to protect and maintain the baseline functions of this wetland/tideland habitat and its other associated ecological functions from being adversely impacted by the proposed project. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 17 Packet Pg. 22 4.2.a The site -specific scientific study must be peer reviewed by at least one independent scientist having wetland/wildlife expertise before consideration of a master plan or shoreline conditional use permit may proceed to a hearing. The site -specific scientific study must analyze the impacts of the proposed project upon at least these three broad ecological functions of wetlands and marshes: 1) Biogeochemical functions, which are related to trapping and transforming chemicals and include functions that improve water quality in the watershed; 2) Hydrologic functions, which are related to maintaining the water regime in a watershed including functions as reducing flooding; and 3) Food web and habitat functions. Any decision to approve an alternate buffer must be consistent with the legal standards of the Shoreline Management Act and State guidelines. No further buffer reductions or exemptions may be applied to the default buffer or any alternate buffer by any SMP or CAO provisions including, but not limited to, ECDC 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer] or ECDC 24.40.020 [additions to structures]. (Mr. Taraday suggested the preceding sentence be deleted as it duplicated Footnote 19) Regardless of the buffer width, upon development of the project, the approved buffer area shall be vegetated, used, and maintained as necessary to protect existing ecological functions and mitigate project impacts as contemplated by the site -specific scientific study that supported the approved width of the buffer. 2. Add anew definition of "Building setback" to the SMP to read. "Building setback" means the distance all buildings and other structure shall be set back from the edges of all buffers. The following may be allowed in the building setback area: A. Landscaping; B. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the setback area. Mr. Taraday explained why a new definition of building setback in the SMP was proposed. He displayed two aerials, one an image of an actual lot on Lake Ballinger (shown on the left) that shows how the City measures setback and buffers under the definition of shore setback as currently contemplated by the Council approved SMP sent to Ecology. That definition of shore setback means the distance between a structure and the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The shore setback line is shown as a yellow dashed line. Lake Ballinger has associated wetlands (shown as blue crosshatched) that also have a buffer. The buffer shown (in purple) is for illustrative purposes as the actual wetland buffer varies from 40 to 225 feet depending on the type of wetland under the CAO The point of showing the buffer is to illustrate that the CAO imposes an additional 15-foot setback from the buffer (shown in green). He summarized under the existing regulatory scheme, there is a wetland, a wetland buffer and the 15-foot setback from the outer edge of the wetland buffer. The shore setback is in middle of that, it does not have a regulatory effect in this situation because it is waterward of the critical area setback which is the setback that would keep someone from building eastward of the green line. Language in Option D proposed the definition of shore setback be modified to add language that would measure the shore setback from the outer edge of a buffer in situations where a buffer exists. When the definition of shore setback is changed, it also applies to environments in the Lake Ballinger, Urban Residential III. In the bulk and dimensional standards for that shoreline environment, there is a 35-foot shoreline setback. When the definition of shore setback is changed in Option D to the outer edge of the buffer, on the sample property, what was a 15-foot setback from the edge of the buffer in the left hand picture becomes a 35 foot setback from edge of the buffer on the right hand picture. The change to the definition of shore setback in Option D results in measuring the shore setback from the outer edge of the buffer, not the OHWM. The effect of applying that language in the UR III shoreline environment is basically taking the yellow dashed line on the left hand picture and moving it to the green line on the right picture. The easy fix is to not change the definition and continue to define shore setback the same way it has been defined and instead add a new definition for building setback which does in the UMU IV Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 18 Packet Pg. 23 4.2.a environment the same thing that was intended to be done by the change to the definition of shore setback. It still measures from the outer edge of the buffer, adds an additional 15-feet of setback from the outer edge of the buffer. In the UMU IV environment, the proposed definition in Option M for building setback and the change proposed in Option D do the same thing in UMU IV, adds 15 feet of setback to the outer edge of buffer. Mr. Taraday explained it seemed there were two concepts in Footnote 18, 1) how to establish the width of a buffer at the project stage, 2) once the width of the buffer is established at the project stage, whether exceptions or tweaks could be made to the buffer via tools elsewhere in the code. Because those are different concepts, he preferred to separate them into two separate footnotes. Footnote 18 addresses how to establish the width of the buffer at the project state. He suggested the following: 3. As it relates to Urban Mixed Used IV, add footnote 19 to clarify that CAO provisions in Appendix B and/or SMP Section 24.40.020 may not further reduce or exempt the SMP buffer for the Edmonds Marsh. Footnote 19: The buffers in the Urban Mixed Use IV environment may not be further reduced or exempt from the normal buffer use limitations through ECDC 24.40.020 (F)(2)(e) [Additions to structures] or any of the provisions in Appendix B, including but not limited to, sections 23.50.040 (G)(1) to (4) [Wetland Buffer Modifications], 23.50.040 (I) [Additions to structures], and 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer]. Mr. Taraday explained the concept is that the City would initiate a planning level site specific scientific study of the marsh in the near future. That study would simply do the work that has not yet been done to analyze species using the marsh, habitat needs of those species, things that are known anecdotally but have not been analyzed scientifically, etc. to establish a baseline condition. If City Council initiates that study and is willing to pay for it, the Council has total control over the scope of work and could chose to have Exhibit C be the scope of work. He suggested using Exhibit C as a starting point and getting feedback from the consultants interested in doing the work about how the scope of work could be tweaked. The Council can have a role in finalizing the scope of work. Mr. Taraday explained a project level study would potentially happen in the future and would likely be funded by the Port as part of a master plan proposal. That study would have a different focus; baseline conditions would already be established, and the emphasis of that study would be how a project impacts the existing conditions of the marsh and specifically what buffer widths are needed to mitigate adverse impacts from the project and what, if any, buffer vegetation is needed to mitigate adverse impacts from the project. One of Ecology's concerns during this project has been distinguishing between mitigation efforts and restoration efforts. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO UTILIZE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUNDS TO PROVIDE A SITE - SPECIFIC STUDY AT THE EDMONDS MARSH. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the basic premise would be a baseline study and hopefully utilize Appendix C but remove the sentence in the site -specific study, "In the context of an approved master plan development or redevelopment on one or more edges of the marsh." Councilmember Teitzel said a site specific study makes sense and aligns with Ecology's Option A and B. He was concerned with writing a blank check, recalling during last week's Town Hall, citizens expressed concern with how the Council is managing taxpayers' money. He suggested the Council have an opportunity for a second touch and opportunity for a follow-up vote in the event the cost estimates are Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 19 Packet Pg. 24 4.2.a exorbitantly high. He was concerned there may not be enough money in the Council Contingency budget to cover the cost of the study. Mayor Earling recalled Mr. Taraday's email today suggested having questions/answers tonight and pursuing motions at a later meeting. Councilmember Johnson asked whether the planning level study would apply only to the northern edge of the marsh or the entire marsh. Mr. Taraday answered it is ultimately up to City Council to determine if the Council proceeds with a study. Because it is not a project level study, his initial thought was it would cover the entire marsh. Council President Mesaros supported a site -specific study but felt it was premature to vote tonight because the Council has nothing in writing regarding what would actually be done. He suggested developing a document that described the framework and the cost and allow the public an opportunity to review it. He was not against doing the study, he simply wanted to know what he was voting on, to have it in writing, and to inform the public what the Council was voting on. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for Councilmember Buckshnis' motion. She agreed there needed to be an estimate of the cost. She disagreed with Council President Mesaros about involving citizens via further comments. Once a report is completed, it would be appropriate for citizens to comment. She did not want to delay the effort further to await citizen comment regarding who would be hired, the cost or even the scope of work. She asked who and how the scope of work would be defined. Mr. Taraday said his thought was to use Exhibit C as a starting point to reach out to environmental consulting firms, publish an RFP asking them to provide a proposal to the City for a study that adds to, subtracts from or modifies Exhibit C and to provide a cost. The Council can then review those scopes of work and proposed costs. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked at what point should citizens be involved. Mr. Taraday said it was up to the Council. Through the process, he anticipated RFP responses would be included in a Council packet and citizens could speak during Audience Comment if they wished. A public hearing might be overkill. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas feared unless the ball gets rolling tonight, it will be back to where we've been. Development Services Director Shane Hope suggested a draft scope of work be presented to the Council for approval and then proceed with an RFP/RFQ process that would provide more specifics. That would be done in public meetings so the public will be informed. Councilmember Buckshnis said she prepared an agenda memo but it was not included in the packet because Option M was not finished. She suggested using the spirit of Appendix C. Many citizens are interested in having a baseline study conducted; the last study was done in 2005 and only addressed daylighting of Willow Creek. She will include a scope of work in next week's agenda packet. Councilmember Johnson supported looking at the entire marsh, not from a project standpoint but from a planning standpoint. She supports the intent of the motion which is to get ball rolling. Council President Mesaros said he did not envision a big public process but it was important to have an open process so the public knows what is being studied. He expressed support for the intent but found it difficult to support specifics when none have been offered. He suggested Councilmember Buckshnis include the specifics in next week's agenda packet. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 20 Packet Pg. 25 4.2.a Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order: the motion is not regarding intent. If the motion were revised, he could support it. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not interested in using the word "intent" because it needs to be done. She suggested returning to Council with guidelines and costs. Council President Mesaros agreed it needed to be done but he did not know what was being done and it would be preferable to have specifics. Councilmember Buckshnis restated the motion: TO UTILIZE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUNDS FOR PROVIDING A SITE SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC STUDY AT THE EDMONDS MARSH. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE THE COST AND A SCOPE OF WORK BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Teitzel invited David Pater, Shoreline Planner Department of Ecology and Joe Burcar SEA Section Manager, NW Regional Office, Department of Ecology, to join the discussion. He asked if they had had an opportunity to review Option M. Mr. Pater answered yes, they received it earlier today. He felt it was a great idea to remove the baseline study from the SMP. It will provide more flexibility to determine the needs of the study and it separates a baseline study from a master plan generated study to address the impacts of a project on the site. Councilmember Teitzel said the term "no net loss" does not appear in Option M. Recalling that was important to Ecology, he requested their input. Second, he recalled asking what no net loss would be measured against and Ecology's response that it would be measured at the time a development proposal is brought forward. This proposal seems to suggests no net loss would be measured against a baseline study which could happen a decade before a development proposal. He asked if that concerned Ecology. Mr. Pater answered it does concern him a bit but he knows the reality of the two sites; when redevelopment occurs, it will be a major redevelopment and the conditions of sites will really not have changed. Some of the conditions around the marsh may change if there is a 10-year lag between the City -funded baseline study and a master plan -generated study focused on mitigation and sizing the marsh buffers. He summarized it was a bit of a concern but not as much given the land use and triggers for a major redevelopment. Mr. Burcar commented the footnote and the SMP still include the authority to look at changes if there was a time lag between the baseline study. Focusing on the broader intent of scientific site study criteria and having that established in the SMP will allow for those changes to be addressed. Councilmember Teitzel commented if there is a 10-year lag, there is potential that a major stormwater improvement project will have been completed in Harbor Square that substantially cleans up the stormwater discharge to the marsh. If that happens between the time the baseline study is done and development is proposed, that cleanup would not be part of the analysis. If it worked that way, it would make it easier for the Port to the meet standard. Mr. Burcar agreed it could make it easier to meet the standard. He reiterated Mr. Taraday's comment that Ecology's interest was the authority under the SMA and the guidelines related to guidelines for future development mitigation. A lot of that depends on what the identified impacts are at the time of development. They may not be impervious surface or surface water related; they could be noise and habitat related. As those impact elements are unknown at this point, it will need to adapt to the development proposal.. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 21 Packet Pg. 26 4.2.a Councilmember Teitzel asked if Ecology wanted the term "no net loss" added to Option M and to discuss how it would be calculated. Mr. Burcar said that initially caught Ecology's eye; the definition in Option C is much more in line with what is commonly seen in SMPs and what they are more comfortable with but in looking at the details, the intent is there by focusing on clarifying that the SMP's role is to look at existing conditions and focus on assessing the potential impacts of the development at the time of development and the necessary mitigation associated with it, distinguishing between mitigation and restoration. Mr. Pater viewed the proposed baseline study as an extension of the SMP inventory characterization. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:20 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about timing and getting this option out to the public and having further discussion next week. According to the extended agenda, next week's agenda is already lengthy. Council President Mesaros assured room would be found on the agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the proposed options should be made available to the public as many have questions about building setbacks. She asked if the building setback would be added to the tables in the SMP. Mr. Lien answered it would not be added to the table. The UMU IV environment is the only environment that specifically calls out a buffer. When the setback was separated from the buffer, it created the need for a definition of building setback. In all the other shoreline environments, the setback is from the shore; in UMU I and II, it is from the OHWM of Puget Sound so it does not make sense to change it in the rest of the table. It will be added to the definitions. Ms. Hope said Option M would be part of packet. Councilmember Johnson said on March 23, the Beacon published a notice from Ecology about rule changes to the SMA. The notice provided a contact email and phone number. Her email that was returned undeliverable and she received no reply when she called. The closest public hearing is April 6 in Bellevue. Specific chapters will be addressed, but without seeing the redline version, it was difficult to figure out. Mr. Burcar offered to send her additional information. It is an update to the SMP guidelines that will do two things, 1) describe the process that jurisdictions will go through for a periodic review of the SMP, and 2) establish a streamlined amendment process. The current amendment process is the same for comprehensive updates and a limited amendment update. There are also a number of housekeeping amendments. Mr. Lien offered to send her a link to the page. Council President Mesaros recalled during last week's discussion regarding Highway 99, Councilmember Nelson expressed support for green buildings and incentivizing green building. He questioned how to incentivize redevelopment around the marsh to improve the buffers. Although there may be a 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback on paper on the north side of the marsh, in reality there is a 25-foot buffer. If runoff is the major threat to the marsh, he asked how the City could incentivize expanding the buffer. He referred to the second paragraph in Footnote 18, "An alternate buffer width may be established at the project stage through..." and asked if the site -specific study would provide incentives to improve the north side of the marsh. Mr. Taraday said this is the distinction between mitigation and restoration; mitigation is something a developer will have to do to mitigate the impacts of their project. To the extent that the City wanted to create incentives to go beyond mitigation to restoration, that could be done via the master planning process. Council President Mesaros wanted to ensure that was not precluded. Mr. Taraday assured it does not preclude that and the master plan would be the best method. Council President Mesaros commented development may never happen and if it doesn't, there will always be a 25-foot buffer. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 22 Packet Pg. 27 4.2.a Councilmember Tibbott asked for a description of the CUP process and who conducts that review. Mr. Taraday said the City's Hearing Examiner would conduct an open record public hearing on the proposal and make a recommendation based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to Ecology and Ecology makes the final decision. Mr. Burcar explained there is also State criteria in the WAC for CUPS that range from whether the development is capable with surrounding uses, considering cumulative impacts, etc. Mr. Pater said the City would do their own assessment of that criteria before sending it to Ecology. Councilmember Tibbott asked if that would be the City Council or Hearing Examiner. Mr. Taraday said under the current process, it would be the Hearing Examiner. Councilmember Tibbott observed the site specific study at the planning level did not reference peer review and asked if that would be recommended. Mr. Taraday answered the planning level study peer review is probably not needed; peer review is frequently done because developer's interests may not match the environment's needs. The peer review provides a doublecheck that the analysis was done correctly. In the planning level study, the City Council has control over the scope of work and there would not be the same conflicts, particularly if the Council is involved in the consultant selection process and the RFP process. The RFP process is robust enough that peer review is likely unnecessary. Councilmember Tibbott commented although the proposed language does not include "no net loss," there is language approximating that standard and it utilizes the State standard to describe the wetland edge. He was concerned with the Council drafting an SMP that Ecology does not find acceptable. With regard to green development mentioned by Council President Mesaros, Councilmember Fraley- Monillas pointed out the City has a green development area in Development Services. She asked whether the City currently provides incentives for green development. Ms. Hope answered there is currently not a specific incentive but she was interested in considering it. There are a lot of incentives in the market; green buildings help attract tenants, they save energy and there is a lot of personal motivation among developers. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for developing incentives for future development, particularly if Edmonds expects 5,500 more residents in the next 20 years. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Mr. Taraday and Councilmembers Buckshnis and Nelson working on this. She acknowledged in the end the Council was likely to have disagreement but that should not be considered a massive failure; there are seven different opinions on the Council. She was hopefully this new process would help the process move more quickly. Councilmember Teitzel inquired whether Councilmembers could send Mr. Taraday suggested changes to be incorporated into the draft that will be included in the Council packet. Mr. Taraday said he has already made a few amendments and he wants to continue to get feedback from the City Council, Ecology, City staff, the Mayor and the public. He will do his best to synthesize all of it into one recommended Option M. To be included in the Council packet, comments need to be provided by close of business Wednesday. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. Mayor Earling said Mr. Taraday is not available the second Tuesday in April so getting most of the questions to him quickly would be a good thing. Mr. Taraday advised Mr. Lien is also not available the second Tuesday. Council President Mesaros advised he will modify next week's agenda to provide adequate time for discussion and hopefully resolution. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 23 Packet Pg. 28 4.2.a Mayor Earling reported he was in Olympia yesterday; the House released their transportation budget which contains $700,000 for the Waterfront Access Study. That along with the money assembled locally will move the project through environment work and preliminary design. If the Senate's budget is different, they will need to conference and reach agreement for a vote by both houses before it is sent to the governor. While inclusion in the House's budget is good news, it is not conclusive. Mayor Earling reported a text from Senator Liias today stated the Senate has $391,000 in the capital budget for the Frances Anderson Center roof. It is unknown what the House's capital budget includes, but he is guardedly hopeful. He has not verified with the City's lobbyist whether funding has been included for a couple other projects. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Teitzel announced an event at the Edmonds Marina promenade on Saturday, April 1 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., "Ask a Scientist, Biology and Bluegrass" that will include bluegrass music and scientists displaying the sea life that grows along the marina. Council President Mesaros referred to comments tonight about sexual harassment in the Police Department. He and Mayor Earling will ask the Police Chief to describe training that has been done since these incidents. He replayed Chief Compaan's invitation for a Councilmember to participate in the selection of the parking enforcement officer. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that explains why she has been receiving complaints about parking enforcement. She also received a text from Senator Liias today about the Frances Anderson Center. The roof has needed to be replaced for five years; the $391,000 is very important to the longevity of the Frances Anderson Center. According to Senator Liias, the Senate budget includes $2.2 million for the Waterfront Center and she was hopeful that would make it through the House. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented during the last week Council and citizens have received a number of bullying and insulting letters and emails. There is a point where giving opinions becomes insulting and bullying and some of the communications could be seen as bullying. She reminded that talking about Council and citizens in derogatory ways was not the best way to get the Council to listen. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes March 28, 2017 Page 24 Packet Pg. 29 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Approval of claim and payroll checks. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #224738 through #224869 dated March 30, 2017 for $466,088.03. Approval of payroll check #62643 in the amount of $646.45. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim and payroll checks. Fiscal Impact Claims $466,088.03 Payroll $646.45 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: claim cks 03-30-17 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 03-29-17 payroll summary 03-30-17 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 224738 3/27/2017 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 20170327 CABINET POWER - EMERGENCY R Meter #325806 111.000.68.542.64.48.00 Total 224739 3/30/2017 001528 AM TEST INC 97628 WWTP: 503 METALS TESTS 503 metals tests 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total 224740 3/30/2017 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 4708030 APRIL 2017 LEOFF 1 MEDICAL INS[ BARNARD, COOPER & WEINZ 617.000.51.517.20.23.10 ALL OTHERS 009.000.39.517.20.23.10 Total: 224741 3/30/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1990065520 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1990076076 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1990079968 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 4.3.a Page: 1 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224741 3/30/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 2 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1' W PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: U 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1' c PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0E Q. 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 c 0.1( 9.8% Sales Tax E 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6( 2 9.8% Sales Tax 4- 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0 0.6( �a 9.8% Sales Tax o 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6( 0. 9.8% Sales Tax Q 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6( .. 9.8% Sales Tax LO 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.5� 1990079969 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT .. FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS ~ 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.6E M FLEET DIVISION MATS c%) 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0 18.4( N 9.8% Sales Tax U 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.5( E 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.8( 1990086547 WWTP: 3/22/17 UNIFORMS, TOWEL wwtp uniforms E 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 5.1( u wwtp mats & towels r r 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 115.9E Q 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.5( 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 2 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224741 3/30/2017 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 224742 3/30/2017 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 224743 3/30/2017 001527 AW WA 224744 3/30/2017 063408 BARTELS & STOUT INC 224745 3/30/2017 002258 BENS EVER READY Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 3 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 11.31 W 1990086548 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE U PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE o 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 52.0: "% 1990086549 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS M Q. FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 46.1' M 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 4.5, 12 Total: 372.2! 0 12170 DISCOVERY RANGER BADGES cU DISCOVERY RANGER BADGES o 001.000.64.571.23.24.00 18.0( a 9.8% Sales Tax Q 001.000.64.571.23.24.00 1.7 Ln Total : 19.71 rn 7001343370 WATER - MBR #00037535 ANNUAL ti Water - Mbr #00037535 Annual Dues c 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 1,996.0( r Total: 1,996.0( o SRC1786 WWTP: PREVENTIVE MAINTENAN( N cYi PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE LEIC) E 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 170.0( 1° 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 16.6£ y Total: 186.61 E t U 13626 FLEET - ANNUAL SEVICE & CERTIF r r Fleet - Annual Sevice & Certification Q 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 240.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 23.5, Page: 3 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 4 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224745 3/30/2017 002258 002258 BENS EVER READY (Continued) Total: 263.5, 224746 3/30/2017 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 10151 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 687.7 GAL Fleet - Auto Propane 687.7 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 802.7� 7647 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 594. GAL Fleet Auto Propane 594. Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 661.3' Total: 1,464.1( 224747 3/30/2017 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC SM02474 UNIT 19 - REPAIRS 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 21.1( Unit 19 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 215.2E Total: 236.3E 224748 3/30/2017 075992 BRISENO, HILDA 3/21 REFUND 3/21/17 REFUND 3/21/17 REFUND 001.000.239.200 139.4( Total: 139.4( 224749 3/30/2017 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1053192 E6MA.PUBLISH ADDENDUM & BID E6MA.Publish Addendum & Bid Tab 132.000.64.594.76.41.00 6.0E 1053907 E1CA.PUBLISH PROJECT ONLINE E1CA.Publish Project Online 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 331.9E Total: 338.0( 224750 3/30/2017 075874 BULGER SAFE & LOCK 31278 FAC - MONT SCHOOL - LEVER KIT FAC - Mont School - Lever Kit 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 278.3( 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 26.4z Total: 304.71 Page: 4 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224751 3/30/2017 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 17126178 224752 224753 17126184 17126185 17129580 17129581 3/30/2017 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATION 64 3/30/2017 068484 CEMEX LLC PO # Description/Account C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 3091/0521 Finance dept copier contract charge 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 B&W Meter usage IRC5250 2/01/17 - 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 Color Meter usage IRC5250 2/01/17 - 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 BLDG COPIER USAGE/SERVICE Cl- BLDG COPIER USAGE/SERVICE Cl- 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 PLNG COPIER USAGE/SERVICE Cl- PLNG COPIER USAGE/SERVICE Cl- 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 ENGINEERING COPIER - MARCH 2( Engineering Copier - March 2017 001.000.67.518.21.45.00 MAIN COPIER USAGE/SERVICE CH MAIN COPIER USAGE/SERVICE CH 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 Total COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNI Communications and Community Oui 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 Total 9435056390 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 9435056391 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 9435095779 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 4.3.a Page: 5 Amoun U) U a� 209.6' U 0 15.3: >, M Q. 44.6( M 26.4. , c� 0 38.3( - 0 a 38.9( Q LO 475.0' ti 571.3 M 1,419.51 A 0 N 2,500.0( 2,500.0( c m E t 255.7E U a Q 240.9z Page: 5 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224753 3/30/2017 068484 CEMEX LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 9435122009 9435122010 9435129174 224754 3/30/2017 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 49941408 224755 3/30/2017 075990 CLEAR NRG LLC 224756 3/30/2017 075981 COLDSPRING N R-023998 1065941 4.3.a Page: 6 PO # Description/Account Amoun U) 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 353.5( aUi 9.5% Sales Tax U 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 33.5E c ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt Q. 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 165.0( -0 9.5% Sales Tax M 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 15.6E E ROADWAY - ASPHALT 1° Roadway - Asphalt ,� 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 249.9( o 9.5% Sales Tax > 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 23.7z a ROADWAY - ASPHALT C Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 353.5( 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 33.5E " Total : 1,725.2( INV#49941408 ACCT#7898305185 E 0 M FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF M o 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 116.8E TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 U 1.1 1 M Total: 118.0E 5 CLEAR NRG REFUND y REFUND FOR DUPLICATE ISSUE O E t 001.000.257.310 50.0( um Total : 50.0( Q E6MA.STONE CLADDING, PAVING E E6MA.Stone Cladding, Paving & Site 125.000.64.594.76.65.00 145,155.6( Page: 6 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224756 3/30/2017 075981 075981 COLDSPRING 224757 3/30/2017 075993 COLEMAN, NORA 224758 3/30/2017 069892 COLUMBIA FORD INC 224759 3/30/2017 005965 CUES INC 224760 3/30/2017 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 3/23 REFUND 3-H1213 476067 PO # Description/Account Total 3/23/17 REFUND 3/23/17 REFUND 001.000.239.200 Total UNIT E140SO - NEW 2017 FORD F Unit E140SO - New 2017 Ford F-450 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Total SEWER - ADAPTOR FOR CAMERA Sewer - Adaptor for Camera 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total 432608 INV#432608 - EDMONDS PD CALIBRATE #FH10284 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 CALIBRATE #GHD-02444 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 CALIBRATE #GHD-03892 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 CALIBRATE #GHD-14989 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 CALIBRATE #GHD-15003 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 CALIBRATE #PL22598 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 4.3.a Page: 7 Amoun 145,155.6( � U a� t U 38.0' 38.0' Q. c E 35,536.8: 35,536.& 0 0 754.71 a Q. Q 20.7( LO 75.9� 851.4: ti 0 M M 70.0( N U 70.0( E 70.0( U c m 70.0( E t U 70.0( +4 r Q 70.0( 42.1 z Page: 7 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 8 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224760 3/30/2017 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 (Continued) FUELSURCHARGE 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 10.0( Total : 472.1 224761 3/30/2017 069030 DETECTION INSTRUMENTS CORP 8474-36089 WWTP: L2 CALIBRATION - 1030569 L2 CALIBRATION - 10305699 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 95.0( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.9� Total : 105.9$ 224762 3/30/2017 070864 DEX MEDIA 610031959410 C/A 730211600 03/2017 Web Hosting for Internet 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 6.1 E Total: 6.1 E 224763 3/30/2017 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 17-3750 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 3/21/2017 3/21/2017 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 370.6( Total: 370.6( 224764 3/30/2017 072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC 20567 FINANCE - REPLACEMENT GLASS Finance - Replacement Glass 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 69.9( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 6.8E Total: 76.7E 224765 3/30/2017 007253 DUNN LUMBER 4574546 FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES Fac Maint Shop Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 102.9E 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.7E Total: 112.7E 224766 3/30/2017 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL 17-03232 WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMPLE Page: 8 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 9 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224766 3/30/2017 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL (Continued) Water Quality - Water Samples Monit 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,110.0( Total: 1.110.0( 224767 3/30/2017 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 00010070374 00010070968 224768 3/30/2017 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS ECA TEEN 224769 3/30/2017 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 002076 002100 224770 3/30/2017 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2017-03-01 PM: 1/2 DR 6PT STD IMPAC PM: 1/2 DR 6PT STD IMPAC 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: COPPER CORE SPARK PLUG PM: COPPER CORE SPARK PLUG 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 3/17/17 ECA TEEN EVENT 3/17/17 ECA TEEN EVENT 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Total PM:CONNECTOR PM:CONNECTOR 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: BULK FASTENER PM: BULK FASTENER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 03/17 RECREATION SERVICES COf 03/17 Recreation Services Contract F Page: 9 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 10 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224770 3/30/2017 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER (Continued) Y 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 6,250.0( w Total: 6,250.0( U 224771 3/30/2017 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' a 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 48.0 1 -0 3-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 335.8 1 .CU 3-07490 HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F o 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 90.0� 3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE o LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE Q- Q. 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 44.2E Q 3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S LO LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S rn 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 48.0 0 3-09350 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i ti LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i c 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 90.0� M 3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R o LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R N 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 44.2E 3-29875 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 44.2E 3-38565 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 44.2E um Total: 789.1� Q 224772 3/30/2017 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 159876 RADIX MONTHLY MAINTAGREEME Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.0( Page: 10 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 224772 3/30/2017 031060 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP (Continued) 224773 3/30/2017 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR62624 224774 3/30/2017 075228 ENGINUITY SYSTEMS LLC 224775 3/30/2017 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 224776 3/30/2017 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY AR65310 ESL 3195 Description/Account Total COPIER MAINTENANCE FEE COPIER MAINTENANCE FEE 001.000.23.523.30.48.00 ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 Maintenance for printers 01/21/17 - 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total YOST POOL COST ESTIMATING: MI YOST POOL COST ESTIMATING: MI 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 Total EDH748368 CITY ORDINANCE 4062 CITY ORDINANCE 4062 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 EDH748439 LEGAL NOTICE AMD20170003 LEGAL NOTICE AMD20170003 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 EDH748819 LEGAL NOTICE 27041800203300 LEGAL NOTICE 27041800203300 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 Total WAMOU43439 WATER - PARTS Water - Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 WAMOU43443 FLEET SHOP PARTS Fleet Shop Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.3.a Page: 11 Amoun 152.0( � U a� t U 9.8 , Q. 307.2( E 30.1' .cu 347.1E 0 c� 0 L 4,099.9, a 4,099.9, Q LO am 24.0E ti 0 M 39.5( c N 53.3. E 116.9E f° c m E 157.9� 0 r r 15.4E Q 79.5E Page: 11 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 224776 3/30/2017 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 Total: 224777 3/30/2017 009880 FEDEX 5-749-10962 ZUVELA- WWTP CORRESPONDEN Zuvela - WWTP correspondence 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 Total 224778 3/30/2017 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0543230 WATER - HYDRANT REPLACEMEN Water - Hydrant Replacement 7116 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total: 224779 3/30/2017 075988 FIIX MA34321 WWTP: TRAINING SESSIONS ON-S 40 courses - onsite training session 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 Total: 224780 3/30/2017 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRl SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 4.3.a Page: 12 Page: 12 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 13 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224780 3/30/2017 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) Y TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE w 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 46.7 1 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE c 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 86.8E >, 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE Q. CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 c 68.1 , m 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} E FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} 1° 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 131.1E 509-022-0049 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI o LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI CU > 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.2E a Total: 908.81 0 224781 3/30/2017 072138 FUELCARE 7533 FLEET - DIESEL TANK CLEANING LO 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 339.8, Fleet - Diesel Tank Cleaning ti 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 31467.6( o Total: 3,807.4, M 0 224782 3/30/2017 074023 FW MEDIA INC MM359132 WD AD WOTS "WRITING ESSENTI7 N WD AD WOTS "WRITING ESSENTV 123.000.64.573.20.41.40 375.0( . MM359133 WD AD WOTS WD AD WOTS ; 123.000.64.573.20.41.40 1,715.0( m Total: 2,090.0( E U 224783 3/30/2017 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC 34433 WATER - PRV REBUILD KITS r Water - PRV Rebuild Kits Q 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3,582.0( Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 19.2E Page: 13 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 14 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224783 3/30/2017 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 352.9, Total: 3,954.1 , 224784 3/30/2017 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 136173 UNIT 379 - 4 TIRES Unit 379 - 4 Tires 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 340.0E State Tire Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 4.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 33.3< Total: 377.4, 224785 3/30/2017 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 990439025 WWTP: PHOENIX CONTACTS MINI PHOENIX CONTACTS MINI MCR-SL 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 650.2( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 86.3( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 72.1 E 9904699410 WWTP: PHOENIX CONTACTS MINI PHOENIX CONTACTS MINI MCR-SL 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 621.1 z Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 73.1: 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 68.0z Total: 1, 571.0! 224786 3/30/2017 075978 GRIGG, NAOMI PLN20150062 REFUND - WITHDRAWN APPL. PLN REFUND - WITHDRAWN APPL. PLN 001.000.257.620 174.4: Total: 174.4: 224787 3/30/2017 012555 H & L SPORTING GOODS 813838 SPRING SOFTBALL LEAGUE BALL Page: 14 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 15 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224787 3/30/2017 012555 H & L SPORTING GOODS (Continued) SPRING SOFTBALL LEAGUE BALL 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 830.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 81.3� Total: 911.3� 224788 3/30/2017 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 182171/1 WATER - RESETTERS Water - Resetters 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3,611.5: 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 353.9< 182785/1 WATER - RESETTERS Water - Resetters 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,268.1 E 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 124.2E 183125/1 WATER INVENTORY - #0333 Water Inventory - #0333 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 1,051.2( Water - Brass Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,534.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 103.0, 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 150.3: 183126/1 WATER - RESETTERS Water - Resetters 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 195.1( 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 19.11 Total: 8,410.61 224789 3/30/2017 012560 HACH COMPANY 10357618 WATER QUALITY TEST KITS Water Quality Test Kits 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 341.0( Page: 15 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 16 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224789 3/30/2017 012560 HACH COMPANY (Continued) Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 30.8� 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 36.4E Total 224790 3/30/2017 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197317 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR MARCH Photography for March 2017 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total 224791 3/30/2017 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 169520 UNIT 135 - WHEEL COVER Unit 135 - Wheel Cover 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 224792 3/30/2017 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2017-10 TOURISM PROMOTION CONSULTAI Tourism promotion consultant March ; 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 Total 224793 3/30/2017 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE BID-032717 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MARC Administrative services for March 201 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 BID -Hulbert 032517 REIMBURSEMENT FOR PAYMENT C Reimbursement for pre -payment of 140.000.61.558.70.31.00 Total 224794 3/30/2017 067863 HYND, LINDA SNOHO. RECORDING SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDINC SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 Total Page: 16 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 17 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224795 3/30/2017 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2932434 STAMPS- ENG REVIEWS Y STAMPS- ENG REVIEWS aUi 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 40.2, U 2932619 COPY PAPER o COPY PAPER 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 271.4E Q. 2933676 STAMPS- ENG REVIEWS STAMPS- ENG REVIEWS c�c 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 43.7( E 2936214 CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1° LETTER OPENER, POST -IT NOTES 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 50.9< 9.8% Sales Tax CU > 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 4.9£ a Total: 411.31 Q 224796 3/30/2017 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 09060624870 UNIT M16 - LIFT SUPPORT LO Unit M16 - Lift Support rn 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 106.9( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4E o Total: 117.41 M M O 224797 3/30/2017 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10020846 UNIT 285 - BOOSTER N Unit 285 - Booster 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 159.9E . 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.6E 300-10021194 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES m Fleet Shop Supplies E t 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 65.2E u 9.8% Sales Tax r Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.3� 300-10021227 WATER SEWER - 4 WORK PARKAS Water Sewer - 4 Work Parkas 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 79.9( Page: 17 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224797 3/30/2017 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 224798 3/30/2017 075227 JOHNSON, JEFFREY 224799 3/30/2017 066522 LAKESIDE INDUSTRIES INC 224800 3/30/2017 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Water Sewer - 4 Work Parkas 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 300-10021440 UNITS E138,140,146,144,143 - SUP[ Units E138,140,146,144,143 - Supplii 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Units E138,140,146,144,143 - Supplii 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 300-10021505 UNIT E108PO - PARTS 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Unit E108PO - Parts 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 Total: 5257 CARTOONIVERSITY 5257 CARTOONIVERSITY INSTRUC 5257 CARTOONIVERSITY INSTRUC 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Tota I : 3266460MB WATER - ASPHALT Water - Asphalt 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total: 80500184649 UNIT 25 - ALIGNMENT Unit 25 - Alignment 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 4.3.a Page: 18 Page: 18 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224800 3/30/2017 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 80500184997 224801 3/30/2017 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC 4564 224802 3/30/2017 075980 LW PRODUCTS 224803 3/30/2017 072992 LYNNWOOD ICE CENTER 738947 PO # Description/Account 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 UNIT 14 - FLAT REPAIRS Unit 14 - Flat Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Total: FAC MAINT HEARING TESTS Fac Maint Hearing Tests 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 Total ACCESS HATCH FOR CITY PARK ACCESS HATCH FOR CITY PARK 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 5477 ICE SKATE 5477 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRL 5477 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRL 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 5478 ICE SKATE 5478 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRL 5478 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRL 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 5479 ICE SKATE 5479 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRL 5479 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRL 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 5480 ICE SKATE 5480 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRL 5480 LEARN TO ICE SKATE INSTRL 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total 4.3.a Page: 19 Amoun U) U a� 5.5' U 0 L 42.0( Q. c 4.1, 107.81 E 0 480.0( > 480.0( o Q LO 1,340.0( 131.3, ti 1,471.3; c M M 0 N 416.5( E 119.0( ; c m E 178.5( U 0 r Q 59.5( 773.5( Page: 19 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 20 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224804 3/30/2017 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 017028 00 DAYTON ST PLAZA IRRIGATION SU � DAYTON ST PLAZA IRRIGATION SU w 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 1,631.0E 9.8% Sales Tax c 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 159.8E >, 017029 00 FLOWER PROGRAM IRRIGATION Q. FLOWER PROGRAM IRRIGATION 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 c 909.2E 9.8% Sales Tax E 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 89.1' 017031 00 CITY WIDE IRRIGATION SUPPLIES CITY WIDE IRRIGATION SUPPLIES o 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 az 487.6( o 9.8% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 47.7E Q 017032 00 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 'n 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 248.1' 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 24.3' 017064 00 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES M IRRIGATION SUPPLIES M 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 41.5 1 N 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.0 1 E Total: 3,642.71, 'Fa a 224805 3/30/2017 072320 MACK, LINDA AQ33567 SICK LEAVE BUYBACK REFUND 03/01/17 - 03/14/17 m 001.000.41.521.71.11.00 20.1( t Total: 20.1E r r Q 224806 3/30/2017 068443 MAIL N' STUFF SERVICES BID-3783 MAILING FOR BID/ED! ANNUAL MEI Mailing for Bid/Ed! Annual Meeting 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 210.7( Page: 20 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 224806 3/30/2017 068443 068443 MAIL N' STUFF SERVICES (Continued) 224807 3/30/2017 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC E0074822 224808 3/30/2017 075702 MCKENZIE, JEANNE 224809 3/30/2017 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 224810 3/30/2017 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 224811 3/30/2017 072223 MILLER, DOUG 224812 3/30/2017 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC J McK-Op4 20172884 5377 FELDENKRAIS 3/1-3/22 GYM MONITOR 253737 Description/Account Total CITY HALL FINANCE - PAINT City Hall Finance - Paint 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 Total WWTP: WWTP OPERATOR 4 EXAM WWTP Operator 4 Exam fee taken at 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 Total WWTP: PIPE FITTINGS/PIPE PIPE FITTINGS/PIPE 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total 5377 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION 5377 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Total 3/1-3/22/17 BASKETBALL GYM MON 3/1-3/22/17 BASKETBALL GYM MON 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Total WATER - WACKER THROTTLE CON Water - Wacker Throttle Control 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 21 Page: 21 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 224812 3/30/2017 020900 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC (Continued) 224813 3/30/2017 074556 MOORE, IACOFANO & GOLTSMAN INC 47999 224814 3/30/2017 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 224815 3/30/2017 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 16-1852-8 0463389-IN 0463440-I N 4.3.a Page: 22 Description/Account Amoun Total : 43.8( � U a) E6DB.SERVICES THRU FEBRUARY E6DB.Services thru February 2017 — 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 4,484.3E Total: 4,484.3� m E6JB.SERVICES THRU 3/22/17 c E6JB.Services thru 3/22/17 M E 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 21,855.7E Total: 21,855.7E 0 WATER SEWER WORK SWEATSHII —@ Water Sewer Work Sweatshirts 0 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 75.0( a Water Sewer Work Sweatshirts Q' Q 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 75.0( " Freight LO 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 8.3( Freight ti 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 8.3E 9.8% Sales Tax M 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 8.1 A 9.8% Sales Tax Y 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 8.1 , U WATER SEWER WORK RAIN GEAR E Water Sewer Work Rain Gear 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 244.7E ; Water Sewer Work Rain Gear m 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 244.7 , E 9.8% Sales Tax U 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 23.9� r Q 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 23.9� Total : 720.5E Page: 22 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224816 3/30/2017 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 224817 3/30/2017 075822 NEOPOST USA 224818 3/30/2017 074724 NEWMAN-BURROW LLC 224819 3/30/2017 075881 NORRIS, KENNETH 224820 3/30/2017 063511 OFFICE MAX INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 0612117-IN FLEET - FILTER INVENTORY Fleet - Filter inventory 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 Total 15085322 INK FOR POSTAGE MACHINE INK TANK FOR POSTAGE MACHINE 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 Total: 52455 EDMONDS PORTION SUMMER DIG EDMONDS PORTION SUMMER DIG 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 Total: 453035 MAR 2017 FIRST AID TRAINING 10 ATTENDEES 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 Total: 152174 P&RADMIN: PAPER, CEMETERY: Il` P&RADMIN: PAPER 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 CEMETERY: INK CARTRIDGE 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 198106 P&RADMIN: PAPER, ARTS COMMIE P&RADMIN: PAPER 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 4.3.a Page: 23 Page: 23 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224820 3/30/2017 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) ARTS COMMISSION: CARD STOCK 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 17.9< Total: 180.0d 224821 3/30/2017 075977 OLSEN, MARY CRA20170032 OVERPAYMENT OF CRA20170032 OVERPAYMENT OF CRA20170032 001.000.257.620 50.0( Total: 50.0( 224822 3/30/2017 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY 2-380211 UNIT 324 - BRAKE SUPPLIES Unit 324 - Brake Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 204.8' 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 20.01 2-381183 UNIT 324 - CALIPERS Unit 324 - Calipers 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 248.4( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 24.3z 2-381289 UNIT 49 - BRAKE HARDWARE Unit 49 - Brake Hardware 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 32.5E 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3.1 Total: 533.3$ 224823 3/30/2017 072739 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 3685-258911 UNIT 49 - BRAKE SHOE Unit 49 - Brake Shoe 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 28.6z 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.8' 3685-258913 UNIT 49 - BRAKE DRUM Unit 49 - Brake Drum 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 111.9E 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 24 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224823 3/30/2017 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS (Continued) 3685-260950 3685-262152 3685-262153 3685-263080 3685-263096 3685-263509 PO # Description/Account 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 UNIT 40 - BELT AND PULLEY'S Unit 40 - Belt and Pulley's 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 125 - TENSIONER Unit 125 - Tensioner 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 11 - FUEL FILTERS Unit 11 - Fuel Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 11 - SUPPLIES Unit 11 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 7 - WIPER BLADES Unit 7 - Wiper Blades 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 224824 3/30/2017 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON 21700236 E6DA.SERVICES THRU 2/3/17 E6DA.Services thru 2/3/17 4.3.a Page: 25 Amoun U) 10.91 aUi t U 0 119.8E R Q. 11.7E E 58.2z f° 5.7' 0 ca 0 a 60.8( C 5.9( rn 19.4( 0 M 1.9( M 0 N 11.1 E 1.0� c m E 49.3, M 0 r 4.8: Q 504.4E Page: 25 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 224824 3/30/2017 072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON (Continued) 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 31700107 E6DA.SERVICES THRU 3/10/17 E6DA.Services thru 3/10/17 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Total: 224825 3/30/2017 072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICALS CO 173954 WWTP: WILSON CLAY 20350-1354 WILSON CLAY 20350-1354 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total: 224826 3/30/2017 075819 PANGELINAN, FRED FP-IncOpTst WWTP: INCINERATOR OPERATOR INCINERATOR OPERATOR TEST FE 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 Tota I : 224827 3/30/2017 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 04-21141 WWTP: 1/1-1/28/17 PROF SRV PLC 1/1-1/28/17 PROF SRV PLC & SCAD 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 04-21270 WWTP: 1/29-2/25/17 PROF SRV PL( PROF SRV 1/29-2/25/17 PLC & SCA 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 Total: 224828 3/30/2017 065787 PATRIOT DIAMOND INC A07022 15TH WALKWAY PROJECT SUPPLII 15th Walkway Project Supplies 112.000.68.542.61.41.00 Freight 112.000.68.542.61.41.00 Tota I : 224829 3/30/2017 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 364725 MAR 2017 WELLNESS FRUIT 4.3.a Page: 26 Page: 26 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 27 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224829 3/30/2017 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO (Continued) Y MINNEOLA, BANANA, AURORA, PE. w 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 100.8E Total: 100.8: c 224830 3/30/2017 008350 PETTY CASH 3/28 PARKS PETTY CSH 3/28/17 PARKS PETTY CASH L a LEACH: WALGREENS BATTERIES F 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 24.6E CHAPIN: WA PARKING IN OLYMPIA E 117.100.64.573.20.43.00 10.5( .2 STEELE-SMITH: JOANN GYMNASTI 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 5.8 1 o STEELE-SMITH: FRED MEYER RUC f° 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 14.2E STEELE-SMITH: HOBBY LOBBY FO, a 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 13.1E Q PARKER: JOANN PRESCHOOL SUF �n 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 7.6E a� COLLEY: JOANN DISCOVERY PROS 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 4.9� COLLEY: DOLLAR STORE DISCOVE c 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 M 1.1( M CONLEY: VALUE VILLAGE BOOKS I c 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 N 5.6 1 PARKER: GOODWILL BOOKS & TAE E 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 8.1 'M Total: 96.01, 224831 3/30/2017 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC L596901 WWTP: CON DU ITS, PIPE, POLYMER E CON DU ITS, PIPE, POLYMER CONCR t 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,164.9< 9.8% Sales Tax Q 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 114.1( L614197 WWTP: COMPRESSION CONNECT, COMPRESSION CONNECTOR 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 20.3E Page: 27 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224831 3/30/2017 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC (Continued) 224832 3/30/2017 075991 PORTLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTOF NR-024042 224833 3/30/2017 064088 PROTECTION ONE 224834 3/30/2017 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 1988948 291104 200000704821 200002411383 200007876143 200011439656 200016558856 200016815843 PO # Description/Account 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total PORTLAND MECHANICAL REFUND REFUND FOR DUPLICATE ISSUE O 001.000.257.310 Total ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON ( ALARM MONITORING FRANCES AN 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAI1 ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS 1 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS 1 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 Total FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / 4.3.a Page: 28 Amoun U) U a� 2.0( U 1,301.4E o L R Q. 50.0( 50.0( E .E U 4- 0 283.71 0 Q. Q. 21.3z Q 21.31 326A, ti 0 M 1,764.5� c N le U 152.7, E U 367.0, y E t U 305.6E r Q 244.5E Page: 28 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 29 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224834 3/30/2017 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) Y FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / w 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 811.3( 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 0 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 L-, 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 409.2E Q. 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 261.3z E 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : f° PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 33.Z o PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : CU > 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 126.2E a PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : Q. 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 126.2E Q PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : LO 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 126.2E PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 126.2E PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : M 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 126.2� A 200021829581 WWTP: 2/22-3/22/17 200 2ND AVE! CD N 2/22-3/22/17 200 2ND AVE S / METE Y 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 717.8� E 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 214.3E c Total: 5,913.4:E t 224835 3/30/2017 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 17-1276 COURT SECURITY 03/01/2017-03/1 U COURT SECURITY 03/01/2017-03/1; Q 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 2,502.5( Total: 2,502.5( 224836 3/30/2017 030695 PUMPTECH INC 0114143-IN WWTP: CREDIT FOR WRONG PAR" Page: 29 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224836 3/30/2017 030695 PUMPTECH INC 224837 3/30/2017 074927 RICHARDSON, APRIL 224838 3/30/2017 070115 SHANNON & WILSON INC 224839 3/30/2017 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Incorrect parts sent by factory: Gland 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 0115059-IN WWTP: SUB ASSY, BEARS, COLLAR SUB ASSY,BEARS, COLLARS, O-RIN 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 0115183-IN WWTP: PARTIAL CREDIT FOR FRET Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total: 5462 NATURAL DYES 5462 NATURAL DYES INSTRUCTIOI 5462 NATURAL DYES INSTRUCTIOI 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Tota I : 96058 E41FC.SERVICES THRU 2/18/17 E4FC.Services thru 2/18/17 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Total: 8096-3 PM: PAINT PM: PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total: 4.3.a Page: 30 Page: 30 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 31 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224840 3/30/2017 073690 SMILEY-FAIRBANKS, MONA FAIRBANKS OTF FAIRBANKS OTF Y FAIRBANKS OTF aUi 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 500.0( U Total: 500.0( c 224841 3/30/2017 036850 SMITH, SHERLUND D 37 LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEI L a MEDICARE PREMIUM 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,258.8( DENTAL SERVICES E 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 156.0( .2 38 LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEI MEDICAL SERVICES 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 241.9' EYE MEDICAL SERVICES o 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 80.0( a 39 LEOFF 1 REIMBURSEMENT Q LEOFF 1 Reimbursement �n 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 255.4( Total: 1,992.1 , .. ti 224842 3/30/2017 063351 SMITH, VINCENT BC54129 SICK LEAVE BUYBACK REFUND c 524.40 APPLIED TO MED PREMIUM C? 421.000.74.534.80.11.00 18.8z o Total: 18.8, Y 224843 3/30/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W E TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W f° 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 44.5z ; 2004-6859-3 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / m LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 352.0( U 2004-9314-6 MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M r MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M Q 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.7; 2006-3860-9 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON Page: 31 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224843 3/30/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 32 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 345.7< w 2007-1403-8 SEAVIEW PARK U SEAVIEW PARK o 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 20.4� 2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE M Q. LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 85.5z c�v 2011-9708-4 SEAVIEW PARK E SEAVIEW PARK ca 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.3: L� 2012-3682-5 FISHING PIER FISHING PIER f° 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 126.6: 2015-5174-4 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � a SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � Q 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,793.51 Ln 2015-7289-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 38.4' 2016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W o TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W M M 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 30.8. 2017-5147-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW Y TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW U E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 58.0E 2017-8264-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 15.7< 2019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW t TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 r 31.2� Q 2020-8787-0 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / ME] LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 159.8E 2022-8912-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME Page: 32 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224843 3/30/2017 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 224844 3/30/2017 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 224845 3/30/2017 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 224846 3/30/2017 075979 SSAACOUSTICS LLP Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 33 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME aUi 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 64.6' U 2023-8937-5 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / I o STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / I 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 8.8E Q. 2026-2041-5 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 15.7< E 2028-0763-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 16.7z o 2030-9778-7 WWTP: 2/16-3/17/17 200 2ND AVE,' cu > 2/16-3/17/17 200 2ND AVE S / METE a 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 28,148.4z Q. Total : 32,426.1( Q LO 2017-3649 INV 2017-3649 EDMONDS PD MEDI JAIL MEDS - FEB 2017 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 187.7' 2017-3649 INV 2017-3649 CREDIT - FEB 2017, c CREDIT - FEB 2017 JAIL MEDICAL M M 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 -2.5: c Total : 185.11 -11e U 33609/4 SEWER - WORK JEANS (5) S LON( E Sewer - Work Jeans (5) S Long f° 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 214.3E ; 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 21.0' E Total: 235.3E u 16-1138 CITY PARK SOUND ANALYSIS r r Q CITY PARK SOUND ANALYSIS 001.000.64.571.21.41.00 2,625.0( Page: 33 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224846 3/30/2017 075979 075979 SSAACOUSTICS LLP 224847 3/30/2017 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 224848 3/30/2017 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) Kmo 20592 20593 224849 3/30/2017 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18152816 224850 3/30/2017 075491 TAYLOR'S EXCAVATORS INC 224851 3/30/2017 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA E3DB.Pmt 9.FINAL 76871 PO # Description/Account Total ; SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR MAI Social media services for March 2017 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 Total SEWER LS 5 - TROUBLESHOOTIN, Sewer LS 5 - Troubleshooting 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 SEWER - HYDROFANGER 200 TRAI Sewer - Hydrofanger 200 Transmitter 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.48.00 Total YOST POOL LUBRICANT, EYE BOL- YOST POOL LUBRICANT, EYE BOL7 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total E3DB.PMT 9 FINAL THRU 1/31/17 E3DB.Pmt 9.Final thru 1/31/17 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 E3DB.Ret 9 Final 112.000.223.400 Total FAC MAINT - WORK T SHIRTS Fac Maint - Work T Shirts 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 4.3.a Page: 34 Page: 34 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 224851 3/30/2017 040916 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA (Continued) 224852 3/30/2017 075587 THE UPS STORE #6392 00000000827 224853 3/30/2017 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 97878 224854 3/30/2017 070744 TIGER OAK MEDIA 2017-176463 224855 3/30/2017 042750 TRIBUZIO, WALLACE 30 224856 3/30/2017 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WF 0714040-WA 224857 3/30/2017 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS PO # Description/Account Total: WWTP: SHIPPING CHGS TO LUBE' SHIPPING CHGS TO LUBE WATCH 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 Total PAPER FOR LG PRINTER- WATER I PAPER FOR LG PRINTER- water del 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total BUSINESS RECRUITMENTAD IN SI Business recruitment ad in April issue 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 Total LEOFF 1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEI ADDITIONAL REIMBURSEMENT TO 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 Total FACILITIES HEP B VACCINATION FACILITIES HEP B VACCINATION 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 Total 9782030492 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service-Eng 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 Cell Service-PD 104 Fund 104.100.41.521.21.42.00 Cell Service-PW Street 4.3.a Page: 35 Amoun 96.01 he U a� t U c cU 0 4,000.0( La- 4,000.0( Q LO 3.7( ... 3.7$ 0 M M 0 N 94.0( 94.0( E 355.2: Q 133.3: Page: 35 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 36 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224857 3/30/2017 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued) 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.4z Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.4E Cell Service-PW Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 18.4E Cell Service-PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 56.3 , Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 74.9< Cell Service-WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 18.4z Total: 901.2E 224858 3/30/2017 075995 WARD JR, JIM 032817 STORM - CDL FEES REIMB - J WAR Storm - CDL Fees Reimb - J Ward Jr 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 444.0( Total: 444.0( 224859 3/30/2017 070156 WATERSHED INC 0072809-IN INV#0072809-IN CUST#ED25000 - E ADD ACCESS ZIPPERS -STRUM 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 68.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 10.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 7.7( Total: 86.2E 224860 3/30/2017 075283 WAVE 8136 50 211 00055035 FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SEF High Speed Internet service 04/01/17 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 816.0( Total: 816.0( 224861 3/30/2017 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 10007866 FAC MAINT - LINERS Fac Maint - Liners 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 442.5( Page: 36 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224861 3/30/2017 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 37 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Y 9.8% Sales Tax M 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 43.3 0 U 10009815 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES o Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 71.4( Q. 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 c 7.0( 10026870 FAC MAINT - LINERS E Fac Maint - Liners f° 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.0( 9.8% Sales Tax o 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 CU 4.8( 10028933 FAC MAINT - HAND SOAP, DISINTE o a Fac Maint - Hand Soap, Disintectant Q. 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 907.2: Q 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 88.9' 10032936 FAC MAINT - DEODORIZER Fac Maint - Deodorizer 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 85.4( M 9.8% Sales Tax M 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.3 1 N 9991524 FAC MAINT - TT, TOWELS, LINERS Y Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Liners E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 30.1 c 9997559 FAC MAINT - WORK GLOVES t Fac Maint - Work Gloves 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 U 162.0( r 9.8% Sales Tax Q 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.8E 9999477 FAC MAINT - DISINFECTANT, LINEF Fac Maint - Disinfectant, Liners, TT, Page: 37 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224861 3/30/2017 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 224862 3/30/2017 064800 WEHOP Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota I : 634370 FLOWER PROGRAM: CLEOME FLOWER PROGRAM: CLEOME 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 634372 FLOWER PROGRAM: SNAPDRAGO FLOWER PROGRAM: SNAPDRAGO 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 634400 FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 634401 FLOWER PROGRAM: FREIGHT, RC FLOWER PROGRAM: FREIGHT, RC 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 634748 FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS FLOWER PROGRAM: PLANTS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 634749 FLOWER PROGRAM: COLEUS FLOWER PROGRAM: COLEUS 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.3.a Page: 38 Page: 38 Packet Pg. 68 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 39 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 224862 3/30/2017 064800 064800 WEHOP (Continued) Total: 5,319.6( 224863 3/30/2017 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7282 COPY PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS O 4-CASES OF X-9000 COPY PAPER 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 141.3( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 13.8: 7292 ENVELOPES Envelopes 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 166.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 16.2 , Total : 337.41 224864 3/30/2017 075926 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR 1447334 PS PEST CONTROL BI/MO MAINT (I PS Pest Control Bi/Mo Maint (Former 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 99.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.7( Total : 108.7( 224865 3/30/2017 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 19463 DAYTON ST PLAZA PLANTS DAYTON ST PLAZA PLANTS 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 2,779.8( 9.8% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 272.4, 19464 CEMETERY: AZALEAS CEMETERY: AZALEAS 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 193.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 18.9( Total : 3,264.61 224866 3/30/2017 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR TR- 337437 WATER - WORK JEANS -(2) J DANII Water - Work Jeans -(2) J Daniels 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 125.9£ Page: 39 Packet Pg. 69 vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 224866 3/30/2017 072634 WHISTLE WORKWEAR Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 224867 3/30/2017 075743 WHISTLE WORKWEAR OF SHORELINE SHO 2723 224868 3/30/2017 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 224869 3/30/2017 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 132 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 132 Vouchers in this report SHO 2751 1102 PO # Description/Account 9.2% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total WATER - WORK JEANS (5) T RAME Water - Work Jeans (5) T Ramey 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 WATER - WORK JEANS (5) P ROCH Water - Work Jeans (5) P Rochford 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 Total MAR-17 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 Total 0187272 TRAFFIC - 8X8 BLANKS Traffic - 8x8 Blanks 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers 4.3.a Page: 40 Amoun U) U a� 11.5£ U 137.51, 0 L M Q. 210.5z E 20.0( .2 U 0 193.4E > 0 L 18.3£ a 442.31 Q LO 0 21,558.0( ti 21,558.0( c M M 0 N 71.4( U E 8.9' 7.8 - y 88.11 E U 466,088.0: r Q 466,088.0, Page: 40 Packet Pg. 70 4.3.a vchlist 03/30/2017 8:49:14AM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account Page: 41 Amoun Page: 41 vi U a� t U 0 L Q E U 4- 0 i O L am Q Q LO M r Packet Pg. 71 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E51FE STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E61FE SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E51FA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA STR 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program i023 E7DB STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i020 E7CC STR 2017 Traffic Calming i021 E7AA WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays i019 E7CB WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 SWR 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 72 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5J13 STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 73 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E6MC Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 74 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STR _ E1AA c342 Fi1&.QQrneL§.JRoundabgut (212th Street SW @ 84t STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements unset Walkway Improvements EW STM ElFM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update venue provement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) MELE2FA c318 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System E2FC d P Edmonds J J116kility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation 04 Corrido sportation Stu STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Avg STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) DA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FG _ c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th E3FH � �dmq j;105th/106th Av SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E3, 224th Waterline Relocation (201 FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing E4FA STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin TMIr c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 75 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station_ STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines ' SWR "" �"015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park Edmonds Fichinn Piar Rah b STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System 01551paffic Calming STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays E5DA Bikelink Projec` General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects E5FC Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM E5FE lm"r 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR _& E5GB Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications 016 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers UTILITIE pdates STR E6AA s014 SR99 Safetv Improvements (224th to 216th) STR i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 76 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WTR E6CB i009 2116 Waterline O SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays c485 7F38th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan I E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program Norths� Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements Ave Rain Gardens STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update 1 i SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project SWW E6GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase SWR E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project UTILITIES 013 Utility Rate Update WTR E6J13 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR qF E6JC 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza PRK E6MB FAC Band Shell Replacement PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STR i021 STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR i018 2017 Overlay Progra WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays SWR E7CC 2017 Sewerline Overlays STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Rama UDarades 2017 Minor Sidewalk PrograW STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization c495 STM E7FG m013 PM E8MA c282 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW NPDES (Students Savina Salmon) n Street Plaza Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 77 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM EYE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 78 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 79 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E6FE c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project Y PRK E6MC c494 Yost Park Spa STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW o L STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements a SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays c STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program E WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays o STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens a Q- a SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project rn WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects v STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades rn M 0 STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program ;n STR E7CA i018 2017 Overlay Program a� E WTR E7CB i019 2017 Waterline Overlays M Z 0 SWR E7CC i020 2017 Sewerline Overlays a STR E7AA i021 2017 Traffic Calming STR E7DA i022 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades STR E7DB i023 2017 Minor Sidewalk Program a a� STM E71FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) Li STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Q UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 80 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) 4.3.b Protect Engineerin Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA FAC qq Edmonds Fishing Pier Reh AL E41VIB& FAC ESCO III Project c419 E31-13 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades Y General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB Dayton greet Plaza 0 L PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E81VIA a City Spray Park E41VIA c PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E61VIB E �an'sd&a MA 0 PRK Yost Park Spa c494 E61VIC STM12thlWpe &Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE a a STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE Q STM 2214 Drainage Improvements E4FA rn STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD T ti STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c46 a, N STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB A STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC In m STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM E TM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c L STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE m TM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study= c380 E2FC 21 STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB albot Road provement c378 L STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA u: S Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 ETM E STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 Q STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD Dr�rement t. SW c495 _ STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG Stormwater Comp Plan Update= s017 E6FD Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 81 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) 4.3.b Funding Protect Title STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System SW Edmonds-i5th/106th Ave W Storm Improvement STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Video Assessment of Stormwater Li STM Willow Creek onds Marsh Restoration S 15th St. svtvalkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR 2014 Chip Seals 2014 Overlay Program STR 2015 Overlay Program SIM 2015 STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades 2016 Overlay Program Protect Engineerin Accounting Project Number Number c379 E2FB c430 c467 E5FB c45g11111111L E4FF Y c435 E4FC cJ& qm o L c451 E4CB a c43 E4CA c M c463 E5CA E c471 0 i016 E6DC @ i008 CA 0 a STR 2017 Curb Ramp Upgrades i022 E7DA Q dewalk Program i023 EjW rn STR 2017 Overlay Program i018 E7CA T ti STR 201 raffic Calming a, N STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD M 0 STR 228th St. S\OLCorridor Improvements STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona 04 STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) W76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project urb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR ADA Transition Plan Bikelink Project I STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion - 2th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) Minor Sidewalk Prog c425 E3DD c485 E6DA Xc36 c392 E2AB s016 E6DB i015 E6AB c405 E2AD STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossin STR SR99 Safety Im th to 216th s014 E6AA STR Sunset Walkway Improve c354 Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 82 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) 4.3.b Funding Proiect Title STR Trackside Warning System rench - ConceQM Protect Engineerin Accounting Proiect Number Number c470 E5AA c453 STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA - 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GI3 Y SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398ML E3GA 15 Sewerline Overlays J i007 0 L SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA : Moor 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c46 a c SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC E SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project ini`; FFrn SWR 2017 Sewerline Overlays i02o E7CC o 2018/19 Sewerline ReplacenlAroje-` i SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB a Q- a Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB rn SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB v Lif�1 B AM61 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA a6 `� M 0 Utility Rate UpdatM E6JA y WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC TR WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 TR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update11111110 WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB (VTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects Y46 WTR 2017 Waterline Overlays iol9 E7CB T aterline Replacement&roje= WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) IW WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5J13 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA e Modifications c481 Revised 3/29/2017 Packet Pg. 83 Hour Type Hour Class 903 MISCELLANEOUS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 856 (03/30/2017 to 03/30/2017) Description CLOTHING ALLOWANCE Hours NIM Amount 700.00 0.00 $700.00 Total Net Pay: $646.45 4.3.c 03/30/2017 Packet Pg. 84 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus city vehicles and surplus city equipment Staff Lead: Mike Adams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History The city has utilized the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment for several years. We have consistently received quality service and the best prices using this approach. It has proven to be the most cost effective option to manage our larger surplus items like vehicles and equipment. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that authorization be given to Public Works to contract with James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell (10) surplus city vehicles, (1) riding mower, and (2) portable power generators. Narrative The city would like to utilize the services of James G. Murphy Auctioneers to sell surplus city vehicles and equipment. This has proven to be a cost effective method to manage surplus items. The following equipment: Unit# 83-SWR 1984 Onan 30 KW portable generator SN# 361184 Unit# 51-SWR 1994 Olympian 35KW portable generator SN# 2016236 Unit# 109-PRK 2006 Toro riding mower SN# 260000182 The following vehicles: Unit# 120-PRK 2001 Dodge 1 ton flatbed Vin# 3B6MC36571M547878 Unit# 121-PRK 2001 Dodge 1 ton flatbed Vin# 3136ML36551M547877 Unit# 129-STR 2002 Ford F-450 flatbed Vin# 1FDXF46F22EL20175 Unit# 132-STR 2003 Ford F-250 flatbed Vin# lFDNX20P53EC75201 Unit# 252-FLT 2002 Dodge Stratus Vin# 1133AL36R221-1231252 Unit# 304-POL 1989 RTA SWAT bus Vin# 1TUMDT9A4KR26304 Unit# 448-POL 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FABP7BV8BX149448 Unit# 449-POL 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FABP7BVXBX149449 Unit# 452-POL 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FABP7BVXBX149452 Unit# 455-POL 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Vin# 2FABP7BV5BX149455 Packet Pg. 85 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement with Murray, Smith & Associates for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On April 5, 2016, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with Murray, Smith & Associates. On March 28, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the April 4th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement. Narrative The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in March 2015 to hire a consultant to provide design engineering services for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project. The City received statements of qualifications from two engineering firms and the selection committee chose Murray, Smith & Associates (MSA) to provide design engineering services for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project. On August 3, 2015 the City entered into a $71,019 contract with MSA to provide evaluations and recommendations for the Five Corners Reservoir. Although the main purpose of the project was to recoat the two reservoirs, a preliminary study consisting of a comprehensive evaluation of the facility was included in the scope. A structural analysis was performed using available as -built records and seismic codes updated since the City's 2004 structural evaluation. The analysis determined that more investigation was needed to address concerns about the structural integrity of the two reservoirs. On April 18, 2016 the City entered into a $60,465 Professional Services Supplemental Agreement with MSA. The contract included a geotechnical investigation to obtain information on soil bearing capacity and ultrasonic testing on reservoir tank welds to obtain information on reservoir shell strength that will replace engineering assumptions previously used in the structural analysis. MSA also evaluated operational constraints to determine if reductions in storage volumes could reduce the impact from a seismic event. MSA's technical memorandum concluded that the reservoirs could meet current seismic codes and be operational within the City's parameters for water service by lowering the level of the reservoir overflow pipes and making minor structural enhancements to the roof of the 1.5 MG tank. Supplemental agreement No. 2 will provide professional services to complete the design plans, specifications and construction documents for both reservoirs. The portion of the contract in Supplemental Agreement No. 2 is scheduled to be completed by January 2018 with bidding and the Packet Pg. 86 4.5 award of the construction contract. The fee for the Supplemental Agreement is $178,829 and includes a management reserve of $16,000 for unexpected tasks that may come up during design. An additional Supplemental Agreement with MSA may be required for construction support due to the specialized nature of the project. Construction is scheduled to take place between February and September of 2018. Attachments: Murray, Smith & Associates - Supplemental Agreement Packet Pg. 87 Original Contract No. 6575 4.5.a Supplemental Agreement 2 No. CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING 121 5" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 . 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project, dated August 3, 2015; and The City and the Consultant entered into a supplemental agreement for 1) field testing and structural evaluations; and 2) storage volume and operating level evaluation with respect to a project known as Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project, dated April 18, 2016; and WHEREAS, Phase 2 for final design and bidding engineering services will be added to the original Scope of Work; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of August 3, 2015 and the Supplemental Agreement 1 of April 18, 2016 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, are amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $71,019 amount set forth in Paragraph 2A of the Underlying Agreement, and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, and which was increased by $60,465 by the Supplemental Agreement 1, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $178,829 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this Supplemental Agreement 2. As a result of this Supplemental Agreement 2, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $310,313 ($71,019, plus $60,465, plus $178,829). Packet Pg. 88 4.5.a 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2. In all other respects, the Underlying Agreement and the Supplemental Agreement 1 between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. DONE this day of , 20 CITY OF EDMONDS MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. By: By: _ Mayor David O. Earling Title: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney SAStaff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5KA.Five Corners Reservoir Recoating\MSA.Supp 2.doc Packet Pg. 89 4.5.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: SAStaff\Megan\Engineering Admin\PROJECTS\E5KA.Five Corners Reservoir Recoating\MSA.Supp 2.doc Packet Pg. 90 4.5.a EXHIBIT . SCOPE OF WORK CITY OF EDMONDS FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECT PHASE 2 — DESIGN AND BIDDING SERVICES BACKGROUND Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. (MSA) has developed the following scope of services and accompanying engineering fee estimate to provide final design and bidding engineering services for the Five Corners Reservoir Recoating project. The scope and fee have been developed based on discussions with City staff and our understanding of the project from the previously completed tasks in Phase I of the project, which included evaluations of both the 1.5 MG reservoir and 3.0 MG reservoir. The results of the evaluations are summarized in a draft technical memorandum, dated December 22, 2016. SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 - Project Management and Coordination This task provides for management of the project and coordination with the project team. Elements of this task will include: 1.1 Correspondence and Coordination with City - Coordinate with the City Project Manager via phone conversations and e-mail for project decisions, project status, work activities, and issues requiring City input. 1.2 Budget Review, Invoices and Progress Reports - MSA's Project Manager will monitor project costs and manage budget and billing tasks, including preparation and submission of monthly invoices and progress reports. 1.3 Kick-off Meeting - Prepare for and conduct project kick-off meeting with City staff and key team members to discuss project, review project schedule and discuss key elements of the project. Prepare meeting agenda and record meeting summary to document items discussed and transmit to City. 1.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) - Perform in-house quality assurance reviews of all deliverables. Assumptions: • MSA will prepare for and attend one (1) kick-off meeting with the City. City Responsibilities: • Attend kick-off meeting. City of Edmonds MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 2 - Five Corners R March 6, 2017 Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 91 4.5.a MSA Deliverables to City: • Correspondence, a -mails and other documentation • Monthly billing statements and activity reports • Kick-off meeting agenda and minutes Task 2 - Plans, Specifications and Construction Cost Estimates Plans and specifications suitable for public bidding in accordance with City requirements will be prepared for the proposed improvements described in the December 22, 2016 draft technical memorandum and summarized below. 1.5 MG Five Corners Reservoir Improvements • Lower overflow inside reservoir • Roof improvements (intermediate rafters and welding roof plates to rafters) • Interior and exterior recoating, including removal of all existing coatings to bare steel and testing for lead in the coatings • Galvanic anode cathodic protection system • Replace fall prevention system for exterior ladder • Install roof access platform and railing • Replace and upsize roof access hatch • Replace roof vent • Replace exterior base sealant, including removal of existing base sealant • Replace fall prevention system for interior ladder • Replace and upsize ground -level personnel access hatch • Replace and upsize exterior overflow piping and air gap • Relocate inlet pipe entrance through reservoir sidewall and install mixing valve system 3.0 MG Five Corners Reservoir Improvements • Lower overflow inside reservoir • Interior and exterior recoating, including removal of all existing coatings to bare steel (testing for lead was accomplished in the Phase 1 evaluation work) • Galvanic anode cathodic protection system • Replace fall prevention system for exterior ladder • Install railing at roof access platform • Replace roof vent • Replace exterior base sealant, including removal of existing base sealant • Replace fall prevention system for interior ladder • Replace and upsize ground -level personnel access hatch • Replace and upsize overflow piping and air gap • Install mixing valve system Z • Install new site piping and valves for pump station to operate with 3.0 MG reservoir out `�° of service and 1.5 MG reservoir in service Q City of Edmonds MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 2 - Five Corners R March 6, 2017 Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 92 4.5.a 2.1 50% Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) — Develop design plans, technical specifications, engineer's opinion of probable construction cost, and construction sequencing schedule to approximately 50% design completion level. Submit 50% PS&E package for City review and comment. Attend one meeting with City staff during 50% design development and one meeting after City's completed review of the 50% PS&E package. 2.2 90% Plans, Specifications & Estimate — Develop design plans, technical specifications, engineer's opinion of probable construction cost, and construction sequencing schedule to approximately 90% design completion level. Submit 90% PS&E package for City review and comment. Attend one meeting with City staff after City's completed review of the 90% PS&E package. 2.3 Final Bid Ready Plans, Specifications & Estimate - Develop final design plans, specifications, engineer's opinion of probable construction cost, and construction sequencing schedule that are ready for bidding. 2.4 Constructability Review - Provide a limited constructability review of the proposed improvements in support of the City's constructability review and identify issues that could affect the construction of the improvements as designed or the construction schedule. Assumptions: • Plans and specifications will include required hazardous material handling and disposal procedures to address the tested lead concentration levels in the exterior primer coating of both reservoirs. • City's review comments will be received in a complete, single submittal. Multiple rounds of review comments on the same design completion submittal are not anticipated. • City's technical review of each submittal is 2 weeks. • MSA shall apply a Washington Professional Engineer's stamp with signature and date on the final bid -ready set of the design plans and specifications. • Contractor shall develop traffic control and erosion control plans. City Responsibilities: • City to provide access to reservoirs and attend field reconnaissance with project team. • City will provide latest standard technical specifications, standard details, and "front-end" documents to be incorporated into the contract documents. • City to review and provide comments on each submittal of plans, specifications, cost estimate, and schedule. • City will take the lead in preparing permits and coordinating project elements with key stakeholders. • City to coordinate and submit bid -ready contract documents to Builders Exchange or similar service. MSA Deliverables: • Submission of 50% and 90% design packages to include an electronic copy in PDF format of plan set, specifications (also in MS Word), schedule, and engineer's opinion of probable construction cost (also in MS Excel) via e-mail. Q City of Edmonds MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 2 - Five Corners Rqscnwirs March 6, 2017 Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 93 4.5.a • Submission of 100% bid ready package to include final stamped design plans, final specifications, and engineer's final construction cost estimate in PDF, MS Word (specifications), and MS Excel (cost estimate) via e-mail. Task 3 — Subconsultant Services This task provides for the specialty services provided by subconsultants for the project, as described below. 3.1 Surveying and Mapping — MSA's subconsultant Duane Hartman and Associates (DHA) will provide the utility locating, field surveying, and base mapping services for the project. MSA will coordinate the extent of the survey and review and provide comment on the base mapping to the surveyor. A more detailed description of services is provided below: • DHA will utilize published City of Edmonds horizontal and vertical control to perform the topographic mapping. All field data will be processed in accordance with MSA and the City of Edmonds CAD standards. The horizontal datum will be Washington State Plane coordinates, north zone NAD-83(2007). The vertical datum will be NAVD-88. The topographic survey will be developed as a 1'=20' scale file with one foot contours and delivered in DWG and PDF formats. • Topographic mapping will consist of all above ground planimetric features, curbs, walks, fences, trees etc., and all above and underground utilities. DHA will employ APS Locating to paint out the existing underground utilities, as well as contacting One -Call to engage the City to locate its water, storm and sanitary sewer systems. • The survey limits and mapping will be limited to the proposed improvements construction areas within the easterly two-thirds of the site and not within street right of way. • Surveying will include site utilities, elevation at top of concrete foundation of both reservoirs (3 locations for each reservoir), calculated property boundary and right of way, one (1) foot site contours, reservoir and pump station footprints, and all other above- ground features. 3.2 Structural Engineering - MSA's subconsultant Peterson Structural Engineers (PSE) will provide structural engineering services for the design of proposed improvements. A more detailed description of services is provided below: • Teleconferences with the project team • Perform design and generation of 50%, 90% and final construction documents • Assist in the generation of structural specifications sections • Submit 100% bid ready Structural Calculations, Drawings Stamped by a Washington Licensed Structural Engineer (SE). • Provide bidding support services for bidder initiated questions 3.3 Corrosion Engineering - MSA's subconsultant Northwest Corrosion Engineering will provide corrosion engineering services for the design of proposed improvements. A more E detailed description of services is provided below: • Review interior and exterior coating specifications prepared by MSA. Q • Prepare cathodic protection system design drawings and specifications. City of Edmonds MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 1 - Five Corners Res March 6, 2017 Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 94 4.5.a • Collect paint sample from the 1.5 MG reservoir and perform TCLP testing (paint sample testing of 3.0 MG reservoir was completed during the evaluation work in Phase 1) • Participate in one design review meeting with project team. Task 4 — Bidding Assistance (As Needed) This task includes supporting the City on an as -needed basis in providing assistance during bidding of the project. Anticipated elements of this task include: 4.1 Bidder Inquiries and Addenda - Respond to questions from bidders, subcontractors, equipment suppliers and other vendors regarding the project, plans and specifications. Maintain a written record of communications during the bidding process. Prepare and issue any addenda as necessary to clarify the contract documents. 4.2 Pre -bid Conference - Attend a pre -bid conference, if necessary, for the project and provide support to the City for specific agenda items. Assumptions: • The City will take the lead in tasks associated with printing bid documents, document distribution, bid advertisement, addenda distribution, plan holder administration, bid evaluation, bid tabulation etc. • MSA's support services during bidding will be performed up to the extent of the fee estimate for the Bidding Assistance task, unless otherwise approved in advance by the City through a budget amendment or authorization to invoice against the Unanticipated Task Reserve budget. MSA Deliverables to City: Draft addenda as required for the City to distribute to plan holders. Task 5 — Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed) A reserve budget amount has been included in the fee estimate for work under this task, which may include additional unanticipated work not specifically identified in the scope of work tasks defined above. Such work items will be undertaken only after written authorization from the City. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED SCHEDULE MSA shall begin work immediately upon receipt of Notice to Proceed from the City and proceed according to the preliminary estimated schedule presented below. However, factors beyond MSA's control may require schedule modification. Notice to Proceed 50% PS&E Submittal 90% PS&E Submittal Final Bid Ready PS&E Submittal Bidding and Award Construction — Onsite piping improvements Construction — 3.0 MG improvements Construction — 1.5 MG improvements April 2017 July 2017 September 2017 November 2017 December 2017 - January 2018 February 2018 February — May 2018 June — September 2018 City of Edmonds MURRAY, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Phase 1 - Five Corners Res March 6, 2017 Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 95 4.5.a EXHIBIT B CITY OF EDMONDS FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECT PHASE 2 - DESIGN AND BIDDING SERVICES FEE ESTIMATE 3/6/2017 TASK MSA LABOR HOURS ESTIMATED FEES PrincEV $212 Prfncl $198 PE VII $173 PE III $140 Tech IV $136 ndmin $95 HoursLabor Subconsultants ExpensesTotal NW Corr DMA Peterson Task 1- Project Management & Coordination Task 1.1- Correspondence & Coord with City 8 2 8 18 5 3,556 S 10 S 3,566 Task 1.2- Budget, Invoices & Progress Reports 6 4 10 1 3 23 $ 4,139 $ 10 $ 4,149 Task 1.3 - Kick-off Meeting 4 4 2 10 $ 1.770 S 80 S 1,850 Task 1.4 - QA/QC 8 8 16 S 3,360 $ 10 S 3,370 Task 1 Subtotal 26 14 22 0 0 5 67 S 12,825 $ $ $ $ 110 $ 12,935 Task 2 - PS&E Task 2 1- 50% PS&E 15 30 50 90 70 16 1 271 $ 41,560 S 1,360 S 42,920 Task 2.2- 90% PS&E 10 20 40 80 1 60 12 222 S 33,600 S 1.180 $ 34.780 Task 2.3 - Final PS&E 10 20 40 80 50 16 216 S 32,620 $ 1,000 $ 33,620 Task 2.4 - Constructability Review 4 4 8 $ 1,680 $ 20 5 1,700 Task 2 Subtotal 39 74 130 250 180 44 717 $ 109,460 $ $ $ $ 3,560 $ 113,020 Task 3 - Subconsultant Services Task 3.1- Surveying & Mapping (DHA) 0 S $ 5,749 $ - $ 5,749 Task 3.2 - Structural Engineering (Peterson) 0 $ 5 20,249 S S 20,249 Task 3.3 - Corrosion Engineering (NWC) 0 S S 7,614 $ $ 7,614 Task 3 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ S 7,614 $ 5,749 S 20.249 S - S 33,612 Task 4 - Bidding and Award Services Task 4.1 - Bidder Inquiries & Addenda 2 1 2 4 2 2 13 $ 2,010 S 56 S 2,066 Task 4.2- Pre -bid Conference 2 4 6 S 1,136 1 $ 60 $ 1,196 Task 4 Subtotal 4 1 6 4 2 2 19 S 3,146 S $ S $ 116 $ 3,262 Task 5 - Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed Unanticipated Task Reserve (As Needed) 0 S 16,000 S - S 16,000 Task Task S- Subtotal 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 $ 16,000 $ $ $ - $ - $ 16,000 TOTAL • ALL TASKS 69 89 1S8 254 1 182. 51 803 j $ f4%All1 $ 7,614 $ S,749 S 20,249 $ 3,786 City of Edmonds Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. Phase 2 - Five Engineers/Planners Packet Pg. 96 Exh B - Ph... 2 - Five Comers Reservau s DesignFee 3-6-17 zls 4.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with The Blueline Group to provide Capital Project Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services for 2017 Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On February 16, 2016 Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with The Blueline Group (Blueline) to provide Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services for 2016 and 2017. On March 28, 2017, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the April 4th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement. Narrative The City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in November, 2015 to hire a consultant to support City staff with construction management, engineering and inspection services for various City funded capital projects that are scheduled to begin construction in 2016 and 2017. The City received statements of qualifications from six engineering firms and the selection committee chose The Blueline Group based on their qualifications, experience and approach. On February 16, 2016 Council authorized the Mayor to sign the Professional Services Agreement for projects that were scheduled for construction in 2016. A supplemental agreement has now been negotiated for projects beginning in 2017 and to closeout projects that started in 2016. The City has negotiated a consultant fee of $185,800. This includes a $28,000 management reserve for scope of work changes or time extensions during construction. This contract will be funded by the respective utility fund. This contract will provide professional services on the following projects: 1. 2017 Sewerline Replacement Budget: $1.49M Status: 90% Design Construction: May 2017 - October 2017 2. 2016 Sewerline Replacement Budget: $420,000 Packet Pg. 97 4.6 Status: Construction Construction: July 2017 - September 2017 3. Northstream Pipe Abandonment Project Budget: $633,400 Status: 90% Design Construction: June 2017 - September 2017 In addition, these services may also be used to support staff to finalize closeout of projects that were completed recently and were part of last year's contract. Each project will be managed by a City Capital Projects Manager. The consultant will assist the City's project manager by providing daily field inspection and assisting with contract administration duties such as review of contractor's progress schedule, manage request for information (RFI's) log, change order documentation, coordinate on -site material testing, assist with project close-out activities, respond to citizen questions and other duties as outlined in the scope of work. Attachments: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement Packet Pg. 98 4.6.a Original Contract No. 6716 Supplemental Agreement 1 No. CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING 121 5" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and The Blueline Group, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services project, dated February 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide capital project construction management, engineering and inspection services; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of February 24, 2016 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $128,400 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $185,800 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $314,200 ($128,400 plus $185,800). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. Packet Pg. 99 4.6.a DONE this day of , 20 CITY OF EDMONDS THE BLUELINE GROUP BY: Mayor David O. Earling ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney By: _ Title: Packet Pg. 100 4.6.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Pg. 101 4.6.a Exhibit 'A' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between The Blueline Group, LLC and the City of Edmonds for Construction Services for 2017 Projects, dated March 20, 2017. Task 001- CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES Fee: Time and Expense (Estimated $135,900) Blueline will provide as -needed inspection services at the City's request during the 2017 construction season, and will coordinate construction management activities with the City. Services under this task are anticipated to include: 1. Review plans/specifications and visit the site. 2. Review materials delivered to the site to review compliance with City approved submittals. 3. Provide inspection for all aspects of the construction activity to review Contractor compliance with the contract plans and specifications. 4. Coordinate compaction and materials testing with the testing agency selected by the City under a separate contract. 5. Coordinate all testing with the City and Contractor for water and sewer projects. G. Coordinate final connections with the City and Contractor for water main projects. 7. Record and report the progress of the construction operations to the City throughout the duration of the contract. 8. Furnish the City with verification of all quantities of materials. 9. Provide final project inspection including punchlists. 10. Provide as -built redlines to supplement the Contractor's redlines. 11. Monitor the Contractor's traffic control operations to review compliance with City approved Traffic Control Plan. 12. Be responsive to requests from citizens and businesses. Deliverables (to be submitted weekly during construction): • Inspector's Daily Reports. • Records of Force Account Work. • Weekly Tabulation of Quantities Placed (with all truck tickets attached). • Construction Progress Photos. It is anticipated that the City will: • Provide purity testing (with coordination provided by Inspector). • Review submittals and project schedules. Assumptions: • Projects include the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement (85 working days), 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement (25 working days) and the Northstream Pipe Abandonment and Repair (35 working days) projects. • The Contractor will provide construction staking for the projects. • The City or Design Engineering Firm will prepare as -built drawings based off of the as -built redlines. Mileage associated with onsite construction inspection has been included in this task. Packet Pg. 102 4.6.a Exhibit 'A' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between The Blueline Group, LLC and the City of Edmonds for Construction Services for 2017 Projects, dated March 20, 2017. Task 002 - PROJECTMANAGEMENT Fee: Time and Expense (Estimated $21,900) This task is for general coordination and meetings on the project, including: 1. Management of all tasks and staff for construction inspection services. 2. Communication with the City of Edmonds regarding the construction. 3. Budget tracking and providing weekly updates to the City. 4. Preparation of consultant monthly invoices for work performed during the previous month, including any pertinent backup materials. Assumptions: • Projects include the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement (85 working days), 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement (25 working days) and the Northstream Pipe Abandonment and Repair (35 working days) projects. • If additional inspection time is requested beyond the scope of Task 001, it may be billed under this task. Task 003 - MA NA GEMEN T RESERVE Fee: Time and Expense (Estimated $28,000) This task provides for unanticipated construction services deemed to be necessary during the course of the project. GENERAL ASSUMPT/ONSAND NOTES 1. Scope and fees outlined above are based on the following information (any changes to these documents may result in changes to the fees): a. Correspondence between the Blueline Group and the City of Edmonds on February 24 and 27, 2017 and March 20, 2017. 2. The client shall provide The Blueline Group with approved plans, contract documents, and any necessary inspection forms. 3. The fees stated above do not include reimbursable expenses such as large format copies (larger than letter/legal size), and plots. These items will be billed under a separate task called Expenses. 4. Compaction and materials testing will be billed directly to the City by the testing agency. 5. Time and expense items are based on The Blueline Group's current hourly rates. 6. Night time work will include a 25% surcharge. 7. Night time work will be performed as full-time inspections only (8 hrs/shift minimum). Packet Pg. 103 Job Number: 17-014 Date: March 20, 2017 Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2017 Projects dated March 20, 2017 City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services Prepared By: Deanna Martin, PE Checked By: Ken Lauzen, PE Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector Task # Task $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr Total Mileage Total Hours Total Cost Hours Hours Hours 001 Construction Inspection Services 0 $ - 0 $ 1200 $ 132,000 3,915 1,200 $ 135,915 002 Project Management 126 $ 21,924 0 $ 0 $ - 0 126 $ 21,924 003 Management Reserve $ 28,000 Total 126 $ 21,924 0 $ 1,200 $ 132,000 $ 3,915 1,326 $ 185,839 Total Cost (Rounded) $ 185,800 Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1938 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services) Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2017 Projects dated March 20, 2017 City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services Construction Inspection Services 001A Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2017 SS Replacement TOTAL Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 2 Full-time Field (17 wk @ 40 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 680.0 $ 74,800 680.0 $ 74,800 3 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 4 Mileage (17 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 2,295 Total i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 696.0 $ 76,560 696.0 $ 78,855 *Assumes 85 total working days Construction Inspection Services 001B Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 SS Replacement TOTAL Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 440 4.0 $ 440 2 Full-time Field (5 wks x 40 hrs/wk)* 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 200.0 $ 22,000 200.0 $ 22,000 3 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 4 Mileage (5 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 675 Total i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 21.2.01 $ 23,320 212.0 $ 23,995 *Assumes 25 total working days Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1938 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services) Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2017 Projects dated March 20, 2017 City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services Construction Inspection Services 001C Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector Northstream Pipe Abandonment & Repair TOTAL Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 440 4.0 $ 440 2 Full-time Field (7 wks x 40 hrs/wk)* 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 280.0 $ 30,800 280.0 $ 30,800 3 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 4 Mileage (7 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 945 Total i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 292.01 $ 32,120 292.0 $ 33,065 *Assumes 35 total working days Project Management 002A Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2017 SS Replacement Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 4.0 $ 696 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 696 2 Review IDRs/documentation (17 wks x 2 hr/wk) 34.0 $ 5,916 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 34.0 $ 5,916 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (17 wks x 1 hr/wk) 17.0 $ 2,958 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 17.0 $ 2,958 4 Coordination with Staff and City (17 wks x 1 hr/wk) 17.0 $ 2,958 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 17.0 $ 2,958 Total 72.01 $ 12,528 1 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 72.0 $ 12,528 *Assumes 85 total working days Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1938 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services) Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2017 Projects dated March 20, 2017 City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services Project Management 002B Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 SS Replacement Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 2.0 $ 348 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 2.0 $ 348 2 Review IDRs/documentation (5 wks x 2 hr/wk) 10.0 $ 1,740 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 10.0 $ 1,740 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (5 wks x 1 hr/wk) 5.0 $ 870 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 5.0 $ 870 4 Coordination with Staff and City (5 wks x 1 hr/wk) 5.0 $ 870 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 5.0 $ 870 Total 1 22.0 $ 3,828 1 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 22.0 *Assumes 25 total working days Project Management 002C Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector Northstream Pipe Abandonment & Repair Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 4.0 $ 696 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 696 2 Review IDRs/documentation (7 wks x 2 hr/wk) 14.0 $ 2,436 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 14.0 $ 2,436 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (7 wks x 1 hr/wk) 7.0 $ 1,218 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 7.0 $ 1,218 4 Coordination with Staff and City (7 wks x 1 hr/wk) 7.0 $ 1,218 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 7.0 $ 11218 Total 1 32.01 $ 5,568 1 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 1 32.0 $ 5,568 *Assumes 35 total working days 003 Management Reserve Item # Description TOTAL FEE Lump Sum 1 Management Reserve $ 28,000 $ 28,000 Total 1 $ 28,0001 1 $ 28,000 Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1938 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services) Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2017 Projects dated March 20, 2017 City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services Construction Inspection Services 001A Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2017 SS Replacement Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 2 Full-time Field (17 wk @ 40 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 680.0 $ 74,800 680.0 $ 74,800 3 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 4 Mileage (17 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 2,295 Total i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 696.0 $ 76,560 696.0 $ 78,855 *Assumes 85 total working days Project Management 002A Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2017 SS Replacement Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 4.0 $ 696 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 696 2 Review IDRs/documentation (17 wks x 2 hr/wk) 34.0 $ 5,916 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 34.0 $ 5,916 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (17 wks x 1 hr/wk) 17.0 $ 2,958 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 17.0 $ 2,958 4 Coordination with Staff and City (17 wks x 1 hr/wk) 17.0 $ 2,958 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 17.0 $ 2,958 Total 72.01 $ 12,528 1 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 72.0 $ 12,528 *Assumes 85 total working days Total 2017 SS Replacement $ 91,383 Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1938 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services) Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2017 Projects dated March 20, 2017 City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services Construction Inspection Services 001B Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 SS Replacement TOTAL Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 440 4.0 $ 440 2 Full-time Field (5 wks x 40 hrs/wk)* 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 200.0 $ 22,000 200.0 $ 22,000 3 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 4 Mileage (5 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 675 Total i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 21.2.01 $ 23,320 212.0 $ 23,995 *Assumes 25 total working days Project Management 002B Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 SS Replacement Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 2.0 $ 348 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 2.0 $ 348 2 Review IDRs/documentation (5 wks x 2 hr/wk) 10.0 $ 1,740 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 10.0 $ 1,740 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (5 wks x 1 hr/wk) 5.0 $ 870 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 5.0 $ 870 4 Coordination with Staff and City (5 wks x 1 hr/wk) 5.0 $ 870 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 5.0 $ 870 Total 1 22.0 $ 3,828 1 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 22.0 *Assumes 25 total working days 2016 SS Replacementl $ 27,823 l Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1938 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services) Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2017 Projects dated March 20, 2017 City of Edmonds 2017 Construction Services Construction Inspection Services 001C Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector Northstream Pipe Abandonment & Repair TOTAL Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 440 4.0 $ 440 2 Full-time Field (7 wks x 40 hrs/wk)* 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 280.0 $ 30,800 280.0 $ 30,800 3 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 4 Mileage (7 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 945 Total i 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 1 292.01 $ 32,120 292.0 $ 33,065 *Assumes 35 total working days Project Management 002C Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector Northstream Pipe Abandonment & Repair Item # Description $174/hr $156/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 4.0 $ 696 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 696 2 Review IDRs/documentation (7 wks x 2 hr/wk) 14.0 $ 2,436 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 14.0 $ 2,436 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (7 wks x 1 hr/wk) 7.0 $ 1,218 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 7.0 $ 1,218 4 Coordination with Staff and City (7 wks x 1 hr/wk) 7.0 $ 1,218 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 7.0 $ 1,218 Total 1 32.0 $ 5,568 1 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 32.0 *Assumes 35 total working days Northstream Pipe Abandonment & Repairl $ 38,633 l 003 Management Reserve Item # Description TOTAL FEE Lump Sum 1 Management Reserve $ 28,000 $ 28,000 Total $ 28,0001 1 $ 28,000 Attachment: The Blueline Group - Supplemental Agreement (1938 : Blueline Supplement for Construction Inspection Services) 4.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 February 2017 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History <Type or insert Info here> Staff Recommendation No action needed; informational only. Narrative February 2017 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report Attachments: February Monthly Budgetary Financial Report Packet Pg. 111 I 4.7.a I OF EDP � d lac. 1 $9v CITY OF EDMONDS MONTHLY BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT FEBRUARY 2017 Packet Pg. 112 1 4.7.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received 001 GENERAL FUND $ 37,753,480 $ 4,307,339 $ 4,590,134 $ 33,163,346 120 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 278,630 466 1,643 276,987 10 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 6,800 878 3,004 3,796 440 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 44,650 1,520 7,417 37,233 170 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - 52 - - 00 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,030 8 24 5,006 00 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1 452,000 25,808 211,428 240,572 470 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 130,000 68,479 26,867 103,133 210 III STREET FUND 1,784,200 221,618 318,923 1,465,277 180 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2 5,933,570 3,037,343 290,267 5,643,303 50 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 137,200 483 1,615 135,585 10 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 110 16 56 54 510 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 91,200 11,556 11,531 79,669 130 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 24,600 6,813 8,824 15,776 360 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 1,800 17 122 1,678 70 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 30,450 3,895 3,988 26,462 130 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,311,900 225,817 219,814 1,092,086 170 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKSACQ FUND 1,314,400 225,693 220,765 1,093,635 170 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 50,390 18,297 21,844 28,546 430 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 280 35 121 159 430 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 177,820 23,939 46,070 131,750 260 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 3 2,616,940 135,230 61,857 2,555,083 20 136 PARKSTRUST FUND 1,070 139 479 591 450 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 22,880 3,454 8,006 14,874 350, 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,010 4 20 9,990 00 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 106,346 - - 00 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 34,320 34,752 (34,752) 00, 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 14,400 773 - 14,400 00 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 695,830 - - 695,830 00 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND - 936,429 - - 00 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - 25,583 23,241 (23,241) 09 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 8,469,570 1,348,442 1,277,091 7,192,479 150 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,770,970 845,820 954,684 3,816,286 200 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 4 11,663,700 1,785,770 2,062,692 9,601,008 180 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,988,700 1 1 1,988,699 00, 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,628,910 261,333 312,408 1,316,502 190 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 946,040 - 197,670 748,370 210 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 66,000 184 688 65,312 10 $ 82,4235530 $1356635900 $ 1059185041 $ 7155055489 130, Difference between 2016 and 2017 is due to grant invoicing for Fishing Pier Rehab. 2 Difference between 2016 and 2017 is due to grant invoicing for various projects. 3 Differences between 2016 and 2017 are due to parks donations and park impact fees. 4 Difference between 2016 and 2017 is primarily due to invoicing timing difference. 1 Packet Pg. 113 1 4.7.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND 5 $ 39,793,700 $ 7,893,221 $ 7,073,110 $ 32,720,590 180/( 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 293,460 42,801 49,402 244,058 170/( 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,400 - - 5,400 00/( 016 BUILDING MAINT ENANCE 482,000 7,149 23,071 458,929 501( 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 76,030 16,472 15,640 60,390 21°/ III STREET FUND 1,922,760 322,714 344,298 1,578,462 180/( 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 6 5,962,970 715,255 141,041 5,821,929 20/( 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 181,880 3,693 6,293 175,587 30/( 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 89,700 6,121 3,481 86,219 40/( 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 - - 26,880 00/( 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,000 189 214 1,786 110/( 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 34,700 3,737 1,190 33,510 30% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,476,000 13,975 150,011 2,325,989 60/( 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 2,180,310 475,000 - 2,180,310 00/( 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 51,220 6,553 102 51,118 00/( 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 217,020 22,719 27,911 189,109 130/( 132 PARKS CONSTRUCT ION FUND 7 2,935,000 496,143 44,327 2,890,673 20/( 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,500 - 21 10,479 00/( 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 106,346 - - 00/( 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 893 2,120 (2,120) 00/( 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 16,450 - - 16,450 0°/ 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 695,830 - 695,830 00/( 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND - 936,429 - - 00/( 421 WATER UTILITYFUND 12,745,260 986,969 923,929 11,821,331 7°/ 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,495,330 433,597 527,093 6,968,237 70/( 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,995,780 1,215,189 1,073,319 13,922,461 70/( 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,720 - - 1,989,720 00/c 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,873,000 102,543 277,646 1,595,354 1501( 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 890,430 - 177,236 713,194 200/( 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 72,070 8,359 14,694 57,376 200/( $ 97,515,400 $13,816,066 $ 10,956,749 $ 86,558,651 110% 5 Differences between 2016 and 2017 is primarily due to Fire District Retro Payment in 2016. 6 Differences between 2016 and 2017 are due to construction projects expenses in 2016. 7 Differences between 2016 and 2017 are due to purchase of Civic Field in 2016. 2 Packet Pg. 114 1 I 4.7.a I Page 1 of 3 C TIY O F IDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 8 EMS PROPERTY TAX VOTED PROPERTY TAX LOCAL RETAIL SALESIUSE TAX 9 NATURAL GAS USE TAX 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 10 GAS UT ILIT Y TAX SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX WATERUTILIT Y TAX SEWER UT ILIT Y TAX ST ORMWAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX PULLTABSTAX AMUSEMENT GAMES LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE POLICE - FINGERPRINTING PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI AMUSEMENTS VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS ANIMAL LICENSES STREET AND CURB PERMIT OT R NON -BUS LIC/P ERMIT S INTERGOVERNMENTAL: DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS MARIJUANA ENFORCEMENT DUI - CITIES LIQUOR EXCISE TAX LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS INTERLOCAL GRANTS VERDANT I NT ERLOCAL GRANTS $ 10,221,670 $ 53,564 $ 78,899 $ 10,142,771 1% 3,911,080 18,656 23,613 3,887,467 1% 10,000 4,993 6,313 3,687 63% 6,875,000 1,204,754 1,307,546 5,567,454 19% 7,040 1,358 2,022 5,018 29% 687,500 119,672 124,449 563,051 18% 1,604,000 348,280 382,822 1,221,178 24% 608,000 176,574 203,652 404,348 33% 313,600 54,473 54,268 259,332 17% 1,235,300 176,373 175,456 1,059,844 14% 632,300 103,469 113,469 518,831 18% 331,300 75,076 82,882 248,418 25% 857,600 143,716 144,913 712,687 17% 1,263,200 230,098 199,068 1,064,132 16% 52,000 12,510 12,853 39,147 25% 40 141 - 40 0% 262,300 59,768 64,626 197,674 25% 28,871,930 2,783,475 2,976,850 25,895,080 10% 250 120 - 250 0% 300 20 138 162 46% 330 - - 330 0% 4,740 - 3,625 1,115 76% 50,000 542 917 49,083 2% 716,800 180,648 184,984 531,816 26% 42,100 7,081 7,034 35,066 17% 102,300 25,106 25,768 76,532 25% 16,600 4,107 3,768 12,832 23% 298,200 60,666 - 298,200 0% 116,600 59,510 47,238 69,362 41% 44,940 8,840 11,995 32,945 27% 67,800 30,550 32,000 35,800 47% 10,700 - 11,880 (1,180) 111% 620,600 128,748 89,754 530,846 14% 35,090 5,289 8,058 27,032 23% 48,150 9,875 5,580 42,570 12% 13,200 2,775 2,415 10,785 18% 2,188,700 523,878 435,153 1,753,547 20% 7,930 - 5,949 1,981 75% 4,000 - 1,030 2,970 26% 7,100 1,139 - 7,100 0% - 89,893 - - 0% 195,500 - - 195,500 0% 12,680 2,725 2,828 9,852 22% 18,000 4,575 4,179 13,821 23% 42,500 9,961 10,290 32,210 24% 23,700 - - 23,700 0% 3,000 1,593 1,560 1,440 52% 191,000 42,903 45,915 145,085 24% 345,600 - - 345,600 0% - - 110,000 (110,000) 0% 2,000 - - 2,000 0% 853,010 152,789 181,751 671,259 21% 8 2017 Real Personal/Property Tax revenues are $25,334 higher than 2016 revenues. 2017 Local Retail Sales/Use Tax revenues are $102,792 higher than 2016 revenues. Please also seepages 18 & 19. 10 2017 Electric Utility Taxrevenues are $34,542 higher than 2016 revenues. 3 Packet Pg. 115 1 4.7.a Page 2 of 3 CITY OF EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS ATM SURCHARGE FEES CREDIT CARD FEES D/M COURT REC SER MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN SALE MAPS & BOOKS CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKINGPERMITS BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT PHOTOCOPIES POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES SNO-ISLE PASSPORTS AND NAT URALIZAT ION FEES POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE BOOKING FEES FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE FIBER SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE PLAN CHECKING FEES FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES PLANNING 1 % INSPECTION FEE S.E.P.A. REVIEW CRITICAL AREA STUDY DV COORDINATOR SERVICES GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES LOCKER FEES PROGRAM FEES TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 2,000 86 611 1,389 31% 300 13 64 236 21% 15,000 - 1,398 13,602 9% 10 3 77 (67) 768% 600 163 30 570 5% 100 - 23 77 23% 25,100 - - 25,100 0% 600 - - 600 0% 2,000 196 14 1,986 1 % 4,000 625 590 3,410 15% 200,000 35,417 19,433 180,567 10% 58,000 16,084 18,982 39,018 33% 17,000 4,225 4,600 12,400 27% 30,000 - - 30,000 0% 66,280 - - 66,280 0% 42,000 10,180 10,527 31,473 25% 1,500 - - 1,500 0% 300 - - 300 0% - 10 11 (11) 0% 45,000 13,635 13,796 31,204 31% 56,000 12,432 9,134 46,866 16% 4,200 731 604 3,596 14% 8,560 4,356 2,550 6,010 30% 8,000 1,621 525 7,475 7% 824,200 231,033 231,032 593,168 28% - 1,530 - - 0% - 1,200 - - 0% 1,800 310 434 1,366 24% 250 35 15 235 6% 80,250 12,190 15,220 65,030 19% 428,000 53,627 90,659 337,341 21% 3,210 1,710 1,380 1,830 43% 1,600 1,228 - 1,600 0% 2,140 - 1,340 800 63% 18,190 1,705 1,985 16,205 11 % 11,460 1,853 1,910 9,550 17% 12,000 2,368 2,625 9,375 22% - - 15 (15) 0% 910,100 134,016 155,147 754,953 17% 1,300 465 276 1,024 21% 5,000 25 - 5,000 0% 750 - - 750 0% 2,044,540 157,556 262,532 1,782,008 13% 4,931,340 7009628 847,538 4,0839802 17% 4 Packet Pg. 116 4.7.a Page 3 of 3 C PIY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received FINES AND FORFEITURES: PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 PARKING INFRACT ION P ENALT IES PARK/INDDISZONE DWI PENALTIES DUI - DP ACCT CRIM CNV FEE DUI OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT CRIM CONV FEE CT OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN CRIM CONV FEE CN CRIMINAL COST S-RECOUPMENT S PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT COURT INTERPRETER COSTS BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY MISC FINES AND PENALTIES MISCELLANEOUS: INVESTMENT INTEREST INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS PARKING SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS BRACKET ROOM RENTAL LEASES LONG-TERM OTHER RENTS& USE CHARGES PARKSDONATIONS BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS VOLUNT EER P ICNIC CONTRIBUTIONS POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES OTHER MISC REVENUES SMALL OVERPAYMENT NSF FEES - PARKS & REC NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT US BANK REBATE TRANSFERS -IN: TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 7,200 769 896 6,304 12% 32,800 29,638 33,930 (1,130) 103% 232,500 9,886 5,129 227,371 2% 20,700 3,138 3,316 17,384 16% - 19,125 - - 0% 2,100 206 641 1,459 31% 25,300 5,805 9,660 15,640 38% 3,600 617 750 2,850 21% 8,000 1,682 1,496 6,504 19% 2,800 547 329 2,471 12% 500 117 39 461 8% - - 51 (51) 0% 33,600 5,307 7,199 26,401 21% 2,000 316 439 1,561 22% 2,000 379 281 1,719 14% 9,300 591 1,677 7,623 18% 600 (4) 87 513 14% 1,900 212 142 1,758 7% 500 131 83 417 17% 30,900 5,082 1,620 29,280 5% 25,600 4,185 3,187 22,413 12% 6,000 - 1,499 4,501 25% 100 35 3 97 3% 11,000 3,650 4,530 6,470 41% 1,400 - 720 680 51% 460,400 91,413 77,706 382,694 17% 40,400 4,419 18,730 21,670 46% 5,700 387 710 4,990 12% 5,400 1,075 985 4,415 18% 15,600 2,482 2,821 12,779 18% 147,000 7,954 6,148 140,853 4% 5,000 480 600 4,400 12% 175,000 30,359 30,950 144,050 18% 2,400 - - 2,400 0% 4,350 3,500 3,050 1,300 70% 1,500 - - 1,500 0% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 300 - - 300 0% 3,000 1,865 465 2,535 16% 2,000 - - 2,000 0% 2,000 50 7 1,993 0% 200 - 20 180 10% - 158 99 (99) 0% 2,000 858 4,989 (2,989) 249% 30 1 - 30 0% 120 - - 120 0% 300 66 14 286 5% 7,500 1,500 1,549 5,951 21% 421,800 55,156 71,136 350,664 17% 26,300 - - 26,300 0% 26,300 - - 26,300 0% $ 37,753,480 $ 4,307,339 $ 4,590,134 $ 33,163,346 12% 5 Packet Pg. 117 I 4.7.a I Page 1 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 14,728,510 $ 2,231,289 $ 2,307,211 $ 12,421,299 16% OVERTIME 485,880 82,483 84,446 401,434 17% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 226,420 - 881 225,539 0% BENEFITS 5,496,060 841,226 889,782 4,606,278 16% UNIFORMS 85,110 12,018 6,459 78,651 8% SUPPLIES 360,680 39,697 48,804 311,876 14% SMALL EQUIPMENT 50,040 23,883 4,226 45,814 8% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,399,850 283,386 317,133 3,082,717 9% COMMUNICATIONS 182,180 20,185 15,384 166,796 8% TRAVEL 50,430 1,871 2,093 48,337 4% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 - 532 5,968 8% ADVERTISING - 373 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 1,738,570 151,627 283,641 1,454,929 16% INSURANCE 609,550 536,735 616,495 (6,945) 101% UTILITIES 457,800 65,420 65,138 392,662 14% REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 223,800 59,792 90,850 132,950 41% MISCELLANEOUS 395,500 123,705 73,530 321,970 19% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 9,818,750 2,483,104 2,266,505 7,552,245 23% INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 135,000 - - 135,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,080,200 936,429 1,080,200 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 58,000 - 58,000 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 164,790 - 164,790 0% OTHER DEBT 500 - 500 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 39,580 - 39,580 0% 39,793,700 7,893,221 7,073,110 32,720,590 18% LEO FF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009) BENEFITS $ 183,190 $ 42,801 $ 37,743 $ 145,447 21% IN HOME LTC CLAIMS 102,990 - 11,659 91,331 11% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 - - 7,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 280 - - 280 0% 293,460 42,801 49,402 244,058 17% RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS $ - $ - $ 80,601 $ (80,601) 0% - - 80,601 (80,601) 0% HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 - 200 0% MISCELLANEOUS 5,100 - 5,100 0% 5,400 - 5,400 0% BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 2,000 $ 6,603 $ 6,362 $ (4,362) 318% REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE 130,000 - 16,709 113,291 13% MISCELLANEOUS - 546 - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 350,000 - - 350,000 0% 482,000 7,149 23,071 458,929 5% DRUG INFO RC EMENT FUND (104) FUEL CONSUMED $ 3,000 $ 145 $ 335 $ 2,665 11% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - - 5,000 0% COMMUNICATIONS 2,230 292 267 1,963 12% REPAIR/MAINT 800 - - 800 0% MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 25% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 45,000 11,035 10,038 34,962 22% 76,030 16,472 15,640 60,390 21% 6 Packet Pg. 118 I 4.7.a I Page 2 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAAIL 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent STREETFUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 555,070 $ 84,867 $ 89,404 $ 465,666 16% OVERTIME 18,400 4,332 6,071 12,329 33% BENEFITS 318,720 46,070 45,237 273,483 14% UNIFORMS 6,000 2,754 117 5,883 2% SUPPLIES 350,000 25,793 28,315 321,685 8% SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,000 489 - 24,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15,050 3,547 1,303 13,747 9% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 629 500 3,000 14% TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 181,020 31,484 29,828 151,192 16% INSURANCE 113,230 97,912 110,508 2,722 98% UTILITIES 270,170 24,084 23,947 246,223 9% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 44,000 - 8,343 35,657 19% MISCELLANEOUS 12,500 - 725 11,775 6% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 5,000 754 - 5,000 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,490 - 3,490 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1 610 - 1 610 0% $ 1,922,760 $ 322,714 $ 344,298 $ 1,578,462 18% CONIB INFA STREETC0NST/IMPROVE(112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 2,236,780 $ 41,030 $ 135,957 $ 2,100,823 6% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $ - - 5,084 (5,084) 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 328,100 - - 328,100 0% LAND - 985 - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 3,322,820 673,239 3,322,820 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,220 - 72,220 0% INTEREST 3,050 - - 3,050 0% $ 5,962,970 $ 715,255 $ 141,041 $ 5,821,929 2% MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES $ 4,700 $ - $ $ 4,700 0% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,700 - 1,700 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 166,500 2,678 5,325 161,175 3% TRAVEL 80 11 - 80 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 - 2,000 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - - 300 0% MISCELLANEOUS 6,600 1,005 968 5,632 15% $ 181,880 $ 3,693 $ 6,293 $ 175,587 3% HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 73,500 $ 6,121 $ 3,481 $ 70,019 5% MISCELLANEOUS 12,200 - - 12,200 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 4,000 - - 4,000 0% $ 89,700 $ 6,121 $ 3,481 $ 86,219 4% EMPLO YEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES $ 1,790 $ - $ - $ 1,790 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 25,090 - 25,090 0% $ 26,880 $ - $ - $ 26,880 0% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS $ 2,000 $ 189 $ 214 $ 1,786 11% $ 2,000 $ 189 $ 214 $ 1,786 11% TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 30,200 $ 3,737 $ 1,190 $ 29,010 4% MISCELLANEOUS 4,500 - - 4,500 0% $ 34,700 $ 3,737 $ 1,190 $ 33,510 3% 7 Packet Pg. 119 Page 3 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES $ 21,000 $ 5,118 $ 15,315 $ 5,685 73% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 150,000 7,891 38,260 111,740 26% RENTAL/LEASE - 966 - - 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 140,000 - - 140,000 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,165,000 - 96,436 2,068,564 4% $ 2,476,000 $ 13,975 $ 150,011 $ 2,325,989 6% REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC (126) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND SUBSIDIES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS INTEREST GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES CEMETERY MAINTENANC UIMPRO VEMEVT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES TRAVEL MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139) INSURANCE INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ 75,000 $ $ $ 75,000 0% 142,330 142,330 0% 200,000 475,000 200,000 0% 1,733,350 - 1,733,350 0% 20,280 20,280 0% 9,350 - 9,350 0% $ 2,180,310 $ 475,000 $ $ 2,180,310 0% $ 17,820 $ 253 $ 102 $ 17,718 1% 6,500 6,300 - 6,500 0% 600 - 600 0% 26,300 - - 26,300 0% $ 51,220 $ 6,553 $ 102 $ 51,118 0% $ 124,410 $ 12,334 $ 12,618 $ 111,792 10% 3,500 26 670 2,830 19% 35,910 5,530 5,837 30,073 16% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 7,000 - 122 6,878 2% 20,000 2,338 455 19,545 2% 4,200 145 4,172 28 99% 1,410 166 206 1,204 15% 500 - - 500 0% 10,790 1,925 1,798 8,992 17% 3,800 - 305 3,495 8% 500 - - 500 0% 4,000 254 1,727 2,273 43% $ 217,020 $ 22,719 $ 27,911 $ 189,109 13% $ 600,000 $ 6,054 $ 1,295 $ 598,705 0% - 475,685 - - 0% 2,335,000 14,405 43,031 2,291,969 2% $ 2,935,000 $ 496,143 $ 44,327 $ 2,890,673 2% $ 1,500 $ $ 21 $ 1,479 1% 4,500 4,500 0% 4,500 4,500 0% $ 10,500 $ - $ 21 $ 10,479 0% $ $ 2,500 $ $ 0% 103,846 0% $ $ 106,346 $ $ 0 Packet Pg. 120 I 4.7.a I Page 4 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAAIL 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent BUSINESS EMPROVEMENTDISTRICT FUND (140) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ $ 893 $ 2,120 $ (2,120) 0% 893 2,120 (2,120) 0% LID FUND C O NTRO L (211) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES $ 16,450 $ - $ - $ 16,450 0% $ 16,450 $ - $ $ 16,450 0% 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND $ 565,450 $ - $ $ 565,450 0% INTEREST 129,880 - 129,880 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 - 500 0% $ 695,830 $ - $ $ 695,830 0% 2014 DEBTSERVICEFUND (232) 2014 PRINCIPAL PAYMENT INTEREST WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXCISE TAXES RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST $ - $ 933,208 $ $ - 0% 3,221 - 0% $ - $ 936,429 $ $ - 0% $ 844,510 $ 128,103 $ 131,057 $ 713,453 16% 24,000 4,760 5,871 18,129 24% 405,720 59,102 60,306 345,414 15% 4,000 247 - 4,000 0% 150,000 2,682 15,444 134,556 10% 1,667,500 217,778 217,458 1,450,042 13% 143,000 8,964 41,126 101,874 29% 19,730 - - 19,730 0% 1,696,720 93,186 84,876 1,611,844 5% 30,000 3,150 2,992 27,008 10% 200 - - 200 0% 340,000 65,288 61,086 278,914 18% 146,130 16,565 24,097 122,033 16% 56,050 52,335 58,214 (2,164) 104% 35,000 4,088 4,204 30,796 12% 17,500 520 12,218 5,282 70% 71,000 18,601 23,094 47,906 33% 30,000 5,555 6,429 23,571 21% 1,229,110 176,373 175,456 1,053,654 14% 725,820 - - 725,820 0% 25,000 - 25,000 0% 4,473,640 129,673 4,473,640 0% 2,340 - 2,340 0% 335,510 - 335,510 0% 25,840 - 25,840 0% 246,940 - - 246,940 0% $ 12,745,260 $ 986,969 $ 923,929 $ 11,821,331 7% 9 Packet Pg. 121 I 4.7.a I Page 5 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent STORM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 523,320 $ 90,737 $ 103,948 $ 419,372 20% OVERTIME 6,000 827 3,761 2,239 63% BENEFITS 262,680 42,943 48,518 214,162 18% UNIFORMS 6,500 2,690 312 6,188 5% SUPPLIES 46,000 1,425 9,280 36,720 20% SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,730 - 1,418 4,312 25% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,954,890 60,775 124,573 1,830,317 6% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 449 261 2,939 8% TRAVEL 4,300 200 - 4,300 0% EXCISE TAXES 55,000 7,324 7,903 47,097 14% RENTAL/LEASE 264,970 41,624 43,606 221,364 16% INSURANCE 71,540 63,187 72,028 (488) 101% UTILITES 10,500 1,475 1,590 8,910 15% REPAIR&MAINTENANCE 13,000 - 11,698 1,302 90% MISCELLANEOUS 88,500 6,679 9,774 78,726 11% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 150,000 38,185 5,542 144,458 4% INTERFUND TAXESAND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 330,430 75,076 82,882 247,548 25% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 411,950 - - 411,950 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,846,830 - 2,846,830 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 85,440 - 85,440 0% REVENUE BONDS 164,000 - 164,000 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,070 - 32,070 0% INTEREST 158,480 - 158,480 0% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXCISE TAXES RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST BOND RESERVE FUND (424) REVENUE BONDS INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ 7,495,330 $ 433,597 $ 527,093 $ 6,968,237 7% $ 1,783,120 $ 289,516 $ 281,651 $ 1,501,469 16% 95,000 15,302 15,948 79,052 17% 784,430 130,034 126,856 657,574 16% 9,500 2,481 3,240 6,261 34% 417,200 32,321 26,277 390,923 6% 80,000 5,524 12,995 67,005 16% 4,000 - - 4,000 0% 62,730 7,058 600 62,130 1% 1,456,070 150,052 120,902 1,335,168 8% 43,000 5,273 4,134 38,866 10% 5,000 - - 5,000 0% 170,000 40,900 30,241 139,759 18% 306,650 29,640 50,939 255,711 17% 109,270 105,637 115,442 (6,172) 106% 1,217,860 124,236 91,125 1,126,735 7% 340,000 46,590 33,841 306,159 10% 105,450 8,526 9,982 95,468 9% 178,000 64,448 35,678 142,322 20% 629,140 103,469 113,469 515,671 18% 2,065,570 - - 2,065,570 0% 110,000 - 110,000 0% 4,529,590 54,182 4,529,590 0% 132,950 - 132,950 0% 75,510 - 75,510 0% 171,240 - 171,240 0% 114,500 - - 114,500 0% $ 14,995,780 $ 1,215,189 $ 1,073,319 $ 13,922,461 7% $ 680,020 $ - $ $ 680,020 0% 1,308,700 - 1,308,700 0% 1,000 - 1,000 0% $ 1,989,720 $ $ $ 1,989,720 0% 10 Packet Pg. 122 4.7.a Page 6 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND (512) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS 11 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFIT S PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 238,360 $ 37,713 $ 39,438 $ 198,922 17% 2,000 - - 2,000 0% 103,580 16,123 17,348 86,232 17% 1,000 57 44 956 4% 110,000 1,598 6,535 103,465 6% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 294,200 3,980 27,548 266,652 9% 58,000 392 463 57,537 1% 44,000 327 352 43,648 1% 3,000 398 293 2,707 10% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 15,350 3,056 2,406 12,944 16% 29,010 28,335 26,351 2,659 91% 14,000 1,905 2,085 11,915 15% 60,000 2,689 4,894 55,106 8% 12,000 140 - 12,000 0% 2,500 - - 2,500 0% 884,000 5,830 149,891 734,109 17% $ 1,873,000 $ 102,543 $ 277,646 $ 1,595,354 15% $ 277,270 $ $ 46,679 $ 230,591 17% 2,000 - 2,000 0% 92,150 15,371 76,779 17% 5,000 3,216 1,784 64% 23,000 1,565 21,435 7% 114,000 - 1,829 112,171 2% 65,270 - 7,929 57,341 12% 1,500 - - 1,500 0% 7,850 - 1,126 6,724 14% 241,390 - 29,352 212,038 12% 5,000 - 70,170 (65,170) 1403% 56,000 - - 56,000 0% $ 890,430 $ - $ 177,236 $ 713,194 20% $ 22,550 $ 4,058 $ 6,416 $ 16,134 28% 48,320 4,302 8,278 40,042 17% 1,200 - - 1,200 0% $ 72,070 $ 8,359 $ 14,694 $ 57,376 20% $ 97,515,400 $ 13,816,066 $ 10,956,749 $ 86,558,651 11% Timing difference for Microsoft Office Windows Software Renewal in 2017. 11 Packet Pg. 123 1 4.7.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF MAYOR HUMAN RESOURCES MUNICIPAL COURT CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CITY ATTORNEY NON -DEPARTMENTAL POLICE SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PARKS & RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE $ 376,120 $ 27,668 $ 44,954 $ 331,166 12% ' 276,700 43,294 46,116 230,584 17% 456,490 58,708 63,054 393,436 14% 994,140 145,300 170,699 823,441 17% 670,690 87,838 115,829 554,861 17% I 1,029,560 288,956 199,380 830,181 19% 818,780 120,220 133,495 685,285 16% 12,709,530 4,065,136 2,947,431 9,762,099 23% ' 10,527,420 1,527,193 1,625,589 8,901,831 15% 563,230 61,145 82,958 480,272 15% 2,916,680 361,353 416,189 2,500,491 14% 4,091,740 502,972 525,411 3,566,329 13% 2,813,990 362,844 437,997 2,375,993 16% 1,548,630 240,595 264,009 1,284,621 17% $ 39,793,700 $ 7,893,221 $ 7,073,110 $ 32,720,590 18% C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2017 Adopted Budget 2/28/2016 Expenditures 2/28/2017 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITYFUND $ 12,745,260 $ 986,969 $ 923,929 $ 11,821,331 7% STORM UTILITY FUND 7,495,330 433,597 527,093 6,968,237 7% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 14,995,780 1,215,189 1,073,319 13,922,461 7% BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,720 - - 1,989,720 0% $ 37,226,090 $ 2,635,755 $ 2,524,341 $ 34,701,749 7% 12 Packet Pg. 124 4.7.a Page 1 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENTIN DETAIL 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 158,170 $ 15,172 $ 25,956 $ 132,215 16% OVERTIME 1,000 - - 1,000 0% BENEFITS 108,520 11,583 17,014 91,506 16% SUPPLIES 2,000 105 210 1,790 11% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 62,160 - - 62,160 0% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 600 300 2,700 10% TRAVEL 6,700 140 45 6,655 1% RENTAL/LEASE 9,070 69 1,430 7,640 16% REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 25,000 25,000 0% $ 376,120 $ 27,668 $ 44,954 $ 331,166 12% O FFIC E O F MAYO R SALARIES $ 202,230 $ 32,914 $ 33,740 $ 168,490 17% BENEFITS 49,670 8,009 8,194 41,476 16% SUPPLIES 1,500 81 57 1,443 4% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 848 1,582 418 79% COMMUNICATION 1,400 191 218 1,182 16% TRAVEL 4,000 514 - 4,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 11,450 322 2,058 9,392 18% MISCELLANEOUS 4,450 415 267 4,183 6% $ 276,700 $ 43,294 $ 46,116 $ 230,584 17% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES $ 249,980 $ 37,219 $ 37,738 $ 212,242 15% BENEFITS 79,390 12,464 13,230 66,160 17% SUPPLIES 2,300 1,196 112 2,188 5% SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 - - 300 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 78,000 6,497 2,264 75,736 3% COMMUNICATIONS 700 191 102 598 15% TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 19,790 322 4,103 15,687 21% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 7,850 - 7,056 794 90% MISCELLANEOUS 17,180 819 (1,550) 1&730 -9% $ 456,490 $ 58,708 $ 63,054 $ 393A36 14% MUNIC IPAL C O URT SALARIES $ 609,690 $ 93,260 $ 108,999 $ 500,691 18% OVERTIME 600 - 14 586 2% BENEFITS 222,520 34,486 39,391 183,129 18% SUPPLIES 6,700 1,183 582 6,118 9% SMALL EQUIPMENT 900 132 - 900 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 73,000 12,430 11,359 61,641 16% COMMUNICATIONS 2,100 478 122 1,978 6% TRAVEL 4,500 119 19 4,481 0% RENTAL/LEASE 39,280 130 6,663 32,617 17% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,250 128 252 998 20% MISCELLANEOUS 33,600 2,954 3,298 30,302 10% $ 994,140 $ 145,300 $ 170,699 $ 823,441 17% 13 Packet Pg. 125 I 4.7.a I Page 2 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining �/„ Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 326,390 $ 57,785 $ 54,402 $ 271,989 17% OVERTIME 1,000 164 - 1,000 0% BENEFITS 140,440 21,777 24,445 115,995 17% SUPPLIES 10,240 550 642 9,598 6% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 500 - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,310 1,881 5,866 22,444 21% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 112 6,102 43,898 12% TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 81,830 3,057 7,745 74,085 9% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 27,480 1,350 15,297 12,183 56% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 662 1,331 2,669 33% $ 670,690 $ 87,838 $ 115,829 $ 554,861 17% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 696,560 $ 136,994 $ 116,061 $ 580,499 17% OVERTIME 4,500 23 - 4,500 0% BENEFITS 223,910 46,941 36,874 187,036 16% SUPPLIES 7,350 653 645 6,705 9% SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,650 15,237 - 2,650 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,800 2,913 100 12,700 1% COMMUNICATIONS 2,000 8,510 152 1,848 8% TRAVEL 2,600 - 139 2,461 5% RENTAL/LEASE 30,340 1,531 5,650 24,690 19% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 38,500 32,186 39,608 (1,108) 103% MISCELLANEOUS 8350 43,966 150 8,200 2% $ 1,029,560 $ 288,956 $ 199380 $ 830,181 19% CITY ATTO RNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 818,780 $ 120,220 $ 133,495 $ 685,285 16% $ 818,780 $ 120,220 $ 133,495 $ 685,285 16% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000 0% BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 25,000 471 315 24,685 1 % SUPPLIES 5,000 523 85 4,915 2% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 726,430 73,904 27,098 699,332 4% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 373 532 5,968 8% RENTAL/LEASE 10,480 3,600 4,747 5,733 45% INSURANCE 609,550 536,735 616,495 (6,945) 101% MISCELLANEOUS 69,000 40,272 39,733 29,267 58% INTERGOVT SERVICES 9,737.500 2,472,830 2,258,427 7,479,073 23% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 135,000 - - 135,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,080,200 936,429 - 1,080,200 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 164,790 - - 164,790 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 39,580 - 39,580 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES 500 - 500 0% $ 12,709,530 $ 4,065,136 $ 2,947,431 $ 9,762,099 23% 14 Packet Pg. 126 I 4.7.a I Page 3 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES $ 6,209,630 $ 933,848 $ 967,258 $ 5,242,372 16% OVERTIME 454,780 76,840 81,075 373,705 18% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 226,420 - 881 225,539 0% BENEFITS 2,332,980 364,732 375,391 1,957,589 16% UNIFORMS 75,450 11,184 5,836 69,614 8% SUPPLIES 88,500 9,284 11,064 77,436 13% SMALL EQUIPMENT 28,210 907 3,535 24,675 13% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117,670 15,397 14,452 103,218 12% COMMUNICATIONS 50,820 4,564 3,808 47,012 7% TRAVEL 17,310 248 1,431 15,879 8% RENTAL/LEASE 842,630 98,403 140,810 701,820 17% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 15,120 671 1,611 13,509 11% MISCELLANEOUS 46,350 5,841 10,357 35,993 22% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,550 5,274 8,078 2,473 77% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 11,000 11,000 0% $ 10,527,420 $ 1,527,193 $ 1,625,589 $ 8,901,831 15% COMMUNITY SERVIC ES/EC 0 N DEV. SALARIES BENEFITS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT S ERVIC ES/PLANNING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS $ 230,850 $ 37,650 $ 38,535 $ 192,315 17% 69,230 11,452 11,799 57,431 17% 7,000 14 6,757 243 97% 800 125 - 800 0% 233,400 10,768 23,156 210,244 10% 1,490 185 116 1,374 8% 2,000 - - 2,000 0% 10,960 322 1,676 9,284 15% 500 - - 500 0% 7,000 629 920 6,080 13% $ 563,230 $ 61,145 $ 82,958 $ 480,272 15% $ 1,547,970 $ 234,957 $ 230,106 $ 1,317,864 15% 1,300 1,344 1,507 (207) 116% 568,060 84,381 83,462 484,598 15% 500 - - 500 0% 16,100 2,012 2,018 14,082 13% 6,000 - 475 5,525 8% 554,860 21,058 66,431 488,429 12% 8,700 980 686 8,014 8% 4,750 850 106 4,644 2% 147,580 3,303 26,744 120,836 18% 6,800 274 - 6,800 0% 54,060 12,194 4,655 49,405 9% $ 2,916,680 $ 361,353 $ 416,189 $ 2,500,491 14% $ 1,472,770 $ 211,083 $ 238,687 $ 1,234,083 16% 5,000 439 104 4,896 2% 572,030 83,378 96,795 475,235 17% 360 - - 360 0% 3,930 580 216 3,714 6% 155,000 - 4,867 150,133 3% 14,700 1,764 1,150 13,550 8% 600 - - 600 0% 93,250 4,120 14,992 78,258 16% 2,600 - - 2,600 0% 23,000 2,446 2,102 20,898 9% $ 2,343,240 $ 303,810 $ 358,913 $ L984327 15% 15 Packet Pg. 127 I 4.7.a I Page 4 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2017 Adopted 2/28/2016 2/28/2017 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES $ 1,958,290 $ 282,918 $ 292,672 $ 1,665,618 15% OVERTIME 10,000 950 1,041 8,959 10% BENEFITS 724,810 105,271 118,308 606,502 16% UNIFORMS 5,800 458 443 5,357 8% SUPPLIES 117,390 13,688 14,335 103,055 12% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,250 6,205 - 3,250 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 531,240 17,457 13,974 517,266 3% COMMUNICATIONS 29,920 733 713 29,207 2% TRAVEL 4,470 - 353 4,117 8% RENTAL/LEASE 283,560 26,306 41,792 241,768 15% PUBLICUTILITY 175,000 21,431 21,898 153,102 13% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 37,700 12,195 8,564 29,136 23% MISCELLANEOUS 92,610 10,360 11,319 81,291 12% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 47,000 - - 47,000 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,700 5,000 70,700 0% $ 4,091,740 $ 502,972 $ 525,411 $ 3,566,329 13% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES $ 270,330 $ 43,627 $ 47,499 $ 222,831 18% OVERTIME 200 - - 200 0% BENEFITS 83,880 13,813 14,996 68,884 18% SUPPLIES 9,600 132 742 8,858 8% SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 - - 1,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 12 17 183 9% COMMUNICATIONS 1,350 112 74 1,276 5 % TRAVEL 500 - - 500 0% RENTAL/LEASE 93,990 949 15,338 78,652 16% PUBLIC UTILITY 2,800 388 418 2,382 15% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,000 - - 1,000 0% MISCELLANEOUS 5,900 5,900 0% $ 470,750 $ 59,034 $ 79,084 $ 391,666 17% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES 695,650 113,864 115,561 580,089 17% OVERTIME 7,500 2,722 706 6,794 9% BENEFITS 295,620 42,469 49,567 246,053 17% UNIFORMS 3,000 376 181 2,819 6% SUPPLIES 87,000 10,277 11,556 75,444 13% SMALL EQUIPMENT 3,000 197 - 3,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,000 - 12,472 (6,472) 208% COMMUNICATIONS 16,000 1,765 1,842 14,158 12% TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 64,360 9,192 9,893 54,467 15% PUBLIC UTILITY 280,000 43,601 42,822 237,178 15% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 84,500 12,987 18,462 66,038 22% MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 3,147 948 4,052 19% $ 1,548,630 $ 240,595 $ 264,009 $ 1,284,621 17% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 39,793,700 $ 7,893,221 $ 7,073,110 $ 32,720,590 18% 16 Packet Pg. 128 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2017 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 1,842,806 $ February 4,476,364 March 6,693,938 April 10,326,651 May 17,603,872 June 19,551,801 July 21,508,906 August 23,705,569 September 25,623,520 October 28,373,230 November 35,748,144 December 37,753,480 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 1,842,806 $ 2,222,449 20.60% 2,633,558 4,590,134 2.54% 2,217,574 3,632,714 7,277,221 1,947,929 1,957,105 2,196,663 1,917,951 2,749,710 7,374,914 2,005,336 General Fund 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 i 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget —>~ Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2017 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 207,208 $ February 377,258 March 561,933 April 738,924 May 921,191 June 1,156,829 July 1,491,329 August 1,747,148 September 1,998,654 October 2,216,068 November 2,456,999 December 2,600,000 207,208 $ 214,967 3.74% 170,050 425,156 12.70% 184,674 176,991 182,267 235,638 334,500 255,819 251,505 217,414 240,931 143,001 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 17 Packet Pg. 129 1 4.7.a Business Services $103,400 Accommodation $6,180 Clothing and Accessories $52,590 Communications $43,183 Total Retail Automotive Wholesale Trade Construction Trade Eating & Drinking Misc Retail Health & Personal Care Clothing and Accessories Retail Food Stores Amusement & Recreation Gasoline Communications Accommodation Automotive Repair Others Business Services Manufacturing Misc Retail $74,668 Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: February 2017 Year -to -Date Total $1,307,546 Construction Trade Health & Personal Care $199,705 _ $39,928 Others $2,437 Automotive Repair $29,049 Amusement & Recreation $13,407 Retail Food Stores $48,903 J Eating & Drinking Manufacturing $66,635 $7,703 Change in Sales Tax Revenue: February 2017 compared to February 2016 1 Automotive $335,739 102 792 $49 883 $20 04 $18 476 109 $8,144 $4,325 $2,031 $1,661 $1,283 $713 ($114) ($174) ($533 ($1,663 ($1,988) ($10 91 ($20,000) $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 18 Packet Pg. 130 1 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2017 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 528,142 $ 528,142 $ 554,719 5.03% February 1,179,855 651,712 1,307,546 10.82% March 1,679,874 500,020 April 2,159,477 479,603 May 2,755,486 596,009 June 3,293,571 538,085 July 3,847,001 553,430 August 4,458,173 611,171 September 5,050,960 592,787 October 5,666,829 615,869 November 6,303,607 636,779 December 6,875,000 571,393 Sales and Use Tax 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget mar Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2017 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 86,887 $ 86,887 $ 93,550 7.67% February 183,529 96,642 203,652 10.96% March 260,361 76,832 April 328,823 68,462 May 381,147 52,324 June 416,950 35,802 July 446,516 29,566 August 469,952 23,437 September 491,313 21,360 October 515,645 24,332 November 552,451 36,806 December 608,000 55,549 Gas Utility Tax 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Yeaz -Budget -011- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 19 Packet Pg. 131 1 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2017 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance January $ 114,426 $ 114,426 $ 105,424 -7.87% February 223,803 109,377 199,068 -11.05% March 330,274 106,471 April 436,772 106,497 May 549,330 112,558 June 651,204 101,874 July 754,077 102,873 August 855,646 101,570 September 961,054 105,407 October 1,062,454 101,400 November 1,159,179 96,725 December 1,263,200 104,021 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2017 Electric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly TrD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 171,830 $ 171,830 $ 175,773 2.29% February 347,448 175,618 382,822 10.18% March 515,770 168,322 April 678,100 162,330 May 824,207 146,107 June 937,922 113,715 July 1,049,475 111,553 August 1,155,197 105,722 September 1,260,458 105,261 October 1,368,262 107,804 November 1,486,788 118,526 December 1,604,000 117,212 Electric Utility Tax 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget -IF- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 20 Packet Pg. 132 1 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2017 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 573,159 $ 573,159 $ 599,648 4.62% February 966,145 392,986 1,027,975 6.40% March 1,529,375 563,229 April 1,906,725 377,350 May 2,464,794 558,070 June 2,900,426 435,631 July 3,585,922 685,496 August 4,167,341 581,419 September 4,962,652 795,311 October 5,517,073 554,421 November 6,167,530 650,457 December 6,572,750 405,220 Storm Water Sales Meter Water Sales 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0� JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year -Budget --mr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales 2017 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 245,291 $ 245,291 $ 261,646 2.29% February 773,850 528,559 828,655 10.18% March 1,018,952 245,102 April 1,236,230 217,279 May 1,481,659 245,428 June 1,699,683 218,024 July 1,946,434 246,751 August 2,474,151 527,717 September 2,718,865 244,714 October 2,936,691 217,826 November 3,181,934 245,242 December 3,400,000 218,066 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 21 Packet Pg. 133 1 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2017 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 572,309 $ 572,309 $ 623,336 8.92% February 1,034,805 462,496 1,135,356 9.72% March 1,603,135 568,330 April 2,067,863 464,728 May 2,638,929 571,065 June 3,109,116 470,187 July 3,696,739 587,623 August 4,167,756 471,017 September 4,763,468 595,712 October 5,237,994 474,526 November 5,818,870 580,876 December 6,291,410 472,540 Unmeter Sewer Sales 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Yeaz Budget —dr— Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 22 Packet Pg. 134 1 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2017 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 4,378,062 $ 4,378,062 $ 4,856,792 10.93% February 6,991,933 2,613,870 7,073,110 1.16% March 10,079,370 3,087,438 April 13,901,930 3,822,560 May 16,013,520 2,111,590 June 19,671,498 3,657,978 July 22,783,631 3,112,133 August 26,678,915 3,895,284 September 29,769,778 3,090,863 October 32,304,061 2,534,284 November 35,887,615 3,583,553 December 39,793,700 3,906,085 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2017 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 2,143,912 $ 2,143,912 $ 2,867,736 33.76% February 2,694,281 550,369 2,947,431 9.40% March 3,668,474 974,193 April 5,224,149 1,555,674 May 5,366,807 142,658 June 6,781,303 1,414,496 July 7,629,419 848,116 August 9,065,774 1,436,355 September 9,968,321 902,547 October 10,358,495 390,174 November 11,439,294 1,080,799 December 12,709,530 1,270,236 Non -Departmental 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget —dr— Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 23 Packet Pg. 135 1 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2017 City Council Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 24,382 $ 24,382 $ 22,742 -6.73% February 52,318 27,936 44,954 -14.07% March 83,798 31,480 April 111,661 27,864 May 142,110 30,449 June 179,407 37,297 July 211,248 31,841 August 243,636 32,388 September 280,710 37,075 October 307,316 26,606 November 340,142 32,826 December 376,120 35,978 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2017 Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 23,100 $ 23,100 $ 22,135 -4.18% February 46,663 23,563 46,116 -1.17% March 69,540 22,877 April 92,124 22,584 May 114,857 22,733 June 137,580 22,723 July 160,958 23,378 August 184,229 23,271 September 207,064 22,834 October 230,074 23,010 November 252,731 22,657 December 276,700 23,969 Office of Mayor 300,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 24 Packet Pg. 136 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development 2017 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 31,523 $ 31,523 $ 41,399 31.33% February 73,911 42,388 82,958 12.24% March 116,453 42,542 April 175,322 58,869 May 215,612 40,291 June 257,419 41,807 July 303,176 45,757 August 351,220 48,044 September 398,554 47,334 October 445,901 47,347 November 497,592 51,691 December 563,230 65,638 City Clerk Community Services/Economic Development 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1!!!7 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2017 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 56,302 $ 56,302 $ 63,151 12.17% February 109,167 52,866 115,829 6.10% March 164,559 55,392 April 217,026 52,467 May 268,518 51,492 June 321,955 53,438 July 376,257 54,302 August 432,662 56,405 September 488,352 55,690 October 555,271 66,919 November 613,888 58,617 December 670,690 56,802 700,000 City Clerk 600,000 500,000 400,000 - 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget ter~ Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 25 Packet Pg. 137 1 ■ 4.7.a City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2017 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 33,336 $ 33,336 $ 35,109 5.32% February 71,046 37,709 63,054 -11.25% March 115,092 44,047 April 148,861 33,769 May 188,582 39,721 June 226,982 38,400 July 266,054 39,073 August 302,670 36,616 September 336,201 33,531 October 375,053 38,852 November 408,108 33,055 December 456,490 48,382 Human Resources 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2017 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 74,527 $ 74,527 $ 76,438 2.56% February 157,040 82,513 170,699 8.70% March 242,535 85,495 April 321,521 78,987 May 402,116 80,595 June 482,636 80,519 July 564,050 81,414 August 649,652 85,602 September 733,470 83,818 October 821,328 87,857 November 906,841 85,513 December 994,140 87,299 Municipal Court 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 26 Packet Pg. 138 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Technology Rental Fund 2017 Technology Rental Find Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 89,050 $ 89,050 $ 68,612 -22.95% February 177,771 88,721 177,236 -0.30% March 237,540 59,769 April 291,722 54,182 May 338,118 46,396 June 387,726 49,608 July 453,064 65,338 August 528,249 75,186 September 598,969 70,720 October 660,256 61,287 November 738,213 77,957 December 890,430 152,217 Prior Year amounts are from the Information Services Budget City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2017 Finance Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 100,260 $ 100,260 $ 122,581 22.26% February 186,328 86,069 199,380 7.00% March 266,664 80,336 April 354,372 87,708 May 434,094 79,722 June 513,031 78,937 July 592,332 79,301 August 674,138 81,805 September 766,297 92,159 October 854,629 88,332 November 937,807 83,178 December 1,029,560 91,753 Finance 100,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 27 Packet Pg. 139 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2017 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 68,232 $ 68,232 $ 44,346 -35.01% February 136,463 68,232 133,495 -2.18% March 204,695 68,232 April 272,927 68,232 May 341,158 68,232 June 409,390 68,232 July 477,621 68,232 August 545,853 68,232 September 614,085 68,232 October 682,316 68,232 November 750,548 68,232 December 818,780 68,232 Police City Attorney 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 - 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget �0-- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2017 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 830,052 $ 830,052 $ 780,892 -5.92% February 1,662,687 832,635 1,625,589 -2.23% March 2,506,136 843,448 April 3,340,019 833,883 May 4,168,912 828,894 June 5,054,113 885,200 July 5,891,907 837,794 August 6,742,570 850,663 September 7,585,195 842,625 October 8,463,731 878,536 November 9,639,420 1,175,689 December 10,527,420 888,000 Police 11,000,000 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 , 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Yeaz -Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 28 Packet Pg. 140 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2017 Development Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 220,137 $ 220,137 $ 177,820-19.22% February 449,993 229,856 416,189 -7.51% March 702,742 252,749 April 927,682 224,940 May 1,170,343 242,661 June 1,401,160 230,818 July 1,642,890 241,730 August 1,898,659 255,769 September 2,140,462 241,802 October 2,404,453 263,991 November 2,644,266 239,813 December 2,916,680 272,414 Parks & Recreation Development Services 3,000,000 2,750,000 2,500,000 2,250,000 2,000,000 1,750,000 1,500,000 1,250,000 1,000,000 750,000 500,000 250,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2017 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 272,546 $ 272,546 $ 260,128 -4.56% February 556,013 283,466 525,411 -5.50% March 854,611 298,598 April 1,156,879 302,269 May 1,487,512 330,632 June 1,815,979 328,467 July 2,280,207 464,228 August 2,780,579 500,372 September 3,134,039 353,460 October 3,453,033 318,994 November 3,731,669 278,635 December 4,091,740 360,071 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 29 Packet Pg. 141 ■ 4.7.a City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works 2017 Public Works Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 38,606 $ 38,606 $ 37,599 -2.61% February 77,835 39,229 79,084 1.61% March 117,100 39,265 April 156,588 39,488 May 196,390 39,802 June 235,491 39,101 July 275,204 39,712 August 314,352 39,148 September 352,464 38,113 October 393,232 40,768 November 429,298 36,066 December 470,750 41,452 Facilities Maintenance Public Works 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2017 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 123,358 $ 123,358 $ 128,273 3.98% February 249,791 126,433 264,009 5.69% March 381,856 132,065 April 507,880 126,025 May 634,758 126,877 June 747,405 112,647 July 893,923 146,518 August 1,010,919 116,997 September 1,144,949 134,029 October 1,264,258 119,309 November 1,400,251 135,994 December 1,548,630 148,379 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 30 Packet Pg. 142 1 I 4.7.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2017 Engineering Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Variance Actuals January $ 180,993 $ 180,993 $ 176,444 -2.51% February 358,482 177,489 358,913 0.12% March 552,659 194,177 April 749,386 196,728 May 936,528 187,141 June 1,135,101 198,574 July 1,323,590 188,488 August 1,527,793 204,204 September 1,724,336 196,543 October 1,931,121 206,785 November 2,122,301 191,179 December 2,343,240 220,939 *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 31 Packet Pg. 143 I 4.7.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail As of February 28, 2017 Years to Maturity Coupon Agency / Issuer Investment Type Maturity Par Value Market Value Date Rate FICO FHLMC FFCB FFCB FFCB FHLMC FNMA FNMA FHLB FNMA FHLMC FNMA FNMA FHLB RFCS FHLB FNMA FNMA FHLMC FNMA FHLMC Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds Bonds TOTAL SECURITIES Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool TOTAL PORTFOLIO Issuer Diversification FICO, 3% RFCS, 7% FNMA, 34% FHLMC, 19% FFCB, 16% FHLB, 22% 0.27 $ 1,027,000 $ 1,024,551 0.83 1,000,000 1,000,028 1.38 1,000,000 995,468 1.83 2,000,000 2,000,064 1.91 2,000,000 1,990,202 2.59 1,000,000 993,702 2.66 2,000,000 1,987,700 3.08 1,000,000 991,438 3.08 2,000,000 1,979,374 3.08 2,000,000 2,000,204 3.16 2,000,000 1,974,268 3.34 1,000,000 979,584 3.34 1,000,000 979,584 3.37 3,000,000 2,947,308 3.38 2,120,000 1,995,393 3.42 2,000,000 2,000,180 3.50 1,000,000 986,549 3.50 1,000,000 986,549 3.84 1,000,000 997,761 3.89 2,000,000 1,935,056 4.84 1,000,000 996,833 2.9 32,147,000 31,741,795 7,097,473 7,097,473 16, 680, 542 16, 680, 542 $ 55,925,015 $ 55,519,810 06/06/17 12/28/17 07/18/18 12/28/18 01 /25/19 10/02/19 10/28/19 03/30/20 03/30/20 03/30/20 04/28/20 06/30/20 06/30/20 07/13/20 07/15/20 07/30/20 08/28/20 08/28/20 12/30/20 01 /19/21 12/30/21 Demand Demand 0.96% 0.90% 0.75% 1.42% 1.23% 1.25% 1.35% 1.38% 1.45% 1.65% 1.35% 1.38% 1.38% 1.20% 1.60% 1.75% 1.40% 1.40% 1.75% 1.50% 2.00% Cash and Investment Balances (in $ Millions) Checki ng, $5.2 State LGIP, $7.1 Bonds, $32.1 County LGIP, $16.7 32 Packet Pg. 144 1 I 4.7.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY Annual Interest Income $500,000 $437,356 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $163,214 $100,000 557,334 $74,830 $99,273 — $- 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 1.3 % 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8 % 0.7 % 0.6 % 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.1 % 0.0 % Edmonds Rate of Return Compared to Benchmark (Rolling 12 months) 6 Month Treasury Rate (Benchmark) City Blended Rate T� Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Maturity Distribution and Rate of Return $20,000,000 2.50% $15, 000,000 2.00% 1.50% $10, 000,000 1.00% $ 5,000, 000 0.50% $_ . . ■ 0.00% 0-6 Mo 6-12 M o 12-18 M o 18-24 M o 24-30 M o 30-36 M o 36-42 M o 42-48 M o 48-54 M o 54-60 M o 33 Packet Pg. 145 1 I 4.7.a I GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCES & SUBFUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2016 1 /1 /2017 2/28/2017 Q1 YTD 001-General Fund $ 9,602,913 $ 6,508,131 $ 7,119,937 $ - $ (2,482,97: 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 544,021 516,539 496,262 - (47,75! 011-Risk Management Fund 971,499 973,603 893,902 - (77,59' 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 5,389,495 5,394,666 5,396,912 - 7,41 ; 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 7,646 7,663 7,670 - 2, 016-Building Maintenance 98,436 102,497 286,792 - 188,35E Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 16,614,010 $ 13,503,100 $ 14,201,475 $ - $ (2,412,53! i 20 16 12 c 0 8 4 Dec 2016 General Fund & Subfunds $13.50 $14.20 Jan 2017 Feb 2017 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2017 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2016 Financial Statements. 34 Packet Pg. 146 4.7.a GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW CHANGE IN FUND FUND BALANCES BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- a 12/31 /2016 1/1/2017 2/28/2017 Q1 YTD m �a General Fund & Subfunds $ 16,614,010 $ 13,503,100 $ 14,201,475 $ - $ (2,412,53 Special Revenue 8,290,737 11,246,099 8,830,007 - 539,27, c c Debt Service 20,262 20,262 20,262 - u- Total Governmental Funds $ 24,925,008 $ 24,769,460 $ 23,051,743 $ - $ (1,873,26 +° a� am m , t r c 0 2 Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group Governmental Fund ti Balances - Combined o N 20 7 30 m u- $24.93 $24.77 CD $16.61 M 16 General 24 $23 nc; Fund & $14.20 Subfunds 0 .50 Q - 12 18 m t Special 0 0 11.25 — —_ Revenue U $8.83 g 12 u- Debt Service y 4 6 0 m t .r c 0 - $0.02 $0.02 $0.02 - 2 Dec 2016 Jan 2017 Feb 2017 Dec 2016 Jan 2017 Feb 2017 L d LL E *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. 0 This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. Q The beginning fund balances for 2017 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2016 Financial Statements. 35 Packet Pg. 147 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW I 4.7.a I GOVERNMENTAL SPECIAL REVENUE 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 111 - Street Fund 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 118 - Memorial Street Tree 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 129 - Special Projects Fund 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 132 - Parks Construction Fund 136 - Parks Trust Fund 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 138 - Sister City Commission 140 - Business Improvement Disrict Total Special Revenue 15 12 N 9 $8.29 6 3 Dec 2016 FUND BALANCES C ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2016 1/1/2017 2/28/2017 $ 7,878 $ 86,773 $ 19,106 $ 791,371 626,986 765,996 (432,012) 2,326,068 (282,786) 495,028 495,237 490,350 18,101 18,140 18,157 94,468 98,650 102,517 63,704 71,510 72,528 14,931 14,974 14,838 84,371 86,415 87,170 2,285,551 2,347,719 2,355,354 2,117, 544 2,231,864 2,338,309 264,486 282,453 286,228 38,782 38,867 38,903 143,281 152,015 161,439 1,185,145 1,218,525 1,202,675 153,793 154,127 154,272 907,763 911,574 915,769 6,416 6,430 6,415 50,137 77,773 82,769 $ 8,290,737 $ 11, 246, 099 $ 8,830,007 $ Special Revenue Funds Jan 2017 Feb 2017 HANGE IN FUND BALANCE! ---- ACTUAL ---- Q1 YTD *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2017 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2016 Financial Statements. 4 11,22(( (25, 37, 149,221 (4, 67! 51 8,051 8, 82, (9: 2, 79! 69, 80: 220, 76! 21,74: 12, 18,15! 17,53( 47! 8,00( 32, 63, 539.271 ■ Special Revenue 36 Packet Pg. 148 4.7.a ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW E ENTERPRISE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND L 0 0- ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 0 FUNDS 12/31/2016 1/1/2017 2/28/2017 Q1 YTD CU 421 - Water Utility Fund $ 16,004,693 $ 16,514,365 $ 16,357,856 $ - $ 353,16: Z 422 - Storm Utility Fund 8,482,141 8,543,192 8,909,731 - 427,59( 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 39,138,675 40,195,806 40,128,047 - 989,37: U, 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 843,950 843,969 843,951 - R 411 - Combined Utility Operation - 12,514 23,241 - 23,24 a� Total Enterprise Funds $ 64,469,459 $ 66,109,846 $ 66,262,826 $ - $ 1,793,36' m t c 0 ti 0 N L M L Enterprise and Agency Fund Balances as of February28, 2017 LL a� M 45,000,000 v $40,128,047 40,000,000 0 0 35,000,000 Q 30,000,000 f° 25,000,000 20,000,000 u_ L 15,000,000 f° r $8,909,731 10,000,000 m 5,000,000 $23,241 $843,951 $210,692 2+ 0 w Combined Utility Water Storm Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve Firemen's Pension c o Fund L L LL *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. r Q The beginning fund balances for 2017 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2016 Financial Statements. 37 Packet Pg. 149 4.7.a SUMMARY OVERVIEW CITY-WIDE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2016 1 /1 /2017 2/28/2017 Q1 YTD Governmental Funds $ 24,925,008 $ 24,769,460 $ 23,051,743 $ - $ (1,873,26! Enterprise Funds 64,469,459 66,109,846 66,262,826 - 1 ,793,36- Internal Services Fund 7,485,765 7,841 ,786 7,540,960 - 55,19! Agency Funds 224,697 217,048 210,692 i - (14,00! Total City-wide Total $ 97,104,929 $ 98,938,140 $ 97,066,221 $ - $ (38,707 - Governmental Fund Balances (Excluding General Fund) as of February 28, 2017 Drug Enforcement Fund $19,106 Street Fund Combined Street Const/Improve Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 0 0 Memorial Street Fund $18,157 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund $102,517 Employee Parking Permit Fund $72,528 Youth Scholarship Fund $14,838 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts $87,170 Real Estate Excise Tax 2 ■ Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq M Gifts Catalog Fund $28, Special Projects Fund $38,903 Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement $161,43 Parks Construction Fund M Parks Trust Fund $154,27 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Sister City Commission $6,415 Business ImprovementDistdct $82,769 L.I.D. Fund Control $20,262 $765,996 $490,350 28 $1,202,1675 15,769 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2�355,354 $2,338,309 $2,500,000 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2017 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2016 Financial Statements. 38 $3,000,000 Packet Pg. 150 1 4.7.a INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW L 0 Q d FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- ra FUNDS 12/31 /2016 1/1/2017 2/28/2017 Q1 YTD L 511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 7,485,765 $ 7,835,313 $ 7,520,526 $ - $ 34,76 R 512 - Technology Rental Fund - 6,473 20,434 - 20,43 a� m Total Internal Service Funds $ 7,485,765 $ 7,841,786 $ 7,540,960 $ - $ 55,19 r c 0 ti 0 N L Internal Service Fund Balances � a� u_ 10,000,000 M 0 r $7,835,313 8,000,000 m 6,000,000 ■ 511- Equipment Rental Fund 'u ■512-TechnologyRentalFund c c ii 4,000, 000 L r a� 2,000, 000 m 21 $0 $6,473 20,434 w _ c 0 Dec 2016 Jan 2017 Feb 2017 L L LL I_ ci *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. r Q This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. The beginning fund balances for 2017 are preliminary, these will be updated after the completion of the 2016 Financial Statements. 39 Packet Pg. 151 4.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Adoption of Resolution Amending the City Fee Schedule related to Blade Signs and Pedestrian Signs Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History The Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended amendments to the sign code, as well as suggestions on fees, on February 22, 2017. The Council reviewed the amendments on March 14th, and held a public hearing on March 21st. Staff Recommendation Adopt the draft resolution (Exhibit 1). Narrative After holding its public hearing on March 21, 2017, the City Council approved a motion directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for adoption. As part of its deliberations and direction, the Council also decided to reduce fees for both blade signs and pedestrian signs (see attached minutes in Exhibit 2). The draft resolution implementing the Council's action is attached as Exhibit 1. The ordinance amending the sign code is contained in a separate consent item on this evening's agenda. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Resolution Amending Fees for Blade Signs and Pedestrian Signs Exhibit 2: City Council sign code hearing minutes Packet Pg. 152 4.8.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING A PORTION OF RESOLUTION 1377, WHICH ADOPTED A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY'S FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AND PARTICULARLY THOSE FEES RELATED TO BLADE SIGNS AND PEDESTRIAN SIGNS. WHEREAS, Resolution 1377 establish the fees for pedestrian signs and blade signs as follows: Sign (Blade Sign) Includes all blade signs in proposal $75 Sign (Pedestrian Sign) Includes all pedestrian signs in proposal $125 ; and WHEREAS, the city council would like to modify the fees charged for these two items without modifying any other aspects of Resolution 1377; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. CHANGE TO FEE SCHEDULE FOR CERTAIN SIGNS. The fees charged by the city for pedestrian signs and blades signs, shall be reduced as follows (new text shown in underline; deleted text shown in . Sign (Blade Sign) Includes all blade signs in proposal $75-No Charge Sign (Pedestrian Sign) Includes all pedestrian signs in proposal $U5 $75 Section 2. NO OTHER CHANGES. Except as provided in Section 1, the remainder of Resolution 1377 remains in full force and effect. RESOLVED this day of April, 2017. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING Packet Pg. 153 4.8.a ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 154 4.8.b COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2017 2. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ASHLEY DORGAN ($422.55), A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM TIMOTHY S. DANAHER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KARI MIKKELSEN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT. 4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN 2017 SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACTS 6. FIRST QUARTER AND 2016 CARRY FORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MURRAY SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE 2018 SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE 76TH AVE AND 212TH ST INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT/BIKE2HEALTH PROJECT 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no public comment. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATING PEDESTRIAN SIGN REQUIREMENTS IN CH. 20.60 ECDC Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed: • Sign code update in 2016 o Most recent update in August 2016 o Update focused on pedestrian signs; featured: ■ Pedestrian signs as permanent signage ■ Only one per ground floor storefront ■ Only while the business is open ■ Located within 2' of building and within 10' of entry ■ Exceptions must be approved by ADB • Current update 0 2016 update resulted in some concerns from the business community o Concerns gained attention of Council and were brought forward to Planning Board o Board held work session and public hearing o Multiple options were considered (Exhibit 3) • Planning Board Recommendation o Permit fees should be minimized, with blade signs costing less than pedestrian signs (currently $75+$35 and $125 +35, respectively) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Q Page 2 Packet Pg. 155 4.8.b o Pedestrian signs should count against sign area, except for those grandfathered in o Allow Development Services Director to approve alternate sign locations under specific conditions o Define "governmental signs" to allow creation of a directional signage program. o Grandfathered signs for area New: ECDC 20.60.025(A)(5) [packet page 290-2911 a. Exception. A pedestrian sign does not count against the permanent sign area and the number of signs permitted if: i. A wall sign exists and was legally permitted prior to August 12, 2016; and ii. A pedestrian sign was in place during some or all of the period between June 12 and August 12, 2016; and iii. A pedestrian sign permit was received by the City by October 6, 2016 b. This exception is no longer valid if an application for a new wall sign is received by the City c. This exception does not apply to any other aspect of the sign code governing pedestrian signs, including the number, size and location of such signs Options: Don't count in sign area or add 6 square feet to total allowed area o Alternate sign location ECDC 20.60.055 [packet page 293-294] 3. The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry and must be placed within two feet of the building. The Development Services Director may approve an alternative location under the following circumstances: The sign shall be leeatea within 10 fee the building ea4y, iaaless it is plaeed in a leeation that better- preserves publie pedestrian ffem this standard n�mst be subfnit4ed to the ar-ehiteettir-al design board for- review approval per- ECDC 20.60.01 S(B)(1) a. An alternative location in front of the building or on the property occupied by the business is less intrusive to pedestrian movement or accessibility; or b. The building containing the building is set back from the property line and a location on the property can be provided such that the sign does not encroach onto a public sidewalk. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to her suggestion last week to make blade signs free. Mr. Chave responded that was at the discretion of the Council. One of the things intended in the code was to encourage their use; making them free would simply require a resolution. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas recalled when blade signs were discussed several years ago, the reason they were preferred was they attracted shoppers but did not clutter sidewalks. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Jamie Reece, Edmonds, Chair of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), highlighted comments in the February 15, 2017 memo the EDC sent the Council. The EDC as well as a subgroup discussed the sign code and feedback received from businesses and citizens. The goal of their discussions was to strike the right balance between aesthetics and economic vitality of the community. The EDC supports lowering the cost of A -board signs, not necessarily to encourage them, but to make them more affordable for business owners. The EDC has not discussed expanding the overall sign area but supported the concept that pedestrian signs not count toward the overall area of signage to avoid stagnating existing signs and having different size signs on facades. The EDC supports greater flexibility in the requirement to have A -board signs located 2 feet from the facade and making that process more affordable as well as ongoing cooperative efforts with the community and the BID for wayfinding signs for businesses located 1-2 blocks off 5th & Main without cluttering every corner with signs and flags. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Q Page 3 Packet Pg. 156 4.8.b Debbie Rosenfelt, Edmonds, co-owner of Snap Fitness, expressed support for reducing the fees for blade and pedestrian signs to $85, not having pedestrian signs count against total sign area, and allowing the Development Services Director to approve alternate sign locations under specific conditions. Robert Boehlke, Edmonds, owner of HouseWares and President of Ed! Edmonds Downtown Alliance, urged the Council to keep the cost reasonable and make the cost for blade and pedestrian signs the same and he and some other businesses are unable to have a blade sign. He also supported not counting pedestrian signs against the total sign area. He supported the proposal regarding alternate locations. He asked what was meant by "the sign does not encroach on the public sidewalk," commenting signs would be located on the sidewalk. With regard to wayfinding signs, Ed! is interested in assisting with a project for a wayfinding signs throughout the City, signs that enhance the cityscape and help visitors find their way around. Sheila Cloney, Edmonds, Anchor Chic, spoke in favor of wayfinding signs. The building they are in has not had a lot of activity for some time and they find the A -board signs help drive customers to their location next to Masonic Temple. Joy Rye, Edmonds, representing ZINC, said the removal of their A -board has impacted their business. Their entrance is located more than 2 feet from sidewalk and when the A -board sign is not up, business is substantially down. Janet Hans, Edmonds, Gallery North, said they value their A -board sign and she thanked the City Council for considering pedestrian sign regulations. She expressed support for a more reasonable cost, having blade signs and A -boards be the same price and allowing alternative locations. She asked for clarification of "the sign does not encroach onto a public sidewalk." Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her preference that there be no cost for blade signs, commenting they were generally fairly small signs. Mr. Chave said if that was the consensus of the City Council, the City Attorney could draft a resolution for Council consideration setting the fee for blade signs at zero. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she will make a motion when the Council completes it deliberation. Councilmember Teitzel recommended a group with members from Ed!, the Chamber, DEMA, EDC and citizens consider permanent directional/wayfinding signs and report back to the Council in six months. He anticipated permanent directional signage would lessen the pressure for A -board signs. He suggested that project also consider wayfinding apps to assist visitors with navigating around the City. Mr. Chave said Development Services Director Shane Hope has been meeting with members of the BID regarding directional/wayfinding signs and several businesses have been working on ideas so it would not be difficult to form a group and report to Council on ideas. With regard to an app, the Western Washington University Sustainable Cities program is working on that and their report is due at the end of spring quarter. Councilmember Tibbott asked about funding for an app, recalling a suggestion at the Planning Board to use the technology fee to offset the cost of developing an app. Mr. Chave said the Council would need to budget the cost of developing an app. The WWU project is student time and a minimal cost. He suggested waiting to see the results of WWU's project to see how useful an app would be. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the question asked by the public regarding encroachment onto the sidewalk. He cited an example of a property on Dayton between 4th and 3rd where the building is set back Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Q Page 4 Packet Pg. 157 4.8.b from the street but there could be appropriate locations on the property that were not on the sidewalk. Mr. Chave said the intent of Item 3.b was if the businesses was setback from the property line, there should be space between the business and the sidewalk to locate the sign. Alternate locations that include the sidewalk would be addressed by Item 3.a, such as if there is street furniture at the curb, it may be less intrusive to put a sign at the curb instead of next to the building. It will be very situational, hence the recommendation to grant the discretion to the Development Services Director. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for allowing the Director that discretion. Councilmember Johnson asked how the technology fee was used. Mr. Chave answered the technology fee was broadly applicable to all permit applications and supports the website, electronic permitting system, GIS, etc. It is basically at capacity for those purposes at this time. If the Council wanted to pursue some of the suggestions that have been made, the cost could be subsidized by the General Fund, a minimal amount added to the technology fee, etc. The technology fee is a flat fee. Council President Mesaros asked how the $125 fee for an A -board signs was calculated. Mr. Chave said that represents approximately 1.25 hours of staff time. When fees were established, consideration was given to who does the review, the average amount of time the process takes, etc. Councilmember Nelson said if the Council wanted to encourage blade signs by making them free, he did not want the difference made up by increasing the fee for A -board signs. If the Council reduced the cost of blade signs, he supported also reducing cost of A -boards signs, such as reducing it by half. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ed! should work on a wayfinding sign program, and the City Council should not be involved with it. She supported the WWU project that will consider an app, noting she often uses TripAdvisor when visiting other cities. Mr. Chave commented the fees were up to the Council. He recommended directing the City Attorney to draft a final ordinance for Council consideration. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BLADE SIGNS WHICH SHALL HAVE NO FEE OR TECHNOLOGY FEE. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has been discussing blade signs for a number of years; it was important not to have a fee since they are the preferred sign type and having no fee will encourage businesses to choose that type of sign. She recognized some businesses did not have an overhang to display a blade sign. Councilmember Tibbott suggested the Council discuss either not having pedestrian signs count against the total sign area or adding 6 square feet to the total allowed signage. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD 6 SQUARE FEET TO THE TOTAL ALLOWED SIGNAGE. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Mesaros commented his heart supports having no fee for blade signs but his head does not. He suggested reducing the fee for blade and pedestrian sign to $40 + $35 technology fee, recognizing that a number of businesses do not have the architecture for a blade sign. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers to pass the motion eliminating the fee for blade signs and she would support a motion to reduce the cost of A -board signs. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Q Page 5 Packet Pg. 158 4.8.b COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REDUCE THE FEE FOR PEDESTRIAN SIGNS FROM $135 + $35 TO $75 + $35. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND NELSON VOTING NO. 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the purpose of the public hearing is the four options for the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) IV environment, basically the area around the Edmonds Marsh. He identified similarities between all options: • Default buffer of 110 feet with 15-foot setback • Mechanism for establishing alternative buffer Mr. Lien outlined the options: Ecology Option A • Add a reference to the interrupted buffer provision in the critical area regulations (ECDC 23.40.220.C.4) in footnote 18 Notes that an alternative buffer may be established with a shoreline conditional use permit consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 provides an exemption from prescribed buffer width if site is proven to be functionally isolated from a stream or wetland Two potential results o Determined to be functionally isolated and exempt from buffer requirements o Not functionally isolated and the 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback apply o Does not provide for an alternative buffer Ecology Option B • Establishes buffer between 110 and 50 feet • Buffer established through a shoreline conditional use permit process • Buffer based on "potential ecological lift" and "no net loss of ecological function" • Lacks detailed criteria for consideration of site specific study to establish alternative buffer • Conflicting terms in "potential ecological lift" and "no net loss of ecological function" Staff Developed Option C • Combines elements of Ecology's Options A & B • Keeps Council 110 buffer/15-foot setback as a default, and establishes minimum buffer of 50 feet • Criteria from interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis • Site specific study shall address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions • Could be modified to specifically note where buffer begins Citizen Developed Option D — Part 1 • Modify Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Table to list buffer and shore setback separately • Modify footnote 18 o Note where buffer begins, "where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or at the wetland/upland edge" o Require buffer between railway right-of-way and marsh • "Shore setback" to "building setback" Railway right-of-way Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Q Page 6 Packet Pg. 159 4.9 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Adoption of Ordinance Amending the Sign Code (ECDC 20.60) Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History The Planning Board held a public hearing and recommended amendments to the sign code on February 22, 2017. The Council reviewed the amendments on March 14th, and held a public hearing on March 21st. Staff Recommendation Adopt the draft ordinance (Exhibit 1). Narrative After holding its public hearing on March 21, 2017, the City Council approved a motion directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for adoption. The draft ordinance is attached as Exhibit 1, and implements the Council's direction. The Council also acted to change fees related to blade signs and pedestrian signs; this is implemented in a separate resolution, also on this agenda. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Sign Code Ordinance Exhibit 2: City Council sign code hearing minutes Packet Pg. 160 4.9.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S SIGN CODE, AS CODIFIED IN CHAPTER 20.60 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Ordinance 4039 on August 2, 2016, which ordinance amended the regulations related to pedestrian signs; and WHEREAS, the business community provided additional feedback after the ordinance was adopted; and WHEREAS, in light of that feedback, the city council decided to reconsider these regulations and asked city staff to stay enforcement of the new ordinance; and and WHEREAS, staff brought forward a few modifications for planning board consideration; WHEREAS, the planning board considered minor amendments to the new code during its February 8, 2017 meeting; and WHEREAS, the planning board held a public hearing and made a recommendation to the city council on February 22, 2017; and WHEREAS, the city council reviewed the planning board recommendation on March 14, 2017; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on March 21, 2017; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 20.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Sign Code," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through). Packet Pg. 161 4.9.a 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, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 162 4.9.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2017, 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 THE CITY'S SIGN CODE, AS CODIFIED IN CHAPTER 20.60 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2017. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Pg. 163 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Sections: 20.60.000 Purpose. 20.60.005 Definitions. 20.60.010 Permit required. 20.60.015 Design review procedures. 20.60.020 General regulations for permanent signs. 20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area. 20.60.030 Wall signs — Maximum area and height. 20.60.035 Window signs — Maximum area. 20.60.040 Projecting signs — Maximum area and height restrictions. 20.60.045 Freestanding signs — Regulations. 20.60.050 Wall graphic and identification structures. 20.60.055 Pedestrian signs. 20.60.060 Campaign signs. 20.60.065 Real estate signs. 20.60.070 Construction signs. 20.60.080 Temporary signs. 20.60.090 Prohibited signs. 20.60.095 Exempt signs. 20.60.100 Administration. Page 1/18 20.60.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to enact regulatory measures to implement those goals and policies stated in the Edmonds Comprehensive Policy Plan and to achieve the following objectives: A. Protect the public right-of-way from obstructions which would impair the public's use of their right-of-way. B. Minimize the hazard to the public represented by distractions to drivers from moving, blinking, or other similar forms of signage or visual clutter. C. Provide for distinct signage for each distinct property. D. Encourage the use of graphics/symbols to reduce the visual clutter associated with overly large letters or extensive use of lettering. E. Minimize potential for view blockage and visual clutter along public rights -of -way. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.005 Definitions. For the purposes of the enforcement of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: "Attached sign" is any sign attached or affixed to a building. Attached signs include wall signs, projecting signs, and window signs. "Boxed cabinet sign" is a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that is roughly rectangular in shape and provides for internal illumination and changing the message of the sign by replacing a single transparent or translucent material such as a Plexiglass/Lexan face. This definition is meant to distinguish between a cabinet sign that is essentially a rectangular box and one that follows the outlines of the letters of the sign, or an "outline cabinet sign." "Building ID/historic sign" is a permanent sign that identifies or names a building and assists in creating landmarks in the city. Examples include dates, "1890"; names, "Beeson Building"; or addresses. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 164 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 2/18 "Campaign sign" is a temporary sign displaying a message relating to a candidate, political party, or issue that is registered or certified for an upcoming election. "Commercial sign" is a sign displayed for the purpose of identifying a commercial use, or advertising a service, product, business or venture that is offered for trade or sale. "Community event banner" is a noncommercial sign composed of cloth, fabric, canvas or similarly flexible material that promotes a temporary community event endorsed, operated or sponsored wholly or in part by a local public entity the jurisdiction of which includes the city of Edmonds. "Community events" are nonprofit, governmental or charitable festivals, contests, programs, fairs, carnivals or recreational contests conducted within the city. "Construction sign" is a permanent or temporary sign displayed on premises where any physical excavation, construction, demolition, rehabilitation, structural alteration or related work is currently occurring, pursuant to a valid building permit. "Directional symbols" are small in size (two square feet or less) and intended to provide on -site directions to specific locations or areas (such as parking areas, drive -through facilities, ATMs and entries and/or exits), hours of operation, parking limitations, warnings of hazards, prohibition of activities (such as "no parking"), historical markers and similar public information. Directional symbols are not considered to be signage as regulated in this chapter. "Fixed sign" is any sign attached or affixed to the ground or any structure in such a manner so as to provide for continuous display for an extended or indeterminable period of time. Fixed signs include, but are not limited to, freestanding signs and wall signs. "Freestanding sign" is any sign that is not attached or affixed to a building. Freestanding signs can be further described as "monument signs" or "pole signs." "Governmental sign" is a sign owned, operated or sponsored by a governmental entity, and which promotes the public health, safety or welfare. Governmental signs include, but are not limited to, traffic signs, directional and informational signs for public f ci , publicly sponsored warning or hazard signs, and community event banners displayed by a governmental entity on public property. "Group sign" is a sign or signs on one sign structure serving two or more businesses sharing a parking facility. "Halo sign" is a sign where the light source is concealed behind an opaque face and the rays of illumination are projected outward around the edges of the sign or directed against the surface behind the sign forming a silhouette or halo effect. Halo signs are not considered to be internally illuminated signs for the purposes of this chapter. "Identification structure" is a structure intended to attract the attention of the public to a site, without the use of words or symbols identifying the businesses. Examples include fountains, sculptures, awnings, and totem poles. "Internally illuminated signs" include any sign where light shines through a transparent or semi -transparent sign face to illuminate the sign's message. Exposed neon is considered to be a form of internal illumination. "Marquee" or "canopy" is a permanent roofed structure attached and supported by the building. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 165 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Page 3/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE "Marquee sign" is any sign attached to or made a part of a building marquee. A marquee sign is a form of projecting sign. "Monument signs" are freestanding signs that have integrated the structural component of the sign into the design of the sign and sign base. "Noncommercial sign" is a sign that is intended to display a religious, charitable, cultural, governmental, informational, political, educational, or artistic message, that is not primarily associated with a good, product, or service offered for sale or trade. Noncommercial signs include signs advertising incidental and temporary commercial activities conducted by churches and nonprofit businesses, clubs, groups, associations or organizations. "Off -premises sign" is any sign that advertises or relates to a good, product, service, event, or meeting, that is offered, sold, traded, provided, or conducted at some location or premises other than that upon which the sign is posted or displayed. Off -premises signs include all signs posted or displayed in the public right-of-way. "On -premises sign" is any sign that advertises or relates to a good, product, service, event, or meeting that is lawfully permitted to be offered, sold, traded, provided, or conducted at the location or premises upon which the sign is posted or displayed. On -premises signs also include signs not related to any particular location or premises, such as signs displaying religious, charitable, cultural, governmental, informational, political, educational, or artistic messages that are intentionally displayed by the owner of the property or premises upon which the sign is displayed. "Outline cabinet sign" is a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that roughly follows the shape of the text or symbology of the sign and provides for internal illumination. This definition is meant to distinguish between a cabinet sign that follows the outlines of the letters of the sign and one that is essentially a rectangular box or a "boxed cabinet sign." An "outlined cabinet sign" will be treated more like an "individual letter sign" where the area of the sign is calculated based on the actual outlined shape of the sign. "Permanent sign" is a fixed or portable sign intended for continuous or intermittent display for periods exceeding 60 days in any calendar year. "Pole signs" are freestanding signs where the structural support for the sign is one or more exposed pole(s). Pole signs may include community event banners where the banner is supported by at least two poles that are permanently attached to the ground ("pole -mounted community event banners"). However, pole signs with two poles that are not more than six feet in height are considered to be monument signs. "Portable sign" is any sign that is readily capable of being moved or removed, whether attached or affixed to the ground, or any structure that is typically intended for temporary display. Portable signs include, but are not limited to: 1. Signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels; 2. Pedestrian signs, including signs such as A -frame (sandwich board), stanchion, easel, or post -style signs Q intended as freestanding signs in pedestrian environments; Left: Stanchion sign Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 166 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 4/18 3. Wooden, metal, or plastic "stake" or "yard" signs; 4. Posters or banners affixed to windows, railings, overhangs, trees, hedges, or other structures or vegetation, except for pole -mounted community event banners; 5. Signs mounted upon vehicles parked and visible from the public right-of-way, except signs identifying the related business when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to-day operation of the business, and except for signs advertising for sale the vehicle upon which the sign is mounted; 6. Searchlights; 7. Inflatables. "Premises" is the actual physical area of the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed. "Projecting sign" is any sign attached or affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends more than 12 inches beyond the surface of such building or wall. "Reader board sign" is a sign that is designed to allow for a change in the message, either by adding or removing plastic letters, or by means of electronics and lights. Reader boards do not include signs which have a changeable message where the sign does not change more than once per day and where the changeable features are integrated with the background and overall design of the sign, including the sign's typefaces, colors and symbology. Individual letters or numbers placed on a solid colored background is considered to be a reader board. Two signs at left: Acceptable changeable message sign; Two signs at right: A reader board. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 167 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE OPEN HOUSE NOVEMBER E ra-4 Page 5/18 SOULAR POWERED BY THE SON EGME IN AND WORSHIP PASTOR REV HARRY H JOHNS 11I "Real estate sign" is a sign displaying a message relating to the sale or rent of real property "Sign" is any structure, device or fixture that is visible from a public place, that incorporates graphics, symbols, or written copy for the purposes of conveying a particular message to public observers, including wall graphics or identification structures. "Sign area" is the area of a sign on which copy is to be placed, as set forth in ECDC 20.60.020(A). "Temporary sign" is a sign intended for short-term display, not to exceed 60 calendar days in any calendar year. Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 are not regulated as temporary signs. "Wall graphic" is a wall sign, including murals, in which color and form, and primarily without the use of words, are a part of the overall design on the building(s) where the wall graphic is proposed. A wall graphic may be painted or applied (not to exceed one-half inch in thickness) to a building as a part of its overall color and design, but may not be internally lighted. Internally lighted assemblies, including those which project from the wall of the structure, or which are located on any accessory structure on the site, shall be considered wall signs and comply with the requirements of this chapter. "Wall sign" is a sign that is attached or affixed to a wall and that is parallel to and not projecting more than 12 inches at any angle from such wall. Wall signs include signs that are painted directly upon a wall. "Window sign" is a sign that is attached or affixed to a window, or a sign displayed within 24 inches of the inside of a window in such a manner as to be visible from any public place. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3631 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3628 § 8, 2007; Ord. 3561 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3514 § 1, 2004; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.010 Permit required. A. Except as provided in this chapter, no permanent sign may be constructed, installed, posted, displayed or modified without first obtaining a sign permit approving the proposed sign's size, design, location, and display as provided for in this chapter. B. Design approval is not required for the posting of permanent signs in residential zones; provided, that the restrictions and standards of this chapter are met. If additional signage is requested for conditional or nonconforming uses in residential zones, the property owner shall apply for design review. Design review is not required for any sign which does not require a building permit. C. A sign modification shall include, but is not limited to, relocations, modifications to size, design, height or color scheme, or the replacement of 25 percent or more of the structural material in the sign area. Normal and ordinary maintenance and repair, and changes to the graphics, symbols, or copy of a sign, without affecting the size, structural design, height, or color scheme, shall not constitute modifications for purposes of this section. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3514 § 2, 2004; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 168 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Page 6/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE 20.60.015 Design review procedures. A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section, and except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall review all applications for design review under this chapter, and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application in accordance with the policies of ECDC 20.10.000 and the standards and requirements of this chapter; provided, that for murals and artwork the planning manager or designee shall review the application in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (C) of this section. The decision of the planning manager on any sign permit application shall be final except that signs reviewed by the architectural design board are appealable to the hearing examiner. 1. The planning manager or designee may refer design review applications to the architectural design board for the types of signs listed below, where the planning manager determines that the proposed sign has the potential for significant adverse impacts on community aesthetics or traffic safety: a. Any sign application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter; b. Any sign application for a wall graphic as defined by this chapter; c. Any proposed sign that the planning manager determines to be obtrusive, garish or otherwise not consistent with the architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood. B. Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those signs listed in subsection (B)(1) of this section and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section. 1. The ADB shall review any sign permit application that requests a modification to any of the standards prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall only approve modification requests that arise from one of the following two situations: a. The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two streets, or has an unusual geometric shape or topography; b. The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details that substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity. 2. The ADB may approve the requested modification only if it meets the following criteria: a. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and proportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity; b. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more than 50 percent. C. Staff Review of Murals and Artwork. When a proposed wall graphic is proposed as a mural or artwork, the planning manager or designee shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in accordance with the following criteria. While a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, the staff may make a single design review decision on wall graphics that consist of related murals or artwork. Related murals or artwork may include multiple proposals for sites within reasonable proximity to each other that are related by theme, style, materials used, and/or context. The decision of the staff on any design review application containing a mural or art as a wall graphic may be appealed to the city council pursuant to the procedure established in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. 1. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner t restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to enhance the aesthetics of the city and to ensure quality 0 and maintenance standards are observed. No recommendation shall be based upon the content or message Q expressed by an artist or in a work of art. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design or architectural elements of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown area. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 169 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE 2. Specific submission requirements for design review include, but are not limited to: a. Site sketch showing locations of artwork; b. Minimum one -fourth -inch scale color drawings of the art concept or art component; c. Material/color samples; Page 7/18 d. Written Proposal. A written proposal in eight -and -one -half -inch -by- 11 -inch format to include a description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork; detailed maintenance requirements; a schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; artist's resume; and evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee; and e. When required pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050, a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from the historic preservation commission for murals on designated historic structures or within a designated historic district. 3. Review Criteria. Review criteria for the design review include: a. Quality of the materials used to create the artwork. Materials should be resistant to fading; no fluorescent paints; b. Durability and permanence, including ability to withstand age, vandalism, and weathering. Consideration should be given to anti -graffiti coating; and c. Compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements, other elements of the street, and adjacent structures. Compatibility shall be determined by relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale, color, materials, surface treatment, and size and style of lettering. Lettering shall be minimized, but may be considered for inclusion when necessary to the artistic content. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) of this section, sign permit applications shall not be referred to or reviewed by the architectural design board if the proposed sign constitutes a modification to an existing sign and involves no significant alteration or modification to the size, height, design, lighting or color of the existing sign. Sign permit applications for such sign modifications shall be processed and subject to review in the same manner as provided for staff review in subsection (A) of this section. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 60, 2009; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.020 General regulations for permanent signs. A. Sign Area. The area of a sign shall be calculated as follows: 1. The area of a sign is maximum actual area of a sign that is visible from any single point of observation from any public vantage point. The sign area is normally the smallest rectangle that encloses the entire copy area of the sign. 2. Individual letters, numbers or symbols applied directly to a wall or structure and used to form the sign shall be calculated individually. 3. Supporting structures which are part of a sign display shall be included in the calculation of the sign area, except that the supporting structure of a monument sign or pole sign shall not be included when calculating the sign area. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 170 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE 14 : X 0 W STORE fi �M0.. NAME_ 1 Left: Sign area = X * Y Right: Applied individual letters are calculated separately. Monument sign: The base is not included in the calculation of sign area (dashed rectangle). Page 8/18 B. When located on a wall or mansard roof, no sign may extend above the highest point of the wall or mansard roof when the mansard roof is on a one-story building. Other than a mansard roof on a one-story building, a sign may not be attached above the eave or drip line on a pitched roof. C. Except for pole -mounted community event banners, no sign or any part of a sign may be designed or constructed to be moving by any means and shall not contain items such as banners, ribbons, streamers and spinners. Signs with type that is movable to change the message (reader boards) are allowed, subject to the specific requirements detailed elsewhere in this chapter. D. Signs that extend into or over a public right-of-way shall comply with Chapter 18.70 ECDC. E. Exposed braces and angle irons are prohibited unless they are part of a decorative design that is integral to the design of the sign. Guywires are prohibited unless there are no other practical means of supporting the sign. F. No sign shall have blinking, flashing, fluttering or moving lights or other illuminating device which has a changing light density or color; provided, however, temperature and/or time signs that conform in all other respects to this chapter are allowed. Electronic reader boards may have messages that change; however, moving messages are not allowed. Messages that change at intervals less than 20 seconds will be considered blinking or flashing and not allowed. G. No light source which exceeds 20 watts shall be directly exposed to any public street or adjacent property. H. No illumination source of fluorescent light shall exceed 425 milliamps or be spaced closer than eight inches on center. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 171 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Page 9/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE I. No commercial sign shall be illuminated after 11:00 p.m. unless the commercial enterprise is open for business and then may remain on only as long as the enterprise is open. J. No window signs above the first floor shall be illuminated. K. Sign height shall be determined as follows: 1. For attached signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the highest point on the sign to the average finished grade. 2. For freestanding signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the highest point of the sign area or its support to the average elevation of the finished grade at the base of the supports. L. Portable signs may not be used as permanent signage; only fixed signs are permitted. M. The following matrix summarizes the types of signs permitted in each neighborhood/district within the city: Sign Type Downtown' SR-99' Westgate/SR-1043 Neighborhood Commercial (BN, BP and FVMU Zones) Business Uses in RM Zones Wall -Mounted P P P P P Monument C P P C C Pole N P N N N Projecting P P P P P Internal Illumination C P P C N Reader Boards C C C C C Individual Letters P P P P P Boxed Cabinet N P C C N Building ID P P P P P Pedestrian P N N N N Wall Graphics C C C C C Downtown includes all properties within the Downtown Activity Center defined in the comprehensive plan. 1 SR-99 includes all properties within the Medical -Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor defined in the comprehensive plan. 3 Westgate/SR-104 includes all properties within the Westgate Corridor, the Edmonds Way Corridor, and within the Westgate Community Commercial area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Note: In the above table, P = Permitted; N = Not permitted; C = Conditionally permitted through design review if consistent with the standards itemized in subsection N of this section. N. The following standards clarify how some signs identified as "conditionally permitted" must be installed to be permitted in the city of Edmonds: 1. Monument signs over six feet in height must be reviewed to ensure that the materials, colors, design and proportions proposed are consistent with those used throughout the site. 2. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and neighborhood commercial areas may only light the letters or logos/symbols. The background of a sign face may not be illuminated. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 172 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Page 10/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE 3. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and the neighborhood commercial areas must be mounted on the wall of the building. They may not be mounted on or under an attached awning. 4. Internally illuminated signs that use exposed neon may only be located in the interior of buildings in the downtown area and the neighborhood commercial areas. 5. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area shall not be permitted to be higher than 14 feet in height. 6. Reader board messages are limited to alphanumeric messages only. 7. Reader boards are only permitted for public uses or places of public assembly. Public uses and places of assembly include, but are not limited to, schools and churches as well as local and regional public facilities. 8. The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be coordinated with and complement the colors used on the building. 9. The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be opaque and not allow any internal illumination to shine through. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3631 § 2, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area. A. Business and Commercial Zone Districts (BN, BP, BC, BD, WMU, CW and CG). 1. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or permitted uses in the BN, BC, BD and CW zones shall be one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of wall containing the main public entrance to the primary building or structure located upon a separate legal lot. Within the Downtown Activity Center defined in the comprehensive plan, six square feet of sign area is added to the maximum permanent sign area available for each ground floor storefront. 2. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or permitted uses in the CG zone shall be one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage along a public street and/or along a side of the building containing the primary public entrance to a maximum of 200 square feet. The allowable sign area shall be computed separately for each qualifying building frontage, and only the sign area derived from that frontage may be oriented along that frontage. Sign areas for wall -mounted signs may not be accumulated to yield a total allowable sign area greater than that permitted upon such frontage, except that businesses choosing not to erect a freestanding sign may use up to 50 percent of their allowable freestanding sign area for additional attached sign area. Use of the additional area shall be subject to the review of the architectural design board. 3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided between wall, projecting, and freestanding signs, in accordance with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type of sign, as provided in ECDC 20.60.030 through 20.60.050. Projecting signs (including blade signs) of four square feet or less and window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total permanent sign area permitted. 4. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is three per site, or three per physically enclosed business space on commercial sites with multiple business tenants. A site with more than one street frontage is allowed a maximum of five signs. Projecting (including blade) signs of four square feet or less and window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total number of permitted permanent signs. Multi -tenant sites are allowed one additional group sign per street frontage identifying the individual subtenants at the site. The total sign area of all signs permitted on site must also comply with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in this chapter. 5. Where permitted, pedestrian signs do count against the permanent sign area and the number of signs permitted. B. Residential Zone Districts (RS, RM). 1. The maximum allowable signage area for individual residential lots shall be four square feet per street frontage, except as provided in subsection (13)(2) of this section. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 173 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 11/18 2. The maximum allowable signage area for formal residential subdivisions, planned residential developments (PRD), or multifamily structures containing at least 10 dwelling units shall be 10 square feet per main street entrance into the subdivision or PRD. Only one sign may be provided at each main entrance. 3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided between wall and freestanding signs, in accordance with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type of sign, as provided in ECDC 20.60.030 through 20.60.050. Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total permanent sign area permitted. 4. Signage in excess of that provided in subsections (13)(1) and (2) of this section for lawful nonconforming or conditional nonresidential uses in residential zones may be approved through the issuance of a sign permit pursuant to ECDC 20.60.010, subject to the maximum area and height limitations established for signs in the BN zone. 5. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is one, except that multifamily sites with more than one vehicular entrance may have one permanent sign per entrance. The total sign area of all signs (excluding incidental signs) permitted on site must also comply with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in this chapter. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3805 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3628 § 9, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.030 Wall signs — Maximum area and height. A. The maximum area of any wall sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 4 square feet BN, BP, BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU, FVMU 1 square foot per lineal foot of attached wall B. The maximum height of any attached sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM 6 feet BN, BP, BC, BD, CW, 14 feet or the height of the face of the CG, WMU, FVMU building on which the sign is located, consistent with ECDC 20.60.020(B) [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Art. A), 2016; Ord. 3628 § 10, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.035 Window signs — Maximum area. The maximum area of any window sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 4 square feet BN, BP, BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU, FVMU 1 square foot per each lineal foot of window frontage [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Art. A), 2016; Ord. 3628 § 11, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.040 Projecting signs — Maximum area and height restrictions. A. The maximum area of any projecting sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM Not permitted Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 174 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Zone Maximum Area of Sign BN, BP, BC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 16 square feet CG 32 square feet B. The maximum height of any projecting sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM Not permitted BN, BP, BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU, FVMU Height of the wall to which the sign is attached Page 12/18 C. The sign area of a marquee sign may not exceed two feet in vertical dimension. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3628 § 12, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.045 Freestanding signs — Regulations. A. Regulation. Permanent freestanding signs are discouraged. Freestanding signs shall be approved only where the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that there are no reasonable and feasible alternative signage methods to provide for adequate identification and/or advertisement. B. Maximum Area. The maximum area of a freestanding sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 10 square feet (subdivision, PRD, multifamily) 4 square feet (individual residence sign) BN, BP 24 square feet (single) 48 square feet (group) BC, BD, WMU, 32 square feet (single) FVMU 48 square feet (group) CW 32 square feet (single) 48 square feet (group) CG Sign area shall be governed by subsection (C) of this section C. Allowable Sign Area for Freestanding Signs — CG Zone. The total allowable sign area for freestanding signs on general commercial sites shall be 56 square feet or one-half square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of street frontage, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 160 square feet of freestanding sign area. Multiple business or tenant sites shall further be allowed an additional 24 square feet of freestanding sign area for each commercial tenant or occupant in excess of one up to a maximum sign area of 160 square feet. Corner lots choosing to accumulate sign area under the provisions of subsection (E) of this section shall be limited to 160 square feet. D. Maximum Height. The maximum sign height of freestanding signs shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM 6 feet BN, BP, BC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 14 feet CG 25 feet Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 175 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Page 13/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE E. Location. Freestanding signs shall be located as close as possible to the center of the street frontage on which they are located. Except for pole -mounted community event banners, freestanding signs may not be located on public property. Sites on a corner of two public streets may have one sign on the corner instead of a sign for each frontage. Monument signs not more than six feet in height may be located in a zoning setback, but not less than five feet from a property line. F. Number. In all zones, each lot or building site shall be permitted no more than one freestanding sign, except in the business and commercial zones where a lot or site has frontage on two arterial streets, in which case there may be permitted one sign per street frontage subject to the restrictions on area contained within this chapter. G. Landscaping. 1. Each freestanding sign shall have a landscaped area twice the size of the sign area at the base of the sign. The landscaping and sign base shall be protected from vehicles by substantial curbing. 2. The applicant shall provide a landscape performance bond in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of the landscaping, or $1,000, whichever is more. The bond shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 17.10 ECDC. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3631 § 3, 2007; Ord. 3628 § 13, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.050 Wall graphic and identification structures. There are no area restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.055 Pedestrian signs. Pedestrian signs are only permitted on private property and in the adjacent right-of-way in the BC, BD, CW, and CG zones located within the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, as defined in the comprehensive plan. Pedestrian signs are only permitted if they meet the following requirements: A. Pedestrian signs may be permitted to be located either (1) between the business storefront and the public right-of-way, or (2) on the sidewalk in front of the business storefront if the pedestrian sign meets the following standards: 1. Only one pedestrian sign is permitted per ground floor storefront; 2. Businesses may make arrangements to rotate their pedestrian signs provided they meet the one sign -per -storefront standard; 3. The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry and must be placed within two feet of the building. The Development Services Director may approve an alternative location under the following circumstances: -The sign shall be laea4ed within 10 feet of the building el+tfy, tMiess it is plaeed in a laea4iaff Any deviatiens ffom this standard ffmst be s4mit4ed to the arehiteetufal design board for- r-eview and appr-eval per- Ernr 20 60 ni 5(B)( ); a. An alternative location in front of the building or on the prope . occupied by the business is less intrusive to pedestrian movement or accessibility; or b. The building containing the business is set back from the property line and a location on the propegy can be provided such that the sign does not encroach onto a public sidewalk. 4. A business located on a corner property shall have no more than one pedestrian sign, regardless of the number of streets the business fronts on; 5. If located on or near a sidewalk, building entry or pedestrian way, the sign shall be located to provide a Of fiVe feet , f61e.,..a*ee f r ,.deaf..- s t �clear zone consistent with ECDC 18.70.030(Cl; 6. Pedestrian signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public; 7. Pedestrian signs are limited to: Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 176 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Page 14/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE a. Six square feet in area, two and one-half feet in width, and three and one-half feet in height for A -frame or sandwich board signs; and b. Six square feet in area, two and one-half feet in width, and four and one-half feet in height for stanchion, easel or other types of pedestrian signs. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016]. 20.60.060 Campaign signs. A. On -premises campaign signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in all zones, subject to the maximum sign size limitations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080. B. Off -premises campaign signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in the public right-of-way; provided, that the following requirements are met: 1. All campaign signs shall be posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080(B). 2. All off -premises campaign signs shall be removed within 10 days after the primary, general, or special election to which they pertain. 3. Off -premises campaign signs shall be posted and displayed no earlier than upon declaration of candidacy in accordance with Chapter 29.15 RCW, or other formal registration or certification of the candidate, party, initiative, referendum or other ballot issue for an upcoming election, or 60 days prior to the election, whichever time period is greater. C. There is no maximum number of off -premises campaign signs that may be posted. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.065 Real estate signs. A. On -premises real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in residential and commercial zones, subject to the maximum signage area and sign number limitations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080. B. Off -premises real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage, subject to the following requirements: 1. Two and only two types of off -premises real estate signs shall be permitted: a. An off -premises real estate directional sign is a sign displaying a directional arrow and either a company or logo, or an indication that the property is for sale by its owner, and installed for the purpose of directing the public to the property. b. An off -premises open house sign is a form of temporary off -premises sign indicating the property is currently open for viewing. 2. All off -premises real estate signs shall be posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080(B). 3. The maximum number of off -premises real estate signs allowed per property shall only be the number reasonably necessary to direct people to the premises. An agent or owner shall be permitted no more than one off -premises real estate directional sign per intersection and five in total. No more than one off -premises open house sign shall be displayed per intersection and no more than five in total. a. Each off -premises real estate directional sign shall bear a legible tag located on the sign or supporting post indicating the date of posting and the address of the property to which it pertains. b. Off -premises real estate open house signs shall only be posted during daylight hours when the real r estate agent or owner is in attendance at the property for sale or rent, and shall be removed immediately Q upon the termination of an "open house" or other similar property display event. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 177 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 15/18 4. No off -premises real estate signs shall be fastened to any traffic control device, public structure, fence, rock, tree or shrub. C. All on -premises and all off -premises real estate directional signs shall be removed within seven days after the closing of the sale or lease of real property to which the sign pertains. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.070 Construction signs. Construction signs shall, irrespective of their duration, conform to the general regulations for permanent signs specified under ECDC 20.60.020. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the maximum area of a construction sign in any zone shall be 32 square feet. No sign permit is required for the posting of construction signs; provided, that all construction signs shall be removed from the premises within 10 days of the cessation of the excavation, construction, demolition, rehabilitation, structural alteration or related work on site. Zone Maximum Area of Signage (per Street Frontage) RS 16 square feet, or 32 square feet if one sign is displayed for a project consisting of building permits issued for four lots or more. Only one sign may be displayed per project. All other 32 square feet zones The preceding square footages shall be in addition to any other temporary signage permitted by ECDC 20.60.080 [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3514 § 3, 2004]. 20.60.075 Governmental Signs Governmental signs, while exempt from the processes and development regulations required by this Chapter, shall be erected and maintained subject to rules and procedures established by the Development Services Director. In all cases, the City retains the right to remove any governmental sign at its sole discretion. 20.60.080 Temporary signs. A. On -Premises Temporary Signs. On -premises temporary signs are permitted in residential and commercial zones, in addition to any allowed or permitted permanent signage, subject to the following restrictions and standards: 1. Residential Zones (RS, RM). a. Only portable, freestanding or attached signs may be used as temporary signage. b. Commercial on -premises temporary signage is not permitted, except for real estate signs as defined by ECDC 20.60.065. c. Maximum number is one attached or freestanding sign. 2. Commercial Zones (BN, BP, BC, BD, WMU, FVMU, CW, CG). a. Only attached signs may be used for temporary signage. Attached signs may be affixed to any existing building or sign structure that is permitted as a permanent structure on the property. New temporary structures whose sole purpose is to display the temporary sign are not otherwise permitted. b. Maximum duration of display is 60 days in any calendar year for the cumulative posting of all temporary commercial signage upon each commercial location or premises. A ..e f fflit is F-eq ir-ed, specifying the duration and location of display, c. Maximum number of temporary signs is one freestanding sign per property street frontage, and one attached sign per building. 3. The total maximum area of on -premises temporary signage shall be as follows: Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 178 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Zone Maximum Area of Temporary Sign RS, RM 6 square feet BN, BP, BC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 20 square feet CG 30 square feet 4. The total maximum area for each allowed on -premises temporary sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Temporary Sign RS, RM 6 square feet (freestanding and attached) BN, BP, BC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 20 square feet (attached) CG 30 square feet (attached) 5. The maximum height of any allowed on -premises temporary sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM 6 feet (freestanding and attached) BN, BP, BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU, FVMU 14 feet (attached) Page 16/18 6. In no case shall temporary signage be posted, located, or displayed in violation of the regulations for permanent signs set forth in ECDC 20.60.020 through 20.60.050. B. Off -Premises Temporary Signage. Off -premises temporary signs are allowed in residential and commercial zones, in accordance with the restrictions and standards set forth below: 1. Commercial off -premises temporary signage is prohibited, except for real estate signs as permitted by ECDC 20.60.065; provided, that such off -premises real estate signs shall be posted, displayed, and removed as provided for in that section, in addition to the provisions of subsections (13)(5) through (9) of this section. 2. Noncommercial off -premises signs are permitted in the public right-of-way; provided, that the posting and display of off -premises signs in the public right-of-way shall require a street use permit where required pursuant to Chapter 18.70 ECDC. 3. Maximum duration of display for all temporary off -premises signs is a cumulative of 60 days in any calendar year, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 20.60.060 for campaign signs. Display may be continuous or intermittent, except as otherwise provided in this section. 4. Except for campaign signs as provided in ECDC 20.60.060, all off -premises noncommercial signs relating to a specific meeting, event, or occurrence shall be removed within 48 hours following the conclusion of the meeting, event, or occurrence to which they relate. 5. Only portable freestanding signs may be used as temporary off -premises signage; provided, that the following types of portable freestanding signs are prohibited from use as an off -premises sign: a. Signs with a vehicular chassis or support with or without wheels; b. Posters and banners; c. Signs mounted upon vehicles; Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 179 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE d. Searchlights; e. Inflatables. Page 17/18 6. Maximum number of allowed off -premises signs to be displayed simultaneously shall be one sign per sign poster except as provided in ECDC 20.60.060 for campaign signs and in ECDC 20.60.065 for real estate signs. 7. Maximum allowable sign area for all temporary off -premises freestanding signs is six square feet. 8. Maximum allowable sign height for all permitted off -premises signs is three feet. 9. All off -premises temporary signage shall be posted and displayed in accordance with the following restrictions: a. Off -premises signs may not be placed in any portion of the public right-of-way typically used by motor vehicles in a lawful manner. b. Off -premises signs shall be placed so as not to impede pedestrian, bicycle, or handicapped travel or access. c. Off -premises signs shall not be posted in a manner or location which impairs traffic safety by unreasonably blocking line of sight at intersections. d. Off -premises signs shall be constructed of suitable material and design to adequately withstand the reasonably expected normal or average weather conditions during the intended display period of the sign. e. Off -premises signs shall be regularly inspected to ensure that they have not been damaged or destroyed by natural forces or vandalism. Damaged and destroyed signs shall be immediately removed or repaired so as to avoid threats to public health and safety or the accumulation of unclaimed refuse upon the public rights -of -way. f. Off -premises signs shall not be posted upon public property other than the public right-of-way, and shall further not be posted within or upon planter boxes and flower beds within the publicly maintained landscaped portions of the public right-of-way. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3628 § 14, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.090 Prohibited signs. A. General. All signs not expressly permitted by this chapter are prohibited. B. Hazards. Signs which the director of public works determines to be a hazard to vehicle or water traffic because they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage, are prohibited. These signs shall be removed if they already exist. C. Confiscation of Prohibited Signs in Public Rights -of -Way. All signs which are located within a public right-of-way and that have been improperly posted or displayed are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be subject to immediate removal and confiscation. D. Any signs confiscated by the city shall be held for 10 working days after which such signs may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of. The owner of any confiscated signs may recover the same upon payment of a $25.00 fee to cover the cost of confiscation and storage. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.095 Exempt signs. The following types of signs are exempted from regulations of this chapter, except that the dimensional and placement standards shall apply unless variance is required by other provisions of local, state or federal law: A. Governmental signs. HA. Signs required by provision of local, state, or federal law. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 180 Edmonds Ordinance Attachment A Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 18/18 EB. Official public notices required by provision of local, state, or federal law. 13C. Signs not visible from a public location. ED. Seasonal and holiday displays not incorporating the use of written copy or graphics to convey a message. FE. Gravestones. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.100 Administration. A. General. The community development director is responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter. He or she shall adopt application requirements for sign permits. Fees shall be as stated in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. B. Installation Permits. Many signs require installation permits under Chapter 19.45 ECDC and may require plan checking fees as well. C. Notice of Violation. Whenever the planning director becomes aware of a violation of the provisions of this chapter, the planning director shall cause a notice to be sent to the alleged violator informing him or her of the violation, the applicable code section, and a time within which to remedy the violation. The notice shall also advise of the penalties for continued violation of the code as specified in this chapter. If the violation has not been corrected within the time limit specified, the planning director shall refer the matter to the city attorney's office for institution of appropriate legal action. D. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of $25.00 for each day of continued violation. [Ord. 4039 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. Edmonds Sign Code City Council Approved 2017.03.29 Packet Pg. 181 4.9.b COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 14, 2017 2. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ASHLEY DORGAN ($422.55), A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM TIMOTHY S. DANAHER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KARI MIKKELSEN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED) 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT. 4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN 2017 SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACTS 6. FIRST QUARTER AND 2016 CARRY FORWARD BUDGET AMENDMENT 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MURRAY SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE 2018 SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE 76TH AVE AND 212TH ST INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT/BIKE2HEALTH PROJECT 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no public comment. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATING PEDESTRIAN SIGN REQUIREMENTS IN CH. 20.60 ECDC Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed: • Sign code update in 2016 o Most recent update in August 2016 o Update focused on pedestrian signs; featured: ■ Pedestrian signs as permanent signage ■ Only one per ground floor storefront ■ Only while the business is open ■ Located within 2' of building and within 10' of entry ■ Exceptions must be approved by ADB • Current update 0 2016 update resulted in some concerns from the business community o Concerns gained attention of Council and were brought forward to Planning Board o Board held work session and public hearing o Multiple options were considered (Exhibit 3) • Planning Board Recommendation o Permit fees should be minimized, with blade signs costing less than pedestrian signs (currently $75+$35 and $125 +35, respectively) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 2 Packet Pg. 182 4.9.b o Pedestrian signs should count against sign area, except for those grandfathered in o Allow Development Services Director to approve alternate sign locations under specific conditions o Define "governmental signs" to allow creation of a directional signage program. o Grandfathered signs for area New: ECDC 20.60.025(A)(5) [packet page 290-2911 a. Exception. A pedestrian sign does not count against the permanent sign area and the number of signs permitted if: i. A wall sign exists and was legally permitted prior to August 12, 2016; and ii. A pedestrian sign was in place during some or all of the period between June 12 and August 12, 2016; and iii. A pedestrian sign permit was received by the City by October 6, 2016 b. This exception is no longer valid if an application for a new wall sign is received by the City c. This exception does not apply to any other aspect of the sign code governing pedestrian signs, including the number, size and location of such signs Options: Don't count in sign area or add 6 square feet to total allowed area o Alternate sign location ECDC 20.60.055 [packet page 293-294] 3. The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry and must be placed within two feet of the building. The Development Services Director may approve an alternative location under the following circumstances: The sign shall be leeatea within 10 fee the building ea4y, iaaless it is plaeed in a leeation that better- preserves publie pedestrian ffem this standard n�mst be subfnit4ed to the ar-ehiteettir-al design board for- review approval per- ECDC 20.60.01 S(B)(1) a. An alternative location in front of the building or on the property occupied by the business is less intrusive to pedestrian movement or accessibility; or b. The building containing the building is set back from the property line and a location on the property can be provided such that the sign does not encroach onto a public sidewalk. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to her suggestion last week to make blade signs free. Mr. Chave responded that was at the discretion of the Council. One of the things intended in the code was to encourage their use; making them free would simply require a resolution. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas recalled when blade signs were discussed several years ago, the reason they were preferred was they attracted shoppers but did not clutter sidewalks. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Jamie Reece, Edmonds, Chair of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), highlighted comments in the February 15, 2017 memo the EDC sent the Council. The EDC as well as a subgroup discussed the sign code and feedback received from businesses and citizens. The goal of their discussions was to strike the right balance between aesthetics and economic vitality of the community. The EDC supports lowering the cost of A -board signs, not necessarily to encourage them, but to make them more affordable for business owners. The EDC has not discussed expanding the overall sign area but supported the concept that pedestrian signs not count toward the overall area of signage to avoid stagnating existing signs and having different size signs on facades. The EDC supports greater flexibility in the requirement to have A -board signs located 2 feet from the facade and making that process more affordable as well as ongoing cooperative efforts with the community and the BID for wayfinding signs for businesses located 1-2 blocks off 5th & Main without cluttering every corner with signs and flags. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 3 Packet Pg. 183 4.9.b Debbie Rosenfelt, Edmonds, co-owner of Snap Fitness, expressed support for reducing the fees for blade and pedestrian signs to $85, not having pedestrian signs count against total sign area, and allowing the Development Services Director to approve alternate sign locations under specific conditions. Robert Boehlke, Edmonds, owner of HouseWares and President of Ed! Edmonds Downtown Alliance, urged the Council to keep the cost reasonable and make the cost for blade and pedestrian signs the same and he and some other businesses are unable to have a blade sign. He also supported not counting pedestrian signs against the total sign area. He supported the proposal regarding alternate locations. He asked what was meant by "the sign does not encroach on the public sidewalk," commenting signs would be located on the sidewalk. With regard to wayfinding signs, Ed! is interested in assisting with a project for a wayfinding signs throughout the City, signs that enhance the cityscape and help visitors find their way around. Sheila Cloney, Edmonds, Anchor Chic, spoke in favor of wayfinding signs. The building they are in has not had a lot of activity for some time and they find the A -board signs help drive customers to their location next to Masonic Temple. Joy Rye, Edmonds, representing ZINC, said the removal of their A -board has impacted their business. Their entrance is located more than 2 feet from sidewalk and when the A -board sign is not up, business is substantially down. Janet Hans, Edmonds, Gallery North, said they value their A -board sign and she thanked the City Council for considering pedestrian sign regulations. She expressed support for a more reasonable cost, having blade signs and A -boards be the same price and allowing alternative locations. She asked for clarification of "the sign does not encroach onto a public sidewalk." Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her preference that there be no cost for blade signs, commenting they were generally fairly small signs. Mr. Chave said if that was the consensus of the City Council, the City Attorney could draft a resolution for Council consideration setting the fee for blade signs at zero. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she will make a motion when the Council completes it deliberation. Councilmember Teitzel recommended a group with members from Ed!, the Chamber, DEMA, EDC and citizens consider permanent directional/wayfinding signs and report back to the Council in six months. He anticipated permanent directional signage would lessen the pressure for A -board signs. He suggested that project also consider wayfinding apps to assist visitors with navigating around the City. Mr. Chave said Development Services Director Shane Hope has been meeting with members of the BID regarding directional/wayfinding signs and several businesses have been working on ideas so it would not be difficult to form a group and report to Council on ideas. With regard to an app, the Western Washington University Sustainable Cities program is working on that and their report is due at the end of spring quarter. Councilmember Tibbott asked about funding for an app, recalling a suggestion at the Planning Board to use the technology fee to offset the cost of developing an app. Mr. Chave said the Council would need to budget the cost of developing an app. The WWU project is student time and a minimal cost. He suggested waiting to see the results of WWU's project to see how useful an app would be. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the question asked by the public regarding encroachment onto the sidewalk. He cited an example of a property on Dayton between 4th and 3rd where the building is set back Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 4 Packet Pg. 184 4.9.b from the street but there could be appropriate locations on the property that were not on the sidewalk. Mr. Chave said the intent of Item 3.b was if the businesses was setback from the property line, there should be space between the business and the sidewalk to locate the sign. Alternate locations that include the sidewalk would be addressed by Item 3.a, such as if there is street furniture at the curb, it may be less intrusive to put a sign at the curb instead of next to the building. It will be very situational, hence the recommendation to grant the discretion to the Development Services Director. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for allowing the Director that discretion. Councilmember Johnson asked how the technology fee was used. Mr. Chave answered the technology fee was broadly applicable to all permit applications and supports the website, electronic permitting system, GIS, etc. It is basically at capacity for those purposes at this time. If the Council wanted to pursue some of the suggestions that have been made, the cost could be subsidized by the General Fund, a minimal amount added to the technology fee, etc. The technology fee is a flat fee. Council President Mesaros asked how the $125 fee for an A -board signs was calculated. Mr. Chave said that represents approximately 1.25 hours of staff time. When fees were established, consideration was given to who does the review, the average amount of time the process takes, etc. Councilmember Nelson said if the Council wanted to encourage blade signs by making them free, he did not want the difference made up by increasing the fee for A -board signs. If the Council reduced the cost of blade signs, he supported also reducing cost of A -boards signs, such as reducing it by half. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Ed! should work on a wayfinding sign program, and the City Council should not be involved with it. She supported the WWU project that will consider an app, noting she often uses TripAdvisor when visiting other cities. Mr. Chave commented the fees were up to the Council. He recommended directing the City Attorney to draft a final ordinance for Council consideration. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BLADE SIGNS WHICH SHALL HAVE NO FEE OR TECHNOLOGY FEE. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Council has been discussing blade signs for a number of years; it was important not to have a fee since they are the preferred sign type and having no fee will encourage businesses to choose that type of sign. She recognized some businesses did not have an overhang to display a blade sign. Councilmember Tibbott suggested the Council discuss either not having pedestrian signs count against the total sign area or adding 6 square feet to the total allowed signage. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD 6 SQUARE FEET TO THE TOTAL ALLOWED SIGNAGE. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Mesaros commented his heart supports having no fee for blade signs but his head does not. He suggested reducing the fee for blade and pedestrian sign to $40 + $35 technology fee, recognizing that a number of businesses do not have the architecture for a blade sign. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers to pass the motion eliminating the fee for blade signs and she would support a motion to reduce the cost of A -board signs. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 5 Packet Pg. 185 4.9.b COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REDUCE THE FEE FOR PEDESTRIAN SIGNS FROM $135 + $35 TO $75 + $35. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND NELSON VOTING NO. 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the purpose of the public hearing is the four options for the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) IV environment, basically the area around the Edmonds Marsh. He identified similarities between all options: • Default buffer of 110 feet with 15-foot setback • Mechanism for establishing alternative buffer Mr. Lien outlined the options: Ecology Option A • Add a reference to the interrupted buffer provision in the critical area regulations (ECDC 23.40.220.C.4) in footnote 18 Notes that an alternative buffer may be established with a shoreline conditional use permit consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 provides an exemption from prescribed buffer width if site is proven to be functionally isolated from a stream or wetland Two potential results o Determined to be functionally isolated and exempt from buffer requirements o Not functionally isolated and the 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback apply o Does not provide for an alternative buffer Ecology Option B • Establishes buffer between 110 and 50 feet • Buffer established through a shoreline conditional use permit process • Buffer based on "potential ecological lift" and "no net loss of ecological function" • Lacks detailed criteria for consideration of site specific study to establish alternative buffer • Conflicting terms in "potential ecological lift" and "no net loss of ecological function" Staff Developed Option C • Combines elements of Ecology's Options A & B • Keeps Council 110 buffer/15-foot setback as a default, and establishes minimum buffer of 50 feet • Criteria from interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis • Site specific study shall address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions • Could be modified to specifically note where buffer begins Citizen Developed Option D — Part 1 • Modify Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Table to list buffer and shore setback separately • Modify footnote 18 o Note where buffer begins, "where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or at the wetland/upland edge" o Require buffer between railway right-of-way and marsh • "Shore setback" to "building setback" Railway right-of-way Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 186 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 SnoCom-SnoPac Consolidation Task Force Update (30 min.) Staff Lead: Al Compaan Department: Police Services Preparer: Al Compaan In 2014, the E911 Office for Snohomish County funded a study to review current call routing and funding distribution methodology relating to the two Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPS or 911 centers) in the county. The two PSAPS are known as SnoCom and SnoPac. The study, completed in March 2015, conducted by Matrix Consulting Group out of Mountain View, CA, concluded there is "...significant opportunity for efficiency and effectiveness gains through consolidation..." and that consolidation would address an endemic issue with call transfers between the two Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPS). The report included several recommendations to resolve a long standing call transfer issue between the two PSAPS. The call transfer issue is the result of a decision made well over a decade ago when data was not readily available to understand the impacts on service delivery. Recent analysis concluded the PSAPS transfer approx. 45,000 calls every year. The volume and frequency of call transfers presents a serious service deficiency, resulting in an inefficient use of resources, delays for emergency responders and for those in need of 911 services, and it includes an imbalance of funding to the PSAPS in relation to workload. To address recommendations of the Matrix study, a Joint PSAP Consolidation Task Force (JTF) was formed in summer of 2016 by direction of the PSAP Boards. The JTF is comprised of members representing SNOCOM and SNOPAC, plus ex-officio representation of SERS (our Snohomish Emergency Radio System - the network that provides land -mobile radio services to first responders throughout the county). To brief Edmonds City Council on JTF progress to -date, SnoCom Executive Director Terry Peterson and PSAP Consolidation JTF Facilitator Karen Reed, will present a progress update to Council and will address questions asked. Angie Baird, SnoPac's Finance and Administrative Services Manager, will also be in attendance and available to answer questions. This update will provide an overview of information from the JTF relating to service levels and delivery, continuity of operations, staffing, fiscal implications, and governance. Attachments: JTF Presentation for Stakeholders Edmonds FINAL 20170329 Packet Pg. 187 9-1-1 Consolidatic Presentation for C �J CJ1 Attachment: JTF Presentation for Stakeholders Edmonds FINAL 20170329 (1942 : SnoCom-SnoPac Consolidation Task Force Update) Background Three separate entities: SNOPAC PSAP - Formed in the 70's, located in Everett, a consolidated 9-1-1 Center serving roughly 70% of Snohomish County 's population. SNOCOM PSAP - Formed in the 70's, located in Mountlake Terrace, consolidated 9-1-1 Center serving roughly 30% of Snohomish County's population. SERS - Formed in the 90's, Emergency Radio System, group responsible for the voice radio system used by police, fire and 911 countywide. Legend a PSAP JOINT SNOCOM SNOPAC u 0 5 10 20 Miles I - - CJ1 Attachment: JTF Presentation for Stakeholders Edmonds FINAL 20170329 (1942 : SnoCom-SnoPac Consolidation Task Force Update) Background A serious service deficiency exists within a Jointly Served Area (JSA) covered by FD1 /SNOCOM and SCSO/SNOPAC Excessive 9-1-1 transfers resulting in delays to emergencies Includes an imbalance of funding in relation to workload County E91 1 funded a three-part study completed in March 2015 which concluded" ... significant opportunity for efficiency and effectiveness gains through consolidation..." and would address the existing 9-1-1 transfers issue. It included several other options including virtual consolidation and co -location A Snohomish County Joint Task Force (JTF) was formed to further consider these options Legend PSAP JOINT SNOCOM SNOPAC 0 2 +y t` �'00 SGSo ; LYNNVOXK # SNOC 9Ri ER ik 8 Miles YN1J fJ IrY Imo__ ' LAXE SFEVEM CJ1 Attachment: JTF Presentation for Stakeholders Edmonds FINAL 20170329 (1942 : SnoCom-SnoPac Consolidation Task Force Update) Joint Task Force (JTF) Includes Operational and Board Representatives from SNOCOM, SNOPAC & SERS and an independent facilitator with consolidation experience Formed in summer 2016 at direction of SNOCOM & SNOPAC Boards Multiple process check -points through Joint (SNOCOM/SNOPAC) Board Meetings to validate process and direction SERS is ex-officio until PSAPs make a decision about consolidation Open transparent process with regular updates to stakeholders including sharing documents online JTF Focus Foundational - Mission, Purpose, Scope, Membership, Values & Principles, Communications Plan Service Levels & Service Delivery Governance Fiscal Continuity of Operations (Resiliency/Redundancy) Service Levels o Both Boards agree that service levels and costs are the key driving considerations of this effort; governance is a big challenge o Differences exist in service delivery; JTF recommends maintaining existing levels of service o Steps already taken to decrease impacts of transfers; however these are not solutions only mitigation o Boards established that labor savings would be recognized over time through attrition and not through layoffs Multiple Solutions Evaluated Asked to evaluate other approaches to address issues of excessive 9-1-1 transfers Includes two other options that attempt to address transfers through routing and procedural changes Concluded that both options have significant operational and fiscal impacts to the PSAPs Redundancy / Resiliency Continuity of Operations Currently two physical locations with back-up capabilities Size disparity creates some challenges, County DEM used as backup SNOPAC is large enough for both operations with some requirements: Additional parking Renovation of vacant space for additional office needs PSAPs host county's technology systems used by all police, fire and corrections (53 agencies) Both PSAPs existing facilities have known deficiencies SNOPAC is evaluating needs/costs for new facility outside of this process Fiscal 10-Yr Pro Forma Budgets were developed Compare status quo (two separate PSAPs) against several alternative models including consolidation Stand-alone options resulted in operational and fiscal impacts Consolidated Option resulted in annual cost reductions of $1 M+ with equal or improved staffing and service levels Fiscal Consolidated PSAP Only option which resolves transfer issue completely Results in project annual savings of roughly $1.1 M Maintain existing redundancy / resiliency Cultural changes in governance philosophies Governance Board agreement on framework & principles which include Participatory governance Represented Board of between 12 - 19 Large, medium and small agencies, Cities, County, Fire & Police representation Balance of elected & operational representatives Sheriff represented as largest agency Police and Fire Representation (evaluating 1 OP/5F split) Use of Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) Consolidated Option Service: Eliminates 100% SNOCOM/SNOPAC transfers Call Takers and Dispatchers in same physical space eliminates some existing operational challenges Cost: -$1.1 MM annual budget reduction One time = estimate $800K-$1.5MM Resiliency/Redundancy: Unchanged (SNOCOM facility would function as warm -backup) Governance: Requires county -wide governance model Savings from staff reductions recognized through attrition over time - estimate 2 years. Consolidation Option Estimated One -Time Transition Costs Low Estimate High Estimate Office space Renovation $ 500,000 $ 750,000 Organizational/Team Building/Reorganization $ 30,000 $ 50,000 Phone system (reconfigure as Multi -Node) $ 30,000 $ 50,000 Contract Negotiations $ 90,000 $ 120,000 Recorder Modifications $ 5,000 $ 10,000 New ILA Development $ 15,000 $ 30,000 Corporate Structure Legal Review $ 4,000 $ 6,000 Technology Transition (reconfiguration) $ 30,000 $ 125,000 Contingency $ 50,000 $ 100,000 Radio Console Reorganization (MCC7500) $ 15,000 $ 20,000 Parking Needs at SNOPAC $ 50,000 $ 250,000 Total $ 819,000 $ 1,511,000 * Matrix Consulting Study estimated transition costs at between $229,500 & $372,500 Assessment Information Changes in Assessment Formula Better aligns cost to workload drivers Hybrid of SNOCOM & SNOPAC existing formulas City of Edmonds Specific Assessment 2017 Actual - $1,028,703 2017 Estimated Consolidated - $780,021 $248,682 Projected cost reduction (Fire +$90,610, Police-$339,292) Net 24.2% reduction *Based on most recent Incidents, Population, AV and right -sized organization Next Steps in Process ► Detailed financial reviews (underway) ► May thru July - Individual agency briefings ► Over the summer - Work on new Interlocal Agreement, transition budget, timeline to. Sept - Joint Board review and advisory position on new ILA ► Oct thru Dec - Depending on Joint Board Action, Individual agencies re -briefed and have decision whether to sign on to new ILA o- New Agency could start work as soon as June 2018 v m cQ FO "' Attachment: JTF Presentation for Stakeholders Edmonds FINAL 20170329 (1942 : SnoCom-SnoPac Consolidation Task Force Update) U 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 ILA Snohomish County Waterfront Redevelopment (10 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hlte Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History Council authorized funds for the Waterfront Redevelopment project, the park area surrounding the Senior Center. Stephanie Wright, Snohomish County Council member attended a Council meeting on March 7th to present the award of $125,000 to the City of Edmonds for this project. Staff Recommendation Authorize the Mayor to sign the Inter Local Agreement to receive $125,000 for the Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Narrative This project has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan and CIP, adopted by the City Council. This award is for $125,000 to be contributed toward the Waterfront Redevelopment Project. The Inter Local Agreement has been reviewed by the City attorney and Parks Director. It outlines the City's responsibility in accepting the funds. Attached is a preliminary schematic. Staff have just completed an RFQ process to select a designer and will be bringing forward a design contract soon. The timeline is projected for design this year, and construction in 2018. Attachments: Waterfront Redevelopment Image 20170329 Sno Co ILA Waterfront Funding for signature Packet Pg. 206 __ +.. p,�gng Sgalvan 10 Raman f - To BfaokeRs an rq _ Ir — To Cympic eoacn E _� - - - - 0F.IP, 1 -� i Beath Run-'1 Rc-E ral-on Area Pryy�n------------'Proposed Walkway VAcoeas.N Load-Unload Zone ! I.��. Proposed Edmonds Waterfront Cenler DAI UMS: rTopnwsT oaW1 AD 6.5J9� ,VrcAL CNw: RLW ss BOCHMA rK' N-7. RESET WM. OFAM W1 K M"-ir"S. 110 "EM 2r ON TOP tlF t,,CREtc RVf ,jm ORIILRO L' rs ATdN . ].s' WrK dE TIE NDR N COMER OF 4DgMC6 wTP.w< ,,,'T'C' - 1-.52 FEET Pr Proposed mllrlg Kayak Hand Launch and Accmible Rai - Exzbng SoawaN to .. Lirrq of Work r IlT Ewsang lWakw®yk n d lC E Proposed alarm do ++ � .ram wkWion area d gardan. arrd Fan gs E beach Q Proposed Aoceswb 0 rlp d m c 0 E c.i Q Packet Pg. 207 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING This INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING (this "Agreement"), is made and entered into this day of 2017, by and between SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington (the "County"), and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"), pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. RECITALS A. The 2015 General Policy Plan, Parks and Recreation, Goal PR 1, includes a component to provide recreation services to Snohomish County's residents in the most effective and efficient way possible; and B. The County Executive and the County Council have determined that it is consistent with the General Policy Plan and is in the public interest of County residents to participate in joint undertakings with local municipalities to increase recreational opportunities and facility capacity; and C. The County Council approved Ordinance 16-094, dated on November 14, 2016, which adopted the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program as part of the Snohomish County Capital Facilities Plan; and L D. The Council adopted Priority Package Detail included funding for certain capital improvement projects, including 2-03 City of Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment II, Package ID#: 632 in an amount up to One Hundred Twenty -Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($125,000.00) in REET 2 funds (the " Funds") for the purpose of helping fund improvements for the Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment project, excluding construction and/or installation of the parking lot; and E. Pursuant to this Agreement and Chapter 39.34 RCW, the City wishes to accept the above -described Funds from the County; and AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective agreements set forth below and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the County and the City agree as follows: 1. Purpose of Agreement. This Agreement is authorized by and entered into pursuant to Chapter 39.34 RCW. The purpose and intent of this Agreement is to define the responsibilities of the County and the City as they relate to the County's provision of Funds to the City for INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 208 improvements to Edmonds Waterfront Redevelopment II project (the "Project") located along the Edmonds waterfront in front of the Senior Center, 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds, WA and the continued walkway south of the Senior Center (the "Park Property"). The project will enhance the waterfront experience by removing the creosote pier, adding wider stairs and seat wall, adding an ADA ramp to the beach, adding a hand boat launch, and reintroducing natural elements to the beachfront to increase habitat. It will add 300 feet of walkway, connecting to the northern walkway leading to Brackett's South and Brackett's North. 2. Effective Date and Duration. This Agreement shall not take effect unless and until it has been duly executed by both parties and either filed with the County Auditor or posted on the County's Interlocal Agreements website. This Agreement shall remain in effect through June 30, 2019, unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 below, PROVIDED HOWEVER, that each party's obligations after December 31, 2017, are contingent upon local legislative appropriation of necessary funds for this specific purpose in accordance with applicable law. 3. Administrators. Each party to this Agreement shall designate an individual (an "Administrator"), who may be designated by title or position, to oversee and administer such party's participation in this Agreement. The parties' initial Administrators shall be the following individuals: County's Initial Administrator Tom Teigen, Director Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Department 6705 Puget Park Drive Snohomish, Washington 98296 (425) 388-6617 phone (425) 388-6645 facsimile Tom.Teigen@snoco.org City's Initial Administrator: Carrie Hite, Director Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services City of Edmonds 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA. 98020 (425) 771-0256 phone carrie.hite@edmondswa.gov Either party may change its Administrator at any time by delivering written notice of such party's new Administrator to the other party. 4. Project Performance. 4.1 Certification of Real Property Interest. The City certifies to the County that the City owns the real property or easements upon which the Project shall be executed and additional real property or easements are not needed to complete the Project. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 209 7.1.b 4.2 City's Financial Commitment_ The City certifies to the County that the City has monies sufficient to match any funding provided by the County to the City under the terms of this Agreement and will have sufficient monies to complete the Project by the Project deadline identified in Section 4.3 below (the "City's Financial Commitment"). 4.3 Project Deadline. On or before June 30, 2019, the City shall complete the Project. In executing the Project, the City shall obtain and, upon request, provide the County with copies of all permits necessary to complete the Project. 4.4 Recognition of County as Financial Sponsor. The City shall recognize the County as a financial sponsor of the Project as follows: 4.4.1 Upon completion of the Project or dedication of the Park Property, whichever comes first, the City shall install at the Park Property a plaque in a form approved by the County that indicates that the County is a financial sponsor of the Project; 4.4.2 The City shall invite the County to all events promoting the Project or Park Property and recognize the County at all such events as a financial sponsor of the J Project; T 4.4.3 The City shall recognize the County as a financial sponsor in allCD brochures, banners, posters, and other promotional material related to the Project. L 4.5 Project Maintenance. The City shall be responsible for on -going capital improvements to, and maintenance of, the Project and Park Property. The County makes no commitment to support the Project or Park Property beyond what is provided for in this Agreement and assumes no obligation for future support of the Project or Park Property except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. 4.6 Availability to County Residents. The City shall make the Park Property available to all County residents on the same terms as to residents of the City. 5. Invoicing and Payment. 5.1 Invoicing. Prior to June 30, 2019, the City shall submit to the County an invoice requesting disbursement of the Funds for the Project. The invoice shall provide line item detail for materials, labor and overhead and include any documentation requested by the County, including but not limited to .documentation as to what amounts have been spent by the City on the Project. 5.2 ' Payment. Unless the County delivers to the City written notice disputing the amount of a particular line item, within twenty (20) working days of receipt from the City of an invoice properly submitted to the County pursuant to Section 5.1, the County shall remit to the City an amount not to exceed One Hundred Twenty -Five Thousand and INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 210 no/100 Dollars ($125,000.00). 5.3 No Overpayments. In the event that the Project is completed for less than the combined total of the Funds and the City's Financial Commitment, the County shall remit to the City an amount of Funds equal to the difference between the City's Financial Commitment and the total cost of the Project. In no case shall the City retain Funds which it does not utilize in the Project or that it utilizes in the Project without first exhausting the City's Financial Commitment. Should an overpayment occur, the County shall give written notice to the City of the overpayment, and within thirty (30) days of the notice of overpayment the City shall return to the County the overpaid Funds plus interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum beginning thirty (30) days from the date of the notice of overpayment. 5.4 Accounting. The City shall maintain a system of accounting and internal controls that complies with generally accepted accounting principles and governmental accounting and financial reporting standards and provisions concerning preservation and destruction of public documents in accordance with applicable laws, including Chapter 40.14 RCW. 5.5 Recordkeeping. The City shall maintain adequate records to support J billings. The records shall be maintained by the City for a period of five (5) years after completion of this Agreement. The County, or any of its duly authorized representatives, shall have access to books, documents, or papers and records of the City relating to this Agreement for purposes of inspection, audit, or the making of excerpts or transcripts. L 6. Independent Contractor. The City will perform all work associated with the Project as an independent contractor and not as an agent, employee, or servant of the County. The City shall be solely responsible for control, supervision, direction and discipline of its personnel, who shall be employees and agents of the City and not the County. The County shall only have the right to ensure performance. 7. Indemnification/Hold Harmless. The City shall assume the risk of, be liable for, and pay all damage, loss, costs and expense of any party arising out of the activities under this Agreement and all use of any improvements it may place on the Property. The City shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend the County, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against all claims, losses, lawsuits, actions, counsel fees, litigation costs, expenses, damages, judgments, or decrees by reason of damage to any property or business and/or any death, injury or disability to or of any person or party, including but not limited to any employee, arising out of or suffered, directly or indirectly, by reason of or in connection with the acquisition or use of the Park Property and this Agreement; PROVIDED, that the above indemnification does not apply to those damages solely INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 211 7.1.b caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the County, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees or agents. 8. Liability Related to Cily Ordinances Policies Rules and Regulations. In executing this Agreement, the County does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release the City from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of City ordinances, policies, rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such City ordinance, policy, rule or regulation is at issue, the City shall defend the same at its sole expense and, if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against the City, the County, or both, the City shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 9. Insurance. The City shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from, or in connection with exercise of the rights and privileges granted by this Agreement, by the City, his agents, representatives, employees/subcontractors. The cost of such insurance shall be paid by the City. T 9.1 Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. General Liability: Insurance CD Services Office Form No. CG 00 01 Ed. 11-88, covering COMMERCIAL GENERAL L LIABILITY with limits no less than $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. a, 9.2 Other Insurance Provisions. Coverage shall be written on an "Occurrence" form. The insurance policies required in this Agreement are to contain or be endorsed to contain the County, its officers, officials, employees, and agents as additional insureds as respects liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the City in connection with this Agreement. 9.3 Verification of Coverage. The City shall furnish the County with certificate(s) of insurance and endorsement(s) required by this Agreement. 10. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, each party shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations. 11. Default and Remedies. 11.1 Default. If either the County or the City fails to perform any act or obligation required to be performed by it hereunder, the other party shall deliver written notice of such failure to the non -performing party. The non -performing party shall have twenty (20) days after its receipt of such notice in which to correct its failure to perform INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 212 the act or obligation at issue, after which time it shall be in default ("Default") under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the non-performance is of a type that could not reasonably be cured within said twenty (20) day period, then the non -performing party shall not be in Default if it commences cure within said twenty (20) day period and thereafter diligently pursues cure to completion. 11.2 Remedies. In the event of a party's Default under this Agreement, then after giving notice and an opportunity to cure pursuant to Section 11.1 above, the non - Defaulting party shall have the right to exercise any or all rights and remedies available to it in law or equity. 12. Early Termination. 12.1 30 Days' Notice. Except as provided in Sections 12.2 and 12.3 below, either party may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon not less than thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party. The termination notice shall specify the date on which the Agreement shall terminate. 12.2 Lack of Fundin . This Agreement is contingent upon governmental tr_ funding and local legislative appropriations. In the event that funding from any source is J withdrawn, reduced, limited, or not appropriated after the effective date of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated by either party immediately by delivering written notice to the other party. The termination notice shall specify the date on which the Agreement shall terminate. L 12.3 Termination for Breach. In the event that the City fails to complete the Project by June 30, 2019, commits a Default as described in Section 11, or otherwise fails to appropriate the funds necessary to complete the Project, the County may terminate this Agreement immediately by delivering written notice to the City. Within thirty (30) days of such early termination, the City shall return to the County all Funds previously disbursed from the County to the City for the Project plus interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum beginning thirty (30) days from the date of early termination. 13. Dispute Resolution. In the event differences between the parties should arise over the terms and conditions or the performance of this Agreement, the parties shall use their best efforts to resolve those differences on an informal basis. If those differences cannot be resolved informally, the matter may be referred for mediation to a mediator mutually selected by the parties. If mediation is not successful or if a party waives mediation, either of the parties may institute legal action for specific performance of this Agreement or for damages. The prevailing party in any legal action shall be entitled to a reasonable attorneys' fee and court costs. 14. Notices. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 213 All notices required to be given by any party to the other party under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered either in person, by United States mail, or by electronic mail (email) to the applicable Administrator or the Administrator's designee. Notice delivered in person shall be deemed given when accepted by the recipient. Notice by United States mail shall be deemed given as of the date the same is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the Administrator, or their designee, at the addresses set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement. Notice delivered by email shall be deemed given as of the date and time received by the recipient. 15. Miscellaneous. 15.1 Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements between the parties regarding the subject matter contained herein. This Agreement may not be modified or amended in any manner except by a written document executed with the same formalities as required for this Agreement and signed by the party against whom such modification is sought to be enforced. 15.2 Conflicts between Attachments and Text. Should any conflicts exist J between any attached exhibit or schedule and the text or main body of this Agreement, the text or main body of this Agreement shall prevail. a� 15.3 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and L enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. The venue of any action arising out of this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for Snohomish County. In the event that a lawsuit is instituted to enforce any L provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs of ° such a lawsuit, including reasonable attorney's fees. c 15.4 Interpretation. This Agreement and each of the terms and provisions of it are deemed to have been explicitly negotiated by the parties, and the language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed according to its fair meaning and not strictly for or against either of the parties hereto. The captions and headings in this Agreement are used only for convenience and are not intended to affect the interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed so that wherever applicable the use of the singular number shall include the plural number, and vice versa, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. 15.5 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, for any reason and to any extent, be found invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and the application of that provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, but shall instead continue in full force and effect, to the extent permitted by law. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 214 7.1.b 15.6 No Waiver. A party's forbearance or delay in exercising any right or remedy with respect to a Default by the other party under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the Default at issue. Nor shall a waiver by either party of any particular Default constitute a waiver of any other Default or any similar future Default. 15.7 No AssigLiment. This Agreement shall not be assigned, either in whole or in part, by either party without the express written consent of the other party, which may be granted or withheld in such party's sole discretion. Any attempt to assign this Agreement in violation of the preceding sentence shall be null and void and shall constitute a Default under this Agreement. 15.8 Warranty of Authority. Each of the signatories hereto warrants and represents that he or she is competent and authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the party for whom he or she purports to sign this Agreement. 15.9 No Joint Venture. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating any type or manner of partnership, joint venture or other joint enterprise between the parties. 15.10 No Separate Entity Necessary. The parties agree that no separate legal or administrative entities are necessary to carry out this Agreement. T 15.11 Ownership of Property. Except as expressly provided to the contrary in CD this Agreement, any real or personal property used or acquired by either party in L connection with its performance under this Agreement will remain the sole property of R such party, and the other party shall have no interest therein. a, 15.12 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement and each and every provision hereof is for the sole benefit of the City and the County. No other persons or parties shall be deemed to have any rights in, under or to this Agreement. 15.13 Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. [The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 215 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. COUNTY: CITY: Snohomish County, a political subdivision City of Edmonds, a Washington of the State of Washington municipal corporation M Name: Dave Somers Title: Executive Approved as to Form: - A&K. Deputy Prosecuting Aoney By Name: Dave Earling Title: Mayor Attest/Authenticate By Name: Scott Passey Title: City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR PARK PROJECT FUNDING 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 216 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Shoreline Master Program (45 min.) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The City of Edmonds spent several years (2006 - 2014) revising its SMP consistent with updated state guidelines. The City's review of the SMP update included ten meetings before the Planning Board from October 2011 - November 2012 and eleven meetings before the City Council from December 2012 through November 2014, culminating in the adoption of Resolution 1326 expressing intent to adopt an update to the Shoreline Master Program. The Department of Ecology is responsible for ensuring statewide policies are upheld and implemented when local SMPs are adopted and must approve local SMPs before they become effective. Following the adoption of Resolution 1326, the City's updated SMP and supporting documentation was sent to Ecology for review in December 2014. Ecology issued a conditional approval of the City's SMP on June 27, 2016. The Conditional Approval included eight required changes to the City's SMP and one recommended change. Five of the required changes relate to incorporating the recently adopted critical area ordinance into the SMP. The three remaining required changes and the one recommended change are in regards to the Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Environment around the Edmonds Marsh. (The one recommended change was to allow residential development within the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment.) The Council has reviewed each of the required changes proposed by Ecology and taken preliminary votes on each of the required changes to provide direction to staff in preparing a response to Ecology. The City of Edmonds responded to Ecology's conditional approval on October 19, 2016 accepting some of Ecology's required changes and proposing alternatives to others (Exhibit 3). The alternatives proposed by the City of Edmonds largely represented providing buffers and setbacks in the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment consistent with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001). Department of Ecology responded to the City's proposed alternatives on January 10, 2017 (Exhibit 2). Staff Recommendation Review and (as necessary) refine Option M included in Exhibit 1. Narrative Exhibit 2 contains Department of Ecology's January 10, 2017 response to the City of Edmonds proposed alternatives to Ecology's conditional approval of the City's Shoreline Master Program. Ecology formally Packet Pg. 217 7.2 accepts the City's actions and alternatives on Ecology's required changes 1 - 6 (incorporation of the critical area regulations and dropping the interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment). However, Ecology has offered two options for the City of Edmonds to consider regarding the buffer and setbacks for the UMU IV shoreline environment. Ecology staff presented the two Options at the January 24, 2017 Council meeting. Staff developed a third option (Options C) for Council consideration which was introduced to the Council at the February 7, 2017 Council meeting and the Council continued discussion on the SMP update at the February 21, 2017 Council meeting. At the March 7, 2017 meeting, a fourth option (Option D) was presented to the City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on March 21, 2017 to receive public comment on the four options regarding the buffer/setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment. Following the public hearing, a fifth option (Option M) was developed by the City Attorney and a couple of council members addressing comments received during the public hearing. The City Attorney presented Option M at the March 28, 2107 Council meeting and noted that Option M could be used as the starting point for developing the response to Ecology. The City Attorney requested comments on Option M for potential revisions to be presented at the April 4, 2017 meeting. Exhibit 1 contains the updated version of Option M. Next Steps The Department of Ecology has requested the City make a final decision on the buffer/setback issue by March 30, 2017. Due to the public interest and complexities of the issue, more time was needed to respond to Ecology. At the March 28, 2017 meeting, the Council extended the response to Ecology to April 30, 2017. Following this week's Council meeting, the response to Ecology will finalized and brought back for a final Council vote before the end of April. Attachments: Exhibit 1- SMP Option M v1 Exhibit 2 - Department of Ecology's Response to City of Edmonds' October 19, 2016 Proposed SMP Alternatives Exhibit 3 - City of Edmonds October 19, 2016 Response to Ecology's Conditional Approval Exhibit 4 - City Attorney Memorandum Exhibit 5 - January 24, 2017 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 6 - February 7, 2017 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 7 - February 21, 2017 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 8 - March 7, 2017 Council Minutes Excerpt Exhibit 9 - March 21, 2017 Council Minutes Excerpt (Public Hearing Minutes) Packet Pg. 218 7.2.a Option M: 110-foot fixed buffer with possible alternate buffer width derived from a scientific site - specific study. (Option M for Marsh has a default 110-foot buffer and 15 foot setback for the UMU IV area at the Edmonds Marsh unless amended through the shoreline conditional use process. This option clarifies that the buffer starts at the outer edge of the Marsh wetland (i.e., the buffer starts at the Marsh edge of the berm at the property to the north known as the Harbor Square complex). This option allows consideration of an alternate buffer proposal at a later date if the alternate buffer is derived from a site -specific scientific study that analyzes a project's impacts upon the baseline conditions of the shoreline environment under applicable the legal standards of the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's Guidelines. In addition to the shoreline condition use process, this project -level scientific site -specific study would need to accompany a proposed master plan prior to Council consideration of the master plan. The default I I0-foot buffer width or an any alternate buffer width that might be approved would not be further reduced or exempted by any SMP or CAO provisions including but not limited to, ECDC 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer] or ECDC 24.40.020 [additions to structures]. This option also clarifies that the buffer is separate from the setback for structures, and that the 15-foot setback starts at the outer edge of the buffer.lUtii Option M is implemented by the following changes to the SMP. 1. Modify the 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table —and footnote 18 as shown below. New footnote 19 is added. (Note that the addition to the table of these new rows for Building Setback and Buffer would not apply to any other shoreline area designations besides the Urban Mixed Use IV. The corresponding cells for the other columns, therefore, would contain the indication "N/A".) Shoreline Development Shoreline Area Designation Urban Mixed Use IV 11 Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Building Setback 15 Buffer 1 1018, 19 Recreation Building Setback 15 Buffer 11018,19 Residential Development Building Setback NA Buffer NA Transportation and Parking Building Setback 15 Buffer 11018,19 Packet Pg. 219 11 Other Development Building Setback 15 Buffer 110's,'9 Footnote 18: The Urban Mixed -Use IV environment has a default 110-foot buffer that starts at the outer edge of the Edmonds Marsh where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or at the wetland/upland edge. An alternate buffer width may be established at the project stage through a shoreline conditional use permit if a site -specific scientific study determines that the default buffer is not necessary to protect and maintain the baseline functions of this wetland/tideland habitat and its other associated ecological functions from being adversely impacted by the proposed project. The site -specific scientific study must be peer reviewed by at least independent scientific consulting firmist having relevant wetland/wildlife expertise before consideration of a master plan or shoreline conditional use permit may proceed to a hearing. The site -specific scientific study must analyze the impacts of the proposed project upon at least these three broad ecological functions of wetlands and marshes: 1) Biogeochemical functions, which are related to trapping and transforming chemicals and include functions that improve water quality in the watershed; 2) Hydrologic functions, which are related to maintaining the water regime in a watershed including functions such as reducing flooding; and 3) Food web and habitat functions. Any decision to approve an alternate buffer must be consistent with the legal standards of the Shoreline Management Act and State guidelines and would only apply to the portion of the Urban Mixed Use IV environment that is the subiect of the abblication. In other words. the buffer on the north side of the Marsh might ultimately differ from the buffer on the south side of the Marsh if different buffers are necessary to mitigate the respective impacts of those two development areas. i e fi+Ahe,. buff- r eduetions e exemptions may be applied to the default buff-er- or- any altefnate buff-er- by any SN4P or- GAO pr-evis [additions to strdetur-esl. k. Regardless of the buffer width, upon development of the project, the approved buffer area shall be vegetated, used, and maintained as necessary to protect existing ecological functions and mitigate project impacts as contemplated by the site -specific scientific study that supported the approved width of the buffer. 2. Add a new definition of "Building setback" to the SNIP to read: "Building setback" means the distance all buildings, uses and other structures shall be set back from the outer or upland edges of the approved buffers. The following may be allowed in the building setback area: A. Landscaping; B. Building overhangs, if such overhangs do not extend more than 30 inches into the setback area. 2 Packet Pg. 220 7.2.a 3. As it relates to Urban Mixed Used IV, add footnote 19 to clarify that CAO provisions in Appendix B and/or SMP Section 24.40.020 may not further reduce or exempt the SMP buffer for the Edmonds Marsh. 19The approved buffers in the Urban Mixed Use IV environment may not be further reduced or exempt from the normal buffer use limitations through ECDC 24.40.020 (F)(2)(e) [Additions to structures] or any of the provisions in Appendix B, including but not limited to, sections 23.50.040 (G)(1) to (4) [Wetland Buffer Modifications], 23.50.040 (I) [Additions to structures], and 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer], PROVIDED that ECDC 23.40.215 may be applied to implement a restoration project within the Urban Mixed Use IV notwithstanding the language in this footnote. 4. Add footnotes to the Urban Mixed Use IV column of the ECDC 24.40.080 Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation to indicate that certain uses that show "SDP" would be processed as "SCUP" instead if the proposal is associated with an alternate buffer proposal pursuant to footnote 18. 3 Packet Pg. 221 sTArE. o E LY O @ ati Cf t�jf� 1869 boy •� L O STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 ® Olympia, WA 98504-7600 V 360-407-6000 � 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 January 10, 2017 The Honorable Kristiana Johnson, President City of Edmonds Council 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: City of Edmonds Response to Department of Ecology's .Dine 27, 2016, Conditional SMP Approval. Dear Ms. Johnson: Thank you for your October 19, 2016, letter in response to the Department of Ecology's (Ecology) conditional approval of the City of Edmonds (City) Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update. For required changes one through six, the City has either accepted Ecology's required changes or offered alternatives that Ecology finds are consistent with .the SMA and Ecology guidelines, and are consistent with the original intent of the required changes. This letter formally accepts the City's final determination on Ecology's required changes one through six. The amended text provided by the City in Attachment E — Revised (10/19/2016) will become part of the approved SMP amendment through Ecology's final action. We have only one remaining issue. The City has proposed alternatives to Ecology's required change seven and eight concerning Edmonds Marsh buffers and setbacks. We recognize the intense community interest and engagement surrounding the marsh. Over the past few months, Ecology staff have attended many Council meetings and engaged in robust discussions among citizens and Councilmembers. I have met personally with representatives of Friends of the Marsh and the Port of Edmonds to hear their perspectives. Ecology understands the importance of preserving and improving the Edmonds Marsh. We believe this is a common interest among all involved parties. However, Ecology is concerned the City's proposed alternatives must be clarified for consistency with the purpose and intent of Ecology's original change.l The difficulty remains how to achieve this objective given the surrounding land uses, and the near absence of a marsh buffer within the Urban Mixed IV shoreline environment. ' WAC 173-26-120(7)(b)(ii). ®t`,a Packet Pg. 222 The Honorable Kristiana Johnson January 10, 2017 Page 2 L O L Cn To that end, Ecology proposes two options for clarifying the SMP that would address our concerns, as well as the interests of the community. Please review the attached "Ecology Response to City Alternatives." The attached document responds to the City's thoughtful Evaluation ofScientifrc and Regulatory Consideration Related to Ecology's Required Changes 7 r and 8. 1° Each of these options clarify how appropriate mitigation would be established during redevelopment of the Urban Mixed Use IV environment through site specific assessments that acknowledge existing conditions. These suggested change are consistent with RCW 90,58.100 (use of scientific information) and WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) & (e) (protection of ecological functions and environmental impact mitigation). We appreciate the City's continued work on the SMP. There are many positive aspects to the SMP update that will benefit the City's Puget Sound and Lake Ballinger shorelines. The Edmonds Marsh issue is the last remaining issue related to the Edmonds SMP update process. I believe all parties interested in the outcome of the SMP have a common interest in protecting and improving the quality of Edmonds Marsh for future generations, We hope the options we have provided will help us reach a final resolution. We would like the opportunity to present these options to Council, answer questions you may have, and conclude the SMP update process. Please contact Joe Burcar of our Northwest Regional Office at (425) 649-7096 or ioe.burcar2ecy.wa,go_v. Sincerely, Maia D. Bellon Director cc: Dave Earling, Mayor, City of Edmonds. Shane Hope, Edmonds City Development Services Friends of the Edmonds Marsh Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds Packet Pg. 223 7.2.b Attachment G Options for addressing City of Edmonds Alternatives to Ecology's Required L Changes addressing Edmonds Marsh Buffers and Setbacks. This document presents Ecology's response to the City of Edmonds alternatives addressing the Edmonds V Marsh Buffers and Setbacks. The City's response, dated October 19, 2016, provides an alternative to Ecology's Required Changes (Row Numbers 7 and 8) issued during the June 27, 2016 Conditional SMP Approval. Under WAC 173-26-120(7), Ecology may approve the City's alternatives if they comply with the SMA and substantive guidelines and are "consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally proposed by [Ecology]." The purpose and intent of Ecology's original proposed amendments are found in Ecology's Findings and Conclusions (Attachment A, p. 11), and Required Changes (Attachment B, p. 4), dated June 27, 2016. The City's alternatives would establish a fixed requirement for a 110' vegetated buffer upon redevelopment within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment designation. Ecology finds the City's alternatives could be consistent with applicable laws, rules and the intent of Required Changes, provided they are clarified to acknowledge legally existing uses and site conditions on the landward side of the levee that rings the Marsh. The 110-foot area the City's regulations would require to be revegetated is historic fill, and includes paved areas, tennis courts, a Health Club, other existing structures, and a brownfields clean-up site at the southern boundary of the Marsh. This document outlines the background of this issue, reviews the city alternatives and rationale, and provides two different options for addressing our common interest in establishing a legally defensible framework for protecting and restoring the Marsh. The City's rationale for their alternatives are provided in a memo prepared by Attorney Jeff Taraday of Lighthouse Law Group titled "Evaluation of scientific and regulatory considerations related to Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8," dated September 23, 2016. The Memo is described by the City as Attachment B. To reduce confusion with Ecology's Attachment B (Required Changes), this Evaluation memo is hereafter referred to as the "Lighthouse Memo." Background on Ecology's ConditionalApproval Required Changes to Rows land 8 Buffers and setbacks for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment designation for Edmonds Marsh have been discussed extensively during the SMP update. The City Planning Commission had proposed a 50' buffer based on an evaluation of applicable scientific information and existing conditions. A 50-foot buffer is generally consistent with existing conditions on the intensely developed north side of the Marsh. The Planning Commission acknowledged the presence of the levee limits the water quality benefits that a larger buffer would provide. Requiring a vegetative buffer larger than 50' would require significant removal of historic fill and removal of existing paved areas and structures. In adopting the final SMP the City Council retained the 50' buffer but increased the building setback to 50' for a total buffer/setback of 100.' Ecology's Required Changes (Rows 7 and 8) did not reduce the 50' buffer width, but amended the City's 50' setback to incorporate a 15' setback from the edge of the vegetative buffer for a 65' combined buffer/setback. The 15' setback was chosen for internal consistency with the City Critical Areas Ordinance that requires a 15-foot setback from the edge of a buffer (ECDC 24.40.280, Building Setbacks). The changes also added a threshold for redevelopment to Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes Packet Pg. 224 7.2.b Attachment G clarify when the requirement would apply. Ecology's changes were intended to align the SMP with the L planning commission draft, recognize existing conditions, and maintain consistency with the City's o Critical Areas Ordinance. co v Description of City Alternatives to Rows land 8 For Rows 7 and 8 the City provides alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV shoreline environment in 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards. The City's alternative would establish a definitive 125' building setback and mandate the installation of a 110' vegetative buffer when approved master plans for the area are implemented. The City's description for the Change to Row 7: For every instance in Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table contained in 24.90.090 where the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline indicates a shore setback of 100150, that will be changed to 1251110. This means there will be a requirement for a 110 foot vegetative buffer with an additional 15 foot structural setback for a total of a 125-foot shore setback measured from the edge of the Marsh. The City's description of the Change to Row 8: The Harbor Square site on the north side of the Marsh has been developed in accordance with a contract rezone. The existing development cannot be expanded as the limitations of the contract rezone have been met. The Harbor Square site has a comprehensive plan designation of Downtown Master Plan. In order for the Harbor Square site to be redeveloped, the redevelopment will have to be approved through a master planning process. When an approved master plan is implemented, the 110-buffer will be required to be established. Likewise, the property on the south side of the Marsh has a comprehensive plan designation of Master Plan Development and a zoning designation of Master Plan 2. Development on the south side of the Marsh will also occur through a master plan process. When an approved master plan implemented on the south side of the Marsh, the 110-foot buffer will be required to be established. While buffer establishment is required with an implemented master plan, the 110-foot may be established prior to the implementation of master planned development through a voluntary buffer restoration effort. City Rationale: Legal Standards The Lighthouse Memo includes a summary of Legal Standards to guide local decision -making. The citations address the requirements to protect ecological functions based on available scientific information. The memo cites WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) which states that SMPs "shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of [shoreline] ecological functions." The Lighthouse Memo also cites WAC 173-26-186(8)(c) which states that SMPs "shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of... impaired ecological functions." However, it is important to note that the SMP Guidelines clarify that restoration be addressed through goals and policies, but is not intended to be achieved through regulations. The guidelines include other citations that reinforces this distinction. For example, WACs 173-26- 201(2)(c) and (e) describe how to address protection of ecological functions and environmental impact Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes Packet Pg. 225 7.2.b Attachment G mitigation. The rules require application of a mitigation sequence to achieve no net loss of ecological functions for each new development. The rules include an important restraint on SMP authority. The L o mitigation sequence may "not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions..." [WAC 173-26-201(2)(e)(ii)(A)]. rn r In other words, protective regulations can only require new developments to provide mitigation that compensates for the impacts of new development. A fundamental principle of the guidelines is that the > no net loss" standard protects existing functions, and restoration to improve conditions is met through nonregulatory means Restoration Planning WAC 173-26-201(2)(f). This was a cornerstone of the guidelines, which were negotiated with diverse interests to resolve a legal challenge. Ecology has a approved SMPs that include incentive -based approaches to encourage restoration, but these cannot be (L M required. U) City Rationale: Scientific and Technical Information The Lighthouse Memo includes a summary of Ecology's wetland guidance documents (Citations A — F). The citations correctly identify Ecology's recommended buffer widths for Category II estuarine wetlands would be 110 feet provided minimization measures are provided. However, buffers areas in Ecology's guidance documents are presumed to be functionally connected and therefore capable of performing ecological functions. The City's existing CAO recognizes this. In a section titled "Allowed Activities," a project applicant may propose to modify a standard buffer based on a site -specific study that determines an area is functionally isolated (23.40. 220 C.4). The Lighthouse Memo cites examples provided in Ecology's Wetlands in Washington State, Volume Z Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands in reference to buffer requirements for "new" development. However, any proposal in the UMU IV would be considered "redevelopment", not new development. In addition to the wetland guidance, the Lighthouse Memo cites Ecology's SMP Handbook chapters on Vegetation Conservation (Chpt 11) and Legally Existing Uses (Chpt 14). These chapters recognize that tailored buffers should be based on existing conditions. By contrast, the City's alternative establishes a fixed area that would have to be revegetated during redevelopment that would "over -ride" the existing allowance in the City's CAO based on a site -specific study. The regulation relies on the "default" buffer width rather than developing a tailored buffer that acknowledges existing conditions. City Rationale: Effects of City Marsh Restoration The Lighthouse Memo notes "The city council appears to hold unanimously the goal of restoring the ecological functions and values of the Edmonds Marsh. To the extent that there are differing opinions on the city council, they appear to concern the extent to which the Edmonds Marsh can or should be restored, and/or the best strategies for accomplishing such restoration." Ecology fully agrees with the unanimous goal of the Council to restore the ecological functions and values of the Marsh. It appears Port of Edmonds Commissioners also share this goal. This should be an ideal circumstance for reaching agreement on a reasonable path forward. Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes Packet Pg. 226 7.2.b Attachment G An SMP can include restoration goals and policies to improve existing conditions. As noted above the L SMP guidelines acknowledge improvements are to be achieved through voluntary restoration activities o or through regulatory incentives. Cn co v Ecology options based on the City's analysis of alternatives The Lighthouse Memo includes 4 options. Option 2 (75' buffer based on City's old CAO) is no longer applicable, as the City has already amended the CAO to include a 110' buffer for Category 2 wetlands. r Option 4 is Ecology's original Required Changes, which the Council has indicated it does not want to c pursue. Ecology offers the following two options based on the City's analysis of alternatives. +' The Lighthouse Memo starts its evaluation of alternatives with the following: "It will simplify the discussion of alternative buffer widths, if the setback from the edge of the buffer (not from the edge of the wetland) remains consistent across the various alternatives. We agree with Ecology that the SMP should strive for consistency with the CAO in this area. Because the city's CAO currently requires any structure to be setback from the edge of a buffer by 15 feet, the options discussed below will all assume that structures cannot be placed any closer than 15 feet from the edge of a buffer." Ecology's two options below are therefore premised on the use of a 15' setback measured from the edge of the buffer (whatever it may be). Both options include application of a site -specific study that allows the regulatory regime to acknowledge existing conditions and adapt to anticipated impacts of proposed development. For either of these options, the city may want to include a requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for developments in the UM -IV designation. The intent here is to address possible concerns that a site - specific study might not get adequate review. The requirement for a CUP adds a heightened degree of scrutiny and projects would require Ecology formal review and approval. Option: 110-foot buffer/125-foot setback The City has offered this Option as its alternative to Ecology's Required Changes in Row 7 and 8. The Lighthouse Memo cites Ecology's Wetlands Guidance for CAO Updates (June 2016) as the source for the inclusion of a 110-foot buffer with minimization measures as the appropriate buffer for a Category 2 wetland, consistent with the City's recent CAO amendments. The Lighthouse Memo acknowledges the reality that adoption of a 110-foot buffer does not do anything to change conditions on the ground. The Memo recognizes that existing developments could be maintained indefinitely, and that a wide buffer could be a disincentive to redevelopment. Ecology finds the City's alternative should be clarified to include recognition that at the project scale the buffers are to be implemented in a manner that acknowledges legally existing uses and site conditions and ensure the project includes necessary protections commensurate with the proposed development. A few clarifications could remove the disincentive for redevelopment and provide an equitable regulatory framework consistent with SMA authorities. As noted above, the Edmonds CAO already includes a section which allows for exemptions from prescribed buffer widths for areas proven to be functionally isolated. The provision requires a qualified consultant prepare a site assessment and includes criteria for evaluating the assessment, as follows: Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes 4 Packet Pg. 227 7.2.b Attachment G Edmonds Critical Areas Code 23.40. 220 C.4 (Development Proposals within Interrupted Stream or Wetland Buffers) L o Adjacent areas that may be physically separated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established structures or paved areas may be exempted from the prescribed buffer widths if proven scientifically to be functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. The r director will require the applicant to provide a site assessment and functional analysis M documentation report by a qualified critical area consultant that demonstrates the interrupted buffer area is functionally isolated. The director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection potential and the extent and permanence of the physical separation. The fixed buffer width in the City's alternative SMP provision would override the application of the CAO which allows for adapting necessary protections at the project level. The City's Alternative could be modified to incorporate existing CAO provisions through the following modification to the standards table: 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Shore Setback 100/50 125/11018 Recreation Shore Setback 15' 17 Residential Development Shore Setback 4-09�50- 125/11018 Transportation and Parking Uncovered Parking Shore Setback a 00� 125/1101" Covered Parking Shore Setback 4-09�50- 125/11018 All Other Development Shore Setback 4-09�50- 125/11018 Footnote: 18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 15 feet from the edge of a vegetative buffer. A 110-foot vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the Marsh. An alternative buffer width may be established with approval of a CUP and when consistent with 23.40. 220 CA The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. Option: Minimum 50-foot buffer/65-foot setback, after confirming through site specific scientific study that a 50-foot buffer is appropriate for the UMU4 The Lighthouse Memo identifies some of the assumptions behind Ecology's assertion that the City Planning Commission recommendation for a 50-foot buffer is appropriate. These assumptions (and others, including assumptions about restraints on requirements to restore during redevelopment) were Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes Packet Pg. 228 7.2.b Attachment G d identified during the local planning process. The City notes this approach might be acceptable if these .a) L assumptions were tested in scientifically and/or economically supported findings. C z One option to build on this approach is to incorporate such a scientific study into the SMP requirements, W 14 using a 50' buffer as a minimum, with site -specific determination at the project level. This could be accomplished with the following clarifications: 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV All Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Shore Setback 100/50 125/110 to 65/5018 Recreation Shore Setback 15' 17 Residential Development Shore Setback 10M0- 125/110 to 65/5018 Transportation and Parking Uncovered Parking Shore Setback 125/110 to 65/5018 Covered Parking Shore Setback 100/50 125/110 to 65/5018 All Other Development Shore Setback 100/50 125/110 to 65/5018 Footnote: 18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is 15 feet from the edge of a vegetative buffer. A vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the Marsh based on approval of a CUP and a site -specific assessment. The assessment shall determine the width based on the potential lift in ecological functions through the re-establishment of a vegetated buffer and retrofitting storm water system(s) to meet current State treatment standards. To ensure no net loss of ecological function from site redevelopment, this study shall use the existing conditions as the baseline for assessing the Dotential benefit of restoring the buffer and improving storm water treatment. The buffer width shall not be less than 50 feet. A 110-foot vegetative buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes 6 Packet Pg. 229 7.2.b Attachment G Additional changes to clarify the CUP requirement. L The City does not need to amend the Shoreline Development Table because Footnote 1 clarifies that 0 text in the SMP over -rides the table. However, if the City wants to clarify the CUP requirement for alternative buffers, the table could be amended as follows: r 24.40.080 Shoreline Development Table: Shoreline Development Permitted by Area Designation Shoreline development Urban Mixed Use IV Commercial and Light Industrial Development Water -oriented SDP' Nonwater-oriented SDP' Residential Development Detached Residential (Single -Family) X Attached or stacked Residential (Multi -Family) X Transportation and Parking Railroads X Ferry Terminals SDP' Parking —supporting associated water -dependent uses SDP' Parking — not supporting associated water -dependent uses SDP' Other SDP' 1: In the event that there is a conflict between the development(s) identified in this Table 24.40.080 and the policies and/or regulations with the text of this Master Program, the policies and regulations within the text shall apply. 2: Artwork associate with a permitted use in the Aquatic I or Aquatic II designation may by permitted; otherwise it is a prohibited use. 3: A CUP is reauired where the aaDlicant Droaoses an alternative buffer. Ecology Response to City Alternatives to Required Changes 7 Packet Pg. 230 7.2.c EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL EDMONDS CITY HALL • FIRST FLOOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • PHONE: (425) 771-0248 • FAX (425) 771-0254 Inc.1890 October 19, 2016 Maia D. Bellon, Director WA State Department of Ecology Attention: Director's Office PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-6700 Re: City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Update — City Response to Department of Ecology's Conditional Approval Dear Ms. Bellon, The City of Edmonds appreciates the additional time granted by Ecology to fully evaluate and prepare a response to the Department of Ecology's conditional approval of the City's Shoreline Master Program. Since receiving Ecology's conditional approval with eight required changes and one recommended change, the City has spent a significant amount of time evaluating Ecology's required changes including discussing the proposed changes over the course of seven Council meetings and receiving many public comments on Ecology's proposed changes. The required changes from Ecology can be split into two categories, 1) Requires changes 1— 5 related to incorporating the recently updated critical area regulations into the SMP and 2) required changes 6 - 8 related to the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment. Regarding incorporating the critical area regulations into the SMP, the City Council largely agrees with the changes proposed by Ecology with one exception. After the City of Edmonds adopted the updated critical area regulations in May 2016 with Ordinance No. 4026, Ecology released Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001) in June 2016. The wetland regulations in Ordinance No. 4026 and the SMP conditionally approved by Ecology were based on Ecology's Wetland & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002). The City Council has determined to follow the most recent guidance with regards to Best Available Science and the City's development regulations. As a result, Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001) is being incorporated into the SMP. Please see Attachment A for the specific alternatives and the rationale for the proposed changes. The Urban Mixed Use IV changes apply to the area surrounding the Edmonds Marsh, which is an important feature (ecologically and socially) of the Edmonds waterfront area. While the City Council accepts the change related to dropping the interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment, the City Council does not believe Ecology's proposed setback/buffer in the UMU IV environment are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, Shoreline Master Program guidelines, or the best available science and wetland guidance in Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001). The City Council is proposing an alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV environment and establishing an alternative threshold for buffer establishment. The City's proposed Incorporated August 11, 1890 Packet Pg. 231 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 7.2.c EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL EDMONDS CITY HALL • FIRST FLOOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • PHONE: (425) 771-0248 • FAX (425) 771-0254 fnc.18911 alternatives are included in Attachment A with an expanded rationale for the City's proposed alternative included to required changes 7 and 8 in Attachment B. Finally, the City acknowledges Ecology's recommended change to allow residential development with the Urban Mixed Use IV environment but declines to implement this change at this time. Please accept this letter along with Attachment A and B as the City of Edmonds' response as required by RCW 90.58.090(2)(e). The City of Edmonds appreciates the efforts of David Pater, Paul Anderson and Joe Burcar in this update and their attendance at Council meetings as the City has worked through the SMP update process. Sincerely, Kristiana Johnson City of Edmonds Council President Cc: Dave Earling, City of Edmonds Mayor David Pater, Ecology, Shoreline Planner Joe Burcar, Ecology, SEA Section Manager Paul Anderson, Ecology, Wetlands/401 Unit Supervisor Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Packet Pg. 232 Attachment A: City of Edmonds Responses/Alternative Proposals to the Department of Ecology's Required Changes from the June 27, 2016 Conditional Approval 7.2.c ITEM SIVIP PROVISION Topic Ecology Required change from June 27,2016 Conditional Approval City of Edmonds Response/Alternative Proposal City of Edmonds - Discussion/Rationale Format Changes [underline -additions; strikethrough-deletions] 1. 24.40.020 Critical Critical Areas B. The City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, as codified in The City of Edmonds accepts this required change. Areas Ordinance Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (dated Neyember 2-3 Referencing 2004 Ord ) (May 3, 2016, Ord 4026). are herein adopted as a part of this Program, except for the specific subsections list below in ECDC 24.40.020.D. All references to the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance in this Program are for this specific version. As a result of this incorporation of the Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, the provisions of Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020.D, shall apply to any use, alteration or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. In addition to the critical area regulations in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (Appendix B) of this Master Program), the regulations identified in this section also apply to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Where there are conflicts between the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance and this Shoreline Master Program, provisions of the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. 2. Appendix B SMP Critical Replace Appendix B containing the critical area regulations The City of Edmonds accepts this required change with As a result of incorporating the Department of Area dated November 23, 2014, Ordinance 3527 with critical area the modified exceptions list in item 4 below. Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Regulations regulations (minus exceptions noted in item 4 below) dated (Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, the CAO May 3, 2016, Ordinance 4026. exceptions in 24.40.020 were reviewed. The critical area regulations in Appendix B will not include the provisions identified in item 4 below. 3. 24.40.020 Critical CAO 4 Wetlands: a. ECDC 23.50 n��.3. ARY shoreline The City of Edmonds accepts this required change with The City accepts this change in that no critical area project Areas provisions neiRg heYGRd 25 buffer red In+inn through that minor modifications and indicated below: provisions will require a shoreline variance. proposes a triggered by the mfo!R GGr'n'r 24.40.02O.E.3 would deSGn1h Ghenisms ed a shoreline require 'a variaRGe. Noyai ia. for of the Gri+iGa;Area OrdinanGe G. The Ecology's required change did not include the shherelino - is . equired SpeGifiG PrOVOSOORS variance wetland buffer redUGtieR GORsisterlt with ECDC 24.40.020.E.3. listed below may only be imnlomon+o`J within chnrolino introductory sentence noting these provisions urisdiGtion through the shoreline „arianGe required a shoreline variance. That sentence is PrGGe&SL, h ECDC 23 80 n7n n h Q_ n 2: Buffer redUGtton 'I Wetlands shown as being deleted. and aI+eurcer"+� aZm Geologically Hazardous provisions were not shown 3 Fish Ernr Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas EGDG 23 50 non F 3 /any shoreline nroien++h �+ in Ecology's required change. However, allowed and a a �rr����z 23 90 non n ` : Re di lGed buffer widths onion beyOR J 25% buffer red ire+inn through activities in geologically hazardous areas (ECDC Prnnncoc a the rneGhallis„,s deSGribed!R ECDC-24.^�020.E.3 ^tea bECDC 23.90.040.D.4: Additions to 23.80.040.B.1 & 2 were moved to the exceptions lir, for Tonic re No variall e r red list in item 4 below. The double -line strike -through szrFGtUesrex+st'R-g within hi asn� a�� . s+roam iffors wetlaR d h, ,ffer red In+iens nerisis+on+ with C('n(' 24. ^�020�3: �rnr Qn non Q -I Q �• A11Q1A,,,,1 e,.+i„i+i„r ir, indicates the move. ie�d h EGDG 23 Qn n7n 'I h A. 7: Buffer red UG l+ oora inns crvna Page 1 of 13 Packet Pg. 233 ITEM SMP -• • •• • •• Required •- • 1 •Conditional' •• • .Edmonds•. Proposal .Edmonds• Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] 3. Fish aR d Wildlife Habitat Gonoen ation Areas �� 90 nnn.n.2: QedUGed1 bufferwidths b. EGDG 23 90.04n n 4: ^dditienstO S#U^+�''res�;?+gig within stream buffers 4. 24.40.020 Critical CAO D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical Area The City of Edmonds offers the exceptions list below as an As a result of incorporating the Department of Areas Exceptions Ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within alternative: Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates shoreline jurisdiction. (Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, the CAO D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical exceptions in 24.40.020 were reviewed. 1. General Provisions: � Drn�iicinnc of nh�pfor �z nn Crnr relating +n�r�en�c Area Ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction. General Provisions: Two of the items in the general provisions exemption list were left out of 1. General Provisions: Ecology's required change item 4 (ECDC eGenerniG use of do not apply to with a Provisions Of ^hapt��,� ECDC 23.40.130.D Monitoring Program and ECDC property property i„risdiG�n• specifically C 23.40.220.C.8). `shherolino 23.40.210(2). N TT�`pp" i�� n; ECDC ECDC 23.40.130.D requires a monitoring program property with shoreline j speGifiGally �n non and ECDC 232.. of not less than five years. SMP contains a c. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance a. ECDC 23.40.130.D: Monitoring Program monitoring provision that requires monitoring for a period of not less than ten years. Given the SMP e. ECDC 23.4&230 €xis b. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance contains a separate monitoring program, ECDC G. ECDC; 23 , 27n� Tinnr cite In„e^+igati„ 23.40.130.D will be excepted from the CAO in �rnr ��.4o�S: 2. Geologically Hazardous Areas: Appendix B of the SMP. a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in geologically e €�ce�, 2. Wetlands: a. ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings b. ECDC 23.50.040.F.1: Standard Buffer Widths ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 (which is ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 in the updated CAO) contains provisions very similar to WAC 173-27-040(m). WAC 173-27-040(m) exempts minor site investigative work from shoreline substantial hazardous areas `n� 2. Wetlands: ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings a. h ECDC 23.5 non C 9 : Standard Buffer Widths c. ECDC 23.50.040.F.2: Required Measures to Minimize development permit requirements. ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 allows minor site investigative work Impacts to Wetlands ^^�rnr�� 50non n: �n�onBuffer Width d. ECDC 23.50.040.K: Small, Hydrologically Isolated without the requirement for a critical area report. Given the intent of the two provisions to allow minor site investigation in preparation for a land use or g p p "^y"' ,� �r,nr, ��z Fn non � Q h� ��^ci.,e [?�r� Wetlands G. ECDC 23 5n non n: WetlaR per Widthder shoreline permit, and the similar language in each gillg �rC23�g;04n e + rla r�� �n nn n � Q h: o�^��TeC�eati�,� provision, the City of Edmonds is proposing to remove ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 from the exception f ECDC 23 50 050 F: Mitigation Ra ����� ��,-�at+es, e.€f'�1f' 23 50-04n.I:�Tpt�;ens list. ECDC 3 50 050 G: �ni���E�Eeep+ f ECDC 23 50 050 F: Mi+�+i �� With the incorporation of the Department of g ga o ECDC 23 50 050 ram: Wetlands Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Mitigation "���` as (Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, certain provisions of the wetlands section in the CAO 3. Geologically Hazardous Areas: needed to be excepted from the SMP where there a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in was conflicts with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. geologically hazardous areas Geologically Hazard Areas shown as a double underline to indicate the move from item 3 above. 5. 24.40.020 Critical Wetlands Delete 24.40.020.F(1) — (4). The City of Edmonds offers the wetland section attached After the City of Edmonds adopted the updated Areas Deletions are not shown in strike -through here to save space. to the end of this table as an alternative to Ecology's critical area regulations in May 2016 with required change number 5. Ordinance No. 4026, Ecology released Wetland E v 0 a a Q 0 r =a c 0 U M 0 0 0 w 0 a� 0 a N 0 N ai a� 0 O c 0 w 0 r a a Page 2 of 13 Packet Pg. 234 ITEM SMP -• • •• • •• Required •- • 1 •Conditional' •• • .Edmonds•. Proposal .Edmonds• Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06- 001) in June 2016. The wetland regulations in Ordinance No. 4026 and the SMP conditionally approved by Ecology were based on Ecology's Wetland & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002). The City of Edmonds desires to follow the most recent guidance with regards to Best Available Science and the City's development regulations. As a result, the City is choosing to incorporate Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06- 001) into the SMP. Incorporating the updated wetland guidance into the SMP primarily involves replacing the wetland categorizations and buffer requirements in the SMP. Apart from incorporating the wetland categorizations and buffer requirements into the SMP, the City of Edmonds accepts the deletions of the remaining sections as proposed in Ecology's required change. Ecology's required changed was to delete 24.40.020.F.1 — F.4; however, there is no 24.40.020.F.3 — FA in the SMP. The wetland section in the SMP is contained within 24.40.020.F.1 — F.2. 6. Part III Shoreline B. Urban Mixed -Use IV: The Urban Mixed -Use IV designation is The City of Edmonds accepts this required change. Environments Designation being established on interim shoreline rdesignotien, is as 24.30.070 Criteria appropriate for those areas bordering T the Edmonds Marsh. Urban Mixed Use 5. Urban bei-ag The marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state is Mixed Use IV new to this SHAD of identified „�� o .,-ter— �� as a shoreline update and was the state late in the planning process.. , W-with properties within 200-feet of the salt influenced portions of the marsh now under shoreline jurisdiction (where they had not previously been so designated). SneGifig review of the effents of establishing shoreline environment on evicting d a aR nr� aroi R d the marsh must he oposed uses studied. The south side of the marsh has been identified as the future site of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal which underwent significant environment review with a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in 2004. On the north side of the Marsh is the Harbor Square commercial development owned by the Port of Edmonds. The Sono update nror�ess was delayed to the Pert of E dmonlds tome to a long allow submit Harbor Square Master Plall fE)r review by plaRRed GGRGUFFellt E v rn 0 a a Q 0 r r_ 0 U rn 0 0 0 w 0 a� W 1= 0 a N W r O N O r a� 0 0 0 w 4- 0 r i M x w c E r a Page 3 of 13 Packet Pg. 235 ITEM SMP -• • •• • •• Required •- • 1 •Conditional' •• • Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] Oho City of Eidmonrdc The Port's proposer) Harbor Square the .Edmonds•. Proposal .Edmonds• net by the Gity. Master Plan was ultimately adopted The Edmonds Marsh is also being studied for potential restoration projects including the daylighting of the Willow Creek outlet as well as the marshes role in the flooding problem at the Dayton Street/State Route 104 intersection and the role the marsh and play in a solution to the flooding problem. Establishing the I Irban Mixed Use IV designation as on interim designation will allow the City, in Geeperation With e pprep WRers €GGlegy, sgient!Sts interested e e e ihIig' to me f the ageRGies/�. fo gqRzatiORS,, and pi illy review effeGts of a new shoreline Garef establishing ii irisdintion for the area around the marsh on existing and development as well as the eneleginal role the planned Edmonds Marsh plays in the City of Edmonds The City crmvrrcrsTVTurs��ru�.r� �arrrvrra�� c-vrrp intends to ending the Edmonds Marsh the study issues surrounding and related I Irhan Mixed _I Ice IV designation for two years frroTmTr��e6tuye date of this QUAD At the of the sfi irhi , the City will sheF I�ceR�iir� ran perieD adept appropriate 8Rt designation(c) for the si irroi ending the Edmonds Marsh area ingli irding eyali toting whether a new designation is needed and I.A.xhethei: the have the designation. eRtire area should same 7. Part IV General Policies and Regulations 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Development Standards Table Urban Mixed Use IV Shore Setback Shoreline Area Designation The City of Edmonds offers the following as an alternative for the setback/buffer requirement in the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment: See Attachment B for the rationale behinds the City's alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV shoreline environment. For every instance in Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table contained in 24.90.090 where the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline indicates a shore setback of 100/50, that will be changed to 125/110. This means there will be a requirement for a 110 foot vegetative buffer with an additional 15 foot structural setback for a total of a 125-foot shore setback measured from the edge of the marsh. Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Area Designation Commercial and Light Industrial Development Urban Mixed Use IV Shore Setback 100/50 65/50 Shore Setback 100/50 125/110 8. Part IV General Policies and Regulations 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Development Standards Table Footnotes 18. Setback for new buildings and expansion of buildings Re w develepment within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is a-S0 65 feet. Redevelopment of greater than 50% for the Harbor Square property within shoreline jurisdiction and The City of Edmonds offers the following as an alternative footnote 18: 18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed- Use IV environment is 4-00 125 feet. A 110-foot vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved The Harbor Square site on the north side of the marsh has been developed in accordance with a contract rezone. The existing development cannot be expanded as the limitations of the contract rezone have been met. The Harbor Square site has a comprehensive plan designation of Downtown Master Plan. In order for the Harbor Square site to be redeveloped, the redevelopment will have to be approved through a master planning process. When an approved master plan is implemented, the 110-buffer will be required to be established. development of the site on the south border of the marsh within shoreline jurisdiction require the establishment of a 50- foot vegetation buffer adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where the vegetative buffer is absent, in combination with a 15 foot structural setback . master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the marsh. The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. New development agtiVities within the I Irban Mi„e,d_I Use IV en\/Irenment require the establishment of a 50 feet vegetation buffer adiagent to the Edmonds Marsh -eihere E Ab M x w c E r a Page 4 of 13 Packet Pg. 236 �_2 ITEM SIVIP PROVISION Topic• •• Required change from1 • Conditional Approval • Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] of Edmonds•. Proposal the vegetative buffer is abseRt of EdmondsDiscussion/Rationale Likewise, the property on the south side of the marsh has a comprehensive plan designation of Master Plan Development and a zoning designation of Master Plan 2. Development on the south side of the marsh will also occur through a master plan process. When an approved master plan implemented on the south side of the marsh, the 110-foot buffer will be required to be established. While buffer establishment is required with an implemented master plan, the 110-foot may be established prior to the implementation of master planned development through a voluntary buffer restoration effort. E A r a Page 5 of 13 Packet Pg. 237 7.2.c City of Edmonds Proposed Alternative to Required Change No. 5 for Wetland Regulations within the SMP. 24.40.020 Critical Areas F. Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with WAC 173-22-035 that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Wetlands shall be rated aeeefding to the Washington State wedand rating system for- eo tains the definitions and methods for- detefmining the er-iter-ia and parameters defining the following wedand rating aleg , Wetlands shall be rated accordingto o the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met.: a. Category L Category €*hand r-elatively undis€destuarine wetlands lafger- than 1 aer-e; 2) wetlands that afe identified by seientists ef the Washingto Natural Her-itage Pr-ogr-am�DNR as high "ality wetlands; 3) begs; 4) mattir-e and old gf!ovvth forested wetlands larger- than 1 acre; 5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; or 6) wetlands that per-f many ftmetions well (see,.;n 70 p r sor- re) Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR; (3) bogs, (4) mature and old- rg owth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; _ (6) interdunal wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1) represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions. b. Category II. distff-bed estuarine wetlands larger- than I aer-e; 2) inter-dunal wetlands 1 aeFes; 3) disturbed coastal lagoons or 4) wetlands with a moderately high Lve-I A Page 6 of 13 Packet Pg. 238 7.2.c Category II wetlands are: Clestuarine E wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) a, interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3) ° wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 a points). 0 2 c. Category III. Category M wetland wetlands with a moderate evel Of a) fianetions between 30 50 2) inter-dunal between 0. 1 (scoring and points); or- wetlands L and 1 aero i size Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be adequatelyplaced with a well -planned mitigation project; and 3) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 le acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in v some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. o a 0. d_Category IV. Category W wetlands have the lev,est levels of ftiet rs (s,. Q fewer- than 30 points) andare often heavily disturbedCategory IV wetlands have the c lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to c improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in U any specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions, and should �% be protected to some degree. o 0 U d-.e.Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal c modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant's knowledge. N C 2. Development in designated wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction shall be regulated in a accordance with the following: a. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in N accordance with the best available science. They are based on the category of wetland and the habitat score as determined byqualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update o (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved bogy). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high. i. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in E 24.40.020.F.2.b can be used if both of the following criteria are met: w 0 • A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by the v Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2z The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and w the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement. 0 a Page 7 of 13 Packet Pg. 239 7.2.c Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, 24.40.020.F.2.b may be used with the required measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c alone.2 • The measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. ii. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are required for the use of 24.40.020.F.2.b iii. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then 24.40.020.F.2.d must be used. iv. The buffer widths in 24.40.020.F.2.b and 24.40.020.F.2.d assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community ppropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided. b. Wetland Buffer Requirements if the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are Implemented and Corridor Provided. Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score Wetland CateEory 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category 1: 75 105 165 225 Based on total score Category Bogs and wetlands of 190 225 High Conservation Value Category 1: Coastal Lagoons 150 165 225 Category 1: Interdunal 225 Category 1: 75 105 165 225 Forested Category 1: 150 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat score) Category II: Based on score 75 105 165 225 Page 8 of 13 E L tm 0 a L d N m as c LO m A to le CD O L a Q. Q 0 a O a O U N tm O 0 u w O a� N a O a Ch CD 0 N r as O u O w m c O E m w 0 Al a Packet Pg. 240 7.2.c Category II. Interdunal wetlands 110 165 225 Category II: Estuarine 110 buffer width not based on habitat score) Category III (all) 60 105 165 225 Category IV (all) 40 will "llp-Ift will "llp-Ift ..fKsrear!se���ssss�rr��rs�fr�as��szs�ee�:�!se�r��ssss�r:r�. _ Page 9 of 13 Packet Pg. 241 7.2.c .. c. Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Measures are required, ,=cif applicable to a specific proposal. Disturbance Required measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10' heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the out wetland buffer Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Impact Development techniques (per PSAT publication on LID techniques) Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of eoffidor-s e 0 Maintain to that eonneetions ofAite areas are- undistur-bed rem Page 10 of 13 Packet Pg. 242 7.2.c d. Wetland Buffer Requirements if the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT Provided. Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score Wetland CateEory 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category 1: Based on total score 100 140 220 300 Catelgory Bois and wetlands of 250 300 Hiizh Conservation Value Category 1: Coastal Lam 200 220 300 Category 1: Interdunal 300 Category 1: Forested 100 140 F 20 300 Category 1: Estuarine 200 (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category II. Based on score 100 140 220 300 Category II: Interdunal wetlands 150 220 300 Category II: Estuarine 150 (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category III (all) 80 140 220 300 Category IV (all) 50 Page 11 of 13 Packet Pg. 243 7.2.c E olnvmo,�4 n n l;vnn4nv o buffer 141, vo l„ 4; .r.n (.v nl L ev f wetland -width appr-ov lm O buff-er- widths for- wetlands whefe existing buff-ef eonditio L a „ffov widths) may be granted n mitant to the deyeln.v.men d itio, of n ..o41n,,a buff- r enhancement plan for Category H! and Al N O illy. Approval of n wetland buffer- enhaneemen4 plan shall, at ie � dir-eetoi, „flow for- buff-erwtth to less than 25he c ,rthe wetland fedtietion no 0- standard width; provided, 0 t vin„ ;thevlomov4n4;nv 4n n4 lonn4 40 to„ol bybyIn n L,,,f4o, to1, provided standard le CD inal T 7 v.4n densities for- . o in buffer- > existing native plant andprovides O L :isities to less than thfee feet f6f feet 0. no on eenter- shmbs and eight e Q. Q f m C O ++ 20E4.n,,l `a O U N ases in wetland b ff ,- ft rieti .r ing as relate to. � O O t� W O r d - ,;l.11;f habitat f � O O_ a of wetland and N f N O etla .1 intf sio n,-,nl ,1;n4,,,43anee r ' O N Widt Aver-aging. The director- allow modif;eation saandaia r i er- may of a L 4, . aeeofdanee with an apprmoved efit nn1 n 0 0 n n.v4andthe bee by basis by buffef Only those O Oft - ease ease a-,�efaging widths. v f-erm the v n o „bjeet v of shall be wetlandb existing wit1, eet or ilified v n.f nn;n.,,nl wetland n M o ist n.,,n4 dem fes 44b,n4• c0c C funetion eduee the and value of wetlands of assoeia4ed f � O ,l . „4n;„n , n4ions ; dtie to .,l,afuetefisties the sensitivity buff-ef in existing physieal the ci ketef of vafies slope, soils, of vegetation, and wetlan 4t f n ,iderm b,,,fferm ; v.laees by n,l ; b,,, ++ om and would not ermsely ete ,f- r ; other places; t k W eee�rsrsrss�eas�.ressasesr�:sess�sr�:esssasseassss�srsrss�:esesrs - Q Page 12 of 13 Packet Pg. 244 7.2.c i� ii. Wi' amaze stfuER r�u iii.Fishing aeeess areas down to the watef's edge that shall be no larger- than six few i,e. Additions to structures existing within wetlands and/or wetland buffers may be permitted pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.I4I. Additions to structures within wetlands will also require state and federal approval. Page 13 of 13 Packet Pg. 245 7.2.c Date: October 14, 2016 To: Washington State Department of Ecology Copy: Edmonds City Council Dave Earling, Mayor Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner From: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Re: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Analysis regarding City of Edmonds' proposed alternatives to Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8 and consistency of those alternatives with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidelines I. Purpose of this memo This memo demonstrates how the City of Edmonds' proposed alternatives to Required Changes 7 and 8 are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidance for Shoreline Master Programs. The City's proposed alternatives are necessary because the Department of Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8 would not satisfy the SMA's no net loss standard or the City's restoration goals for the Edmonds marsh. If the rationale set forth below is adopted by the Edmonds City Council, this memo should be included as Attachment B to Council President Johnson's letter to Department of Ecology, Director, Maia Bellon. As an alternative to Required Change 7, the City of Edmonds is proposing a 110-foot buffer and a 125-foot setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV (UMU4) environment. This will be referred to as Alternative Change 7. As an alternative to Required Change 8, the City of Edmonds is proposing that the 110-foot buffer be planted and established in conjunction with a master planned development or redevelopment of the two properties within N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Pg. 246 7.2.c the UMU4 environment. This will be referred to as Alternative Change 8. Because the two properties in the UMU4 are separately owned, it is possible that they would plant or otherwise establish their respective buffers at different times. Until that occurs, any existing uses within the adopted buffer would be allowed to continue as nonconforming uses. While most of the analysis below relates to Alternative Change 7, it should be kept in mind that Alternative Change 8 is the timing mechanism for Alternative Change 7. II. Findings of Fact demonstrating the consistency of Alternative Changes 7 and 8 with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidance The following findings of fact support the adoption of Alternative Changes 7 and 8. Packet Pg. 247 7.2.c A. The Edmonds marsh is a shoreline of the state. B. The Edmonds marsh is a Category II estuarine wetland and salt marsh. C. The UMU4 environment consists of two properties that abut the Edmonds marsh. The property to the south of the marsh is largely undeveloped. The property to the north of the marsh is developed as a business park known as Harbor Square. D. Harbor Square is owned by the Port of Edmonds. The Port had expressed interest in eventually redeveloping Harbor Square into a more intense development. The Port had sought a comprehensive plan amendment to approve the Port's master plan for Harbor Square, but later withdrew that request. There is currently no known timeline for the redevelopment of Harbor Square. E. Neither the City or the Department of Ecology have conducted detailed wildlife habitat assessments or wildlife surveys that would provide additional site -specific information about which species are present in the Edmonds marsh and what the buffer those species would need to be protected from redevelopment. F. In the absence of such detailed site -specific studies, it is appropriate to rely upon Ecology's guidance documents to establish buffer widths at the planning stage. G. The Department of Ecology has published various scientific and technical guidance documents that are intended to be used by cities in the development of critical area regulations and shoreline master programs. The city council reviewed relevant excerpts from these documents before voting to propose Alternative Change 7. Various relevant excerpts from these Department of Ecology publications are excerpted below. Packet Pg. 248 7.2.c 1. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology This document distinguishes Category II estuarine wetlands from Category II interdunal wetlands and other Category II wetlands, where buffer width is based on habitat score. Unlike the other kinds, the buffer for Category II estuarine wetlands does not depend on habitat score. Assuming that certain impact minimization measures are required, the buffer would be 110 feet. The measures include things like ensuring that light, noise, and toxic runoff are directed away from the wetland. If these measures are not implemented, then the buffer would be 150 feet. 2. Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version, January 2010, (1st Revision July 2011), (2nd Revision October 2012), Publication No. 10-06-002, Department of Ecology This document recommended standard buffer widths of 75 feet for Category II wetlands, with the possibility of additional buffer width being added based on a habitat score. The buffer table in this document does not have a line for Category II estuarine wetlands. The 75-foot buffer figure is for all Category II wetlands, except for interdunal wetlands. The buffers in the city's adopted CAO were based on the guidance from this document. After the CAO was adopted, this document was replaced in June 2016 by the Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version. 3. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1, A Synthesis of the Science, March 2005, Publication No. 05-06-006, Department of Ecology This document contains the following passage discussing the importance of estuarine wetlands: Estuaries, the areas where freshwater and salt water mix, are among the most highly productive and complex Packet Pg. 249 7.2.c ecosystems. Here, tremendous quantities of sediments, nutrients, and organic matter are exchanged between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine communities. A large number of plants and animals benefit from estuarine wetlands. Fish, shellfish, birds, and plants are the most visible organisms that live in estuarine wetlands. However, a huge variety of other life forms also live in an estuarine wetland, including many kinds of diatoms, algae and invertebrates. Estuaries, of which estuarine wetlands are a part, are a "priority habitat" as defined by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Estuaries have a high fish and wildlife density and species richness, important breeding habitat, important fish and wildlife seasonal ranges and movement corridors, limited availability, and high vulnerability to alteration of their habitat .... 4. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2, Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, April 2005, Publication No. 05-06-008, Department of Ecology This document contains the following sections: A frequent concern about buffers is their applicability to urban and urbanizing areas. The concerns generally fall into two categories: 1) the science on buffers comes largely from agricultural and forestry settings and is perceived to be irrelevant to urban areas; and 2) the need to maximize density of development in urban areas is in direct conflict with the protection of large upland areas around wetlands (and streams). The concern over the relevancy of the literature on buffers to urban areas is largely unfounded. While most of the studies of buffer effectiveness occur in non -urban settings, the principles are the same. Buffers do not function any differently in urban settings than in rural settings. The same processes of sediment, nutrient, and toxics removal operate similarly in urban areas as they do in rural settings. However, a good stormwater Packet Pg. 250 7.2.c management program can reduce the need for buffers to perform filtration functions, with the exception of lawns and landscaped areas which drain into wetlands rather than into stormwater collection areas. The role of buffers in providing needed upland habitat for wetland species and in screening adjacent noise and light is also performed similarly. In fact, a case can be made that buffers in urban areas are even more important from a habitat standpoint because there is little other upland habitat available. The factors that may be different in urban areas are that urban wetlands may perform some functions at a lower level because of degradation, and the range of wildlife species utilizing urban wetlands may be smaller. However, remaining wetlands (and adjacent upland areas) in urban areas may, in fact, function as habitat islands and be critical to many species. Generally, the protection of wildlife habitat functions of wetlands requires larger buffers than protection of water quality functions, particularly when state-of-the-art stormwater management is employed. However, the best way to address the issue of buffers in urban areas is to conduct a landscape analysis and develop a subarea plan that identifies, prioritizes, and protects the most important wetland, riparian, and upland habitats (see Chapters 5 through 7 of this volume for additional discussion). Maintaining and restoring connections between wetland, riparian, and upland habitats is key to protecting wildlife. A landscape analysis can help identify existing connections that should be protected as well as areas where connectivity can be restored. Combined with standards for low impact development and state-of-the- art stormwater management, this kind of approach could result in smaller buffers around the other critical areas that are not providing vital habitat. The studies Packet Pg. 251 7.2.c should always be confirmed on the ground during project review. The issue of balancing wetland protection with competing mandates in the GMA is a legitimate one that can be addressed in a number of ways. A buildable lands survey with a good wetlands inventory can provide important information on the actual conflicts that may exist (rather than a perceived conflict). Provisions to allow density trading from buffers to adjacent or nearby developable lands can help. Chapter 8, Section 8.3.8.8. Where a legally established, non -conforming use of the buffer exists (e.g., a road or structure that lies within the width of buffer recommended for that wetland), proposed actions in the buffer may be permitted as long as they do not increase the degree of non -conformity. This means no increase in the impacts to the wetland from activities in the buffer. For example, if a land use with high impacts (e.g., building an urban road) is being proposed next to a Category II wetland with a moderate level of function for habitat, a 150-foot buffer would be needed to protect functions (see Table 8C-6). If, however, an existing urban road is already present and only 50 feet from the edge of the Category II wetland, the additional 100 feet of buffer may not be needed if the road is being widened. A vegetated buffer on the other side of the road would not help buffer the existing impacts to the wetland from the road. If the existing road is resurfaced or widened (e.g., to add a sidewalk) along the upland edge, without any further roadside development that would increase the degree of non -conformity, the additional buffer is not necessary. The associated increase in impervious surface from widening a road, however, may necessitate mitigation for impacts from stormwater. Packet Pg. 252 7.2.c If, however, the proposal is to build a new development (e.g., shopping center) along the upland side of the road, the impacts to the wetland and its functions may increase. This would increase the degree of non- conformity. The project proponent would need to provide the additional 100 feet of buffer extending beyond the road or apply buffer averaging (see Section 8C.2.6). Appendix 8-C, Section 8C.2.4.2. 5. SMP Handbook, Chapter 11, Vegetation Conservation, Buffers, and Setbacks, Publication Number 11-06-010, Department of Ecology The following excerpts from this document should also be helpful: Some local governments with intensely developed shorelines have established only setbacks from the OHWM. Vegetation conservation is required, and planting new vegetation, replacing noxious weeds and invasive plants with native plants, and other habitat improvements are required for new or expanded development. These measures meet the requirements of the SMP Guidelines to protect ecological functions, as buffers do. SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 3-4. New scientific studies conducted after the CAO was adopted may establish the need for different -sized buffers than included in the CAO. The SMP Guidelines require "the most current, accurate and complete scientific and technical information available" to be used for development of SMPs [WAC 173-26- 201(2)(a)]. SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 4. When SMPs were first adopted in the 1970s, setbacks were established largely to protect structures from Packet Pg. 253 7.2.c erosion and effects of wind and water and to prevent new houses from blocking views. Some consideration was given to habitat, as in Conservancy environments with bigger setbacks than in Urban environments. We now know more about the value of buffers in regard to ecological functions. Recent scientific studies show that 25-foot setbacks do not protect most ecological functions and will not meet the no net loss standard of the SMP Guidelines. SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 7. How do you apply these buffer widths from the scientific literature to your local shorelines? Much of Washington's shorelines are developed, unlike the undeveloped shorelines discussed in much of the scientific literature. Those land uses include industry, commercial uses, houses, multi -family dwellings, parks, trails, marinas, bulkheads, parking lots, and fishing piers, among others. Some upland areas are intensely developed, and others are more sparsely developed. Some of our waters are heavily used for ports, industry, marinas and recreational piers. Many Washington lakes are intensely developed with houses on the upland and piers and docks in the water, while others remain undeveloped. Tailor buffers to local conditions Determining buffers and setbacks is a challenge. The buffers and setbacks for marine and freshwater shorelines should be tailored to local conditions including existing shoreline functions and existing and planned land use and public access. Buffers and setbacks likely will vary within a local government's boundaries to reflect different shoreline conditions and functions. The inventory and characterization report should provide a complete analysis of shoreline functions. Packet Pg. 254 7.2.c SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 19. With this general guidance in mind, considerations for determining buffer and setback width include: What shoreline ecological functions continue to exist and need protection or restoration? What species of wildlife live along the shoreline, and what buffer width will protect them? Would smaller buffers increase nitrogen and phosphorous levels in local waters? How would removal of riparian vegetation affect slope stability and hydrology? Will future growth include new or expanded water - oriented uses? For developed shorelines, is redevelopment likely? Is development projected on vacant parcels? SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 20. 6. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, Legally Existing Uses and Development, Publication No. 11-06-010, Department of Ecology The following excerpts from this chapter should be helpful: Existing legally established structures and uses are typically allowed to continue with the approval of updated SMPs. That means they can continue to exist, be used, maintained and repaired. That's the case even if the updated SMPs include regulations that would not allow new uses or development to be configured or built exactly as existing ones. For example, under updated SMPs, new buildings may need to be further away from the water, new development projects may need to retain some vegetation onsite, or new aquaculture projects may need to be a specific distance from aquatic vegetation. However, existing legal development and uses can remain in place. Packet Pg. 255 7.2.c Ecology and local governments do not expect most existing development and uses to be eliminated from the shoreline after new SMP regulations are adopted. In some cases, existing buildings may be expanded, although there may be limits to the size of the addition, the total square footage, or new impervious surfaces.... SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, pp. 1-2. Cities with densely developed shorelines may have fewer opportunities for achieving no net loss than cities or counties with less developed shorelines. With a densely developed shoreline, large buffers or setbacks may not be appropriate or feasible for various reasons - - small lots cannot accommodate them; large buffers would include many structures and impervious surfaces that interfere with buffer functions; regulations regarding structures within buffers could be complicated. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 3. Traditionally, uses and structures that are not consistent with the new regulations have been categorized as "nonconforming" development. Nonconforming uses and development were lawfully constructed or established, but do not conform to current land use regulations or standards. The regulation of nonconforming uses and development is an established concept, beginning early in the 20th century, when municipalities started enacting zoning regulations. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 4. WAC 173-27-080 applies at the local level only if the local SMP does not address nonconforming development. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 4. Some local governments are using different approaches as they update their SMPs. They would allow existing Packet Pg. 256 7.2.c structures, particularly single family residences, to continue as conforming structures even though new shoreline setbacks, buffers, and other regulations in their Shoreline Master Programs would typically create nonconforming structures. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 5. Packet Pg. 257 7.2.c H. The City has taken significant steps toward restoration of the Edmonds marsh. I. Ecology's Required Change 7 is a change to the 100/50 setback/buffer that the City had previously adopted for the UMU4 environment. The dimensions of this earlier adopted setback/buffer were heavily influenced by the city's desire to restore the Edmonds marsh and daylight Willow Creek and obtain funding for such restoration. While it is true that Appendix L alone may not support a 100-foot setback for the UMU4 shoreline environment, the weight placed on Appendix L by the city council demonstrates its commitment to restoration of the Edmonds marsh. It is relevant to determining buffers for the UMU4 that the city has a significant goal of restoring the Edmonds marsh and has been actively pursuing that goal through grant applications and studies. J. As the City evaluates the existing conditions of the Edmonds marsh and the surrounding area within the UMU4 environment, it finds the Edmonds marsh to be a valuable environmental asset worthy of the City's ongoing restoration efforts. This value must be taken into account when evaluating the local conditions to which the buffers and setbacks for the UMU4 environment should be tailored. K. It should be noted for the record that the city council on August 2, 2016 adopted Resolution 1366, which authorized the submission of another grant application to RCO related to the daylighting of Willow Creek. The December 18, 2015 final feasibility study for the daylighting of Willow Creek was the result of a successful grant application from 2013. Packet Pg. 258 7.2.c III. Conclusions of Law demonstrating the consistency of Alternative Changes 7 and 8 with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidance The Department of Ecology has adopted guidelines for Shoreline Master Programs. These guidelines are found in chapter 173-26 WAC, Part III (WAC 173-26-171 through WAC 173-26-251). Alternative Change 7 and 8 are consistent with these guidelines, particularly the following excerpts. A. WAC 173-26-186(8)(b): Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of [shoreline] ecological functions. The UMU4 buffer must be designed to achieve no net loss of ecological function, not only within the buffer, but more importantly, within the Edmonds marsh itself. While Harbor Square is already developed and the UMU4 buffer will render that development nonconforming, redevelopment of Harbor Square will presumably be more intense than the existing development. In the absence of additional wildlife habitat assessments and surveys demonstrating that no species in the Edmonds marsh requires more than a 50-foot buffer, the presumption should be that the habitat value of the marsh is consistent with other Category II estuarine wetlands. Because Ecology's guidance documents recommend a 110-foot buffer for a Category II estuarine wetland, that is the buffer that is required to achieve no net loss in the absence of additional wildlife habitat assessments and surveys. B. WAC 173-26-186(8)(c): For counties and cities containing any shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. The city is engaged in an ongoing effort to daylight Willow Creek, which will have a significant restorative benefit to the Edmonds marsh. Packet Pg. 259 7.2.c C. WAC 173-26-186(9): To the extent consistent with the policy and use preference of RCW 90.58.020, this chapter (chapter 173-26 WAC), and these principles, local governments have reasonable discretion to balance the various policy goals of this chapter, in light of other relevant local, state, and federal regulatory and nonregulatory programs, and to modify master programs to reflect changing circumstances. The guidelines give the city reasonable discretion to balance various factors in the development of its SMP. The city, in adopting Alternative Change 7, has acted reasonably in basing the buffer for the UMU4 on Ecology's own guidance. The 110-foot buffer is consistent with the most recent guidance from Ecology related to buffers for Category II estuarine wetlands. Even if the Department of Ecology or the Port of Edmonds might have weighted the various policy goals differently, the guidelines give this discretion to the city. D. WAC 173-26-201(2)(a): To satisfy the requirements for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58.100(1), local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process. 1. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.... The city has identified Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology, as the most current, accurate, and complete scientific information available. It has also identified other resources which are set forth in the findings of fact, above. 2. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available.... Ecology agrees that the Edmonds marsh is a Category II estuarine wetland. The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 comes directly from and is consistent with Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The 50-foot buffer in Required Change 7 is not consistent with this recent guidance. Packet Pg. 260 7.2.c E. WAC 173-26-201(2)(d):... local governments shall ... apply the following preferences and priorities in the order listed below 1. Reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public health.... Local governments should ensure that these areas are reserved consistent with constitutional limits. Note that there is no higher -ranking priority here than to reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions. The UMU4 buffer can be seen as such a restoration. The fact that the existing development is allowed to continue indefinitely as a nonconforming use keeps this reservation firmly within constitutional limits. WAC 173-26-221(2)(b)(i): When addressing critical areas, shoreline master programs shall adhere to the standards established in the following sections, unless it is demonstrated through scientific and technical information as provided in RCW 90.58.100(1) and as described in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a) that an alternative approach provides better resource protection. As a Category II estuarine wetland, the city must protect the Edmonds marsh by adhering to the standards for critical areas unless it is demonstrated through scientific information that an alternative approach provides better resource protection. The applicable standards here include Ecology's wetland guidance, which in turn calls for a 110-foot buffer for this class of wetland. In other words, the default UMU4 buffer should be 110 feet unless it is demonstrated through scientific and technical information that an alternative approach provides better resource protection. Ecology has not demonstrated through scientific and technical information that the 50-foot buffer from Ecology's Required Change 7 provides better protection for the Edmonds marsh than a 110-foot buffer. Ecology makes the point that untreated stormwater discharge is a significant threat to the marsh and that this threat could be corrected upon redevelopment of Harbor Square. Ecology's logic is that a 50-foot buffer will better incentivize redevelopment and redevelopment will fix the stormwater discharge. But this logic fails to address whether the habitat values of the Edmonds marsh would be adequately protected in the face of more intense redevelopment. It also fails to address the possibility that the stormwater problem could be corrected as a standalone stormwater improvement project that could be sponsored by Packet Pg. 261 7.2.c the city's stormwater utility and/or through a WRIA-8 or other grant sponsored project. Significant additional work would need to be done to determine whether a 50-foot buffer in the UMU4 could find scientific justification given the presumably high habitat value of the Edmonds marsh. G. WAC 173-26-221(2)(b)(iv): The planning objectives of shoreline management provisions for critical areas shall be the protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes and restoration of degraded ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. Shorelines with critical areas get special treatment under the SMA. With critical areas, the objectives are not merely protection (no net loss) but also restoration of degraded ecological functions. The city's goal is to restore both the Edmonds marsh and its degraded buffers. The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 could become restored either through a standalone restoration project that would likely require city and port cooperation, through mitigation requirements to offset the impacts of more intense redevelopment, or potentially through a combination of the two. H. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A): Local governments should consult the department's technical guidance documents on wetlands. The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 comes directly from and is consistent with Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The 50-foot buffer in Ecology's Required Change 7 is not consistent with this recent guidance. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(D): Master programs shall contain requirements for buffer zones around wetlands. Buffer requirements shall be adequate to ensure that wetland functions are protected and maintained in the long term. Requirements for buffer zone widths and management shall take into account the ecological functions of the wetland, the characteristics and setting of the buffer, the potential impacts associated with the adjacent land use, and other relevant factors. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology, addresses many of these factors. It provides different buffer widths for Category I estuarine wetlands Packet Pg. 262 7.2.c (150 feet) and Category II estuarine wetlands (110 feet), recognizing that Category I wetlands have greater ecological function. There is no lower category of estuarine wetland than Category II. This suggests that even when the wetland and buffer may have some suffered some degradation, an estuarine wetland should still be afforded protection consistent with a Category II wetland. Ecology suggests that, because the Harbor Square portion of the UMU4 has already been developed, a narrow buffer of 50 feet is justified. We could not find support for this proposition in Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. If anything, that publication appears to state the opposite: "Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does not consist of vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased." Id., at 13. J. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(A): Critical saltwater habitats require a higher level of protection due to the important ecological functions they provide. Ecological functions of marine shorelands can affect the viability of critical saltwater habitats. Therefore, effective protection and restoration of critical saltwater habitats should integrate management of shorelands as well as submerged areas. Critical saltwater habitats like the Edmonds marsh require greater protection than other critical areas. It is necessary to establish an appropriate buffer upon the shorelands of the UMU4 in order to be able to protect and restore these areas. K. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(B): The management planning should address the following, where applicable:... Protecting existing and restoring degraded riparian and estuarine ecosystems, especially salt marsh habitats; Establishing adequate buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from the habitat areas; Here again, the guidance emphasizes that salt marsh habitats like the Edmonds marsh warrant special protection, even when they are somewhat Packet Pg. 263 7.2.c degraded and that a significant component of that special protection is the establishment of an adequate buffer to protect the special habitat provided by such ecosystems. It should be noted here that existing development within the UMU4 buffer does not make the habitat in the marsh unworthy of protection. It should also be noted that even if existing development already has some negative impact upon that habitat, redevelopment to a more intense use could have greater impact upon that habitat if the buffer were not increased adequately to protect the habitat from the more intense development. L. WAC 173-27-080 Nonconforming use and development standards. When nonconforming use and development standards do not exist in the applicable master program,' the following definitions and standards shall apply: 1. 'Nonconforming use or development' means a shoreline use or development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the act or the applicable master program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the program. 2. Structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use but which are nonconforming with regard to setbacks, buffers or yards; area; bulk; height or density may be maintained and repaired and may be enlarged or expanded provided that said enlargement does not increase the extent of nonconformity by further encroaching upon or extending into areas where construction or use would not be allowed for new development or uses.... Portions of the Harbor Square development already exist within as little as 25 feet of the Edmonds marsh. Ecology has argued that this existing condition warrants a much smaller buffer than the 110-foot buffer called for by the guidance. Ecology argues, essentially, that the buffers should be sized to avoid any already developed property so that the existing development can retain its conforming status indefinitely. If the SMA intended this result, 1 Note: the city's SNIP does contain provisions for nonconforming use. The WAC is cited here to demonstrate what regulation Ecology would impose as a default if the city did not have its own nonconforming use regulation. Packet Pg. 264 7.2.c Ecology would not have needed to adopt the above shoreline nonconforming use rule. The fact that Ecology did adopt a nonconforming use rule renders this argument suspect. Similarly, Ecology appears to argue that the SMA's no net loss standard provides not only the minimum amount of regulatory protection allowed, but also the maximum amount of regulatory protection allowed. This argument is not supported by the plain language of the guidance for shoreline master programs. In fact, the opposite is true, "these guidelines are designed to assure, at minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where they have been impaired." WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) (emphasis added). The guidelines contain similar phrasing where they address wetland regulations. "Regulations shall address the following uses to achieve, at a minimum, no net loss of wetland area and functions, including lost time when the wetland does not perform the function..." WAC 173-26- 221(2)(c)(i)(A) (emphasis added). In short, the plain language of the SMP guidance indicates that no net loss is the minimum standard that an SMP must achieve. Nowhere does the guidance suggest that Ecology should deny an SMP for going beyond this minimum standard. IV. Consistency with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 WAC 173-26-120(7)(b) outlines this stage of Ecology's review procedure: If, in the opinion of the department, the alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally proposed by the department in this subsection (7) and with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, it shall approve the alternative changes and provide written notice to all parties of record. In such cases, the effective date of the approved master program or amendments is the date of the department's letter to local government approving the alternative proposal. If the department determines the alternative proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes proposed by the department, the department may either deny the alternative proposal or at the request of local government start anew with the review and approval process beginning at WAC 173-26-120. Packet Pg. 265 7.2.c WAC 173-26-120(7)(b). We have demonstrated in Section III, above, how Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the applicable guidelines for SMPs. This section addresses consistency with the purposes and intent of Required Change 7. Certainly, the proposed buffers between Alternative Change 7 (110 feet) and Required Change 7 (50 feet) are significantly different, but that does not mean there is inconsistency between their purposes and intents. We look to the discussion in Ecology's June 27, 2016 Findings and Conclusions to discern the purpose and intent behind Required Change 7. We acknowledge, however, that, because Ecology does not succinctly state the purpose and intent behind Required Change 7, this exercise requires some paraphrasing and extrapolation on the part of the city. We believe the following four statements fairly summary Ecology's purpose and intent behind Required Change 7. 1. The city's originally adopted buffer of 50 feet was consistent with Ecology's Required Change 7 buffer of 50 feet. The real difference was in the amount of the setback, where the city originally adopted a 100-foot setback (or 50 feet from the edge of the buffer) and Required Change 7 proposed a 65 foot setback (or 15 feet from the edge of the buffer). Ecology notes that the city did not adequately support the additional 50-foot setback with scientific documentation and replaced it with the extra 15-foot setback, which is consistent with the city's critical areas ordinance. Ecology states: "A minimum 15-foot building setback would help preserve the integrity of a restored buffer. A larger setback may encourage intensive uses such as parking, which is incompatible within a buffer setback." Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 because both reflect the same setback (15 feet from edge of the buffer) that is contained in the city's critical areas ordinance. As Ecology notes, intensive uses such as parking, would no longer be encouraged by the larger 50-foot setback. Packet Pg. 266 7.2.c 2. Ecology expressed concern about the city's reliance upon Appendix L to support the originally adopted buffer/setback of 50/100. In the table, Ecology states: "Ecology acknowledges the City Council amendments to the Planning Commission draft were based on a concern that buffers would be need to be 100 feet to be eligible for Ecology water quality grants. As noted in a letter from Ecology's Water program, a restoration project would be eligible based on the science -based planning commission setback of 50 feet (see letter from Ben Rau to Shane Hope, August 19, 2015)." The city acknowledges that Appendix L is not the most relevant guidance for establishing a buffer width for a Category II estuarine wetland. In Alternative Change 7, the city has corrected its reliance upon Appendix L and now bases the buffer for the UMU4 environment on Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The city believes this guidance to be the "most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available," as required by WAC 173-26-201(2) (a). By basing Alternative Change 7 on this recent guidance instead of Appendix L, the city's alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7. 3. Ecology's table regarding Required Change 7 cites to WAC 173-26-201(2)(c). That section of the guidelines contains the following language: "Nearly all shoreline areas, even substantially developed or degraded areas, retain important ecological functions. For example, an intensely developed harbor area may also serve as a fish migration corridor and feeding area critical to species survival. Also, ecosystems are interconnected. For example, the life cycle of anadromous fish depends upon the viability of freshwater, marine, and terrestrial shoreline ecosystems, and many wildlife species associated with the shoreline depend on the health of both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Therefore, the policies for protecting and restoring ecological functions generally apply to all shoreline areas. not iust those that remain relatively unaltered." WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) (emphasis added). Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 by recognizing the important applicability of the language above to Packet Pg. 267 7.2.c establishing the buffer for the UMU4 environment. While much of the UMU4 buffer area has been developed and degraded, this language, and Alternative Change 7, acknowledge that the Edmonds marsh retains important ecological functions that are worthy of being protected with a buffer that is consistent with Ecology's buffer guidance for a Category II estuarine wetland. 4. Required Change 7 may have been crafted to address the Port's concern about excess mitigation. The table cites WAC 173- 26-201(2)(e), which contains the following language: "master programs shall also provide direction with regard to mitigation for the impact of the development so that: (A) Application of the mitigation sequence achieves no net loss of ecological functions for each new development and does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions." Mitigation is imposed at the project stage, not with the adoption of an SMP. Alternative Change 7 should not be construed as a mitigation requirement. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the Edmonds marsh provides high value habitat that warrants the 110-foot buffer called for in Ecology's guidance documents. When the Port is ready to pursue a master planned redevelopment of Harbor Square, a more detailed analysis of the presence of wildlife and associated habitat will need to be performed to determine the extent to which the Edmonds marsh needs to be protected from the impacts of the master planned redevelopment. And that analysis will no doubt be informed by details about the project itself that are not currently known. At the project stage, it is possible that additional information about the species in the marsh and the nature of the project itself will lead to the conclusion that requiring a 110-foot buffer would be disproportionate to the actual impact of the project, in which case, the city might opt to incur part of the cost associated with establishing a 110-foot buffer as a city -sponsored restoration project. But at this planning stage, and without that critical additional information, it would be imprudent to establish a 50-foot buffer in the UMU4 environment. Furthermore, we doubt that a 50-foot buffer would be upheld under a no net loss challenge without this additional information. Therefore, to the extent that the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 was to address a concern about excess mitigation, Alternative Change 7 is not inconsistent with that concern in light of the discussion above. Packet Pg. 268 7.2.d Date: February 2, 2017 To: Edmonds City Council Copy: Dave Earling, Mayor Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner From: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Re: City's proposed Option C: An alternative to Options A and 8 from Ecology's January 10, 2017 Exhibit G I. Purpose of this memo The purpose of this memo is to provide some legal context for review of Option C, particularly with respect to the no net loss standard. II. Relevant legal authority Set forth below are three particularly relevant excerpts from the Shoreline Guidelines. The no net loss standard in general: Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions. (i) Local master programs shall include regulations and mitigation standards ensuring that each permitted development will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline; local government shall design and implement such regulations and mitigation is1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Pg. 269 7.2.d standards in a manner consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) (emphasis added). The no net loss standard specifically articulated toward wetlands: Regulations shall address the following uses to achieve, at a minimum, no net loss of wetland area and functions, including lost time when the wetland does not perform the function... WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A) (emphasis added). The full text of the language referenced by Ecology with regard to its concern about excessive mitigation: (e) Environmental impact mitigation. (i) To assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions, master programs shall include provisions that require proposed individual uses and developments to analyze environmental impacts of the proposal and include measures to mitigate environmental impacts not otherwise avoided or mitigated by compliance with the master program and other applicable regulations. To the extent Washington's State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, is applicable, the analysis of such environmental impacts shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA, which also address environmental impact mitigation in WAC 197-11-660 and define mitigation in WAC 197-11-768. Master programs shall indicate that, where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the following sequence of steps listed in order of priority, with (e) (i) (A) of this subsection being top priority. (A) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (B) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; Packet Pg. 270 7.2.d (C) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (D) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; (E) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and (F) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. (ii) In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable. Consistent with WAC 173-26-186 (5) and (8), master programs shall also provide direction with regard to mitigation for the impact of the development so that: (A) Application of the mitigation sequence achieves no net loss of ecological functions for each new development and does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the act. (B) When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation within the watershed that addresses limiting factors or identified critical needs for shoreline resource conservation based on watershed or comprehensive resource management plans applicable to the area of impact may be authorized. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. WAC 173-26-201(2)(e)(emphasis added). Packet Pg. 271 7.2.d III. Brief analysis of Option C Option C uses the same standard of no net loss that is used in the Shoreline Guildlines above. Using the same standard should reduce ambiguity and confusion when it comes time to implement these regulations. We stated the following in Section IV of our October 14, 2016 memo: When the Port is ready to pursue a master planned redevelopment of Harbor Square, a more detailed analysis of the presence of wildlife and associated habitat will need to be performed to determine the extent to which the Edmonds marsh needs to be protected from the impacts of the master planned redevelopment. And that analysis will no doubt be informed by details about the project itself that are not currently known. At the project stage, it is possible that additional information about the species in the marsh and the nature of the project itself will lead to the conclusion that requiring a 110-foot buffer would be disproportionate to the actual impact of the project, in which case, the city might opt to incur part of the cost associated with establishing a 110-foot buffer as a city -sponsored restoration project. But at this planning stage, and without that critical additional information, it would be imprudent to establish a 50-foot buffer in the UMU4 environment. Option C essentially establishes a 110-foot buffer as a default and for planning purposes, while deferring to a later date - after more environmental review has been done and after more is known about the project - the ultimate determination as to whether the buffer can be smaller while still ensuring no net loss, or conversely, whether the buffer needs to be larger to ensure no net loss. Packet Pg. 272 7.2.e Councilmember Nelson commented there is a difference in what he read in the report and what he sees happening on the ground. He recently spent a second day in the field with the professionals who provide fire and EMS care, not the number crunchers, but the first responders who treat citizens. What he saw was concerning; in just one day, there were five requests to send Edmonds units north to cover other stations because the rest of FD1 was unavailable. The hope is that other stations can cover Edmonds, but they can't. He relayed hearing on the fire radio dispatch in response to battalion chiefs request for another paramedic, "Medic 14 not available, cross -staffed." He clarified that meant the one paramedic at that station was not available because he was out on a fire call. This is what happens when the paramedics are split up all over the City, asking them to respond to fire as well as medical calls. That response will be heard over and over in Edmond with these cuts because 70% of calls are basic life support (BLS), not advanced life support (ALS). Paramedics will be busy responding to BLS calls when ALS calls come in. Councilmember Nelson commented, in addition, twice that morning all four Edmonds fire units were out on calls and not available to respond to any additional calls in Edmonds. What will happen when only three Edmonds units will be available with thee cuts? He believed everyone wants the best fire service but doing more with less should be a last resort when it comes to public safety, especially while every other City department is growing. There is a difference between not wanting to pay more and needing to pay more. Healthcare demands are increasing every year and much of it has shifted squarely on first responders. He has heard, "we're backed into a corner, we have no choice," commenting we always have a choice. If the Council really wanted to, they could find the funding. Councilmember Nelson questioned what other contract services the City has, a fair question if the primary motivation is financial. For example, why does the City spend $42,000/month to contract for legal services when the City could hire an in-house City Attorney. Nine in ten residents surveyed last year felt safe in Edmonds and want safety to be a top priority in the coming years. He believed this agreement would jeopardize their safety; two fewer firefighters and EMTs on duty means less people to respond to emergencies He asked that the Council wait and find a different way to fund fire costs, put a fire/EMS levy forward if necessary and not make these cuts to these vital services, prioritize saving lives over saving money. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER NELSON VOTING NO. Mayor Earling recognized the hours Mr. Taraday and Finance Director Scott James spent on the Agreement, commented it had been a pleasure to work with them. He was provided several briefings and had an opportunity for input but the work they did and the cooperation from the FD1 lawyer, while heated sometimes, resulted in a very positive outcome. Mr. Taraday commented they learned a lot. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. STUDY ITEMS 1. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP) Senior Planner Kemen Lien explained this is the continuation of the SMP update. The City Council sent proposed alternatives to Ecology in October 2016 and January 10, 2017, Ecology responded to Edmonds. Ecology representatives, David Pater and Joe Burcar, are here to present their response. Joe Burcar, SEA Section Manager, NW Regional Office, Department of Ecology, reviewed: ■ Chronology o June 27, 2016 Ecology issued conditional approval with several required changes and one recommended change. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 273 7.2.e o October 19, 2016 City responded to Ecology's SMP changes and provided alternatives for Edmonds Marsh buffers o January 10, 2017 Ecology responded to the City's Edmonds Marsh buffer alternatives o In consultation with director, Ecology issued final response to evaluation of City's SMP • SMP Update Principles o The Comprehensive SMP update provides many improvements o Edmonds and Ecology are in agreement on most of the SMP — we are very close to being finished o We all share a common goal of protection and restoration of the Edmonds Marsh • Intent of Ecology's letter o Thoughtfully consider the City's October 2016 response o Formally accept the City's alternatives for Items 1-6 o Identify necessary clarifications to buffer provisions applicable to Edmonds Marsh • Marsh buffer clarifications o Recognizes I I0-foot wetland buffer + 15-foot setback o Clarify mitigation responsibilities at the time of redevelopment to be informed by a site - specific study o Identify review process and criteria to determine appropriate buffer width • Clarification Options o Option A: ■ Adds a reference to the City's CAO (23.40.220.C.4); • Requires a scientific study demonstrating functional isolation from critical area; ■ Would allow alternatives buffer to be established based on site specific conditions o Option B ■ Establishes criteria to allow for a site -specific assessment to determine buffer widths; • Requires demonstration of lift to eco-functions ■ Limits buffer reduction to no less than of 50 feet Mr. Burcar explained under both options, the default would be a 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback. If those provisions were built into the SMP, a development proposal would need to go through a conditional use permit (CUP) process which is reviewed locally by the City and by Ecology to consider any reduction in the buffer. A CUP has addition criteria under the Washington Administrative Code regarding consistency with the Shoreline Act, with the green principles, and with accumulative impacts and would bring Ecology's into the review process. Councilmember Nelson thanked Ecology for agreeing that the default would be a 110-foot buffer plus 15- foot setback. He asked about the wetland scientist's role in the site -specific review; does the scientist look at a report, go on site, etc. David Pater, Shoreline Planner, Department of Ecology, answered given the magnitude of the Edmonds Marsh and its importance to the City, it would include site visits in addition to reviewing reports. Site visits would be one of the most important aspects of the site -specific study. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled at one time the City had an interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) W. She suggested the Council move the rest of the SMP forward and allow time to work on the UMU IV. Mr. Pater answered the options Ecology suggested get at that issue in a more scientific study way. Public comment seemed supportive of a rigorous scientific study with certain boundaries. It gets the Council to the same place because it allows studies to assist in determining what will work best. Councilmember Buckshnis said the City would still do the studies; her proposal was to proceed with the SMP and designate the UMU IV area as interim so the City would have an approved SMP, making it eligible for grants, and continuing to work on the UMU IV buffers and site specific report. She pointed out it will take a while to get a site -specific report done. Mr. Pater agreed the site -specific report is an Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 274 7.2.e important piece of the puzzle. With regard to grants, there are statements in the SMP regarding a standalone restoration project if the opportunity arises. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the City is currently under the existing 2000 SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified her goal was to update the SMP to 2016 or 2017 and allow time to get the site -specific reports done to get the two questions answered. Mr. Burcar explained Ecology's policy with comprehensive updates has been to ensure they are comprehensive and look at all elements of the update. He clarified the site -specific study is intended to be the developer's responsibility/obligation at the time of development. It is not the City's interim responsibility to do the site -specific study. The site -specific study is intended to react and assess how the redevelopment proposal affects the marsh and opportunities to build in the necessary protections at the time of development; it is a project -related study not a planning study. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there are no plans for redevelopment at this time. She referred to Everett's interim designation due to a lawsuit. The City doesn't have a lawsuit but has the issue of clarifying this area. An interim designation was suggested at the beginning of this process to give the City time to get the information completed and still have an updated SMP. Mr. Pater answered doing what Councilmember Buckshnis suggested would require unwinding the process a little as the interim designation was one of conditional changes. He was hopeful the Council would move forward with these two options. Councilmember Buckshnis said her goal was to get something approved and allow time to continue work. Mr. Pater said Everett's interim was fairly unique due to the lawsuit, a specific area and the creation of a subarea plan for the marshlands area which they eventually received a State grant for. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her concerns including the buffer setback definition in the SMP that has the buffer and setback starting at the same point of origin and Ecology does not have that. She asked whether a scientist would keep the II0-foot buffer and 15-foot setback separated and assumed the scientist would look at the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Mr. Pater answered the 15-foot setback does not change, the potential change is to the size of the buffer with a specific study. Ecology is open to possible hybrids of the options. Ecology internally believes they start at the wetland edge. Edmonds Marsh is complicated because of the combination of a salt and freshwater marsh. The berms make things simpler because it is a more uniform line compared to the other, more natural side of the marsh. Councilmember Teitzel reiterate Mr. Burcar's statement, that everyone is in support of restoring and preserving the marsh including the Council, Port, citizens and Ecology, the question is the practical reality of how to get there. He pointed out if the Council ultimately settles on a 125-foot setback that corporates a 110-foot buffer, that boundary would bisect three major building at Harbor Square including the Harbor Square Athletic Club. Creating that buffer/setback combination would require destruction of those buildings to create a natural buffer or they would remain non -conforming into the foreseeable future. That would not be the case with a 65-foot setback which would miss those buildings, allowing it to be implemented. Recognizing the Port is operating in the UMU IV zone as a contract rezone with a 25-foot setback/open space, Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the 25-foot setback would remain for an undetermined period of time absent any redevelopment activity. Mr. Taraday said the City Council always has the right to rezone a contracted rezone area. Absent redevelopment, all of this is irrelevant; the buffers are only relevant in the context of redevelopment. Councilmember Teitzel summarized as long as the contract rezone remains in effect, the setback will be 25-feet. A 125-foot setback is a strong disincentive for the Port to do anything other than maintaining the Harbor Square area as it currently exists. In that case, everyone loses, the City, the environment, and the marsh losses the opportunity to create a buffer that essential triples the existing buffer. He was hopeful the Council to work through this to reach something that creates a practical and real buffer increase for the benefit of the marsh and the City. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 9 Packet Pg. 275 7.2.e Councilmember Teitzel observed in Option B, the site -specific study shall use existing conditions as the baseline for assessing potential benefit of restoring the buffer including stormwater treatment. He asked if that would be existing conditions at the time the letter was written or existing conditions at the time a redevelopment plan is submitted. Mr. Burcar answered redevelopment. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether Ecology would be involved in approving who was selected to perform the site -specific study to avoid conflicting studies. Mr. Burcar answered Ecology puts more emphasis on making sure the criteria is clear. Ecology would defer to staff and the City attorney with regard to the process of influencing who the consultant is. Most jurisdictions have a list of qualified consultants; the emphasis would be more on the work product. Councilmember Teitzel asked what Ecology expects of the Council by March 30, 2017. Clearly it is a dilemma; the City cannot present a site -specific study until a redevelopment plan is submitted. Mr. Burcar answered in a perfect world if the Council reached agreement on one of the options or a hybrid option, the City only needs to submit a response to Ecology. Ecology is not looking for the site -specific study but authorization for the sites -specific study to be included in the alterative for the 110-foot buffer plus 15- foot setback. Council President Mesaros commented there is a lot of wisdom in the two options, they get to the heart of the matter and he anticipated the Council could reach agreement. He did not agree with Councilmember Buckshnis about separating out the UMU IV zone and having an interim designation. He preferred to consider the options and provide Ecology a response by March 30 and approve the entire SMP. He initially liked Option B best because it limits the reduction to 50 feet plus the 15-foot setback. Option A would allow a determination that was smaller than 65 feet. He liked the flexibility the options provide especially around the Harbor Square area due to the existing building and it provides incentive to the Port for redevelopment. He emphasized without redevelopment, the 25-foot buffer remains and the marsh deserves more than a 25-foot buffer. Councilmember Tibbott said he was looking for the practicality of the options. He agreed with Council President Mesaros about Option B. Either option presents a lot of possibility for thought and if redevelopment were proposed, there would be a significant number of steps to determine what would be allowed. He asked whether Ecology had seen a 125-foot buffer/setback result in improvement of the environmental situation around a wetland like the Edmonds Marsh. Mr. Burcar answered the concept incentivizes improvements that are driven by redevelopment. He has seen examples around Lake Washington where jurisdictions have included provisions to request bulkhead removal or vegetation enhancement on shorelines in exchange for flexibility on redevelopment. That has helped reestablish areas lost historically to development. It is a proven concept in many jurisdictions. Councilmember Tibbott asked for clarification, the City could establish a 125-foot buffer/setback but a development plan could show with development the environment could be improved with a 65-foot buffer/setback. Mr. Pater answered possibly. The scientific study will provide answers regarding what will work, how it will protect the marsh, how will it improve habitat. The Edmonds Marsh has a unique setup; the berm is not going away and development will need to work around the berm which is not natural. Any study will need to look at the long term impact on the buffer; the berm will invariably impact some buffer function. Councilmember Tibbott asked about incentives for redevelopment and asked whether these types of options were an incentive for development in a highly -developed area. Mr. Pater commented he and Mr. Burcar are planners. Councilmember Tibbott asked staff if they were aware of development that had occurred with this baseline guidance. Mr. Lien answered he was not aware of any specific proposals that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 10 Packet Pg. 276 7.2.e had been developed with a standard buffer that could be reduced with a site -specific study. Councilmember Tibbott said that was essential his concern. He appreciated the amount of study and collaboration that went into this proposal and he was inclined to support it and let the chips fall where they may. He was looking for what would be practical and usable and reduce the fog; this proposal does not reduce the fog but rather makes it foggier until a date in the future when it either goes to court or scientific research is done. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented clearly Councilmember have separate opinions and there is still a majority and minority on the Council and she hated to put Ecology in the middle. She agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis, splitting the UMU IV off and moving forward with the rest of the SMP. The UMU IV is a small issue within the SMP and the Council could move forward more quickly if that portion were split out. She asked if stormwater was the only water quality issue that would improve marsh. Mr. Pater answered his understanding from the studies that have been done is that untreated stormwater is a big problem. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if stormwater was the only problem. Mr. Pater answered probably not, there could be some habitat value from reestablishing the buffer and over time having mature trees on both sites. From what he's heard, stormwater is a big problem. Mr. Burcar said stormwater water quality and quantity are issues, regulating the flows would also be helpful. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed there were other things that could assist the marsh. Mr. Burcar agreed there likely are; deferring to the site -specific study, part of the scope would be to look for those opportunities, what functions could be improved. If the Council adopts a125 buffer/setback, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if anything stopped the Port from redeveloping their property. Mr. Burcar said that may be a better question for the Port. The issue laid out in Ecology's letter with the 125-foot buffer was it would require revegetation of the entire 110-foot buffer in response to any type of redevelopment which Ecology felt went the beyond compensatory mitigation obligation under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) in terms of ensuring the impacts associated with redevelopment are adequately mitigated. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Port currently has two large buildings with 30-40 year leases on the south end of their property. If the Council continued with the 125-foot buffer, nothing would prohibit the Council from developing the north portion of the property. Mr. Pater said the entire site in theory could be redeveloped. He has heard that the health club would possibly remain as a part of new development as an amenity to a mixed -use development. The buildings could continue as they exist but could not expand to encroach further into the marsh. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the type of development may need to change. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the environment over the years has already lost to development. She remembered when the marsh extended to Dayton and has seen pictures of it all the way through the Safeway property. The marsh has shrunk over time due to development. She liked Option A but asked if it changed the legal opinion. Mr. Taraday answered no, he disagreed with some of Ecology's analysis. The missing piece is an assumption is being made by Ecology that new development could occur on the marsh that would not trigger the no net loss standard and that it could be done in a buffer of less than 110 feet, yet there is no science to prove that. The standard is no net loss; neither Option A or B rely on the no net loss standard. The question is to what extent can the property be redeveloped and not have a net loss. If scientists say it can be done with a 50-foot buffer, great, but that science does not currently exist. Mr. Taraday explained Ecology is proposing a default buffer of 110 feet; if Option A were converted to say if scientists can show there can be no net loss with less than a I I0-foot buffer, that would be more Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 11 Packet Pg. 277 7.2.e consistent with the SMA than referencing the CAO that has nothing to do with the SMA. For example, a tennis court may have a very different impact on the marsh than a 3-story residential structure. While it is true the tennis court footprint already exists, that does not mean a 3-story building on that same footprint results in no net loss of habitat. He was disappointed in the analysis that has been done so far. Some flexibility could be built in so that when a development plan is proposed in the future, consideration is given to how close the development can get to the marsh and still have no net loss. There is no way to know that now which was why he was not sure an interim designation would help because that answer would not be provided until there was a development proposal. Mr. Burcar pointed out the footnote in Option B references no net loss. Mr. Taraday explained the standard he saw was the developer would have to demonstrate lift. Lift is the inverse of no net loss, putting the burden on the people interesting in preserving the marsh to demonstrate that it would improve. Mr. Burcar said these were suggestions for discussion. Mr. Pater reminded of the role of onsite mitigation when redevelopment is proposed. Depending on the proposal, the purpose of mitigation is to at a minimum bring it back to no net loss. For example, if there were a proposal to build a 10-story building on the wetland edge and keep the buffer, that would degrade the condition of the marsh. The site -specific study would determine how to mitigate impacts from development to achieve no net loss, depending on the study and the willingness of the property owner go beyond no net loss. He agreed it was foggy until development is proposed and a study is done. Mr. Taraday said it's possible a scientist could say a I I0-foot revegetated buffer is needed just to mitigate the impact of a new development. Mr. Pater agreed, pointing out it was also a possibility the scientist could say 50 feet was also adequate. That is the reason for the two options, one with reference to the CAO and the other referencing the conditional change. He summarized there are a lot of unknowns because the type of redevelopment that will occur is unknown. Councilmember Nelson commented the Council is hearing a lot of doom and gloom. As the author of the amendment to the CAO which is partially providing the option for a site -specific scientific study, the intent is for the science to speak for itself. Instead of one -size -fits -all generic buffers, the goal is to have a scientist determine what buffer makes the most sense. It is important to look to the science and where that science leads within these parameters whether it is up to 110 feet or as low as 50 feet. As far as this approach being common or not, having site -specific scientific studies has been included in other jurisdictions' SMPs. Mr. Burcar agreed it is very common. Mr. Pater said it is a more detailed approach to mitigation requirements in the SMP. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is all just speculation. She relayed the citizens and the Bothell City Council spent $11 million for a golf course that Forterra bought and plan to turn it into a natural area and WRIA 8 provided some funding. The Port's Master Plan does not include moving the tennis courts or the hotel, only the building housing the breweries, Blue Collar and the accountant. She anticipated redevelopment would not happen for a while because the Port just made a lot of improvements to Harbor Square. She cited projects that WRIA 8 has funded including the removal of mobile home parks to allow free flowing water. Many cities have supported their environments using BAS to ensure its preservation for future generations. She recommended the Council only consider Option A. Council President Mesaros said Option A would allow for even a 10-foot buffer if the science supported it. Mr. Burcar agreed there is no required dimension. Council President Mesaros said Option B does not allow the buffer to be below 50 feet and would be more restrictive in protecting the marsh. Mr. Burcar said the intent with Option A was a lot of jurisdictions want consistent provisions in the CAO and the SMP because development often deals with both. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 12 Packet Pg. 278 7.2.e Council President Mesaros asked about the process for Council to provide a response to Ecology by March 30, 2017. Mr. Lien said he was looking for Council reaction. Staff could prepare a third alternative that combines Option A and B for consideration at the February 7 or 14 Council meeting. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR JOINT FUNDING OF THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this is the latest iteration of the agreement with Lynnwood that has been in place for a long time; Steve Fisher has been the City's Solid Waste/Recycling Coordinator for the past 20 years. The proposed Interlocal Agreement extends that for the next biennium. The funding remains the same with grants that Edmonds and Lynnwood receive. The difference between the total cost and the grants is paid by the Water Utility as Mr. Fisher works on water conservation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled a few years ago the Council passed a motion to have all City - owned building participate in recycling. It was her understanding that was not happening in all City - owned buildings. Mr. Williams recalled the motion included the ability for facilities staff to use up materials. When the City contracts with building tenants, they are encouraged to use appropriate recyclable or made from recycled materials products. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Recycling Coordinator observe buildings, noting there is a major building owned by the City that does not recycle. Mr. Williams offered to meet with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Fisher and facilities staff. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested providing training and resources to tenants . Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled an effort to co -locate recycling containers downtown. Mr. Williams recalled the conversation but did not recall any action. Council President Mesaros said there are some recycling containers downtown. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said garbage cans should be co - located with recycling containers. Mr. Williams offered to research but did not recall any specific action or a funding source to provide publicly owned recycling containers. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled there was a big push since she has been on the Council to have recycling containers co -located with garbage containers. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LYNNWOOD AND EDMONDS TO JOINTLY FUND THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR POSITION AND IMPLEMENT THEIR RESPECTIVE WASTE PREVENTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS, STARTING IN 2017 AND CONTINUING THROUGH JUNE OF 2019. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PRESENTATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE 2018 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT City Engineer Rob English explained in November 2016 the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to hire a consultant to provide design engineering services for the 2018 and 2019 Waterline Replacement Projects. The City received responses from nine engineering firms and the selection committee selected Blueline based on their qualifications and experience. The proposed professional services agreement is for preliminary design and conceptual layout for 12 sites, approximately 11,000 lineal feet of pipeline replacement. From that, final design will be done on approximately 5,000 — 6,000 feet depending on the sites which is included in the scope of work. The scope of work includes related tasks such as geotechnical investigation, bid assistance and construction support. The total contract amount is $361,300 which includes a management reserve of $32,800 for unforeseen conditions and changes. The fee related to design services will be paid by the Water Utility Fund. Staff will return to Council next year to amend the contract to complete final design for the remaining sites. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 24, 2017 Page 13 Packet Pg. 279 7.2.f pathogens as well as AED training. Staff is talking with Fire District 1 about servicing the AEDs and possibly getting more. Councilmember Nelson recognized there are some AEDs in the City but the problem is no one uses them. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Mayor Earling advised Council President Mesaros and he agreed the presentation and discussion would be held to the scheduled 30 minutes as further discussion is scheduled on a future meeting agenda. Senior Planner Kernen Lien reviewed: • Ecology proposed options o Option A Add a refence to the City's CAO 23.40.20C.4) ■ Requires a scientific study demonstrating functional isolation from critical area; ■ Would allow alternative buffer to be established based on site specific conditions = Minimum buffer width undefined o Option B • Established criteria to allow for a site specific assessment to determine buffer widths' • Require demonstration of lift to eco-functions • Limits buffer reduction to no less than 50 ft. • Staff -developed Option C o Combines elements of Ecology's Options A & B o Keeps Council 125/110 buffer as default o Alternate buffer may be approved through a shoreline conditional use permit process ■ Alternative buffer cannot be less than 50 fee o Criteria from interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis o Site specific analysis shall address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions. • Option C and No Net Loss Criteria o WAC 173-25-201(2)(e) ...does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions... o Site specific study may result in smaller buffer or lager buffer depending on the impact of a proposed development to achieve no net loss • Next Steps o Scheduled on Council Extended Agenda on February 21 and March 7 o Response to Ecology by March 30, 2017 Council President Mesaros asked how Option C differed from Options A and B and whether the criteria for interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis was the key difference. Mr. Lien explained the interrupted buffer provision does not have a minimum buffer requirement. The criteria from the interrupted buffer is used but also establishes a minimum buffer, it cannot be less than 50 feet and that 50 feet would have a 15-foot building setback. Council President Mesaros said that is also in Option B. Mr. Lien agreed that was also in Option B; 50 feet is what Ecology included in their required change. Option B has a range of 125 to 65 or 110 to 50 feet. Council President Mesaros referred to public comments regarding the SMP; Ms. Petso stated the buffer cannot be reduced by State law; either she is correct or the City is correct, but the Council needs to determine who's correct and move forward with confidence. Mr. Shaw recommended having an unbiased study; Council President Mesaros hoped all the studies the City requires are unbiased and if there is Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 280 7.2.f evidence that biased studies are being done, that should be stopped. The third comment was from Ms. Bloom regarding development and potential contradictions between the CAO and the SMP. With regard to Ms. Bloom's comments regarding liquefaction and allowed activities, Mr. Lien explained allowed activity in the CAO context basically means a critical areas report is not required, it is something that is allowed outright. In the section Ms. Bloom referenced, 23.80.040 states the following activities are allowed in geologically hazardous areas and do not require submission of critical areas report; that is related to an allowed activity in the CAO. Exempting that section from the SMP means a study will automatically be required and the use is not allowed outright. With regard to independent studies, Mr. Lien explained typically the developer pays for the studies because they are proposing the development. The City can have those studies peer reviewed and has done that for some areas. The City can also do a third -party contract whereby the City selects the consultant and the developers pays for it. He assured the City was not doing biased studies. With regard to Dr. Senderoffls comment regarding adding language to the criteria related to light and noise, Mr. Lien said that is already captured in the existing and potential wildlife habitat and the pre and post development condition; light, noise, etc. are types of activities that impact habitat and species. Councilmember Tibbott asked to what extent the CAO informs the SMP and to what extent do the regulations overlap in the shoreline. Mr. Lien responded that is a difficult question to answer. The critical area regulations are an outgrowth of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the SMP is from the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the two do not necessarily work together. The City's SMP adopted large sections of the critical areas regulation, those that apply in shoreline areas and excepted certain some things out such as allowed activities in geologically hazardous area. With regard to buffers and setbacks in the UMUIV environment, the buffers and setback that are being established by the Council now or via a future site specific study will rule in the UMUIV environment versus the wetland buffers established in the CAO. What is established here will rule in the UMUIV environment but for geologically hazardous areas, streams, etc. in shorelines, those regulations apply. If there are other wetlands along the shorelines, the critical area regulations apply. He summarized it was a complex relationship. Whatever the Council establishes for the buffers and setbacks will apply in the UMUIV environment. Councilmember Tibbott was glad to hear there were very specific guidelines for SMP areas. The City is on the verge of making a commitment to establish a 125-foot buffer around the marsh which in effect is a seizure of property from the property owners. Some of property owners do not care such as BNSF; other owners do care and they are significant stakeholder in how the marsh is managed. For that reason it was very important be clear when a site specific study is done in the future that it can be measured against something very specific. Because the City is asking property owners to surrender a portion of their property for an extended buffer, the City also needs to be clear about the activities they can use to recoup their costs as well as pay for vegetation of the property. In order to recoup the costs, there need to be opportunities such as more taxation or grants to fund revegetation or the possibility of commercial development. (Councilmember Johnson discontinued her participation by phone.) Councilmember Teitzel referred to the interrupted buffer in Option A and C, commenting since stormwater from Harbor Square runs off into the marsh today in at least two places, how can the buffer between the marsh and Harbor Square be considered interrupted. There seems to be a functional connection between the two by virtue of stormwater running directly from the parking lot into the marsh through the levy. Mr. Lien answered that may be the case. Whether there is an interrupted buffer would be determined by a qualified professional. There are some physical connections between the Harbor Square property and the marsh with stormwater pipes. Ecology was looking at the dike between the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 281 7.2.f Harbor Square property and the marsh and the sheet flow. Due to the stormwater pipes, it may not meet the interrupted buffer requirement but that would be determined by the study. Councilmember Teitzel appreciated the work done to develop Option C and felt it made sense; to consider the full range of options and have a site specific study done. He posed a hypothetical: a site specific study is done when redevelopment is proposed. Based on the conditions on the ground and BAS, the study determines the number should be 75 feet. He personally liked the concept of incentive based zoning where the developer is provided achievable goals such as rooftop raingarden in exchange for some reduction in the buffer. In his hypothetical example where the study determined the buffer should be 75 feet, he asked whether the City could require a buffer of 90 or 100 feet and provide reasonable achievable incentives for the developer to reduce the buffer to 75 feet. Mr. Lien answered the criteria to focus on is no net loss, what development is proposed and the type of mitigation required to achieve no net loss. In Option C, no net loss is the requirement that must be met, not incentives for development to reduce the buffer but the buffer for a specific type of development, given the criteria and what mitigation is required to achieve that no net loss requirement. Councilmember Teitzel suggested the site specific study using BAS and considering all the factors on the ground found 75 feet satisfied no net loss. He asked if there was anything that prevented the City from requiring 90 feet and to provide incentives to the developer to reduce it to 75 feet. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered that is a complex question; it gets to the fundamental question of whether the City can only regulate to the extent of no net loss which is a point of contention between he and Ecology. A clear answer could not be provided to Councilmember Teitzel's question because there is a dispute regarding that question. Ms. Hope said the other challenge would be having the study done and then changing the rules which would be difficult from a regulatory point of view. Councilmember Nelson asked about the property owners, relaying to his knowledge there was Chevon, BNSF, WSDOT and the Port. Mr. Lien agreed although WSDOT is not yet a property owner. Councilmember Nelson relayed his understanding that typically the developer does the site specific study but they are sometimes peer reviewed and there can be a third party contract where the City selects the contractor. He asked who makes the selection. Mr. Lien answered in peer review, if there are questions with a study's findings, it can be send to another qualified professional for review. With a third party contract, the City selects the consultant and the developer pays for it. Sometimes the director is involved or the City already has professionals on the Small Work Roster. Councilmember Nelson asked about Ecology's role in the site specific process. Mr. Lien answered in all three options, an alternative buffer is allowed with a Shoreline CUP. In that process, the City's Hearing Examiner approves or denies the permit. For a shoreline CUP or variance permit, Ecology has the final say; the Hearing Examiner makes a recommendation to Ecology. Councilmember Teitzel observed a site specific study would be done at the time a redevelopment plan was proposed, not before. Mr. Lien said in order to assess no net loss, there needs to be a development proposal to analyze the post development conditions. Harbor Square and the Unocal property are both master planned development sites; a master plan could be done through the master planning process or via a planned action SEPA. A site specific study could be done at the planning process stage, not a specific development proposal, because the zoning would need to be changed, the master plan prepared but the shoreline CUP and the site specific study would be done on the proposed development or the planned action SEPA. As long as the proposal meets what is described in the planned action, it could proceed. Ms. Hope said conceptually at that stage the design and general configuration and uses are known but not the design detail. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Nee 9 Packet Pg. 282 7.2.f Councilmember Teitzel recalled hearing during public comment a suggestion to do studies to determine habitat and declining bird species in the marsh. He asked what a study done now would look like, who would pay for it and whether it should be done now in the context of the SMP. Ms. Hope answered any study that would be done now would be paid for by the City as there is no nexus to make someone else pay for a study not associated with a proposed development. A study done now would also not be able to assess the impacts and mitigation options absent a development proposal. Councilmember Teitzel observed if a study was done now and a development proposal was made in three years, there would be a large gap in time. He asked how that would consider pre and post development conditions. Ms. Hope agreed that would be problematic. Council President Mesaros asked Mr. Taraday to comment on Ms. Petso's statement that the Council cannot legally reduce the size of the buffer. Mr. Taraday answered he would rather not comment on it publicly. He suspected this matter will end up in litigation regardless of what happens so it was more appropriate to discuss risks of possible actions in executive session as matter of potential litigation. If a study was done before a development plan, Councilmember Tibbott asked whether it would be in the Port's best interest not to do any improvements such as let non-native vegetation take over and leave the property the way it is until a pre -study is needed. He envisioned any improvement done on that side of the marsh would ultimately count against the Port at the time of development. Ms. Hope said there were probably pros and cons. While one could say over the last many years things have deteriorated in certain areas near the marsh, the information needed is the measure relate to no net loss and what does the scientific information reveals. The area is maintained reasonably well; stormwater is a continuing issue. Meanwhile there are other improvements planned for the marsh that will help improve the quality regardless. Even though there may be some good points about having a study done now, there are also disincentives for doing it now without knowing the potential project. Councilmember Tibbott commented deferring improvements would be advantageous for future developers. Ms. Hope answered maybe, maybe not. Maybe not because what else might occur there to improve condition from the existing conditions is unknown. Councilmember Tibbott envisioned it would be a disincentive to improve the area around the marsh in light of a future site specific study. Ms. Hope answered it could be but it was not guaranteed to be an incentive or disincentive. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 3. CITY COUNCIL MEETING FORMAT AND POTENTIAL COMMITTEE STRUCTURE (Councilmember Johnson resumed her participation by phone.) Council President Mesaros explained this is a follow-up to discussion at the retreat where the Council considered reinstating Council committees. He referred to information in the Council packet, advising Legislative/Council Assistant Andrew Pierce, City Attorney Jeff Taraday, City Clerk Scott Passey and he met to discuss the format. The first issue is reaffirming the committees; three are proposed, 1) Finance, 2) Parks, Planning & Public Works, and 3) Public Safety & Personnel. He referred to a draft description of each committee in the Council packet and suggested if the Council agreed with those three committees, each committee could review the draft description and bring it back to Council for final review and approval. Another options would be for the Council to approve the description and the committees could suggest amendments if necessary. Council President Mesaros explained the second issue is how often the committees will meet and the format. He referred to an email from staff with suggestions/ideas, explaining originally, committees met on the second Tuesday of the month. The downside of that option is meeting once a month can cause delays for staff. An option to address that includes not having committees review items if time does not Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 7, 2017 Paize 10 Packet Pg. 283 7.2.g • Condition 5 — Monetary Compensation o Westgate has submitted a check for $92,610 which is one-half of the appraised value of the area to be vacated • Condition 6 & 7 - Fire Safety o Acknowledge fire access easement if necessary with future development o Acknowledge rotating of fire hydrant if the vacated 92nd Ave becomes unusable, blocked or removed thereby denying emergency access o Westgate Chapel has acknowledged both of these conditions • Conditions of Resolution of Intent No. 1375 have been met • Draft ordinance in agenda packet to complete the vacation o Staff recommends Council approval of the ordinance COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4061, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, VACATING THAT PORTION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST LYING SOUTH OF 228TH STREET SOUTHWEST AS SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT NO. 1375. Councilmember Teitzel referred to a citizen comment expressing concern with the required compensation when vacating the property to the church is beneficial to the public. He asked why the City was requiring compensation to vacate the property, how the amount was determined and if there was precedent for charging for vacations such as this. Mr. Lien answered the City's vacation ordinance allows the City to seek monetary compensation of up to half the assessed value; the State ordinance allows the City to seek full compensation. During the public hearing or adoption of the resolution of intent, he recalled City Attorney Jeff Taraday stating the monetary compensation was one the aspects that made the vacation in the public interest. He displayed how the monetary compensation was determined: • Appraisal based on multi -family as a highest and best use o Pre -vacation ■ 171,191 square feet ■ 114 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone) ■ Appraised value of $2,166,000 o Post Vacation ■ 191,514 square feet ■ 127 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone) ■ Appraised Value $2,355,000 o Difference in appraised value of $189,000 0 2281h Street alignment adjustment reduced compensation to $92,000 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, TEITZEL, NELSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO. 3. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Mayor Earling advised Council discussion would be limited to 30 minutes. Senior Planner Kernen Lien advised Council has seen three options, two options proposed by Ecology and one prepared by staff. Staff is not seeking a decision tonight, just discussion regarding potential options and an opportunity to respond to Council questions. Councilmember Johnson commented the main problem with the three options presented to Council is they are based on a static analysis, a scientific analysis at a given point in time and do not included the longer range planned improvements for the Edmonds Marsh. It excludes daylighting of Willow Creek, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 19 Packet Pg. 284 7.2.g removal of the tide gate, dredging of a new stream channel, Marina Beach and removal of sediment from the culvert under SR-104. To be useful, any analysis must include a projection of planned improvement for Edmonds Marsh. Option A is based in part on the interrupted buffer concept found in the COA, an exception that was created to allow for the spray pad in City Park for an area that was physically separated and functionally isolated, later called an interrupted buffer. Harbor Square does not fit that categorization. There also appears to be confusion about where the buffer begins. Staff has said for planning purposes, the edge of the manmade berm serves that purpose; however, the State statue refers to high water mark at the edge of the salt tolerant plants which may change over time. It is imperative there be undisputed agreement regarding where the buffer begins to avoid problems in the future. Councilmember Johnson supported having the City Council included in the final determination. The Port has adopted a Harbor Square Master Plan that is inconsistent with the contract rezone and focuses on a disallowed use and heights that are above what is allowed. She questioned why the City Council and Ecology would want a smaller buffer when it is the edges where wildlife live, build nests, find safety and rear their young. She did not support Options A, B or C. The City Council said they wanted a 110 foot buffer and a 15 foot setback and that should be what the Council stands on. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that if the Council moved forward with the 125-foot buffer/setback, there was no obligation to revegetate the buffer until redevelopment of properties associated with the marsh occurred. He asked what redevelopment plan would trigger the railroad to revegetate the buffer on the west side. Mr. Lien displayed an aerial photograph illustrating the shoreline environments around the marsh. The buffers and setbacks the Council has been discussing apply to the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) IV shoreline environment located on the south and north sides of the marsh and the Willow Creek outlet. Along the City's shoreline there is a parallel shoreline designation for the railroad right-of-way; the railroad right-of-way has its own designation and is not in UMU IV. The opposite side of the railroad is UMU II Shoreline Conservancy follows the Willow Creek outlet and the marsh itself is a Natural Shoreline environment. With regard to when the buffer would be established in the UMU IV environments, in all three options as well as the I I0-foot buffer and 15-foot setback require establishment of the buffer with redevelopment. In this area it will be via a master planning process because the south side of the marsh is an MP2 zone which requires it be developed with a master plan which requires Council review and approval. Any redevelopment of Harbor Square also requires a master plan process. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding there was no obligation to revegetate the buffer on the south or north sides unless there was a master plan process. Mr. Lien clarified redevelopment would trigger revegetation of the buffer. The version that the Council sent to Ecology previously said the buffer has to be established via implementation of the master plan. It could also be voluntarily established by the property owners outside a master plan project. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the City would work with an entity that wanted to voluntarily revegetate the buffer. Mr. Lien answered yes. Councilmember Tibbott summarized the City would work with a property owner who wanted to voluntarily establish the buffer; but there was no obligation otherwise. Mr. Lien said the buffer was only required to be revegetated via implementation of a master plan associated with redevelopment. Councilmember Tibbott asked what would trigger revegetation of the buff on the railroad side. Mr. Lien said there is no requirement in the SMP to establish a vegetated buffer on the railroad side. He found it highly unlikely and was uncertain a vegetated buffer could be establish since he had never even seen a weed growing along the railroad track. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was a trigger to revegetate the buffer on the east side of the marsh where the highway exists. Mr. Lien explained when the marsh was determined to be a shoreline of state, consideration was given to what portions of the marsh were salt tolerant or tidal influenced. He displayed aerials of the marsh from 1870 to 1964, explaining when the marsh was designated a shoreline of the state which widened the shoreline jurisdiction, consideration was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 20 Packet Pg. 285 7.2.g given to the extent of the salt marsh boundary. He referred to the line that identified the extent of the salt marsh boundary in a survey of the marsh done by WSDOT in 2008 during planning for the Edmonds Crossing project. For planning purposes the boundary was established at the 2006 level that is approximately the same as the marsh survey. The shoreline jurisdiction extends 200 feet landward of the OHWM. Only the western portion of the marsh is a shoreline of the state and the shoreline jurisdictions extends 200 feet beyond that. The rest of the marsh is called an associated wetland. The marsh itself is within shoreline jurisdiction but shoreline jurisdiction does not extend 200 feet beyond the marsh; it ends at the marsh boundary. Development beyond the marsh is subject to critical area regulations and not the SMP. Within shoreline jurisdiction, the SMP rules; outside shoreline jurisdiction, the CAO rules. Councilmember Tibbott asked for example if inside the 200 foot jurisdiction a business in Harbor Square wanted to add a grain tower, would any mitigation would be required assuming it was outside the buffer. Mr. Lien answered given the constraints of Harbor Square's contract rezone, nothing else can be added. To do anything else will require rezoning the property and a master planning process. What exists at Harbor Square now is the extent of what can exist given the contract rezone. Councilmember Tibbott asked about a shade shelter over an existing paved area. Mr. Lien answered the contract rezone and the EIS for the contract rezone evaluated a specific square footage. Development at Harbor Square is already slightly over that square footage so nothing can be added. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the new Ecology wetland guidelines address no net loss. David Pater, Ecology, answered yes, that was one of the big differences. Mr. Lien said the wetland guidelines are CAO guidance from Ecology. Critical area regulations are under the Growth Management Act and neither include no net loss criteria and instead have BAS criteria. Whereas the SMA and the SMP criteria includes no net loss, it is a different regulatory regime. Mr. Pater said there is some language in the SMP about equivalency between the two. Councilmember Buckshnis commended Councilmember Johnson for her comments. She agreed with Mr. Scordino's comments about Option D. She cited some of the myriad questions the Council has received from the public: • The Council adopted the SMP and now Ecology is making the Council reexamine it. According to WAC, Ecology is required to accept or reject it. Is Ecology requiring the Council to reopen the SMP and establish new options illegal? • Where is the OHWM? Staff states it is where the marsh begins. Fish/wildlife biologists do not believe that is the edge. Need to have a definition of OHWM in the SMP. Mr. Lien said the definition of OHWM in the SMP is the same definition as exists in the SMA. Councilmember Buckshnis responded some people do not believe the OHWM is at the edge of the marsh • Ensure setback and buffer are defined properly and that there is a buffer and a setback and not a buffer/setback. • The Council should be involved in the development process and the scientific specific study should include daylighting of Willow Creek. Mr. Pater said he and Paul Anderson, Ecology, have exchanged emails with Joe Scordino regarding his concerns and had a conference call Friday about the high water mark. He and Mr. Anderson expressed their position regarding whether these issues are addressed in the Edmonds SMP. One of the challenges is every jurisdiction is expected to use the definition of OHWM in the SMA. That definition applies to a variety of situations in other shorelines including Lake Ballinger. Therefore it is difficult to craft a specific definition. They recommended to Mr. Scordino that the best way to tighten up the definition is to add language within Footnote 18 in the development standards table to focus on specific issues, the determination that will happen whenever a master planning process is triggered. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 21 Packet Pg. 286 Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Edmonds Marsh is not the same as Lake Ballinger; this is in regard to UMU IV and what is included in the future study needs to be specified. There is confusion on the OHWM; the definition is the edge of the salt tolerant plants which may change when the tidegate is removed and Willow Creek is daylighted. Mr. Pater answered that was the challenge with any restoration redevelopment; a lot of things may occur in the next 10-20 years around the Edmonds Marsh that could make it a much different place and improve ecology functions. Whenever those projects are triggered, the existing conditions need to be blended into what may be happening in the future but it shouldn't keep projects to improve the marsh from moving forward. Mr. Pater said when definitions that apply across the board are altered, they could be altered to address one thing but in the future that definition could create a problem for another project. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out this relates specifically to UMU IV. She agreed there could be problems with changing the definition but feared there could be problems on the other side related to size of the buffer. Mr. Pater suggested the Council determine the appropriate places in the SMP to be specific whether in the environment specific regulations or within Footnote 18. From a regulatory and implementation standpoint, local planners need to be able to readily find that information; it would be easier to find if it were more targeted to the areas of the SMP that are specific to the Edmonds Marsh. Councilmember Teitzel shared the concern about the uncertainty with the OHWM as a point for measuring the buffer. In addition to the potential changes mentioned, other events will increase saltwater intrusion into the marsh such as sea level rise and King Tides. He supported considering the edge of the berm as a starting point for measuring the buffer. He was aware that did not specifically comply with the WAC and asked if an exception could be created due to the unique situation in the marsh. Mr. Pater answered there is an opportunity to craft additional language that recognizes the uniqueness of the marsh including the overlap of fresh and salt water. Whenever a master planning process is triggered, the scientist conducting the site specific study will be considering a snapshot in time. He acknowledged the marsh was one of the more complex high water mark determinations in the City. He and Paul Anderson are comfortable with adding language to clarify that in the context of what is specific to the Edmonds Marsh, not the OHWM definition. Mr. Lien cautioned the marsh is a big issue with regard to UMU IV but there is also the Willow Creek outlet. Councilmember Teitzel observed the 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback have been debated a great deal. That buffer and setback is based on June 2016 Ecology guidance which was based on best available science at the time. That is not specific to the Edmonds Marsh and applies general statewide guidance to a unique situation. He supported moving ahead with a site specific requirement and favored Option B to determine what the buffer and setback should be to improve the function of the marsh. Council President Mesaros commented he enjoyed listening to the discussion and looked forward to further discussion at the March 7 meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she had no further comments and was tired of the repetitiveness of the discussion. Councilmember Tibbott asked who was responsible for stormwater at Harbor Square and on SR-104 under the current regulations. Mr. Lien answered he was not 100% sure as the stormwater in that area was complicated and responsible parties include WSDOT, the City, Harbor Square, etc. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported he was in Olympia last week at the AWC Conference. While he was there, both parties in both houses were beginning to polarize their talking points for the budget process. He met with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 22 Packet Pg. 287 7.2.h o Incorporated Verdant bike lane project for economy of scale • Project out to bid February 2017 o Opened bids March 2 o Received 5 bids, ranging from $4.43 million to $6.5 million o Engineer's estimate was $6.15 million (scope of work increased to include Verdant bike lane project) o Low bidder: Marshbank Construction who did Five Corners roundabout project o By comparison if the bike lane portion was removed from project, Marshbank's bid was $3.89 million, the same as the original engineer's estimate (without the bike lane project), a difference of $1.2 million from the June 2016 low bid • Staff reviewed bid documents and submitted to the State. o Expecting State concurrence by end of week. • Intent to bring the project back to Council next week with a recommendation to award the bid • Total project cost with bike lanes, soft costs and construction management and 10% management reserve approximately $6 million • Available funding $7.8 million • Staff will evaluate how the grants fit the work and provide that information to Council next week • Staff recommends bringing the project back to Council for further discuss and recommendation to award at next week's meeting Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the new/replaced impervious surfaces built as part of the project requires compliance with stormwater regulations, requiring a sizable contribution from the Stormwater Fund for this project. With the additional grant resources, it may be possible to reduce the contribution from the Stormwater Fund. He commented this project provided an interesting lesson on the timing of going out to bid; bidding this project earlier in the year worked out well. He recognized Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss for obtaining the $2 million grants. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this item on next week's agenda. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM 3. COUNCIL PROPOSED OPTION D TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Mayor Earling advised this item would be limited to 30 minutes. David Pater, Department of Ecology, was present to answer questions. Senior Planner Kemen Lien explained this is continued discussion on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Department of Ecology provided two options for Council consideration, A) based on interrupted buffer, and B) allowing a reduced buffer with a site -specific study. Staff developed Option C, a hybrid of Options A and B and an Option D has been proposed that will be presented by Councilmember Buckshnis. A public hearing is scheduled on March 21; tonight's discussion is intended to frame what will be considered at the public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis introduced Joe Scordino, retired fisheries biologist, formerly with NOAA, who assisted her with developing Option D. Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order. He said his comments were not meant to be pejorative to any party. He had significant concerns about the process by which Option D has been developed and brought forward. He had great respect for Mr. Scordino and appreciated what he has done and continues to do in support of the local environment. However, Mr. Scordino does not represent the City of Edmonds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2017 Page 14 Packet Pg. 288 7.2.h or Edmonds City Council; he represents a special interest group, Save Our Marsh, and in that capacity, has worked directly with Ecology to Option D. Mr. Scordino's February 24, 2017 email to Ecology includes his complete draft Option D, nearly identical to Option D outlined in the Agenda Memo for Item 8.3. Since Option D was developed and negotiated with Ecology by a special interest group authorized to represent neither the City nor the City Council, he said Option D was out of order. Following a ruling on the point of order, he was prepared to make a motion. Mayor Earling asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday for advice on ruling on the point of order. Mr. Taraday said there is no requirement that proposed legislation come from any particular source. Individual Councilmembers can draft it on their own, they can draft it with constituents or work with City staff. He recommended the point of order be overruled by the Chair. Mayor Earling overruled the point of order in accordance with Mr. Taraday's advice. Councilmember Buckshnis said regardless of the fact that Mr. Scordino wrote to Mr. Pater and Mr. Lien as one of her constituents and her scientific expert, she was always in the loop and offered opinions with regard to how Option D was framed. She presented the Option to the SMP: • At 2/21/17 meeting, Council Members Johnson and Buckshnis publicly stated that an additional option might be warranted. • Mr. Scordino, (a retired fisheries biologist) stated during public comment that an Option D was needed to address all the public concerns. • Many citizens commented about need for specificity in the site -specific study to provide unbiased information for future Councils and developers in the Urban Mixed Use IV area (UMU IV). • Council Member (CM) Buckshnis decided to work with Mr. Scordino on a DRAFT Option D. • Elaborate and detailed process using scientists to scientists for an option D ensues. (Thank -you DOE and Mr. Lien for working with us. Emails are attached.) • Simple Reason — why muddy the water when non-scientists start adding comments. • CM Buckshnis and Mr. Scordino discuss and finalize Option D based on email comments. • This option has a fixed II0-foot buffer for the UMU IV area at the Edmonds Marsh unless amended by the Council. • To ensure an unbiased and comprehensive study, the details for the conduct of the scientific site - specific study are specified in an Appendix C to the SMP. • The option clarifies the 110-foot buffer or alternate buffer (if approved by Council) start at wetland edge and the buffers would not be reduced or exempted by any SMP or CAO provisions (e.g., Appendix B or 24.40.020). • This option clarifies that the "buffer" is separate from the "setback" for structures, and that the 15-foot setback starts at the outer edge of the buffer. • This option has fixed 110-foot buffer for the UMU IV area at the Edmonds Marsh unless amended by the Council • To ensure an unbiased and comprehensive study, the details of the conduct of the scientific site specific study are specified in an Appendix C to the SMP 1. Modify the 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table and the footnote 18 which will follow [notice `buffer' line added]: Shoreline Development horeline Area Designation Vrban Mixed Use IV 11 Other Commercial and Light Industrial Development Shore Setback 15 Buffer 11018 [Recreation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2017 Page 15 Packet Pg. 289 7.2.h 2. 0 4. Shore Setback 15 Buffer 11018 Residential Development Shore Setback NA Buffer NA Transportation and Parkin Shore Setback 15 Buffer 11018 11 Other Development Shore Setback 15 Buffer 11018 • Footnote 18: o The UMU IV environment has a 110-foot buffer that starts at the outer edge of the Edmonds Marsh where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or at the wetland/upland edge. o A 110-foot vegetated buffer is required to be established when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the Edmonds Marsh. o On the west side of the Marsh, a vegetated buffer will be required between the railway right- of-way and the west edge of the Marsh if railroad tracks are added or modified in the railway area. o The Council may establish an alternate buffer width at the time of an approved master plan for development if the alternate buffer width is derived from a rigorous site -specific scientific study (specified in Appendix C) to determine the buffer necessary to protect properly functioning wetland/tideland habitat and its associated ecological functions. o When determining an alternate buffer derived from the site -specific study, the Council will adhere to the legal standards of the Shoreline Management Act and State guidelines. o The conduct of the scientific site -specific study will be in conformance with Appendix C to the SMP. o No buffer reductions or exemptions will apply to the I I0-foot buffer or alternate buffer for this UMU IV area Modify the definition of setback in 24.90.050 (A) to be: 24.90.050 A. "Shore setback" or "setback" means the minimum distance between a structure or use from the outer edge of a buffer, or from the edge of the shoreline if no buffer is required. Delete all CAO provisions that may reduce or exempt the SMP buffer for the Edmonds Marsh in Appendix B and/or in Section 24.40.020 of the SMP. This would include deleting in Appendix B sections 23.50.040 (G)(1) to (4) [Wetland Buffer Modifications], 23.50.040 (I) [Additions to structures], and 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer]; and 24.40.020 (F)(2)(e) [Additions to structures] . Add the following Appendix C to the SMP: Appendix C. Scope of Work for Site -Specific Scientific Study at the Edmonds Marsh [key points shown below] • The site -specific study, by professionals with field experience in wetland and wildlife science, is to provide comprehensive, site -specific scientific information that the Council will need to consider in approving an alternate buffer width for the Edmonds Marsh. • A report on the study results will be peer reviewed by at least three independent scientists having wetland/wildlife expertise before the report is presented to the Council and the public. • Wetlands and marshes provide three broad ecological functions that will each need to be evaluated by the site -specific study: 1) Biogeochemical functions; 2) Hydrologic functions and 3) Food web and habitat functions (more specifics provided in text). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2017 Page 16 Packet Pg. 290 7.2.h • Buffers provide for the protection and maintenance of wetland functions; thus the site -specific study will need to evaluate buffer widths adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh that will ensure effective buffer functions (and a long list is included) • Each of these buffer functions should be evaluated against past, present and projected future ecological functions of the Marsh as affected by proximity of development and/or other human activities, as well as future restoration efforts (e.g. Willow Creek Daylighting). • Because of the uniqueness of the Edmonds Marsh and the diversity of wildlife species that it supports, the site -specific study should include special focus on the life needs of the wildlife that use the Edmonds Marsh. • Because species' needs vary, the evaluation of wildlife needs for buffer zones should include: 1) Refuge/shelter; 2) Food; 3) Breeding habitat; 4) Nesting materials; and 5) Screening/distancing wildlife from human activities. • Assessing the Marsh's ecological function to provide habitat and food web for wildlife is the most critical component of this study for evaluating site -specific buffer widths that will preserve/protect ecological functions. Councilmember Buckshnis recommended adding Option D to the current work regarding the SMP for proper vetting and deliberation. Council President Mesaros referred to the addition to Appendix C, "Each of these buffer functions should be evaluated against past, present and projected future ecological functions of the Marsh as affected by proximity of development and/or other human activities, as well as future restoration efforts (e.g. Willow Creek Daylighting)" and asked if that meant if the scientific study said daylighting Willow Creek should not be done, then it would not be daylighted. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Willow Creek Daylighting project is at 60% design. Mr. Scordino explained this statement means if anticipated changes are occurring in the marsh such as the Willow Creek daylighting, the study must take into account how that will affect ecological functions in the marsh as well as any other activities that may occur such as development. Using Willow Creek daylighting as an example, Council President Mesaros asked who decides if the daylighting go forward. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council decides. Council President Mesaros said in reading this statement, a future restoration project may end up harming the balance within the marsh. Mr. Scordino clarified this statement is about evaluating functions against past, present and projected future functions, not that an activity can/cannot occur. If the saltwater was negatively affecting the ecological functions of the marsh, that would be noted in report. The report is a comprehensive review and evaluation of the ecological functions of marsh; the Council will use the report to make its decision. The report will not identify the buffer width; it will identify aspects that science revealed in the study that need to be considered in determining the final alternate buffer width. Councilmember Tibbott said Option D represents a vision for what the marsh could become and was a curious amalgamation of information. It represents a vison for the marsh but other parts of the community have not been involved in the vision statement. He felt Option D put the cart before the horse, particularly Appendix C. He asked for clarification that the 110-foot buffer was established on best available science (BAS). Mr. Lien answered the 110-foot buffer is from Ecology's 2016 Guidance on Critical Areas. In response to Councilmember Tibbott's reference to putting the cart before the horse, Councilmember Buckshnis said she has thousands of emails and public comments on this topic. Option D is an attempt to provide exactly what a future Council will need to make a decision. She referred to the amount of time she, the Council, Mr. Pater and Mr. Lien have spent on the SMP. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2017 Page 17 Packet Pg. 291 7.2.h Councilmember Tibbott said there the studies in Appendix C put forth a vision for more wildlife and more habitat than may/may not currently exist. Councilmember Buckshnis said it does exist. Councilmember Tibbott asked if it was already known that certain wildlife exists and that they need expanded habitat. Councilmember Buckshnis said per Dr. Alan Meares, there are 191 species of birds. Councilmember Tibbott asked if those birds need more habitat than currently exists and whether additional habitat would increase the number of species. While he appreciated the habitat studies in Appendix C, he did not think it was appropriate to specify habitat studies in the document because other habitat studies may need to be conducted or it may be appropriate have architectural design studies. He summarized Appendix C goes too far and puts the cart before the horse. Mr. Scordino explained the purpose of the site -specific study is to provide scientific information to the City Council regarding the appropriate buffer width for the Edmonds Marsh. Councilmember Tibbott said if the 110-foot buffer was BAS, why was a site -specific study needed. Councilmember Buckshnis said Ecology provided two options which opened the door for this option. The City provided Option C, she was providing Option D. Councilmember Teitzel said everyone agrees a site -specific study should be unbiased. However he was concerned that Option D Appendix C specifies the site specific study will need to reference and utilize the seven studies in the methodology analysis for evaluating buffer widths on each edge of the Edmonds Marsh. The unbiased vendor selected for the site specific study may/may not want to reference those studies. He was concerned the seven specific studies may steer the results of the study in a certain direction and may not be truly impartial. Councilmember Buckshnis said the language could be revised to state "but not limited to." Her intent tonight was to determine whether the Council wanted to add Option D to the public hearing and deliberations. Councilmember Teitzel emphasized whatever happened, the overarching goal should be an unbiased study. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the specifics would be discussed at a later date. She assured Councilmember Tibbott, Council President Mesaros and Councilmember Teitzel could not be convinced to embrace Option D. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO INCLUDE OPTION D FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. Councilmember Nelson commented all the options have a default buffer of approximately 110 feet; where the options deviate is the requirements to reduce the buffer. To the earlier comment about the Willow Creek Daylighting, he pointed out the definition of restoration is to enhance the ecological function. He expressed support for the motion. Council President Mesaros expressed surprise that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas knew how he would vote. He supported including Option D for consideration. He agreed with Councilmember Nelson that this discussion was not what the buffer should be, there was a universal sense that 110 feet and 15-foot setback was appropriate, the issue was the portion of the marsh that borders Harbor Square. It has always been his contention that a 25-foot buffer is almost guaranteed due to the placement of the buildings and he found it difficult to vote for something that guaranteed a 25 foot buffer. He was eager to consider the four options and was keeping an open mind regarding which option would best serve the City. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas apologized for making an assumption based on the letter sent to Ecology. She was pleased that Council President Mesaros was interested in considering Option D. Councilmember Teitzel offered an amendment to Footnote 18 related to Option C that addresses many of the issues and concerns that the Friends of the Marsh have expressed, clearly defines where the buffer starts and ends, requires Council preapproval of the vendor to complete the site -specific study, discusses how the study would be part of the CUP process, outlines factors to be add addressed in the study without Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2017 Page 18 Packet Pg. 292 7.2.h interjecting bias. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, pointing out the motion was in regard to including Option D in the public hearing. Councilmember Teitzel agreed to hold his comment. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis invited amendments to Option D, noting Mr. Pater and Mr. Lien have raised some issues that will be addressed. She clarified Mr. Scordino was representing himself, not Save Our March. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD AN AMENDED FOOTNOTE 18 RELATED TO OPTION C TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN. SMP. Copies of the amended Footnote 18 were distributed to Council and Councilmember Teitzel read the amended Footnote 18: Within the Urban Mixed Use IV environment, a default 110 foot vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the marsh in addition to a 15 foot setback from the landward edge of the vegetative buffer for a total default margin (buffer and setback combined) of 125 feet. The vegetative buffer shall begin at the edge of the wetland boundary of the Edmonds Marsh (e.g., the waterward edge of the existing earthen berm at the margins of the Marsh) and/or the Willow Creek outlet of the marsh. An alternative buffer width may be established after an impartial and comprehensive site -specific environmental study of Marsh ecological and wildlife habitat functions is completed to assess the effects of a redevelopment proposal (note: Edmonds City Council shall preapprove the vendor selected by the developer to perform the study) . The study results must be approved as a component of the shoreline conditional use permit review when the redevelopment proposal is considered. The alternative buffer must result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and values. Existing conditions shall be used as the baseline for assessing no net loss and the site -specific environmental study shall address hydrologic factors, geologic factors, and the existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions. The alternative buffer shall be no less than 50 feet, and the 15 foot setback will be incremental to the buffer. Pursuant to WAC 173- 26-201(2)(e), the default buffer may be increased if the analysis of environmental impacts indicates that an increase is necessary to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The buffer established pursuant to the site -specific scientific study outlined above may not be reduced unless fully supported by an updated site -specific scientific study. The default II0 foot buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the amendment separated the buffer from the setback. Councilmember Teitzel answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis said that would require additional language. Councilmember Teitzel clarified the setback would be incremental to the buffer. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the buffer would be 110 feet and the setback would be 15 feet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the statement, the alternative buffers shall be no less than 50 feet and the 15-foot setback will be incremental to the buffer, meant. Councilmember Teitzel answered that meant the buffer starts at the waterward side of the earthen berm on the north side and 15 feet was landward of the 50 feet for a total of 65 feet. Councilmember Johnson asked if the amendment was only for the purpose of the public hearing. Councilmember Teitzel said this would amend the footnote in Option C and if adopted, would obviate the need for Option D. Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed, pointing out the definition of setback and buffer would need to be modified which was not included in amendment. If that was not done, she would not support the amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified Option D includes modifying the definition of setback consistent with Ecology. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2017 Page 19 Packet Pg. 293 7.2.h Councilmember Teitzel suggested the Council adopt the amendment and it could be further amended after the public hearing. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND TEITZEL AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO. 4. INITIATION OF REZONE FOR PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT REZONE R-97-28 (CONTRACT RS-8 TO RS-12) Senior Planner Kernen Lien displayed a map of area, identifying the site in Perrinville across from the Post Office and a City owned parcel. He described: • Site history: 0 1996: Street Map Amendment and Street Vacation (ST-96-77 and ST-96-78) 0 1997: Contract Rezone (R-97-28) RS-12 to RS-8 0 2001: City Initiates Rezone from RS-8 back to RS-12 (R-01-168) ■ Settlement Agreement for PRD Submittal 0 2004: Site designated Single Family - Resource 0 2005: Angler's Crossing Plat/PRD (P-05-136 and PRD-05-137) 0 2017: Subdivision expired January 2017Changes since 1997 Changes since 1997 o Planned Residential Develop Code Changes ■ Requires 10% Usable Open space ■ Cannot count critical areas for usable open space requirement o Comprehensive Plan ■ Single Family — Resource ■ Compatible Zones — RSW-12, RS-12 and RS-20 ■ Current RS-8 zoning inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Mr. Lien displayed a Comprehensive Plan map identifying the Single -Family - Resource, Single Family - Urban 3 (RS-10) and Single Family — Urban 1 (RS-8) designations. He reviewed: • Procedural history was for a specific development that has expired • Changes to the development code • Changes to Comprehensive Plan make RS-8 not consistent • Recommend initiating rezone from contract RS-8 back to RS-12 • Current property owner amenable to a rezone Development Services Director Shane Hope clarified the Council was not deciding tonight whether to approve the rezone, only whether to start the process. The process includes review and public hearing by the Planning Board and a recommendation to the City Council who makes final decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the difference RS-8 and RS-12. Mr. Lien explained RS is single family residential, RS-8 is a 8,000 square foot minimum lot size and RS-12 is a 12,000 square foot minimum lot size. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the CAO required 30% native vegetation in RS-12. Mr. Lien answered that was a requirement in RS-12 and RS-20 but not in RS-8. Councilmember Tibbott asked why RS-20 was not considered for that area due to the topography. Mr. Lien displayed a map illustrating the zoning for the surrounding areas; RS-8, RS-10 and RS-12. A rezone Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 7, 2017 Page 20 Packet Pg. 294 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REDUCE THE FEE FOR PEDESTRIAN SIGNS FROM $135 + $35 TO $75 + $35. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND NELSON VOTING NO. 2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the purpose of the public hearing is the four options for the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) IV environment, basically the area around the Edmonds Marsh. He identified similarities between all options: • Default buffer of 110 feet with 15-foot setback • Mechanism for establishing alternative buffer Mr. Lien outlined the options: Ecology Option A • Add a reference to the interrupted buffer provision in the critical area regulations (ECDC 23.40.220.C.4) in footnote 18 Notes that an alternative buffer may be established with a shoreline conditional use permit consistent with ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 provides an exemption from prescribed buffer width if site is proven to be functionally isolated from a stream or wetland Two potential results o Determined to be functionally isolated and exempt from buffer requirements o Not functionally isolated and the 110-foot buffer and 15-foot setback apply o Does not provide for an alternative buffer Ecology Option B • Establishes buffer between 110 and 50 feet • Buffer established through a shoreline conditional use permit process • Buffer based on "potential ecological lift" and "no net loss of ecological function" • Lacks detailed criteria for consideration of site specific study to establish alternative buffer • Conflicting terms in "potential ecological lift" and "no net loss of ecological function" Staff Developed Option C • Combines elements of Ecology's Options A & B • Keeps Council 110 buffer/15-foot setback as a default, and establishes minimum buffer of 50 feet • Criteria from interrupted buffer provision used for site specific analysis • Site specific study shall address hydrologic, geologic, and the existing and potential wildlife habitat of pre and post development conditions • Could be modified to specifically note where buffer begins Citizen Developed Option D — Part 1 • Modify Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Table to list buffer and shore setback separately • Modify footnote 18 o Note where buffer begins, "where the presence and action of waters are common and usual or at the wetland/upland edge" o Require buffer between railway right-of-way and marsh • "Shore setback" to "building setback" Railway right-of-way Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 6 Packet Pg. 295 o Extends up to edge of marsh o City owns marsh next to railway right-of-way o Mixing requirements for different shoreline jurisdictions Option D — Part 2 • Modify definition of setback in 24.90.050 A. "Shore setback" or "setback" means the minimum distance between a structure or use from the outer edge of a buffer, or from the edge of the shoreline if no buffer is required. • Has broader implications • Suggest adding definition for "building setback" Option D — Part 3 • Delete provisions from CAO Appendix B related to buffer reductions or exemptions • 23.50.040 (G)(1) to (4) [Wetland Buffer Modifications], 23.50.040 (I) [Additions to structures], and 23.40.220 (C)(4) [Interrupted wetland buffer]; and 24.40.020 (F)(2)(e) [Additions to structures] . • Has broader implications Option D — Part 4 • Add Appendix C — Scope of Work for Site -Specific Study • Unbiased study • If Council wants an Appendix C, should be limited to items to include in the study and criteria for analysis Peer review — suggest City select consultant for study Requires analysis of past conditions, o SMP standard of no net loss of ecological function is based on existing conditions Mr. Lien described: • Council Review o Options A — C note a shoreline conditional use permit (Hearing Examiner recommendation to Ecology); Option D notes Council approval of alternative buffer o Both sides of marsh subject to master plan approval ■ Council approve master plan then development proposal goes through shoreline conditional use permit process; or ■ Council approve master plan and SMP amendment Next Steps o Public Hearing Tonight o Council Extended Agenda ■ March 28th o Response to Ecology by March 30, 2107 o If not meet March 30, 2017 deadline, notify Ecology City will respond by April 30, 2017 Mr. Lien referred to letters provided to Council from the Washington State Ferries (WSF) received last Friday and from Chevron received today, both raising concerns about the potential impacts the amendments could have on the future Edmonds Crossing located on the old Unocal site. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the letter from WSF which states they and the City have spent a lot of planning time and funds developing the Edmonds Crossing project and the City has included it in the Comprehensive Plan. In their letter, WSF requested clarity regarding the City's commitment and ongoing interest in creating that multimodal facility. He asked Mr. Lien to clarify the impacts that a 110-foot buffer in UMU IV would have on that project. Mr. Lien displayed a drawing of the Edmonds Crossing from the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), identifying the Edmonds Marsh, an existing stormwater Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 7 Packet Pg. 296 pond and parking and transit elements of Edmonds Crossing. He displayed the Edmonds Crossing drawing overlaid on an aerial photo, identifying shoreline jurisdiction and explaining the setback from the marsh will not really impact the Edmonds Crossing project because shoreline jurisdiction extends only to the edge of the existing stormwater pond. The impact would be from the Willow Creek outlet which is currently culverted if buffers and setbacks are expanded. The Edmonds Crossing parking and transit turnaround would be impacted by the Willow Creek outlet. Councilmember Tibbott asked how far the edge of the marsh is to Edmonds Crossing. Mr. Lien identified shoreline jurisdiction, 200 feet from the edge of the marsh, basically the edge of the existing stormwater pond. The Willow Creek outlet and its setback will impact the Edmonds Crossing project. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to emails she received today about an Ecology recommended 100 foot buffer and 15-foot setback. The closest thing to that is Option B where Ecology recommended 50-foot buffer and 65-foot setback. She wondered where the 15-foot setback came from. Mr. Lien said he had not seen the emails Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was referring to. Ecology's initial recommendations last year was a 50-foot buffer with a 15-foot setback for a total of 65 feet. The two options Ecology has now proposed are Option A, a I I0-foot buffer with a 15-foot setback and Option B which established a buffer between 110 feet and 50 feet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified the 50-foot buffer and 15-foot setback was the old Ecology recommendation. Mr. Lien answered yes, now Ecology is proposing Options A and B. Councilmember Buckshnis commented in the presentation she gave with the assistance of Joe Scordino, she had issues with the railroad and three peer reviews. She noted this was not the first time the City has received letters from WSF and/or Unocal regarding the SMP. She recalled WSDOT favored a 100-foot buffer in 2013. Mr. Lien agreed WSDOT has submitted a number of letters over the years; they all have been consistent in their concern how this may impact the Edmonds Crossing project. One of their letters that mentioned the 100-foot buffer was sent to Ecology during Ecology's comment period. That was essentially what WSDOT proposed in the Edmonds Crossing EIS from the edge of the marsh. They showed that buffer for the Willow Creek outlet; in the Edmonds Crossing project they identified daylighting Willow Creek as mitigation. Assuming the Edmonds Crossing won't happen in the next 20-30 years, Willow Creek likely will be daylighted by then and will not be part of the mitigation. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned why the Marina Beach master plan was prepared if WSDOT is still planning for Edmonds Crossing. She referred to another email from WSDOT stating they are really not considering Edmonds Crossing. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the definitions of setback and buffer, pointing out Anacortes has separate definitions for buffer and setback. She recalled a few years ago Edmonds combined them so that the buffer and setback occurred at the same point of origin. She noted that is causing some of the confusion; in most literature, buffers and setbacks are separated. Ecology originally recommended a 50- foot buffer and 15-foot setback, referred to as the 65 50. Option D includes a definition of setback. Mr. Lien explained there is a shore setback definition. Changing the definitions to have shore setback and setback mean the same thing has implications. For those places in the table that have shore setback, there is also a buffer required due to a wetland or stream; the setback from the buffer for the Shoreline Residential 3 will be 35 feet. That was why he suggested adding a definition for building setback. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has reviewed numerous SMPs, many have separate buffer and setback definitions. Mr. Lien said there is a buffer definition. For Councilmember Teitzel, Mr. Lien confirmed the railroad right-of-way extends to the edge of the marsh and there is no place to establish a buffer between the railroad right-of-way and the marsh. The City of Edmonds owns most of marsh; a small sliver belongs to the Port. If the City chose, it could improve the marsh without a requirement in the SMP. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 8 Packet Pg. 297 With regard to where the railroad right-of-way touches the marsh, Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the City or Ecology would have any legal standing to require the railroad establish a buffer within their right-of-way. Mr. Taraday referred to Mr. Lien's statement that there is no space for a buffer; even if there were physical space, it was his understanding that that was a different shoreline environment, not UMU IV that is being discussed tonight so it would require a different amendment to the SMP. Councilmember Teitzel concluded for tonight's purposes the railroad discussion can be set aside and he recommended that be removed from Option D. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Fred Gouge, President Port of Edmonds Commission, submitted the latest reports the Port had prepared by Landau and Associates and HartCrowser. The Port has been working on protecting the marsh around Harbor Square since purchasing the site in 1970. The Port removed all soil contamination caused by industrial activities that existed when the Port purchased the site. The Port has spent over $1.7 million since 2005 to stop contaminants in Harbor Square from reaching the marsh and continue to allocate funds for any cleanup at Harbor Square as necessary. When Jacobsen Marine was built, the Port paid over $11,000 toward marsh restoration and cleanup even though the project was west of the tracks. The Port has been the only entity putting money toward protecting the marsh. Everyone welcomes the daylighting of Willow Creek and the restoration of the marsh but the cleanup of the Unocal site on the south side of the marsh has been stalled by Joe Scordino who crafted proposed options for the SMP by filing an appeal to Ecology in October 2016 which has harmed the timeframe for Willow Creek daylighting. Since the Port's master plan was withdrawn in 2013, the Port has invested nearly $2 million in Harbor Square, plan to continue operating Harbor Square as it currently exists, and have no plans for a development. Nothing has changed except making many of the 60+ businesses nonconforming with the proposed setback including the Harbor Square Athletic Club and other buildings. Over 7,000 members use Harbor Square Athletic Club and the Port has long term leases with tenants. He emphasized the Port has no intention of selling Harbor Square despite all the rumors. The Port had a master plan development meeting and that effort died. Councilmember Teitzel was present at the Port's last retreat where it was again stated the Port has no plans to sell Harbor Square. The Port purchased the buildings in 2006 for $13.5 million; the income from current long term leases covers the debt service which will be paid off in 33 months. When the City Council is ready to think about the future of Harbor Square for the good of Edmonds residents, the Port asks that the Council start a task force. Mike Shaw, Edmonds, requested the Council support Option D, the only option that fully details what is necessary for an independent site survey of the Edmonds Marsh and also spells out buffer and setback specifications. In addition, he requested the Council expand their vision of Harbor Square. For too long Harbor Square has represented the vision of the Port and a few developers. There are people in the audience who want to make a profit at the expense of the Marsh. That is short sighted and does not take into account the wishes of a majority of Edmonds residents. Rather than continue to hope for multistory residences, he urged them to think about truly green and low impact development that would encourage and restore the health of the Edmonds Marsh. The Edmonds Marsh could become a Washington State treasure with restored salmon runs, ecotourism for birdwatchers and ecologist and not an area would be shared with duck hunters like other tide flats. If the Council or Port thinks redevelopment always has to be intensive or test height limits, he cited Salish Crossing as an example of what can be accomplished with little disturbance. Mike Schindler, Edmonds, CEO, Operation Military Family, and EDC member, speaking as a private citizen, recognized there are strong opinions laced with convenient facts on both sides with regard to the Edmonds Marsh and Harbor Square. He recalled one of the best assignments a high school teacher gave him was to argue the other side of an issue he was dead set against. That assignment had a tremendous Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 9 Packet Pg. 298 impact on his life and made him a believer in the 1% principle of starting where we can all agree. When the rhetoric is dropped, both sides are explored, and the focus is on the mission and outcome, mission success can often be achieved even if parties are on opposite sides of an issue. He challenged each Councilmember to argue the other side of their position. Everyone can agree on attracting partners and leaders to Edmonds who contribute economically but also value the environment and natural surroundings. What if the City could find a partner willing to build economic value, not only Port infrastructure but also willing to invest in the marsh? Wouldn't that benefit both sides? How to find such as partner, one willing to find economic value to the City by maintaining a world -class, award winning marina and boardwalk that attracts residents from across the region and tourists from throughout the northwest as well as is willing to invest millions in protecting the marsh and Puget Sound via industrial site cleanups and effective stormwater and industrial runoff? He suggested starting by picking up the phone and talking to the Port. Because he was interested in economic and environmental value and preservation, he supported the original Ecology recommendation of a 50-foot buffer and 15-foot setback if a scientific study shows no net loss of function. He recommended defining who a scientist is, it cannot be Bill Nye the Science Guy. He believed this to be a fair and balanced proposal that protects and potentially will enhance the marsh but also allow allows for responsible redevelopment of the Harbor Square site. Beth Burrow, Edmonds, thanked the Councilmembers and community members who have brought this effort to this point and special thanks to Councilmember Buckshnis for her effort on Option D. She urged the Council to accept Option D; this option ensures when a development proposal for Harbor Square or the old Unocal site is submitted, an alternate buffer for the Edmonds Marsh will be derived from a site specific study to be conducted at the time. Option D is the only option that places the needs of the marsh and its wildlife as the driver for future site specific studies. Option D requires a rigorous scientific study; the other three options focus more on the needs of development. The Environmental Protection Agency may cut, among other things, its Puget Sound budget 93%, from $28 million to $2 million. The Edmonds Marsh is one of the few remaining saltwater estuaries in Puget Sound and now, more than ever, it is dependent on local actions to enhance and restore it. Unless the remaining marsh is protected and enhanced, it will lose its ability to support birds and wildlife that visitors cherish. As the community grows, she recommended working together to ensure the environment and special places remain a top priority. Without these special places, Edmonds will lose the very things that make it a special place that attracts visitors, developers, investors and residents. She did not want the last word on the marsh to be a historical sign noting there was once a health marsh there. Jon Houghton, Edmonds, marine biologist specializing in coastal ecology and shoreline ecological functions, and owner of biological consulting company since 1989 located at Harbor Square whose laboratory would be bisected by the II0-foot buffer, said his experience includes a lot of habitat restoration projects, field research on juvenile salmon throughout Puget Sound, and design of a number of coastal habitat restoration projects in Everett, Tacoma, Olympia and Seattle. He also conducted BAS reviews for Everett and Tukwila for their SMP updates. He referred to a memo he submitted to the Council that summarizes the science behind buffers as they apply to the north shore of the Edmonds Marsh. It is a unique environment and having lived and worked next to it for 30 years, he appreciated the ecological functions the marsh provides as well as the limitations. Dikes on the north side of the marsh prohibit developing great ecology functions via construction of wider buffers. The best way to restore and enhance the marsh would be to daylight it and preserve and enhance existing buffers and vegetation on the north side. He pointed out shorebirds need big mudflat areas and clear lines of sight. If big trees are planted on the north side where no trees currently exist, they will further limit shorebirds' use of the marsh. Larry Beard, Edmonds, an environmental engineer who has worked on a variety of projects from cleanup of contaminated projects to designing wetland mitigation projects and stormwater treatment Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 10 Packet Pg. 299 facilities, expressed support for improving the quality of the marsh, but he was concerned about the approach of establishing such a large buffer. Based on what he knows of the marsh and other projects, the single most important thing that could be done to improve the quality of the marsh would be to treat stormwater that discharges to the marsh. There are very good state-of-the-art treatment methods but they are expensive to construct and operate. The only catalyst for construction of that type of facility is some form of redevelopment. Establishing a 110-foot buffer essentially maintains the status quo which will not improve the marsh. Responsible and thoughtful development will require a more reasonable buffer at most what Ecology originally suggested, a 50-foot buffer and 15-foot setback. If the goal is to improve the functionality of the marsh, the Council should establish setbacks that can support responsible development; otherwise the overall goal is more to stop development, not improve the marsh. Jamie Reece, Edmonds, Chair of the EDC, but speaking as a private citizen, said his family are boaters, hikers, cyclists and outdoor enthusiasts, and feel the marsh is a treasure. He expressed concern with establishing what would be on paper something that would protect and benefit the marsh but in reality may not achieve that objective. Restoring the marsh and improving stormwater management and the treatment of stormwater requires money. Therefore either taxes need to be increased to accomplish this approach and the City needs to approach the property owner about improving their land using City funds or the City needs to attract responsible developers. The City is demanding of those who develop in Edmonds and has attracted developers willing work within the City's values. He encourage flexibility rather than establishing the largest buffer possible and establishing a buffer that asks for specific proposals such as benefits, a more walkable and attractive Harbor Square and waterfront in exchange for the most rigorous protections for the marsh. Maggie Fimia, Edmonds, read a letter from Port Commissioner Steve Johnston, a retired environmental professional who spent more than 35 years helping to put projects on the ground in balance with the environment throughout the Pacific NW And Alaska, experienced in providing onsite and offsite mitigation to offset potential development impacts to natural resources. She summarized his 3-page letter, the actions of the Save our Marsh (SOM) group and Councilmembers who support larger setbacks cannot have the best interests of the Marsh in mind since the premise of their position in promoting a 125-foot setback is not based in any way on BAS or law. Their real agenda may be to preclude options for further development of Harbor Square. This concern is supported by recent affiliations with the SOM group by former Councilmembers with a record of adamant opposition to the redevelopment of Harbor Square. If this is their agenda, they should just say so; their position cannot be based on science because the science favors smaller setbacks and buffers and it cannot be based on environmental concerns because some of the Councilmembers who support larger setbacks have shown no real respect for the environment in some past uninformed decisions like establishing a dog park right on the beach. The SOM group and their spokespersons are not qualified to assess positive or negative impacts on the marsh from any action; the qualified PhUd biologists who have spoken tonight are. Do not make the future of the marsh subject to misdirected politics and obstruction; the marsh is too important for that. Lay the groundwork for protecting and enhancing the marsh. Do not foreclose options for future responsible development that will benefit marsh. The Port and the City deserves better than that. Alan Mearns, Edmonds, expressed support for Option D and particularly Appendix C because it was the first time he had seen a discussion from a scientific and ecologic point of view of the science. He reported on two seminars he attended this past week, one by the USGS about citizens and scientists working together to measure, monitor and assess the functions and future of marshes. The other was a seminar by NOAA's National Estuarian Reserve Program, providing new tools to evaluate marshes, tidal marshes in particular, with regard to sea level rise. He summarized BAS is continually changing. Dianna Maish, Edmonds, referred to a Seattle Times opinion published today, written by business officials and an attorney for Sound Partnership, Federal Funding, a Bill that Could Cut the National Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 11 Packet Pg. 300 Budget for Puget Sound Recovery to Zero. Over the last decade, as long as Puget Sound has been designated an estuary of national significance, it has been recognized that the economic and environment health of Puget Sound are bound together. The Edmonds saltwater marsh is a small but significant contributor to Puget Sound and can be protected. Today's investment has helped hold the line on Puget Sound degradation, but as the authors of the opinion state, that can be undone very quickly if efforts at pursuing and sustaining recovery are not supported. For each step backward, the cost to regain lost ground becomes many times magnified as time passes and problems increase; the same is true with the Edmonds Marsh. Degradation of Puget Sound and its salmon runs have been occurring for more than 125 years. Protecting the Edmonds Marsh can be part of the solution, not the problem. George Keefe, Edmonds, retired middle school science teacher, said he lives near the marsh and regularly walks along the marsh to go birding and to eat blackberries. The 23-acre saltwater marsh is all that remains of the original 40 -acre marsh. There are no other saltwater marshes between Everett and Tacoma. The Edmonds salt marsh is home to over 40 species of resident and migratory birds over the course of a year. Historically, the marsh was a highly valuable habitat for juvenile salmonids to transition between fresh and saltwater. Buffers are a critical tool for protecting natural areas and should be based on BAS. He urged the Council to adopt Option D as it puts the most emphasis on BAS. The Environmental Protection Agency may cut the Puget Sound budget 93% from $28 million to $2 million. The Edmonds Marsh is one of the few remaining saltwater estuaries in Puget Sound. Now more than ever Puget Sound is dependent on local community action to enhance and restore natural areas such as the Edmonds Marsh. Community participation in decisions that protect the treasured environment is invaluable. He thanked Councilmembers who have worked with community members to reach this point, especially Councilmember Buckshnis. Barbra Tipton, Edmonds, explained the Edmonds Marsh is a 24 acre estuary, a Puget Sound habitat that is an ecological asset to the community. Less than 20% of tidal wetlands in Puget Sound remain intact; reestablishment of proper hydrology in the marsh would improve stormwater management and lessen the probability of damage resulting from flood events. Protecting and restoring this ecosystem benefits fish, birds, wildlife, and people who enjoy this unique resource. The State's SMA provides jurisdictions with the flexibility to tailor their SMP to reflect their unique attributes. Under the State's GMA, local governments are required to use BAS when reviewing and revising policies and regulations. She did not see a bias in Option D or any rhetorical words, phases or ideas. A retired fisheries biologist, formerly with NOAA, collaborated in the drafting of Option D; he is an expert and the City should be thankful for his work. The scope of work for the site specific scientific study ensures the study will be conducted by professionals with field experience in and knowledge of wetlands and wildlife. Once the study is completed, three peer review will be conducted by independent scientists. Those reviews will determine researcher bias, if any, in the site specific study. The 45t1i president's anti -science bias calls for gutting the EPA and NOAA; according to today's Seattle Times, funding for the National Estuary Program will disappear, a program that benefits all who rely on Puget Sound for tourism, shellfish and recreation. She provided the following quote, "The federal government has been an essential partner in restoring and protecting Puget Sound. It would be destructive and shortsighted to walk away from this responsibility now." Leslie Brown, Edmonds, stated she missed Agenda Item 5 and her comments were not related to the marsh. Emily Paynich, Edmonds, commented she was relatively new to the marsh issue. While she appreciated the vibrancy that comes with development, if the protective buffer is not expanded, the marsh will disappear and then everyone will be worrying about how to bring it back and restore it. She urged the Council to support the largest buffer possible because Edmonds Marsh is a treasure. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 12 Packet Pg. 301 John Paynich, Edmonds, a builder and a contractor, said when the environment is literally under attack, it the duty of the City and citizens to protect beyond what is legally required. This is necessary for Puget Sound, for salmon runs, for the J Pod and as a legacy for the City. This is an opportunity to make the situation better and make it work better than it is supposed to, rather than just doing the minimum. When he builds, he thinks about the legacy of the project; builders who are considering any development in this area need to have that as their primary function. The marsh is unique, a necessity to the environment and it is worth protecting. Jason Stutes, Lynnwood, a marine scientist employed in Edmonds who has studied estuarian processes from the Baltic to the Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound to Alaska, said he has a particular investment in the Edmonds Marsh both for its aesthetics and ecological uniqueness. When thinking about the Edmonds Marsh and its ecology function, he considers what could potentially impair that function. He recognized what the marsh currently provides but believed it could provide more. Thinking from an ecosystem prospective, the major constraints on the marsh's ecological function is processing a lot of unfiltered, unmanaged stormwater, its high retention and lack of a natural connection to Puget Sound. In considering the buffer options, he liked the idea that there was no one size fits all. Promoting an overly larger buffer may preclude a more specialized, tailored approach to preserving and perhaps enhancing the marsh. He advocated for a more tailored approach, looking at the specific issues and how a buffer might help alleviate those issues. One of the primary goals of an overly large buffer is stormwater management, filtration and processing for contaminants; however, a buffer of that size does not actually provide that function and more specific stormwater management for the marsh should be the goal via a more customized buffer options. David Richman, PhD, Edmonds, said like many people, he finds the Edmonds Marsh a very pleasant place to spend time reconnecting with nature in a hectic world. The marsh serves as a haven for wildlife in a much -reduced ecosystem but also as a place for casual wildlife watching, scientific research education and a place to maintain mental health. He expressed support for Option D, a rigorous current best science approach to determining the best outcome of development at Harbor Square. He has over 25 years' experience as a reviewer of scientific grant proposals, a book proposal and journal manuscripts as well as a review participant in grant proposals and journal articles. The rationale and ethical standards involved in peer review for scientific research are pertinent to the redevelopment of Harbor Square as both require judgment of competent professionals who have no stake in the outcome and who rely on the understanding of best science available. Ideally such peer review of future projects should include three reviewers and reviewers must have some knowledge of ecosystem requirements and have no vested interest in the outcome of their review. This accomplishes two major goals, sets the most knowledgeable basis for a given project and reassures citizens of Edmonds that all interests are taken into account when making decisions that will affect the City for decades. Valerie Kendall, Edmonds, spoke in favor of a course of action that helps preserve and restore the marsh ecology. As the parent of a scientist, she supported the best scientific information but was aware science evolves and it takes citizens with a clear commitment and stake to participate in the decision. She thanked the citizens who attended tonight's meeting as well as staff and Councilmembers for their work. She recognized this was a sensitive issue, and as a planner herself, she was aware not everyone was always happy with an outcome. She believed the Edmonds Marsh is a key identifier for Edmonds and it has the potential now and in the future to help economic development, tourism, and provide a sense of who we are. She urged the Council to consider this opportunity to preserve, enlarge and enhance the functionality of the marsh and not worry about where the money would come from; establish the goals first and figure out the funding later. Phill Butler, Edmonds, said he and his wife have been publicly, positively and proactively supportive of the best possible scenarios for the Edmonds Marsh. Due to his work, he had the opportunity to view the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 13 Packet Pg. 302 interface between ancient landscapes, water features and other ecological elements in other counties, an experience that convinced him that even in places like the European Union where ecological concerns are draconian, it is possible to have creative solutions at the intersection of modernization, organization and respect for the environment. There is no reason Edmonds cannot find the best possible solution for the Edmonds Marsh. The official Ecology position was originally 65 feet; the City Council revised Ecology's position to include multiple options. No technical, scientific study has been done by Ecology or any other groups suggesting a setback greater than 65 feet is either needed or justified. He recalled the Harbor Square development plan adjacent to the marsh because a highly decisive issue several years ago and an ill-advised City Council rejected the Port's proposed plan. He feared the position of many who steadfastly hold to the 125-foot setback is actually a Trojan horse for the old, high divisive, anti -Harbor Square development, now cloaked in the respectability of environmental ecological concerns. As a citizen paying taxes, he was concerned with the adversarial relationship between the City Council and the Port. Although the City Council positions itself as authority in environmental issues, the Port, who controls Harbor Square, has since its formation in 1948 been looking out for the best environment interest of Edmonds citizens for 70+ years. Janet Way, Shoreline, representing the Sierra Club Snohomish County Group, requested they be a party of record with legal standing in this matter. She loves to visit Edmonds and when her parents visit from New Jersey, they stay Harbor Square Inn so they can be next to the marsh. The Edmonds Marsh is a historic regional destination for tourists, a magnet for people worldwide who come to enjoy its beauty, wildlife, diversity, and passive recreation experiences. The Edmonds Marsh is unique in this region as a saltwater wetland estuary especially in an urban area. The marsh is a wildlife refuge, salmonid habitat and has over 200 birds species. She worked on a project in the Northgate area, daylighting of Thornton Creek at Thornton Place, a long fight that resulted in the best project. Buffers are important for water quality and wildlife habitat; Option D provides the most ecological function. Invasive development is a threat because the integrity of the saltwater marsh and impervious surfaces are the enemy. Whatever the Council can do to reduce impervious surfaces and expand the marsh should be done. Option D ensures the best outcome for people and wildlife based on rigorous science and sustainability. Edmonds has an obligation and duty to protect and defend this unique resource. Debbie Hopkin, Edmonds, described her background in immunological disease and public health and current pursuit of a second graduate degree in public health in the environment. She thanked the Council for carefully considering the SMP, acknowledging the need to make changes that provide definition and clarity. Defining who has the ecological expertise to perform scientific site specific studies and how they are peer reviewed is essential to decision making and is consistent with best practices around the world. There is no doubt this will provide value for future development of the shoreline. She expressed support for Option D for its specificity, clarity and peer review. Protecting nearshore environments is critical for two reasons, 1) the health of the Puget Sound, increasingly at risk from toxic stormwater and pollution and how that negatively affects food webs and diminishes ecological function, and 2) as sea level rises, water draws closer to communities and in the rapidly shifting environment where shoreline communities worry about stormwater and sea level rise, governments are already implement policies for new green infrastructure programs to prevent the degradation and flooding from higher than expected tides and storm surges. Edmonds has a 22-acre salt marsh that can naturally do what the money, planning and work seeks to do if it is protected and fortified. A rigorous study released last week values Australian salt marshes at $7.2 billion for their ability to sink carbon. Preserving naturally occurring salt marshes is a widely -recognized need and is a priority among governments from Massachusetts to Florida and internationally. As shoreline communities around the world model sea level rise scenarios, they are looking to rebuild and replace salt marshes that have been lost. Edmonds has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership in the shared and intertwined responsibility of public health and ecosystem preservation. As a community, the Council and citizen body should do whatever possible to preserve and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 14 Packet Pg. 303 fortify Edmonds Marsh for the invaluable and irreplaceable resources it provides to both the larger ecosystem and the health and safety of the community in future years. Marty Jones, Edmonds, a member of SOM, asked the City Council to support Option D, commenting on the importance of any study for an alternate buffer include the scope of work in Option D to ensure the wildlife who depend on the marsh are protected. Peer review by experts in the subjects outlined in the scope of work is necessary to ensure the study is done in a competent and unbiased manner. The Edmonds City Council is the only entity qualified make the decision on how to act on the site specific study. The Edmonds Marsh belongs to the City and its citizens; the City Council is citizen's voice, and citizens put their trust in the Council to make the best decision. This is a critical decision for Edmonds that will have impacts for many generations. She expressed concern with a recent comment in My Edmonds News from a Port member who said it now appears that wider buffers will eliminate any prospect for redevelopment of Harbor Square. She displayed a picture made from satellite images from Google Earth to illustrate the 125-foot buffer does not impact a majority of Harbor Square and does not eliminate it from possible redevelopment. The area impacted by the buffer is primarily parking lots and tennis courts. Edmonds needs representatives that look for opportunities and cooperative ways to find solutions rather than assuming every problem is an insurmountable obstacle. It is time for the Port, the City, the Council, SOM and others to work together to find the greatest good for Edmonds. Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds, said he would like to see the marsh returned to the size it was 200 years ago before the first white man arrived. He was tired of the divisiveness due to money. Those with financial stakes at risk do not want to lose money, no one does. If finances were removed from the discussion, the Port likely would not object to a wider buffer. Rather than fighting over money, he suggested mediation such as a weekend conference with all the stakeholders concerned about money as well as everyone else. The conference would provide an opportunity to listen and understand why there is a fight over money and then there may be more willingness to work with those who do not have finances at risk. This process has been inundated by facts, yet best science is a fantasy. Most decisions are based on emotion and peoples' livelihoods. He summarized his suggestion for a facilitated weekend conference where everyone that has a stake works together. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, urged the Council to approve Option D without any amendment. Option D will ensure the marsh is preserved for the long term by providing a detailed scope of work for site specific study to ensure an unbiased study is done that values all the ecological functions of the marsh. To Councilmember Teitzel's concerns that SOM is a special interest group, she reminded that most members are Edmonds residents who he represents. None of the members of SOM have anything to gain financially from their support of the Edmonds Marsh. She urged Councilmembers to consider whether special interest groups support reduced buffers. Marjorie Fields, a SOM member, wrote an excellent editorial in My Edmonds News last week about her support of the Edmonds Marsh. Port Executive Director Robert McChesney replied, "it now appears that wider buffers will eliminate any prospect for redevelopment at Harbor Square. What you see is what you get." Mr. McChesney's statement is not only false, it is baffling. All Mr. McChesney and the elected Port Commissioners need to do is look to Salish Crossing where the owner, Lindsey Echelbarger, redeveloped the existing building without increasing the height, without adding condominiums, remaining code compliant and economically viable and creating a community asset. She was sure a majority of the Council's constituents would applaud the redevelopment of Salish Crossing, yet Mr. McChesney says it cannot be done. It is time the Port and City work with taxpayers of the City and Port to envision appropriate redevelopment at Harbor Square, redevelopment that excludes residential, supports existing businesses, and adds services and amenities that reflect the will of the community. If done properly, the Edmonds Marsh will be protected now and for future generations. Susan Pane, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their tireless service. She was excited about Option D, explaining she moved to Edmonds for the schools but also the terrific parks and great natural areas such Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 15 Packet Pg. 304 as Pine Ridge, Yost, Maplewood Parks. An experience in nature is not available in many places and the places in Edmonds should be cherished. The Edmonds Marsh offers many opportunities to connect with the natural environment, adds continuation of the beaches, and having an active natural marsh for both estuarian environment services and the ecology impacts provides tremendous benefit to all Edmonds residents as well as attracts visitors and birds. She appreciated the scientific basis for decision making and peer review. Science will declutter the issues and she supported having peer reviews. A fully functioning salt and freshwater marsh will also attract new businesses. People come to Edmonds for the beauty, the people, the culture and the environment. She recommended using that as the vision for any new development near Edmonds Marsh. Ray White, PhD, Edmonds, a member of the SOM science committee along with Alan Mearns and Dave Richmond, retired from Michigan State University and Montana State University, said he and his wife moved to Edmonds for the mountains and amenities like the Edmonds Marsh. His professional specialty is ecological restoration of trout and salmon streams; he started his first job in 1957. He echoed previous speakers' comments about the value of the Edmonds Marsh. With regard to building setback, he recommended defining building, recognize that much else is detrimental to the Edmonds Marsh such as roads, parking lots, other infrastructure and impervious surfaces. All engineering work such as buildings eventually deteriorate and have to be replaced; redevelopment of Harbor Square will occur at some point. Sarah Murphy, Edmonds, described her background as a former English and science teacher and survivor of three floods on the east coast. The impact of poor planning has devastating effects and her hometown in New Jersey did not recover from repeated flooding of the Delaware River. She was excited about the idea of planning and options that include involving scientists and peer review. She applauded the Council for their forward environmental thinking. While a middle school teacher, she witnessed the wonder of a child visiting a marsh and identifying birds and fish as well as to learn about the impact of plastic on the ecosystem, an experience that cannot be duplicated in the classroom. The Edmonds Marsh is a valuable ecosystem; she feared development would result in only pictures of the former wildlife in the marsh. The EPA identified ecosystems as the nursery of the sea, without them, there cannot be viable, strong ecosystems that feed into places like Puget Sound. With the current administration gutting the EPA, it will be up to the local government to save the marsh in spite of funding cuts to Puget Sound. She summarized D was the best option. Suzy Schaefer, Edmonds, said she was both discouraged and excited; excited about Alan Mearns' statement about the science of today and tomorrow because she knew the science of yesterday and that development projects do not solve environmental problems. Fortunately SOM includes scientists; Option D was the best SOM could do; it provides flexibility and does not take anything away from the existing marsh. She was excited the coyotes were back at the marsh. She expressed support for Option D and saving the marsh. Victoria Leistman, Seattle, an organizer with the Sierra Club, commented it was not often this many citizens came out to talk about an issue they care about. As an organizer, she often has talk about what she is against; in this case people are expressing their support for preserving the Edmonds Marsh. She had an opportunity to meet with Ecology Director Bellon on this issue last December before the 110-foot buffer option was submitted by the City Council. Director Bellon prides herself on giving communities the opportunity for compromise. This is an incredible opportunity to protect the marsh in a way that is based on a scientific site specific study but also gives the community an opportunity to work together in a way that protects the special place but does not preclude Edmonds from growing in a manner that is sustainable and promising for the future in spite of what is happening at the federal level. Carin Chase, Edmonds School Board Member, said her goal was to ensure the educational opportunities that children have at the Edmonds Marsh are protected. Given the national climate and the challenges that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 16 Packet Pg. 305 Puget Sound is facing, the City has an opportunity to lead the nation in defending and protecting natural places. She began her career as a marine field researcher biologist at the Valdez oil spill; many places have still not recovered and are lost forever. Protecting the natural environment is the Council's paramount duty, and she urged the Council to protect Edmonds Marsh to the upmost within their power. David Preston, Edmonds, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, commented there have been coyotes at the marsh since the late 1970s. He displayed pictures of the Edmonds Marsh in 1940 where there was no oil dock or marina; 1947; 1955 shows the oil docks and tanks, railroad tracks and where trains would dump asphalt and oil; 1967 which shows the marina and infill from the marina toward the future location of SR- 104; 1970 showing the footprint of Harbor Square and contaminants on the railroad tracks; 1976 where not much is going on in marsh; 1981; 1985 post cleanup; 1989 showing a healthier marsh; and 1993. He read a proclamation dated March 21, 2017: Whereas by talking to each other instead of about each other, the marsh will have a better outcome, Whereas tenants, property owners and concerned citizens need to sit together at the table to true help the environment, Whereas honesty and transparency will further improve the marsh, Whereas the daylighting of Willow Creek will help improve the salmon runs in Puget Sound, Whereas a healthy marsh and clean stormwater protects Puget Sound, Whereas recognition that the Port of Edmonds has spent almost $2.5 million on cleanup of Harbor Square, Whereas 25 years and with a 25-foot buffer, the marsh has benefited. Let's resolve to save the marsh together and keep the unity of this community together to improve the long term condition of the marsh for our kids, grandkids of the Edmonds and Woodway area. Laurie Johnson, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for the Port's proclamation. As she has learned more about the marsh, how unique it is and how fortunate citizens are to have it in Edmonds, the importance of protecting it is apparent. Citizens recognize the uniqueness of the marsh and the benefits it provides to the community and want to put their resources put toward protecting it. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified Unocal's two phase cleanup process, noting that Mr. Scordino's appeal did not stop the cleanup of Unocal Phase 1. His appeal was in regard to the closing of the gate, flooding, and overflow into the marsh. According to Unocal's Public Affairs Manager, his appeal has placed Phase 2 on hold. The letter from Unocal stated "We were planning to begin the next phase of cleanup work at the former Unocal Edmonds Terminal site in late fall 2016, but the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit needed for the work was appealed by Mr. Scordino. Due to the appeal we placed the work on hold." David Pater, Ecology, said it was an appeal of the water quality and the NPDES permit. Development Services Director Hope offered to provide further information at the Council's next meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in the Council having a scientific report done based on Appendix C, removing the sentence "and in the context of an approved master plan development or redevelopment on one or more edges of marsh." She proposed using Council contingency funds to do a site specific report with the information in Appendix C to provide a baseline for future review when any development is proposed. Councilmember Teitzel thanked the audience members for their comments; they are very well informed and care about the City, the marsh and the environment. and marsh. With regard to the obligation to respond to Ecology by the end of March, he did not think that would happen. He has a number of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 17 Packet Pg. 306 questions he wants to bring up on the record next week. He suggested a motion to extend the response deadline to April 30. Mayor Earling suggested that decision be made next week. Councilmember Nelson looked forward to voting next week. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 7. ACTION ITEMS 1. POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced John Fregonese, Principal, Fregonese Associates, who provided an aerial of the project area on Highway 99 and reviewed: • Planning Process o March - April 2016: Understanding existing conditions o April - June 2016: o April - Nov 2016: Develop land use and transportation scenarios o Oct - Dec 2016: Develop Sub -Area Draft plan o Dec - Feb 2017: Final Sub -Area Plan • March 2016 Public Workshop o Identified opportunities for new housing and business, community centers and services, and infrastructure upgrades o What did the public want? • May 2016 Open House o Revealed near and long-term development and transportation opportunities and its impacts • November 2016 Open House o Revealed implementation strategies and policy recommendations o Public had opportunity to review the recommendations at the Open House and online and provide feedback o Community values: ■ Connectivity ■ Destinations ■ Beautification ■ Safety ■ Walkability ■ Affordable housing ■ Healthy businesses Distinct Subdistricts o Major local and regional destinations on Hwy 99 ■ International District - Diverse restaurants, grocers and shops; major Korean business cluster ■ Health District - Swedish Hospital and medical offices ■ Gateway District - Identified by the community during workshop - Desire for "gateway" and distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds Long segments without crossings o Central area requires 10-minute walk to find safe crossing Housing development o Widespread desire for housing, particularly in south Mixed Use Development Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 21, 2017 Page 18 Packet Pg. 307 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Motion to initiate an RFP process to obtain a baseline planning site -specific scientific study of the Edmonds Marsh Watershed to be paid for from the Council funds (10 min.) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: City Council Preparer: Andrew Pierce Background/History No previous action on this item. Staff Recommendation None. Narrative As we continue to embark on approving a comprehensive Shoreline Master Program, the Council has decided that a baseline site specific study of the Edmonds Marsh Watershed may be necessary. The Council will solicit study proposals, review the responsive proposals, and determine which firms, if any, it would like to interview, once the proposals and cost estimates are received. After the RFP responses have been evaluated and interviews, if any, are completed, the Council would vote to determine the final scope of work, the consultant to be selected, the consultant contract terms, including cost, and, of course, whether to continue forward with this proposed study. The purpose of this study is to allow the Council and stakeholders a full understanding of the existing conditions of the Marsh including the various species of wildlife present in the Marsh, and their habitat needs, as well as issues related to hydrology and water quality. The site -specific study, by professionals with field experience in wetland and wildlife science, should provide comprehensive, site -specific scientific information regarding the Edmonds Marsh Watershed that would be useful in establishing a more informed understanding of the existing conditions, determining the appropriate width and type of buffers necessary to maintain those existing conditions for inclusion in future shoreline master programs, and prioritizing restoration efforts with the goal that any restoration projects would yield the most significant environmental benefits. This study, when completed, will also be added to the City's Inventory of Shoreline. Following is a proposed scope of work for the site -specific scientific study that can be used for publishing the RFP, but the RFP should invite the responding consultants to propose any revisions to the scope of work that they would recommend in order to accomplish the objectives of the study: Wetlands and marshes provide three broad ecological functions that will each need to be evaluated by the site -specific study: 1) Biogeochemical functions, which are related to trapping and transforming chemicals and include functions that improve water quality in the watershed; 2) Hydrologic functions, which are related to maintaining the water regime in a watershed including functions as reducing Packet Pg. 308 7.3 flooding; and 3) Food web and habitat functions. The site -specific study should evaluate past, current and projected future ecological functions of the Edmonds Marsh with and without development occurring in adjacent areas, with planned restoration efforts at the Marsh such as the Willow Creek Daylighting project or volunteer revegetation efforts. Buffers provide for the protection and maintenance of wetland functions; thus the site -specific study will need to evaluate buffer widths adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh that will ensure effective buffer functions including 1) removing sediment, 2) removing excess nutrients, 3) removing toxics, 4) influencing the microclimate, 5) screening adjacent disturbances (including noise and light), 6) maintaining habitat connectivity, and 7) maintaining adjacent habitat critical for the life needs of wildlife that use wetlands. Each of these buffer functions should be evaluated against past, present and projected future ecological functions of the Marsh as affected by proximity of development and/or other human activities. Because of the uniqueness of the Edmonds Marsh and the diversity of wildlife species that it supports, the site -specific study should include special focus on the life needs of the wildlife that use the Edmonds Marsh (i.e., the wetland ecological function for providing habitat for wildlife). Edmonds Marsh wildlife consists of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and insects. Because of all these variables, the need for buffer zones are complex among and between each of the species and include: 1) Refuge/shelter; 2) Food; 3) Breeding habitat; 4) Nesting materials; and 5) Screening/distancing wildlife from human activities. It is known that the Marsh's ecological functions in providing habitat and food web for wildlife is the most critical component of this study in order to evaluate site -specific buffer widths necessary to preserve/protect those ecological functions. Diversity and abundance of Marsh wildlife depends not only on the width and extent of vegetated buffers, but also on plant species composition and other characteristics (density, quality, vertical structure, etc.) of the plant communities involved. Many studies have found correlations between buffer width and wildlife diversity and function. The referenced papers provide examples of salt marsh and wetland buffer literature that the site -specific study will need to reference and utilize in the methodology and analysis for evaluating buffer widths on each edge of the Edmonds Marsh. REFERENCES: Boyd, Lynn. 2001. Wildlife Use of Wetland Buffer Zones and their Protection under the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act. Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts. 30 pp plus appendices. Castelle, Andrew J., Catherine Conolly, Michael Emers, Eric D. Metz, Susan Meyer, Michael Witter, Susan Mauermann, Terrell Erickson and Sarah S. Cooke. 1992. Wetland buffers: use and effectiveness. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelines and Coastal Zone Management Program. Olympia, WA. Pub. No. 92-10. McMillan, Andrew. 2000. The science of wetland buffers and its implication for management of wetlands. Master of Environmental Studies thesis. The Evergreen State College, August 2000. 116 pp including graphical appendices. Glover, H.K., M.A. Weston, G.S. Maguire, K.K. Miller, and B.A. Chritie. 2011. Towards ecologically meaningful and socially acceptable buffers: Response distances of shorebirds in Victoria, Australia, to human disturbance. Landscape and Urban Planning 103(3-4):326-334. Smith, L. A. and P. ChowFraser. 2010. Impacts of adjacent land use and isolation on marsh bird communities. Environmental Management 45: 1040-1051. Packet Pg. 309 7.3 Weston, M A., M.J. Antos and H.K. Glover. 2009. Birds, buffers, and bicycles: a review and case Packet Pg. 310 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 SnoPUD Redundancy Power Agreement - WWTP (10 min.) Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History This item has not yet been before City Council. The agreement consists of 3 parts; 1. Operating Agreement 2. Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement 3. Settlement Agreement. Staff Recommendation Approve the Agreements with SnoPUD in order to maintain redundant power at the WWTP. Narrative In October 2013 the City replaced the WWTP main electrical switchgear. City staff consulted with SnoPUD during the design, construction and startup of the new equipment to ensure all equipment and personnel were protected from potentially hazardous conditions and to ensure reliable electric service to the WWTP. During close-out of the project, SnoPUD discovered that the WWTP historically had not been assessed redundancy charges and notified the City of their intention to do so based on connected load. Had this information been known prior to the equipment upgrade there is a small possibility that a different power distribution system may have designed. In addition, WWTP staff shared historic power reliability concerns which led to the City's installation of a 1500 Kw generator with SnoPUD. Further connected load is not a realistic requirement due to regulatory requirements of treatment equipment redundancy. Based on discussions with SnoPUD, WWTP staff was able to negotiate an optimal approach that reduces redundancy charges while reducing the risk for loss of power. The agreement consists of 3 parts; 1. Operating Agreement 2. Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement 3. Settlement Agreement. Operating Agreement: The WWTP is normally fed via two independent District distribution sources: Maplewood Substation Circuit 12-343, and Westgate Substation Circuit 12-404. Each source feeds a District -owned 2500 kVA transformer and each is independently metered at 480 volts. At present, the WWTP's normal configuration is to split their demand between these two feeders. The WWTP has installed and operates an automatic tie -breaker, also known as an automatic transfer switch (ATS) between the feeders. In addition, the City of Edmonds also has a 1500 kilowatt emergency diesel generator (Generator) should both feeders lose power. This Operating Agreement ("Agreement") provides operating guidelines that are intended to protect equipment (both PUD and WWTP) and personnel from potentially hazardous conditions and to ensure reliable electric service to the WWTP. Packet Pg. 311 8.1 Redundant Distribution Capacity: The District agrees to furnish a total redundant capacity of 1500 kW during the term of the RDC Agreement. Such redundant capacity shall consist of two primary service feeders to the WWTP. The District shall determine the primary service feeder lines that best serve the WWTP. The District reserves the ability to switch and serve the primary service feeders from alternate substations from time to time. The WWTP agrees that it will not take more than1500 kW and that the District shall not be obligated to provide more capacity. Settlement Agreement: The settlement agreement basically phases in the redundancy charges over 5 years. Year 1 (2016) - Zero Percent (0%) of the applicable RDC Charges. Year 2 (2017) - Twenty Five Percent (25%) of the applicable RDC Charges. Year 3 (2018) - Fifty Percent (50%) of the applicable RDC Charges. Year 4 (2019) - Seventy Five Percent (75%) of the applicable RDC Charges. Commencing January 1, 2020 and continuing thereafter, the City shall pay the District One Hundred Percent (100%) of the applicable RDC Charges for reserved Redundant Distribution Capacity for the Treatment Plant. Redundancy charges are currently $1.28/kW. Summary One of the most critical needs of a WWTP is reliable power. Due to risk of failure, it is not recommended that the City solely rely on the generator for redundant power. Therefore, redundant power, provided by SnoPUD is required. SnoPUD has agreed base their assessment on need vs. connected load as demonstrated by the emergency generators ability to provide adequate power for the treatment plant during outages. This approach reduces the redundancy assessment significantly while meeting the need. Given the City has upgraded the required equipment and systems to ensure safety and performance and have successfully negotiated a reduced assessment, staff believe approving these agreements are in the best interest of the City. Attachments: capacity agreement operating agreement settlement agreement Packet Pg. 312 (d1MM -;uauaaaa6V JGmOd AouepunpeN andouS : 6V60 ;uaweaa6e Aj!oedeo :;uewt43epV M fC � � M 0 a m CITY OF EDMONDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT a REDUNDANT DISTRIBUTION CAPACITY AGREEMENT THIS REDUNDANT DISTRIBUTION CAPACITY AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into on , 2017, between PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("District"), and the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington ("Customer"). The District and the Customer are sometimes hereinafter referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, Customer owns Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Facility") located at 200 2°d Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington. WHEREAS, the District currently provides electric service to the Facility through two primary service feeder lines (Westgate Substation 12-404, and Maplewood Substation 12-343) pursuant to the District's Rate Schedule No. 20. WHEREAS, the Customer has installed and operates an automatic tie -breaker, also known as an automatic transfer switch (ATS), capable of transferring load from one feeder to the other in the event of a feeder outage, i.e., the entire Facility load is served by one feeder. WHEREAS, Customer desires for the District to reserve for the Facility a total of 1,500 kilowatts of capacity on its distribution facilities and to deliver such capacity at secondary voltage ("Redundant Distribution Capacity"). WHEREAS, the purpose of the Redundant Distribution Capacity ("RDC") is to provide alternate paths for reserved capacity delivery of electrical power to Customer's Facility. WHEREAS, the District agrees to provide and the Customer agrees to pay for such RDC. WHEREAS, the District has determined that such capacity can be reserved for Customer without adversely impacting other customers, system operations, system reliability and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: 1. CERTAIN DEFINED TERMS; INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. For purposes of this Agreement, the terms set out below are defined as follows: City of Edmonds WWTP Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement (d1MM -;uauaaaa6V JGmOd AouepunpeN andouS : 6V60 ;uaweaa6e Aj!oedeo :1uewt4oe;;V 00 a. Rates mean, at any given time, the then -current rates and charges, as set forth in the Schedules, as they may be amended from time to time and at any time by the District's Board of Commissioners ("Commission"), payable by the Customer for Electric Power and related services under this Agreement. b. Regulations mean the District's current Customer Service Regulations for Electric Service. c. Schedules mean the District's Rate Schedules 20 (General Service, Medium Load) and 82 (Adjustments), collectively. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein will have the respective meanings set forth in the Schedules or the Regulations. The Schedules and Regulations, as amended from time to time and at any time by the District's Board of Commissioners, are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 2. ELECTRIC POWER: The District will provide three phase, sixty -hertz, alternating current to the Customer in accordance with the following: a. Agreement Maximum. The District agrees to furnish the Customer with a maximum amount of 1500 kilowatts ("kW") for use at the Facility during the term of this Agreement. The Customer agrees that it will not take more than the maximum amount of kilowatts set forth in this subsection, and that the District shall not be obligated to provide more capacity than the maximum amount of kilowatts set forth in this subsection. b. Redundant Capacity. The District agrees to furnish a maximum redundant capacity of 1500 kW during the term of this Agreement. Such redundant capacity shall consist of two primary service feeders to the Customer's Facility. The District shall determine the primary service feeder lines that best serve the Facility. The District reserves the ability to switch and serve the primary service feeders from alternate substations from time to time. Each feeder line shall be capable of delivering the 1500 kW maximum capacity should the other feeder experience an outage. The combined redundant capacity on both feeders shall not exceed 1500 kW. The present service alignment is further described as Feeder No. 12-404, usually connected to Westgate Substation, and Feeder No. 12-343, usually connected to Maplewood Substation. The normal electrical service configuration for this facility is to split the electrical load between Westgate 12-404 and Maplewood 12-343. The City of Edmonds WWTP Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement M a. m M a. (d1MM -;uauaaaa6V JGmOd AouepunpeN andouS : 6V60 ;uewawfe Aj!oedeo :;u9uayaeJ4V LO � M 0 a. m Operating Agreement For City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2017, (Operating Agreement) identifies the normal distribution capacity configuration, a operational, and communications requirements in effect between the District and the Customer. Prior to changing its normal electrical service configuration (e.g., switching all of the Facility's load onto one feeder with the other feeder serving as a backup), the Customer shall contact the District's Energy Control Center (ECC) at 425-783-5040. The Customer shall also contact the ECC in the event of a feeder outage causing the ATS to operate and transfer all Facility load to one feeder. To the best of its ability, the District will maintain under normal operation conditions, two sources of power available to the Facility. The District and Customer agree that should the Facility propose to increase its connected load such that the 1500 kW backup generator may no longer be able to supply the entire Facility load (which is the basis for the capacity amount and related charges under this Agreement), the District and Customer will jointly review the RDC amount for adequacy (i.e., capability for the Facility's entire load to be switched to one feeder should the ATS operate due to an outage). Said review will be conducted collaboratively by Facility staff, and District's System Planning & Protection and Executive Account Management staff. Changes in Facility connected load or backup generation capacity may result in changes to the RDC amount and related charges. Any such changes will be documented via written amendment of this Agreement and the corresponding Operating Agreement. At the time of the above described review, the District's Executive Account Manager will coordinate a review of all elements of this Agreement and the Operating Agreement with the Customer, and the District's System Planning & Protection and Energy Control Center. c. Voltage. The District will deliver Electric Power to the Customer at a secondary voltage of 480/277 volts plus or minus five percent. d. Power Factor. Customer agrees to maintain a power factor at the Facility that is greater than or equal to 0.97. If the power factor is less than 0.97, the amount of available Redundant Distribution Capacity to Customer will decrease in direct proportion. e. Point of Delivery. The point of delivery for Electric Power is the termination of the Customer's secondary cable located at each of the two transformers serving the Facility. f. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for one (1) year from the date of full execution hereof by the Parties. The term of the Agreement shall automatically renew City of Edmonds WWTP Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement 3 (d1MM -;uauaaaa6V JGmOd AouepunpeN andouS : 6V60 ;uewawfe Aj!oedeo :1u9uay3eJ4V q � M 0 a m for successive one-year periods thereafter upon the same terms and conditions set forth herein, unless written notice of termination is provided by one Party to the other Party a at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of any such one-year term, in which event this Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration of such term. 3. RATES: The Customer agrees to pay to the District the rates and charges in the District's Rate Schedules in consideration for the Electric Power and other products and services furnished by the District under this Agreement, including the regular charge, minimum charge, and applicable taxes and surcharges. In the event the Commission revises a Rate Schedule applicable to Customer, the Customer agrees to thereafter pay for Electric Power provided by the District in accordance with the revised Rate Schedule. 4. ESSENTIAL FACILITY: The District recognizes that the Facility is an essential facility for the Customer and the site will be considered as an essential facility during emergencies, brown -outs, and black -outs. The Customer acknowledges that the District restores electrical services based upon event circumstances and system priorities, and that the Facility is an essential facility to be addressed after system restoration priorities such as the 1 l5kV transmission backbone, major distribution feeders, and essential health and safety facilities, e.g., police/fire stations and hospitals. The Customer also recognizes that even with two feeders supplying the site that a major regional event could cause extended outages and that the District recommends Customer consideration of back-up generation and reserve wastewater storage capacity. 5. EMERGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION: a. City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant Day Operator at 425-771-0237 during normal business hours 0530 — 2200 or the On -Call Operator at 206-499-3852 when the plant is not staffed. b. District Energy Control Center: 425-783-5040 6. NOTICES: Notice Methods and Addresses. Any notice required or permitted to be given under or pursuant to this Agreement will be in writing and will be delivered to the intended recipient Party at its address set forth below either (a) in person, (b) by nationally recognized overnight delivery service, or (c) by United States Certified Mail, return receipt requested. Notices delivered in person or sent by overnight delivery service will be effective upon delivery. Notices sent by Certified Mail will be effective on the date shown on the return receipt as the date of delivery or on the final date on which Post Office certifies that it was unable to deliver. City of Edmonds WWTP Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement 4 00 (d1MM -;uauaaaa6V aannod AouepunpeN andouS : 6V60 ;uewawfe Aj!oedeo :1u9wL1oe;;V If to the Customer: City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant 200 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Pamela Randolph Plant Manager Direct Telephone Number: (425) 771-0237 pa me 1 a. randolp ti @ eclmo nd swa. aov If to the District: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County 2320 California Street Everett. WA 98201 Attn: Chuck Peterson Executive Account Manager Direct Telephone Number: (425) 783-8244 rcpeterson C&snopud.coin Change of address: Either Party may change the address to which notices should be sent by giving notice of such change in accordance with the requirements of this section. 7. SURVIVAL: The expiration or termination of this Agreement will not relieve either Party of any liability of any breach of this Agreement. 8. AMENDMENT: No change, amendment or modification of any provision of this Agreement will be valid unless set forth in a written amendment to this Agreement signed by both Parties; provided, however, that amendments to the Schedules will be valid and binding upon the Parties when approved by the District's Board of Commissioners. 9. FAIR MEANING: The terms of this Agreement shall be given their fair meaning and shall not be construed in favor of or against either Party hereto because of authorship. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by all Parties. 10. SEVERABILITY: a. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any part, term or provision of this Agreement to be illegal, or invalid in whole or in part, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the Parties' rights and obligations shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid. b. If any provision of this Agreement is in direct conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, that provision which may conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may conflict, and shall be deemed modified to conform to such statutory provision. 11. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington (without regard to any conflicts of law principles applied in that State), with venue for any disputes in Snohomish County, Washington; provided that venue for City of Edmonds WWTP Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement ti M a m M a (d1MM -;uauaaaa6d JOmOd Aouepunpau andouS : 6ti60 ;uaweei6e AI!3ede3 :1u9wt43eJJV ea 00 r M 0 d r+ d any matter that is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court shall be in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, Washington. Each Party a hereby irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent it may effectively do so, the defense of an inconvenient forum to the maintenance of proceedings in such courts. 12. AUTHORITY TO BIND PARTIES AND ENTER INTO AGREEMENT: The undersigned represent that they have full authority to enter into this Agreement and to bind the Parties for and on behalf of the legal entities set forth below. 13. COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement. In WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. CITY OF EDMONDS By:_ Data: David O. Earling, Mayor r�� By:_ Date: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: LN Date: Sharon Cates, City Attorney PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY M. Date: Executive Account Manager City of Edmonds WWTP Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement , m (d1MM -;uauaaaa6V -18m0d AouepunpeN andouS 6V60 ;uaweei6e 6ui;eaado quauayaepV M 0 a m M a OPERATING AGREEMENT Approvals: For CITY of EDMONDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 2017 Superintendent, Energy Control Center Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Phil Williams, Director of Public Works City of Edmonds, Washington Operating Agreement for the City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant 116 (d1MM -;uauaaaa6V.18m0d AouepunpeN afldouS 6V60 ;uaweei6e 6ui;eaado quauayaepV N M 0 a m M IL CITY OF EDMONDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATING AGREEMENT This Operating Agreement ("Agreement") provides operating guidelines that are intended to protect Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 (District) and the City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) equipment and personnel from potentially hazardous conditions and to ensure reliable electric service to the WWTP. These guidelines are general and are not detailed operational directives. System Overview The Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant located at 200 2nd Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, is normally fed via two independent District distribution sources: Maplewood Substation Circuit 12-343, and Westgate Substation Circuit 12-404. Each source feeds a District - owned 2500 kVA transformer and each is independently metered at 480 volts. At present, the WWTP's normal configuration is to split their demand between these two feeders. The WWTP has installed and operates an automatic tie -breaker, also known as an automatic transfer switch (ATS) between the feeders. The City of Edmonds has a Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement (RDC Agreement) with the District (see City of Edmonds WWTP Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement). Thus, distribution capacity is reserved on both Maplewood Substation Circuit 12-343 and Westgate Substation Circuit 12-404 to supply the WWTP's entire operational load should one of the feeders lose power. In addition, the City of Edmonds also has a 1500 kilowatt emergency diesel generator (Generator) should both feeders lose power. The electrical gear at the WWTP was upgraded in October 2013 due to corrosion of their equipment. As part of the upgrade, newer technologies made viable the installation of an ATS for automatic switching of the source feeds should one of the two feeding circuits have an outage. The WWTP's two switchboards have the ability to be tied together on the WWTP's side (the switchboards are configured so that all customer loads can be fed via one source). The District worked with the WWTP to make sure that the two feeding circuits would never be tied together. Operating Agreement for the City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant ©E (d1MM - lu9ua98a6V.18an0d AouepunpeN afldouS : 6V60 luaweei6e 6uileaado :luauayaellV N M c IL m Programmable logic control (PLC) software for the tie -switch was modified to prohibit and prevent tying the two circuits together. Additional signage at the WWTP's panel boards shall be a installed by the WWTP to alert any personnel of this switching requirement. The District shall also install signage on its equipment as a precaution. These requirements are addressed in greater detail below and in the following appendices of supporting documents: Appendix A: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Variance Application for Deviation From Standard Service Requirements, City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant, November, 22, 2013. • Appendix 8: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Preliminary Application for Operation of Customer -Owned Generation, Form 6-1, City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant, May 25, 2016. • Appendix C. Sequence of Operation, Generator and Automatic Transfer Control (LCP — 100), City of Edmonds, Eaton General Order Number. IIMSE6521, October 28, 2013 Rev. 4. Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement As noted above, the City of Edmonds, WWTP, has a Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement with the District. The District agrees to furnish a total redundant capacity of 1500 kW during the term of the RDC Agreement. Such redundant capacity shall consist of two primary service feeders to the WWTP. The District shall determine the primary service feeder lines that best serve the WWTP. The District reserves the ability to switch and serve the primary service feeders from alternate substations from time to time. Maximum kW Demand The District agrees to furnish a maximum amount of 1500 kW during the term of the above referenced RDC Agreement. The WWTP agrees that it will not take more than the maximum amount of kW set forth in this paragraph, and that the District shall not be obligated to provide more capacity than the maximum amount of kilowatts set forth in this paragraph. Operating Agreement for the City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant 316 (d1MM -;uauaaaa6V aaanod AouepunpeN andouS 6V60 ;uaweei6e 6ui;eaado quawLi3epV N M 0 a. m M IL Automatic Transfer Control — Electrical Interlock (Applicable in both manual and automatic mode) As of the date of this Agreement the operational conditions stipulated below are in place. Any change to these operational conditions shall be subject to approval of the District's System Planning and Protection unit and any agreed upon changes shall be incorporated via amendment to this Agreement. 1. The Utility Main Breaker 52-A, 52-13, and Tie Breaker 52-T are electrically interlocked such that both utility main breakers and tie breaker cannot be closed at the same time. The transition between Utility Main Breakers 52-A and 52-B must be open transition, i.e., Tie Breaker 52-T must break (open) before Utility Main Breakers 52-A and 52-B make (are closed). Utility sources PUD-A and PUD-B must never be paralleled under an circumstances. 2. Generator/Main Breaker 52-G, Tie Breaker 52-T, and Utility Main Breaker 52-A cannot be closed at the same time if either the utility source PUD-A or Generator source is dead and cannot be closed out of phase if both utility source PUD-A and Generator source are live. Utility source PUD-A and Generator cannot be paralleled more than 100 milliseconds (ms) when performing closed transition. 3. Generator/Main Breaker 52-G, Tie Breaker 52-T, and Utility Main Breaker 52-B cannot be closed at the same time if either the utility source PUD-B or Generator source is dead and cannot be closed out of phase if both utility source PUD-B and Generator source are live. Utility source PUD-B and Generator cannot be paralleled more than 100ms when performing closed transition. Signage Requirements The WWTP shall install the following operational warning signs which shall be on a red background with white lettering: Signage at the source tie breaker which shall read: DO NOT CLOSE TIE BREAKER 52-T WHEN BOTH SOURCE BREAKERS 52-A AND 52-B ARE CLOSED. • Signage at the two source breakers which shall read: Operating Agreement for the City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant (d1MM - 1u9ua98a6V.18m0d AouepunpeM andouS : 6V60 ;uaweei6e 6uileaado :;uauay3e4jV N M 0 a m M o At Breaker 52-A: DO NOT CLOSE SOURCE BREAKER 52-A WHEN BOTH TIE a BREAKER 52-T AND SOURCE BREAKER 52-B ARE CLOSED o At Breaker 52-B: DO NOT CLOSE SOURCE BREAKER 52-B WHEN BOTH TIE BREAKER 52-T AND SOURCE BREAKER 52-A ARE CLOSED • The District shall install additional signage on the District's equipment at the site regarding the WWTP's ATS and backup generation. Customer Backup Generation Any WWTP backup generation shall not operate in parallel with the District's electrical system for greater than 100 milliseconds. If the aggregate backup generation is 1MW or greater, and parallels the District's system for greater than 100 milliseconds, protection coordination must be provided. Otherwise, in lieu of the proper protection, the generator system must operate in open -transition (refer to the District's Electrical Service Requirements, Section 6, Generation Interconnection). Backup generator testing by the WWTP will occur periodically on a schedule determined by the WWTP. The WWTP shall provide the District with advance notice of planned generator testing. The WWTP can provide notice by calling the District Energy Control Center (ECC), 425-783-5040, at least 30 minutes prior to the test initiation. Notification The WWTP will notify the District's ECC should the WWTP decide to change its normal operating configuration from splitting their load between feeders to one of placing all their load on one feeder and using the alternate feeder for reserve only. The WWTP shall also contact the District's ECC, 425-783-5040, in the event of a feeder outage causing the ATS to operate and transfer all WWTP load to one feeder. Should future WWTP operational changes require additional power capacity WWTP agrees to submit the District's New Commercial Service Application with detailed load information at least 60-business days prior to any planned addition of equipment requiring additional power capacity. Operating Agreement for the City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant 516 (d1MM -;uauaaaa6V.18m0d AouepunpeN afldouS : 6V60 ;uaweei6e 6ui;eaado :;uawLj3e4jV co Contact Information City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant o 24/7 Standby Phone — always answered: 206-499-3852 o Plant Electrician Cell Phone — either at plant or on -call: 206-409-2502 o Plant Main Office— 7 days/week, 5:30 am —10:00 pm: 425-771-0237 o Plant Radio — 7 days/week, 5:30 am —10:00 pm: 425-712-0423 District Energy Control Center: 425-783-5040 o Backup: Chuck Peterson, Executive Account Manager: 425-783-8244 Operating Agreement for the City of Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant N M a m M a (d1MM -;uGwGOJBV JOmOd A3uepunp9N andOuS : 060 1u8w88-16e1u8wGI118s :1uGwLJ3e11V LO C� N r M 00 a1 a. m M SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND PUBLIC UTILITY a. DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY REGARDING REDUNDANT DISTRIBUTION CAPACITY FOR EDMONDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation ("District"), and the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation ("City"). The District and the City shall be collectively referred to herein as "Party" or the "Parties." WHEREAS, the District provides electric service throughout Snohomish County, including Edmonds. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds owns and operates a Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Treatment Plant") located at 200 Second Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington. WHEREAS, the District currently provides electric service to the Treatment Plant through two primary service feeder lines (Westgate Substation 12-404, and Maplewood Substation 12-343) pursuant to the District's Rate Schedule No. 20. WHEREAS, each primary service feeder is capable of providing electric power sufficient to fully operate the Treatment Plant and, thus, providing redundant distribution capacity. WHEREAS, the City has installed an automated tie -breaker system at the Treatment Plant in order to ensure that one of the District feeders provides power in the event that the other feeder is not energized. WHEREAS, under District Rate Schedule 82, the redundant feeder configuration described in the preceding recitals is subject to a Redundant Distribution Capacity charge ("RDC Charge"). WHEREAS, for a number of reasons and factors, the District has not previously charged the City for the RDC Charge. WHEREAS, the Parties disagree about when the RDC Charge should have been applied and the amount of RDC Charges due and owing from the City to the District. WHEREAS, in a desire to avoid litigation, legal expenses and costs, and use of resources, and to provide certainty regarding application and payment of RDC Charges, the Parties have negotiated a mutually acceptable settlement represented in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED BY THE DISTRICT AND THE CITY AS FOLLOWS: 1. Reservation of Redundant Distribution Capacity. After reviewing the electrical service needs of the Treatment Facility, the Parties agree that the District shall reserve, and the City shall pay for, a maximum redundant distribution capacity of 1,500 kilowatts in accordance with the Redundant Distribution Capacity Agreement ("RDC Agreement") attached hereto as SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FINAL EXECUTION VERSION - 02/15/17 1 of 5 (d1MM -;uauaaaaBV JOmOd A3uepunpeN andouS : 060 1u8ua88a6e1u8wGI118s :1uauay3ejjV C1 N 7 M 00 6 a m Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. The Parties shall fully execute the RDC Agreement at the time this Settlement Agreement is fully executed. a 2. Payment of RDC Charges. Commencing the first billing period after January 1, 2016, the City shall pay the District in accordance with Exhibit A and the applicable District Rate Schedule for reserved Redundant Distribution Capacity for the Treatment Plant but on a graduated payment schedule each year beginning with the first monthly billing period after January 1 as follows: Year 1 (2016) — Zero Percent (0%) of the applicable RDC Charges. Year 2 (2017) — Twenty Five Percent (25%) of the applicable RDC Charges. Year 3 (2018) — Fifty Percent (50%) of the applicable RDC Charges. Year 4 (2019) — Seventy Five Percent (75%) of the applicable RDC Charges. Commencing January 1, 2020 and continuing thereafter, the City shall pay the District One Hundred Percent (100%) of the applicable RDC Charges for reserved Redundant Distribution Capacity for the Treatment Plant. 3. Wastewater Treatment Operating Agreement. In order to help protect District and City personnel and equipment from potentially hazardous conditions and ensure reliable electric service to the Treatment Plant, the City agrees to operate its Treatment Plant in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operating Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. The Parties shall fully execute the said Operating Agreement at the time this Settlement Agreement is fully executed. 4. Release of Claims and Complete Resolution of RDC Charge Issue. The Parties hereby release any and all claims and counterclaims they may have against each other related in any way to the application and recovery of the RDC Charges for reserved Redundant Distribution Capacity for the Treatment Facility for the time period prior to the execution of this Agreement and agree that this Agreement fully and completely resolves any and all such claims and counterclaims. 5. Modification. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties. No change, termination, or attempted waiver of any of the provisions in this Agreement shall be binding on either of the Parties unless executed in writing by authorized representatives of each of the Parties. 6. No Third Party Beneficiaru. This Agreement is entered into solely for the benefit of the Parties hereto. This Agreement shall confer no benefits, direct or indirect, on any third persons, including employees of the Parties. No person or entity other than the Parties themselves may rely upon or enforce any provision of this Agreement. 7. Notice. All notices and demands required under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given, made, and received when delivered or deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed as set forth below: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FINAL EXECUTION VERSION — 02/15/17 2of5 (d1MM -;uGwGOJBV JOmOd A3uepunp9N andouS : 060 1u8w88-16e1u8wGI118s :1uGw43e11V t� T 00 If to the District: General Manager/CEO Public Utility District No. 1 2320 California Street Everett, WA 98206 If to the Citv: of Snohomish County Manager, City of Edmonds WWTP 200 Second Ave South Edmonds, WA 98020 8. Waivers. No failure by either Party to insist upon the strict performance of any covenant, duty, agreement, or condition of this Agreement or to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach thereof shall constitute a waiver of any such breach or any other covenant, agreement, term or condition. Either Party hereto, by notice and only by notice as provided herein, may, but shall be under no obligation to, waive any of its rights or any conditions to its obligations hereunder or any duty or obligation or covenant of the other Party hereto. No waiver shall affect or alter this Agreement, and each and every covenant, agreement, term, and condition of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect with respect to any other then existing or subsequent breach thereof. 9. Compliance with Law. All Parties to this Agreement shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations in carrying out the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 10. Severability. a. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any part, term or provision of this Agreement to be illegal or invalid in whole or in part, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the Parties' rights and obligations shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid. b. If any provision of this Agreement is in direct conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, that provision which may conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may conflict and shall be deemed modified to conform to such statutory provision. 11. Additional Acts. Except as otherwise provided herein, in addition to the acts and documents recited herein and contemplated to be performed, executed and/or delivered by either Party hereto, the Parties hereto agree to perform, execute and/or deliver, or cause to be performed, executed and/or delivered, any and all such further acts, documents, and assurances which may reasonably be required to effect the purposes of this Agreement. 12. Neutral Authorship. Each of the provisions of this Agreement has been reviewed and negotiated and represents the combined work product of all Parties hereto. No presumption or other rules of construction which would interpret the provisions of this SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FINAL EXECUTION VERSION - 02/15/17 3of5 (d1MM -;uauaaaaBV JOmOd A3uepunp9N andouS : 060 1u8ua88a6e1u8wGI118s :1uauay3eJJV C1 N � M 0 d r+ d Agreement in favor of or against the party preparing the same shall be applicable in connection U with the construction or interpretation of any of the provisions of this Agreement. a 13. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington (without regard to any conflicts of law principles applied in that State), with venue for any disputes in Snohomish County, Washington; provided that venue for any matter that is within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court shall be in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, Washington. 14. Entire Agreemen#. This document is the complete and exclusive agreement between the Parties. It supersedes all oral or written proposals, promises, or other communications between the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No modification, termination, or amendment of this Agreement may be made except by written agreement signed by all Parties and duly authorized by their governing bodies. 15. Survivability. All covenants, promises and performances, which are not fully performed as of the date of termination shall survive termination as binding obligations. 16. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each such counterpart hereof shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all such counterparts together shall constitute but one agreement. 17. Authority to Bind Parties and Enter Into Agreement. The undersigned represent that they have full authority to enter into this Agreement and to bind the Parties for and on behalf of the legal entities set forth below. 18. Effective Date of this Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date it is fully executed by the Parties. In WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. CITY OF EDMONDS Name: David O. Earlinq Title: Mayor, City of Edmonds Date: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FINAL EXECUTION VERSION — 02/15/17 4 of 5 t� T 00 (d1MM -;uGwGOJBV JOmOd A3uepunp9N andouS : 060 1u8w88-'6e1u8wGI118s :1uGw43e11V ATTEST: By: Name: Scott Passy Title: Citv Clerk Date: PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY By:_ Nam Title: Date: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED AS TO FORM: By; Name: Sharon Cates Title: City Attorney Date: FINAL EXECUTION VERSION - 02/15/17 5 of 5 (d1MM -;uGwGOJ6d JOmOd AouepunpoN andouS : 6-V60 ;uGwOGJ6e;uGwOl ;as :;uGwLlOeUV V 7 00 0 Cl) M 6 a m m a 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 Crumb Rubber extension of moratorium (30 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History The City Council adopted ordinance 4013 on December 8th, 2015 prohibiting certain installations of SBR until July 11, 2017. The City Council identified this issue at their Council retreat in January 2017 as needing some discussion and attention. The City Council assigned Mike Nelson, Dave Tietzel, and Kristiana Johnson to discuss this issue and bring back a recommendation to the full Council. Staff Recommendation Council to discuss and give staff direction. Narrative Ordinance 4013 prohibits certain installations of SBR in the City of Edmonds limits. It also called for the Council to engage an independent consultant with appropriate expertise to review the research that has been completed. In addition, the Council was to provide a report sometime in 2016 that would allow for the risks associated with crumb rubber to be reassessed basing on the latest authoritative information. It then called for a public hearing in June of 2017 to determine whether the ordinance should be extended. This ordinance will sunset on July 11, 2017, unless Council either extends it or adopts a subsequent ordinance. A Council subcommittee comprised of Mike Nelson, Dave Tietzel, and Kristiana Johnson has met several times with staff, and is recommending the Council consider this new ordinance to extend the moratorium until February 28, 2018. It also calls out the requirement to continue to monitor the status of ongoing and new research as it becomes available. Attached is the new ordinance, Ordinance 4013, copies of two studies the Council will continue to monitor. Attachments: 2017-03-29 ordinance extending ban on crumb rubber Ordinance 4013 2017-03-29 Attachment A 2017-03-29 Attachment B Packet Pg. 331 8.2.a and ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING THE PROHIBITION OF THE INSTALLATION OF STYRENE-BUTADIENE RUBBER (ALSO KNOWN AS SBR OR "CRUMB RUBBER") ON PUBLICLY -OWNED ATHLETIC FIELDS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS UNTIL FEBRUARY 28, 2018. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Ordinance 4013 on December 8, 2015; and WHEREAS, Ordinance 4013 prohibited certain installations of SBR until July 11, 2017; WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council intended for additional analysis to be done during the prohibition period to determine whether the duration of the prohibition should be extended; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) launched a multi - agency Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds to study key environmental and human health questions; and WHEREAS, on December 30, 2016, these agencies released a status report describing the progress of the research to date. The status report includes the final peer -reviewed Literature Review/Gaps Analysis report and describes the progress to date on other research activities that are part of the effort including: • Characterization of the chemicals found in tire crumb. • Characterization of the exposure scenarios for those who use turf fields containing tire crumb. • Study to better understand how children use playgrounds containing tire crumb. • Outreach to key stakeholders; and Packet Pg. 332 8.2.a WHEREAS, the status report does not include research findings. For the characterization of the chemicals research, tire crumb material has been collected from tire recycling plants and synthetic turf fields around the U.S. Tire crumb samples have been gathered from nine tire crumb recycling plants, 19 fields located on US Army installations and 21 community fields including both indoor and outdoor fields. Analysis of the tire crumb samples collected from fields and recycling facilities, and the exposure characterization component of the study will continue in 2017. Parts of the exposure study may be conducted during the hotter months of 2017. The CPSC playground study also will continue in 2017; and WHEREAS, this federal research effort won't provide all the answers about whether synthetic turf fields are safe, it represents the first time that such a large study is being conducted across the U.S. The study will provide a better understanding of potential exposures that athletes and others may experience and will help answer some of the key questions that have been raised. Depending upon the findings, available resources and other considerations, additional research beyond the first year may be conducted; and WHEREAS, the EPA has provided a question and answer sheet regarding tire crumb which is attached hereto as Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is also conducting a study on synthetic turf and potential human health impacts. An August 30, 2016 fact sheet related to that study is attached hereto as Attachment B; and WHEREAS, OEHHA will release a draft report describing the preliminary data and results of the study in mid-2018; and WHEREAS, given the ongoing nature of this significant research effort, the city council would like to extend the prohibition contained in Ordinance 4013 until February 28, 2018; and WHEREAS, it is possible that the city council will want to extend the prohibition again depending on the status of these ongoing research efforts and the findings that they might generate; Packet Pg. 333 8.2.a 0 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to Section 2 of this ordinance: A. SBR. "SBR" is an athletic field material consisting of recycled tires consisting of styrene-butadiene rubber. It is commonly known as "crumb rubber." It is used as an infill material and/or as a base layer under the infill. B. Publicly -owned athletic fields. A "publicly -owned athletic field" is an athletic field owned by a city, county, school district, port district, hospital district, other special purpose district or government entity. Section 2. SBR Prohibition. For as long as this ordinance remains in effect, it shall be unlawful to: A. Install SBR on publicly -owned athletic fields already existing within the City of Edmonds if those fields have not already been converted to an SBRcomposition; B. Install SBR on new public -owned athletic fields within the City of Edmonds; C. Install SBR on existing publicly -owned SBR athletic fields within the City of Edmonds as part of a substantial renovation of such existing SBR fields, PROVIDED THAT, for maintenance purposes, infill top dressing of existing SBR fields shall be allowed as needed to keep an appropriate amount of the fiber exposed and to maintain proper infill depth. Packet Pg. 334 8.2.a Section 3. Additional Analysis. During the above -described prohibition, city council intends to: A. Monitor the status of ongoing and new research into the health effects of SBR, including but not limited to the significant studies being performed by the federal government and the state of California; B. Conduct a public hearing in January of 2018 to determine whether this ordinance should be extended. Section 4. Sunset. Unless the effective duration of this ordinance is extended by a subsequently adopted ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance shall be null, void, and of no force and effect on or after February 28, 2018. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING Packet Pg. 335 8.2.a FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 336 8.2.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. _4013 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2017, 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, EXTENDING THE PROHIBITION OF THE INSTALLATION OF STYRENE-BUTADIENE RUBBER (ALSO KNOWN AS SBR OR "CRUMB RUBBER") ON PUBLICLY -OWNED ATHLETIC FIELDS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS UNTIL FEBRUARY 28, 2018. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2017. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 6 Packet Pg. 337 8.2.b ORDINANCE NO. 4013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROHIBITING FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS THE INSTALLATION OF STYRENE- BUTADIENE RUBBER (ALSO KNOWN AS SBR OR "CRUMB RUBBER") ON PUBLICLY -OWNED ATHLETIC FIELDS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS; AND DIRECTING THAT ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS BE CONDUCTED ON THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM SUCH INSTALLATIONS OF SBR UPON HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. WHEREAS, the precautionary principle is a doctrine stating that when there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the environment, a lack of full scientific certainty is not a reason for postponing measures to prevent any potential damage; and WHEREAS, the precautionary principle can be applied with equal force to threats of serious damage to human health; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council supports the values embodied in the precautionary principle; and WHEREAS, concerns have been raised about possible environmental and human health effects of SBR athletic fields; and WHEREAS, a recent study conducted at Yale University found that the rubber used in synthetic turf and rubber mulch contained 96 chemicals; and WHEREAS, there were no toxicity assessments for a little under half of those chemicals and, of those with toxicity assessments, 20 percent were probable carcinogens; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council would like to know whether these chemicals may have synergistic effects and are present in levels that may pose a health risk; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Health is working with the University of Washington's School of Public Health to review information provided by 1 Packet Pg. 338 8.2.b soccer coach Amy Griffin and verify that information against the Washington State Cancer Registry in hopes of determining whether there is an increased rate of selected cancers among soccer players, especially goalies compared to what it would expect based on Washington state rates; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is working closely with its federal and state partners toward ending the uncertainty surrounding crumb rubber; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has posted on its website a question and answer regarding crumb rubber that reads as follows: Q: What advice does EPA have for communities who are concerned about tire crumb? A: EPA recognizes that communities are anxious about tire crumb used in recreational areas. As questions have arose, federal, state, and local government agencies have responded by conducting studies and so far the results have not shown exposures of concern. But new data and analysis are needed about children's health risks from exposures and as the use and variety of tire crumb in turf fields has changed. A plan to identify and address these gaps in research is underway. Communities could also consider contacting their local health officials with questions. While future studies are being conducted, communities that need to make decisions to repair and/or replace their tire crumb playing fields, can consider alternate materials that are available; and WHEREAS, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is planning to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of crumb rubber; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council is hopeful that, in the near future, this evaluation and other studies will be conducted into human exposure and the impact on human health from crumb rubber; and and WHEREAS, City staff should monitor the status of these crumb rubber studies; 2 Packet Pg. 339 8.2.b WHEREAS, during this period of uncertainty, the Edmonds City Council is mindful that alternatives to SBR playfields exist that do not present as many health concerns as SBR; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to Section 2 of this ordinance: A. SBR. "SBR" is an athletic field material consisting of recycled tires consisting of styrene-butadiene rubber. It is commonly known as "crumb rubber." It is used as an infill material and/or as a base layer under the infill. B. Publicly -owned athletic fields. A "publicly -owned athletic field" is an athletic field owned by a city, county, school district, port district, hospital district, other special purpose district or government entity. Section 2. SBR Prohibition. For as long as this ordinance remains in effect, it shall be unlawful to: A. Install SBR on publicly -owned athletic fields already existing within the City of Edmonds if those fields have not already been converted to an SBR composition; B. Install SBR on new public -owned athletic fields within the City of Edmonds; C. Install SBR on existing publicly -owned SBR athletic fields within the City of Edmonds as part of a substantial renovation of such existing SBR fields, PROVIDED THAT, for maintenance purposes, infill top dressing of existing SBR fields shall be allowed as needed to keep an appropriate amount of the fiber exposed and to maintain proper infill depth. 91 Packet Pg. 340 8.2.b Section 3. Additional Analysis. To determine whether the duration of the above prohibition should be extended, the city council directs that the following additional analysis occur during 2016: A. Monitor the status of ongoing and new research into the health effects of SBR; B. Engage an independent consultant with appropriate expertise to review the research that has been completed; C. Provide a report to the city council sometime in 2016 that will allow for the risks associated with crumb rubber to be reassessed based on the latest authoritative information. D. Conduct a public hearing in June of 2017 to determine whether this ordinance should be extended. Section 4. Sunset. Unless the effective duration of this ordinance is extended by a subsequently adopted ordinance, the provisions of this ordinance shall be null, void, and of no force and effect on or after July 11, 2017. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: r S Q_: �-X - 7 � CI LERK, ASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2 OVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING Packet Pg. 341 8.2.b OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JE F TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 4, 2015 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 8, 2015 PUBLISHED: December 13, 2015 EFFECTIVE DATE: January 12, 2016 ORDINANCE NO. 4013 Packet Pg. 342 8.2.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. _4013 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 8th day of December, 2015, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4013. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROHIBITING FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS THE INSTALLATION OF STYRENE- BUTADIENE RUBBER (ALSO KNOWN AS SBR OR "CRUMB RUBBER") ON PUBLICLY -OWNED ATHLETIC FIELDS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS; AND DIRECTING THAT ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS BE CONDUCTED ON THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM SUCH INSTALLATIONS OF SBR UPON HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 9th day of December, 2015. } CITY CLERK, SCOTT C Packet Pg. 343 Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Kathleen Landis being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH673320 ORD. 4013, 4014 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 12/13/2015 and ending on 12/13/2015 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $46.44. Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of AUBREY KNAPP Notary Public State of Washington My Commission Expires July 30, 2018 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 SCOTT PASSEY 8.2.b RECE V ED DEC 16 2015 ivy;_• `' 1 COY CLERK Packet Pg. 344 8.2.b I $IJYMARYDFOADINANCES al the City of Edmonds Wa��IIoonn On the 8th day of Deeombeh 2015, the Clty i;cimali of the City of Edmonds Passed Ms Ioil Gwing Ordinances. sum marles of the content a) Saki ordinances canslsling of titles are provided as follows ORD 8QE ffl&jW AN pRDINANC�F �f>iE L[7YOF EDMONDS, TYf HE INSTALLATION PROHIBITING EIGHTEEN NSTTALLLAON OSTYRENE•BUTA IENE RUBBER PALSO KNOWN AS SBR OR 'CRUMB RUBBER'l 4N UBLICLY -AWNED ATHLETIC FIELDS WITHIN THE C ITY OF E13MONDS: AND DIRECTING THAT ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS BE CONDUCTED ON THE POSSIBLE NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM SUCH INSTALLATIONS OF SSR UPON HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT d AN ORDINANC TH COM OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2016; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING ATIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE The full textof these Ordinances will he m9ed upon request. DATED this 9th day of ❑scember, 2015. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Published: December 13, 2015. EOH67332I- E a Packet Pg. 345 UnitedUmn EmrYonmenlaI PrekK aon vPEFAA9__T 8.2.c Tire Crumb Questions and Answers Q. Which agencies are involved with the Federal Research Action Plan? This plan is led and chiefly implemented by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC-NCEH/ATSDR), in cooperation with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and other agencies. Other agencies such as National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the U.S. Department of Defense and California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will provide expertise, facilities and/or sharing of information. Q. What research is included in the Federal Research Action Plan? Will it answer the question of whether tire crumb is safe? The plan includes four research activities: 1. Outreach to key stakeholders - EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and CPSC are having discussions with other government agencies that have researched or are currently researching tire crumb that provide expertise to inform the federal study, and other key stakeholder groups including tire crumb manufacturers, non-profit organizations, field installers and maintenance professionals, and field users. 2. Analysis of data gaps - EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and CPSC evaluated the existing scientific information related to the use of recycled rubber tire crumb in synthetic turf fields to understand the current state -of -the -science and inform the research activities. The Literature Review and Data Gaps Analysis is included in the status report released in December 2016. 3. Characterization of the chemicals found in tire crumb - EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and CPSC are testing tire crumb from different manufacturing plants and fields. These tests, along with existing scientific information from the literature, will help us better understand the make-up of tire crumb. 4. Characterization of the exposure scenarios - EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and CPSC are conducting several activities to better understand potential exposures that may occur when people use synthetic turf fields. This work is considering all possible ways that one may be exposed including by breathing, unintentionally ingesting, or touching tire crumb or the chemicals in tire crumb. While this effort won't provide all the answers, the information will help answer some of the key questions that have been raised about tire crumb used in synthetic turf fields and will provide a better understanding of potential exposures that field users may experience by using these fields. The research activities have been prioritized based on data needs and available resources. This study will provide Packet Pg. 346 better understanding of the chemicals found in tire crumb and the potential exposures that field users may experience by using these fields. This study, in and of itself, will not determine if fields are safe, but this work is a necessary first step that needs to be taken. Depending on the findings, available resources and other considerations, additional research beyond the first year may be conducted. Q. What is the status of the research? On December 30, 2016, the agencies released a status report describing the progress of the research to date. The status report includes the final peer -reviewed Literature Review/Gaps Analysis report and describes the progress to date on other research activities that are part of the effort including: • Characterization of the chemicals found in tire crumb. • Characterization of the exposure scenarios for those who use turf fields containing tire crumb. • Study to better understand how children use playgrounds containing tire crumb. e Outreach to key stakeholders. A final peer -reviewed Literature Review/Gaps Analysis was publicly released in December 2016 as part of the status report. The status report does not include research findings. Collection of tire crumb samples from fields and recycling facilities is complete. Tire crumb samples were gathered from nine tire crumb manufacturing plants, 19 fields located on U.S. Army installations and 21 community fields across the U.S. Fields included both outdoor and indoor fields. Analysis of the tire crumb samples collected from fields and recycling facilities, and the exposure characterization component of the study, will continue in 2017. Parts of the exposure study may be conducted during the hotter months of 2017. The CPSC playground study will continue in 2017. The Synthetic Turf Fields with Tire Crumb Rubber Infill Research Protocol document was extensively reviewed, including a peer -review and an Institutional Review Board review, and the document is now final. Data collection components of the Federal Research on Recycled Tire Crumbs went through a public comment period and an Information Collection Request review conducted by the Office of Management and Budget. Peer -review and public comments are publicly available on the OMB's website. One of the main research activities gathered tire crumb samples from tire crumb manufacturing plants and from fields across the country. EPA, ATSDR, and CPSC have engaged various stakeholder groups through a number of outreach activities including a public comment process, webinars, conference calls, and in -person meetings. Stakeholder outreach efforts were targeted to the public as well as specific stakeholder groups, such as government organizations (other federal agencies, state agencies, local government and international government), industry and non-profit/interest groups. Packet Pg. 347 As it is available, updated information will be posted to EPXs tire crumb website (www.epa.gov/tirecrumb) . Q. When did the research begin and when will it end? The Federal Research Action Plan launched on February 12, 2016. The data collection components (tire crumb sample collection and exposure chracterization) of the study received OMB approval in August 2016. EPA, ATSDR, and CPSC engaged various stakeholder groups through a number of outreach activities including a public comment process, webinars, conference calls, and in -person meetings. The final peer reviewed Literature Review/Gaps Analysis report along with a progress report for other components of the study was released in December 2016. Analysis of the tire crumb samples collected from fields and recycling facilities, and the exposure characterization component of the study, will continue in 2017. Parts of the exposure study may be conducted during the hotter months of 2017. The CPSC playground study also will continue in 2017. Q. Where can I find responses to the public comments on this research submitted through the Federal Register Notice? Public comments submitted in response to the Federal Register Notice have been reviewed by EPA and CDC/ATSDR. EPA and CDC/ATSDR responses to public comments are available online - http://www.reginfo,gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref nbr=201607-0923-001 Q. What is the research protocol document? The research protocol document describes the study design and protocol for three research activities in the Federal Research Action Plan including the literature review and data gaps analysis; the tire crumb collection and characterization; and the characterization of human exposure to tire crumb in synthetic turf fields. The document explains the study objectives, research design, methods that are being used to characterize tire crumb and the exposures, data analysis techniques and the quality assurance/quality control measures in place to ensure the integrity of the research. Q: Where are the fields located that will be studied? Tire crumb samples were gathered from nine tire crumb manufacturing plants, 19 fields located on U.S. Army installations and 21 community fields across the U.S. Fields included both outdoor and indoor fields. The analysis of the tire crumb samples is underway. These locations include both outdoor and indoor playing fields. To protect privacy, the names of the specific locations sampled will not be released to the public. Q. How can I find out more information about this research? As it is available, updated information about the study will be posted to EPXs Tire Crumb Website: www.epa.gov/tirecrumb. Packet Pg. 348 Q. What stakeholder outreach activities have been completed as part of this study? EPA, ATSDR, and CPSC have engaged various stakeholder groups through a number of outreach activities including a public comment period, webinars, conference calls, and in -person meetings. Stakeholder outreach efforts were targeted to the public as well as specific stakeholder groups such as government organizations (other federal agencies, state agencies, local government and international government), industry and non-profit/interest groups. The purpose of the stakeholder outreach was to inform the public about the Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds and to encourage stakeholders to provide feedback on studies that are part of the research. The outreach to specific stakeholder groups also included information sharing around the manufacturing and the use of tire crumb in synthetic turf fields. Q. What are the key findings of the Literature Review/Gaps Analysis? An important component of any research is to understand the state of the science and any data gaps. The peer -reviewed Literature Review/Gaps Analysis (LRGA) provides a current summary of the available literature and capture the data gaps as characterized in those publications. The overall goals of the LRGA were to inform the interagency research study and to identify potential areas for future research that might be needed. The LRGA identified 90 references. Each reference reviewed was categorized according to 20 general information categories (e.g., study topic, geographic location, sample type, conditions, and populations studied) and more than 100 sub -categories (e.g., study topic subcategories: site characterization, production process, leaching, off -gassing, microbial analysis, and human risk). The research in the Federal Research Action Plan addresses many of the gaps identified, particularly with respect to tire crumb rubber characterization and exposure characterization. The review provides information useful for guiding and designing future research efforts needed to further address questions regarding exposures and risks for tire crumb rubber used in synthetic turf fields and playgrounds. Q. How is the Federal Government working with California? California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), under contract from CalRecycle, is conducting a comprehensive evaluation of tire crumb. This evaluation is being designed to deliver the kind of information states, communities and parents are looking for so they can make informed decisions for their communities and their families. The US National Toxicology Program, at the request of California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, initiated a research program to better understand potential health impacts of chemicals released from synthetic turf with an emphasis on crumb rubber. More information about the NTP research is online at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/sy_ntheticturf/research.html. EPA, CPSC and other federal agencies are also working with California's OEHHA to provide Packet Pg. 349 expertise to assist with OEHHA's evaluation of tire crumb. More information about California's study is online - htip:Hoehha.ca.gov/risk-assessment/synthetic- turf-studies. turf -studies. Q. How is the US Federal Government working with other international government organizations interested in this topic, including the European Chemicals Agency? The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) contacted EPA expressing their interest in the U.S. study. ECHA is an agency of the European Union that implements chemical legislation for the protection of human health and the environment. This interest has resulted in regular calls with ECHA and an in -person meeting. During these meetings, information related to research efforts are shared. In addition, the Netherlands and France are also interested in studying tire crumb rubber exposure and characterization and communications with these organizations are on -going. More information about ECHA's study is online - https://echa.europa.eu/addressing-chemicals-of-concern/restriction/calls-for- comments-and-evidence/-/sub stance -rev/ 15 3 31 /term . Q. What advice do you have for communities who are concerned about the use of tire crumb in fields? We recognize that communities, parents and state and local officials are concerned about tire crumb used in synthetic turf fields. While this short-term study won't provide all the answers, the study's findings will provide a better understanding of the chemical composition of tire crumb and the potential exposures people may experience by using these fields. Communities, parents, state and local officials are encouraged to explore the federal agencies' websites (CPSC - https://www.cpsc.gov/Safety_ Education/S afety-Education-Centers/Crumb-Rubber-S afety-Information-Center and EPA - www.epa.gov/tirecrumb) to review the research results available to - date on the use of recycled tire rubber in playgrounds and synthetic turf fields. In addition, concerned individuals can check their state's public health agency websites to determine if there are state -specific recommendations. EPA compiled a list of information from state government websites, which can be found online — www.epa.gov/tirecrumb . Q. Are there any alternative materials/products that can be used? EPA is aware of a few alternatives to tire crumb that can be used as infill in synthetic turf, such as organic materials like sand, coconut husks, or cork. In addition, CPSC has suggested that the public and homeowners may use shredded mulch, and other materials to create a shock -absorbing surface under backyard and public playgrounds. However, EPA has not independently studied or evaluated any of these alternative materials. Q. Who regulates the management and disposal of used tires? State solid waste agencies are primarily responsible for regulating the management of used tires at their end of life, including options for recycling and Packet Pg. 350 disposal. You can consult your state solid waste regulatory agency for information and guidance on the proper management of used tires in a particular state. Q. How is tire crumb produced? Tire crumb is manufactured by reducing scrap tires down to various sizes depending on its intended application and market use, and by removing 99 percent or more of the steel and fabric from them. The tire crumb is classified by sifting screens that return oversize pieces back into the reduction process. Magnets are used throughout the process to remove the wire and other metal contaminants and air separators are used to remove the fabric. The American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) has a standard test method (ASTM D5644) for determining the particle size distribution of recycled vulcanized particulate rubber (a.k.a. tire crumb). ASTM D5603 classifies recycled vulcanized particulate rubber based on particle size distribution and origin of the rubber. Q. States and other organizations have conducted studies on tire crumb. What have they concluded? Current information from a number of studies does not show an elevated health risk from playing on fields with tire crumb. However, these studies do not comprehensively address the concerns about the potential health risks associated with exposure to tire crumb. Q. Will the results of the federal research be made public? Will states be given access to help them make decisions about use? Analysis of the tire crumb samples collected from fields and recycling facilities, and the exposure characterization component of the study will continue in 2017. Parts of the exposure study may be conducted during the hotter months of 2017. The CPSC playground study also will continue in 2017. The agencies will release to the public a final peer -reviewed report describing the findings and conclusions of the studies. Q. What are the various markets for tire crumb? In the U.S., markets for tire crumb include new rubber products, playground and other sports surfacing, and rubber -modified asphalt. The tire crumb used in these ground rubber applications consumed 1,020,000 tons of scrap tires in 2015, or about 26% of the volume of scrap tires generated. Sports surfaces accounted for 25% of tire crumb use. Packet Pg. 351 Molded/Extruded Rubber Products (e.g. rubber gaskets) 35% Playground Mulch 22% Sports Surfaces 25 % Asphalt 15% Automotive 2% Export 1 % Source: Rubber Manufacturers Association: 2015 U.S. Scrap Tire Management Summary. LAST UPDATED ON DECEMBER 30, 2016 8.2.c Packet Pg. 352 8.2.d Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) California Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Health Study of Synthetic Turf - August 2016 Update The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is conducting a study of the potential health effects associated with the chemicals released from synthetic turf and playground mats containing recycled waste tires. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), which regulates the use of waste tires in California, has contracted with OEHHA to perform the study. What's New? OEHHA has amended the contract with CalRecycle based upon input from the Synthetic Turf Scientific Advisory Panel and input from the public. The scope of the synthetic turf field investigation has been expanded to include: methods to extract as many chemicals as possible from crumb rubber samples for identification, the use of more suitable artificial bio- fluids (such as fluids that mimic human sweat) to evaluate the chemicals that enter the body, and measurements of crumb rubber particle size to understand if inhalation of small particles occurs. To accommodate the additional analyses, OEHHA has extended the project completion date to mid-2019. What is OEHHA studying? The study is assessing the potential health impacts associated with playing on synthetic turf fields and playground mats. It is examining athletic fields and playground mats made from crumb rubber derived from recycled waste tires. Major parts of the study include: • Identifying and measuring chemicals released from crumb rubber and artificial grass blades in indoor and outdoor fields and playground mats throughout California. o Synthetic turf fields of various ages and subjected to various weather conditions will be studied. o Air above synthetic turf fields and playgrounds will be monitored for particulate matter and specific chemicals that can be inhaled. o The size distribution of the collected particulate matter will be characterized. • Evaluating exposures to chemicals released from crumb rubber and synthetic grass blades through inhalation, swallowing, and skin contact. This includes consideration of: o The extent to which individuals (for example athletes and bystanders) are exposed, based on their activity patterns and how often and long they stay on the field. Packet Pg. 353 8.2.d Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) California Environmental Protection Agency o How exposure to the chemicals varies by age groups of athletes and bystanders. o Movement of chemicals from turf into body fluids. • Evaluating the hazards and toxicological activities of chemicals released from turf. This includes examining the ways that sensitive populations, such as children, may be more vulnerable to chemicals released from synthetic turf fields. • Developing a study protocol for measuring chemicals from synthetic turf in urine or other bodily fluids of athletes, or using personal monitors worn by athletes. (The current study plan calls for developing a study plan but not undertaking these measurements. These studies could take place after completion of the current study.) • Conducting an assessment of potential health impacts associated with exposures to chemicals released from synthetic turf and playground mats, taking into account the findings of the above activities. What information will the study provide? The study is scheduled for completion in mid-2019 with the release of a report on the field monitoring results, exposure characterization, and health risk assessment. Prior to completion, OEHHA will release a draft report describing the preliminary data and results of the study in mid-2018. The information generated in the study will enable OEHHA to determine the types and concentrations of chemicals individuals are exposed to when playing on synthetic turf and playground mats, estimate the level of exposures associated with various activities, and assess whether these exposures pose potential health risks. CalRecycle will use this information in making future decisions regarding the use of crumb rubber in synthetic turf and playground mats. How is OEHHA obtaining input on the study? OEHHA began the study by conducting an interactive webinar and public meetings in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Berkeley to seek input from athletes, coaches, parents and other interested individuals. OEHHA also convened a panel of scientific experts in exposure and biomedical sciences to provide input and advice on the study. The first meeting of the panel was held in February 2016, and there will be additional panel meetings throughout the study. All meetings of the panel will be held in public, with opportunities for the public to comment. Has OEHHA studied synthetic turf in the past? OEHHA conducted two studies on the potential human health effects associated with use of recycled waste tires in playground and synthetic turf products in 2007 and 2010. These studies evaluated key aspects of synthetic turf fields, including inhalation of chemicals, 2 Packet Pg. 354 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) California Environmental Protection Agency bacterial infections, and skin abrasions. OEHHA's current effort will fill in data gaps and address the potential risks from chemical exposures resulting from skin contact with, breathing or ingesting crumb rubber from synthetic turf fields. The California Integrated Waste Management Board, which has since been reorganized as CalRecycle, also contracted with OEHHA to perform the previous two studies: Evaluation of Health Effects of Recycled Waste Tires in Playground and Track Products, January 2007 Safety Study of Artificial Turf Containing Crumb Rubber Infill Made From Recycled Tires: Measurements of Chemicals and Particulates in the Air, Bacteria in the Turf, and Skin Abrasions Caused by Contact with the Surface, October 2010 These studies can be found at: http://oehha.ca.gov/risk-assessment/synthetic-turf-studies. First Published on: October 20, 2015 Updated on: August 30, 2016 3 Packet Pg. 355 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/4/2017 City Council Meeting Format and Council Committee Structure (30 min.) Staff Lead: Tom Mesaros Department: City Council Preparer: Andrew Pierce Background/History During the 2017 Edmonds City Council Retreat the format of City Council meetings was discussed (see attached Council Retreat Minutes). From that discussion it was decided that the Council should consider and debate the reinstatement of standing Council Committee meetings as conducted prior to the Council disbanding that practice in 2015 (see July 7th, 2015 Agenda Packet, Council Meeting minutes from between July 7 and July 28 of 2015, and Ordinance 4004). Prior to their disbandment, there were three standing Council Committees, including the following three committees: Finance; Parks, Planning, and Public Works; and Public Safety and Personnel (a draft description of each committee is included for debate). Staff Recommendation Discuss and debate the reinstatement of standing Council Committees, including a review of the draft ordinance. Narrative In order to facilitate the operation of public works, City institutions must incorporate procedures that allow those institutions to effectively yet thoroughly conduct City operations. As such, it behooves the City government to examine, explore, and incorporate procedures to accommodate efficiency, transparency, and robust debate around all business before the City. Attachments: 2017-02-15 draft ordinance re council committees Proposed Committee Descriptions Packet Pg. 356 8.3.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND AMENDING ECC 1.04.010. WHEREAS, the city council has the power to organize and regulate its internal affairs under RCW 35A.11.020; and WHEREAS, the city council discussed at its January 2017 retreat a desire to return to a committee system; and WHEREAS, the city council would like to establish regular meeting times and places for such committees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1.04.010 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Regular public meeting time and days," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in stfike thfo g ): 1.04.010 Regular public meeting time and days. A. Full council. Regular meetings of the city council shall be held on eaeh every Tuesday of every month, except for the fifth Tuesday of a month, at 7:00 p.m. fh�nUgbeut the ye Regular meetings of the city council shall be held in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington. at 7:00 r seeend and feuAh Tuesdays of evei=y month are hereby designated as work meetings. The eity eetmeil does not meet on the fifth Tuesday of a month unless a speeial meeting is ^.,,� Council meetings shall adjourn ono later than 10:00 p.m. on the day initiated unless such adjournment is extended by an affirmative vote of a majority of the council as a whole plus one. The city council may recess into committees duringits is regular meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of the month and resume business as a full council that same night following such committee meetings. Packet Pg. 357 8.3.a B. Council committees. The city council shall have the following standing committees: finance; parks, planning, and public works ("PPP"); public safety and personnel ("PSP"). Regular meetings of the city council committees shall be held on the first and third Tuesdays of every month at 7:00 p.m. while the regulary council meeting is in recess. Regular meetings of the city council committees shall be held concurrently in the following three rooms of the Public Safety Complex, 250 Fifth Avenue N., Edmonds, Washington: 1) the Council Chambers; 2) the Jury MeetingRoom; oom; and 3) the Police Training Room. Council committee meetings shall adjourn no later than 8:15 p.m. on the day initiated, PROVIDED that committee meetings may resume after the adjournment of the city council meeting as long as the resumption is announced by the council meetingchair to adjournment and as long as the committee meeting does not extend nast 10:00 D.M. 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, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Packet Pg. 358 8.3.a C JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 359 8.3.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2017, 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, RELATING TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND AMENDING ECC 1.04.010. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2017. 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 M CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 360 Proposed Committee Descriptions 8.3.b Finance Committee Shall exercise general oversight with respect to city revenues and expenditures. The committee may report to the council the cost of implementation of any order, ordinance, program, or other initiative pending before the body, and shall make such report whenever requested by another committee or directed to do so by the council. The committee shall have referred to it all matters concerning appropriations, the city budget, expenditures and loans. The committee shall review city policies and actions involving the purchase of financial services, deposits, borrowing, and investment. The committee shall concern itself with issues related to all city owned or leased facilities. Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee Shall concern itself with open space conservation and access to recreational facilities and opportunities, as well as, the physical development of the city, including financing, zoning, licensing, land use policy, and the effects of development on the city. The committee shall have oversight of public parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities and matters generally impacting the Parks Department including but not limited to accessibility, maintenance, design and construction of new and existing public parks in the city. The committee shall exercise oversight with respect to all commercial, medical, research, educational and large scale residential development and building projects, as well as historic preservation programs. The committee U shall work to ensure community participation in the planning and development process, that residents and their institutional neighbors are both able to share in the city's benefits, and that the delivery of financial services are accessible, non-discriminatory and promote both small and large business and development throughout all c neighborhoods. �- L V d The committee shall exercise oversight with respect to the care, management, custody, and use of public lands c and buildings. as E Public Safety and Personnel Committee E c0 Shall concern itself with the adequate delivery of police and fire protection to the City. The committee shall be d a responsible for evaluating, encouraging, and facilitating resident -driven efforts to prevent crime. The a committee shall coordinate and work with other City agencies and community organizations to evaluate, explore and develop strategies, policies, and recommendations aimed at ensuring the public's safety. M Shall concern itself with matters relating to personnel policies and practices, compensation and benefits, labor Q relations and collective bargaining, employee relations, staffing and organizational structure. Packet Pg. 361