Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2016-02-16 City Council - Full Agenda-1605
'4- o 0 -c9 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds BUSINESS MEETING FEBRUARY 16, 2016 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE 1. Roll Call 2. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda 3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. AM-8346 Approval of draft City Council Meeting minutes of February 9, 2016. B. AM-8343 Approval of claim checks #218510 through #218610 dated February 11, 2016 for $152,233.25. C. AM-8335 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Erin Eddins ($3,196.92), and Bj Brown ($4,000.00). D. AM-8340 Proposed Amendment No 1 Snohomish Public Defense Association E. AM-8341 Authorization to award a construction contract for the SW Edmonds - 105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements Project to Rodarte Construction F. AM-8342 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with the Blueline Group for Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services G. AM-8345 Ordinance amending Type of Experience Sought for Members of the Citizens Economic Development Commission Packet Page 1 of 175 4. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS A. (5 Minutes) Presentation of Award to the Finance Department for Consolidated Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. (15 Minutes) Public Hearing on proposed amendment to ECDC 20.03.002 regarding number of days AM-8344 for public notice 7. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 8. (15 Minutes) Council Comments 9. Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(l)(i). 10. Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session. ADJOURN Packet Page 2 of 175 AM-8346 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/16/2016 Time: Consent Submitted By: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Information Subiect Title Approval of draft City Council Meeting minutes of February 9, 2016. Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Attachment 1 - Draft Council Meeting Minutes Attachments Attachment 1 - 02-09-16 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Form Review Form Started By: Scott Passey Started On: 02/12/2016 07:54 AM Final Approval Date: 02/12/2016 3. A. Packet Page 3 of 175 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES February 9, 2016 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5t1i Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Kristiana Johnson, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT S. Gagner, Police Officer Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Earling announced the City closed on the purchase of Civic Field today. 1. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Mesaros. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD AS ITEM 4A FOR 7 MINUTES AN ORDINANCE ON REESTABLISHING THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND LIMITATIONS PLACED ON VOLUNTEERS. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she provided each Councilmember, the Beacon and My Edmonds News with an agenda memo she prepared on Saturday. She anticipated the item could be discussed and action taken with seven minutes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 1 Packet Page 4 of 175 COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 2016 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #218372 THROUGH #218509 DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2016 FOR $251,567.08. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT #62055 THROUGH #62063 FOR $518,345.07, BENEFIT CHECKS #62064 THROUGH #62071 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $482,483.86 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JANUARY 16, 2016 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2016 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JEANETTE NYMAN ($150.00) AND FROM GARY D. ATKINSON ($3,604.98) D. CONFIRMATION OF ATHENE TARRANT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD IN POSITION #3 - LAYMAN E. CONFIRMATION OF LESLY KAPLAN TO THE ARTS COMMISSION IN POSITION #7 - LITERARY F. FISHING PIER REHABILITATION PROJECT CONTRACT AWARD 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Jerry Tays, Edmonds, relayed his support for the Sunset Avenue project, but said he is concerned about two elements of the project. First, parking, as the most dangerous way to drive a vehicle is in reverse. Yesterday he had his fourth near miss since the street as restriped. Second, he was more concerned with the way the project is funded. As a former federal and state employee, he knew this project could not be funded with federal funds as they would not spend taxpayer dollars on a project of this cost with only a one year right of renewal; that is not sufficient time to protect the public's investment. He recommended identifying either a different way of funding the project or guaranteeing citizens will be able to keep the project once it has been implemented. Two Councilmembers have asked questions about this in the past and a current member of the Council asked on his behalf, but it has never been answered. Vivian Olson, Edmonds, thanked the Council and staff for the opportunity to weigh in regarding Sunset. After reading all the survey results, she felt this process had given clarity on what the main purpose of Sunset should be beyond its status as a residential street. There are many parks and public spaces in Edmonds to hang out and two such as Brackett Landing and Marine Beach are waterfront. Therefore Sunset does not need to be a place to hang out but rather it should provide what other parks and public spaces do not, a scenic thoroughfare for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. She suggested all decision related to this project would be easier to make when put through that filter. Thalia Moutsanides, Edmonds, submitted 2 copies of the 1,091 signatures she collected against the proposed walkway and copies of 2 surveys done on EdmondsBeacon.com asking whether the City should go forward with the Sunset Avenue walkway project. The March 12, 2014 survey had 17 yes votes and 97 no votes and the October 18, 2014 survey had 18 yes votes and 104 no votes. She summarized there has been strong support from the beginning for shutting this project down. The new survey did not state how much has been spent to date or how much it will cost to complete the project. This information should have been included because many would feel the money could be better spent elsewhere. When speaking with the young man on Sunset gathering information for the new survey, he twisted all her statements to say she was in favor of the project. She has never supported this project and questioned whether her Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 2 Packet Page 5 of 175 comments or the comments of anyone else against the project were included in the survey or had he neglect to write them down. The initial grant proposal said there were no negative comments although there had been a lot. Those who are against the walkway have said all along that bikes, skateboards, Segways and scooters do not belong on the walkway, a sentiment confirmed by the new survey. She questioned why BNSF, another huge player in the project, was not brought up in survey. From the beginning the public did not get all the facts or the whole truth and she questioned whether the public was now. She felt Sunset had turned into a three ring circus; not everyone is there to enjoy view, people look into their houses and last week she had a package stolen off her porch, the first time in 30 years. She believed if this occurred on a Councilmember's street, they would also be upset. This street was perfect the way it was before; the right amount of people, cars and park and she wanted it restored to its original beauty. Sandy Olson, Edmonds, proposed the angle parking on Sunset be eliminated as the 21 angled spots block views for motorists, sidewalk pedestrians and homeowners and create hazardous driving conditions. Previously drivers could get a glimpse of the view while driving but not anymore; it is hazardous, narrow and impossible. Sunset now looks like a parking lot. By comparison Brackett's Landing has 38 parking spaces, Sunset Avenue has 32 and Marina Beach has 40 on the south and 21 on the north. She was also concerned for the residents of sunset and questioned whether they were considered at all; they have cars backing onto their property emitting fumes, and likely have challenges getting into their driveways. She recommended Sunset be returned to the way it was. Janet Henry, Edmonds, commented she found it difficult to trust the integrity and results of Sunset Avenue survey because they are so contrary to the 1200 signatures on the petition. She pointed out although the City has 30,000+ residents, only 764 were interested enough to take the survey and out of that, half or more of the comments were negative, leaving about 300 people who use Sunset for the purpose the changes were intended. From reviewing the materials, it appears nearly $200,000 was spent on the project by the end of 2014 and later in 2015 many of the plants died and were replaced, more bark was added and more man-hours were spent tweaking the initial changes and even special accommodation promised one resident but not others. She found the grant funding aspect of the project deceptive and troubling; the taxpayer grant dollars were obtained by telling the PSRC it would be a multipurpose pathway but after this yearlong trial, it obviously cannot be because there is not enough space for wheeled devices, pedestrians, dogs, etc. Only three people can walk abreast with many of those walking partially or fully between the yellow lines that designate the curb; that danger must be acknowledged. She suggested these comments may be moot because the survey indicates even bicyclists do not feel comfortable using the pathway. Therefore she assumed the multipurpose path grant dollars could not be used for the project and would need to be returned and the City's funds written off. She recommended no further funds or man-hours be spent on this controversial and unfortunate idea proposed several years ago by one person and the street returned to its original condition. 4A AN ORDINANCE ON REESTABLISHING THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND LIMITATIONS PLACED ON VOLUNTEERS Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who contacted her about this. She apologized for not catching that the ordinance regarding the EDC was not status quo. She recalled growing up in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, competing with others, having qualifications that did not match or being put in a box. She referred to her memo, suggesting the Council consider removing Section 5 which states members should exhibit experience in fields such as private or nonprofit business, economics, real estate, finance, development, education or other similar fields. She referred to Section 7 which states a commissioner that fails to maintain his/her eligibility can be removed. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REMOVE SECTIONS 5 AND 7. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 3 Packet Page 6 of 175 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated comments she made last week that limiting who was allowed to participate in the CEDC disqualified people who would be beneficial to the City's economics such as bus drivers, nurses, artists, etc. For example a writer would not qualify for the EDC. She expressed support for the proposed change. She has been told that the language will not exclude anyone because the Council has the ability to appoint whoever they want. If that is the case, this language is still unnecessary. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the wording, finding it very broad. Using Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' example, an author has at least some organizational and economic capacity to carry out that activity. He did not view the wording particularly narrow. If the language were removed, he asked what language would be inserted to help inform the community what skill set or knowledge base the City was seeking to promote the mission of the EDC. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded having no statement would be the most beneficial. She reminded the EDC is a Council commission and she hoped Councilmembers would be able to appoint citizens who were interested in economic development and worked well in a group. To the question of what problem this sought to address, she relaying her belief it was to address some people appointed to the EDC during the last two years who had been disruptive. She understood the EDC needs more focus and purpose but she trusted Councilmembers to make the right decision. She was elected by the voters to make those decisions and if she could not make a good decision regarding who to appoint to the EDC, she should not be a Councilmember. She was sorry if some people had been appointed who perhaps did not have the best interest of EDC in mind; that was not her; she has the best interests of the EDC in mind and would like the ability to appoint who she thinks would be best. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Section 5 which is now 6, that previously only stated members of the commission must be residents of Edmonds. Councilmembers are all intelligent, business minded people and she felt the new language was discriminatory. Councilmember Teitzel appreciated the concern and the passion and assured he did not want the language to be exclusionary. In considering what the City was trying to achieve via the EDC, he felt it was to gather people who are creative at bringing new businesses to Edmonds, helping grow the economic base and tax base, so that the City can provide the services citizens want without raising property taxes. There previously were 17 members which allowed for a broad mix of people; because the new commission will only be 9 members, they need to be qualified and have demonstrated expertise in marketing, running a business, etc. He read the language in Section 6, Members of the commission must be residents of the City of Edmonds. Members should exhibit experience in fields such as private or nonprofit business..." To him, anyone who has had anything to do with business has demonstrated experience, creativity in attracting customers and growing their business are welcome to apply. For example, an immigrant who settled in Edmonds and operates a dry cleaner business is thriving, attracting new customers but may not have formal education in the US; he would like that person to apply to be on the EDC. The language accepts that type of person as an applicant. The language also states experience in economics, real estate, finance, development, education or other similar fields. He felt the language was sufficiently broad and not exclusionary. The intent was for applicants to be qualified and to bring a certain skill set to this important position. Ultimately the EDC will help the City and the taxpayers by keeping property tax rates low. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the list of qualifications includes realtors. She asked Councilmember Teitzel to explain how a realtor benefits economic development. Councilmember Teitzel responded realtors have formal training and expertise in business, know the economics process related to financing, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded her sister is a realtor and has had no business training; she is a sales person. She felt the language was very subjective; for example, Councilmember Teitzel may view a realtor as appropriate because he saw the business end of it but she did not. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 4 Packet Page 7 of 175 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas felt the language eliminates women; in the US, 23% of businesses are run by women and 18% of CEOs are women, the majority are men. The language discriminates against women who have equal abilities but may not have had the opportunity to run businesses or be CEOs. It has only been in the last 20 years that women have had the ability to get out of the house and the caretaking role. Councilmember Teitzel said he was sensitive to the concern with being discriminatory or inclusionary but the language states members should exhibit experience in fields such as private or nonprofit business, he emphasized "should," stating anyone was eligible to apply, male, female, minorities, etc. The intent was to screen applicants to ensure the best qualified pool of applicants to appoint. Council President Johnson pointed out EDC applications are due on February 19. In order to encourage both the arts community and the local business community, she forwarded the announcement about the application process and the forms to the Chamber of Commerce to broadcast it to the Chamber members and to Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin who has contacts in the arts community. Given there is a short time amount of time to submit application, she encouraged Councilmembers to extend the invitation to people in the community. Although she had some initial qualms about the requirement language, she did vote in favor of the ordinance reestablishing the EDC which was approved by the Council. If the motion is approved, the positions will need to be re -advertised and an additional two weeks added to the application deadline under the new criteria. Councilmember Nelson said he had heard some very important, enlightening and persuasive comments. Although he supported the ordinance reestablishing the EDC, he did not want to be viewed as discriminatory, particularly toward women. In reality Councilmembers will appoint whomever they want but if it made some Councilmembers feel it would not exclude women, he would support the proposed change. Economic Development & Community Services Director Doherty said Section 7 (formerly 6) only refers to residency. Councilmember Buckshnis said the requirement that commissioners be residents would still apply, only the qualifications would be removed. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Council President Johnson requested City Attorney Jeff Taraday provide a new version of the ordinance for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding of the motion was to remove the second sentence from new subsection 6 and no change to subsection 7. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested section 7 state the commissioner would become ineligible if he/she moved out of the City. She offered to email Mr. Taraday her suggested language. Mayor Earling pointed out this now backed up the process three weeks; his primary concern was getting the EDC up and running and now it has been stalled until mid -March. Council President Johnson pointed out the City Council will make decision regarding the ordinance on February 16. The current application period runs until February 19, the application deadline can be 2 weeks from February 19, allowing the process to be concluded by March 1. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS A. EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION PRESENTATION ON THE 2015 STUDENT EXCHANGE TO HEKINAN, JAPAN Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 5 Packet Page 8 of 175 Karyn Heinekin, a teacher at Edmonds Elementary, 2015 ESCC student exchange chaperone and ESCC Commissioner, introduced Robert Allen, the other 2015 ESCC chaperone. She displayed a video of the Edmonds-Hekinan Student Exchange which included Edmonds area students who visit famous sites, beautiful locales, and local landmarks; taste new foods; make new friends; and experience Japanese traditions. After the two week stay in Japan the students host a Hekinan delegation in Edmonds, showing them the sights and sounds of the NW. Because students stay in host family homes, the only cost is airfare. Harold Williams (Dar), Lynnwood, said the opportunity to go to Japan was a dream come true and gave him a clear sense what he wants to do in his life. He was nervous before the trip but once they arrived he was worry free and welcomed by the families. Spencer Montanari, Edmonds, said visiting Japan was a great experience; he had never visited an Asian country before. It was amazing how the ESCC set up the exchange program, allowing the delegation to meet a lot of people and to travel with friends. He liked staying with a host family because he was less a tourist and more like someone living in Japan. Thomas Watridge, Edmonds, said he had a great time visiting Japan with friends as part of the delegation. He realized the importance of maintaining a healthy relationship with Edmonds' Sister City. The Sister City exchange program allows students who may not have the opportunity to travel to visit Japan. He encouraged students to participate and the City to continue the ESCC exchange program. Graham Hefford appreciated the opportunity to visit Hekinan. He loved the excitement of the journey and the unique experience of staying in the home of his host family; he always felt at home and was never uncomfortable even though he cannot speak Japanese. A short time ago he never would have conceived getting to know a Japanese family so closely and the opportunity of the ESCC exchange program opened a window for him into the life of Hekinan family. An avid skier, even in the sweltering heat of a Hekinan summer, his host parents took him to a ski jump facility built for off season use. He thanked the City for opportunity for the opportunity visit Hekinan. It was an honor to be an ambassador of Edmonds and the United States and he would one day like to spend more time with his host family. Robert Allen, 2015 ESCC student exchange co -chaperone, a teacher in the Edmonds School District, reported these are 4 of the 8 students in the delegation that visited Hekinan. The students were engaging with their host families and the entire city of Hekinan. Wherever they visited, people were amazed to meet the Americans. He encouraged the Council to assist the ESCC with funding, explaining when they visit Japan, they visit beautiful temples and restaurants; when the students visit Edmonds, they are given cold sandwiches, salad, and pizza. Ms. Heinekin said she joined the ESCC following her visit to Hekinan, a life changing experience she brings to her classroom and she found it a joy to work with the high school student delegation. She expressed appreciation for the opportunity to visit Japan. She left a gift for the Council with the City Clerk. Mayor Earling commented it was fabulous to have the student and adult exchanges take place. He was hopeful an adult exchange trip could be organized in the next couple years. 6. STUDY ITEMS A. UPDATE ON PLANNING FOR HIGHWAY 99 AREA Development Services Director Shane Hope reported this effort began in late 2015. The consultant team has been doing research and meeting with property owners on Highway 99. Alex Joyce, Project Manager, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 6 Packet Page 9 of 175 Fregonese Associates, introduced team members Scott Fregonese and Irene Kemp. Mr. Joyce explained this is an opportunity to look comprehensively at land use and transportation by: • Incorporating past plans • Engaging the public, business community, stakeholders • Land use and transportation scenarios He described plans for outreach and education: • Community Visioning Workshop o March 24 — big public event • Engaging and hands on • Project open houses • Translated materials • Engaging tools o Hands on workshops o Instant polling • Online outreach and social media o Tailor your outreach to how people get information today ■ Create a brand ■ Web and social media ■ Videos ■ Email blasts ■ Fun, in -person events for major milestones Mr. Joyce described scenario planning software, Envision Tomorrow, that allows them to sketch future land use and transportation ideas for Highway 99 based on the public workshop process and direction from staff and Council and to understand how public and private improvements and investments influence things like: • Housing production • Housing affordability • Housing capacity • Employment capacity • Fiscal impacts • Sustained investment He displayed a map of existing conditions and described "hot spot" analysis identifies real estate and land use hot spots, opportunity for infill and redevelopment, opportunity to connect to adjacent neighborhoods and amenities. He explained team members will: • Analyze real estate trends: o Regional perspective of market drivers o Leverage local, unique market conditions ■ Hospital ■ International community and food o Conduct regional development community interviews for PSRC o Understand future housing needs o Determine feasible building types o Understand impact of transportation and pedestrian improvements and real estate market • Zoning Audit o Understand how the current policies impact financial viability in the Highway 99 area and how the zoning and development regulations can be crafted to get what the City wants and is feasible. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 7 Packet Page 10 of 175 • Identify Transportation Schemes for Scenario Planning o Transit emphasis/walkable streets o Activity Center emphasis • Integrate land use and transportation strategies for scenarios o Districts ■ Land use, street activity and transportation function ■ Community (culture, history, economy, values) o Street typologies ■ Compatibility ■ Local vs. regional function o Design overlays ■ Specialized function ■ Distinctive place • Scenario Visualizations o Visualization for key sites along the Highway 99 corridor o Compelling before and after photomorphs o Pedestrian scale or birds eye He provided several photomorphs of a suburban movie theater and parking lot and a suburban arterial. He explained this process will also include a Planned Action EIS which will: • Leverage existing information • Thorough documentation • Accessible document • Foundation for the future Mr. Joyce summarized the goal is a graphically rich, easy to understand and quickly implementable plan for the Highway 99 corridor. Councilmember Nelson expressed appreciation for a range of visual alternatives. He asked how many workshops were planned in addition to the March 24 workshop. Mr. Joyce responded the public workshop on March 24 was intended to get big ideas from as many people as possible. Those will be distilled into themes over 1-2 months that will be presented at an open house for further refinement and prioritization. There will also be an online survey. He summarized there will be two public check -ins but periodic online check -ins to gather broader public input. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for a copy of the PowerPoint. With regard to the economic feasibility and zoning study, she asked whether affordable housing was part of their analysis, noting Highway 99 was one of better areas for affordable housing due to transit. Mr. Joyce answered connecting with people who do affordable housing well in this region is a big part of this process as well as playing matchmaker with property owners and nonprofit and private sector people who do affordable housing and workforce housing really well. Councilmember Buckshnis remarked Ms. Hope is also a rock star in terms of affordable housing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas looked forward to the continuing process. She met with the team this morning and felt this planning would give a lot of hope to a lot of people along this corridor. Council President Johnson reported when she and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas met with the team today, she did not reveal that she is a planner and a transportation planner and is very engaged in the visual and overlays. She recalled Mr. Joyce's description during their meeting regarding how they plan to engage the international district and the people who live and own property in the area. Mr. Joyce said they are committed and excited about the potential of this process helping to further establish the identity of Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 8 Packet Page 11 of 175 the International District. The economists have said it is a good idea for Edmonds to leverage this unique position in the market and to create and support a destination food and cultural district in this area of Highway 99. A member of their team, Irene Kim, who is Korean, will be involved in this aspect as well as ensuring engagement materials are translated and approachable and will engage directly with the business owners. Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the "try -it -on" concept that allows people to visualize how things might look. He asked whether a moratorium should be adopted on any zoning changes in the Highway 99 area until the study is completed or whether there are zoning changes that could be done now to attract new businesses without waiting until the study is complete. Mr. Joyce responded the zoning audit is an early task and will be shared with the Council as soon as it is complete. Councilmember Teitzel referred to an area of Esperance between 228th and 232nd that borders Highway 99 and suggested having consistency in that area with the rest of Highway 99. He asked whether there has been any coordination with Snohomish County. Ms. Hope answered yes, there has already been some communication with Snohomish County and the adjoining cities. They plan to do a mailing to every address in the area, whether Edmonds or Esperance. B. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO 1 SNOHOMISH PUBLIC DEFENSE ASSOCIATION Parks & Recreation/Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite requested the Council consider a proposed amendment to the City's agreement with the Snohomish Public Defense Association (PDA). She recalled the Council awarded a contract to Snohomish PDA for the next 3 years (2006-2018). Bob Boruchowicz, whom the City hired to provide oversight of the public defense services, recommended minor language changes to help clarify the contract. These include replacing supervisor with assessor and adding a requirement for Snohomish PDA to include in their quarterly report information on the use of expert witnesses. Ms. Hite explained the other change is an additional $16,500 for Snohomish PDA as a transition fee. Snohomish PDA received a tremendous number of cases from the previous public defense attorney which is driving their costs up. She explained the contract awarded to Snohomish PDA includes a caseload adjustment clause that allows them to bill the City more or less depending on caseload changes. If Snohomish County PDA used that caseload adjustment clause, it would cost the City $9,000 a month for the next 3-4 months versus the $16,500 that Snohomish County PDA proposed which would be used to hire a temporary attorney for the next 3 months. Kathleen Kyle, Executive Director, Snohomish PDA, commented the transition has gone fairly well; it was a lot of work to transfer from one law firm to another. When they negotiated this contract, the City was interested in ways to reduce the referral rate through the criminal justice system via this clause; if the referral rate goes down, attorney compensation goes down and vice versa. That contract clause was not anticipated for the purpose of the transition and there had not been a discussion regarding how many cases would be transferred from the prior provider but in the context of 650 new criminal referral cases in a calendar year. When she realized they received more than 200 cases from the prior provider and considered how that impacted their referral numbers for the first quarter of 2016, the cost would be $9,000/ month. She reported they have opened 306 files to date; of the cases they received, two-thirds of the investigation requests are from 2015 cases that were referred to them in 2016. The additional funding covers only attorney compensation and does not increase administrative, investigative or social worker expenses due to the new criminal rule that requires them to report quarterly what the lawyer are doing. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. C. UPDATE ON THE EDMONDS WATERFRONT ACCESS STUDY Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 9 Packet Page 12 of 175 Mayor Earling explained the task force he appointed includes Co -Chairs Mike Nelson (City Council) and Jim Orvis (Port of Edmonds Commissioner). Councilmember Nelson identified the members of the task force and thanked them for their diligent efforts: • Edmonds Residents Kirk Greiner, Cadence Clyborne and Phil Lovell • Representatives from Community Transit, BNSF, WSDOT, WSDOT-Ferries, and Sound Transit Rick Schaefer, Tetra Tech, relayed the purpose of the study: • Alternatives to street -level rail crossings at Main Street and Dayton Street • Provide access between downtown Edmonds and waterfront for: o Emergency responders o Driving o Moving freight o Walking o Transit o Biking He relayed the task force has met eight times since September and will soon be doing Level 1 screening. He reviewed the study schedule including study milestones, technical analysis steps, opportunities to be involved and accomplishments to date: • Prepared study purpose and need statement • Submitted required status report to the legislature on December 1 • Compiling data on existing conditions • Drafting baseline condition report • Conducted information meetings with ferries, BNSF, Fire District 1 and meetings are being scheduled with Sound Transit and Community Transit • Assembled and characterized over 40 initial concepts He displayed a map of initial concepts developed by the consultant team, prior studies or ideas suggested by the community and task force and their locations. Approximately 60% of the concepts were suggested at the November community meeting. The initial concepts are grouped into roadway over and under passes, onsite solutions, operational solutions, railroad modifications, and ferry facility modifications. He described the two stage screening/evaluation process: CONSIDERED SOLUTION CONCEPTS (from public, study team, prior studies) LEVEL 1 SCREENING — Document Decisions y HIGHEST RATED CONCEPTS LEVEL 2 EVALUATION —> Document Decisions HIGHEST RATED ALTERNATIVES y PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS --* Document Decisions Mr. Schaefer described the Level 1 Screening Process: • Screen the initial solution concepts o Eliminate concepts that do not meet purpose and need o Compare remaining concepts using Level 1 screening criteria Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 10 Packet Page 13 of 175 o Concept ratings for criteria used in Level 1 screening: • Most Positive Least Positive Between Green and Red (in some cases neutral) o Use best available information to rate how each concept meets individual criteria o Advance highest -rated concepts for Level 2 evaluation o Details on the results of Level 1 screening and the Level 2 evaluation process will be shared at the 3rd public meeting He reviewed the Level 1 screening criteria: 1. Does the concept improve reliable emergency response to the west side of the railroad? • Provide continuous emergency access? • Reduce emergency response delays? • Improve emergency evacuation? Does the concept reduce delays to ferry loading/unloading of vehicles? Does the concept reduce delays and conflicts at street/railroad crossings for people walk, biking or driving? • Reduce delays for pedestrians? • Reduce pedestrian conflicts with vehicles / trains? • Improve connections to destinations? 4. Does the concept provide safe and efficient passenger connectivity between available modes of travel? o Rail o Ferry o Vehicle o Pedestrian o Bicycle 5. Is the concept feasible to implement? o To construct? o To fund? o To permit? 6. Does the concept avoid negative environmental effects? o Natural resources o Historic/ cultural/ archaeological resources o Visual aesthetics o Noise levels o Sites containing hazardous materials o Use of park lands o Air quality o Soils and groundwater 7. Does the concept avoid creating social and/or economic impacts? o Effects on neighborhoods and businesses? o Compatible with positive urban design? o Avoid conflicts with parks/recreation assets? o Avoid creating safety hazards? o Improve freight mobility? Mr. Schaefer reviewed the schedule: November 2015: Begin study; understand existing conditions December 2015 — February 2016: Identify concepts Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 11 Packet Page 14 of 175 March — April 2016: Screen concepts May — July 2016: Evaluate alternatives August — September 2016: Recommend preferred alternatives Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was amazed at how much work this was and was glad it included a great deal of public input. She asked whether visual appeal would be a consideration. Mr. Schaefer answered aesthetics is a big issue; an urban planner on the team is providing input at Level 1 and on Level 2 including identifying ways to soften the impact and take advantage of opportunities. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the initial concept location map and asked what the ferry options are. Mr. Schaefer responded several ideas were developed by Ferries as they were developing options that were later narrowed to Edmonds Crossing as well as a later effort in 2009 that identified minimum build approaches. These range from different places to store vehicles, queuing vehicles west of the railroad so a full boat of vehicle storage would not be interrupted by the train during loading. That may/may not be a priority for the City; it is an operational issue for Ferries. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding WSDOT has a purchase a sale agreement for the Unocal property below Pt. Edwards. That is a significant investment so on some level they must be seriously contemplating Edmonds Crossing. He asked where Edmonds Crossing was in WSDOT's long range plan and his best guess for the time horizon for Edmonds Crossing. Public Works Director Phil Williams agreed that was an $8 million purchase when they were pursuing Edmonds Crossing approximately 8 years ago. WSDOT is in the process of updating their long range ferry plan for all locations. The alternatives analysis will include contact with the State about their plans for the Edmonds terminal and WSDOT may seek input from the City regarding alternatives to Edmonds Crossing. If the property was not necessary to implement the consensus solution, the State could dispose of it. Councilmember Teitzel commented if Edmonds Crossing were to happen in 15 years, he did not want ferry blockage to be the major driver of a solution. Mr. Williams responded if the State and Edmonds agreed an option other than Edmonds Crossing was preferable, he did not envision two major projects such as Edmonds Crossing and a major under/over pass or other solution. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a number of citizens are amazed by all the materials and ideas and appreciated the transparency of the process. She did not think Edmonds Crossing would ever happen due to the cost. Council President Johnson commended Mr. Schaefer's efforts to keep the lines of communication open. She appreciated his inclusion of the PowerPoint in the Council packet and suggested making it available on the City's website. She asked whether the 50 concepts could be found online. Mr. Schaefer advised the information is available via the www.edmondswaterfrontaccess.oror via the link on the City's website. The website includes materials from the public meetings, task force meeting materials, ongoing opportunity to comment online, and comment via online open house until February 12. Council President Johnson reminded the public they have until February 12 to comment via the online open house. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. D. PRESENTATION OF THE SUNSET AVENUE WALKWAY PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS Public Works Director Phil Williams reported on the survey on the pilot project: • Dates of Survey: October 19, 2015 — December 31, 2015 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 12 Packet Page 15 of 175 Response: 764 total (677 of which were unique) o Of the 87 duplicates, 22 were from City of Edmonds, 14 of those were handwritten surveys entered into the City's database and 8 were surveys completed by employees 1,546 individual comments were recorded during the survey Graph of response volume over time He commented on the survey integrity: • Survey was set up to deny repeat responses* • Survey questions were randomized • Response trends were reviewed to identify potential irregularities • Survey conducted so that all could be heard *This feature can be circumvented by various means by sufficiently motivated individuals. The survey software employed records the Internet Protocol (IP) address of every respondent. When those repeat responses were identified and excluded from the survey, the overall results did not change. The survey included questions related to: • Residency • Pathway Use Type • Parking Availability • Angled Parking • Bicycles on Shared Pathway • Additional Amenities • Making Pathway Permanent • Usage Frequency • How Best to Keep Informed • Describing any Usage Changes • Respondent Contact Info • Additional Comments Mr. Williams reviewed selected survey responses: Q3: The availability of parking on Sunset Avenue is: • More than is needed: 9.81% • Adequate: 42. 10% • Somewhat inadequate: 21.93% • Completely inadequate: 16.62% • Parking should be removed: 9.54% Q4: The angled parking on Sunset: • Is not that difficult to navigate: 44.60% • Is difficult to navigate: 10.80% • Should be moved further west:11.77% • Should be removed: 32.83% Q5: Regarding bicycle use on the shared pathway • Safe bicycle use should be encouraged: 23.60% • There are not enough bikes to make any difference: 29.33% • A separate bike path should be considered: 14.87% • Bikes should not be allowed: 32.20% Q7: I would like to see the current temporaa pathway improved and made permanent: • Strongly agree: 43.35% • Somewhat agreed: 13.18% Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 13 Packet Page 16 of 175 Neither agree or disagree: 5.14% Somewhat disagree: 6.19% Strongly disagree: 32.15% Additional survey questions: • Residency: 91.9% of respondents identified as Edmonds residents. • Primary use of Sunset: 83.2% of respondents identified as pedestrians, 47.2% as motorists, 8.0% as bicyclists, and 5.6% as adjacent residents. • Walkway usage: 76% of respondents would use the walkway at least several times per month. • 280 respondents left contact information for further updates. Mr. Williams commented the cost to join Survey Monkey was $300/year. Although not a statistically significant survey, 764 responses were provided to this survey, approximately $0.39/response. A statistically significant survey would cost approximately $20,000 to survey 400 citizens for an approximate cost of $50/response. He summarized Survey Money is very cost effective and has provided good information, particularly the comments. He also provided a before/after comparison of results for the above questions when repeat responders were deleted from survey, advising the duplicate responses did not affect the results. He provided a summary of the results: • 764 people responded and 1,546 written comments were received • Responders tended to have strong opinions • Survey Monkey is a great way to gather comments but does have limitations and is not necessarily a statistically valid measurement of public opinion but neither is a public hearing or any other non-random effort to gather opinions • 81 % of responders thought available parking was adequate or should be increased • 76% of respondents said they would use the walkway at least several times per months • 57% of responders thought the walkway should be improved and made permanent or "somewhat agreed" with that statement. 38% either "strongly" or "somewhat" disagreed. • The written comments collected were thoughtful, comprehensive and really highlight the usefulness of the Survey Monkey tool. See page 85 where 658 people commented on the before vs. after question. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she read everything and found it fascinating. With regard to randomized questions, she asked whether everyone was asked the same question. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the number of Edmonds residents who took the survey, noting she has heard from a lot of people who do not live in Edmonds and did not know about the survey. She asked how the City could reach out to citizens from Canada, Mukilteo, Lynnwood and other areas outside Edmonds who have strong opinions but did not know about the survey. Mr. Williams said a number of respondents, 8%, self -identified as not living in Edmonds. He has talked to people who visit Sunset from Mukilteo, Shoreline, Lynnwood but was uncertain the draw was beyond that. Several respondents indicated they take out of town visitors to Sunset but, of course, they did not fill out a survey. He was uncertain a more regional survey would be warranted. Councilmember Buckshnis remarked it was an anomaly that so many residents took the survey. She observed some of the comments were very interesting and enlightening. She asked whether this was just an informational presentation. Mr. Williams responded it was to deliver the results of the survey but he was open to hearing Council's reaction. Councilmember Teitzel found Survey Monkey a very useful tool. He asked what has been spent so far on this project and what would be spend if the project were completed, making all the changes permanent. Mr. Williams answered $70,000-$80,000 has been spent of the $159,000 available from the grant. No more was spent awaiting the results of the pilot project. The Council provided a separate budget for the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 14 Packet Page 17 of 175 pilot project; approximately $18,000-19,000 was spent not including labor. The cost of a permanent project depends on what is constructed. The amounts in planning documents were $1.5-$2.5 million depending on the project. He did not personally believe it would reach that size, due in part to the railroad property. If a project includes more than 6 inch vertical construction, the City is obliged to get BNSF's approval which would require a lease agreement which would only be for a short term. A short term lease agreement would not acceptable to granting agencies so it would be necessary for the portion on BNSF property to be paid for via funding source other than a state agency grant. The remainder of the project would be eligible for grant funding from one of many state sources. Councilmember Teitzel commented one of the highest priorities in the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) which cost $100,000 and involved 2500 residents, was maintenance and improvement of streets. With the City's limited budget dollars and if Sunset Avenue improvements were not identified in the SAP, he questioned whether the City should be investing funds in street improvements to catch up with street maintenance that was let go during the recession. The SAP is a touchstone and the Council needs to prioritize how to spend the City's budget dollars. Mr. Williams agreed that is one of many policy questions raised by the project. He added the project would be attractive for grant funding; a major City outlay for the project was never intended. There are few grants available for street maintenance and they would not compete with this project. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas viewed this as a citizen amenity, similar to buying a park and improving a street such as Main Street. With regard to multiple responses, she noted some household may have only one email address. If there were two responses from the same address, she asked whether the input from the second was not be recorded. Mr. Williams answered Survey Monkey was not instructed to deny duplicate responses. He agreed one household with three adults using the same computer would be reflected as duplicate responses due to the same IP address. He reiterated the duplicate responses did not affect the outcome of the survey. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was uncertain that anything better could be done and questioned what other tools were available to assess the pilot project other than spending $100,000 on a statistically accurate survey of citizens and users. Mr. Williams agreed, commenting a statistically valid survey would likely be $20,000-30,000. After five years of talking about Sunset Avenue, the Council has heard a lot of opinions, thoughts and suggestions; it will soon will be time to determine whether to go forward and if so in what form. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it has been six years; it was discussed at her first Council meeting after being vetted by the Council. She still does not like the angle parking. Mr. Williams commented there would be options available in the detailed design to address some of the concerns that have been identified. The 1500 comments include people reacting negatively to the project based on appearance and features of the pilot project as if it was the finished project and missing the point that it was intended to be an example of what could done such as walking on the west side near the water. There is only so much real estate and there are competing needs. For example, the angle parking could be moved further west and the curb on the east where the planter strip is could be moved in the area of the angle parking to provide another three feet for a total of 6-7 feet of pavement behind the angle parking. He assumed that would make people feel more comfortable driving behind the angle parking and backing up. There have not been any accidents related to the angle parking since the project was installed in September 2014. Mr. Williams agreed there was an element of additional risk when pulling in and backing out of a parking space but people do it worldwide. The number of angle parking spaces could be reduced to create additional sight lines; there were 12 previously, there are 21 now. Other people commented on the lack of parallel parking; there were initially nine with two more at the north end. The only reason the parallel Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 15 Packet Page 18 of 175 parking was designed that way was because it was a pilot project and the returns on the driveways were too sharp to access driveways with parking across the street. A permanent project could fix those driveways to eliminate that problem and provide additional parallel parking if the Council wants to add parking. Some people support reducing the parking. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this was done by a previous Council as a public amenity for the citizen to walk on Sunset and look at the views. She was hopeful the Council would reach a quick resolution to this one way or another; it had been dragging out for six years. Councilmember Tibbott relayed he enjoyed reading the comments. When talking with people this summer on the pathway, he was surprised by the number out of town visitors, much higher than was reflected in the survey, indicating Sunset Avenue is not only an amenity for City residents but also a tourist attraction. He asked whether the survey included a question regarding how bicyclists use the pathway. Mr. Williams agreed bicycles are a hot topic. Sunset Avenue is one-way northbound past Edmonds street; bicycles could be in a northbound sharrow and many responded they were comfortable sharing the road with cars northbound. With regard to a southbound option, bicycles cannot ride the wrong way on a one-way street so either they are allowed on the pathway or not. He recognized the concern of high speed bicycles mixing with pedestrians on a 10-foot wide pathway. A 10 mph speed limit was posted; if everyone obeyed that speed limit, there would be minimal problems. If the public was not comfortable with bicycles on the pathway, bicycles on the path could be limited to those with training wheels and accompanied by an adult and bicycles could ride southbound on 3rd Avenue. He recognized there is a difference between bicyclists trying to reach their destination in a hurry and slow, recreational riders. The solution for recreational riders may be to walk their bike on the pathway. Sunset Avenue is not a major commuter route. Based on comments and survey results, Councilmember Tibbott supported allowing bicycles on the path to see how it goes. He agreed serious bike riders would be on the street in a sharrow and not bothering with the path. He asked about the grant funding sources and where and how the project would be pitched. Mr. Williams answered PSRC provided the original grant funds, spending was halted over a year ago until the design is clarified. The pilot project was intended as a way to either move forward or stop the project. The Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) and the Transportation Improvement Board may also be a sources of grant funds. With a good project that meets the granting agency's requirements, there is no reason this project would not compete well for funding. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the CIP and CFP were revised to reflect the name of the project as a walkway and not a multiuse pathway. Mr. Williams agreed the title of the project is no longer a multiuse pathway. The reason the project qualified for the initial funding was the idea of multiuse. It is possible that due to the research, design, and further understanding of the limitations of the street and property ownership and the year -long pilot project, if the Council wants to conclude bicycles are not compatible there may be enough compelling information to explain to the granting agency how and why the needs have changed. Councilmember Buckshnis said she finds the street very claustrophobic; she cannot walk her dog there due to the cars and everything. If it was changed to a pathway or walkway, she asked whether the width could be reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet. Mr. Williams answered it could but he was not sure it would be necessary. If the City were pursuing a permanent project, there is 30 feet of pavement available in the narrowest section, 10 feet for the walkway and 2 feet for the shy distance, leaving 18 feet of pavement. Depending on how much and the location of parallel parking and driveways that are fixed, the 10-foot walkway would not be a problem. Staff has discussed with the Fire Department solutions that could be included in the design to meet their needs for available pavement for setting up an emergency response. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 16 Packet Page 19 of 175 Councilmember Buckshnis commented when she drives her large car on Sunset, she is not looking at the view, she is watching to avoid being hit. In her opinion the angle parking needs to be eliminated or the pathway reduced. She felt the roadway is pretty narrow and she questioned how emergency vehicles can drive there. Mr. Williams answered there is nearly 14 feet of clear pavement behind the angle parking to the curb on the east; many people have commented that feels uncomfortably tight. There have not been any accidents; most people back up slowly. He concluded the width of the roadway could be increased without reducing the pathway by moving all the angle parking 2 inches west. Mayor Earling cautioned the Council is now designing the project; tonight was intended to be a presentation. Council President Johnson referred to the petition that was submitted during Audience Comments and requested the City Clerk distribute it to the Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the next step. Mayor Earling responded further conversation at the staff level. E. PRESENTATION OF BID RESULTS FOR THE SW EDMONDS - 105TH/106TH AVE W STORM IMPROVEMENTS City Engineer Rob English advised this project was advertised last June; the bids received were high and staff recommended rejecting the bids and re -advertising the project in the winter. The City received nine bids when the project was re -advertised in January. The low bid of $492,275 was submitted by Rodarte Construction, $55,000 lower than lowest bid last year. The engineer's estimate was $487,500. The project will install approximately 1500 feet of 12-inch diameter pipe along with a gravel bed infiltration facility in southwest Edmonds on 105t'/106t' Avenue West and 228t' Street near Sherwood Elementary. A review of the low bidder's record for responsibility and responsiveness has been completed. Rodarte is currently working on the 2281h Street improvement project. A construction budget has been developed of $660,600 including a 15% management reserve which is within the established budget of $716,800. He recommended the Council schedule award of the contract on next week's Consent Agenda. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. F. PRESENTATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING & INSPECTION SERVICES City Engineer Rob English explained this professional services agreement is for inspection and construction and administration services for the City's capital program. An RFQ was issued last November, and six statements of qualification were submitted. Staff s evaluation identified Blueline Group as the most qualified based on their qualifications and experience. The services they will provide will include in -field inspection, inspection reports, monitoring materials, coordinating material testing and documenting contractor activities, preparing field quantities to pay the contractor each month, monitoring traffic control, as built drawings, etc. They also provide administration, developing pay estimates, reviewing contractor schedules, requests for information, material submittals, etc. as well as overall project management. The proposed fee is $128,400. The three projects identified for Blueline's services are: 2016 cured in place pipe program o Project budget: $1 million in 2016 o Allocation of Blueline services: $17,000 2016 watermain contract o Project budget: approximately $2 million o Allocation of Blueline services: $47,000 2016 sewer main replacement program Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 17 Packet Page 20 of 175 o Project budget: $1.9 million o Allocation of Blueline services: $63,000 Mr. English anticipated approximately half the effort in 2016 compared to 2015 due to the Council's approval of a new inspector position in the Engineering Department. Recruitment for that position was underway and he was hopeful it could be filled within the next month. He expected the amount of services to decrease again in 2017. Councilmember Tibbott asked how the contract compared to hiring an employee with regard to cost and availability of resources for inspections. Mr. English answered a consultant costs approximately $200,000 for one FTE; and employee cost about half that. Last year's contract was $290,000; this year's contract is $128,000 and hopefully next years will be even less. Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the flexibility and service level that provided. Mr. English answered the consultant is on -demand time and material; the consultant is available when needed but does not bill when there are no services provided. He summarized the inspector position in the budget will not address all the inspections needs due to the significant increase in the City's workload and capital program in recent years. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for approval on next week's Consent Agenda. G. INTRODUCTION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ECDC 20.03.002 REGARDING NUMBER OF DAYS FOR PUBLIC NOTICE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained State law requires a 15-day notice period before open record decision hearings and the City's code states 14 days. The City has been using 15 days, recognizing State law but the code needs to be consistent. The City Attorney prepared an ordinance to change 14 day to 15 days. A public hearing is required because it is a zoning amendment. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing tomorrow night and the draft notes from their meeting will be provided to the Council for its public hearing. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling encouraged Councilmembers and citizens to attend the State of City presentation Thursday 8:30 a.m. at Edmonds Theater. It will include guest presenters, Ruth Arista, Arista Wine Cellars; and Pastor Barry Crane, North Sound Church. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nelson relayed he read in My Edmonds News about the harassment of a harbor seal. The primary objective of the 1972 Marine Animal Protection Act was to promote the health and stability of the marine ecosystem. Why people care about the harbor seal; nearly 500,000 on the British Columbia coast and approximately 17,000 in Washington State were killed for their furs. It is one of the few species that is coming back and doing well but it needs continued protection. Harbor seals hang out to regulate their temperature, rest, feed, etc. and it is a federal crime to disturb them. He urged citizens to give harbor seals a wide berth and as Edmonds Seal Sitters recommend, keep 100 feet away. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported last week she and others on King County Executive Dow Constantine's Save Energy Alliance (SEA) had an opportunity to meet with the Native American Tribes in Snohomish County and the Spokane Tribes. Everyone, whether on tribal or non -tribal land, have the same concerns with the dangers of oil explosions and damage from coal on environment and humans. She was hopeful negotiations will continue with federal groups and that the Tribes will discuss coal and oil trains under their treaty rights. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 18 Packet Page 21 of 175 Councilmember Buckshnis said she has enjoyed phone conversations she has had with citizens; the Critical Area Ordinance is being fast tracked and anyone with questions is welcome to contact her at her phone number on the website. Councilmember Teitzel reported on the open house he attended at SNOCOM in Mountlake Terrace that included a presentation and a tour. It is a first rate facility, very professional, and the members are fortunate to have it. When walking his dogs during today's gorgeous spring weather, he was reminded why he lives in Edmonds; it is the best place to live. Council President Johnson reminded the public they have until February 12 to comment via the online open house on the Edmonds Waterfront Access study. She encouraged anyone interested in serving on the Economic Development Commission to submit an application. 9. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 10. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 19 Packet Page 22 of 175 AM-8343 3. B. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/16/2016 Time: Consent Submitted For: Scott James Submitted By: Nori Jacobson Department: Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type: Action Information Subiect Title Approval of claim checks #218510 through #218610 dated February 11, 2016 for $152,233.25. Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Previous Council Action N/A 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. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year: 2016 Revenue: Expenditure: 152,233.25 Fiscal Impact: Claims $152,233.25 Attachments Claim cks 02-11-16 Proi ect Numbers 02-11-16 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Scott James 02/11/2016 02:31 PM City Clerk Scott Passey 02/12/2016 07:29 AM Mayor Dave Earling 02/12/2016 08:09 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/12/2016 09:16 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 02/11/2016 12:21 PM Packet Page 23 of 175 Final Approval Date: 02/12/2016 Packet Page 24 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 218510 2/11/2016 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC Invoice 15-35780 15-36660 15-37172 218511 2/11/2016 072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 1298295 218512 2/11/2016 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-154792 TM-155437 218513 2/11/2016 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 115730-1613 138087-1613 PO # Description/Account Amount INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 155.12 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 147.02 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 171.32 Total : 473.46 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 2/01/1E STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 02/01/� 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 85.00 Total : 85.00 PW - SUPPLIES PW - Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 59.75 Freight 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 6.58 PW - RETURNS PW - Returns 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 -47.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 -4.54 Total : 23.55 APA MEMBERSHIP-SHANE APA MEMBERSHIP-SHANE 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 780.00 APA MEMBERSHIP-CLUGSTON APA MEMBERSHIP-CLUGSTON Page: 1 Packet Page 25 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218513 2/11/2016 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION (Continued) 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 483.00 Total: 1,263.00 218514 2/11/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988440788 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 40.08 1988440789 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 18.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1.72 1988444881 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.33 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 5.06 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 5.05 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.13 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.48 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.48 Page: 2 Packet Page 26 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218514 2/11/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.48 1988444882 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 15.35 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 12.11 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.46 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.15 Total: 119.14 218515 2/11/2016 075523 ART WALK EDMONDS 8 ART WALK PARTICIPATION FEE Al ART WALK PARTICIPATION FEE Al 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 100.00 Total: 100.00 218516 2/11/2016 069451 ASTRA INDUSTRIAL SERVICES 00148077 SEWER - LIFT STATION TEST KITS Sewer - Lift Station Test Kits 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 66.96 Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.60 Total: 76.56 218517 2/11/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 86156 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 150.89 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 150.89 UB Outsourcing area #300 Printing 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 155.47 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 563.44 UB Outsourcing area #300 Postage Page: 3 Packet Page 27 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218517 2/11/2016 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 563.43 9.6% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 14.49 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 14.92 9.6% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 14.49 Total: 1,628.02 218518 2/11/2016 064706 AWC 39530 2016 STREET ANNUAL DRUG & AL( 2016 Street Annual Drug & Alcohol 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 348.00 2016 Fleet Annual Drug & Alcohol 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 174.32 2016 Storm Annual Drug & Alcohol 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 348.00 2016 Water Annual Drug & Alcohol 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 348.00 2016 Sewer Annual Drug & Alcohol 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 348.00 2016 Parks Annual Drug & Alcohol 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 116.68 Total: 1,683.00 218519 2/11/2016 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE00116 BACKGROUND CHECK FOR NEW E Background check for new employee; 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 120.00 Total: 120.00 218520 2/11/2016 072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT 1002 DESIGN OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPI\ Design of business recruitment econc 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 510.00 Total: 510.00 218521 2/11/2016 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 11219 ESNA.SERVICES THRU JANUARY 2 Page: 4 Packet Page 28 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 5 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218521 2/11/2016 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC (Continued) ESNA.Services thru January 2016 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 259.25 ESNA.Services thru January 2016 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 259.25 ESNA.Services thru January 2016 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 259.25 Total: 777.75 218522 2/11/2016 075342 BORUCHOWITZ, ROBERT JAN 2016 PUBLIC DEFENSE CONSULTANT Public Defense Consultant 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 879.17 Total: 879.17 218523 2/11/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR 17846 INV#17846 - EDMONDS PD - JOHN, DUTY JACKET W/FLEECE LINER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 375.00 L/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 59.00 S/S TRADITIONAL UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 128.00 INNER BELT LINER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 25.75 S/S CONTEMPORY UNIFORM SHIR' 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 82.00 EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.00 UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.00 ELITE DUTY BELT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 59.00 3" CLIP ON NAVY TIE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.95 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.27 17870 INV#17870 - EDMONDS PD - RAMS[ Page: 5 Packet Page 29 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218523 2/11/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR (Continued) LABOR FOR ALTERATIONS TO COC 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 28.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.74 17878 INV#17878 - EDMONDS PD - LAWLE L/S UNIFORM SHIRT 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 64.00 EMBROIDER NAME ON SHIRT 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 8.00 EMBROIDERED COLLAR BRASS 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 7.79 Total: 1,150.38 218524 2/11/2016 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14260250 C465 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 001 - Project Management 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 1,389.75 002 - 90 percent design 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 5,497.50 003 - Bid Docs/ Construction Estimat( 423.100.76.594.39.41.10 4,433.50 Total: 11,320.75 218525 2/11/2016 069295 BROWN, CANDY 20753 WATER BIRDS 20753 WATER BIRDS INSTRUCTIOI' 20753 WATER BIRDS INSTRUCTIOP 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 149.60 Total: 149.60 218526 2/11/2016 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 20660 ADVENTURES IN 20660 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 20660 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 336.00 Total: 336.00 218527 2/11/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN01161008 HELIUM TANK RENTAL Page: 6 Packet Page 30 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 7 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218527 2/11/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY (Continued) HELIUM TANK RENTAL 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 12.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 1.21 RN01161009 WWTP - SUPPLIES, GAS nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 74.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.11 7.05 Total: 95.26 218528 2/11/2016 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 116000167 WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB AN/ Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 599.40 Total: 599.40 218529 2/11/2016 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 12062 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEI MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEI 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 27,602.00 Total: 27,602.00 218530 2/11/2016 066997 CITY OF MILL CREEK 01212016 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES DINN January 2016 SCC dinner meeting 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 35.00 012716 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CITIES DINN Snohomish County Cities Dinner - 4 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 140.00 Total: 175.00 218531 2/11/2016 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC FEB-16 C/ACITYOFED00001 Feb-16 Fiber Optics Internet Connect 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 406.10 Total: 406.10 218532 2/11/2016 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 020916 WWTP - OPERATOR CERTIFICATIC Page: 7 Packet Page 31 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218532 2/11/2016 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY (Continued) WWTP - Operator Certification 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 50.00 Total: 50.00 218533 2/11/2016 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2016010050 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 Scan Services for January 2016 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 1,231.40 Total: 1,231.40 218534 2/11/2016 073757 DEX MEDIA WEST INC 651150804 CEMETERY ADVERTISING CEMETERY ADVERTISING 130.000.64.536.20.41.40 72.68 Total: 72.68 218535 2/11/2016 075160 DIMENSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS 29739 COUNCIL CHAMBERS - DESIGN SE Council Chambers - Design Services 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 1,780.00 Total: 1,780.00 218536 2/11/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 16-3632 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 02/02/2011 2/02/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 306.90 16-3633 INV#16-3633 - EDMONDS PD TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA15-003 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 145.20 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA15-004 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 105.60 TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA15-005 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 105.60 Total: 663.30 218537 2/11/2016 075468 DRAMA KIDS 20665 DRAMA KIDS 20665 DRAMA KIDS INSTRUCTION 20665 DRAMA KIDS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 185.00 Total: 185.00 Page: 8 Packet Page 32 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 9 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218538 2/11/2016 071969 EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS KIDSTOCK SPONSOR KIDSTOCK SPONSOR KIDSTOCK SPONSOR 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 1,000.00 Total: 1,000.00 218539 2/11/2016 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2/6 DADDY DAUGHTER 2/6/16 DADDY DAUGHTER DANCE 2/6/16 DADDY DAUGHTER DANCE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 380.07 2016-02-01 02/16 RECREATION SERVICES COf 02/16 Recreation Services Contract F 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 5,000.00 Total: 5,380.07 218540 2/11/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 8-40000 HICKMAN PARK STORM DRAIN & U HICKMAN PARK STORM DRAIN & U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 989.71 Total: 989.71 218541 2/11/2016 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 146097 RADIX MONTHLY MAINTAGREEME Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - Mai 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 152.00 806643 REFUND SALES TAX Refund Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 -14.44 Total: 137.56 218542 2/11/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR24426 COPY CHARGES FOR C1030 copier charges for 1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 7.41 copier charges for 1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 7.41 copier charges for 1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 7.39 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.70 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 9 Packet Page 33 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 10 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 218542 2/11/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) AR28864 AR29242 AR29660 AR29840 AR29890 PO # Description/Account Amount 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.71 COPIER CHARGES FOR 5051 copier charges for 5051 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 30.56 copier charges for 5051 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 30.56 copier charges for 5051 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 30.53 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 2.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 2.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 2.91 CONTRACT CHGS DEV SERV PRIN CONTRACT CHGS DEV SERV PRIN 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 20.61 INV#AR29660 ACCT#MK5031 - EDIV B/W COPY CHG 11/1-11/30/16 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 34.37 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 3.27 INV#AR29840 ACCT#MK5031 - EDIV B/W COPY CHG 12/01-12/31/15 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 16.18 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 1.54 COPIER CHARGES FOR 1030 copier charges for 1030 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 6.51 copier charges for 1030 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 6.51 Page: 10 Packet Page 34 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 11 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218542 2/11/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) copier charges for 1030 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 6.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 0.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 0.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 0.61 AR30003 INV#AR30003 ACCT#MK5031 - EDIV B/W COPY CHG 01/01-01/31/16 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 22.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 2.12 AR30053 PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078 PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 27.32 Total: 273.82 218543 2/11/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH679277 LEGAL NOTICE- 404 BELL, HISTOR LEGAL NOTICE- 404 BELL, HISTOR 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 53.32 EDH679279 LEGAL NOTICE- AMD20160001 LEGAL NOTICE- AMD20160001 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 48.16 EDH679448 LEGAL NOTICE- PLN2015-0068 TRII LEGAL NOTICE- PLN2015-0068 TRII 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 72.24 EDH679451 LEGAL NOTICE- PLN20150065- VEF LEGAL NOTICE- PLN20150065- VEF 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 82.56 EDH680523 PUBLIC NOTICE WITH STATE REQI PUBLIC NOTICES WITH STATE REC 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 37.84 EDH680524 CITY ORDINANCES 4015 & 4016 CITY ORDINANCES 4015 & 4016 Page: 11 Packet Page 35 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 12 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218543 2/11/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD (Continued) 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 44.72 Total: 338.84 218544 2/11/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU38530 WWTP - SUPPLIES, FACILITIES 994542 (was DC-1200) 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 48.06 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 4.57 WAMOU38607 WWTP - SUPPLIES, FACILITIES m11 PTT Fltr 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 203.76 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 19.36 WAMOU38610 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, M 9013-2057 Belt 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 92.72 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 8.81 Total: 377.28 218545 2/11/2016 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC SC30359 WATER SVC FEES Water Svc Fees 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 50.20 Total: 50.20 218546 2/11/2016 075536 FREGONESE ASSOCIATES 432-001 HWY 99 SUBAREA PLAN HWY 99 SUBAREA PLAN 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 8,437.42 Total: 8,437.42 218547 2/11/2016 011900 FRONTIER 206-188-0247 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 260.03 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 260.03 Page: 12 Packet Page 36 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 13 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218547 2/11/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.12 425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 53.75 425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.21 425-776-5316 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 98.22 Total: 745.36 218548 2/11/2016 074023 FW MEDIA INC MM315613 WOTSAD WD W OTS AD W D 123.000.64.573.20.41.40 1,715.00 Total: 1,715.00 218549 2/11/2016 075541 GALPIN, JEANNE 2/4 REFUND 2/4/16 REFUND - CLASS CANCELLE 2/4/16 REFUND - CLASS CANCELLE 001.000.239.200 138.00 Total: 138.00 218550 2/11/2016 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 11104 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.32 11352 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.32 11623 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.32 Total: 315.96 Page: 13 Packet Page 37 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 14 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218551 2/11/2016 072515 GOOGLE INC 3359644164 BILLING ID# 5030-2931-5908 Google Apps - Jan-2016 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 31.00 Total: 31.00 218552 2/11/2016 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 167783/1 WATER INVENTORY - #0061 W-CLI Water Inventory - #0061 W-CLMPCI- 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 376.14 Water Supplies 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 265.30 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 35.74 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 25.20 167877/1 WATER - AIR/VAC RELEASE VALVE Water - Air/Vac Release Valve - 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 364.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 34.58 168089/1 WATER - PARTS Water - Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 524.97 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 49.87 Total: 1,675.80 218553 2/11/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY 9766529 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Service and Support HACH WIMS 423.000.76.535.80.41.22 2,990.00 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.22 284.06 9768654 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB supplies: as Reagent set, Chlorine, C 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 1,108.90 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 66.39 Page: 14 Packet Page 38 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218553 2/11/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 111.67 9771282 WWTP - SUPPLIES, LAB filter, glass fbr, 934-AH 70mm pk/100 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 638.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.31 60.66 Total: 5,260.18 218554 2/11/2016 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007G9677 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, M 4" valve swing check flg pvc 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 1,357.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 23.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.21 131.17 Total: 1,511.92 218555 2/11/2016 065764 HASNER, THOMAS W 16 LEOFF 1 CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT LEOFF 1 Claim Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,490.45 Tota I : 1,490.45 218556 2/11/2016 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 14126522 WATER - PARTS Water - Parts 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 112.00 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.64 Total: 122.64 218557 2/11/2016 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 14 LEOFF 1 CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT LEOFF 1 Claim Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 109.60 Total: 109.60 Page: 15 Packet Page 39 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 16 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218558 2/11/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1070108 WWTP - SUPPLIES, MECHANICAL FatMax Meas. Tapes, Ratchet Sets 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 73.98 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.21 7.02 Total: 81.00 218559 2/11/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2748432 PURELL Purell 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 84.80 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 8.06 2748580 OFFICE SUPPLIES DSD OFFICE SUPPLIES DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 110.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 10.52 2749335 OFFICE SUPPLIES DSD OFFICE SUPPLIES DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 10.49 2750039 OFFICE SUPPLIES DSD OFFICE SUPPLIES DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 261.44 2750828 WWTP - SUPPLIES, FACLITIES CLEANING SUPPLIES FOR LUNCH 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 52.43 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.23 4.98 2751159 WWTP - SUPPLIES, OFFICE COPY PAPER 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 270.75 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.41 25.73 2751229 OFFICE SUPPLIES DSD' OFFICE SUPPLIES DSD 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 33.97 Page: 16 Packet Page 40 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 17 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218559 2/11/2016 073548 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) Total: 873.90 218560 2/11/2016 063419 INTOXIMETERS INC 521606 INV#521606 - EDMONDS PD ALCO-SENSOR FST MOUTHPIECE; 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 52.00 Freight 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 10.85 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 5.98 Total: 68.83 218561 2/11/2016 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 200870512 01-16 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE SE Jan-2016 Off site data storage servic( 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 187.24 Total: 187.24 218562 2/11/2016 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 3865 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC Feb-16 Fiber Optics Internet Connect 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 500.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 47.50 Total: 547.50 218563 2/11/2016 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3998872 INV#3998872 ACCT#100828 - EDMC 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPEF 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 242.30 HANDLING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 50.90 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 23.02 Total: 316.22 218564 2/11/2016 075260 LAU, PING 11410 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 109.34 Tota I : 109.34 Page: 17 Packet Page 41 of 175 vchlist 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page: 18 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218565 2/11/2016 074417 LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTIAN SMITH 123 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 5Z105695, PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 300.00 Total: 300.00 218566 2/11/2016 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4466507 INV#4466507 SHREDDING SERVICE INVOICE#4466507 - 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 4.56 INVOICE#4466507 - 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 4.56 4466717 INV#4466717 ACCT#2185-952778-8 SHRED 3 TOTES @ $4.56 1/28/16 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 13.68 Total: 22.80 218567 2/11/2016 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 142317 WWTP - PROFESSIONAL SERVICE HVAC service 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 271.50 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.23 25.79 Total: 297.29 218568 2/11/2016 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 011303-00 PM: PVC PIECES, PRIMER, POPUP, PM: PVC PIECES, PRIMER, POPUR 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 364.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 34.59 Total: 398.72 218569 2/11/2016 066258 MARENAKOS INC 0994529-IN PM: TAGGING PM: TAGGING 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,110.32 9.5% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 105.48 Total: 1,215.80 Page: 18 Packet Page 42 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 19 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218570 2/11/2016 070028 MCA 2016 MEMBERSHIP MISDEMEANANT CORRECTION AS; MISDEMEANANT CORRECTION AS; 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 40.00 Total: 40.00 218571 2/11/2016 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 13 LEOFF 1 CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT LEOFF 1 Claim Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 8,505.00 Total: 8,505.00 218572 2/11/2016 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD 16630 RECORDS SCANNING RECORDS SCANNING 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 402.26 Total: 402.26 218573 2/11/2016 074322 MICRO PRECISION CALIBRATION STL-23380 WATER QUALITY - ANNUAL CALIBF Water Quality - Annual Calibration 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 64.00 Total: 64.00 218574 2/11/2016 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0427618-IN WATER/SEWER - WORK OUTER W, Water/Sewer - Work Outer Water 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 61.35 Water/Sewer - Work Outer Water 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 61.35 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 5.83 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 5.83 0428279-IN WATER/SEWER - WORK OUTERW/ Water/Sewer - Work Outerware 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 43.80 Water/Sewer - Work Outerware 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 43.80 9.5% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 4.16 Page: 19 Packet Page 43 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 20 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218574 2/11/2016 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 4.16 Total: 230.28 218575 2/11/2016 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING 1 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR1 ENGINEERING DEPT TASKS: SOW 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 656.25 PARKS & REC TASKS: PROJ MGMT 125.000.64.575.50.41.00 1,687.50 Total: 2,343.75 218576 2/11/2016 075520 NOBLE, LINDA 11103 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 106.68 Total: 106.68 218577 2/11/2016 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 81598 WWTP - SODIUM BISULFITE Sodium Bisulfite 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 1,201.20 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 114.11 Total: 1,315.31 218578 2/11/2016 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 2-1523549 YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 309.21 2-1524894 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 587.62 Total: 896.83 218579 2/11/2016 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 620 HPC MINUTES HPC MINUTES 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 140.00 000 00 624 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Page: 20 Packet Page 44 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 21 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218579 2/11/2016 025690 NOYES, KARIN (Continued) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 192.50 Total: 332.50 218580 2/11/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 072177 PW OFFICE STAMPS PW Office Stamps 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 19.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 1.86 085010 PM: PAPER, POST ITS, JUMP DRIVE PM: PAPER, POST ITS, JUMP DRIVE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 307.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.20 093733 PW OFFICE STAMPS PW Office Stamps 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 11.32 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 1.08 915061 INV#915061 ACCT#520437 250POL INVISIBLE TAPE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 11.13 WITE OUT CORRECTING TAPE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 16.40 SHARPIE YELLOW MARKERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.02 RETRACTABLE BLACK PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 59.10 MAGNETIC CLIPS 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 12.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.09 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 1.21 Page: 21 Packet Page 45 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 22 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218580 2/11/2016 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) Total: 488.97 218581 2/11/2016 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION HICKMAN PARK IRRIGATION 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.18 0060860 HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/ HICKMAN PARK DRINKING FOUNT/ 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 89.53 Total: 106.71 218582 2/11/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 210821 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.00 210827 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.00 210850 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.00 Total: 300.00 218583 2/11/2016 069633 PET PROS 0013698-IN INV#0013698-IN CUST#07-EDMONE NU HI ENDURANCE DOG FOOD 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 104.48 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 10.03 Total: 114.51 218584 2/11/2016 074793 PETDATA INC 4830 INV#4830 - EDMONDS PD - JAN 201 261 1 YR PET LICENSES @$3.90 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1,017.90 1 REPLACEMENT TAG @$3.90 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 3.90 Total: 1,021.80 218585 2/11/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 1578570 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, El pulling Tube, bush stl /4 t bush, 1/2 Page: 22 Packet Page 46 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 23 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218585 2/11/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 62.62 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 5.95 1580017 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, El 3 P 2A 600 V, breakers 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 584.62 9.2% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 53.79 1632758 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, El c5e inline coupler 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 20.41 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 1.94 1653126 WWTP - REPAIR/MAINTENANCE, El HOF A20P30 Panel 2700X2700 F 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 -227.25 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.22 -21.59 1684221 CITY HALL City Hall 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 292.62 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 27.80 Tota I : 800.91 218586 2/11/2016 075537 POMMACHAN, KELLY 2/1 REFUND DAM DEP 2/1/16 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 2/1/16 REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.239.200 400.00 Total: 400.00 218587 2/11/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 12 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 51.11 Total: 51.11 Page: 23 Packet Page 47 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 24 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218588 2/11/2016 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET 20777 FELDENKRAIS 20777 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI 20777 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 474.50 20780 FELDENKRAIS 20780 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI 20780 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 332.50 20782 FELDENKRAIS 20782 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI 20782 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 300.00 Total: 1,107.00 218589 2/11/2016 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 15-2355 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 3,355.00 Total: 3,355.00 218590 2/11/2016 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 109053 INV#109053 - EDMONDS PD TOW 2002 HONDAACCORD #057X: 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 166.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 15.77 Total: 181.77 218591 2/11/2016 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 147.23 3-0197-0800897 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 29.69 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 112.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 112.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 112.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Page: 24 Packet Page 48 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 25 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218591 2/11/2016 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 112.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 112.80 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 157.76 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 69.50 Total: 968.22 218592 2/11/2016 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY JAN 2016 INVOICE 1/31/16 ACCT#70014 - EDP #157976 2 NPC - 1/7/16 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 23.80 Total: 23.80 218593 2/11/2016 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 35274 REMOTE & ONSITE COMPUTER SL Remote and Onsite computer supporl 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 2,441.25 Total: 2,441.25 218594 2/11/2016 063306 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 5157-5 GREEN RESOURCE CENTER - PAII` Green Resource Center - Paint 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 23.97 Total: 23.97 218595 2/11/2016 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0641343 PM: THREE WAY SOIL FLOWER PR PM: THREE WAY SOIL FLOWER PR 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 330.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 31.35 T-0643039 PM: PEA GRAVEL CITY PARK PM: PEA GRAVEL CITY PARK 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 205.00 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 25 Packet Page 49 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 26 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218595 2/11/2016 036955 SKY NURSERY (Continued) 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 19.48 T-0643057 PM: FIREFLY ORIENTAL SPRUCE F PM: FIREFLY ORIENTAL SPRUCE FI 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 169.99 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 16.15 Total: 771.97 218596 2/11/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 37.52 2003-2646-0 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.10 2005-9488-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 14.84 2006-6395-3 ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 285.46 2011-0356-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 36.98 2011-8789-5 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 24.00 2013-2711-1 PINE ST PARK PINE ST PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.66 2015-0127-7 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH F 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 20.49 2015-5730-3 CEMETERY BUILDING CEMETERY BUILDING 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 223.01 Page: 26 Packet Page 50 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 27 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218596 2/11/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 26.54 2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 29.80 2017-1178-5 STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 840.94 2021-6153-5 CEMETERY WELL PUMP CEMETERY WELL PUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 56.59 2021-9128-4 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 7801 212- 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15.17 2022-5063-5 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.10 2023-5673-9 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 27.27 2025-2918-6 STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2,938.70 2025-2920-2 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 120.42 2025-7615-3 STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15,228.31 2025-7948-8 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 350.05 2025-7952-0 WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE WWTP ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE Page: 27 Packet Page 51 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 28 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218596 2/11/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.42 2047-1489-3 STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 4.46 2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 99.03 2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 52.21 2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 13.27 2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 180.24 2053-0758-0 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 191.05 Total: 20,883.63 218597 2/11/2016 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 67793 PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 286.00 Total: 286.00 218598 2/11/2016 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND REC 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 670.20 Total: 670.20 218599 2/11/2016 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 12653/4 SEWER - WORK JEANS (5) J CLEM Sewer - Work Jeans (5) J Clemens 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 263.75 9.5% Sales Tax Page: 28 Packet Page 52 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 29 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218599 2/11/2016 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 25.06 12794/4 FAC MAINT - 5 -WORK PANTS T GO Fac Maint - 5 -Work Pants T Godbey 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 216.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 20.54 41888/1 WATER - WORK OVERALLS (2) - J [ Water - Work Overalls (2) - J Daniels 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 121.00 9.2% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 11.13 Total: 657.73 218600 2/11/2016 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3003310719 INV#3003310719 CUST#6076358 - E MINIMUM MONTHLY CHARGE 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 0.36 Total: 10.36 218601 2/11/2016 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S101474404.001 FREIGHT Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.59 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.77 S101492706.001 CITY HALL - FUSE SUPPLIES City Hall - Fuse Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 159.73 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 15.17 S101515584.001 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES City Hall - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 32.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.04 Page: 29 Packet Page 53 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 30 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218601 2/11/2016 040430 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY (Continued) Total: 230.32 218602 2/11/2016 070902 ULVESTAD, KAREN 20868 DIGITAL PHOTO 20868 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INS 20868 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY INS 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 90.00 Total: 90.00 218603 2/11/2016 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 95.95 LUNCH FOR STAFF MEETING 001.000.23.512.50.49.00 102.81 POSTAGE FOR PASSPORTS 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 129.00 WIRELESS KEYBOARD FOR IPAD 001.000.23.512.50.35.00 21.97 8296 WFOA MEMBERSHIP & GASB TRAII MyPlaceToLearn - WFOA GASB 68 \A 001.000.31.514.20.49.00 60.00 WFOA - Active Membership 2016 for 001.000.31.514.20.49.00 50.00 Total: 459.73 218604 2/11/2016 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0648560-WA SEWER -DOT Sewer - DOT 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 99.00 Total : 99.00 218605 2/11/2016 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 22500 U 2016 OPERATING PERMIT SYSTEM 2016 Operating Permit System Cert 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 11,265.15 Total : 11,265.15 218606 2/11/2016 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 530684 FAC MAINT - BLEACH, LINERS, TOE Fac Maint - Bleach, Liners, Towels, 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 372.14 Page: 30 Packet Page 54 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 31 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218606 2/11/2016 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO (Continued) 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 35.35 530688 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 103.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.87 530700 FAC MAINT - SEATCOVERS Fac Maint - Seatcovers 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 24.70 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.35 Total: 548.33 218607 2/11/2016 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL 116005417 INV#116005417 EDM301- EDMONDr BACKGROUND CHECKS - JAN 201E 001.000.237.100 427.75 Total: 427.75 218608 2/11/2016 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 15137 PM: MITIGATION PLANTING SALAL, PM: MITIGATION PLANTING SALAL, 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 765.00 9.5% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 72.68 Total: 837.68 218609 2/11/2016 061766 WPTA 2016 Membership 2016 MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR S J/ 2016 Active Membership Dues Jan - 1 001.000.31.514.20.49.00 40.00 Total: 40.00 218610 2/11/2016 051050 WYATT, ARTHUR D 13 LEOFF 1 REIMBURSEMENT LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 1,258.80 Total: 1,258.80 Page: 31 Packet Page 55 of 175 vchlist Voucher List Page: 32 02/11/2016 12:11:32PM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 101 Vouchers for bank code: usbank 101 Vouchers in this report Invoice PO # Description/Account Bank total Total vouchers Amount 152,233.25 152,233.25 Page 32 Packet Page 56 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STM 190th PI SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STIR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA STIR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E21FE SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E31FB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 ESFA STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 ESCA SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 ESCC STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 ESAB WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 ESCB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 ESGA WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 ESJA STIR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 57 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA 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 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1J13 STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 ESLA STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) c390 E2GB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA STR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB 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 ESFC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 ESDB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 58 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 EKA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 ESGB STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E31FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c141 E3JB STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 ElEA STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 59 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E21FB STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E91FB STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 ESFB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 60 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STM EOAA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support tertie and Reservoir Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs E17A Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming e W at 212th St S Intersection Improvements STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1 FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades Storm Contribution to Transportation Protects STM E1 FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) MMM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Re GA 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program,& WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood Edmonds G rge Stu WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain Transportation Plan Update� STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project Citywide Safety Improvements STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III WTR E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program STR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair c399 5th Ave Overlay Project IF STR E2DB c146 Interurban Trail h Talbot Rc1111L' age Improveme STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration Svstem IW80 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Stud STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 61 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STM E21FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk 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 STM E3FA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FF c428 190th PI SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) FAC EKA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E41FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E41FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 62 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title SWR E4GA ' c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project. SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E41-11A c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR ir E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4J113 c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades E4MA City Spray Par FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab Trackside Warning Syste STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming 2015 Overlay Progra WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays AmdW2015 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E51FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) SWR E5GA c469 WWTP E51-11A c481 WTR E5J113 c482 FAC E5LA c476 solo STIR E6DA c245 c256 General E6MA c238 W 265 STIR E7AC i005 - Infiltration Faci 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects Lake Ballinger Trunk Se Study WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) me eservoir Re -coati AN UDarades - Council Chambers Standard Details U 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project SR99 Enhancement Program Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Wor Shell Valley Emergency Access Road STM E7FG m013 NPDES Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 63 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from Us 13 - 09/01/08) SWR IAK c301 City -Wide Sewer Improvements PM E81VIA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program 226th Street Walkway Project STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation SWR c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Desig MV PM E91VIA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 64 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WTR E3J13 c141 OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements STR E2DB c146 Interurban Trail General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor PM EBMB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program SWR EBGA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) SWR EBGD c301 City -Wide Sewer Improvements SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design STM E9FB c307 Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements WTR EOIA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements STM EOFC c326 Stormwater GIS Support FAC EOLA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project STM EOAA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade FAC EOLB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs WtR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program STM E1 FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program STM E1 FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment SWR E1GA c347 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement STM E1 FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 65 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements WTR EOJA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program STIR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update SWR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update General ElEA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain 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 STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program STIR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STIR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project FAC EKA c393 Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STIR E2CC c399 5th Ave Overlay Project STIR E2AC c404 Citywide Safety Improvements STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM EYA c406 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement STM E3FB c407 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects 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 E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STIR E3AA c420 School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant STIR E3DA c421 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 66 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title WTR E4JA c422 2014 Waterline Replacement Program STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STIR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STIR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STIR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STIR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FF c428 190th PI SW Wall Construction STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E41FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STIR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STIR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STIR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E41FE 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 STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E51FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 67 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E51KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5J13 c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STM E7FG m013 NPDES UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB sol l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 68 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 ESLA FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 EOLA FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Frances Anderson Center Accessibility Upgrades c393 EKA FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E41-A FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 EOLB General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 ESDB General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 EBMB PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 EOAA STM 190th PI SW Wall Construction c428 E3FF STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE STM 2013 Citywide Drainage Replacement c406 E3FA STM 2013 Lake Ballinger Basin Study & Associated Projects c407 E3FB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 ESFA STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 ESFC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE STM NPDES m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 69 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1 FD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1 FF STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity) c349 E1 FH STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 EOFC STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STM Talbot Rd. Storm Drain Project/Perrinville Creek Mitigation c307 E9FB STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 ESFB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 ESCA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 ESAB STR 220 7th Ave N Sidewalk c421 E3DA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA 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 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB STR Citywide Safety Improvements c404 E2AC STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STR Interurban Trail c146 E2DB Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 70 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Funding Protect Title STIR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements Project Accounting Number c265 Engineering Project Number E7AA Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 71 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STIR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB STIR School Zone Flashing Beacon/Lighting Grant c420 E3AA STIR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB STIR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STIR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STIR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA SWR 2012 Sewermain-Alder/Dellwood/Beach PI/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 ESCC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 ESGA SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation (2013 Sewer Pipe Rehab CIPP) c390 E2GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR City -Wide Sewer Improvements c301 EBGD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08) c298 EBGA SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA SWR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 EOJA WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2014 Waterline Replacement Program c422 E4JA WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 ESCB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 ESJA Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 72 of 175 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 EOIA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK WTR OVD Watermain Improvements (2003) c141 E3J13 WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 2/11/2016 Packet Page 73 of 175 AM-8335 3. C. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/16/2016 Time: Consent Submitted By: Linda Hynd Department: City Clerk's Office Type: Action Information Subiect Title Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Erin Eddins ($3,196.92), and Bj Brown ($4,000.00). Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Erin Eddins 8308 208th St. SW Edmonds, Wa 98020 ($3,196.92) Bj Brown 8307 214th Place SW Edmonds, Wa 98026 ($4,000.00) Eddins Claim for Damages Brown Claim for Damages Attachments Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Dave Earling 02/08/2016 04:07 PM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/11/2016 11:40 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 02/08/2016 02:54 PM Final Approval Date: 02/11/2016 Packet Page 74 of 175 CEWED 1 � CITY OF EDMONDS FEB082016 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Cate Claim Form EDIAM SCffy CLM Raeiv6A# Please take note that � r r7 E n S -, who currently resides at 3 C) '205 L-0 mailing address �3� r"s` home phone # a$CiXY +ork phone # _ _ , and who resided at 'Sr' - at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is (a 5 , is claiming damages against of- C— r)nnJS _ in the sum of $ ,����Ii, C/Z arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 1 / -z 8z I co TIME: I LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: —�30W 02 0 F sS•t r)'11 0 r� DESCRIPTION: the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or I I /-) C. 1 r .. '-"., -1 .. _ Lr=.- -/,/, I . , _ 1 .:z f-n _7 I7ri (attach an extra sheet for 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 1 a 3J ' 4L01?7l1 67 5GL_-+ chrLije or- 1.-C vrl kvs bo ' 3 J U 0 f 'S I,_) 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes No rl Cat (°OVP� If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * License Plate # Type Auto: _ (year) (make) DRIVER: Address: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Address: Driver License # (model) OWNER: Address: Phone#: Name: Address: , if needed) Form Revised 05/06/14 Page t of 2 Packet Page 75 of 175 * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * I, r r 1 /1 being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56. x d t ri � x State of Washington County of Signature of Claimant(s) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that : 'qf V) in S is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (helshe) signed this instrument and "acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 1 Zlillo _ ' - G - Lv 5i atui'e M' Title My appointment expires: Please present the completed claim form to: FNotary Public State of Washington SARAH LAYER MYintment Explres Mar 16, 2019 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5ch Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page 76 of 175 AEDMO1NEUS___'4 LANI]SCAMG 22319 76th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 www.edmondslandscaping.com (425) 775-0427 Ext. 23 Phone fspillane@edmondslandscaping.com (425) 775-0427 Ext. 28 Phone tomj@edmondslandscaping.com (425) 774-9459 Fax Billing Ms. Erin Eddins Address: 8308 208th St. S.W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Proposal Proposal Information Proposal # 16-98 Date 2l4/2016 Sales Rep TJ Customer Information Contact Erin Eddins Alt Contact Randy Phone (425) 212-5986 B Service or Ms. Erin Eddins Project 8308 208th St. S.W. Location: Edmonds, WA 98020 Specifications and estimates for: Landscape restoration/repair for areas east of garage, north and south of front entry steps, along east and south sides of house, including: -cleaning up remaining sediment and debris from bed areas, flagstone patio & walkway and gravel path -loading and hauling -disposing of above material Subtotal $536.25 (plus tax) -restoring grades and any displaced soil, using: -1.5 yard of 3-Way topsoil Subtotal $209.28 (plus tax) -replacing damaged and/or displaced plant material, including: 2 - Armeria -1 g 3 - Ophlopogon -1 g 2 - Heuchera (purple) 2 - Pennisetum -1 g -pulling out and replacing damaged groundcovers within flagstone areas, using: 6 flats (18 per flat) of groundcover - 4" -0.25 yard of 3-Way topsoil Subtotal $882.90 (plus tax) -replacing any displaced topdressing (mulch), using: -4 yards of Fertile Mulch -raking to smooth Subtotal $346.50 (plus tax) -pulling up sections of undermined flagstone paths (approx. 55 sq ft) along east and south sides of house and setting aside for reuse -constructing a compacted crushed rock base for ... re -installing above sections of flagstone... using: -1 yard of 5/8 crushed rock Subtotal $806.58 (plus tax) -replacing any displaced gravel from path south/southwest of house, using: -1 yard of 5/8 crushed rock -raking to smooth Subtotal $138.05 (plus tax) Your project will not be scheduled until signed copies o(this proposal and the Warranties & Disclaimers page are received in our office along with a deposit in the amount specked below. If cancelled, we will assess a processing charge. This charge may be credited if the project is reinitiated. This project requires a 50% deposit with the balance due Net 10 Days after completion. This Proposal may be withdrawn by us If not accepted within 30 days. ` A 2.5% Processing Fee (3.5% for AMEX) is applied to credit card transactions. Subtotal Sales Tax Total Price Deposit Amount $2,919.56 $277.36 $3,196.92 The undersigned (please sign all pages) indicates his/her understanding and acceptance of the bid price, specifications, qualifications and terms of the Warranties & Disclaimers and desires to proceed with the project. If the Warranties & Disclaimers page is not included with this Proposal, customer should request a copy. Customer Signature: Date: Edmonds Landscaping, Inc. Contractor Lic M EDMONL1072135 EIN: 91-1548880 Packet Page 77 of 175 CITY OF EDMONDS RE4%VVWOR DAMAGES FORM l't Date Claim Form FEB 0 9 2016 ,Ai Received by city . ED ANDS CITY C� GG Please take note that r0 h who currently resides at ..mailing address home phone I work phone #(i and who resided at at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages against 1 �� v, [1f lI1LI�tn the sum of $ `� arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: �LlG 11a �^ TIME: 2— LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: 'J DESCRIPTION: 1. Describe the conduct end circumstanFe that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. Provide a list of witn [:t I " ssIAXArIE���-'�m (attach an extra sheet for additional informatioMf needed) applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes ✓ No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: F and the policy #: Z e2 ;5r 7 S--; * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY " License Plate # Driver License # Type Auto: (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: _ Phone#: _ Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page 78 of 175 LC f /912- ,tom + rfs S Packet Page 79 of 175 * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * I, 61 (Jrbwr\- , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above descri ; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, x h X��� - Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washington County of �ICA%O►)A\, I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 2� �1 ���,t.�,.R►ly{111f 1 Signature Title gv ' ' My appointment expires: L 0 �� d i, ro�B"NG s 2 N�9e.'\(O,� hp' Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Form Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page 80 of 175 AM-8340 3. D. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/16/2016 Time: Consent Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Parks and Recreation Type: Forward to Consent Information Subiect Title Proposed Amendment No 1 Snohomish Public Defense Association Recommendation Council authorize Mayor to sign Amendment No. 1 to the Snohomish Public Defense Association contract. Previous Council Action Council approved an agreement for Public Defense Services from Snohomish Public Defense Association to begin on January 2016. On February 2, 2016 Council unanimously forwarded this to be adopted on the consent calendar. Narrative On January 1, 2015, the misdemeanor caseload limits for public defense attorneys adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court in the new Standards for Indigent Defense took effect. The City published an RFQ for Public Defense Services, with these new caseload standards, and subsequently contracted with the Snohomish Public Defense Association ( SPDA). The City also entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Mr. Bob Boruchowicz to provide oversight of the public defense services. Upon review of the contract with Snohomish PDA, Mr. Boruchowicz is recommending a few language revisions, which are captured in the attached Amendment No. 1. In addition, Ms. Kathleen Kyle, the Executive Director for the Snohomish PDA is requesting financial assistance of $16,500 to ease the transition and stay in compliance with the caseload limits identified in the Washington State law. With the transfer of cases from Feldman and Lee and the way that quarterly attorney certification works (CrRLJ 3.1), the 2 lawyers assigned to Edmonds are way over the anticipated numbers for January 2016. The case assignments impact the Attorney Compensation formula (XXVII Compensation, D. Caseload Adjustment — page 10 of the contract) in a manner that was not anticipated. The contract contemplated 150 cases per quarter. With the transfer of cases, SPDA received the anticipated 150 cases plus 200+ Packet Page 81 of 175 cases from Feldman and Lee. Ms. Kyle, in accordance with the current law was concerned about the 2 lawyers being able to quarterly certify as they will well exceed the first quarter assignments and likely be over for the year (even staffing 2 FTE attorneys for what was anticipated at 1.75 FTE case referrals.) Ms. Kyle is proposing a solution to hire a temporary lawyer (probably 3 months of work) to work in the City of Edmonds full time — which allows them to absorb the bubble of cases from Feldman and Lee, let the regular caseload work itself out, and would allow the current 2 attorneys to certify at the beginning of the 2nd quarter (at the end of March 2016.) This temporary attorney would cost less than using the existing caseload adjustment formula. It would cost $16,500.00 for 3 months of an attorney as opposed to $9390.54 per month for the first 4-6 months. The Mayor is recommending the Council approve this amendment, changing some of the language and allocating an additional $16,500 to allow the Snohomish PDA to stay under the caseload limits. Ms. Kyle will be present to answer any questions. Amendment No 1 Original Agreement 11.2.15 Council agenda 11.2.15 Council MInutes Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Scott Passey Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 02/11/2016 Attachments Form Review Date 02/10/2016 11:55 AM 02/10/2016 04:33 PM 02/11/2016 11:40 AM Started On: 02/10/2016 08:31 AM Packet Page 82 of 175 ti qx EL7Ar� City of Edmonds Dave Earling Mayor 121 FIFTH AVENUE N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 •425-771-0251 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS Effective January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2018 WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City") and the Snohomish County Public Defender Association (the "Contractor"), entered into an underlying professional services agreement for the provision of indigent legal defense services for 2016 through 2018 ("Underlying Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Underlying Agreement provides for contract oversight services by a third party "Public Defense Supervisor" and it has been brought to the parties' attention that such third party is more appropriately referred to as a "Public Defense Assessor"; and WHEREAS, the Underlying Agreement provides for certain reporting requirements by the Contractor to the City and it has been brought to the parties' attention that such reporting requirements require the addition of a report on "Information on the use of expert witnesses" and clarification of the report relating to the use of immigration experts; and WHEREAS, the Underlying Agreement provides that payment for attorney compensation will be governed by a caseload adjustment formula; and it has been brought to the City's attention that this formula did not take into account the cases to be transferred to the Contractor from the previous provider of indigent defense legal services; and the parties agree that it is in the best interests of both parties to adjust the amount of compensation to be provided by the City in 2016 to allow the Contractor to hire a temporary attorney to assist with such cases; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Underlying Agreement to make the necessary revisions to Sections XIX ("City Contract Administrator — Contract Oversight"), XX ("Reports of Contractor"), XXI ("Complaints and Corrective Action"), XXWII ("Compensation"), and XXXIII ("Notices"); NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties to the Underlying Agreement as follows: Packet Page 83 of 175 Amendment No. I to Professional Services Agreement, Page 2 1. The provisions of the Underlying Agreement between the City and the Contractor for indigent defense legal services, attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: I. Section XIX ("City Contract Administrator — Contract Oversight") shall be revised as follows: The City intends to engage the services of a Public Defense Assessor to manage and monitor this Agreement. All reports or certifications required by this Agreement shall be delivered to the Public Defense Assessor at the address set forth in Section XXXIII below. To assist the Public Defense Assessor in managing and monitoring this Agreement, Contractor shall, in addition to providing the reports set forth in Section XX below, report to the Public Defense Assessor any disciplinary action by the Washington State Bar Association against an attorney providing services under this Agreement, and any finding by a court that any such attorney has provided ineffective assistance of counsel. II. Section XX ("Reports of Contractor") shall be revised as follows: Contractor shall maintain a case reporting and case management information system, and shall submit reports to the City's Public Defense Assessor as follows: A. Reports shall be submitted on a no less than a quarterly basis and shall be a condition of payment pursuant to Section XXVII. B. Reports shall contain the following information: 1. The names of defendants to which Contractor was appointed during the reporting period, the charges, and the associated case numbers; 2. The date of appointment; 3. The case weight assigned to the case if a case weighting system has been approved and implemented; 4. The number of appellate level cases pending; 5. Copies of the most recent Indigent Defense Standards Certifications filed with the Court by each Attorney providing services under this Agreement; 6. Information on Contractor's caseload distribution; 7. Information on Contractor's case supervision; 8. The number of pending trials and the type(s) of charges to be addressed in each; 9. The number of substantive motions undertaken; 10. The number of hours spent by each attorney on each of their cases; 11. Information on the use of investigators; 12. Information on the use of expert witnesses; 13. Information on consultations with the Washington Defender Association immigration staff or with a similar immigration expert; and 14. Information on the disposition of concluded cases. C. Contractor shall not be required to compromise any attorney -client privilege Packet Page 84 of 175 Amendment No. I to Professional Services Agreement, Page 3 (RCW 5.60.060) or Client Confidentiality (RPC 1.6) when providing these reports. However, because it is necessary for the effective management and monitoring of this Agreement, it is understood that the Public Defense Assessor is intended to be part of the confidential relationship with the Contractor and the clients it represents. The Public Defense Assessor's communications with the City in relation to the monitoring and reporting obligations of this Agreement shall comply with the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including RPC 1.6. III. Section XXI ("Complaints and Corrective Action") shall be revised as follows: A. Complaints Directed to Public Defense Assessor. Any unresolved complaints regarding Contractor or an attorney or Rule 9 intern providing services pursuant to this Agreement, whether received by the City, the Contractor, or the Court, shall be directed to the Public Defense Assessor. B. Investigation. In the event a complaint is received by or directed to the Public Defense Assessor and is not timely resolved by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the complainant, the Public Defense Assessor will investigate the complaint by reviewing the complaint, discussing the matter with the complaining party, discussing the matter with the Contractor, and determining whether a violation of this Agreement has occurred. The Public Defense Assessor may consult with legal counsel or another expert as deemed necessary in order to resolve the complaint. In addition, the Public Defense Assessor may consult with the Washington State Bar Association when appropriate. C. Corrective Action Plan or Termination. In the event the Public Defense Assessor determines that a violation has occurred, he or she may develop a corrective action plan or terminate this Agreement in the event it is determined that termination is appropriate. Contractor shall cooperate in any investigation of a complaint, and any corrective action plan developed by the Public Defense Assessor. IV. Section XXVVII ("Compensation"), subsection A.a., shall be revised as follows: A. Payment for Services. a. 2016. The City shall provide to Contractor for services rendered under this Agreement the sum of TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY- NINE DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS ($22,589.50) per month from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Of this sum, THIRTEEN THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE DOLLARS AND SIXTY-THREE CENTS ($13,133,63) is paid for attorney compensation, ONE THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-ONE DOLLARS AND TWO CENTS ($1,371.02) is paid Packet Page 85 of 175 Amendment No. I to Professional Services Agreement, Page 4 for the provision of investigator services, and EIGHT THOUSAND, EIGHTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND EIGHTY-SIX CENTS ($8,084.86) is paid for administrative expenses. In addition, the City shall provide to Contractor the amount of SIXTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($16,500.00) for the purpose of employing a temporary full time attorney to assist with the cases to be transferred to Contractor from the previous provider of indigent defense legal :T""IIFKIMI I V. Section XXXIII ("Notices") shall be revised as follows: All notices and other written documentation shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses unless otherwise requested in writing: City of Edmonds: Contractor: Public Defense Assessor Snohomish County Public Defender Association c/o Mayor's Office 2722 Colby Avenue, Suite 200 121 Fifth Ave. N Everett, WA 98201 Edmonds, WA 98020 2. In all other respects, the Underlying Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. DATED this day of CITY OF EDMONDS 2016. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION David O. Earling By: Its: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney Packet Page 86 of 175 Amendment No. I to Professional Services Agreement, Page 5 STATE OF WASHINGTON) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 2016, before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , and executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be his/her free and voluntary act and for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Page 87 of 175 CITY OF EDMONDS CONTRACT NO.6627 AGREEMENT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES This Agreement is entered into between the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, ("City") and the Snohomish County Public Defender Association ("Contractor"). I. DEFINITIONS A. Attorney. Attorneys shall mean attorneys working for the Snohomish County Public Defender Association, and where appropriate, shall include Rule 9 interns. B. Case. A Case shall mean the filing of a document with the court naming a person as defendant or respondent, to which an Attorney is appointed in order to provide representation. In courts of limited jurisdiction multiple citations from the same incident can be counted as one case. C. Contractor. Contractor shall mean the Snohomish County Public Defender Association, and shall mean each attorney working for the Contractor. D. Defendant. Defendant shall mean a person charged with a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense that is filed by the City into the Edmonds Municipal Court, and for whom the Contractor must provide services pursuant to Section III of this Agreement. II. DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2018, unless extended or terminated earlier in a manner permitted by this Agreement. III. SCOPE OF WORK AND DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR A. Criminal Defense Representation — To Whom Provided. Except in cases in which a conflict of interest exists, Contractor shall provide criminal defense representation to the following: 1. All Defendants for which the Contractor has been appointed by the Edmonds Municipal Court or City as attorney of record pursuant to the Court's or City's determination of indigence of the defendant. 2. All suspects who are permitted access to a public defender while detained pursuant to an investigation for any gross or simple misdemeanor being investigated by the City of Edmonds Police Department, including, but not limited to: the offenses of driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol (RCW 46.61.503) or physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504) for the purposes of consulting with the Contractor prior to deciding whether to provide a sample of breath or blood. 3. All persons who are not represented by private counsel and who appear for arraignment in the Edmonds Municipal Court shall be entitled to an explanation of the rights, information regarding maximum and minimum penalties if convicted and information regarding the process and handling of the matter by the Edmonds Municipal Court. 4. All Defendants who, while in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail who are not represented by private or conflict counsel, who appear in court on charges filed by the City of Edmonds, shall be entitled to the same level of contact as described above in section 3. Packet Page 88 of 175 B. Provisional and Temporary Appointments. Contractor shall be available to provide limited representation on behalf of otherwise unrepresented Defendants at arraignments and during in - custody hearings despite said Defendant not being appointed pursuant to a determination of indigence. If Contractor is appointed to a case pursuant to determination of indigence at an arraignment or in - custody hearing, Contractor should not recommend a Defendant plead guilty without first having reviewed discovery from the prosecuting attorney and adequately discussed the case in private with the Defendant and any witnesses the Contractor deems necessary to make such recommendation. C. Re resentation Provided to Defendants Investigated for Gross Misdemeanor or Misdemeanor Crimes. Current contractor shall be available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, by telephone for the purposes of providing representation to otherwise unrepresented suspects or Defendants who are in custody and under investigation for any gross or simple misdemeanor being investigated by the City of Edmonds Police Department, including, but not limited to: driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol (RCW 46.61.503), physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504) or any other misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. Contractor shall provide the Edmonds Police Department with telephone numbers of its attorneys that provide direct access to the attorneys, and shall keep such telephone numbers up to date. Contractor may designate times in which specific attorneys may be reached, and shall provide the numbers of alternate attorneys if the designated attorney cannot be reached. D. Duration of Representation of Defendant. In cases in which the Contractor is appointed as attorney of record, and unless Contractor is permitted by the court to withdraw at an earlier time, Contractor shall represent the defendant at all stages of the criminal process, from the time of appointment as attorney of record through the appeals process (provided that funding for appeals beyond superior court shall be pursuant to the terms of Title 15 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure), as well as during any period in which the court retains jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of any sentence or deferral. E. Anticjpated Attorney Caseload. The parties anticipate that 650 cases will be assigned to Contractor annually and that one and three quarter attorney positions be assigned to these cases. F. lundraisir3. Contractor will assist the City in raising funds to assist with the costs of its public defense services. Such assistance will include, but may not be limited to, applying for State grant funds. The City will make all reasonable efforts necessary to assist Contractor in this regard. IV. APPEARANCE AT HEARINGS Contractor shall appear at all hearings scheduled by the Edmonds Municipal Court in which it represents Defendants, as well as all arraignment calendars and all in -custody calendars. Contractor shall provide a sufficient number of attorneys at the various court calendars to ensure that Defendants have a sufficient amount of time to consult with the Contractor's attorneys prior to each defendant's case being heard, and to ensure that the court calendars are not delayed due to insufficient staffing of Contractor's attorneys at the calendars. 2 Packet Page 89 of 175 V. REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANTS WHILE ON THE RECORD Contractor shall be with and actively representing an appointed Defendant at all times while the appointed Defendant's case is considered on the court record, and shall adequately inform the Defendant of the developments in his or her case such that the Defendant proceeds during any court hearing in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner. VI. DEFENDANT ACCESS TO CONTRACTOR A. Contact Prior to Court Hearings. Contractor shall be available to appointed Defendants to ensure that appointed Defendants are provided with effective assistance of counsel. Defendant access to the Contractor prior to court hearings is paramount. Contractor shall endeavor to confer with appointed Defendants about cases prior to court hearings. B. Tol l Free Calls. Appointed Defendants shall be provided access to the Contractor by means of a toll -free local call made available by the Contractor. C. Time to Respond. Contractor shall respond to defendant inquiries within a reasonable time to ensure the effective assistance of counsel, whether such inquiries are received by letter, telephone, email, or otherwise. D. Local Office Required. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain an office at its current location or within 5 miles of either the Edmonds Municipal Court or the City of Edmonds. The office of the Contractor shall accommodate confidential meetings with Defendants, shall be equipped with telephone, facsimile, and internet services, shall receive adequate cellular telephone service, and shall be the location at which mail and service of process is received. E. Availability for and Contact with In -Custody Defendants. Contractor shall evaluate the cases of all appointed Defendants in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail prior to the time of the Defendant's trial, and shall meet with such in -custody Defendants as the Contractor deems appropriate for providing effective assistance of counsel. At a minimum, Contractor shall meet with all appointed misdemeanant Defendants who are in -custody within two (2) business days of the Contractor being notified of its appointment as that defendant's legal representative. In addition, Contractor shall schedule no less than two periods of time each week in which to meet with appointed Defendants who are in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail. These two periods of time shall be for the purposes of responding to inmate requests, responding to letters and telephone calls, and preparing for the defense of the jailed Defendants. These two periods shall be separate in time, not necessarily in days, from court hearings held at the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail. VII. QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION Contractor shall provide services in a professional and skilled manner consistent with Washington's Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable case law, the Constitutions of the United States and Washington, and the court rules that define the duties of counsel and the rights of defendants. Contractor shall be familiar with and comply with the New Standards for Indigent Defense as adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court on June 15, 2012, and as thereafter amended (hereafter "the Indigent Defense Standards"). At all times during the representation of a defendant, the Contractor's primary responsibility shall be to protect the interests of the defendant. Packet Page 90 of 175 VIII. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTOR ATTORNEYS - TRAINING A. Oual i fications. All attorneys employed by Contractor for the purposes of providing the services called for in this contract shall, at a minimum, satisfy the minimum qualifications to practice law as established by the Washington Supreme Court; be familiar with and follow the statutes, court rules, case law and constitutional law applicable to misdemeanor criminal defense work in the state of Washington; be familiar with and abide by Washington's Rules of Professional Conduct; be familiar with and abide by the Indigent Defense Standards; be familiar with the consequences to each particular defendant of any conviction or adjudication including but not limited to jail time, financial penalties, restitution, mental health or drug and alcohol treatment obligations, license suspensions, and immigration or civil commitment implications; be familiar with mental health and substance abuse issues applicable to each defendant; be able to recognize the need for expert services including but not limited to investigators; and be able to satisfy the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Training. For each attorney of the Contractor providing services under this Agreement, a minimum of seven (7) hours of reportable continuing legal education credits per year shall be in the areas of criminal defense law, criminal process, trial advocacy, legal writing, appellate work, law practice management, or any other subject that, in the opinion of the Contractor, is applicable to providing criminal defense services. If Contractor employs more than seven (7) attorneys, Contractor shall conduct in house training pursuant to the Indigent Defense Standards. IX. USE OF RULE 9 INTERNS A. Workload of Rule 9 Interns. Contractor may employ interns qualified under Admission to Practice Rule 9 who perform work pursuant to this Agreement. Rule 9 interns shall remain under the supervision of the Contractor, and an attorney for Contractor shall remain responsible for the cases for which the Rule 9 provides services. Any applicable case load limits for full time Rule 9 Interns who have not graduated from law school shall be one quarter (1/4) of the case load limit of an Attorney working the same number of hours. B. Ouali.ftcations of Rule 9 Interns. Rule 9 interns shall be required to abide by Sections VII and VIII except that Rule 9 interns shall not be required to complete the training requirements of Section VIII, and in place of the requirement to satisfy the minimum qualifications to practice law as established by the Washington Supreme Court, the Rule 9 intern must comply with the provisions of APR 9. Rule 9 interns shall be closely monitored by the more senior attorneys of the Contractor. X. DISCOVERY TO BE PROVIDED The City's Prosecuting Attorney's Office shall provide Contractor one (1) copy of all discoverable material concerning each assigned case pursuant to the rules of discovery and without charge as soon as possible after appointment. For those individuals who are held in custody, discovery shall be provided within one (1) business day. XI. NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED Contractor shall employ a sufficient number of Attorneys to comply with caseload limits. 4 Packet Page 91 of 175 XII. CASELOAD LIMITS PER FULLTIME EQUIVALENT POSITION A. Caseload Limits in General. Contractor shall maintain a caseload such that it can provide each and every Defendant effective assistance of counsel as required by this Agreement. Subject to the remaining subsections of this section, a fulltime equivalent attorney position should be appointed to no more than 400 unweighted cases per year. B. Case Defined. For the purposes of this section, the term "case" shall mean a group of criminal charges related to a single incident filed against a Defendant to which an Attorney is appointed pursuant to a finding of indigence. C. Caseload Limit Reduction. Each Attorney's caseload limit shall be reduced by the approximate percentage of time the Attorney spends representing private clients or defendants that have not been formally appointed pursuant to a finding of indigence. D. Alternative Caseload limits and Case Weighting. In the event the City or Contractor determine that it is necessary or advisable to use a caseload limit that differs from the case load limits specified in this section, either party may propose to the other an alternative standard for caseload limits so long as such standard is fully consistent with the Indigent Defense Standards. If the parties agree the proposed alternative standard is fully consistent with the Indigent Defense Standards and such alternative standards do not create an undue administrative burden on either party, the alternative standard shall be formally approved by the Contractor and the City's Mayor and incorporated within this Agreement. E. Post -Sentence Re resentation. All post -sentencing hearings will be counted as part of Contractor's continuing representation of Defendants as set forth in Section III, above. All new clients appointed to Contractor at post sentencing -review hearings will be counted as one case. XIII. COMPLIANCE WITH INDIGENT DEFENSE STANDARDS A. Caseload Monitoring, Contractor shall continually monitor the caseload and performance of Contractor as a whole and each attorney providing services pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall provide projections at least three months in advance regarding the caseload limits based upon the number of attorneys employed by Contractor and trends in case filings. B. Caseload Level Shiftin . In the event an attorney is handling a caseload such that the attorney is unable to provide effective assistance of counsel to each and every defendant or is otherwise on track to exceed his/her caseload limit, Contractor shall reduce the caseload of that attorney, and shift the reduced portion of the caseload to another Attorney employed by the Contractor. C. Certification of Compliance. Each Attorney shall be in compliance with and shall certify compliance with the Indigent Defense Standards to the Snohomish County South District Court and the Edmonds Municipal Court on a quarterly basis or more frequently as required by the Indigent Defense Standards and in the form required by the Indigent Defense Standards. XIV. EXPERTS AND INVESTIGATORS Contractor may retain experts and investigators of the Contractor's choosing as deemed necessary to the effective defense of the defendant, and may apply to the court for such services pursuant to applicable court rules. The fees for expert witnesses shall be included in the costs that the City pays Contractor except as ordered by the Court pursuant to CrRLJ 3.1(f). Packet Page 92 of 175 The Contractor shall retain an investigator of its choosing as deemed necessary for the effective defense of the defendant, this cost shall be part of the flat fee set forth in this agreement. XV. COSTS OF TRANSCRIPTION The City agrees to reimburse the Contractor for all reasonable costs associated with obtaining and transcribing trial court records for appeal purposes if such costs have not been waived. XVI. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Contractor shall maintain a database of client information sufficient for the Contractor to determine the existence of any conflicts of interest. In the event representation of a defendant would constitute a conflict of interest, Contractor shall take such action as is appropriate pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct. In the event the Contractor is disqualified or excused as counsel of record due to a conflict of interest, Contractor shall not be required to pay any compensation to another attorney assigned to represent the defendant. XVII. INTERNAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND ATTORNEY SUPERVISION Contractor shall establish a program for managing the performance of attorneys who provide the services called for in this Agreement. The performance monitoring program shall have the purpose of ensuring that each defendant receives effective assistance of counsel, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement are met. Contractor shall provide the City with a blank copy of the performance evaluation form used and report to the City on an annual basis whether it has conducted annual evaluations of attorneys who provide services under this Agreement. XVIII. REMOVAL OF ATTORNEY A. Removal bv Contractor. In the event Contractor determines, through its internal performance monitoring and attorney supervision program that an Attorney or Rule 9 intern working for Contractor fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, then Contractor shall immediately take action to prevent that Attorney or Rule 9 intern from providing the services called for in this Agreement. B. Recommendation of Removal by City. In the event the City determines that an attorney working for the Contractor has breached this Agreement, the City may, at its sole discretion and as an alternative to termination of this Agreement, require Contractor to take action to prevent that attorney from providing the services called for in this Agreement or otherwise cure the breach. XIX. CITY CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR — CONTRACT OVERSIGHT The City intends to engage the services of a Public Defense Supervisor to manage and monitor this Agreement. All reports or certifications required by this Agreement shall be delivered to the Public Defense Supervisor at the address set forth in Section XXXIII below. To assist the Public Defense Supervisor in managing and monitoring this Agreement, Contractor shall, in addition to providing the reports set forth in Section XX below, report to the Public Defense Supervisor any disciplinary action by the Washington State Bar Association against an attorney providing services under this Agreement, and any finding by a court that any such attorney has provided ineffective assistance of counsel. C$I Packet Page 93 of 175 XX. REPORTS OF CONTRACTOR Contractor shall maintain a case reporting and case management information system, and shall submit reports to the City's Public Defense Supervisor as follows: A. Reports shall be submitted on a no less than a quarterly basis and shall be a condition of payment pursuant to Section XXVII. B. Reports shall contain the following information: 1. The names of defendants to which Contractor was appointed during the reporting period, the charges, and the associated case numbers; 2. The date of appointment; 3. The case weight assigned to the case if a case weighting system has been approved and implemented; 4. The number of appellate level cases pending; 5. Copies of the most recent Indigent Defense Standards Certifications filed with the Court by each Attorney providing services under this Agreement; 6. Information on Contractor's caseload distribution; 7. Information on Contractor's case supervision; 8. The number of pending trials and the type(s) of charges to be addressed in each; 9. The number of substantive motions undertaken; 10. The number of hours spent by each attorney on each of their cases; 11. Information on the use of investigators; 12. Information on consultations with the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and 13. Information on the disposition of concluded cases. C. Contractor shall not be required to compromise any attorney -client privilege (RCW 5.60.060) or Client Confidentiality (RPC 1.6) when providing these reports. However, because it is necessary for the effective management and monitoring of this Agreement, it is understood that the Public Defense Supervisor is intended to be part of the confidential relationship with the Contractor and the clients it represents. The Public Defense Supervisor's communications with the City in relation to the monitoring and reporting obligations of this Agreement shall comply with the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including RPC 1.6. XXI. COMPLAINTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION A. Complaints Directed to Public Defense Su ervisor. Any unresolved complaints regarding Contractor or an attorney or Rule 9 intern providing services pursuant to this Agreement, whether received by the City, the Contractor, or the Court, shall be directed to the Public Defense Supervisor. B. Investigation. In the event a complaint is received by or directed to the Public Defense Supervisor and is not timely resolved by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the complainant, the Public Defense Supervisor will investigate the complaint by reviewing the complaint, discussing the matter with the complaining party, discussing the matter with the Contractor, and determining whether a violation of this Agreement has occurred. The Public Defense Supervisor may consult with legal counsel or another expert as deemed necessary in order to resolve the complaint. In addition, the Public Defense Supervisor may consult with the Washington State Bar Association when appropriate. C. Corrective Action Plan or Termination. In the event the Public Defense Supervisor determines that a violation has occurred, he or she may develop a corrective action plan or terminate this Agreement 7 Packet Page 94 of 175 in the event it is determined that termination is appropriate. Contractor shall cooperate in any investigation of a complaint, and any corrective action plan developed by the Public Defense Supervisor. XXII. TERMINATION A. For Cause. The City or the Contractor may terminate this Agreement immediately in the event the other party breaches the Agreement and such breach is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the injured party in a timely manner after notice of breach has been provided to the other party. Each and every term of this Agreement is material. The failure of any party to comply with any term of this Agreement shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. B. For Reasons Beyond Control of Parties. Either party may terminate this Agreement without recourse by the other where performance is rendered impossible or impracticable for reasons beyond such party's reasonable control such as, but not limited to, acts of nature; war or warlike operations; civil commotion; riot; labor dispute including strike, walkout, or lockout; sabotage; or superior governmental regulation or control. C. Without Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause upon giving the non -terminating party not less than one hundred and twenty (120) days prior written notice. XXIII. CONTINUATION OF REPRESENTATION AFTER TERMINATION In the event of termination of this Agreement, Contractor shall continue representation of Defendants to whom Contractor was assigned prior to the termination until such time as another defense attorney has been appointed to represent such Defendants. Upon reassignment of such Defendants to another defense attorney, Contractor shall promptly deliver all related client files to such defense attorney. Except in cases in which the Contractor is unable to provide services in conformance with this Agreement, Contractor shall not submit to the court a motion to withdraw from representing defendants to which the Contractor was assigned until such time as new counsel has submitted a motion to substitute counsel. For each case in which Contractor makes one or more in -court appearances with a Defendant, not including appearances that consist solely of successful continuance motions, the City shall pay Contractor a one time payment of one hundred and fifty dollars for all post termination services provided in the case. XXIV. NON-DISCRIMINATION Contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, nationality, sexual orientation, color, creed, disability, age, religion or any other state or federal protected category in the hiring of employees or the provision of services pursuant to a contract with the City. XXV. PROOF OF LIABILITY INSURANCE Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated by this reference. XXVI. INDEMNIFICATION Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, and employees harmless from any and all claims whatsoever related to or arising from the performance of the Contractor's obligations pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to claims arising out of the errors and omissions of the Contractor relating to the representation or lack of representation of Packet Page 95 of 175 clients, and/or by reason of accident, injury, or death caused to any persons or property of any kind occurring during the performance or lack thereof of the work required by this Agreement, or traveling to or from any place to perform the work required by this Agreement, except to the extent they are caused by the sole negligence of the City. The failure of Contractor to carry insurance in a quantity sufficient to defend a claim or lawsuit, or cover any judgment that results, shall not operate to limit Contractor's indemnification or defense of the City. This indemnification section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. XXVII. COMPENSATION A. Payment for Services. a. 2016. The City shall provide to Contractor for services rendered under this Agreement the sum of TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS ($22,589.50) per month from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Of this sum, THIRTEEN THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-THREE DOLLARS AND SIXTY-THREE CENTS ($13,133,63) is paid for attorney compensation, ONE THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-ONE DOLLARS AND TWO CENTS ($1,371.02) is paid for the provision of investigator services, and EIGHT THOUSAND, EIGHTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND EIGHTY-SIX CENTS ($8,084.86) is paid for administrative expenses. b. 2017. The City shall provide to Contractor an increase of 4% for 2017 for services rendered under this Agreement. This includes the sum of TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE DOLLARS AND EIGHT CENTS ($23,493.09) per month from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. Of this sum, THIRTEEN THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED FORTY-THREE DOLLARS AND NINETY-SEVEN CENTS ($13,658.98) is paid for attorney compensation, ONE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND EIGHTY-SIX CENTS ($1,425.86) is paid for the provision of investigator services, and EIGHT THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED EIGHT DOLLARS AND TWENTY-FIVE CENTS ($8,408.25) is paid for administrative expenses. c. 2018. The City shall provide to Contractor an increase of 4% for 2018 for services rendered under this Agreement. This includes the sum of TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY-NINE DOLLARS AND TWENTY CENTS ($24,432.81) per month from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018. Of this sum, FOURTEEN THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED ONE DOLLARS AND SEVENTY-THREE CENTS ($14,205.34) is paid for attorney compensation, ONE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO DOLLARS AND EIGHTY-NINE CENTS ($1,482.89) is paid for the provision of investigator services, and EIGHT THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND FIFTY-EIGHT CENTS ($8,744.58) is paid for administrative expenses. These payments shall be full compensation for all services and material necessary to accomplish the objectives of this Agreement, including but not limited to administrative costs associated with providing legal representation. These administrative costs include, but are not limited to: travel, telephones, law library, including electronic legal research; financial accounting; case management systems; computers and software; office space and supplies; training; meeting the reporting requirements imposed by this Agreement; and other costs necessarily incurred in the day-to-day management of this Agreement. Contractor shall bill the City each month for services rendered herein. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Packet Page 96 of 175 Agreement, the Contractor's compensation shall be prorated based upon the days which have elapsed between the effective date of the termination and the first day of the month after termination. B. Bil� lin>7. Contractor shall bill the City, in care of the Mayor or designee, on the first day of the month, or the first workday thereafter for the monthly installment set forth in subsection A of this section, and any transcription costs as permitted by this Agreement. C. Payment. The City shall make payments within 30 days of receipt of Contractor's bill. Except as provided elsewhere in this Agreement, the payment set forth in this section shall be inclusive of administrative costs, support costs, and all costs associated with the conduct of the Contractor's business. D. Caseload Adjustments: The following formula protects the City and the Association from having individual attorney caseloads exceed the mandatory maximum of 400 cases as set by the Supreme Court in the Criminal Rule for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction 3.1 (CrRLJ 3.1), adopting Standard for Indigent Defense 3.4. Its application would keep individual attorney caseloads almost uniformly within the 300 to 400 range. In addition it keeps the City and Association in compliance with the Washington State Bar Association standards. Standard Three calls for a misdemeanor caseload of 300 cases. A misdemeanor caseload may adjusted to no more than 400 cases, depending upon: • The caseload distribution between simple misdemeanors and complex misdemeanors; or • Jurisdictional policies such as post -filing diversion and opportunity to negotiate resolution of large number of cases as non -criminal violations; • Other court administrative procedures that permit a defense lawyer to handle more cases. The attorney caseloads will be adjusted at the end of each calendar quarter in accordance with the following formula, and the attorney compensation shall be adjusted as indicated: Case Referrals Prior Quarter Attorney Caseloads Attorney Compensation Adjustment 75 Case Referrals 1.00 Attorney Caseload 57.25% 100 Case Referrals 1.25 Attorney Caseloads 71.5% 125 Case Referrals 1.50 Attorney Caseloads 85.75% 150 Case Referrals 1.75 Attorney Caseloads Remains 175 Case Referrals 2.00 Attorney Caseloads 114.3% 200 Case Referrals 2.25 Attorney Caseloads 128.6% 225 Case Referrals 2.50 Attorney Caseloads 143% 250 Case Referrals 2.75 Attorney Caseloads 157.25% 275 Case Referrals 3.00 Attorney Caseloads 171.5% XXVIII. SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED Except in extraordinary circumstances or as temporarily necessary to avoid violation of the Indigent Defense Standards, Contractor shall not subcontract with another attorney or law firm to provide the services required herein. Contractor shall remain directly involved in and responsible for the representation of all assigned defendants. 10 Packet Page 97 of 175 XXIX. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED No assignment or transfer of this Agreement or of any interest in this Agreement shall be made by either of the parties, without prior written consent of the non -assigning party. XXX. AGREEMENT APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS The terms of this Agreement shall apply to all persons who are employed by, or who volunteer for, the Contractor, including but not limited to attorneys, interns, paralegals, office assistants, secretaries, and investigators. XXXI. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND NOT EMPLOYEE This Agreement calls for the performance of the services of Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. Contractor shall secure at its own expense and be responsible for any and all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, worker's compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Contractor and its officers, agents, and employees and the costs of all professional or business licenses in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Contractor shall be solely responsible for any and all claims or lawsuits filed against Contractor by personnel employed by the Attorney related to the conditions or terms of employment by the Contractor, and the Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees and officers from any such claims or lawsuits. Contractor further agrees that its employees are not considered employees of the City for the purposes of participating in any state or federal program, including but not limited to the retirement program provided by the Washington Department of Retirement Services, and in the event that a claim is made to the contrary by any employee or volunteer of the Contractor, Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees and officers from any such claims or lawsuits and shall pay all awards ordered against the City for such claims or lawsuits. XXXII. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Contractor may be requested to perform additional services beyond the original scope of services as defined in section 1 of this Agreement. Such work will be undertaken only upon written authorization of the City based upon an agreed amount of compensation. XXXIII. NOTICES All notices and other written documentation shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses unless otherwise requested in writing: City of Edmonds: Contractor: Public Defense Supervisor Snohomish County Public Defender Association c/o Mayor's Office 2722 Colby Avenue, Suite 200 121 Fifth Ave. N Everett, WA 98201 Edmonds, WA 98020 11 Packet Page 98 of 175 XXXIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT — AMENDMENTS This instrument contains the entire Agreement between the parties for the contemplated work and services to commence January 1, 2016, and it may not be enlarged, modified, altered, or amended except in writing signed and endorsed by the parties. XXXV. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals. XXXVI. EFFECTIVE DATE The terms of this Agreement shall take effect on January 1, 2016. WHEREFORE, the parties agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth above. C1T EDMONDS CA.-, • DaA O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHE ATE: Sc sey, lty Clerk APPR0 A ',TO FORM: O icc of the City Attorney SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION 12 U Packet Page 99 of 175 EXHIBIT A INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICES AGREEMENTS Insurance Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to Contractor's profession. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Professional Liability_insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 3. City of Edmonds shall be named as an additional insured on all policies (except Professional Liability) as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. 13 Packet Page 100 of 175 EXHIBIT A (Continued) D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than ANII. E. Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. F. Subcontractors Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance requirements as stated herein for Contractor. 14 Packet Page 101 of 175 AM-8076 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 11/02/2015 Time: 5 Minutes Submitted By: Carrie Hite Department: Human Resources Type: Action Information Subject Title Agreement for Indigent Defense Services Recommendation 7. A. Authorize the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Snohomish County Public Defense Association to provide Indigent Defense Services. Previous Council Action Council authorized the Mayor to enter into a contract extension with Feldman and Lee, P.S. on March 18, 2014. In December 2014, Council authorized Mayor to sign new contract with Feldman and Lee, P.S. for 2015 for public defense services. Council adopted a budget amendment for 2014 in the amount of $66,000 to cover the contract amount that was amended by Council on April 1, 2014 for public defense services. Council allocated $240,000 to the 2015 budget for the Public Defender. Council allocated $25,000 to the 2015 budget for a Public Defense contract supervisor. Council gave direction to staff to secure the services of Eileen Farley to review our public defense services, draft an RFQ, and make recommendations. On June 2, 2105, the Council forwarded these amendments for approval on consent, with one edit to section XXVILD. On October 27, 2015 Council forwarded this for a five minute agenda item. Narrative Packet Page 102 of 175 Background: On January 1, 2015, the misdemeanor caseload limits for public defense attorneys adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court in the new Standards for Indigent Defense take effect. The court had in 2013 delayed the implementation of the caseload limits until that date, to provide time for the Washington State Office of Public Defense (OPD) to conduct a statewide attorney time study and to develop a model misdemeanor case weighting policy that is consistent with the indigent defense standards adopted by the court. Washington State Supreme Court Order No. 25700-A-1016, 04/08/2013. In compliance with the state Supreme Court's order, the OPD conducted the time study and has developed a Model Misdemeanor Case Weighting Policy. Under the caseload limits in Standard 3.4, full-time public defenders should not have caseloads exceeding 300 or 400 misdemeanor cases per year, depending on whether the jurisdiction has developed a "numerical case weighting" system, described in Standard 3.6. In jurisdictions adopting a numerical case weighting system, the caseload limit is 300 cases. Recent Court Ruling In addition to these new standards, a federal district court judge ruled on December 4th, 2013 that the public defense systems provided by the cities of Burlington and Mount Vernon violated the U.S Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of legal counsel to indigent persons charged with crimes. The court found that the provision of public defense services prior to 2012 by the two cities "was marked by an almost complete absence of opportunities for the accused to confer with appointed counsel in a confidential setting," with most interactions between counsel and their indigent clients occurring in the courtroom. The court determined that the appointment of counsel was, for the most part, little more than a formality, a stepping stone on the way to a case closure or plea bargain having almost nothing to do with the individual indigent defendant. The court deemed this situation to be "the natural, foreseeable, and expected result of the caseloads the attorneys handled." The cities contracted with a different law firm in April 2012 and the per attorney caseload was reduced, but not to the court's satisfaction. The court determined that the new public defense firm "continues to handle caseloads far in excess of the per attorney limits set forth in the [Washington] Supreme Court's guidelines." Ultimately, Judge Lasnik concluded: The public defense system in Mount Vernon and Burlington has systemic flaws that deprive indigent criminal defendants of their Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel. Although counsel are appointed in a timely manner, the sheer number of cases has compelled the public defenders to adopt case management practices that result in most defendants going to court for the first time — and sometimes accepting a plea bargain — never having had the opportunity to meet with their attorneys in a confidential setting. The court's remedy was to issue a "continuing injunction" against the cities that, among other things, required the cities to hire a "Public Defense Supervisor" to supervise and evaluate the cities' provision of public defense services and to ensure that indigent clients are provided certain specific services and receive adequate representation. The court did not impose numerical caseload limits. While cognizant of the cities' "interests in controlling the manner in which they perform their core functions, including the provision of services and the allocation of scarce resources," Judge Lasnik noted that they were nevertheless obligated to comply with the dictates of the Sixth Amendment. Other cities in the state that operate municipal courts — and the states' counties — will, of course, need to take heed of this court decision. Most of the cities ( and counties) have either hired Public Defense supervisors, or are in the process of having this discussion. Packet Page 103 of 175 Update: In February 18, 2014: Feldman and Lee gave notice to the City to terminate their contract effective 3/31/14. This was very short notice for us to turn around an RFP process, so staff negotiated an amendment for an increased amount of money to be effective 4/l/14-12/31/14. The Council adopted this amendment on March 18, 2014. December 9, 2014: Council reviewed the new standards and several recommendations from staff, including an additional extension with Feldman and Lee, contract with Eileen Farley to evaluate our system, services, draft an RFQ, and make recommendations. On December 16, 2014, Council adopted a one year contract amendment with Feldman and Lee, giving staff time to work with Eileen Farley to evaluate and initiate an RFQ process for Public Defense Services. Ms. Farley reviewed the city's public defense contract, services with Feldman and Lee, and made recommendations for contract amendments in order to comply with this new ruling. Please see attached report. In addition, Ms. Farley drafted an RFQ for the City's use in facilitating a competitive bid process to secure public defense services for 2016 and beyond. June 2, 2015: Staff brought forward recommendations from Eileen Farley, including contract amendments for Feldman and Lee, and a template RFQ to initiate a competitive process. Ms. Farley also recommended a process by which to evaluate the RFQ's in an objective manner. On June 9, 2015, Council adopted the contract amendments for Feldman and Lee. The City published the RFQ in late June 2015. The City received four applications. The City also worked with Eileen Farley to put together an independent panel to review the responses to the RFQ. At the recommendation of Ms. Farley, the City retained the services of Bob Boruchowitz to compile the panel, pose the questions, and work with the panel to evaluate the respondents. Please see attached memo from Mr. Bob Boruchowitz outlining the panel he selected and the process that he implemented. The panel unanimously recommended to the Mayor the selection of Snohomish County Public Defense Association to provide services for Edmonds. The Mayor is recommending the City enter into an agreement with the Snohomish County Public Defense Association. Attached is a three year Professional Services Agreement with Snohomish County Pubic Defense Association for Council's review. In addition to the panel, Mr. Boruchowitz also initiated an evaluation of public defense services from Feldman and Lee. The City has an interest in retaining his services next year as the Public Defense Supervisor, to continue the evaluation process of the City's public defense services. Included in this packet are the following attachments: 1. Professional Services Agreement with Snohomish County Public Defense Association. 2. Report from Eileen Farley 3. Memorandum from Bob Boruchowitz, re: the evaluation of the RFQ process. 4. RFQ that was published 5. Snohomish County Public Defense response to RFQ 6-17. All council agenda and minutes from previous discussions about the public defense services. Attachments Draft PSA Snohomish County PDA Farley memo Packet Page 104 of 175 Borochowitz memo RFQ published Snohomish County PDA response 2.18.14 Agenda Memo 2.18.14 Minutes 3.18.14 Agenda Memo 3.18.14 Minutes 12.9.14 Agenda Memo 12.9.14 Minutes 12.16.14 Agenda Memo 12.16.14 Minutes 6.2.15 Agenda Memo 6.2.15 Minutes 6.9.15 Agenda Memo 6.9.15 Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Scott Passey Mayor Dave Earling Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey Form Started By: Carrie Hite Final Approval Date: 10/29/2015 Date 10/29/2015 09:33 AM 10/29/2015 09:35 AM 10/29/2015 09:35 AM Started On: 10/29/2015 08:26 AM Packet Page 105 of 175 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Special Meeting Monday, November 2, 2015 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Michael Nelson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Ari Girouard, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Scott James, Finance Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr. Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner J. Hwang, Police Officer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session to discuss real estate per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso, Mesaros and Nelson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and City Clerk Scott Passey. The executive session concluded at 6:45 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 1 Packet Page 106 of 175 Councilmember Petso requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Bloom requested Item A be removed. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #216892 THROUGH #217006 DATED OCTOBER 29, 2015 FOR $392,482.48 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM STATE FARM INSURANCE ($12,234.28) D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY FOR $633,750 TO DESIGN & CONSTRUCT A STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITY IN SEAVIEW PARK F. APPROVAL OF THE 2015 3RD QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT G. ADOPTION OF INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICE STANDARDS H. AGREEMENTS FOR REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS - CONFLICT COUNSEL ITEM E: ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A SITE SPECIFIC REZONE REQUEST BY RDJ GROUP LLC TO REZONE THE EASTERN PORTION OF THREE EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY LOTS OF RECORD ADDRESSED 16404 AND 16414 75TH PL. W AND 16420 76TH AVE. W FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RS-20, TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RS42, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 20, 2015. (FILE NO. PLN20150034) Councilmember Petso explained this is an ordinance related to a closed record review of a decision to rezone property in a landslide hazard area with a history of landslides to a higher residential density. She voted against it at the time and will vote against it again tonight. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. ITEM A: APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2015 Councilmember Bloom requested two references to the "OF zone" in Mr. Blomenkamp's comments on page 8 be changed to "OS zone." COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM A AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to information he provided the Council regarding hearings being held by Snohomish County related to changing specifications for height, setbacks, etc. for multifamily development in areas west of Highway 99. One of the areas is the Point Wells site. He suggested the City develop a policy for dealing with Snohomish County with regard to future annexation areas such as Esperance to ensure development under Snohomish County is similarity to Edmonds to avoid a development island when the area is annexed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 2 Packet Page 107 of 175 6. STUDY ITEM A. DISCUSSION ON THE UPDATED 2015 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss referenced the previous presentation regarding traffic impact fees, explaining the goal of tonight's discussion is for the City Council to provide direction to staff regarding the traffic impact fee update so that an ordinance can be drafted, potentially a public hearing scheduled and to adopt an ordinance by year end. Randy Young, Henderson Young & Company, highlighted information provided at the October 13, 2015 presentation: • Definition of impact fees • Reasons to change impact fees • Rules for impact fees • What impact fees can be used for • Calculations and comparisons He reviewed changes 2009 to 2015 • Added 6 projects • Increased cost of 7 carry-over projects • Reduced deficiency exclusion • Excluded external costs & trips • Eliminated long-term cost exclusion He displayed the Edmonds project list, a total of $21 million projects eligible for impact fees. He reviewed the calculation of impact fees and examples: • Step 1: Eligible costs divided by growth trips = cost per trip o $21,733,736 eligible costs divided by 3,930 growth trips = $5,530 cost per trip • Step 2: Impact fee per unit of development (cost per trip x trip rate = impact fee rate) o Apartment Example: $5,530 cost per trip x 0.74/ trip rate = $4,092/apartment o Office Example: $5,530 cost per trip x 0.00197/square foot trip rate = $10.89/square foot Mr. Young provided a comparison of cost per trip: Jurisdiction Cost per trip Kenmore $8,350 Lynnwood 7,944 Shoreline 6,124 Edmonds (update) 5,530 Bothell 5,426 Average of 8 others 4,486 Mill Creek 3,000 Snohomish County 2,453 Mukilteo 1,050 Edmonds (current) 1 1,050 Mountlake Terrace I714 Mr. Young provided alternatives to updating impact fees: 1. Raise taxes • Growth pays less, taxpayers pay more 2. Eliminate some projects Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 3 Packet Page 108 of 175 • Less cost, more congestion 3. Discount the cost per trip or phased increase • Growth pays somewhat less, more congestion Councilmember Mesaros recalled during the previous presentation he pointed out the percentage increase, from $1,050 to the proposed fee of $5,530, was a huge jump. He would find it easier to approve if it was phased in over four years. If the cost of building office space is $200/square foot, the proposed fee would be a 5% per square foot increase that the development must somehow incorporate into their financial plan. He remarked to a certain extent impact fees are a tax although they are not called a tax. Councilmember Buckshnis favored holding a public hearing to hear what developers have to say. She supported increasing impact fees, noting without impact fees, Edmonds would have to do something like Seattle's Prop 1. If developers build in Edmonds, they need to address their traffic impact. She was amenable to a 2, 3 or 4 year phasing. The City's roads need attention and this is one way to pay for them. Councilmember Nelson said growth creates impacts and everyone should pay their fair share including developers so that taxpayers do not bear the entire burden. He was open to phasing. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented Kenmore gets more traffic than they could possibly want due to the new tolls, Lynnwood and Shoreline have bumper -to -bumper traffic and Edmonds is reaching bumper -to -bumper in areas outside downtown during peak times. Taxpayers have been paying for the roads for decades and it is only fair that developers constructing new buildings pay their fair share for transportation improvements. She was concerned traffic will become so impossible that no one wants to come to Edmonds and recognized the ferry increases traffic in Edmonds. Councilmember Petso asked how often the traffic impact fee should be updated. Mr. Young answered cities typically update the impact fee following an update of the Transportation Plan, every 3-4 years or as long as 6-7 years. Councilmember Petso observed if the Council opted to phase in the impact fee over four years, it would have just reached the recommended level by the time the fee needs to be recalculated. Mr. Young agreed that could happen. Councilmember Petso preferred a 2-3 year phase -in period. Councilmember Bloom asked when the fees were last increased and what the fee amount was previously. Mr. Young answered the fee was last increased in 2009; the fee in 2004 was $763 and $1,050 in 2009. Councilmember Bloom asked whether other cities with larger fees such as Kenmore phased in their fees. Mr. Young did not have knowledge of all the cities; Shoreline adopted the full amount of their first impact fee with no phasing. Councilmember Bloom supported holding a public hearing. She did not support phasing in an increased fee based on the comparisons, traffic and project costs. Mr. Young said it is very common for cities to hold a public hearing although impact fee increases are not always controversial. In his experience nearly every public hearing on impact fees is attended by one representative of the development community, usually someone from the Master Builders. In some communities, a public hearing will also include testimony from commercial developers as well as people concerned with traffic congestion. Councilmember Johnson asked the total cost of projects in 2009 that formed the basis for the calculation. Mr. Young recalled it was $10-11 million and there was also a difference in the number of growth trips. Councilmember Johnson observed the proposed increase was five times the existing fee, but there were not five times more projects so the variable must be the growth trips. Mr. Young agreed, noting there was also a change in time horizon plus a change in the traffic model. The traffic modeling consultant was not here to address that. Councilmember Johnson requested that information be provided before the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 4 Packet Page 109 of 175 Councilmember Johnson pointed out a tax and a fee are different. Mr. Young agreed there was an important distinction. Taxes are paid without regard to whether a benefit is received; the government has the authority to charge the tax and the government uses the funds however they feel is best. An impact fee is charged for a specific thing, there are specific laws that require demonstrating a rational nexus. For an impact fee, the jurisdiction must demonstrate the amount of the fee is related to the amount of impact via trip counts that reflect the relative amount of impact of different development types on transportation. Councilmember Mesaros commented the last update to the impact fee was a 25% increase; the proposed increase is over 400%. Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed these are truly the costs of development. Everyone wants to some level of development in Edmonds but you can't complain about roads and do nothing about it. It is important to update the fee since it has not been updated in six years. She was interested in a public hearing but did not support phasing. Mr. Young commented there are a lot of facets to this issue; while it's important to be careful and concerned about how rapidly rates are increased and how that affects local businesses, it is equally important to remember the ultimate effect on businesses is not very much. If it put developers out of businesses or severely impacted development, he doubted there would be over 70 other cities in Washington with impact fees for traffic, parks, fire protection, schools, etc. High growth communities tend to have the highest impact fees because they need the most money to keep up. Mayor Earling relayed it appeared the Council wanted to hold a public hearing, there was general comfort with the proposed $5,530 amount but there were different opinions with regard to phasing. He requested the City Attorney draft an ordinance, leaving blanks for the period of time the fee would be implemented. Mr. Young recalled an example of a 3-year phase -in was provided at the previous presentation; Council comments tonight mentioned 2 and 4 years. He suggested providing draft ordinances with 2, 3 and 4 year phasing for the public hearing. 7. ACTION ITEMS A. AGREEMENT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES Parks & Recreation/Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite relayed staff s recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Snohomish County Public Defense Association to provide Indigent Defense Services. A presentation was made at last week's meeting. A question from Councilmember Petso was referred to Snohomish County Public Defense Association Executive Director Kathleen Kyle and her response was forwarded to Council today. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NELSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENSE ASSOCIATION TO PROVIDE INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINING. B. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW AND ACTION ON HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SWEDISH HOSPITAL SIGN (PLN20150042) Mayor Earling explained the purpose of the closed record hearing is for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner related to the application of Swedish Medical Center for a setback variance. Tonight's hearing follows a Type III-B process where the Hearing Examiner forwards a recommendation to the City Council for a final decision. Unlike the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, participation in tonight's hearing is limited to parties of record. The parties of record include the applicant, any person who testified at the open record public hearing on the application, and any person Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 5 Packet Page 110 of 175 who individually submitted written comments concerning the application at the open record public hearing. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (AFD) requires that this hearing be fair in form, substance and appearance. The hearing must not only be fair, it must also appear to be fair. He asked whether any member of the decision -making body had engaged in any oral or written communication with opponents or proponents of the project outside the presence of the other party. Councilmember Petso said she was contacted today by a citizen who thought he was a party of record and asked why he had not receive notice. Councilmembers Mesaros, Bloom, Johnson, Buckshnis, Nelson, Council President Fraley-Monillas, and Mayor Earling indicated they had no contact or communication to disclose. Mayor Earling asked whether any member of the Council had a conflict of interest or believed he/she could not hear and consider this application in a fair and objective manner. Councilmember Petso said she had no conflicts. She relayed the citizen who contacted her, Al Rutledge, is listed in the packet as having testified at the public hearing and he did not receive notice of tonight's hearing. Councilmembers Mesaros, Bloom, Johnson, Buckshnis, and Nelson, Council President Fraley-Monillas and Mayor Earling indicated they had no conflicts. Mayor Earling asked whether any member of the audience objected to any Councilmember or his participation as a decision maker in this hearing. There were no objections voiced. He asked whether the Council agreed to the following procedure for presentation of oral argument: • 5 minute introduction by staff • 5 minutes of oral argument by the applicant • 5 minutes from any other parties of record Upon voice vote, this procedure was acceptable to Council. Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained as this is a closed record review, he will use the same PowerPoint that was presented at the open record public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Snohomish County Public Hospital District #2 is the property owner; a governmental agency is requesting the variance. He reviewed a public agency variance: • Type III-B process • Governmental Sign o ECDC 20.60.095 exempt except dimensional and placement standards ECDC 17.00.030 o Action of the Hearing Examiner shall be a recommendation to City Council He reviewed the required findings for a variance: • Special circumstances exist • Granting a variance would not be granting of a special privilege • Proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • Proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance • Not detrimental to surrounding properties • Proposal is the minimum variance necessary The staff report and the Hearing Examiner's report contain an analysis of the six criteria. Both staff and the Hearing Examiner felt the proposal was consistent with the criteria. He displayed an aerial view of Swedish -Edmonds Hospital and identified the new Ambulatory Care Center (ACC) addition which is the primary reason for the variance request. He displayed plans from the ACC addition, advising a new road Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 6 Packet Page 111 of 175 was constructed along the eastern side of the ACC addition. This is a directional sign to direct traffic to the new location of the emergency room entrance. The proposal is to place the sign 3 feet from the property line prior to prior to crossing the intersection of 216th Street SW and the new road along the eastern side of the ACC addition. The Medical Use zone has a 15-foot building setback which is the reason for the variance request. Staff and the Hearing Examiner recommend approval with conditions. Councilmember Mesaros inquired about the conditions. Mr. Lien said one condition was recommended by the Engineering Division to ensure none of the utilities are impacted by installation of the sign. Councilmember Petso referred to an email raising the issue of 14-day notice versus 15-day notice and asked whether that was taken care of or was it an outstanding procedural issue. Mr. Lien said that was in regard to the notice of application. The City code states a notice of application must be issued not less than 14 days prior to an open record hearing; State law states notice of application must be issued not less than 15 days prior to an open record hearing. The notice of application was initially published 14 days before the open recording hearing; that hearing was postponed and a new notice of application was published not less than 15 days prior to the open record hearing. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City was required to give notice to all parties of record. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered the code specified notice requirements for a Type III-B hearing relate to the Hearing Examiner hearing. He was not certain that notice of the City Council's closed record review was provided. Councilmember Petso observed from Mr. Taraday's explanataion, a person who testified at the Hearing Examiner hearing would not be informed of the Council proceeding. Mr. Taraday did not think the code spoke to that. In summarizing Mr. Rutledge's remarks, the Hearing Examiner specifically stated Mr. Rutledge did not speak to the proposal. Applicant Tim Buell, representing Swedish Medical, said he had nothing to add to staff s presentation. He noted the person who spoke during the Hearing Examiner hearing spoke about a zoning issue on Highway 99 that did not have anything to do with the sign. Parties of Record There were no parties of record present who wished to speak. Council Questions & Deliberation With regard to notice, Mr. Lien said the only area of the code that addresses closed record hearings is related to closed record appeals, ECDC 20.07. For a closed record appeal, the code states all parties of record need to receive notice of the appeal. Mr. Taraday said in a closed record of appeal the code specifies the number of days to appeal a decision of the Hearing Examiner and an appeal brings the decision to the City Council. This is not that process. This is a closed record pre -decision hearing where the Hearing Examiner made a recommendation not a decision. The code distinguishes between the two but does not specify that any notice is required to be provided of the closed record hearing before the City Council. Mr. Lien explained he announced at the Hearing Examiner hearing that the closed record review was scheduled for November 2. All parties of record will receive notice of the final decision which can be appealed. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE SETBACK VARIANCE AND PASS RESOLUTION NO. 1342 INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT 5 ADOPTING THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINING. 8. CONTINUED STUDY ITEMS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 7 Packet Page 112 of 175 A. CONTINUED REVIEW OF CRITICAL AREA REGULATIONS UPDATE Senior Planner Kernen Lien commented this is the fourth meeting with the City Council to discuss the Critical Areas Ordinance update. Tonight's presentation will relate to Exhibit 3 and address development flexibility for 1) reduced buffer, 2) physical separated and functionally isolated provisions, and 3) restoration projects. Aaron Booy, ESA, recalled Council concern with development flexibilities that were not entirely consistent with Ecology guidance. The City received a comment review letter from Department of Ecology that expressed some of the same concerns. Exhibit 3 provides rationale and Best Available Science (BAS) associated with each of the development flexibilities. He summarized BAS in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update: • BAS should be included • Use of "nonscientific information" is allowed, based on: o Local conditions o Economic consideration o Social considerations • Rational and measures to minimize risk for development flexibilities should be documented He explained the flexibility included in the proposed critical area regulations are not really departures from BAS. Ecology highlighted and he agreed the development flexibilities are not fully consistent with the exact language of Ecology guidance but there is good rationale for why they will be important for ongoing protection of critical area within Edmonds. He displayed an aerial of existing Edmonds conditions, identifying Shell Creek and Hindley Creek and a built out residential development pattern where the streams run through residential neighborhoods. There is some minimal amount of riparian vegetation along the streams but homes, yards and other associated structures are built up to the edge of the streams or within 10-15 feet. There are also many examples where streams are culverted for roads and road crossings as well as other areas of historical development. He described physically separated and functionally isolated buffers: • Allowed activity under new Section, ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 • Applicable to sites separated from a critical area by existing, legally established roads, trails and structures 12 feet or more in width • May be determined to be both physically separated and functionally isolated, and not subject to stream and wetland buffer provisions • The director may require a site assessment by a qualified professional to make the determination He provided a photographic example of Shellabarger Creek running between two houses with little functioning riparian corridor, rockeries on both sides of the stream, lawn on one side and gravel on the other. He displayed an aerial view of the same area, highlighting two sample scenarios where the physically separated and functionally isolated provision could be applied: 1. Addition fronting central house — not allowed (driveway less than 12 feet wide) 2. Addition on north house — potentially allowed (central house physically separates this area, functional isolation would need to be documented) Councilmember Johnson asked if this was an actual or theoretical example. Mr. Lien answered the property owner in Example #2 came to the City to inquire about an addition but did not move forward with it. Mr. Booy continued his review of physically separated and functionally isolated buffers: • Relevant BAS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 8 Packet Page 113 of 175 o Buffer effectiveness influenced by many factors, with existing alterations degrading the functional importance o Where full physical separation / functional isolation occurs, the value of maintaining the adjacent area is negligible or eliminated Rationale for allowance — allowing for future development/ redevelopment within areas where such activity would have no impact on the nearby stream or wetland Potential risks — misinterpretation and over -application Measures to minimize — clear criteria, and provisions to require an evaluation of functional isolation (including new language) Give the identified risk of over -application, Councilmember Petso asked whether documentation of applicability should also be required rather than leaving it to the Development Services Director's discretion. Mr. Booy answered that could be an option. There will be situations where a stream runs along a roadway in a ditch during past historical development and the standard buffer associated with the stream would potentially extend across the roadway to properties on the other side. In that situation, where there is a full width City roadway and a clear functional separation from the areas on the opposite side, it would be fairly cut and dry that no function is provided by the separated buffer area and a determination could be made quickly. Councilmember Petso asked why 12 feet versus another number was selected. Mr. Booy answered 12 feet was selected in discussion with the Planning Board; 12 feet is the minimum standard width for a driveway. Councilmember Buckshnis also questioned the rationale for 12 feet and asked whether the new regulations allow pervious or impervious or does it matter. Mr. Lien agreed the width of 12 feet was selected as it is the required minimum driveway width in Edmonds. The first proposal reviewed by the Planning Board was 8 feet and following discussion, they agreed on 12 feet. The 12 feet is for established roadways, paved trails 12 feet in width or more, or legally established structures or other paved areas. Councilmember Johnson observed in this example the creek has a fairly discernable physical area; in a wetland where much of the hydrologic action occurs underground, she questioned how this BAS information could be relevant. Mr. Booy answered for wetlands it would still only apply to physical separation and functional isolation in the buffer area. In a wetland area where hydrology supports wetland conditions, any modifications would not apply in that area. The criterion in the proposed amendments to the critical area regulations requires verification that there is physical separation and function isolation. In a sloped wetland or buffer where information led planning staff to believe there was a functional connection through the physical separation, they could make the determination that the criteria did not apply. It requires some review and interpretation by planning staff but the criteria and putting the onus on the developer/applicant provides the City the ability to say no when there is a functional connection. Councilmember Johnson said gravel or impervious surface seems to change the character of the hydrology. If historically there was a paved area regardless of the hydrology, she asked whether there would be an opportunity to waive the requirement. Mr. Booy agreed for a paved area with sheet flow running off it directly into a wetland or stream, there would be an important connection between the paved area and the adjacent resource. These provisions are not looking at a paved area but the area beyond it where there is no imperious surface and because of the requirement that it be functionally isolated, presumably there would be no surface water connection between the isolated area and the adjacent resource. With regard to the concern with sheet flow from an impervious surface directly into a wetland or stream, there are other provisions for those situations such as allowances for buffer reduction and development within the previously developed footprint. The focus of this provision is on areas that are on the far side of the impervious surface or structure that provides the physical separation and functional isolation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 9 Packet Page 114 of 175 Councilmember Johnson asked if the physically separated and functionally isolated language came from DOE. Mr. Booy responded this language is not included in DOE's guidance for small cities. Mr. Lien explained there is a similar provision in the Shoreline Management Plan. Staff developed this as a result of encountering it while implementing the critical area regulations over the past 10 years. He referred to the photograph of a stream that is highly channelized; there is a house adjacent to the stream, but because it is technically within the buffer, an addition would not be allowed. This is a means of providing some flexibility given that the City is highly developed and in example #2, the addition would not have any impact on the stream. If the addition is physically separated and functionally isolated, by definition, it will not have any impact on the critical area. A number of jurisdictions have similar language including Tacoma and eight others. Mr. Booy advised through his work with other communities this is often a practice that is not addressed in the code; the standard buffer requirement is not applied for roadways, legally established structures, etc. Including it in the code removes that ambiguity; other cities have done the same, providing criteria so it can be applied fairly and consistently. Councilmember Nelson agreed he had seen physically separated and functionally isolated provisions in other cities' codes. He asked whether other cities included a specific measurement such as 12 feet. Mr. Booy relayed Redmond has a minimum width but he did not recall the amount; Tacoma does not have a minimum width, their code only addresses physical separation and functional isolation and ensuring review is done to verify the functional isolation exists. Councilmember Nelson asked why Tacoma did not have a minimum width but the proposal was to have a minimum width in Edmonds. Mr. Lien explained one of the reasons for a minimum width is to establish a base standard; at least a 12 foot width is required. There were questions with the interim ordinance regarding the width and minimum separation; including a width establishes a minimum requirement. A minimum width also addresses questions that arise such whether a paved path provides physical separation and functional isolation. Mr. Booy continued his presentation, describing buffer reduction through buffer enhancement: • Development standards — ECDC 20.50.040.G.4 (wetlands) and 23.90.040.D.2 (streams) • Existing allowance • Proposed updates would further limit the existing allowance o Only when averaging is not feasible o Maximum buffer reduction = 25% • New criteria to ensure that functions are increased or retained through plan implementation He provided a photographic example taken from the street where Hindley Creek runs through a forested area in a backyard adjacent to lawn, a driveway, a home and ornamental vegetation. He provided an aerial view of the same property and reviewed: • Residential addition proposed • Opportunity for buffer averaging • Restoration feasible, and provided so that stream functions and values are increased or retained He provided further information regarding buffer reduction through buffer enhancement: • Relevant BAS o No explicit support for buffer reduction standards o BAS does suggest a range of buffer widths — no set width that ensures protection o BAS documents the important of buffer condition, and suggests that alternative strategies (beyond just buffer width requirements) may be useful. • Rational for allowance — maintaining some flexibility for new development/redevelopment on highly constrained parcels, while improving conditions • Potential risks — misinterpretation and over -application • Measures to minimize — updated criteria that provide preference for averaging, limit the allowance to 25% maximum, and that ensure any reduction results in increased/retained functions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 10 Packet Page 115 of 175 Councilmember Buckshnis asked about the buffer reduction, recalling it previously was 50% and was changed to 25%. Mr. Booy explained the existing code allows a 50% reduction; the proposal is a maximum 25% reduction, requiring 75% of the standard buffer width to be maintained. Mr. Booy reviewed critical areas restoration projects - new section ECDC 23.40.215 • Buffer flexibilities for stream-daylighting and wetland creation/expansion projects 0 25% reduction allowed 0 25% to 50% reduction for constrained properties where reduction is the minimum necessary, and there is a net environmental benefit consistent with CAO intent • Relevant BAS o No explicit support for buffer reduction standards, even for restoration projects o Ecology guidance does support streamlining to facilitate restoration o Removal of fish passage barriers is a high priority for WDFW, suggesting prioritizing these efforts over ensuring standard buffers is warranted • Rational for allowance — modeled after a State SMA provision, intended to avoid placing undue (or prohibitive) restriction on important restoration projects • Potential Risks — future stream segments and wetlands with relatively narrow buffers • Measures to minimize — criteria that buffer is at least 50%, and that widest possible is provided Councilmember Nelson questioned a project that would restore a creek or wetland but also reduce the buffer to enhance the environment. Mr. Booy suggested envisioning a stream in a pipe underground that a passerby would not even be aware of, there is no riparian buffer and there is often pavement on top. For example, Willow Creek as it leaves Edmonds Marsh, passes under the railroad tracks, along a roadway, through the park southwest of the marina; for majority of the distance of the culverted stream there is no riparian vegetation. If the City daylighted that stream, removing it from the culvert and restoring the channel, instead of requiring the full 100-foot standard buffer which would have significant impacts to the roadway, the park, and the adjacent marina, this provision would allow the buffer to be reduced to a minimum of 50% of the standard buffer. It is not applicable to an existing stream channel that is already daylighted or an existing wetland. Councilmember Nelson asked if Mr. Booy was saying a 50-foot buffer was just as good as a 100-foot buffer in that situation. Mr. Booy answered he was not saying a 50-foot buffer was as good as a 100- buffer; a 100-foot buffer would be better but to achieve feasible restoration within an urban situation, applying a standard buffer would be very limiting. He clarified a daylighted stream with a 50-foot buffer would be better than leaving the stream in the culvert. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with everything in Mr. Booy's memo (Exhibit 3) except for this provision. She pointed out WRIA8 has done a great deal of work to promote salmon recovery. The economic feasibility sometimes cannot be projected because people cannot visualize how wonderful having salmon returning to an estuary would be. She preferred a trigger or amount, not just allowing it to be the director decision, such as requiring Council approval. For example requiring Council approval if the buffer is proposed to be reduced from 100 feet to 50 feet, similar to spending limits that are established for the Mayor. She suggested a mechanism whereby Council was apprised. She recalled providing an example to Mr. Lien that in the end the Council had no say. Mr. Lien said the opportunity for Council input is via this policy. Staff s position is a daylighted creek with a 50-foot buffer is better than a culverted creek; in the end, there is a net benefit from the project. The intent of this provision is not to discourage a project that will provide a net benefit. This would be applicable to restoration projects, not projects where mitigation is required. This was modeled after a SMA provision where the SMA and SMP would not apply in the expanded area when a shoreline project expands the shoreline jurisdiction. Appeals will come to the Council. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 11 Packet Page 116 of 175 example she provided was tree cutting in 2005 where the developer paid a fine and the trees were cut again a few years ago The Council had a strong opinion about the situation but the fee was minimal and Council discussed it at length in executive session. Mr. Lien said that is a separate issue. The opportunity for Council input is now and ultimately implementation of development regulation is up to the Development Services Director. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said the development permit types in Title 20 are where Council sets policy direction over who makes decisions on permits and the appeals for each permit type. If the Council wanted to establish a special process for certain types of critical area approvals, Title 20 could be changed so that instead of Director approval, it goes to the Hearing Examiner. Just because a permit is currently a Type II staff decision, does not mean it cannot be changed; it can be revisited by the Council. Councilmember Petso asked whether Ecology's comments were in the Council packet. Mr. Lien advised they are in Exhibit 8; he read a paragraph from the October 29, 2015 letter: "The City has provided additional information through a memorandum prepared by ESA dated October 22, 2015. This memorandum provided a thorough explanation of the rationale for these wetland buffer reductions. In light of this explanation, Ecology offers our support of the critical area ordinance updates being considered for adoption by the City Council." Councilmember Petso asked about Ecology's earlier comments. Mr. Lien advised they are also contained Exhibit 8; he referred to an Ecology letter dated October 26, 2015 that mentioned concerns about the restoration project provision and buffer width reductions. Councilmember Petso relayed she was contacted today regarding the previously developed footprint exception. She pointed out there could be a property where development in the buffer is irregularly shaped and the desire would be to cover essentially the same square footage but not the irregular shape of the existing development. She asked how that situation would be addressed under the code as currently drafted. Mr. Lien answered if a house within a critical area buffer burns down, it can be rebuilt in the exact same footprint. Another provision is development in the previously developed footprint, an irregularly shaped house with a lawn between the house and critical area would not meet the definition of developed footprint; anything new would be required to meet different provisions of the CAO. If the existing house were demolished and rebuilt, whatever is rebuilt must comply with the critical area regulations. There is nothing in the draft CAO that addresses that specific situation. He was familiar with the situation Councilmember Petso referenced. Councilmember Petso inquired about changing the regulations to limit it to like -for -like development. For example compacted gravel, considered existing development, is replaced with a 5-story structure; she felt that would have a different impact on the nearby critical area. She suggested the regulations be tweaked to allow a structure to be replaced with a similar size structure or a parking area replaced with a parking area. Mr. Lien observed the provision Councilmember Petso was referring to was development within the previously developed footprint; the definition is a legally established paved area, structures or other pervious surface areas. He recalled development that this provision applied to when the interim ordinance was in place, the American Brewery silo. In that case there was a paved area behind American Brewery where the owner wanted to add a silo that was technically in the Edmonds Marsh buffer. The silo did not add new impervious surface or have any new impact to the critical area. The proposed provision would allow improvement over existing conditions; allowing the silo to be constructed on the blacktop area in exchange for buffer enhancement of the Edmonds Marsh. American Brewery's proposal was for 1,100 square feet and they provided 1,100 square feet of buffer enhancement. Councilmember Petso asked whether protecting the functions and values of critical area also included habitat, temperatures, etc. or was it only impervious surface. Mr. Lien answered habitat is taken into consideration; the physically separated and functionally isolated provision includes criteria related to hydrological, geological, or biological habitat connection. The science studies address a range of buffers; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 12 Packet Page 117 of 175 each study focuses on the buffer width for a certain function such as removing phosphorous, a specific creature, etc. so the studies provide a range of buffers. The intent of the proposed regulations is to allow some flexibility in developed areas while getting some enhancement of critical areas. That is the reason for flexible standards for development within developed footprint, buffer averaging, buffer width reduction, etc. Councilmember Petso suggested eliminating physically separated and functionally isolated and the buffer reduction as they are noncompliant with BAS, and tweaking previously developed footprint to better reflect the expected impact on the range of functions and values that a critical area can provide. She felt there was a big difference between a compacted gravel area and a tall structure in terms of the impact on adjacent wildlife. Councilmember Johnson recalled staff indicated a 50% buffer for a restoration project was better than a creek in a pipe. Ecology's comments state reducing buffers to between 50% to 75% of the standard buffer for streams and wetlands is not consist with BAS or their guidance for wetland mitigation in Washington State. She referred to Marina Beach and the daylighting Willow Creek which is estimated to cost $5 million and questioned reducing the buffer for economic reasons or adjacent projects if the goal is to improve salmon habitat in the estuary marsh. She said that seems counterintuitive if the goal is to daylight Willow Creek and improve salmon habitat, why start with a reduced buffer. Mr. Lien answered there are tradeoffs. A daylighted stream is better than a culverted stream; Willow Creek is currently culverted for 1,500 feet; daylighting Willow Creek opens the channel which provides an avenue for salmon to reach the marsh. That is a benefit of daylighting the stream. A 50-foot buffer still provides some functions and values. With regard to tradeoffs, a standard 100-foot buffer would essentially wipe out Marina Beach. Daylighting Willow Creek and providing a 50-foot buffer will provide salmon access to the marsh, and provide an area for citizens to enjoy Puget Sound and the daylighted stream. Ultimately a daylighted Willow Creek is better than a culverted Willow Creek. Councilmember Johnson pointed out the Council has not adopted the Marina Beach Master Plan; perhaps there is a problem with the assumption that the dog park needs to be balanced with activities on both sides of the creek. If the purpose of daylighting Willow Creek is to improve salmon habitat, that should be the goal and not balancing other needs. She summarized it was a question of priorities. Mr. Lien said he was only using Marina Beach as an example; there are other areas with the same tradeoffs. Councilmember Johnson questioned those tradeoffs; this is the Council's opportunity to make a policy decision and she did not want to give away salmon habitat or creek enhancements especially if Ecology did not support it. She summarized the proposed provisions were headed in the wrong direction. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Johnson and had similar concerns. She referred to the Development Services Director making decisions regarding critical area waivers, buffer averaging, etc. The definition of director states the City of Edmonds Development Services Director or his/her designee. She objected to allowing those decisions to be made by the director's designee as she felt it was a very serious role, a role of accountability. She asked under what circumstance would a critical area waived need to be done so quickly that the Development Services Director could not be the one that reviewed and made the final decision. Mr. Lien said that relates to how development review is conducted in the City. There are four planners; when a critical area application is submitted, it is assigned to a planner. The planner does a desk review looking at the critical area maps, soils, topography, etc. as well as a site visit to ensure the maps accurately reflect conditions and makes the determination. If the language "director or his/her designee" were changed, the director would need to do all the development review with regard to critical areas in the City. Councilmember Bloom said that was not her suggestion; she understood the director cannot do all the onsite visits, review, etc. She was suggesting the Development Services Director have final authority and accountability for that decision. The planner presents the recommendation to the director but the director Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 13 Packet Page 118 of 175 signs off on it since it is such an important decision. She noticed in the comments that many citizens are concerned with enforcement of critical areas; allowing planners to make those decisions is not doing a service for those citizens. Development Services Director Shane Hope appreciated the interest in having a good process and ensuring any waivers are carefully thought through. She suggested staff return with a proposal that allows a director -only decision on waivers but recognizing it would be based on knowledge from the direct review, site visit, etc. by the planner. She questioned if there is value added for the director to sign off when he/she relies on the planner who does the work. Councilmember Bloom responded she believed there is. The City did not have a Development Services Director for a number of years and planners signed off on things that were not necessarily done properly. She referred to the situation cited by Mr. Blomenkamp, a critical area waiver done by a planner in 1993 related to the Woodway Fields that the Development Services Director never signed off on it even though the code states he/she is supposed to. She summarized errors can arise later related to the way it has been done in the past and there is value added in having the director be accountable and responsible. Ms. Hope said one of the reason for "director or his/her designee" is it is intended to provide some accountability; the director has the oversight, they may not do the actual review themselves because they count on the work done by staff. She acknowledged were things that were problematic in the past. With the language "director or his/her designee," as long as there is a director, there is an accountability system. Councilmember Bloom reiterated she would like to change it to be the responsibility of the director. If there were an extended leave of absence, one specific designee could be identified such as Mr. Lien's position who knows the code well. She was not comfortable with final decisions being signed off on by a planer and wanted anywhere in the critical area regulations that states "director or his/her designee" changed to "Development Services Director" with any designation done on a case -by -case basis if the director was not available to designate the authority. Ms. Hope questioned what value is added if she signs off on something she does not have knowledge of. She relies on the planner, similar to the building official who relies on the plans examiner. She understood certain things could require the director's involvement but to require the director sign off on everything, there was no way she can know everything. Councilmember Bloom asked if Ms. Hope was suggesting the Development Services Director only sign off on waivers and she could not sign off on everything. Ms. Hope offered to return to Council with options. Councilmember Bloom assumed the CAO also applied to the City such as when trees were removed on a steep slope to replace a sewer line. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Bloom cited an example provided by a Tree Board Member and asked about the City's responsibility to plant trees in an area where a sewer or water line was installed. Mr. Lien answered when the utility engineers plan water and sewer main replacements, they identify any critical areas and ask him what will be required. If a City utility project is located in a critical area, staff must provide a critical area report that is submitted review along with the SEPA. Councilmember Bloom asked whether trees the City removed on a steep slope would need to be replaced. Mr. Lien answered it depends on the project; staff does not usually like to plant trees on top of sewer lines. Councilmember Bloom noted there are some trees that can be planted on top of or adjacent to sewer lines. She said this is an issue because a lot of trees are being lost and the City taking responsibility for replacement would help improve the canopy. Public Works Director Phil Williams did not recall any trees were removed in the example Councilmember Bloom cited. A waterline was replaced on a steep slope; vegetation, jute matting and seeds and native grasses were planted. There was a desire by the neighbors for additional plantings for visual enhancement versus holding slope. Staff offered to buy the plants if the neighborhood wanted to have a planting party. Councilmember Bloom said trees were cut and left as crags along the walkway. She inquired about the City's responsibility if trees are removed for the installation of a sewer or water line. Mr. Williams answered the City must comply with the CAO; if that requires replanting, it would be preferable not to plant along the utility alignment. Mr. Lien recalled another project where trees were Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 14 Packet Page 119 of 175 removed, the pump station 2 project on Shell Creek a few years ago. In that instance, a critical area report, a stream study, and a wetland report was done and every tree that was cut down was replaced at a ratio of 2:1 as required by the code. He summarized the City also has to comply with critical area regulations. Councilmember Buckshnis offered to email her question to staff. Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the City of Sammamish's (population 50,000) wetland development standards that Ms. Stewart provided her which she provided to all Councilmember, City Clerk and Mayor. She suggested Councilmembers review those regulations prior to the Council's next discussion. Councilmember Mesaros asked where removal/replacement of trees was located in the ordinance. He recalled Mr. Hertrich's comments a few weeks ago regarding a 3-inch tree and 4-inch tree. Mr. Lien referred to 23.40.220.C.7, Allowed Activities, where specific species are mentioned that can be removed in a critical area including noxious species, blackberries, English ivy, etc. An additional limitation is added in the draft critical area regulations that allows up to 1,500 square feet of invasive and noxious weeks, English ivy, Himalayan blackberry, Evergreen blackberry, Scot's broom, Hedge and field bindweed to be removed in a critical area within a 3 year period. With regard to a suggestion to allow removal of alders, Mr. Lien referred language added in section, 23.40.220.C.2 that addresses operation, maintenance and repair exemptions, "Operation and maintenance also includes normal maintenance of vegetation performed in accordance with best management practices..." A definition was also added of operation and maintenance and best management practices with regard to vegetation, "Normal maintenance of vegetation" means removal of shrubs/non-woody vegetation and trees (less than 3-inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the City in the past 5 years." As drafted, alders in a critical area less than 3-inches in diameter could be removed as normal maintenance of vegetation. If alders were added to the list in C.7, it would be limited to 1500 square feet of alder removal within a 3-year period. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested the definition of normal maintenance of vegetation should be "chest height" instead of "breast height." Mr. Lien said that was standard terminology. Mayor Earling advised staff will return this to Council for another study session. He declared a brief recess. B. SEPTEMBER 2015 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Scott James provided multiple choice questions, the answers to be revealed at the end of his presentation. He displayed and reviewed 3rd Quarter 2015 Revenue Summary — General Fund Types without bond proceeds and General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual. He displayed a comparison of General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual, highlighting taxes: General Fund Resource Category YTD Actual �9/30/2014 9/30/2015 % Change Taxes Property Taxes $7,413,082 $7,779,098 4.9% Sales Tax 4,267,681 4,937,480 15.7% Utility Tax 5,094,356 5,075,412 -0.4% Other Taxes 667,384 699,942 4.9% Total Taxes $17,442,503 $18,491,932 6.0% Licenses & Permits Business Licenses & Misc Permits $ 169,438 $ 163,897 -3.3% Franchise Fees 817,758 851,573 4.1% Development Related Permits 647,556 537,866 -16.9% Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 15 Packet Page 120 of 175 Total Licenses & Permits 1 1,634,752 1 1,553,336 1 -5.0% He reviewed Sales Tax Analysis by Category September 2015 YTD, pointing out retail automotive is the largest single source of sales tax revenue followed by contractors. He displayed a bar graph of Change in Sales Tax Revenue September 2015 compared to September 2014. Contractors have had the largest gain in 2015, $415,754 above 2014. Mr. James reviewed 3rd Quarter 2015 General Fund — Fund Expenditure Comparison, advising General Fund expenditures are 9.2% higher than 2014, primarily due to paying $1.6 million more for Fire District 1 services. He displayed a General Fund Department Expense Summary, advising the year is 75% completed and expenses are at 71% of budget. He displayed the 3rd Quarter 2015 Revenue Funds Summary — Special Revenue Funds, advising Special Revenues Fund revenues are 40.6% higher this year due in large part to grant revenues which are $2.6 million higher in 2015 than in 2014. He reviewed 3rd Quarter 2015 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues 2010 — 2015, advising only modest growth is seen, 1.9% over last year. He displayed 3rd Quarter 2015 Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax Revenues 2010 — 2015, advising lodging taxes are approximately 13% higher than 2014. He reviewed the 3rd Quarter 2015 Real Estate Excise Tax Revenues which has experienced phenomenal growth, 42.2% higher than 2014. The 3rd Quarter 2015 Expense Summary - Special Revenue Funds illustrates expenditures are 35.9% higher than last year; the majority of the increase is due to construction outlays with street construction expenses $968,000 higher than 2014 and park construction expenses $733,000 higher than 2014. The 3rd Quarter 2015 Revenue Summary - Utility Funds illustrates utility fund revenues are $1,113,000 higher than 2014 due primarily to increased water, stormwater, and sewer sales. He reviewed the 3rd Quarter 2015 Expense Summary — Utility Funds, advising utility expenses increased $1.2 million over 2014 primarily due to capital expenses for waterline replacements and the expenditures in the water fund for increased demand for water. Mr. James provided answers to the quiz: 1. The Sales Tax rate for the City of Edmonds is comes to Edmonds? a) 0.90% b) 0.85% c) 0.25% d) 0.10% e) 6.50% 9.50% 9.5%. Of this 9.5%, what percent of the sales tax 2. How much money would I have to spend for the City to earn $1.00 of Sales Tax Revenue? a) $109.50 b) $95.00 c) $117.65 d) $85.85 e) $950.00 3. As of September 30, 2015, the City received $4,937,480 in sales tax receipts. How much money had to be spent in order for the City to receive this much sales tax revenue? a) $493,748,100 b) $53,183,600 c) $580,880,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 16 Packet Page 121 of 175 d) $37,757,200 e) None of the above Councilmember Buckshnis commented the investment revenue is looking good, $135,000 more than last year. She recalled the investment policy was revised recently and inquired about Mr. James' discretionary limit. Mr. James explained the policy was amended to allow 75% in the Snohomish County pool. November 3 is the balancing date for the federal budget and bond sales are temporarily suspended. When bond sales are back on the market, he will bring an investment portfolio request to the Mayor. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for the Snohomish County pool prospectus. Councilmember Mesaros referred to Slide 16 which indicates Fund 120 Hotel/Motel Tax is up 100%; his calculations indicate it is actually up 5%. Similarly Slide 17 indicates the Bond Reserve Fund is up 100% but it is actually down. Councilmember Petso expressed appreciation for the note on the statements indicating interfund loans have been made. She asked whether there was a policy that required he advise Council when those loans were made. Mr. James said notification is required; a memo is included in the packet to advise Council of interfund loans. Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested Mr. James review the investment portfolio with the Council after the budget is adopted. Mr. James agreed, asking whether she was interested in something specific. Council President Fraley-Monillas said it would be good for the Council and citizens to know what outstanding bonds the City has, maturity dates, etc. Mr. James said an investment report is included in all the monthly financial reports. C. DEPARTMENTS CONTINUE TO PRESENT THEIR 2016 BUDGET REQUESTS Public Works - Utilities Public Works Director Phil Williams Public Works and Utilities a lot of interfund transfers. Major differences year to year are related to capital program. Operations and maintenance fairly steady. He reviewed: • 2015 Accomplishments Stormwater o Serviced 3,024 of 6,702 catch basins o Serviced 725 of 1,491 manholes o Total structures serviced 3,749 of 8,193 (45.7%) o Completed the Dayton St. Pump Station Feasibility Study o Completed the stormwater capacity analysis for downtown Edmonds o Design completed on 105th /106th AVE SW storm project (Build 2016) o Final Feasibility Study for the Willow Creek Daylight Project completed (by 12/2015) o Began updating the Stormwater Management Code (update to Council early 2016) o Worked with Planning and other Departments on review of Low Impact Development (LID) Code o Obtained two grants from the Department of Ecology: Seaview Park Infiltration Facility ($633,750) and Phase II Permit Compliance ($50,000) Water 0 8,400 ft (1.6 miles) of water main replacement o Replaced 2 PRV's o Installed one new Intertie between Edmonds and Lynnwood 0 800 linear feet of pavement overlay on City Sewer o 2,700 ft of sewer main replacement Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 17 Packet Page 122 of 175 o Installation of 3 new hybrid blowers (Phase 4) $1.1 million 0 300 and 500 building PLC replacements ($800,000) o Installed Mercury carbon modules in incinerator (will save nearly $4M) o Clarifier #3 repair structural Investigation and design Combined o $17.5 Million Water/Sewer/Storm Capital Projects Bond 2016 Utility Budget Issues o Last year of a three-year rate package o WWTP Outfall Pipe upgrade o LS#1 Pump Station Metering and Flow Study o Lake Ballinger Sewer Trunk Main Study 0 2016 Water System Comprehensive Plan 0 2016/2017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update Decision Packages/Changes o DP #17: LIDAR/GIS Data - $3,000 o DP #18: Software support GIS web app - $3,600 o DP #44: Construction Inspector $102,420 o DP #52: Asset Mgmt. mobile field conversion - $50,000 o DP# 59: Water Maintenance Worker - $67,080 o DP #61: Stormwater Maintenance Worker - $60,880 o DP #62: Stormwater Code updated for Phase 11 NPDES $50,000 Expenditures Expenditures 2015 Budget 215 YE16 Discussion Estimate Reco20mended Utilities — Water, $33,655 930 $28,640 440 $35,329,590 Last year of 3-year rate Sewer, Stormwater increase Public Works — Roads (Fund 111 - Operations and Maintenance and 112 — Capital • 2015 Accomplishments o Pavement Preservation — 9.5 lane miles o Construction 228th St/76th Ave Improvements — const. began May 26th- complete by 12/31/2015 o Completed 2015 Comprehensive Transportation Plan o Completed SR104 Study 0 238th St. new sidewalk, rain gardens, storm system, and paving o Design of walkway on 236th St. - construction 2016 o Design of 76th/212th Intersection Improvements and corridor striping - construction 2016 0 Challenges/Opportunities 2016 o Pavement Preservation - $1,030,000 in 2016 — approx. 6.4 lane miles o Need to continue replacing/upgrading signal cabinets $70,000 o Waterfront Access/At-grade crossing study $450,000 (2016) o Go to bid in March & Begin Construction 76th/212th Project in April - $4,974,000 o Construction of 236th St Walkway $593,000 o Discuss new TBD Authorities Decision Packages/Changes o Trackside (Wayside) Warning Horn System $300,000 o City-wide ADA Transition Plan $110,000 o ADA Curb Ramps $25,000 o Minor sidewalk program $50,000 o Traffic Calming $20,000 Expenditures Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 18 Packet Page 123 of 175 Expenditures 2015 Budget 215 YE 16 Discussion Estimate Reco20mended Fund 111/112 $12,844,546 $12,831,430 $10,255,350 Capital Driven Public Works — Administration, Engineering, Facilities, Fleet (AEFF) • 2015 Accomplishments Engineering Reviews (YTD September) 0 330 Engineering permits were issued 0 1,700 Engineering inspections have been performed o $50,000 collected in traffic impact fees o Permits issued, inspections completed for numerous large development projects: Edmonds Post Office, Swedish Hospital, Prestige Skilled Nursing Facility, Brackett Court, Edmonds Memory Care, Starbucks on Edmonds Way, WinCo, Sherwood Elementary, Seabrook Plat (9th & Caspers) and 7 short plats. o Permits were issued for 40 single family residential projects o Permits were issued for approximately 160 additions/remodels & miscellaneous projects AEFF o Unit #47 2015 Freightliner Vactor, replaced Unit #31, 1996 Volvo Vactor $450K o Unit #19 2014 New Holland/Diamond mower, replaced Unit # 91, 2002 New Holland/US mower $132k o Unit #10 2015 Isuzu NPR flatbed, replaced Unit #133, 2003 Isuzu NPR flatbed $50K o Unit #310 2015 Ford SUV Interceptor, replaced Unit #651, 2008 Crown Vic $55K o Unit #42 2015 Ford 3500 Transit van, replaced Unit #26, 2010 Chevrolet 3500 van $38K (includes propane conversion) o Unit #112 2015 Solar Tech Variable message trailer $20K o Unit #113 2015 Solar Tech Variable message trailer $20K o In-house remodel of Finance offices and Green Room construction o ESCO IV for Library HVAC o Fishing Pier Rehab Design and grant acquisition o Meadowdale Clubhouse re -roofing project • Challenges/Opportunities 2016 o Maintain level of service on development reviews and inspections while updating the development and stormwater codes and our engineering standard details. o Completion of the 228th St. /76th Ave. Improvements Project o Construction of 212th/76th Intersection Improvements Project o Increasing maintenance investments in City -owned buildings o Delivering $21.1M in capital improvements • Graph of City Capital Program for Storm, Water, Sewer, Fund 112 and Parks, 2008-2014 actual, 2015 estimate and 2016 budget, advising the total capital program for 2016 is $21,115,800. • Decision Packages/Changes o DP #19: Increase Facilities Capital annual funding from $56,600/yr to $100,000/yr o DP #43: Return the custodial FTE removed in 2011 $57,120/yr o DP #44: Construction Inspector ($144,800 — includes new vehicle) o DP #45: Waterfront Access At -Grade Crossing Study $450,000 o DP #46: SR99 Access Mgmt. Study 220th-224th $10,000 o DP #47: Commute Trip Reduction program costs $1,000 o DP #48: FS20 Generator Replacement $43,000 o DP #49: FS17 Vehicle Bay Ceiling replacement $10,000 o DP #50: City Hall Fire door repairs $6,000 o DP #51: FAC Floor Repairs $10,000 (DP51) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 19 Packet Page 124 of 175 COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO EXTEND THE MEETINGN FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Williams continued his review of Decision Packages/Changes: AEFF: Total $749,000 + $50,000 (police mobile computers) _ $799,000 o Canopy for Propane station $22k (DP63) o Convert (4) work trucks - propane use $30k (DP64) o Nine new mobile Police computers $50k (DP65) o Sidewalk Program $50k o ADA Ramp upgrades $25k o (2) Signal Cabinet replacements $70k 0 17 new vehicles ■ (3) Motorcycles ($75k) ■ (4) Patrol cars ($240k) ■ (2) Police Admin cars ($66k) ■ New Engrg. Car ($30k) ■ Replaced Engrg. Car ($33k) ■ Parks 1-ton flatbeds ($90k) ■ Building Div. Car ($30k) ■ Streets Div. cars (1) pick-up, (1) electric ($65k) ■ Parks backhoe/loader ($120k) • Expenditures 2015 2015 YE Expenditures Modified Estimate m Recommended Discussion Budget Engineering, Facilities, $5483550 $5383010 $6268740 17 new vehicles + 2 new Fleet, Administration ,,,,,, positions Mayor Earling advised questions regarding the budget will begin next week. D. CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FORMAT Councilmember Bloom requested the Council discuss reordering agenda so that Approval of Agenda occurs after Audience Comments. This is in response to a request to ban crumb rubber when the media was present; it would have been more responsive to inform them that the matter would be scheduled on a future agenda instead of waiting until Council Comments. She did not envision this would happen often but would be a way to be more responsive to the audience. Council President Fraley-Monillas distributed notes related to Council discussion in 2000 regarding the order of the agenda. Prior to 2011 Audience Comments were at the end of the agenda and it was moved to the beginning to allow citizen comment before Council discussed agenda items. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support placing Approval of Agenda after Audience Comments. The Council President pays a great deal of attention to the agenda and she feared the process would deteriorate if things were added to the agenda on the fly. She found the existing format acceptable. With regard to the presence of the media cameras, the Council's responsibility is to be responsive to citizens, not the local or national news. Councilmember Mesaros did not support having Approval of the Agenda after Audience Comments. The Council is thoughtful about its agenda and citizens may be disappointed if they came to the meeting expecting the agenda to be changed and the Council decides not to change it. Approving the agenda after Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 20 Packet Page 125 of 175 Audience Comment could result in changing the agenda for some and not for others if there is no criteria for amending the agenda. The current order of the agenda allows public comment and Councilmembers always have the ability to add items to the agenda. Councilmember Petso asked if Robert Rules allowed an agenda item to be added when the agenda is approved or later via agreement of the body as whole. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered yes, the issue is permanently amending the agenda order so that Approval of the Agenda occurred after Audience Comment. Councilmember Petso summarized if a majority of the Council wanted to discuss an item raised during Audience Comment, it could be added to the agenda. Mr. Taraday agreed. Council President Fraley-Monillas commented an item can be added to the agenda at any point during the meeting via a majority vote of Council. Mr. Taraday answered as a general rule yes, the Council controls its agenda throughout the meeting. Councilmember Bloom observed there appeared to be no interest by Council in making this change so she would drop the request. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reminded of the Holiday Market on Saturdays from November 21 through December 19 in the parking lot between City Hall and the Rusty Pelican. Mayor Earling reported the new Sound Transit CEO will be announced later this month. 10. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES Councilmember Petso reported the Public Facilities District and Historic Preservation Commission continue to do great work. The Economic Development Commission (EDC) developed a list of items they would like to work on in the upcoming year if the EDC is renewed. Those items will be included in the packet when discussion regarding the EDC is presented to the Council. Councilmember Mesaros reported the New World project is going fairly well with only a few minor glitches. Three Edmonds representatives attended SNOCOM's retreat last month where the future of SNOCOM and issues related to capital costs, locations, etc. were discussed. Councilmember Mesaros reported the Seashore Transportation Forum did not meet last month due to a major transportation conference on the eastside which he was unable to attend. He reported the Port Commission approved the Port's 2016 budget at its last meeting. Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board discussed the Arbor Day celebration, turnover of board members, and ideas for the future such as speakers and public education. Board members will bring ideas for the coming year to the next meeting. One Tree Board Member coordinated a project with Public Works to spread mulch and plant trees in an area where sewer and water lines were installed. The Tree Board also participated in an Arbor Day planting event in Yost Park. Councilmember Bloom referred to a debate on My Edmonds News regarding whether a police officer was present in the Council Chambers last week, assuring there was a police officer present last week and there is one tonight. She again requested the police be relieved of their responsibility at Council meetings as she did not believe the Council needed the protection and their services are better used elsewhere. Councilmember Johnson reported tickets are still available for the Heritage Days Dinner on Friday, November 13. She was unable to attend the meetings earlier in October that she is assigned to due to health issues. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 21 Packet Page 126 of 175 Councilmember Buckshnis reported on Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed meeting. They are working on the Ballinger Park Master Plan and seeking grant funds from various sources for the estimated $14 million cost. She is researching a 1942 court order that Edmonds put on Lake Ballinger to keep the lake at a certain level. Councilmember Nelson reported on the Snohomish County Emergency Radio Systems Board meeting; a consultant has been hired to study replacing the countywide public safety radio system. During the August 29 windstorm all the radios were fully operational. The volume of traffic during a 12 hour that day was equivalent to 2 weeks of normal radio traffic. He reported the Climate Protection Committee now has three citizen members. Council President Fraley-Monillas reported the EDC issue is coming to Council in 2 weeks on November 17. She reported on a tour she took of Hwy 99 this weekend including visiting Winco after the Seahawks game when it was very busy. She encouraged the public to try the New Taiwanese Boiling Point Restaurant at 220t' & Hwy 99. With regard to having a police officer in Council Chambers, Council President Fraley-Monillas explained police officer was present for many years, it happened to have been the Police Chief. She preferred to be safe than sorry and did not think it was worth sacrificing safety. Because the Council does not know the background of everyone attending Council meetings, she personally felt safer having an officer in the room. She wished everyone running for election good luck. Student Representative Girouard reported her leadership class at Edmonds-Woodway High School is having a Veterans Day Assembly on November 10. She invited veterans to attend the assembly so that they could be honored. Mayor Earling suggested she contact the local media about publishing a story which may increase attendance. 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 10:22 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 2, 2015 Page 22 Packet Page 127 of 175 AM-8341 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/16/2016 Time: Consent Submitted For: Ed Sibrel Department: Engineering Type: Action Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Information 3. E. Subiect Title Authorization to award a construction contract for the SW Edmonds - 105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements Project to Rodarte Construction Recommendation Award the construction contract to Rodarte Construction in the amount of $492,275 and authorize a $73,840 management reserve for changes and unforeseen conditions during construction. Previous Council Action On June 23, 2015, staff presented the initial construction contract award for SW Edmonds - 105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements Project. On July 7, 2015, bids were rejected and Council authorized staff to rebid the project in 2016. On February 9, 2015, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the February 16th consent agenda for approval. Narrative This project involves the retrofit to stormwater infrastructure within a residential neighborhood between 105th and 106th Avenues and 226th and 228th Streets. The project includes replacement of stormwater related infrastructure (e.g., stormwater piping, catch basins, manholes), installation of two water quality units, construction of a gravel bed infiltration facility, and decommissioning of existing infrastructure, as appropriate. This project will improve the quality of the surface water draining into the Deer Creek watershed. On January 26, 2016, the City received nine bids for the project. The bids ranged from a low of $492,275 to a high of $882,691.50. The bid and funding summary is attached as Exhibit 1. Rodarte Construction submitted the low responsive bid in the amount of $492,275. The engineer's estimate was $487,500. A review of the low bidder's record for responsibility and responsiveness has been completed. The 2016 low bid is $55,315 less than the low bid provided the first time the project was advertised for construction bids in June 2015. The project costs are being funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund (Fund 422). Packet Page 128 of 175 Attachments Exhibit 1 - Bid Summary Exhibit 2 - Project Area Map Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator) Robert English 02/11/2016 03:21 PM Public Works Phil Williams 02/12/2016 09:13 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 02/12/2016 09:16 AM Mayor Dave Earling 02/12/2016 09:17 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/12/2016 09:59 AM Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 02/10/2016 08:49 AM Final Approval Date: 02/12/2016 Packet Page 129 of 175 City of Edmonds 105th / 106th Street Storm Project Bid Summary 26-Jan-15 Construction Estimate & Bids Engineer's Estimate I Rodarte Construction I Shoreline Construction I R.L. Alia I Kamins Construction I Gary Merlino Construction $ 487,484.61 1 $ 492,275.00 1 $ 565,605.00 1 $ 581,920.00 1 $ 604,600.22 1 $ 634,195.00 Construction Funds Required Construction Contract $ 492,275 Mgmt Reserve (15%) $ 73,841 Const Mgmt & Testing $ 90,600 1 % for Art $ 4,923 Total Construction $ 661,639 Laser Underground I SRV Construction 1 3 Kings Environmental I Thomco Construction $ 672,005.00 1 $ 858,754.00 1 $ 876,827.50 1 $ 882,691.50 Avaiiame runaing 2016 Fund 422, Storm $ 716,800 Packet Page 130 of 175 ■- City of Edmonds Southwest Edmonds Storm Project 226-fH S T S W ■ Legend Sections Boundary Sections ;;� 2GTH PL S W. IJ Edmonds Boundary CC ILL] ArcSDE.GIS.STREET_CENTERLINEI � � Q "' � call other values> CD 2 L S r Sk, 5; 4 —_ 9; 71; 7 h State Highways <allnfnervawea> o 2-1! 2 J County Boundary ArcSDE.GIS. PROPERTY_WASHINI c t— ed_hillshade - High :254 ■ Low:0 ArcSDE.G IS.PROPERTY_CITIES Sy - ArcSDE.GIS.PROPERTY_CITIES 9L� 229M FL SW city of Edmonds City of Lynnwood City of Mountlake Terrace - CiN N Weed — a1:3,000 U Notes 0 125.00 250.0 Feet This ma p is user generated static output ma to and is for pu from an Internet Aping si reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, NAD_1983_StatePlane__Washington_North_FIPS_4601 Feet current, or otherwise reliable. © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION Packet Page 131 of 175 AM-8342 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/16/2016 Time: Consent Submitted For: Mike DeLilla Department: Engineering Type: Action Submitted By: Megan Luttrell Information 3. F. Subiect Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with the Blueline Group for Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the agreement. Previous Council Action On February 9, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded the February 16th consent agenda for approval. 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 to provide services during construction based on their qualifications, experience and approach. The City has negotiated a consultant fee of $128,400. This agreement will allow Blueline to provide services for the first half of 2016's Capital Improvement Projects for which there is not enough staff to be able to inspect and administer these contracts. It is expected that by the second half of 2016 that the City will have hired a full time Senior Construction Inspector to cover these projects for the rest of 2016. If services are required in 2017 a separate scope and fee will be drafted in 2017. This contract will be funded by each respective project's utility fund. Attachments Blueline Group Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering (Originator) Robert English 02/11/2016 03:21 PM Public Works Phil Williams 02/12/2016 09:13 AM City Clerk Scott Passey 02/12/2016 09:16 AM Mayor Dave Earling 02/12/2016 09:17 AM Finalize for Agenda Scott Passey 02/12/2016 09:59 AM Packet Page 132 of 175 Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Final Approval Date: 02/12/2016 Started On: 02/10/2016 08:54 AM Packet Page 133 of 175 s CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov l890 ., PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and The Blueline Group, LLC hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"; WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide consulting services with respect to Capital Projects Construction Management, Engineering & Inspection Services; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Services that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit B, provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $128,400. B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City biweekly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City Engineer three days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 1 Packet Page 134 of 175 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become the property of the City. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and release under Chapter 42.56 RCW. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant's own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the terms of the Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Packet Page 135 of 175 Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). C. Vehicle liability insurance for any automobile used in an amount not less than a one million dollar ($1,000,000) combined single limit. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Excepting the Worker's Compensation Insurance and Professional Liability Insurance secured by the Consultant, the City will be named on all policies as an additional insured. The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by the Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty days prior notice to the City. The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City's prior written consent. Packet Page 136 of 175 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document, the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the Fee Schedule attached hereto as Exibit B. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibits A or B, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the Scope of Services in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound engineering practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Services. 14. Non -waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including Packet Page 137 of 175 regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: The Blueline Group, LLC 25 Central Way, Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS DAY OF .20 CITY OF EDMONDS THE BLUELINE GROUP, LLC By David O. Earling, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney By Its Packet Page 138 of 175 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned, 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 Page 139 of 175 Exhibit 'A' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between The Blueline Group, LLC and the City of Edmonds for Construction Services for 2016 Projects, dated February 3, 2016. Task 001- CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES Fee: Time and Expense (Estimated $91,800) Blueline will provide as -needed inspection services at the City's request during the 2016 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. 6. 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 CIPP (15 working days), 2016 Water (45 working days) and 2016 Sanitary Sewer (50 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 Page 140 of 175 Exhibit 'A' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between The Blueline Group, LLC and the City of Edmonds for Construction Services for 2016 Projects, dated February 3, 2016. Task 002 - CONS TRUCT/ONADM/N/STRA T/ON SERVICES Fee: Time and Expense (Estimated $20,300) Blueline will provide construction administration services for this project during the construction period. Services under this task are anticipated to include: 1. Review plans and specifications and visit the site prior to the Pre -Construction Conference. 2. Attend Pre -Construction Conference. 3. Send out minutes from Pre -Construction Conference. 4. Review and approve Contractor progress schedules. 5. Review and approve contract pay estimates, and prepare pay requests for the City approval. 6. Prepare change orders, as needed. 7. Prepare and submit weekly reports (Statement of Working Days and Project Progress Chart). 8. Log affidavits/intents/certified payroll. 9. Provide project filing. 10. Provide RFI log. 11. Coordinate changes to drawings or specifications as necessary to respond to field conditions (As needed - coordinating with the City Project Manager). 12. Monitor construction to determine contractor compliance and prepare associated documentation. 13. General consultation and coordination on an as -needed basis to address construction questions. 14. Assist with preparing punch lists and final inspection. 15. Prepare recommendation of project acceptance. 16. Attend and conduct construction meetings as required. Provide meeting minutes to attendees. We assume at this point that a construction meeting will be held approximately every two weeks. 17. Additional construction inspection services and project management, as needed. Assumptions: • Projects include the CIPP (15 working days), 2016 Water (45 working days) and 2016 Sanitary Sewer (50 working days) projects. • The City or Design Engineering Firm will prepare as -built drawings based off of the as -built redlines. The City will be reviewing submittals and maintaining the submittal log. Mileage associated with construction administration has been included in this task. • If additional inspection time or project management is requested beyond the scope of Tasks 001 and 003, it will be billed under this task. Packet Page 141 of 175 Exhibit 'A' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between The Blueline Group, LLC and the City of Edmonds for Construction Services for 2016 Projects, dated February 3, 2016. Task 003 - PROJECTMANAGEMENT Fee: Time and Expense (Estimated $16,300) 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 CIPP (15 working days), 2016 Water (45 working days) and 2016 Sanitary Sewer (50 working days) projects. • If additional inspection time or construction administration time is requested beyond the scope of Tasks 001 and 002, it will be billed under this task. 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 January 1 1, 2016. 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 Page 142 of 175 Job Number: 15-280 Date: February 3, 2016 Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2016 Projects dated February 3, 2016 City of Edmonds 2016 Construction Services Prepared By: Deanna Martin, PE Checked By: Ken Lauzen, PE Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector Task # Task $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr Total Mileage Total Hours Total Cost Hours Hours Hours 001 Construction Inspection Services 0 $ 0 $ 808 $ 88,880 2,970 808 $ 91,850 002 Construction Administration Services 0 $ 132 $ 19,668 0 $ - 594 132 $ 20,262 003 JProject Management 98 $ 16,268 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 98 $ 16,268 Total 98 $ 16,268 132 $ 19,668 808 1 $ 88,880 $ 3,564 1,038 $ 128,380 Total Cost (Rounded) $ 128,400 The Blueline Group Packet Page 143 of 175 Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2016 Projects dated February 3, 2016 City of Edmonds 2016 Construction Services Construction Inspection Services 001A Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector CIPP TOTAL Item # Description $166/hr $149/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 FT Field (1 wk @ 40 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 40.0 $ 4,400 40.0 $ 4,400 3 PT Field (2 wks @ 20 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 40.0 $ 4,400 40.0 $ 4,400 4 Night Work Surcharge (25% assuming 1 wk FT night work) 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 10.0 $ 1,100 10.0 $ 1,100 5 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 440 4.0 $ 440 6 Mileage (3 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 405 Total 1 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 1 98.0 $ 10,780 98.0 $ 11,185 *Assumes 15 total working days Construction Inspection Services 0016 Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Water TOTAL Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,320 12.0 $ 1,320 2 Part-time field (9 wks x 30 hrs/wk)* 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 270.0 $ 29,700 270.0 $ 29,700 3 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 4 Mileage (9 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 1,215 Total 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 1 290.0 $ 31,900 290.0 $ 33,115 *Assumes 45 total working days Construction Inspection Services 001C Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Sanitary Sewer TOTAL Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,320 12.0 $ 1,320 2 Full-time field (10 wks x 40 hrs/wk)* 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 400.0 $ 44,000 400.0 $ 44,000 3 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 4 Mileage (10 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 1,350 Total i 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 1 420.0 $ 46,200 420.0 $ 47,550 *Assumes 50 total working days The Blueline Group Packet Page 144 of 175 Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2016 Projects dated February 3, 2016 City of Edmonds 2016 Construction Services Construction Administration Services 002A Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector CIPP Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 2 Weekly Admin Tasks (3 wks x 4.0 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 3 Pay Estimates & Change Orders (2 mo x 4 hrs/mo) 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 1,192 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 1,192 4 Mileage (3 wks x 50 mi/wk @ $.54/mi) $ 81 Total 1 0.0 $ 1 24.0 $ 3,576 1 0.0 $ 1 24.0 $ 3,657 *Assumes 15 total working days Construction Administration Services 002B Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Water Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 2 Weekly Admin Tasks (9 wks x 4 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 36.0 $ 5,364 0.0 $ 36.0 $ 5,364 3 Pay Estimates & Change Orders (3 mo x 4 hrs/mo) 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 4 Mileage (9 wks x 50 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 243 Total 1 0.0 $ 1 52.01 $ 7,748 1 0.0 $ 1 52.0 $ 7,991 *Assumes 45 total working days Construction Administration Services 002C Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Sanitary Sewer Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 2 Weekly Admin Tasks (10 wks x 4.0 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 40.0 $ 5,960 0.0 $ 40.0 $ 5,960 3 Pay Estimates & Change Orders (3 mo x 4 hrs/mo) 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 4 Mileage (10 wks x 50 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 270 Total 10.0 $ 1 56.01 $ 8,344 1 0.0 $ 156.0 $ 8,614 *Assumes 50 total working days The Blueline Group Packet Page 145 of 175 Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2016 Projects dated February 3, 2016 City of Edmonds 2016 Construction Services Project Management 003A Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector CIPP Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 2.0 $ 332 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 2.0 $ 332 2 Review IDRs/documentation (3 wks x 2 hr/wk) 6.0 $ 996 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 6.0 $ 996 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (3 wks x 1 hr/wk) 3.0 $ 498 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 3.0 $ 498 4 Coordination with Staff and City (3 wks x 1 hr/wk) 3.0 $ 498 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 3.0 $ 498 Total 14.0 $ 2,3241 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 14.0 $ 2,324 *Assumes 15 total working days Project Management 003B Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Water Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 4.0 $ 664 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 664 2 Review IDRs/documentation (9 wks x 2 hrs/wk) 18.0 $ 2,988 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 18.0 $ 2,988 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (9 wks x 1 hrs/wk) 9.0 $ 1,494 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 9.0 $ 1,494 4 Coordination with Staff and City (9 wks x 1 hrs/wk) 9.0 $ 1,494 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 9.0 $ 1,494 Total 1 40.0 $ 6,6401 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 40.0 $ 6,640 *Assumes 45 total working days Project Management 003C Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Sanitary Sewer Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 4.0 $ 664 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 664 2 Review IDRs/documentation (10 wks x 2 hr/wk) 20.0 $ 3,320 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 20.0 $ 3,320 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (10 wks x 1 hr/wk) 10.0 $ 1,660 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 10.0 $ 1,660 4 Coordination with Staff and City (10 wks x 1 hr/wk) 10.0 $ 1,660 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 10.0 $ 1,660 Total 44.0 $ 7,3041 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 44.0 $ 7,304 *Assumes 50 total working days The Blueline Group Packet Page 146 of 175 Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2016 Projects dated February 3, 2016 City of Edmonds 2016 Construction Services Construction Inspection Services 001A Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector CIPP TOTAL Item # Description $166/hr $149/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 FT Field (1 wk @ 40 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 40.0 $ 4,400 40.0 $ 4,400 3 PT Field (2 wks @ 20 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 40.0 $ 4,400 40.0 $ 4,400 4 Night Work Surcharge (25% assuming 1 wk FT night work 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 10.0 $ 1,100 10.0 $ 1,100 5 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 440 4.0 $ 440 6 Mileage (3 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) 1 $ 405 Total 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 1 98.0 $ 10,780 1 98.0 $ 11,185 *Assumes 15 total working days Construction Administration Services 002A Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector CIPP Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 2 Weekly Admin Tasks (3 wks x 4.0 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 3 Pay Estimates & Change Orders (2 mo x 4 hrs/mo) 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 1,192 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 1,192 4 Mileage (3 wks x 50 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 81 Total 0.0 $ 1 24.01 $ 3,576 1 0.0 $ 1 24.01 $ 3,657 *Assumes 15 total working days Project Management 003A Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector CIPP Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 2.0 $ 332 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 2.0 $ 332 2 Review IDRs/documentation (3 wks x 2 hr/wk) 6.0 $ 996 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 6.0 $ 996 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (3 wks x 1 hr/wk) 3.0 $ 498 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 3.0 $ 498 4 Coordination with Staff and City (3 wks x 1 hr/wk) 3.0 $ 498 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 3.0 $ 498 Total 14.0 $ 2,3241 0.0 $ 0.0 $ i 14.0 $ 2,324 *Assumes 15 total working days I CIPP TOTAL $ 17,166 The Blueline Group Packet Page 147 of 175 Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2016 Projects dated February 3, 2016 City of Edmonds 2016 Construction Services Construction Inspection Services 0016 Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Water TOTAL Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,320 12.0 $ 1,320 2 Part-time field (9 wks x 30 hrs/wk)* 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 270.0 $ 29,700 270.0 $ 29,700 3 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 4 Mileage (9 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 1,215 Total i 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 1 290.0 $ 31,900 290.0 $ 33,115 *Assumes 45 total working days Construction Administration Services 002E Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Water Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 2 Weekly Admin Tasks (9 wks x 4 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 36.0 $ 5,364 0.0 $ 36.0 $ 5,364 3 Pay Estimates & Change Orders (3 mo x 4 hrs/mo) 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 4 Mileage (9 wks x 50 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 243 Total 0.0 $ 1 52.01 $ 7,748 1 0.0 $ 152.01 $ 7,991 *Assumes 45 total working days Project Management 0036 Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Water Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 4.0 $ 664 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 664 2 Review IDRs/documentation (9 wks x 2 hrs/wk) 18.0 $ 2,988 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 18.0 $ 2,988 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (9 wks x 1 hrs/wk) 9.0 $ 1,494 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 9.0 $ 1,494 4 Coordination with Staff and City (9 wks x 1 hrs/wk) 9.0 $ 1,494 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 9.0 $ 11494 Total 1 40.0 $ 6,6401 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 40.0 $ 6,640 *Assumes 45 total working days WATER TOTAL $ 47,746 The Blueline Group Packet Page 148 of 175 Attachment `B' to the Contract Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Edmonds and The Blueline Group, LLC for Construction Services for 2016 Projects dated February 3, 2016 City of Edmonds 2016 Construction Services Construction Inspection Services 001C Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Sanitary Sewer TOTAL Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,320 12.0 $ 1,320 2 Full-time field (10 wks x 40 hrs/wk)* 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 400.0 $ 44,000 400.0 $ 44,000 3 Project Close-out, including punchlists, As -built Redlines 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 8.0 $ 880 8.0 $ 880 4 Mileage (10 wks x 250 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 1,350 Total i 0.0 $ 1 0.0 $ 1 420.0 $ 46,200 420.0 $ 47,550 *Assumes 50 total working days Construction Administration Services 002C Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Sanitary Sewer Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Pre -Construction Conference & Prep 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 596 2 Weekly Admin Tasks (10 wks x 4.0 hrs/wk) 0.0 $ 40.0 $ 5,960 0.0 $ 40.0 $ 5,960 3 Pay Estimates & Change Orders (3 mo x 4 hrs/mo) 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 0.0 $ 12.0 $ 1,788 4 Mileage (10 wks x 50 mi/wk @ $0.54/mi) $ 270 Total 10.0 $ 1 56.01 $ 8,3441 0.0 $ 156.0 $ 8,614 *Assumes 50 total working days Project Management 003C Project Manager Construction Administrator Construction Inspector 2016 Sanitary Sewer Item # Description $166/hr $149/hr $110/hr TOTAL HRS TOTAL FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE HRS FEE 1 Initial Project Setup, Review plans/specs 4.0 $ 664 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.0 $ 664 2 Review IDRs/documentation (10 wks x 2 hr/wk) 20.0 $ 3,320 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 20.0 $ 3,320 3 Budget Tracking & Invoicing (10 wks x 1 hr/wk) 10.0 $ 1,660 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 10.0 $ 1,660 4 Coordination with Staff and City (10 wks x 1 hr/wk) 10.0 $ 1,660 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 10.0 $ 11660 Total 1 44.0 $ 7,3041 0.0 $ I 0.0 $ 44.0 $ 7,304 *Assumes 50 total working days SEWER TOTAL $ 63,468 The Blueline Group Packet Page 149 of 175 AM-8345 City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/16/2016 Time: Consent Submitted For: Jeff Taraday Department: City Clerk's Office Committee: Submitted By: Scott Passey Type: Action Information 3. G. Subiect Title Ordinance amending Type of Experience Sought for Members of the Citizens Economic Development Commission Recommendation Approve the ordinance on the Consent Agenda. Previous Council Action On February 2, 2016, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 4018, Reestablishing the Citizens Economic Development Commission (Attachment 1). On February 9, 2016, the City Council reconsidered the qualifications criteria for EDC members and directed the City Attorney to draft an Ordinance removing certain experience criteria for membership (Attachment 2). Narrative Attachments Attachment 1 - Ord. No. 4018 Reestablishing the EDC Attachment 2 - Ordinance amending EDC Membership Criteria Inbox Reviewed By City Clerk Scott Passey Mayor Dave Earling Form Started By: Scott Passey Final Approval Date: 02/12/2016 Form Review Date 02/12/2016 09:58 AM 02/12/2016 11:43 AM Started On: 02/12/2016 07:31 AM Packet Page 150 of 175 ORDINANCE NO.4018 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.75 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO REESTABLISH THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the City Council enacted Ordinance 3735 on June 2, 2009, creating a Citizens Economic Development Commission, and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Commission was provided with a "sunset" clause, initially setting an expiration date of December 31, 2010, which expiration date was extended through consecutive city council actions till December 31, 2015, and WHEREAS, upon full discussion and consideration in November of 2015, the City Council opted not to extend the Economic Development Commission "sunset" clause any further, thereby allowing the Commission to expire on December 31, 2015, as provided for in ECC Section 10.75.010(B), and WHEREAS, promotion of economic activity and vitality in Edmonds is of paramount concern to the residents and businesses by creating jobs, enhancing quality of life, and generating municipal revenue, and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council find it to be in the public interest to establish an Economic Development Commission to take advantage of highly qualified citizens interested in serving their community in ways to promote economic activity and vitality; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 10.75 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Citizens Economic Development Commission," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline deleted text is shown in . ...... .......... .._..._..._............................................. ,,,._...., ,� . ,......_._,,._.„__.........._. Packet Page 151 of 175 10.75.010 Commission created — Metidwi•ship — Term of appointments. A. There is hereby created a citizens economic development commission consisting of up-te 17 nine members. . B. The members of the commission shall be appointed in the following manner: 1. Each council member may appoint up4e twe one members positions 2 thmugh $. 2. The mayor may appoint 41+r� two members, positions 1 and 9. 3. In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission meetings, that position may be deemed vacant by the holder of the office that appointed the commissioner (e.g., mayor or council member) and such office holder may appoint a replacement commissioner for the remainder of the unexpired term for that position. 4. Elected government officials shall not be eligible for appointment to the commission; provided, that the city council president may appoint up-te one council members to serve as a nonvoting, ex officio members of the commission; 5. the The Edmonds pPort eCommission the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, and the ldznonds Planning Board are encouraged to may also appoint one of its their members to serve as a nonvoting, ex officio members of the commission. 56. Members of the commission must be residents of the city of Edmonds. Members should exhibit experience in fields such as private or nonprofit business, economics, real estate, finance development, education, or other similar fields. 67. If a commissioner satisfied the eligibility criteria in effect upon his/her appointment to the commission but fails to maintain his/her eligibility either through an amendment of the eligibility criteria or due to a change of circumstances surrounding the commission (e.g., change of residency) after his/her appointment, that commissioner shall lose his/her seat on the commission as a matter of law and the seat shall be deemed vacant. 78. Any vacancy on the commission will be advertised, and the new appointee will be selected from the applications received. Packet Page 152 of 175 C. Terms of the cEommissioner members shall be two years, except terms shall initially be staggered as follows: Position No. 1 expires after two years, appointed by the mayor. Position No. 2 expires after two years, appointed by council seat No. 1. Position No. 3 expires after two years, appointed by council _seat No. 2. Position No. 4 expires after two years, appointed by council seat No. 3. Position No. 5 expires after three years, appointed by council seat No. 4. Position No. 6 expires after three years, appointed by council seat No. 5. Position No. 7 expires after three years, appointed by council seat No. 6. Position No. 8 expires after three years, appointed by council seat No. 7. Position No. 9 expires after three years, appointed by the mayor; There shall be no term limits. ueeember-1, 2015. [Ord. 3970 § 1, 2014; Ord. 3927 § 1, 2013; Ord. 3876 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 3868 § 1, 2011; Ord. 3808 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3735 § 1, 2009]. 10.75.020 Officers of commission — Meetings Forum. __....._......____.._.....__.._....._............._... Members of the commission shall meet and organize by electing from the members of the commission a chairman and vice-chairman and such other officers as may be determined by the commission. It shall be the duty of the chairman to preside at all meetings. The vice-chairman shall perform this duty in the absence of the chairman. A majority of the filled positions on the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A majority of the quorum may transact any particular business of the commission. The commission shall establish The regular public meetings, e fthe .,....,... issien shall including established day of the month, time Packet Page 153 of 175 and place. be held at sueh time or place as may be determined by the ehairman of a majer4y ef nNotice for such regular meetings shall be provided in accordance with city ordinance and state law. [Ord. 3876 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 3735 § 1, 2009]. 10.75.030 Powers and duties. A. The commission is empowered to advise and make recommendations to the mayor and city council, and as appropriate to the plaftning eanunission, mehiteewral design beafd oF other boards or commissions of the city, on such matters as may be specifically referred to the commission by the mayor or city council, or on matters independently generated by the commission, inel„a;,-.., btA not lifnited related to: 1. Determirgfkg neAsStrategies, programs or activities intended to generate f0f economic development and consequently increase jobs and municipal revenue. ; B. The commission shall deliver an annual report to the city council in written and oral form on of aboa! the fi Fst meeting in' `eeem be during the first quarter of every year, and when appropriate, during other times as directed by the mayor or council. The commission is encouraged to provide informal reports and/or recommendations to the mayor and city council at any time during the year. C. that will improve eemmer-eial viability, teufist develep-m-ft-ant —and -Aetivity wiIhin the e4y. planning beard and eeenefnie deyelepfnet4 eemmissien shall vaake joint reeemmendalions The commission is encouraged to work in conjunction with other boards and commissions on proposals, recommendations, projects or activities of mutual interest, or as otherwise directed by city council. Similarly, the commission is encouraged to collaborate and cooperate with other organizations, agencies or entities engaged in economic development in Edmonds. [Ord. 3876 § 1 (Att. A), 2012; Ord. 3735 § 1, 2009]. Packet Page 154 of 175 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : W�i�fflw'r.wvvgow_wl APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED: r M YOR D VE EARLING January 29, 2016 February 2, 2016 February 7, 2016 March 8, 2016 4018 Packet Page 155 of 175 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4018 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 2nd day of February, 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4018. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.75 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO REESTABLISH THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 3rd day of February, 2016. G CIT l ERK:`§COTLPAASEY Packet Page 156 of 175 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 EDH681990 ORDINANCE 4018 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 02/07/2016 and ending on 02/07/2016 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $24.08. Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of 6� Notary Public in and for the Star of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 SCOTT PASSEY AUBREY KNAPP Notary Public State of Washington My Commissibri Expires July 30, 2018 Packet Page 157 of 175 SllMMA 1t9B�E$ d the !y of Edmonds, Waahlrrgian On the 2nd day of February, F018, the Clly Council of the Ckly of Edmonds, passed the rot[owing ❑rdlnanCa, the summary of the content of esld ordfnanea Conel911r1 of idle 16 Rravlded as follows: AN ORDINANCE THE C TY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AMENDING CHAPTER 19.75 OF THE EDMONDS Ct71� CODE TO REESTABLISH THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVEMPMENT COMMISSION The full text of Milt Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 3rd day of Fobruw 2918. CITY CLERX, SCOTT PASSEY ublished: February 7, 2016. EDH68199� Packet Page 158 of 175 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 10.75.010 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, AS RECENTLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 4018, TO CHANGE THE SUGGESTED QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR THE REESTABLISHED CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the City Council enacted Ordinance 4018 on February 2, 2016, reestablishing a Citizens Economic Development Commission, and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently desired to change the language relating to the type of experience that appointees should have; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 10.75.010 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Commission created — Membership — Term of appointments," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in sleek): Packet Page 159 of 175 10.75.010 Commission created — Membership — Term of appointments. A. There is hereby created a citizens economic development commission consisting of members. B. The members of the commission shall be appointed in the following manner: 1. Each council member may appoint one member, positions 2 through 8. 2. The mayor may appoint two members, positions 1 and 9. 3. In the event that any commissioner resigns or fails to attend three consecutive commission meetings, that position may be deemed vacant by the holder of the office that appointed the commissioner (e.g., mayor or council member) and such office holder may appoint a replacement commissioner for the remainder of the unexpired term for that position. 4. Elected government officials shall not be eligible for appointment to the commission; provided, that the city council president may appoint one council members to serve as a nonvoting, ex officio members of the commission; 5. The Edmonds Port Commission, the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, and the Edmonds Planning Board are encouraged to appoint one of their members to serve as a nonvoting, ex officio members of the commission. 6. Members of the commission must be residents of the city of Edmonds. Member-s sh development, edideation, of ather- similar- fields. 7. If a commissioner satisfied the eligibility criteria in effect upon his/her appointment to the commission but fails to maintain his/her eligibility either through an amendment of the eligibility criteria or due to a change of circumstances surrounding the commission (e.g., change of residency) after his/her appointment, that commissioner shall lose his/her seat on the commission as a matter of law and the seat shall be deemed vacant. 8. Any vacancy on the commission will be advertised, and the new appointee will be selected from the applications received. Packet Page 160 of 175 C. Terms of the commission members shall be two years, except terms shall initially be staggered as follows: Position No. 1 expires after two years, appointed by the mayor. Position No. 2 expires after two years, appointed by council seat No. 1. Position No. 3 expires after two years, appointed by council seat No. 2. Position No. 4 expires after two years, appointed by council seat No. 3. Position No. 5 expires after three years, appointed by council seat No. 4. Position No. 6 expires after three years, appointed by council seat No. 5. Position No. 7 expires after three years, appointed by council seat No. 6. Position No. 8 expires after three years, appointed by council seat No. 7. Position No. 9 expires after three years, appointed by the mayor. There shall be no term limits. Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Packet Page 161 of 175 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 162 of 175 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, 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 SECTION 10.75.010 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, AS RECENTLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE 4018, TO CHANGE THE SUGGESTED QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR THE REESTABLISHED CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2016. E CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 163 of 175 AM-8344 6. A. City Council Meeting Meeting Date: 02/16/2016 Time: 15 Minutes Submitted By: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Type: Action Information Subiect Title Public Hearing on proposed amendment to ECDC 20.03.002 regarding number of days for public notice Recommendation Adopt ordinance contained in Exhibit 1. Previous Council Action The City Council heard an introduction to the proposed amendment at the February 9, 2016 Council meeting. Narrative There is a discrepancy between a provision in the Edmonds Community Development Code and Washington State law regarding the issuance of a notice of application. RCW 36.70.B.110(3) requires notice of application to be issued at least 15 days prior to an open record predecision hearing. However, ECDC 20.03.002.B.2 only requires that a notice of application be issued at least 14 days prior to an open record predecision hearing. The proposed amendment is to make ECDC 20.03.002.B.2 consistent with state law and require notice of applications to be issued at least 15 days prior to an open record predecision hearing. The Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on February 10, 2016 and recommended the Council adopt the proposed amendment as contained in Exhibit 1. Draft Planning Board minutes are provided in Exhibit 3. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Proposed Ordinance Amending ECDC 20.03.002 - Notice of Application Exhibit 2 - RCW 36.70B.110 Exhibit 3 - February 10, 2016 Draft Planning Board Minutes Excerpt Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Scott Passey 02/12/2016 07:29 AM Mayor Dave Earling 02/12/2016 08:09 AM Packet Page 164 of 175 Finalize for Agenda Form Started By: Kemen Lien Final Approval Date: 02/12/2016 Scott Passey 02/12/2016 09:16 AM Started On: 02/11/2016 04:42 PM Packet Page 165 of 175 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE REQUIRED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC NOTICE PRIOR TO AN OPEN RECORD PREDECISION HEARING FROM AT LEAST FOURTEEN DAYS TO AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS, AND AMENDING ECDC 20.03.002 TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. WHEREAS, RCW 36.70B.110(3) requires a notice of application to be provided at least fifteen days prior to any open record predecision hearing on an application; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Community Development Code is not consistent with this requirement; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council would like to make the ECDC consistent with state law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Subsection 20.03.002.B of the Edmonds Community Development Code, a subsection of the section entitled "Notice of application," is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through): B. Issuance of Notice of Application. 1. A notice of application shall be issued within 14 days after the city has made a determination of completeness pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003. 2. If any open record predecision hearing is required for the requested development project permit(s), the notice of application shall be provided at least fifteen474 days prior to the open record hearing. Packet Page 166 of 175 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: :• JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 167 of 175 SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CHANGING THE REQUIRED PERIOD FOR PUBLIC NOTICE PRIOR TO AN OPEN RECORD PREDECISION HEARING FROM AT LEAST FOURTEEN DAYS TO AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS, AND AMENDING ECDC 20.03.002 TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2016. 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 3 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Page 168 of 175 RCW 36.70B.110: Notice of application —Required elements—Integrati... http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70B.110 RCW 36.70B.110 Notice of application —Required elements —Integration with other review procedures —Administrative appeals (as amended by 1997 c 396). (1) Not later than April 1, 1996, a local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall provide a notice of application to the public and the departments and agencies with jurisdiction as provided in this section. If a local government has made a threshold determination (( )) under chapter 43.21 C RCW concurrently with the notice of application, the notice of application ((staafl)) may be combined with the threshold determination ((Of SigRifiGaR -o)) and the scoping notice for a determination of significance. Nothing in this section prevents a determination of significance and scoping notice from being issued prior to the notice of application. (2) The notice of application shall be provided within fourteen days after the determination of completeness as provided in RCW 36.7013.070 and include the following in whatever sequence or format the local government deems appropriate: (a) The date of application, the date of the notice of completion for the application, and the date of the notice of application; (b) A description of the proposed project action and a list of the project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW 36.70B.070 or 36.70B.090; (c) The identification of other permits not included in the application to the extent known by the local government; (d) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing the notice of application, such as a city land use bulletin, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; (e) A statement of the public comment period, which shall be not less than fourteen nor more than thirty days following the date of notice of application, and statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights. A local government may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit; (f) The date, time, place, and type of hearing, if applicable and scheduled at the date of notice of the application; (g) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and of consistency as provided in RCW 36.70B.040; and (h) Any other information determined appropriate by the local government. (3) If an open record predecision hearing is required for the requested project permits, the notice of application shall be provided at least fifteen days prior to the open record hearing. (4) A local government shall use reasonable methods to give the notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction and may use its existing notice procedures. A local government may use different types of notice for different categories of project permits or types of project actions. If a local government by resolution or ordinance does not specify its method of public notice, the local government shall use the methods provided for in (a) and (b) of this subsection. Examples of reasonable methods to inform the public are: (a) Posting the property for site -specific proposals; (b) Publishing notice, including at least the project location, description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and location where the complete application may be reviewed, in the newspaper of general circulation in the general area where the proposal is located or in a local land use newsletter published by the local government; (c) Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered; Packet Page 169 of 175 1 of 5 2/2/2016 9:25 AM RCW 36.70B.110: Notice of application —Required elements—Integrati... http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70B. I 10 (d) Notifying the news media; (e) Placing notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade journals; (f) Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, either general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and (g) Mailing to neighboring property owners. (5) A notice of application shall not be required for project permits that are categorically exempt under chapter 43.21 C RCW, unless a public comment period or an open record predecision hearing is required. (6) A local government shall integrate the permit procedures in this section with environmental review under chapter 43.21 C RCW as follows: (a) Except for a threshold determination (( )), the local government may not issue (( +� threshold determination, u e)) a decision or a recommendation on a project permit until the expiration of the public comment period on the notice of application. (b) If an open record predecision hearing is required and the local government's threshold determination requires public notice under chapter 43.21C RCW, the local government shall issue its threshold determination at least fifteen days prior to the open record predecision hearing. (c) Comments shall be as specific as possible. (7) A local government may combine any hearing on a project permit with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency provided that the hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the local government. Hearings shall be combined if requested by an applicant, as long as the joint hearing can be held within the time periods specified in *RCW 36.70B.090 or the applicant agrees to the schedule in the event that additional time is needed in order to combine the hearings. All agencies of the state of Washington, including municipal corporations and counties participating in a combined hearing, are hereby authorized to issue joint hearing notices and develop a joint format, select a mutually acceptable hearing body or officer, and take such other actions as may be necessary to hold joint hearings consistent with each of their respective statutory obligations. (8) All state and local agencies shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the local government in holding a joint hearing if requested to do so, as long as: (a) The agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so; (b) Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies' adopted notice requirements as set forth in statute, ordinance, or rule; and (c) The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant to hold its hearing at the same time as the local government hearing. (9) A local government is not required to provide for administrative appeals. If provided, an administrative appeal of the project decision, combined with any environmental determinations, shall be filed within fourteen days after the notice of the decision or after other notice that the decision has been made and is appealable. The local government shall extend the appeal period for an additional seven days, if state or local rules adopted pursuant to chapter 43.21 C RCW allow public comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the appealable project permit decision. (10) The applicant for a project permit is deemed to be a participant in any comment period, open record hearing, or closed record appeal. (11) Each local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall adopt procedures for administrative interpretation of its development regulations. [1997 c 396 § 1; 1995 c 347 § 415.1 NOTES: *Reviser's note: RCW 36.7013.090 expired June 30, 2000, pursuant to 1998 c 286 § 8. Packet Page 170 of 175 2 of 5 2/2/2016 9:25 AM RCW 36.70B.110: Notice of application —Required elements—Integrati... http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70B.110 RCW 36.70B.110 Notice of application —Required elements —Integration with other review procedures —Administrative appeals (as amended by 1997 c 429). (1) Not later than April 1, 1996, a local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall provide a notice of application to the public and the departments and agencies with jurisdiction as provided in this section. If a local government has made a determination of significance under chapter 43.21C RCW concurrently with the notice of application, the notice of application shall be combined with the determination of significance and scoping notice. Nothing in this section prevents a determination of significance and scoping notice from being issued prior to the notice of application. Nothing in this section or this chapter prevents a lead agency, when it is a project proponent or is funding a project, from conducting its review under chapter 43.21 C RCW or from allowing appeals of procedural determinations prior to submitting a project permit application. (2) The notice of application shall be provided within fourteen days after the determination of completeness as provided in RCW 36.7013.070 and, except as limited by the provisions of subsection (4)(b) of this section, shall include the following in whatever sequence or format the local government deems appropriate: (a) The date of application, the date of the notice of completion for the application, and the date of the notice of application; (b) A description of the proposed project action and a list of the project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW 36.7013.070 or 36.70B.090; (c) The identification of other permits not included in the application to the extent known by the local government; (d) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing the notice of application, such as a city land use bulletin, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; (e) A statement of the public comment period, which shall be not less than fourteen nor more than thirty days following the date of notice of application, and statements of the right of any person to comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights. A local government may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit; (f) The date, time, place, and type of hearing, if applicable and scheduled at the date of notice of the application; (g) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been made at the time of notice, of those development regulations that will be used for project mitigation and of consistency as provided in RCW ((36.70B.040)) 36.70B.030(2); and (h) Any other information determined appropriate by the local government. (3) If an open record predecision hearing is required for the requested project permits, the notice of application shall be provided at least fifteen days prior to the open record hearing. (4) A local government shall use reasonable methods to give the notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction and may use its existing notice procedures. A local government may use different types of notice for different categories of project permits or types of project actions. If a local government by resolution or ordinance does not specify its method of public notice, the local government shall use the methods provided for in (a) and (b) of this subsection. Examples of reasonable methods to inform the public are: (a) Posting the property for site -specific proposals; (b) Publishing notice, including at least the project location, description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and location where the notice of application required by subsection (2) of this section and the complete application may be reviewed, in the newspaper of general circulation in the Packet Page 171 of 175 3 of 5 2/2/2016 9:25 AM RCW 36.70B.110: Notice of application —Required elements—Integrati... http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70B. I 10 general area where the proposal is located or in a local land use newsletter published by the local government; (c) Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered; (d) Notifying the news media; (e) Placing notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade journals; (f) Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, either general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and (g) Mailing to neighboring property owners. (5) A notice of application shall not be required for project permits that are categorically exempt under chapter 43.21C RCW, unless ((a public comment period „r)) an open record predecision hearing is required or an open record appeal hearing is allowed on the project permit decision. (6) A local government shall integrate the permit procedures in this section with its environmental review under chapter 43.21 C RCW as follows: (a) Except for a determination of significance and except as otherwise expressly allowed in this section, the local government may not issue its threshold determination(( or issue -a decision or -a recommendation on a project permi )) until the expiration of the public comment period on the notice of application. (b) If an open record predecision hearing is required ((and the enrol gGVeFRmon+'c +hre6hold determination . equi. es public notice under chapter 43.2''��)), the local government shall issue its threshold determination at least fifteen days prior to the open record predecision hearing. (c) Comments shall be as specific as possible. (d) A local government is not required to provide for administrative appeals of its threshold determination. If provided, an administrative appeal shall be filed within fourteen days after notice that the determination has been made and is appealable. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this section, the appeal hearing on a determination of nonsignificance shall be consolidated with any open record hearina on the project permit. (7) At the request of the applicant, a local government may combine any hearing on a project permit with any hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency ((provided that)) if• a The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the local government((. Hearings s" be combined of requested by an applieant, as )): and b The joint hearing can be held within the time periods specified in *RCW 36.70B.090 or the applicant agrees to the schedule in the event that additional time is needed in order to combine the hearings. All agencies of the state of Washington, including municipal corporations and counties participating in a combined hearing, are hereby authorized to issue joint hearing notices and develop a joint format, select a mutually acceptable hearing body or officer, and take such other actions as may be necessary to hold joint hearings consistent with each of their respective statutory obligations. (8) All state and local agencies shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the local government in holding a joint hearing if requested to do so, as long as: (a) The agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing so; (b) Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the agencies' adopted notice requirements as set forth in statute, ordinance, or rule; and (c) The agency has received the necessary information about the proposed project from the applicant to hold its hearing at the same time as the local government hearing. (9) A local government is not required to provide for administrative appeals. If provided, an administrative appeal of the project decision((, eem"ined +")) and of any environmental determination ((s)) issued at the same time as the project decision, shall be filed within fourteen days after the notice of the decision or after other notice that the decision has been made and is appealable. The local government shall extend the appeal period for an additional seven days, if state Packet Page 172 of 175 4 of 5 2/2/2016 9:25 AM RCW 36.70B.110: Notice of application —Required elements—Integrati... http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=36.70B. I 10 or local rules adopted pursuant to chapter 43.21 C RCW allow public comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the appealable project permit decision. (10) The applicant for a project permit is deemed to be a participant in any comment period, open record hearing, or closed record appeal. (11) Each local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall adopt procedures for administrative interpretation of its development regulations. [1997 c 429 § 48; 1995 c 347 § 415.1 NOTES: Reviser's note: *(1) RCW 36.70B.090 expired June 30, 2000, pursuant to 1998 c 286 § 8. (2) RCW 36.70113.110 was amended twice during the 1997 legislative session, each without reference to the other. For rule of construction concerning sections amended more than once during the same legislative session, see RCW 1.12.025. Severability-1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201. Packet Page 173 of 175 5 of 5 2/2/2016 9:25 AM CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 10, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5"b Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Daniel Robles (excused) Samuel Kleven (Student Representative) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2016 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was modified to place Item 6a (Public Hearing Regarding Amendment to ECDC 20.03.002) before Item 5a (Update on Planning for Highway 99 Area). The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD The Board Members did not have any questions relative to the written Director's Report PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENT TO ECDC 20.03.002 — NOTICE OF APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS (FILE NUMBER AMD20160001) Mr. Lien explained that there is a discrepancy between the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). RCW 36.70.B.110(3) requires that a notice of application be issued at least 15 days prior to an open record pre -decision hearing, but ECDC 20.03.002.B.2 only requires that a notice of application be issued at Packet Page 174 of 175 least 14 days prior to an open record pre -decision hearing. The proposed amendment to ECDC 20.03.002.13.2 (Exhibit 1) would make the ECDC consistent with State Law and require a notice of application to be issued at least 15 days prior to an open record pre -decision hearing. Mr. Lien pointed out that the RCW actually has two versions of 3 6.70.B. 110(3). The 1997 Legislature amended the language twice, and neither amendment referenced the other. Because they were not in conflict with each other, they were both codified. He summarized that the proposed code change is very simple, changing the requirement for notices of application, which are required for Type II and Type IIIB decisions, from 14 days to 15 days. Chair Lovell said it appears the proposed amendment is a procedural change that is needed to align state requirements with the City's code. None of the Board Members had any questions or comments regarding the proposed amendment. Mr. Lien explained that the proposed amendment was introduced to the City Council on February 9 h, and a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for February 16th CHAIR LOVELL OPENED THE HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE, AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ECDC 20.03.002.B.2, REQUIRING NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO BE ISSUED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO AN OPEN RECORD PRE -DECISION HEARING, TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED BY STAFF AND AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 1. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UPDATE ON PLANNING FOR HIGHWAY 99 AREA Mr. Chave advised that Ms. Hope and the consultant team provided an update on planning for the Highway 99 Area to the City Council on February 9t". For the Board's information, he played a video recording of the presentation. The following is a summary of the presentation: Alex Joyce, Senior Project Manager, Fregonese Associates, explained that the intent is to build on past planning efforts, and the team is currently reviewing past plans and talking with staff and regional stakeholders to get their views on what has worked well, what needs to be changed, and what their vision is for this stretch of Highway 99. This process will continue in the weeks ahead, and he anticipates the consulting team willprovide periodic updates as progress is made. Mr. Joyce announced that a public workshop is scheduled for March 24`' and will provide an opportunity for members of the community to experiment with different options via a process called scenario planning. The process is rooted in tapping into the vision that the community already has rather than preformed views of what ought to happen. At the workshop, participants will be divided into groups of 8 to 10 for a hands-on exercise where they can sketch out their vision for both land use and transportation for this stretch of Highway 99. Instant polling technology will also be used at the workshop so that everyone in the room can instantly know what others are thinking about a particularly idea or proposal. Following the workshop, the team will hold one-on-one meetings with key stakeholders. In addition, the project will be branded and a project website will be created and linked to the City's website. This will allow people, through an on-line survey, social media and other avenues, to stay plugged in and engaged. Mr. Joyce advised that Fregonese Associates uses scenario planning software, which allows them to sketch out future alternatives for Highway 99 based on the public workshop process and direction from City Council. This helps to better understand how future improvements, both public and private, can influence housing production and affordability, housing and employment capacity, fiscal impacts etc. Using computer modeling, future improvements can be measured across a variety of indicators that are important to the community. The design team is also using computer technology to create a hot -spot analysis that identifies opportunities along the corridor for infill and redevelopment, as well as opportunities to connect to adjacent neighborhood and community amenities. A lot of informative maps will be produced over the next several weeks to provide information that will be highlighted on the website to get the public engaged. This is a great way to distill otherwise complicated information and allows the team to zero in on places that have multiple opportunities as they Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2016 Page 2 Packet Page 175 of 175