The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-07-05 City Council - Full Agenda-1715o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JULY 5, 2016, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2016 2. Approval of claim checks. 3. Approval of Payroll and Benefit Direct Deposit, Checks and Wire Payments 4. May 2016 Monthly Financial Report 5. Impact Fee Collection Ordinance Adoption 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. Cemetery Board's "Walk Back in Time" at the Edmonds Cemetery (5 min.) 2. Planning Board Update (15 min.) 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. ACTION ITEMS 1. Resolution for Administrative Fee Related to Impact Fee Program (5 min.) 8. STUDY ITEMS 1. Presentation of Planning Board's Recommended Sign Code Amendments (30 min.) 2. 2016 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment (20 min.) 3. HR Director position (10 min.) 9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS 12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PER RCW 42.30.140(4)(A) 13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda July 5, 2016 Page 1 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 28, 2016 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 06-28-2016 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 2 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES June 28, 2016 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Kristiana Johnson, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT R. Speer, Police Officer M. Richardson, Police Sergeant Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Johnson proposed the following changes to the agenda due to the large turnout to speak regarding the coal and oil train resolutions: • Postpone the Planning Board Update (Item 5.1) to next week • Remove Presentation of Ordinance to add no parking signs on 238th Street SW (Item 4) from the agenda at the request of the City Engineer • Postpone Planning Board recommendation regarding sign code amendments (Item 5) • Limit audience comments to two minutes each The Council agreed with the suggested changes. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Teitzel requested Item 1 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a 2. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JEANICE BLY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND CHRISTA U. GERDES ($628.85) 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 4. ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.16.040 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE (ECC); AMENDING THE SPEED LIMIT ALONG A SECTION OF SR-104 ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2016 Councilmember Teitzel requested "Price" be changed to "Pierce" in two places on page 2. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ITEM 1 AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS PLANNING BOARD UPDATE This item was postponed to the July 5 Council meeting. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Deejah Sherman -Peterson, Seattle, husband Ron and grandson Ethan (Edmonds resident along with his parents), expressed concern with transporting fossil fuel by rail; dangerous cargos to ship by any means. She provided a timeline of oil train derailments that includes one in Seattle under the Magnolia bridge with 97 tank cars each with 27,000 gallons of volatile Bakken crude oil. BNSF did not notify authorities of this derailment for over an hour and then claimed to the Department of Ecology that no hazardous materials were involved. BNSF also said there was no risk to life or safety and no potential for either despite the risk of an oil spill from tank cars. The Seattle director of emergency management learned about the derailment after 6 a.m. when he heard about it on the news; the Fire Department learned about the derailment at 6:54 a.m. via a 911 call from a business. She recommended not trusting BNSF when they say they care about safety and health. She said the extraction, shipping and burning of coal and oil cannot be ignored due to global warming and May was the 13th consecutive month to set global temperature records. If the current course continues, our descendants will be left a fundamentally different world. She submitted written comments. Raging Grannies, Seattle, sang a song to the tune of Home, Home on the Range: The Northwest is our home and we don't want it blown up by trains carrying volatile oil. There tanks are so old, they can easily explode; we've seen how they kill and they maim. Keep those trains far from us, or better yet don't let us muse our climate up more, let's show them the door, keep the oil in the ground ever more. How can we let greed so easily impede our right to a climate that's clean? The future looks bleak unless can keep fossil fuels down where belong. Keep those trains far from us, or better yet don't let us muse our climate up more, let's show them the door, keep the oil in the ground ever more. This statement we make is strong not opaque, clearly we fear for our lives. In the present and then for our kids and our kin, keep all that oil in the ground. Cynthia Linet, Seattle, an artist and political activist applauded and supported the Council's desire to stop bomb trains from coming through Edmonds. Although Edmonds may be the first city to declare itself a fossil fuel zone, it is in the forefront of the campaign to rid ourselves of the dangerous trains as well as all fossil fuels. She said the the explosion of one car in Mosier last month was a taste of what can happen if this suicidal course continues. Climate change is no longer a subtle abstraction with no consequences, it is the existential problem of our time. Appalachia is experiencing a 1,000-year flood, extreme droughts in Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 4.1.a California and record heat is causing catastrophic wild fires. There are 8 fires burning, last week there were 300 new fires and last year was the most damaging in history, 15 miles in one afternoon. Engineers driving these trains are filled with such anxiety that there have already been suicides. The Seattle Fire Department has said once a car explodes, there is no practical way to contain it, water cannot be used and foam too expensive to be practical for a fire department to maintain a supply. Many in the scientific community believe the tipping point has already been reached, the point where no matter what is done, it will not change the course of history. But that is not a reason not to try; this work is done not because it will be successful but because we must do everything to protect this climate for our children. Richard Gammon, Shoreline, a professor emeritus of chemistry ad oceanography at the UW, 35 years as a climate scientist, said the directed the US program to measure carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere and was the co-author on the first assessment by the intergovernmental panel on climate change in 1990. The immediate concern is the safety and health of communities like Edmonds through which an increasing number of fossil fuel trains pass, some carrying extremely volatile Bakken crude, others pulverized coal that sheds toxic dust. Both are a direct health hazard and violate Washington State and federal air quality standards as recently determined by direct trackside measurements by Atmospheric professor Daniel Jaffee, UW Bothell. The morale obligation goes far behind direct health effects and threats to Edmonds, as Washington State residents aims to lead the transition from an economy based on polluting fossil fuel energy to one based on clean, renewable energy. He opposed any expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure and capacity. With the Paris Accords in mind, the world is legally committed to move away from fossil fuels in order to achieve a world with carbon balance, hopefully before 2070. Increasing the transport of coal and oil on BNSF lines passing through Shoreline and Edmonds is a step in the wrong direction. He urged the Council to take a strong stand against fossil fuel trains. Brian Schleicher, Edmonds, firefighter/paramedic with Fire District 1, representing Union Local 1828, and a first responder if there were an oil train fire in Edmonds, urged the Council to pass the resolution opposing oil trains traveling through Edmonds. This new safety threat did not exist prior to 2013 and now there are an average of 8 trains passing through Edmonds. FD1 does not currently have an incident action plan to respond. If an incident occurred, he and other firefighters would do everything in their power to limit the damage but that would be too late; an ounce of prevention was worth a ton of response in this case where a majority of the damage occurred in the first few minutes. He relayed the firefighters' and union local's support for the resolution. Due to the danger, he recommended at least implementing the engineering controls required to be safe. Having oil transported in DOT111 tank cars designed in the 1960s is not the safe way; these cars fail and cause fires that have the potential to kill people within a %2 mile radius. Senator Maralyn Chase, Edmonds, said she considers a lot of policy issues and frequently works with BNSF in her role as the co-chair of the rail caucus in the legislator. BNSF makes it clear they do not have choice in the freight they carry, therefore, it is a national issue that needs to be address which is why the resolution is so important. With regard to the derailment under the Magnolia bridge, she relayed the engineer's comment that he thought he had bought it that night and didn't know whether the cars would explode. She noted 50 feet away from the track was a homeless person with a fire; had a tank car been punctured, the explosion would have destroyed the bridge and the surrounding area. This is an issue that needs to be raised with Congress to change the federal law. Mike Shaw, Edmonds, thanked the Council for the resolution and for listening to the community. Last week one or two Councilmembers questioned the existence of coal dust. As the oil train resolution is a no brainer, he described the need for a strong coal train resolution. BNSF and the coal companies will say coal dust does not exist, a blatant lie. It is scientifically measurable; Dr. Dan Jaffee measured it several years ago in different locations in Washington state. It exists up to a '/2 mile on either side of the tracks, it contains lead, arsenic and mercury. Coal dust enters Puget sound, the marsh and organic gardens and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 4.1.a because it lubricates the tracks, derailments are more common. BNSF knows this but do not care and there are still derailment problems with oil trains. BNSF's claims that a surfactant will prevent coal dust is untrue; empty coal trains produce as much or more coal dust as a loaded coal train. A BNSF vice president admitted in public testimony that by the time a coal train arrives at its destination, it has lost several hundred pounds to coal dust. Dennis Lowenthal, Edmonds, said in July 2014 the Washington State Council of Firefighters issued a statement to to the governor asking for a halt of all oil trains until a safety review was complete. After the Mosier derailment, Governor Inslee called for a halt on Union Pacific railroad oil trains traveling through Washington until stricter safety standards are enacted. Over 10 fires and explosions in the US over the past 2-3 years and another near Quebec, Canada destroyed half a suburban and took 47 lives. Newer, safer tank cars have been punctured, caught fire and exploded in recent years. No amount of monitoring and maintenance will protect citizens when there are hundreds of thousands of miles of track and excessively heavy loads are being transported. He has a view of the tracks along Puget Sound from his home and has seen sinkholes appear under the tracks during maintenance efforts as well as the tracks moving up and down as heavy loads are transported. These and many other problems can be undetectable and lead to accidents. An estimated area of significant damage from an oil train explosion on the DOT webpage is a radius of 'h mile. Citizens pick up most of the financial burden as railroad insurance is inadequate to cover the resultant enormous costs of an explosion. He urged the Council to support the Governor's lead and respect the firefighters' warning to halt oil trains until it can be determined if they are safe. Maris Abelson, Lake Forest Park, expressed support for the oil and coal train resolutions. A mother of a 5-year old, said since hearing about oil train fires, derailments and resulting environmental contamination, her son is afraid whenever he goes to Richmond Beach. She urged the Council to stand against oil trains and join the myriad other cities uniting to send the federal government the clear message that lives and homes face an unnecessary catastrophic risk every time an oil train passes. There is no adequate method of treating a large-scale oil train fire and no emergency financial aid to cover the loss of thousands of homes, business and livelihoods. Natural disasters occur daily throughout the county due to clime change; meanwhile some European countries are approaching 100% renewable energy. Her son is part of a generation growing up fearing the effects of climate change. Take a stand for clean energy, create alternative jobs for the fossil fuel workers and transition immediately or face the devastation of our plant and our children. Stop putting our children and environment at risk from derailment, explosions, fire and contaminations in residential areas. If a fraction of the the $5.3 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuel companies were spent on renewable infrastructure and modernizing our energy grid, we would be well on our way to national energy self-sufficiency. The US currently uses 3,819 terawatts of electricity/year. The US has 89,000 terawatts of wind energy potential and 116,146 terawatts of solar energy potential, enough to potential solar and wind energy to power the county 16 times. Bohdi Abelson, Lake Forest Park, said every time he goes to the beach he is nervous about oil trains passing through Edmonds because he feels like they are going to explode. Adi Piper, Seattle, a climate activist, expressed his support for the resolution against oil trains and coal trains because of the danger of fossil fuels. Even if tanker cars were made safer, they are going to oil refineries, traveling on tracks through cities and the fossil fuel is still being burned. Climate change is not fictitious. Seattle has been citing the dangers of oil trains for two years and has asked for a halt. Oil trains travel under downtown Seattle, under bridges and next to sports stadiums that seat 60,000. If a tank car exploded, it would incinerate a lot of people and things. It is important to stop trains carrying oil through Edmonds before a catastrophe happens. He called for a change now to renewable energy. Laura Johnson, Edmonds, was excited by the resolutions and by Edmonds looking at being first. She thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for her dedication to this important issue. Unfortunately, even Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 4.1.a as as awareness has increased, so have accidents. She appreciated each Councilmember's concern and attention to this issue and was proud Edmonds was taking a strong stance to protect the health and wellbeing of its citizens. She expressed her support for a strong resolution to ban oil trains through Edmonds. She thanked the Council for protecting her family, community and the environment. Carlo Voli, Edmonds, a member of Edmonds Unitarian congregation and one of the vice presidents of the Edmonds Community Solar Cooperative which has 23 kilowatts of solar panels on the Frances Anderson Center roof providing clean power to the City at a reduced rate, said his friend and the founder of the Solar Cooperative, Chris Herman, who passed away two weeks ago would have supported the resolutions. He wanted to see an Edmonds that has more solar projects, public transportation, bike lanes, pea patches, vegetable gardens, that takes care of the remaining tree cover, parks and beaches and a City Council that puts the wellbeing and safety of its citizens and ecosystem as a first priority. He would like to see less of an Edmonds that is used as a fossil fuel corridor for climate change inducing, oil spill exploding and coal dust spewing trains, that bows down to corporate and special interest powers and puts profits over people and disregards the serious threat of climate change and climate disruption. He expressed support for the passage of the two resolutions. Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, said she lives within the impact zone of a train bomb. She agreed with the previous environmental concerns that have been expressed. She thanked the City Council for seriously considering the matter and trying to take action in the face of great adversity. Big oil, coal and trains companies have a lot of legal advantages, they prevent transparency, it is difficult to get records and there are laws that protect them. Because many laws need to be changed, she is completing a degree in environmental law and policy with Vermont Law School. She thanked the chair of the Sierra Chair Dean Smith, Janet Way and other Sierra Club Members who are present. With regard to the importance of prevention, she noted Edmonds did not have any signs stating fireworks were illegal like are displayed in Woodway, even though there is the potential for a forest fire in Edmonds from fireworks. Michael Foster, Seattle, parent of children in a lawsuit with the Department of Ecology; fossil fuel emissions in Washington State must be cut 6-10% every year until fossil fuels are not burned anymore or the constitutional rights of every child in the state are violated. He congratulated the Council for being on the right side of history. As soon as the lawsuit is done, the clean air law will be strengthened and will be a meaningful thing to reduce emissions on a path to a clean and recovering climate. As the Pope states, if we take care of our place on earth and each other, we will not hurt the planet. He displayed a gas pump nozzle, suggested putting a warning label on gas pumps, similar to the label on cigarettes, to change thinking and behavior and address arguments about protecting industries that are destroying the planet. The Surgeon General's report on cigarettes was issued at the same time the White House issued the first report on climate change. Bill Phipps, Edmonds, said the resolutions are well written. The issue is global climate change, not a hypothetical theory; it is happening now and faster than anyone thought it would. It is up to us to stop it; we can't just think about it or hope that someone else will address it. We must stop burning coal now, stop shipping coal to Asia now, stop mining Bakken crude now, and not allow the second railroad track to be installed. The second track is not the future; it will be the end. If we do not act now, on our deathbeds we will see a sick planet, rising oceans and rising temperatures forcing migrations of millions of people with no place to go. He questioned whether we were going to say there's nothing I can do or whether we would be proud for standing up to the dirty energy corporations and demanding a just transition to a clean energy economy. The time is now, we must act or at least try. He was certain the Council would make the right decision and was proud to be in Edmonds. Will Wilcox, Edmonds, concurred with the essential facts that have been stated and was grateful the Council was taking this issue seriously. A resident on the west side of the tracks, close to the Edmonds Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 4.1.a Senior Center, recalled trains have been stopped for 3-4 hours twice in the last 3 years; medical emergencies during that time would have been a serious matter. This much more than NYMBY, it is a question of what is in our heart and what is happening in the world. He agreed with the regional and global issues that have been brought up, but in a narrower viewpoint, he could not imagine that the dream of an Edmonds Waterfront Center was a viable concept as long as this issue remained unresolved. He encouraged the Council to consider that in their decision. Jim Wassall, Edmonds, referred to today's neighborhood meeting about Sunset Avenue, the walkway, and parking which Councilmembers Tibbott and Teitzel attended. He relayed the following suggested signage changes: 1. Caspers Street runs east -west and ends at Sunset. Consider installing a no left turn sign on Caspers before it ends 2. Sunset Avenue ends at Caspers Street. Consider a do not enter sign next to the no left turn sign on both sides of Caspers 3. Consider a wrong way sign on the north end of Sunset Avenue Bea Wilson, Edmonds, expressed her full support for the resolution. A resident of downtown Edmonds for over 16 years, former Shoreline resident for 40 years, great grandmother of 4, 3 grandchildren and 7 sons said some family members are in the marine industry and she was concerned with safety. A retired geriatric nursing specialist, she was concerned with seniors, newborns and youth who have compromised breathing and asthma that alters the quality of their lives. Her late husband had COPD and eventually cancer; for 10 years his quality of life decreased due to pollutants in the air. She has also been a community service volunteer for 60 years, a watershed steward with Sno-King Watershed Council, and a certified water quality monitor. She thanked the Council for their serious consideration of the resolutions. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, referenced the sign code and requested the Council consider the purpose of the Edmonds sign code. The Carmel sign code, which she distributed, answers that question; it states the image that Carmel wants and to maintain that image, avoid an excessive number of signs and use them for identification, not advertisement, and inform a resident or visitor what to expect. With regard to why, she referenced option 3 in the Planning Board's recommendation which she felt was an unholy cross between a shell game and a snow job. Sign codes generally have two major sign categories, temporary and permanent. In option 3, half the signs in the temporary category are made permanent. In between that transformation, they magically pass through a new intermediate category, pedestrian. Under option 3, temporary, illegal signs that currently litter Edmonds streets become permanent and legal. She questioned how that solved the problems of visual blight and proliferation. She urged the Council not to consider option 3 as it only makes the existing condition worse. Rich Voget, Seattle, expressed support for the language in the resolution that states the transport and use of large volumes of crude oil is not compatible with City of Edmonds' role as regional and national leader in addressing climate change. He relayed being told the technology to combat climate change is at hand but the political will to implement is lacking. He thanked the Council for showing their political will by opposing coal and oil trains because their cargo, when burned, will worsen the effects of climate change, as well as for making this statement now because further delay cannot be afforded. Climate scientists state 80% of the known fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground to have a stable climate for future generations. It takes at least 40 years for the emissions created on the earth to rise into the troposphere where they become heat -trapping greenhouse gasses. If all the emissions were stopped tomorrow, floods, droughts and ocean acidification will get much worse for the next 40 years. If we wait another 40 years a climate catastrophe will have happened. The fossil fuel companies want us to believe there are no problems with climate change. If business as usual continues unchallenged, climate change can become irreversible. He urged the Council to have the political courage to send a message to Washington DC to fight climate change by saying no to coal and oil trains through Edmonds. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 4.1.a Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, said danger travels on the railroad threatening downtown. Every week oil trains pass through the city, carrying crude oil from North Dakota that is very flammable and highly combustible, a mixture of oil and natural gas liquids including propane, methane and butane. As the oil trains travel, the gases separate and rise to the top, covering the oil. If the gases come into contact with air, a spark can cause an explosion that triggers a series of fireballs. First responders are not prepared to contain the hazardous materials; they will cordon off the area and wait for it burn out. USDOT assigns a %2-mile evacuation zone for oil train derailments and a 1-mile impact zone in case of an oil train fire. If that happened, the downtown core would be up in flames including shops, houses, condominiums, restaurants, Edmonds Center for the Arts, the senior center and the ferry dock. She urged the Council not to let this happen and to save the community by saying no to oil trains. Jaci Leavitt, Edmonds, said she visits the waterfront often and finds it intense when oil trains pass by. While visiting the beach recently with her 10-year old niece they and others waited in close proximity to let the train pass by. Although Edmonds is a serene town for visitors and residents, she does not invite friends to Edmonds because the trains make the beach loud and dangerous. She relayed her understanding Union Pacific was held responsible for the derailment in Mosier, Oregon, but no changes are proposed with regard to the railroad and there is no explanation other than blame. She recalled an oil spill 1/4 mile north of Edmonds on August 30, 2006 that was evident on the rocks in Edmonds, a reminder that it can happen at any time. Janet Way, Shoreline, a former Councilmember, president of the Shoreline Preservation Society and a member of the Snohomish Group of the Sierra Club, said she frequently visits Edmonds, and her parents used to stay at the Harbor Inn on the waterfront. She thanked the Council and Mayor for being brave enough to consider the idea of a moratorium because Edmonds, Shoreline, Seattle, and all the cities along the route as well as wildlife and people living near the tracks are in danger. She also applauded the audience members for taking a stand. She thanked the Council for setting an example, anticipating Shoreline will take action next. She summarized a moratorium was appropriate because there was an emergency. Dean Smith, Everett, chair of the Snohomish Group of the Sierra Club, asked the Council to approve the resolution requesting a moratorium on the passage of crude oil trains through Edmonds. During the past three years, the Sierra Club's train watch that counts trains passing through Snohomish County has found an average of 15 crude oil trains/week; the number of coal trains have declined but there is at least one/day. Trains disrupt traffic, spew excessive amounts of diesel fumes into neighborhoods, and sometimes derail and ignite into dangerous fire balls. Hundreds of thousands of people live within the blast zones of the track and dozens of schools are exposed. He lives three blocks from the tracks in Everett and is acutely aware of the fragile bluffs between Edmonds and Everett, bluffs that experience frequent landslides across the tracks that can and do cause train derailments. Longer and more frequent trains of volatile oil greatly increase the likelihood of a catastrophic derailment on the waterfront. The combination of oil trains and coal trains on the same tracks under the bluffs is a deadly risk. He can feel the ground shake when a coal train passes and he believes those vibrations cause small fissures in the clay soils of the bluff and increase the likelihood of landslides during subsequent rain storms. There were 200 landslides in the 2014-15 200 winter, an issue that was to be studied under the EIS for the Gateway coal terminal but that project was dropped. There are numerous century -old railroad bridges between Edmonds and the trains destination. He urged the Council to have the courage to pass the resolution, assuring that legions of people will urge their Councils to follow Edmonds' lead. Janet Chalupnik, Edmonds, expressed her pleasure with the testimony provided tonight that addressed all aspects and points. She expressed support for the resolution and was excited Edmonds may become the first city to do this, anticipating other cities will follow suit. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 4.1.a Lora Hein, Edmonds, applauded and thanked the Council for the courageous step to stop these trains. Once a moving train starts, it is hard to stop; like a train, climate change has picked up speed over the last few years, faster than scientists predicted. Something needs to be done to slow the train, turn it around and back it up. She hoped Edmonds' courageous step to say no to coal and oil trains through the community will be able to start the process of reversing climate change and save the planet for future generations and species. Patsy Dahl, Edmonds, said in addition to trains carrying oil and coal, there are chlorine trains. She was unsure the chemical reaction that would cause, relaying chlorine alone is devastating. She recalled a report at a conference at the Lynnwood Convention Center regarding oil trains that the new, super safe oil tank cars will explode when punctured in a 12 mph crash/derailment. She agreed mudslides along the bluffs as well as a train stopping on a curve could result in a derailment and explosion. No one has enough insurance to cover the property and lives that would be lost. She appreciated the Council's willingness to put a moratorium on oil trains because it will save lives. Once Edmonds does this, other cities will follow. She volunteered to collect signatures on petitions if necessary. Robyn Ingham, Edmonds, said she lives very close to the train tracks and sees the trains passing through Edmonds every day. The railroad through Edmonds has recently become a conduit for volatile, highly combustible Bakken crude oil. The amount of crude oil transported by rail in the US has increased 4000% in the last 5 years. Each train endangers the entire community. In North America there have been more oil train spills and explosions in one year than in the previous four years. When the railroads were built, communities welcomed them and were willing to pay for the infrastructure and tolerate the associated noise and pollution because of the benefits. Today there is no benefit to Edmonds or the the environment from numerous, highly dangerous oil trains traveling close to homes and businesses; there is only great danger. It is time to take a stand against corporations that are taxed as little as 4 cents/42-gallon barrel and callously jeopardize lives, the environment and climate to make huge profits. She urged the Mayor and Councilmember to vigilantly protect the community they are elected to serve and take whatever action available to stop the trains coming through Edmonds. Jeff Mackey, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their efforts to date with regard to oil and coal transportation through Edmonds. Prior to living in Edmonds, he and his wife lived almost directly over the train tunnel, living in jeopardy for a number of years. They lobbied Seattle's government to take a stronger stand, and wrote to Governor hislee, both senators, President Obama, and Secretary Foxx. They have given up writing to BNSF, knowing they do not care. This was most recently witnessed in the waterfront study where all recommendations related to BNSF were rejected without any reasonable explanation. When asked if BNSF would commit to stopping trains outside the city during a waterfront emergency, the BNSF representative dodged the question. Although they applaud the Council's consideration of the resolutions, he asked when the City will file suit against Secretary Foxx and BNSF to stop the danger to the community. If legal action was required, he assured all the people in the audience would support the Council. David Richman, Edmonds, said he moved here in October from Las Cruces, New Mexico, where his house was within blast zone of the Sante Fe train line where they saw rail cars carrying chlorine, oil, etc. He applauded the Council for attacking this difficult situation, commenting corporations are very powerful and there is a lot of pressure to keep trains rolling. He cited the need to stop oil trains, commenting it should have stopped 20 years ago. As a biologist, he learned a great deal about volatile chemicals in New Mexico coal mines and oil fields and was familiar with the smell of sulfur and hydrogen sulfide which the locals in New Mexico call the smell of money He applauded and thanked the Council for the resolutions. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 4.1.a Paul Adler, Shoreline, said he comes to Edmonds regularly to ride the train to Seattle. On today's train trip, they passed two oil trains waiting to pass through Edmonds. He recalled thinking what if the disaster that happened in Mosier happened in our community. As terrible as that tragedy was, Mosier dodged a bullet; if the weather had been normal, there would have been high winds making the oil train fire impossible to extinguish. He questioned what would happen if the Mosier incident happened in Edmonds with its onshore breezes. He questioned the likelihood of a landslide occurring with an oncoming coal or oil train and the resulting impact to the community. As a professional ecologist and environment scientist specializing in streams, wetland and estuaries, he pointed out the ongoing impact of coal trains spewing coal dust on health and air quality and the permanent and cumulative impacts on streams and salmonids. He expressed support for the resolutions and encouraged the Council to take this bold action now. Monda Van Hollebeke, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for proposing the resolutions and congratulated the Council for standing up and being counted. A mother of six children raised in Edmonds, seven grandchildren and two great grandchildren, she felt it was her duty and urged the Council to do whatever they can so their future can be safe and healthy. Victoria Leistman, Seattle, an organizer for the Sierra Club, thanked the audience for attending and the Council for listening to the wide range of support and concerns being expressed. She said formal written opposition to oil trains has been passed by Westport, Stevenson, the Quinault Indian Nation, Ocean Shores, Aberdeen and Hoquiam and a request for a moratorium has been submitted by Vancouver, Seattle and Olympia and numerous other cities have requested a determination of safety, careful analysis and/or expression of concern or reconsideration regarding oil trains. Further information is available on the StandUpToOil website. She referred to the thin green line, the community of Edmonds and surrounding communities that are saying the Pacific Northwest cannot be a fair ground for fossil fuels. She referred to the political will, and the incredible opportunity this provides. Rusty West, Shoreline, thanked the Mayor and City Council for their courageous plans to ban fossil fuel trains in Edmonds. History will show that during this decade when society has turned away from fossil fuel and toward climate recovery and sustainable future, they will point to cities, individuals and recognize that Edmonds one of those cities on the cutting edge leading the way to a sustainable future. He and future generations thank the Council for taking this action. Celia Kerr, Edmonds, said she cared deeply about this issue as millions of people do. It is time to let go of the money aspect and concentrate on taking care of citizens, particularly our children and their children. It is not safe and we do not want it. She urged the Council to pass the moratorium. Dave Page, Edmonds, commented on the marvelous turnout and expressed confidence the Council will pass the resolutions. He was thankful Edmonds was taking this on, recalling Edmonds has been first in many things including the ban on plastic bans. He recalled thinking not much could get done at the local level but learned things can get done at the Council level with citizens' support. Since the tragedy in Orlando, he has been concerned about gun control. He owns a hunting rifle and a handgun but has never met a hunter using an AK47. He suggested banning assault rifles in Edmonds, noting it has to start somewhere. He was not against the Second Amendment but the founding fathers did not have assault rifles. Councilmember Mesaros thanked the audience for coming and sharing views and anticipated the Council will pass the resolutions. He referred to Mr. Foster who displayed a gas nozzle and challenged the audience to consider their use of fossil fuels, to consider whether they were walking as much as they could, and buying vehicles that use less gas. The less gas everyone uses, the fewer trains will travel through Edmonds. He encouraged the public to consider that it starts with us. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 4.1.a Council President Johnson commented upon observing the number of people in the audience, she adjusted the agenda accordingly. She appreciated the audience's patience with limiting comments to two so that the Council has time to address other business on the agenda. Due to the interest in Items 7.2 and 7.3, she suggested moving Item 7.1, Presentation by Snohomish County Conservation and Edmonds Community College, after Item 7.3, preceded by a 5-minute recess. Council President Johnson clarified the Council was not considering a moratorium; the Council will discuss the proposed resolutions and possibly make some changes but because tonight is a study session, following discussion, the Council will make a recommendation for action at the next City Council meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained this was actually a team effort although she has been following the coal and oil train issue and attending rallies/marches in the Seattle area for a number of years. She pointed out although this was a study session, four Council votes could approve the resolution tonight. 7. STUDY ITEMS 2. RESOLUTION URGING THE PROHIBITION OF TRANSPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL BY TRAIN THROUGH EDMONDS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Mayor Earling wished to be signatory on the resolutions. Mayor Earling responded yes, depending on the final language. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas read a portion of the resolution: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Edmonds strongly urges the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Congress to prohibit the transportation of crude oil by rail through the City of Edmonds. Section 2: Copies of this resolution shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the President of the United States, the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, and each member of the United States Congress elected from this State, including: Senator Patty Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell, and Representative Jim McDermott; Governor Jay Inslee; each member of the Washington State delegation representing the City of Edmonds from Districts 21 and 32, including: Senator Maralyn Chase, Senator Marko Liias, Representative Cindy Ryu, Representative Ruth Kagi, Representative Strom Peterson, and Representative Lillian Ortiz -Self. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION URGING THE PROHIBITION OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL BY RAIL THROUGH THE CITY OF EDMONDS. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the audience members for attending and agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas regarding the Council taking action to approve the resolutions tonight. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD "SECRETARY OF ENERGY" IN SECTION 2 OF THE RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Mesaros referred to the last whereas that identifies prior resolutions and suggested attaching them to the resolution as they are strongly worded and show this is not a new thing but has been a consistent message dating back to 2009. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 4.1.a COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS AS AN ATTACHMENT AND REFERENCE THE ATTACHMENTS IN THE LAST WHEREAS ON PAGE 2 OF THE RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Johnson thanked everyone who spoke to the Council, commenting their voices are important. She especially thanked the Raging Grannies for singing. Although she has not been as involved as Councilmember Fraley-Monillas in the coal and oil train activities, she has been a long standing member of Save Energy Leadership Alliance along with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and Mayor Earling. Councilmember Teitzel thanked the citizens who spoke and appreciated their passion. He agreed there was a serious issue of citizens' safety. The risk of Bakken oil transport is definitely real; explosions and fires that have occurred recently cannot be allowed to happen in Edmonds. He supported the resolution but feared it may not go far enough by addressing other substances like chlorine, ammonia, gasoline, liquefied natural gas, etc. that regularly traverse Edmonds' waterfront and are equality or more explosive as Bakken crude. He encouraged the Council to treat this as a first step and address those other products in the future. Councilmember Tibbott thanked citizens for their testimony which he found instructive. He suggested strengthening the resolution by referencing the governor's request to the oil industry and train industry regarding implementation of best practices as well as best practices like reinforced cars and slower speeds as an important step if not a requirement. He referred to page 9 of packet which states the State has pending regulations regarding emergency response, planning, spill prevention what do in the event of a hazardous waste spill and cleanup. He recommended amending the resolution to add language supporting best practices and pending State regulations. Mayor Earling said more specific language would be required for an amendment. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded the reason the resolution was drafted in this manner was it is being sent to Governor Inslee, it is a request from Edmonds, and as such should not include the governor's actions. As far as best practices, she said that was addressed in the last resolution. It would be appropriate to draft another resolution to address best practices such as changing train speeds through the City. This resolution is intended to tell the Department of Transportation that Edmonds does not want coal and oil trains coming through Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott said this resolution would be stronger if additional language was included as well as a commitment to first responders, a commitment to planning and a commitment to a restitution fund that would aid in cleanup. He offered to work with Council and staff to draft an amendment. Mayor Earling observed there was a motion to approve the resolution with two amendments. The Council could delay passage of the resolution until next week but it appeared the tenor of the Council was to adopt it tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Resolution 1317 describes the procedure for Fire District 1, requesting safer tank cars, etc. She asked for confirmation that Resolution 1317 remained in place as it has not been rescinded. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said that was correct. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ATTACH RESOLUTION 1317 DATED APRIL 17, 2014, A RESOLUTION RELATED TO PETROLEUM TRANSPORT BY RAIL THROUGH EDMONDS AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, URGING ADOPTION OF STATE LEGISLATION AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, STATE ASSESSMENT OF RISK, RAILROAD COMPANY RESTRICTIONS OF PETROLEUM TRANSPORT AND UPDATE OF CITY INCIDENT RESPONSE PLANS TO Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 13 4.1.a ADDRESS POTENTIAL SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PETROLEUM TRANSPORT BY RAIL. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with attaching Resolution 1317 as it provides history along with pertinent data and answers some questions. Councilmember Mesaros suggested referencing Resolution 1317 in the last whereas; he offered to draft the wording Councilmember Nelson said there has been a lot of discussion about the short term impact of oil trains and the short term damage of an explosion. It is important to remember the long term impacts on the climate. Many of the Council's past resolutions have been in reaction and how prepare for the immediate impacts of a disaster; the Council has never said we don't want oil trains or coal trains running through our city or Washington State which is what this resolution says. Councilmember Tibbott said Section 2 of Resolution 1317 addressed his concern about tank car design and references Governor Inslee and Department of Ecology as well as critical areas that could be affected by a derailment in Edmonds. He concluded the addition of Resolution 1317 to the current resolution strengthens it and ties it together. He supported the amendment. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess to allow Council to draft an amendment. Mr. Taraday said he understood Councilmember Mesaros' earlier amendment to include Resolution 1317 even though it was not identified by number. He suggested a new amendment. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE LAST WHEREAS TO READ: "WHEREAS PRIOR RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL (PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION 1317 APPROVED ON APRIL 17, 2014)." MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL WHEREAS TO READ, "WHEREAS EDMONDS ENCOURAGES OUR CITIZENS AND OUR VISITORS TO REDUCE THEIR USAGE OF FOSSIL FUELS IN THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES TO LESSEN THE DEMAND FOR CRUDE OIL." COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council requested the full packet be transmitted with the resolution. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RESOLUTION URGING THE PROHIBITION OF TRAINS CARRYING COAL Councilmember Nelson thanked Legislative Assistant Andrew Pierce for drafting the resolutions. He explained the coal resolution was separated from the oil train resolution because coal is a silent killer. Coal has been part of the US's history; in the last 4 decades 76,000 Americans have died from inhaling coal dust on their jobs and it is spread throughout the state via coal trains. New information has arisen since the Council passed resolutions in 2011 and 2012 specific to coal such as the study by Dr. Daniel Jaffee, a UW professor, who studied 367 trains during a 2-month period. The study concluded diesel - powered coal trains emitted twice as particulate matter as diesel -powered freight trains and coal dust made up approximately half of the coal train emissions. The Millennium Bulk Terminal SEPA review by DOE found the amount of coal dust and coal burning is the equivalent of 3.2 million tons of CO2 into the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 14 4.1.a atmosphere, the equivalent of 672,000 passenger cars on the road/year. He read a portion of the resolution: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, THAT. - Section 1: The City of Edmonds adamantly supports and urges the transition of energy production away from the consumption of fossil fuels and toward the implementation of a sustainable, renewable, and environmentally friendly system of energy production. Section 2: The City of Edmonds opposes the transportation of coal via rail through the City of Edmonds, along the Puget Sound, and other populated areas. Section 3: The City of Edmonds strongly urges the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Congress to prohibit the transportation of coal via rail through the City of Edmonds and all other populated areas. Section 4: Copies of this resolution shall be transmitted by the City Clerk to the President of the United States; the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation; the United States Secretary of Energy each member of the United States Congress elected from this State, including: Senator Patty Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell, and Representative Jim McDermott; Governor Jay Inslee; each member of the Washington State delegation representing the City of Edmonds from Districts 21 and 32, including: Senator Maralyn Chase, Senator Marko Liias, Representative Cindy Ryu, Representative Ruth Kagi, Representative Strom Peterson, and Representative Lillian Ortiz -Self. COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION URGING THE PROHIBITION OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF COAL VIA RAIL THROUGH THE CITY OF EDMONDS. COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE LAST WHEREAS TO READ, "WHEREAS PRIOR RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL (PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED TWO RESOLUTIONS 1263 APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 22, 2011, AND RESOLUTION 1218 APPROVED ON JULY 17, 2012)." MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PRESENTATION BY SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND EDMONDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE ON HOW RAIN GARDENS COULD HELP THE CITY REALIZE REDUCED FLOWS, AND IMPROVED FISH HABITAT, IN PERRINVILLE CRF,F,K Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced this item, recalling 18 months ago the Perrinville Flow Reduction Study focused on articulating and identifying strategies to reduce peak flows in the Perrinville Basin which are very erosive and mobilize soils and gravel, the single biggest threat to the water quality and flow of Perrinville Creek. That study identified a number of capital projects; a number are being pursued including design of a large infiltration project at Seaview Park. The study also identified distributed strategies that could be helpful closer to the source where stormwater is generated. The City partnered with with Snohomish Conservation District (SCD) and Edmonds Community College (EdCC) to design, market and identify locations in the Perrinville Basin where rain garden projects located outside the right-of-way could be piloted, partnering with individual property owners. He introduced Kate Riley, SCD, who introduced Laura Goff, SCD, Dr. Thomas Murphy, EdCC, and EdCC students Linda Hall and Sahayra Baroja. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 15 4.1.a A video of Representative Strom Peterson, District 21, was displayed in which he commented on Edmonds' proximity to Puget Sound and its importance in citizens' everyday lives. However, as pristine as Puget Sound looks from the surface, it is not that clean. He was excited about Edmonds, the 21't District and Washington State being on the forefront of dealing with stormwater which is the number 1 pollutant in Puget Sound. The video presentation stated: but stormwater itself is not the problem. In a natural environment stormwater slowly absorbs into the ground which cleans it before reaching Puget Sound. Stormwater becomes an issue when hard surfaces like pavement, roofs and even lawns become the prominent feature of the landscape. Representative Peterson commented on the opportunity to get citizens, homeowners and small businesses involved; a healthy Puget Sound relies on our taking care of stormwater poisons affecting our watersheds. The presentation continued: to get a closer look at the problem, we examined the Perrinville Creek watershed. Because private property makes up 87% of the watershed, homeowners are an integral part to the solution. We surveyed 82 residents; 89% were interested in have a rain garden on their property. Representatives Peterson described touring several rain gardens in the Perrinville Creek watershed, a great pilot project. He was impressed not only by the beauty of the rain gardens but the homeowners' enthusiasm throughout the process. In the video, Dan Wilson, said the rain garden on his property opened up the yard and increased wildlife. The presentation continued: high impact can be achieved in the right-of-way or area next to the road; 89% of residents would be open to rain gardens in the right-of-way. Of those interested in rain gardens in the right-of-way, 90% would be willing to maintain it 3 times a year. Victoria Bradford, neighbor to a rain garden in the right-of-way, said water from her roof goes into the rain garden instead of the street and the rain garden is not difficult to maintain. The presentation continued: trees are another nature based solution; 82% are open to planting trees in the right-of-way. Representative Peterson said Edmonds can be a leader to show others in the state what can be done by working together as a community to take care of our natural resources. Ms. Riley explained this study was initiated to compliment all the work Public Works has already done. Perrinville has been a high priority for several years. The response to the two demonstration projects has been incredible. In partnership with the City and EdCC, the SCD completed a technical and social analysis of community -based stormwater solutions in the Perrinville Basin. In the technical analysis, GIS and modeling were used to identify the scale of projects necessary to make a measurable change in the watershed. She reviewed key findings, advising there are many suitable areas identified for green stormwater infrastructure throughout the Perrinville basin in both Lynnwood and Edmonds: • Models indicate that community -based stormwater practices could have significant impact on Perrinville Creek, in a cost-effective way. • Community support for these types of solutions is overwhelming. • While most residents currently have lawns, nine out of ten prefer the aesthetics and environmental benefits of rain gardens and street trees. • The majority of residents indicated that they would be willing to maintain these practices even in the public right-of-way, with support from groups like Conservation Districts and and Master Gardeners. • Though most landowners would need some level of financial incentives and assistance to be able to retrofit their properties, the majority are willing to contribute labor and finances towards these projects. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 16 4.1.a Dr. Murphy explained EdCC students worked with SCD and the Cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood to determine what residents in the Perrinville watershed want and need, their preferences, what their yards look like and could look like. Ms. Hall reported on interviews with homeowners, relaying homeowners were very happy. One resident who knew about rain gardens, said she had wanted to do this for 2'/Z years but had delayed because she didn't understand how to design or install it. Another homeowner also knew about rain gardens but needed financial assistance and help with installation; this project made that possible. Dr. Murphy said they also surveyed homeowners in the Perrinville Creek watersehd in Edmonds and Lynnwood regarding their preferences for their yards and landscaping. Most homeowners currently have grass and trees, they expressed an overwhelming preference, nine out of ten, to the image of a rain garden versus their own lawn indicating a willing desire to make change within the community. Their reasons were aesthetics and environmental consciousness, they liked native plants, birds, the diversity of plants and flowers, colors, and the curb appeal that added to the value of their property. A total of 82 residents were surveyed via door to door and an online survey. Ms. Baroja said it was exciting to hear what homeowners had to say. She recalled interviewing two people, one who had already installed her garden and preferred not to install rain garden but was willing work with her neighbor to install one that would benefit both. A gentleman she interviewed said the only thing stopping him from installing a rain garden was the labor; if help was provided to install it, he was willing to maintain it. Dr. Murphy said in addition to soliciting motivation for residents to change to a rain garden, they also asked them to rank potential incentives the City and/or partners could provide. The surveys found financial incentives were a major factor but they were willing to contribute; on average they were willing to invest $1225 in what is an approximately $3,000 project. Technical assistance was also a major factor as well as labor assistance and neighborhood involvement. He concluded the lesson for the City Council is the Perrinville neighborhood was overwhelmingly supportive of change to benefit the environment, to manage flows and to limit pollution in streams. Councilmember Nelson said the presentation demonstrates the benefits of rain gardens. He asked how a city can help with financial incentives. Ms. Riley said many cities including Shoreline and Everett offer rebates. The SCD also offers a cost share program. She believes people need skin in game, labor, financial incentives, and a shared vision; they want to provide input during the planning. In partnering with Edmonds for two years leveraging funds for projects including contributions from the homeowners, they've realized it is not just money but supporting homeowners throughout the process. The overwhelming evidence of homeowners' willingness to work toward a sustainable solution makes this doable. Councilmember Buckshnis said WRIA 8 grants funds to groups like Sammamish and Cedar River to help homeowners clean up noxious weeds, etc. This would be a similar project. She invited SCD to contact WRIA 8 for funding, commenting WRIA 8 has looked at Perrinville including flows and culverts. WRIA 8 gets a lot of requests from King County but rarely any from Snohomish County. Ms. Riley recognized the Nature Conservancy and Boeing who funded this report. Council President Johnson said it was exciting to see community members in support of rain gardens. She encouraged Ms. Riley to with the City, partners and grant opportunities to implement a robust rain garden program. Councilmember Mesaros shared Councilmember Nelson's interest in moving forward, noting implementation will be important for staff to think about and for the Council to provide the resources. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 15 Packet Pg. 17 4.1.a Councilmember Tibbott said he heard a presentation on rain gardens while on the Planning Board at the instigation of Planning Board Member Val Stewart. Since then, he has been seeing more and more rain gardens. He asked if there were any downsides to rain gardens. Ms. Riley answered the number one concern is maintenance; the highest impacts can be achieved via biofiltration in the right-of-way, publicly owned but privately maintained. The City does not have enough staff to maintain all the rain gardens so groups like Master Gardeners need to be involved. Councilmember Tibbott said he saw one rain garden that was infested by dandelions and had become a weed patch. He relayed a concern expressed by a friend who was asked to install a water retention system that ice would collect underground during the winter and create a slide hazard. Ms. Riley said they work with a professional engineer; that level of expertise includes in-depth soil tests prior to design and construction. Some of the errors with rain gardens in other areas such as Ballard occurred because the soil tests were not completed correctly. An assessment needs to be done to identify whether a site is appropriate for a rain garden. Councilmember Tibbott asked how that worked in Edmonds. Ms. Riley said on the two neighborhood cluster projects of six rain gardens, their professional engineer worked with City staff to test and assess each location. In one right-of-way project the engineer provided all the design and construction plans to the City and the City signed off and inspected. Councilmember Tibbott summarized technical advice would be provided for homeowners and/or the City. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if residents were not interested in rain gardens. Dr. Murphy answered 90% said yes and 10% said no. He recalled comments that the person would rather see money spent on rain gardens than what was done on Sunset Avenue and that no tax dollars should be spent on rain gardens. There was a small amount of resistance; he was surprised by the amount of support in neighborhoods for rain gardens. Mr. Williams commented more has been spent on rain gardens than on Sunset Avenue. He said there will be more rain gardens in the future as redevelopment occurs. As the presentation last week regarding the stormwater code indicated, when impervious surface over 2,000 square feet is added or replaced, there will be a requirement to obtain a permit and review under Element 5 which addresses infiltration. Rain gardens are a key part and he was encouraged there were such positive feelings about rain gardens. Not every site is suitable for a rain garden such as steep slopes and poor soils. Rain gardens work well on properties with lower slopes and access from the street. In this project, Public Works crews provided rough excavation, volunteers shaped the garden and the residents bought the plants. He was not certain that model was financial sustainable on a large scale. He thanked SCD, EdCC, and City crews. 4. PRESENTATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ADD NO PARKING SIGNS ON 238TH ST. SW This item was delayed to a future agenda. 5. PRESENTATION OF PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDED SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS This item was delayed to a future agenda. 6. IMPACT FEE COLLECTION PROCESS UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope referred to information in the packet regarding the impact fee collection process, ordinance, and the existing code. She said this is not related to impact fee rates, only the collection process. The State legislature adopted a process change that requires local governments that Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 16 Packet Pg. 18 4.1.a use impact fees to allow for a deferral process, allowing payment of impact fees later in the process. Local government can choose between three options: 1. Collect impact fees at the time of final inspection 2. Collect impact fees at the time of certificate of occupancy 3. Collect impact fees after the sale of the first house. The impact fee deferral process is only for attached and detached single family housing, not commercial property. The City must choose one of three options; doing nothing is not an option. Staff recommends collecting the impact fees as early as possible in the process, definitely not after the first sale. If the impact fees is not collect at time of building permit, staff recommends collecting at the time of final inspection. The City also has the option, although it is not a state requirement, to collect an administrative fee when collecting an impact fee. The City currently does not have an administrative fee; the impact fee collected goes entirely to capital facilities and there is no fee for staff time to handle, track, calculate, etc. If the Council is comfortable with imposing an administrative fee, staff would return with the impact fee collection process ordinance for adoption at the next Council meeting. Staff would propose a resolution for collecting and setting the amount of the administrative fee along with the ordinance or at a future meeting. No policy changes are proposed; the proposal puts the existing language for transportation and park impact fees in one chapter and adds the impact fee deferral process, the collection process and the administrative fee. Councilmember Mesaros asked if there were other instances where the City has an administrative fee in addition to the fee. Ms. Hope answered generally not because permit fees are used for admin costs, not capital; impact fees go entirely to capital. Councilmember Mesaros if she had a sense of what the fee might be, whether it would be a percentage or a flat fee. Ms. Hope answered staff has looked at other cities as well as determining the amount of time to administer, report, etc. and estimate at least a 1/2 hour for a single family house. The current rate is $90/hour which staff plans to recommend be increased to $100/hour in the future. Councilmember Mesaros asked the impact fee for a 2500 square foot home. Ms. Hope answered the size does not matter. Mr. Williams said the transportation impact fee for a single family home is $2700. Councilmember Mesaros said the administrative fee would add another $50. Ms. Hope said some cities use a percentage which she was uncertain was fair because the fee was based on the amount of time, not the cost of the project. Councilmember Mesaros said some may argue that they are already paying taxes to pay for staff support and question why they should pay again. Ms. Hope said it requires extra work; if the fee system is user based, the people using that service should should pay for it. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Ms. Hope said the proposal is to charge the same administrative fee for park impact fees. Councilmember Tibbott asked why it was not desirable to collect the fee after the sale of the first house when that would be when the developer collects money. Ms. Hope said if the City waits until after the sale closes, it requires more work for the City. When the builder sells the property, it is recorded, and the buyer may not be aware they have to pay the fee after the purchase. Similarly, a developer does not pay their permit fees after they sell the house. The State allows three options; staff believes the first option is the best as it does not involve the buyer and it is less work for the City. She said builders are not required to use the impact fee deferral process; a builder can choose to pay the impact fee with the building permit. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule staff s recommendation and the administrative fee resolution on the Consent Agenda. 7. URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 19 4.1.a Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled the Council provided funding to begin the Urban Forest Management Plan this year with the idea an additional amount would be provided next year to complete it. Before an RFQ is finalized, staff wanted to discuss the scope with the Council. The primary intent of an Urban Forest Management Plan is managing right-of-way trees and trees on City property. The intent is to stay away from addressing private properties. She recalled during consideration of the critical area regulations, there was discussion about looking at wildlife habitat corridors and asked for confirmation that the Council wanted to include that. It was the consensus of the Council to include wildlife habitat corridors. Councilmember Nelson requested an assessment of the overall canopy. Ms. Hope agreed. If there was a cost issue, Councilmember Nelson requested that be presented to the Council. Ms. Hope said hand counting would be much costlier; aerial photograph or sampling would be simpler and less expensive. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how this interfaced with the critical area ordinance. She suggested refreshing Councilmembers regarding the City's guidelines related to trees on private property such as permit requirements. Ms. Hope said permits are required for tree cutting in critical areas and tree planting is required in certain other circumstances, especially when development occurs. Councilmember Mesaros commented wildlife does not distinguish between private and public property. If there is evidence wildlife is using private property for corridors, he recommended bringing that to Council to determine how to work with private property owners to preserve those areas. He noted deer at Pt. Edwards do not distinguish between public and private property. Ms. Hope said the main focus is trees but also how they interface with wildlife. Councilmember Teitzel agreed wildlife do not distinguish between private and public property and agreed with looking at the extent to which corridors extend from public to private property. He was also sensitive to the private property right issue, recalling backlash from the proposed Tree Code. He strongly urged staff and the Council as this affects private property, to do it on a voluntary basis rather than regulations. Ms. Hope said the Urban Forest Management Plan is not a regulation; it is a strategy, set goals and priorities and makes recommendations. Any regulations or adopted incentive program would require a separate action by Council. Council President Johnson said the Council has not approved $65,000 in the 2017 budget yet. Ms. Hope said it it was a package, $65,000 in 2016 and $65,000 in 2017. Council President Johnson recalled that was a proposal but it was not approved. Ms. Hope recalled it was approved together. Council President Johnson referred to the statement that the Urban Forest Management Plan could discuss issues about tree management related to scenic views, commenting that sounded like a controversial idea. Ms. Hope said it could be but did not see that as the focus. The issue of tree and view blockage has arisen; the balance between priorities and issues could be discussed in the Urban Forest Management Plan. Council President Johnson said the Comprehensive Plan refers to view corridors but to her knowledge the City has never protected private views. Ms. Hope said the language referred to public corridors. Council President Johnson said the City cannot protect private views; instances of tree cutting to preserve views have contradicted the City's ordinances. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS This item was deferred due to the late hour. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 18 Packet Pg. 20 4.1.a 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling looked forward to the 4th of July celebrations and Councilmembers participating in the parade. Mayor Earling said there has been an effort to discourage people from putting chairs out until 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. The first chairs placed in front of Starbucks this morning at 8:30 a.m. have been removed and City staff will continue to enforce the no chairs before 6:00 p.m. Having chairs in place a week before the parade present a safety issue for the public. i [I�K111Je[y M Q4111U 1011 WN R Councilmember Teitzel reported Councilmember Tibbott and he met with approximately 20 members of the Sunset Avenue community today, a passionate group with a lot of ideas and concepts. Council and citizens are happy to see progress being made on Sunset and anxious to have the project wrapped up. He relayed a request to reduce the parking limit on Sunset from 4 hours to 3 or 2 hours because the purpose of Sunset is to enjoy the view and then move on so someone else can enjoy it. He plans to advocate for a reduction in the parking limit, independent of the final changes to Sunset Avenue and recommended that be done soon. Council President Johnson commented on the recent loss of life in Turkey, noting we often feel little can be done about international events. If we believe that all politics are local, there is an opportunity to attend a special Ramadan feast at the Edmonds Lutheran Church on Thursday at 7:30 p.m. to celebrate the end of Ramadan with a feast and a guest speaker from the Muslim Association of Puget Sound. This an opportunity to come together to support freedom on religion in the United States. Councilmember Buckshnis reported Step out Edmonds, a 2-3 mile walk, has begun on Tuesdays at the Senior Center at 9:00 a.m. Registration is $10 and participants receive t-shirt. She reported on a seal pup at the dog park and cautioned the public not to cuddle, pick up or hold seal pups; instead call animal control to pick it up. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas announced the Diversity Commission plans to have a large group in the parade and she encouraged anyone who felt they fit any diversity to join them. Councilmember Nelson said it is fitting as the Council voted tonight against oil and coal trains and dirty and dangerous energy, to recognize a citizen who was a pioneer in clean energy who passed away recently, Chris Herman. Mr. Herman was a tireless advocate for solar energy, active in sustainability and Sustainable Edmonds, and President of the Edmonds Solar Cooperative, the first in Washington state to have a community -owned solar cooperative. He will be working on a resolution to name the Frances Anderson Center solar installation in honor of Mr. Herman. 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 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 21 4.1.a With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes June 28, 2016 Page 20 Packet Pg. 22 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 Approval of claim checks. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #220577 through #220694 dated June 30, 2016 for $396,958.97. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Financial Impact $396,958.97 Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claim cks 06-30-16 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 06-30-16 Packet Pg. 23 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220577 6/30/2016 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 220578 6/30/2016 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 13-25292 ii:�SYM] 220579 6/30/2016 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 13928 13929 220580 6/30/2016 074606 AIRE FILTER PRODUCTS NW LLC 19808 220581 6/30/2016 065568 ALLWATER INC 062416060 220582 6/30/2016 074674 AMERICAN PETROLEUM ENVIRO SVCS 3909051916 PO # Description/Account INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total: WWTP: PEST CONTROL 6/17/16 SE Pest Control Service for: 6/17/16 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total BACKFLOW TESTING BACKFLOW TESTING 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 BACKFLOW TEST, RETEST AFTER BACKFLOW TEST, RETEST AFTER 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 Total WWTP: AFP1123 3752C 11X23 AFP1123 3752C 11X23 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total WWTP: 6/24/16 WATER SERVICE Water services (plus rental/supplies 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total FLEET- RECYCLE OIL, ANTIFREEZ 4.2.a Page: 1 Page: 1 Packet Pg. 24 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 220582 6/30/2016 074674 AMERICAN PETROLEUM ENVIRO SVCS (Continued) 220583 6/30/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES PO # Description/Account Fleet - Recycle Oil, AntiFreeze 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Total 1988646562 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 1988646563 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1988657307 WWTP: UNIFORMS, TOWELS & MA wwtp uniforms 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 wwtp mats & towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1988657308 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 1988661360 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 4.2.a Page: 2 Amoun 344.5( 6 a� 33.7E 378.2E E c� 4- 0 56.7< 0 L a 24.9( Q 2.4z � M m 5.1( 0 CO) 110.9E c N Y 0.5( c m 57.0: E t U r r 1.6' Q 6.1' 6.1' 6.1' Page: 2 Packet Pg. 25 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220583 6/30/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 220584 6/30/2016 074031 BARTH, RUTH Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 3 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1' w PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 a� 6.0£ 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1E 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6( o 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6( 0- 9.8% Sales Tax a 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6( Q 9.8% Sales Tax ;O 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6( M 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.5£ m 1988661361 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT c FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS C? 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 6.4( o FLEET DIVISION MATS N 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 15.4� 9.8% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.6< 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 c 1.5, m Total: 327.9j E U 21151 WATERCOLOR 21151 NO FEAR WATERCOLOR INS r 21151 NO FEAR WATERCOLOR INS Q 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 299.2( 21152 DRAWING 21152 NO FEAR DRAWING INSTRU 21152 NO FEAR DRAWING INSTRU 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 374.0( Total : 673.2( Page: 3 Packet Pg. 26 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220585 6/30/2016 075217 BASLER, TONY 220586 6/30/2016 071348 BERGERABAM 220587 6/30/2016 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 220588 6/30/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 220589 6/30/2016 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 13082 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total 315211 E4MB.SERVICES THRU 6/10/16 E4MB.Services thru 6/10/16 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 Total 611835 UNIT 448 - SHAFT, BEARINGS, SEA 9.6% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Unit 448 - Shaft, Bearings, Seals 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 0061657-IN UNIT 455 - FILTERS Unit 455 - Filters 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6129 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 566.3 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 566.3 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 6149 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 466.3 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 466.3 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Total 11836 E4FB/E4JB.SERVICES THRU MAY 2 E4FB.Services thru May 2016 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 E4JB.Services thru May 2016 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 11841 ESGA/ESJA.SERVICES THRU MAY e 4.2.a Page: 4 Page: 4 Packet Pg. 27 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 5 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220589 6/30/2016 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC (Continued) ESGA.Services thru May 2016 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 1,027.5( Y ESJA.Services thru May 2016 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 1,271.0. Total: 8,786.0, E 220590 6/30/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR 18899 INV#18899 - EDMONDS PD - VARIC S/S SHIRTS-GREENMUN c 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 118.0( @ L/S SHIRT-GREENMUN 0 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.0( m L/S SHIRT-SUTTON Q' Q 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.0( L/S SHIRT- BOWER ul 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 64.0( EMBROIDER NAMETAG - GREENMI 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.0( UNIFORM PANTS - SUTTON c� 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 178.0( c UNIFORM PANTS - GREENMUN N 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 267.0( 9.8% Sales Tax E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 75.5( Total: 846.5E ; c 220591 6/30/2016 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1050766 PUBLISH PROJECTS ONLINE E E ESGA/ESFE.Publish Projects Online 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 0.6( 20 ESGA/ESFE.Publish Projects Online r Q 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 0.6( E1CA.Publish Project Online 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 249.5: Total: 250.7E 220592 6/30/2016 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 92879960 STORM - GRAVEL Page: 5 Packet Pg. 28 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 6 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220592 6/30/2016 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY (Continued) Storm - Gravel 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 203.1( 9.5% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 19.2� Total 220593 6/30/2016 074387 CAMPBELL NELSON NISSAN 192208 UNIT 17 - REPAIRS Unit 17 - Repairs 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 Total 220594 6/30/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 16185894 P & REC PRINTER IRC10301F CONI P & REC PRINTER IRC10301F COW 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 16196961 PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC10301F PARKS MAINT PRINTER IRC10301F 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 16196962 COPIER RENTAL FEE 1 COPIER RENTAL FEE 1 001.000.23.523.30.45.00 16196965 PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON' PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON' 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 Total 220595 6/30/2016 075627 CAPITOL STRATEGIES 773 FEDERAL LOBBYIST JUNE 2016 Federal lobbyist for June 2016 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 Total 220596 6/30/2016 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATION 55 COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMUNI Communications and community outr 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 Page: 6 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 7 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220596 6/30/2016 075023 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICAT (Continued) Total: 2,500.0( 220597 6/30/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC 9433437821 STORM DUMP FEES vi Storm Dump Fees Y 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 404.8, 9433445063 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt E 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 199.2( u 9.5% Sales Tax c 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 18.9< -(6- 9433469742 ROADWAY - ASPHALT > 0 Roadway - Asphalt a 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 179.9( Q 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 17.0( 9433469744 STORM DUMP FEES M Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 338.6: Total: 1,158.51 M co 220598 6/30/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 233882 WATER - SUPPLIES Water - Supplies N Y 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 47.0: E 9.8% Sales Tax c� 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4.6' LY 234867 PM: COMPRESSED GAS NOS PM: COMPRESSED GAS NOS E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 57.8( t 9.8% Sales Tax cvv 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 r 5.6( Q Total: 115.1( 220599 6/30/2016 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 47728816 INV#47728816 ACCT#7898305185 E FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 104.2E CAS WASHES FOR NARCS VEHICL Page: 7 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 8 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220599 6/30/2016 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS (Continued) 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 26.1 z TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE 104.000.41.521.21.32.00 1.3( Total: 131.6� 220600 6/30/2016 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW2884752-4 PM: PURELL PM: PURELL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.4z 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.1 z Total: 1.51 220601 6/30/2016 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 53517 EDMONDS CITY CODE UPDATE JUI EDMONDS CITY CODE SUPPLEMEI 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 315.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 30.8 1 Total: 345.8 , 220602 6/30/2016 073912 CROWN FILMS/CUSTOM BIOPLASTICS 80964 220603 6/30/2016 064531 DINES, J EAN N I E 16-3666 220604 6/30/2016 070244 DUANE HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC 16-2559.2 PM: DOG WASTE BAGS PM: DOG WASTE BAGS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 6/8/2016 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF 6/8/16 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Total E4GC.TO 16-02.SERVICES THRU 5/ E4GC.TO 16-02.Services thru 5/22/1 E 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 Total Page: 8 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220605 6/30/2016 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 61588 WATER - OIL FILTER Water - Oil Filter 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 220606 6/30/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001613 001621 220607 6/30/2016 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 21181 LO SCHOLARSHIP 220608 6/30/2016 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO 220609 6/30/2016 067345 EDMONDS TOWING 21204 LO SCHOLARSHIP R25221 0130453 Total PM: PRIMER PM: PRIMER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM: PUNCH FLIER PM: PUNCH FLIER 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 21181 HENRY LO YOUTH SCHOLAF 21181 HENRY LO YOUTH SCHOLAF 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 21204 SIMON LO YOUTH SCHOLAR 21204 SIMON LO YOUTH SCHOLAR 122.000.64.571.20.49.00 Total WATER QUALITY - BROCHURE PRI Water Quality - Brochure Printing 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total UNIT 68 - TOWING Unit 68 - Towing 4.2.a Page: 9 Page: 9 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220609 6/30/2016 067345 EDMONDS TOWING Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 0130456 UNIT 40 - TOWING Unit 40 - Towing 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 220610 6/30/2016 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 236013 220611 6/30/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 220612 6/30/2016 075566 EHRBAR, PAMELA 2-26950 2-29118 BID-062816 220613 6/30/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR42289 Total ; INV#236013 CLIENT #308 - EDMONI HEARTWORM TEST (HOBBS) 001.000.41.521.26.41.00 TRIFEXIS FLEA CONTROL (HOBBS: 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 Total LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTREE LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/ 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 Total ADMINISTRATIVE & MARKETING SE BID Administrative services for 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 BID Marketing/Admin for 6/14-6/27/1E 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 Total ADDTL COPY CHARGE- PLANNING 4.2.a Page: 10 Page: 10 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 11 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220613 6/30/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) ADDTL COPY CHARGE- PLANNING 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 11.1 E AR43246 MK5532 CITY CLERK OVERAGE CITY CLERKS FRONT RECEPTION 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 8.1 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 0.8( Total: 20.1 , 220614 6/30/2016 075681 ESTATE OF COLIN J SANDWITH 8-41025 #4245-2612882 UTILITY REFUND #4245-2612882 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 14.5: Total: 14.5: 220615 6/30/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH675673 MARINA BEACH PLAY STRUCTURE MARINA BEACH PLAY STRUCTURE 125.000.64.576.80.41.40 30.9( EDH706226 CITY ORDINANCE 4028 CITY ORDINANCE NO. 4028 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 27.5. EDH706472 LEGAL AD,SELECT HOMES PLN201 LEGAL AD,SELECT HOMES PLN201 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 99.7( Total: 158.21 220616 6/30/2016 075673 FARMER, MARIA 12626 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 107.9( Total: 107.9E 220617 6/30/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU39838 UNIT E111 PO -SUPPLIES Unit E111 PO -Supplies 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 8.5z 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 0.8: Page: 11 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 12 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220617 6/30/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY (Continued) WAMOU39880 UNIT E111PO - SUPPLIES _ Unit Ell PO - Supplies vi 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 6.2z U 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 0.6' E WAMOU39884 SHOP SUPPLIES Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 342.5E o 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 33.5 1 o WAMOU40179 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES L a Fleet Shop Supplies Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 47.7 LO 9.8% Sales Tax M 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 4.6£ = Total: 444.8( w 220618 6/30/2016 065427 FCS GROUP 2509-21605037 E6JA.SERVICES THRU 5/20/16 M E6JA.Services thru 5/20/16 0 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 458.3< N E6JA.Services thru 5/20/16 cYi 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 458.3: E E6JA.Services thru 5/20/16 c° 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 458.3z 2509-21606009 E6JA.SERVICES THRU 6/17/16 E6JA.Services thru 6/17/16 E 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 733.3< U E6JA.Services thru 6/17/16 r 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 733.3< Q E6JA.Services thru 6/17/16 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 733.3z Total: 3,575.0( 220619 6/30/2016 009880 FEDEX 5-452-45797 PLAN REVIEW STORM SUPPORT - Plan Review Support - Courier Fees Page: 12 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 220619 6/30/2016 009880 FEDEX (Continued) 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 Total: 220620 6/30/2016 063387 FEREBEE, JOAN 51816 TRAVEL REFUND FOR DMCMA BO/ TRAVEL REFUND FOR DMCMA BO/ 001.000.23.512.50.43.00 Total: 220621 6/30/2016 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0509270 WATER - SENSUS FLEXNET COVE Water - Sensus Flexnet Coverage 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.48.00 Total: 220622 6/30/2016 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE 4.2.a Page: 13 Page: 13 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 14 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220622 6/30/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 68.Z _ 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} vi FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 131.3( t 509-022-0049 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI U E LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.Z 6 Total: 909.0E c 220623 6/30/2016 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 12871 INTERPRETER FEE o INTERPRETER FEE a 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 105.3. Q Total: 105.3; ul 220624 6/30/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY 9948105 WATER QUALITY - SYRINGE FILTEI M Water Quality - Syringe Filters 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 612.0( Freight c 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 M 41.60 co 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 N 64.01 9970851 WWTP: DB TS-LINE SC/IMMERS1O1' E DB TS-LINE SC/IMMERSION WIPER c� 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 4,165.7E Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 79.4 ' E 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 416.0< 9982724 WWTP: ORP & STD SOLN, BUFFER Q ORP & STD SOLN, BUFFER PWD PI 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1,548.3E Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 66.3� 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 158.2E Page: 14 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 15 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220624 6/30/2016 012560 012560 HACH COMPANY (Continued) Total: 7,151.9E 220625 6/30/2016 074804 HARLES, JANINE 197341 PHOTOGRAPHY FOR JUNE 2016 Photography for June 2016 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 200.0( Total: 200.0( 220626 6/30/2016 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 162561 UNIT 455 - WIRE ASSEMBLY Unit 455 - Wire Assembly 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 141.5: 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.8 , 162756 UNIT 134 - SENSOR Unit 134 - Sensor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 135.1( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.2z Total: 303.71 220627 6/30/2016 065764 HASNER, THOMAS W 2016-0044 LEOFF1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEN DEDUCTIBLE REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 117.8( Total: 117.8E 220628 6/30/2016 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 14217554 WATER - METER BOXES Water - Meter Boxes 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10,071.6E 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 987.0: Total: 11,058.7, 220629 6/30/2016 074966 HIATT, ELLEN COE-2016-0624 TOURISM COMMUNICATIONS AND Tourism communications and marketi 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,500.0( Total: 1,500.0( 220630 6/30/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1022952 PM: PAINT, FIX IT ALL Page: 15 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220630 6/30/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 16 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) PM: PAINT, FIX IT ALL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 62.3< w 1573521 PM: ROSE & FLOWER CARE, DRILL PM: ROSE & FLOWER CARE, DRILL t 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 51.2, 2022803 PM: REMASH MATS, SHEETS, BRO, PM: REMASH MATS, SHEETS, BRO, 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 132.5E o 3073913 PM: PAIL, PAINT PEN, TAPE, PLIER: PM: PAIL, PAINT PEN, TAPE, PLIER: p L 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 90.0� Q- 5082845 PM: MORTAR, GROUT, TILE ADHES Q PM: MORTAR, GROUT, TILE ADHES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 138.6E M 7080258 PM: BUCKET, PVC, CEMENT, METF PM: BUCKET, PVC, CEMENT, METF 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 42.0 1 8010986 PM: FIR, PETUNIAS, GAMMA, BROC M PM: FIR, PETUNIAS, GAMMA, BROC to 0 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 160.7( Y 8060811 PM: TRASHCANS, SLUGGO, ROSE PM: TRASHCANS, SLUGGO, ROSE E 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 117.91 9010784 PM: GAL TEE, GAL NIPPLE PM: GAL TEE, GAL NIPPLE r- m 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 14.1: E 9083718 PM: RATCHETING COMBO WRENC U PM: RATCHETING COMBO WRENC r 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.3� Q 91968 PM: SUMP PUMP CHECK VALVE, BI PM: SUMP PUMP CHECK VALVE, Bl 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 62.9( 93926 PM: KNIT 2 PK, SCRUB BRUSH, HAI PM: KNIT 2 PK, SCRUB BRUSH, HAI 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 67.7( Page: 16 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 220630 6/30/2016 067862 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) 220631 6/30/2016 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 26684 220632 6/30/2016 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 220633 6/30/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 618848-1 2811561 2815410 2815875 2815919 2816716 4.2.a Page: 17 Description/Account Amoun Total : 956.8, E4MB.SERVICES THRU 5/21/16 vi E4MB.Services thru 5/21/16 Y 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 11,385.0( Total: 11,385.0( PM: DRILLS, POWER FLAP, STRIPF PM: DRILLS, POWER FLAP, STRIPF ,- 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 218.5( 9.8% Sales Tax cu > 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.4' a Total: 239.9' 0- WWTP: PLASTIC TABS, PAPER TOE ul PLASTIC TABS, PAPER TOWELS, F M 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 63.9' 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.2( o SPARCO LETTER OPENERS M co Sparco Clean Slit Letter Openers - Q1 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 11.8E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 1.1( CITY CLERKS OFFICE DRY ERASE EXPO DRY ERASE MARKERS 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 12.7( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 1.2z WWTP: 1 FRAME RETURNED FIRM r Q 1 FRAME RETURN FRM INV 281156 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 -12.3� 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 -1.2' WWTP: TOILET SEAT COVERS Toilet seat covers Page: 17 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 18 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220633 6/30/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 34.9� 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.4: Total: 121.91 220634 6/30/2016 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 906-611160 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 151.1 E Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 10.2: 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 15.8. Total: 177.2; 220635 6/30/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10008527 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 6.2 1 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 0.6' 300-10008636 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 115.4( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 11.3' Total: 133.5$ 220636 6/30/2016 075661 JANET MAPLES DESIGN /IZZY GIRL BID-062416 BID SOCIAL MEDIA MANAGEMENT BID Social media services 6/16-6/20/ 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 510.0( Total: 510.0( 220637 6/30/2016 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 692239 WWTP: HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTIOP HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION & WA 1 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 3,546.6E 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 18 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 19 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220637 6/30/2016 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.53 345.1( Total: 3,891.8' 220638 6/30/2016 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC 012 STATE LOBBYIST JUNE 2016 State lobbyist June 2016 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 3,358.0( Total: 3,358.0( 220639 6/30/2016 075265 KBA INC 3002826 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 5/31/16 E7AC.Services thru 5/31/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 15,768.6' Total: 15,768.6' 220640 6/30/2016 069343 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC 1607453-1283 E5FA/E4FB.TO 16-02 SERVICES TH E5FA/E4FB.TO 16-02 Services thru 5 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 2,229.4( Total: 2,229.4( 220641 6/30/2016 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 05032016-03 CITY APRIL CAR WASHES City April Car Washes 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 10.0E 06102016-01 INV#06102016-01- EDMONDS PD - 1 25 CAR WASHES @$5.04 (INC TX)! 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 126.0( Total: 136.0E 220642 6/30/2016 069862 MAKERS ARCHITECTURE AND 1438-20 ECDC REWRITE ECDC REWRITE 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 1,116.21 Total: 1,116.2! 220643 6/30/2016 061900 MARC 0582649-IN WWTP: SUPER ZYME, SEWER SOL SUPER ZYME, SEWER SOLVENT, E 423.000.76.535.80.31.59 1,223.2( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.59 119.8 1 Page: 19 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 20 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220643 6/30/2016 061900 061900 MARC (Continued) Total: 1,343.01, 220644 6/30/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 66277963 WWTP: AX-SECTION COGGED V-B AX-SECTION COGGED V-BELT 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 119.0( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 8.0 1 66457183 WWTP: B-HOSE COUPLING SOCKE B-HOSE COUPLING SOCKET, PLU( 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 292.6( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 7.3( 66802235 WWTP: HOSE COUPLING, PLUG & HOSE COUPLING, PLUG & PIPE FIl 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 97.1( Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.1: Total: 530.31 220645 6/30/2016 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC ME98363 220646 6/30/2016 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 15-1662-14 220647 6/30/2016 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0438240-iN UNIT 106 - PART Unit 106 - Part 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total E4JC.SERVICES THRU 5/31/16 E4JC.Services thru 5/31/16 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 Total SEWER - DISPOSABLE GLOVES Sewer - Disposable gloves 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Page: 20 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220647 6/30/2016 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 220648 6/30/2016 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING 220649 6/30/2016 074356 NAVAS-RIVAS, HERNAN Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 21 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 0438819-IN SEWER -WORK JACKET _ Sewer -Work Jacket vi 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 36.5( 9.8% Sales Tax t 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 3.5 - U 0438951-IN SEWER - DISPOSABLE GLOVES •@ Sewer - Disposable Gloves U 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 208.0( o 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 20.3E o 0439317-IN WATER/SEWER - RAIN WARE L a Water/Sewer - Rain Ware Q 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 81.0E Water/Sewer - Rain Ware M 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 81.0E 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 7.9E 9.8% Sales Tax c M 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 7.9z o 0439326-IN WATER - RAIN BOOTS N Water - Rain Boots 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 88.7E . 9.8% Sales Tax c° 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 8.7( ; Total: 930.3� aa) E 10 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR1 t U WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR1 125.000.64.575.50.41.00 r 2,093.7: Q Total: 2,093.7! 13607 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 103.0: Page: 21 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 22 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220649 6/30/2016 074356 074356 NAVAS-RIVAS, HERNAN (Continued) Total: 103.0: 220650 6/30/2016 068769 NORTHWEST CASTER 100012371 TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES Traffic - Supplies 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 52.11 Freight 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 24.9E 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 7.5E Total: 84.6� 220651 6/30/2016 075683 NORTHWEST MECHANICAL INC Ref000291122 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND LI Refund Cst #00008359 001.000.257.310 50.0( Total: 50.0( 220652 6/30/2016 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 2705144-00 FLEET SHOP - FUEL ISLAND HOSE Fleet Shop - Fuel Island Hose 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 214.8E Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 19.21 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 22.9z Total: 257.0: 220653 6/30/2016 073213 NORTHWEST TRAVEL & LIFE 1013 TOURISM AD IN JULY/AUGUST 2011 Tourism promotion ad in July/August 120.000.31.575.42.41.40 998.0( Total: 998.0( 220654 6/30/2016 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 663 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6/22/1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6/22/1 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 280.0( Total: 280.0( 220655 6/30/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 331783 P&RADMIN: FLASH DRIVE, STENO P&RADMIN: FLASH DRIVE, STENO Page: 22 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 23 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220655 6/30/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 24.1 z CEMETERY: PENS 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 5.4( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 2.3 , 9.8% Sales Tax 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 0.5: Total: 32.5( 220656 6/30/2016 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00079915 UNIT 106 - SUPPLIES Unit 106 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 186.0E 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.2z 00080004 WATER - LOCATOR CONNECTION l Water - Locator Connection Leads 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 54.0( Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 16.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.8( Total: 281.11 220657 6/30/2016 075535 PCM SALES INC 0168699718 WWTP: 21.5" MONITOR + WIRELEE 21.5" MONITOR + WIRELESS KEYB 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 132.8E Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 33.4� 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 16.3( Total: 182.61 220658 6/30/2016 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-52 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 5/29/16 E7AC.Services thru 5/29/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 776.3, Page: 23 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 220658 6/30/2016 063951 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC (Continued) 220659 6/30/2016 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 354904 220660 6/30/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 2206551 J564563 0.1;iZYoS[:1 J619318 J622867 4.2.a Page: 24 Description/Account Amoun Total : 776.3, JUNE 2016 WELLNESS COMMITTEI vi Pink Lady Apples 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 28.7E BLACK PLUMS 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 30.4( . RED GRAPES 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 20.0( o Total : 79.1E WWTP: RETURN 2 RACO FIRM INV a Return frm Inv 2165526: 2 RACO 50�': Q- Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 -50.1 9.5% Sales Tax LO 423.000.76.535.80.31.22 -4.7 , YOST POOL SUPPLIES .. Yost Pool Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 14.6( M 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.4: N CITY HALL DEV SVC COUNTER Y City Hall Dev Svc Counter E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 108.0( 'm 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.5E c CITY HALL DEV SVC COUNTER City Hall Dev Svc Counter 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.0( r 9.8% Sales Tax Q 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 2.7z CITY HALL DEV SVC COUNTER SUI City Hall Dev Svc Counter Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 19.8( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.9z Page: 24 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 25 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220660 6/30/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC (Continued) J624840 DEV SVC COUNTER SUPPLIES _ Dev Svc Counter Supplies vi 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 13.0. 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1.2£ E J631448 WWTP: WATER BLOCK TAPE Water block tape used in conduit - U 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 219.8: o 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 21.5: o J646342 SR CENTER - SUPPLIES L a Sr Center - Supplies Q 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 400.4( ul 9.8% Sales Tax M 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.2z J647194 WWTP: LEV 1221-2W 20A 120.277 ; m LEV 1221-2W 20A 120.277 SW AC S 0 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 14.1 f c? 9.8% Sales Tax c 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.3t Y Total: 843.0: E 220661 6/30/2016 073231 POLYDYNE INC 1056792 WWTP: CLARI FLOC WE-1081 WWTP: CLARI FLOC WE-1081 423.000.76.535.80.31.51 5,421.9( Total: 5,421.9( E t 220662 6/30/2016 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 277116 INV#277116 ORDER #314724 EDM( cvv DIGITAL POWER MAGAZINE FOR X r Q 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 223.4z 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 21.8� Total: 245.3: 220663 6/30/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 ALARM MONITORING ANDERSON ( Page: 25 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 26 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220663 6/30/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE (Continued) ALARM MONITORING FRANCESA[\ _ 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 278.1( 6 291104 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAIL U ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I t 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 21.3z ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I M 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 21.3z 6 Total: 320.7E o 220664 6/30/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN > 0 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN a 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,574.5E Q 200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ,`i 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 59.8, 200009595790 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 104.3, M 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE c FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 68.0: cYi 200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME E CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 103.0, 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / E E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 235.5( U 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 r FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 r Q 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 89.1( 200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 1 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 1 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 57.9' 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � Page: 26 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220664 6/30/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 220665 220666 220667 6/30/2016 074712 RAINIER ENVIRONMENTAL LAB 6/30/2016 074156 RAZZ CONSTRUCTION INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 200020415911 200021829581 200024711901 2221 E4MB.Pmt 3 6/30/2016 075211 ROCKLER WOODWORKING & HARDWAI 002170 4.2.a Page: 27 PO # Description/Account Amoun 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 66.4, PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Y PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 7.0( t PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 26.8: PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 26.8< o PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 26.8< o PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; L a Q. 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 26.8< Q ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210THLO 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 26.8. M WWTP: 5/21-6/21/16 200 2ND AVE 5 WWTP: 200 2ND AVE S / METER 00 m 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 484.5E c CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE C? CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE c 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 88.1 z Y Total: 3,072.6E E WWTP: CERIODAPHNIA DUBIAACI CERIODAPHNIA DUBIAACUTE TES 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 500.0( Total: 500.0( E t E4MB.PMT 3 THRU 5/31/16 rcvv E4MB.Pmt 3 thru 5/31/16 Q 016.000.66.594.19.65.00 149,897.3, Total : 149,897.3, FAC MAINT SHOP SUPPLIES WITH Fac Maint Shop Supplies with tax. 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 311.5, Page: 27 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 220667 6/30/2016 075211 075211 ROCKLER WOODWORKING & HARE (Continued) 220668 6/30/2016 067076 SEATTLE PUMP AND EQUIPMENT CO 16-3135 220669 6/30/2016 060889 SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL 220670 6/30/2016 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST # 1 220671 6/30/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 ARV/29150415 20976 FIRSTAID/CPR Description/Account Total SEWER - THRUSTER NOZZLE Sewer - Thruster Nozzle 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.6% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total FLEET SHOP TOOLS Fleet Shop Tools 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 Total: 20976 FIRSTAID/CPR INSTRUCTIO 20976 FIRSTAID/CPR INSTRUCTIO 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total 2002-6027-1 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2003-4823-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2003-8645-6 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2004-2241-8 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2007-1403-8 SEAVIEW PARK 4.2.a Page: 28 Amoun 311.5, 0 Y 250.0( 24.0( . 274.0( 4- 0 2,549.9£ a a 30.9E Q ul LO 252.9, 2,833.81 0 M co 80.0( o 80.0( Y E 250.4 1 m E t 40.9, U a 1,060.8£ Page: 28 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220671 6/30/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 29 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 46.5( w 2007-4860-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW t 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.4. 2008-6520-2 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 71.4' o 2011-9708-4 SEAVIEW PARK SEAVIEW PARK p L 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 82.9: a 2012-6598-0 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL Q' Q LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 163.9' M 2013-7496-4 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 20.8 1 2015-8215-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W c� TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W 0 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 26.5< Y 2015-9448-8 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 20.4� 19 2016-1195-1 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W m 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 32.6' E 2016-5690-7 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN! U DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN! r 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 115.4, Q 2017-5147-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 38.1( 2017-8264-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 16.8f Page: 29 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 30 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220671 6/30/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 2019-0786-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW _ TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW vi 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 33.9' 2022-5062-7 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED t 9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPED BED 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.8E 2022-8912-0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME p 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 63.3' 2023-8937-5 STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / f p STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / f a 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 8.3( Q 2024-2158-2 LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI ul 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 M 53.1E 2025-4064-7 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191 m SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 0 16.8E c? 2028-0763-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW 0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW Y 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 19.1 2030-9778-7 WWTP: 5/17-6/16/16 200 2ND AVE,' E WWTP: 200 2ND AVE S / METER 10 f° 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 26,681.8, ; 2042-9221-3 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST m CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 68.6� U Total: 29,009.1E r Q 220672 6/30/2016 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2016-3180 CRS ON #2016-3180 SNO CO JAIL4 CR 3 HOUSING-OLDENDORF FROM 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -268.1 S CR 3 HOUSING - WONG FROM 4/1E 00 1.000.39.523.60.5 1.00 -268.1 2 CR 1 BOOKING - WONG 4/16 Page: 30 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220672 6/30/2016 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 220673 6/30/2016 069844 SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PLLC 220674 6/30/2016 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 31 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -116.1z 1 19 WORK RELEASE $ 42 - SARGIN,' _ 0 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 -798.0( 0 2016-3180 INV#2016-3180 - EDMONDS PD - M) t 378.83 HOUSING @ $89.38 - 5/16 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 33,859.8. 64.5 BOOKINGS @ $116.14 - 5/16 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 7,491.0< o 64.83 MED/SPEC @ $52.01 - 5/16 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 3,371.8' L 20.5 MENTAL HEALTH @ $124.72 - ; a 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 2,556.7( Q 14.75 VIDEO COURT @ $115.50 - 5/ 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 ul 1,703.6: M 19 WORK RELEASE @ $50 - 5/16 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 950.0( w 2016-3250 INV 2016-3250 EDMONDS PD - MAY c INMATE HOSPITAL SERVICES - 1/2' C? 001.000.39.523.60.41.00 315.0( o INMATE HOSPITAL SERVICES 12/21 N 001.000.39.523.60.41.00 200.0( INMATE MEDICATION MAY 2016 E 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 84.Z Total : 49,081.8E c 1160602-4 WATER SUPPLY PROJECT m E Water Supply Project U 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 3,360.0( r Total : 3,360.0( Q 18336/4 FAC MAINT WORK PANTS - J ROLF Fac Maint Work Pants - J Rolfe 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 95.9E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.4( Page: 31 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 220674 6/30/2016 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 63047/1 63294/1 220675 6/30/2016 075622 SQUAK MOUNTAIN AIR QUALITY LLC 1001 220676 6/30/2016 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3650194 220677 6/30/2016 061912 SUN SUPPLY PO # Description/Account FAC MAINT - RETURNS Fac Maint - Returns 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 WATER- WORK PANTS AND BOOT, Water- Work Pants and Boots - E Alsl 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 9.2% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 Total WWTP: ENV. CONSULTING - TASK Task #1.1016: Review/Recommend N 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 Task #2.1016: Sample Sit Selection 423.000.76.535.80.41.11 Total SEWER - SUPPLIES Sewer - Supplies 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 Total 1018548-IN TRAFFIC - ORANGE COREX Traffic - Orange Corex 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 1020127-IN TRAFFIC - ORANGE COREX Traffic - Orange Corex 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Sales Tax 4.2.a Page: 32 Page: 32 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 33 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220677 6/30/2016 061912 SUN SUPPLY (Continued) 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.6: Total: 254.0E 220678 6/30/2016 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 2454 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES JUNE 2( Social media services for June 2016 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 300.0( Setup Twitter & Instagram for 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 200.0( Total: 500.0( 220679 6/30/2016 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18115240 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 152.9( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 14.9E 18116185 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 14.2z 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.4( 18116755 UNIT 19 - SUPPLIES Unit 19 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 178.6' 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 17.5( Total: 379.6: 220680 6/30/2016 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 428561 LIBRARY - HANDLE RETROFIT KIT Library - Handle Retrofit Kit 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 67.4' Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.2: 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7.3, Page: 33 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 34 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220680 6/30/2016 027269 027269 THE PART WORKS INC (Continued) Total: 81.9£ 220681 6/30/2016 066628 THE SUPPLY COMPANY LLC 00122943 FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES Fleet Shop Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 269.1 £ Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 3.3< 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 25.5 1 Total: 298.0£ 220682 6/30/2016 073274 TOMAR ELECTRONICS INC 085186 UNIT M16 - LED LAMP Unit M16 - LED Lamp 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 125.8 , Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.8( Total: 134.6 , 220683 6/30/2016 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 40692 UNIT 125PO - KEYS Unit 125PO - Keys 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 10.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1.0< Total: 11.5: 220684 6/30/2016 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA 0668920-WA WATER - TDAP, TWINRIX HEPA HEI Water - TDAP, Twinrix Hepa Hep B 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 250.0( Total: 250.0( 220685 6/30/2016 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 6050125 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 79.6' UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 79.6' UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI Page: 34 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 35 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220685 6/30/2016 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 82.0' Total: 241 Z 220686 6/30/2016 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 201126585 INV 201126585 EDMONDS PD - LEE PRE -SUPERVISOR COURSE - LEE 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 200.0( Total: 200.0( 220687 6/30/2016 047455 WA ST DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB60614001 IT MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS F IT Maintenance & Operations Fiber O 001.000.31.518.87.48.00 773.9E Total: 773.91 220688 6/30/2016 075154 WALTER E NELSON CO 548083 FAC MAINT - TOWELS, SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Towels, Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 171.2E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 16.7� 220689 6/30/2016 075283 WAVE BROADBAND 220690 6/30/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 220691 6/30/2016 073739 WH PACIFIC INC 8136 50 211 00055035 7076 10239W-04 1897W-09 Total FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET SEF High Speed Internet service 07/01/16 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 Total COPY PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS O 2 CASES OF X-9000 COPY PAPER 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 Total E4CD.SERVICES THRU 6/19/16 E4CD.Services thru 6/19/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 6/19/16 Page: 35 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 06/30/2016 9:49:46AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.2.a Page: 36 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 220691 6/30/2016 073739 WH PACIFIC INC (Continued) E1AA.Services thru 6/19/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 7,507.5( Y Total: 9,139.0( t 220692 6/30/2016 049902 WHITMAN, TIMOTHY 2016-0045 LEOFF 1MEDICAL REIMBURSEMEN PRESCRIPTION CO -PAYS E 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 2 894.7, U Total: 894.7: c 220693 6/30/2016 069969 WILLIAMS, PAMELA 6/9 EMPLOYEE REIMB 6/9/16 EMPLOYEE REIMB APRIL - JI APRIL - JUNE MILEAGE o a 001.000.64.571.23.43.00 154.9E Q UNIFORM PANTS 001.000.64.571.23.24.00 27.1 E ul Total: 182.1E 220694 6/30/2016 075682 ZACHARY & BROOKE PENDT 5-12850 #13986 UTILITY REFUND #13986 Utility refund due to estimate( 411.000.233.000 co 132.3 0 Total: 132.31, N 118 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 396,958.9, E 118 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 396,958.91, c m E t U r r Q Page: 36 Packet Pg. 59 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD ui STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA t WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC U E STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA o STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA 0 SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC Q. a SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA Q STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB M WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB 0 WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA 0 `? co 0 SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC L WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC a� WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB Z_ SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA ° a WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD D, STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB a� 0 WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB a a� L STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC LL STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD r E STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB c� STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA Q STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5J13 Revised 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 60 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 ElFM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC ui General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB t FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB U E WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA o PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA 0 0 STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD Q. a SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB Q STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB LO M SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC to STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E6FA 0 `? W 0 STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E3FE L STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG a� STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN Z_ STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC ° a FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E4LA STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD D, WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA 0 STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB a a� L STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB u_ STR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA r E UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA c� STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG Q STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB STM SW Edmonds-1 05th/l 06th Ave W Storm Improvements c430 E3FH STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF Revised 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 61 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Protect Funding Protect Title Number Number WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 62 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title E1AA * c34" Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR ElCA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c354 Sunset Walkway Improvement STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STIR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project STIR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvement STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study STIR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c423 W38th 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 STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive W STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC STIR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program 2014 Chip Seals 91a" WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basild STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study Revised 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 63 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) 4.2.b Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title - E4HA rddF Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4JB c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program 2016 Water Comp Plan Updat FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades City Spray Park EFW FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab Trackside Warning System STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming 2015 Overlay Progra WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR E5DA 0474 Bikelink Project Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Prod SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study �P Outfall Pipe Modificatio WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Proiects Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E51KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating EV Upgrades - Council Cham UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates 2016 Overlay Program i WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays 2016 Sewerline Overlays STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to E6FA Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements UTILITIES E6JA s013 STIR E7AC i005 m013 PM E7MA c276 8MA c282 3rd Ave Rain Gardens Utility Rate Update SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) Dayton Street Plaza Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 64 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E1 CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FN 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 STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) STM E3FC c408 Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study STM EYE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) STR E3DD c425 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) STR E3DE c426 ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th 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 STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program WTR E4,113 c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab FAC E41-A c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays ui U m t v E 2 U 0 0 L Q a u� LO M Z. Revised 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 65 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title 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 ui U am STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program E 2 STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects o L SWR E5GA c469 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects Q STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System u•� STIRE5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming M r STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c M STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project W 0 WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays L a� FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers E General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis 3 Z STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility d WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) 2, STM E51FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) a a� STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements Li STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays E t STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program Q WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STM E61FA iol 1 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates SWR E5GB sol l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update STIR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) Revised 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 66 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB FAC Public Safety Controls System Upgrades c444 E41-A General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA 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 E51FA STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 ElFM STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E41FE STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC STM LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin c434 E4FB STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E21FA STM Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive i011 E61FA STM Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive c410 E31FE STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1 FN STM Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study c408 E3FC STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG 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 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB STIR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA ui U m t v E 2 U 0 0 L Q a u� L0 M r Revised 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 67 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i0o5 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC SWR 2016-17 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study sol l E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016-17 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3JB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5J13 WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA ui U m t v E 2 U 0 0 L Q a u� LO M Z. Revised 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 68 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 Approval of Payroll and Benefit Direct Deposit, Checks and Wire Payments Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #62200 through #62210 for $500,811.50, benefit checks #62211 through #62215 and wire payments of $553,783.74. For the pay period June 1, 2016 through June 15, 2016. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #62216 through #62225 for $517,332.66, benefit checks #62226 through #62233 and wire payments of $482,431.68. For the pay period June 16, 2016 through June 30, 2016. Financial Impact: Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $1,018,144.16 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $1,036,215.42 Total Payroll $2,054,359.58 Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: Payroll Benefit Checks Summary 06-16 Payroll Earnings Summary 06-16 Payroll Benefit Checks Summary 06-30 Payroll Earnings Summary 06-30 Packet Pg. 69 4.3.a Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 777 - 06/01/2016 to 06/15/2016 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 62211 06/20/2016 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 2,925.00 0.00 62212 06/20/2016 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 388.00 0.00 62213 06/20/2016 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 789.99 0.00 62214 06/20/2016 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 4,969.20 0.00 62215 06/20/2016 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,856.31 0.00 11,928.50 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2404 06/20/2016 awc AWC 320,529.57 0.00 2407 06/20/2016 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 19,444.50 0.00 2408 06/20/2016 us US BANK 102,599.12 0.00 2409 06/20/2016 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177131 92,879.45 0.00 2412 06/20/2016 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,571.10 0.00 2413 06/20/2016 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 158.00 0.00 2414 06/20/2016 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 673.50 0.00 541,855.24 0.00 Grand Totals: 553,783.74 0.00 r aD L E (D c a� m c 0 (L 4- 0 0 0 L Q Q Q 0 LO M 0 r 0 0 E E U) U) aD t U w 4- a� c d 00 0 L a c a� E Q 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 70 4.3.b Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 777 (06/01/2016 to 06/15/2016) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pay Correction 0.00 -156.28 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 79.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 551.20 19,517.19 122 VACATION VACATION 1,118.60 43,857.94 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 48.50 1,803.80 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 35.00 1,115.35 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 154.50 5,637.06 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 2.00 81.55 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 104.00 2,848.10 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 63.00 1,831.25 150 REGULAR HOURS Kellv Day Used 179.00 6,429.98 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 2.63 59.63 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 61.76 2,731.58 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 6.00 190.46 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 156.64 4,529.35 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 1.00 42.33 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 17,426.23 620,773.23 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 15.00 504.12 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 54.00 2,687.38 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 15.00 1,430.37 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 221.25 14,143.69 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 14.25 965.36 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 869.14 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 73.50 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 108.25 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 3.00 0.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 24.95 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 143.91 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 84.53 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 107.89 col MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 147.28 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 622.35 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 102.75 06/30/2016 Packet Pg. 71 4.3.b Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 777 (06/01/2016 to 06/15/2016) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 989.84 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 731.26 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 873.40 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 4,926.15 fmla ABSENT FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID 50.00 0.00 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY -129.00 -4,947.92 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 102.75 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 956.79 Ig10 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 5.5% 0.00 396.36 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 878.62 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 842.56 I0 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 5,651.40 Iq4 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 206.78 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 276.27 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 931.11 Iq9 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3.5% 0.00 82.46 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 200.57 pds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 47.12 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 1,919.06 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS : 0.00 157.56 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 514.51 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 157.56 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 323.67 20,414.31 $749,344.12 Total Net Pay: $500,811.50 06/30/2016 Packet Pg. 72 4.3.c Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 778 - 06/16/2016 to 06/30/2016 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 62226 07/05/2016 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,219.00 0.00 62227 07/05/2016 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 104.00 0.00 62228 07/05/2016 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,028.10 0.00 62229 07/05/2016 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 789.99 0.00 62230 07/05/2016 cope SEIU COPE 72.00 0.00 62231 07/05/2016 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,957.81 0.00 62232 07/05/2016 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 698.24 0.00 62233 07/05/2016 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,856.31 0.00 10,725.45 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2410 07/05/2016 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 237,807.17 0.00 2411 07/05/2016 aflac AFLAC 6,161.10 0.00 2415 07/05/2016 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 19,447.00 0.00 2416 07/05/2016 us US BANK 106,288.10 0.00 2417 07/05/2016 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177131 95,658.26 0.00 2419 07/05/2016 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,671.10 0.00 2420 07/05/2016 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 673.50 0.00 0.00 471,706.23 Grand Totals: 482,431.68 0.00 6/30/2016 Packet Pg. 73 4.3.d Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 778 (06/16/2016 to 06/30/2016) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pay Correction 0.00 -156.28 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 70.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 509.92 17,902.29 122 VACATION VACATION 1,875.20 73,021.59 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 73.50 2,829.71 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 20.00 532.51 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 135.25 4,668.15 130 COMP HOURS Holiday Compensation Used 10.67 326.94 132 JURY DUTY JURY DUTY 3.00 131.30 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 74.00 3,001.78 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 162.00 6,210.66 151 COMP HOURS HOLIDAY COMP BUY BACK 39.00 1,207.80 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 40.75 1,262.00 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 148.27 6,641.87 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 24.75 766.49 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 48.83 1,512.23 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 0.00 0.00 170 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY 304.00 7,000.00 174 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY 0.00 130.00 175 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICP 0.00 2,821.24 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 16,539.26 583,841.83 191 REGULAR HOURS FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 4.00 1,884.09 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 22.50 846.27 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 72.00 3,851.91 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 11.50 1,077.01 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 346.00 22,244.38 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 5.25 368.52 405 ACTING PAY OUT OF CLASS - POLICE 0.00 167.22 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 835.26 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 370.95 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 51.25 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 201.00 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME -3.00 0.00 06/30/2016 Packet Pg. 74 4.3.d Hour Type Hour Class acc MISCELLANEOUS acs MISCELLANEOUS boc MISCELLANEOUS colre MISCELLANEOUS cpl MISCELLANEOUS crt MISCELLANEOUS det MISCELLANEOUS det4 MISCELLANEOUS ed1 EDUCATION PAY ed2 EDUCATION PAY ed3 EDUCATION PAY k9 MISCELLANEOUS Iq1 LONGEVITY Ig10 LONGEVITY Ig11 LONGEVITY Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY I0 LONGEVITY PAY Iq4 LONGEVITY Iq6 LONGEVITY Iq7 LONGEVITY Iq9 LONGEVITY mels SICK mtc MISCELLANEOUS pds MISCELLANEOUS phv MISCELLANEOUS prof MISCELLANEOUS sdp MISCELLANEOUS sqt MISCELLANEOUS traf MISCELLANEOUS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 778 (06/16/2016 to 06/30/2016) Description ACCREDITATION PAY ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT BOC II Certification Collision Reconstruction ist TRAINING CORPORAL CERTIFICATION III PAY DETECTIVE PAY Detective 4% EDUCATION PAY 2% EDUCATION PAY 4% EDUCATION PAY 6% K-9 PAY LONGEVITY PAY 2% LONGEVITY 5.5% LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% LONGEVITY PAY 4% LONGEVITY 6% Lonqevitv 1 % Lonqevitv .5% Lonqevitv 1.5% Lonqevitv 3.5% Medical Leave Sick MOTORCYCLE PAY Public Disclosure Specialist PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT TRAFFIC Hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,860.90 Total Net Pay Amount 24.95 143.91 84.53 107.89 147.28 622.35 102.75 989.84 731.26 873.40 4,933.56 102.75 956.79 396.36 811.52 842.56 5,651.40 206.78 291.06 931.11 82.46 2,935.64 200.57 47.12 1,920.92 157.56 514.51 157.56 323.67 $770,589.78 $517,332.66 06/30/2016 Packet Pg. 75 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 May 2016 Monthly Financial Report Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History Staff Recommendation No action needed; informational only. Narrative May 2016 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report. Attachments: May 2016 Monthly Financial Report Packet Pg. 76 00 c v 0 M D 70 mn Z D z 0 D r 70 M MU O 70 0 O mn M v 9 O Z v 00 0 Attachment: May 2016 Monthly Financial Report (1334 : May 2016 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report) I 4.4.a I Page I of I C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund No. Title 2016 Amended Budget 5/31/2015 Revenues 5/31/2016 Revenues Amount Remaining %Received 001 GENERAL FUND $ 39,276,670 $ 16,760,751 $ 18,037,636 S 21,239,034 460 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 278,770 1,599 1,424 277,346 10 011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 6,660 3,453 2,872 3,788 430 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 28,110 18,325 4,976 23,134 180 013 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND - 189 155 (155) 09 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,000 3 21 4,979 00 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,005,000 45,417 176,195 1,828,805 90 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 153,000 11,243 68,589 84,411 450 111 STREET FUND 1,760,500 585,145 671,850 1,088,650 380 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 1 8,314,697 748,326 3,636,759 4,677,938 440 w r 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 102,410 27,335 18,318 84,092 180 a 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 110 60 49 61 45° 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 82,150 25,532 27,812 54,338 340 m 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 21,390 8,389 7,745 13,645 369 C 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 5,550 178 50 5,500 10, 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 27,530 8,635 9,362 18,168 34' �p 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2 1,108,000 423,944 494,883 613,118 450 N 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 2 1,102,000 422,855 495,070 606,930 45° 127 GIFTSCATALOGFUND 46,900 29,605 28,070 18,830 600 2 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 280 128 105 175 380 M M 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 177,260 57,269 65,277 111,983 37° v 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 2,552,240 106,014 899,086 1,653,154 350, C 136 PARKSTRUST FUND 630 509 418 212 660 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 19,880 9,232 10,079 9,801 510 R 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 12,010 2,457 3,263 8,747 270, 'V C 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 682,500 282,173 294,705 387,795 430 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 47,431 50,403 (50,403) 00 LL 21 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 14,400 9,718 773 13,627 50, t 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 14,400 - - 14,400 r� 00 0 O 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 677,380 45,646 42,996 634,384 69 c2o 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 949,540 - 936,429 13,111 990, o N 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION - - 72,634 (72,634) 00 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 4 8,443,460 2,734,942 3,394,178 5,049,282 tv 400 2 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,131,780 1,784,614 1,696,034 2,435,746 410 C 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 5 12,645,240 3,572,954 4,118,270 8,526,970 d 330, E t 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,900 3 4 1,989,896 00 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,579,570 675,419 680,170 899,400 43° Q 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 64,840 49,048 49,591 15,249 760, $ 88,279,757 $ 28,498,539 $ 35,996,252 $ 52,283,505 410,, Difference between 2015 and 2016 is due to grant invoicing for various projects in 2016. 2 Real Estate Excise Tax revenues for both funds 125 and 126 is up a total of $140,415 from 2015. 3 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to a SnoCo grant, parks dona tionA and park impact fees 4 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is largely due to a substantial water connection fee and the 9%increase to water base rates 5 Differences are due to increases in invoicing and sewer connection fees in 2016, as well as a 9.5%increase to sewer base rates 1 Packet Pg. 78 4.4.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND 6 $ 40,929,107 $ 14,813,377 $ 16,509,045 $ 24,420,062 400/( 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 279,480 121,986 107,407 172,073 380/( 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - - - 00/( 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 800,000 - 800,000 00/( 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,400 1,500 - 5,400 00/( Q. 016 BUILDING MAINT ENANCE 2,175,000 75,530 406,593 1,768,407 d 19% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 76,030 17,914 27,503 48,527 36% t� III STREET FUND 1,716,120 697,269 764,656 951,464 450/, 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 7 8,327,792 655,439 1,776,209 6,551,583 210/(iz 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 181,380 23,762 10,155 171,225 6% R 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - - 00/( 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 149,650 19,519 21,432 128,218 140/( 7 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 - - 26,880 00% m 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 1,040 477 2,523 160/, 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 31,500 3,965 8,598 22,902 270/c O 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2,100,565 81,473 177,049 1,923,516 80% 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 8 2,595,320 - 476,669 2,118,651 180/( N 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 44,950 1,226 7,299 37,651 160/( 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND - - - - 00/( 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 210,370 60,679 61,642 148,728 290/( M 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND s 2,775,770 146,552 623,725 2,152,045 22% 136 PARKS TRUST FUND - - - - 00 O 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 12,500 10 10 12,490 00/( 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 682,500 310,108 294,705 387,795 430/c 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - 21,446 9,359 (9,359) R 07( 'V C 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 14,400 - - 14,400 00/( C 213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND - - - 00/( LL 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 677,380 54 - 677,380 00/( t 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 6 949,540 9,201 936,429 13,111 99% C 421 WATER UTILITYFUND 12,717,507 2,536,030 2,639,215 10,078,292 21°/ 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,613,450 1,022,443 1,131,281 6,482,169 1501, p N 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 17,921,050 3,309,583 3,071,169 14,849,881 170/( >, to 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,990,920 54 - 1,990,920 00% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,971,820 498,670 751,060 1,220,760 380/( C N 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 59,610 22,315 18,185 41,425 31% E t $ 107,038,991 $ 24,451,145 $ 29,829,870 $ 77,209,121 28% um 6 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to final payment of 2014 debt. 7 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to invoices for construction projects in 2016. 8 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to purchase of Civic Field in 2016. 2 Q Packet Pg. 79 1 4.4.a Page 1 of 3 C ITY O F IDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9 $ 10,068,020 $ 5,251,327 $ 5,294,068 $ 4,773,952 53% EMSPROPERTYTAX10 3,688,090 1,783,038 1,937,393 1,750,697 53% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 949,540 486,853 499,419 450,121 53% LOCAL RETAIL SALES✓USE TAX 11 6,144,400 2,604,373 2,754,132 3,390,268 45% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 9,800 3,305 3,021 6,779 31% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 626,700 255,234 273,302 353,398 44% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,451,800 763,075 801,429 650,371 55% GASUTILITYTAX 647,900 373,735 352,987 294,913 54% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 306,500 130,442 135,323 171,177 44% WAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 1,229,110 415,352 457,539 771,571 37% SEWER UTILITYTAX 629,140 239,060 264,203 364,937 42% ST ORMWAT ER UT ILIT Y T AX 330,430 136,982 143,281 187,149 43% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 846,000 350,947 355,558 490,442 42% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,349,100 564,946 532,012 817,088 39% PULLTABS TAX 60,600 24,272 25,643 34,957 42% AMUSEMENT GAMES 40 - 141 (101) 351% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 242,200 62,013 63,371 178,829 26% 28,579,370 13,444,954 13,892,824 14,686,546 49% LICENSES AND PERMITS: FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE POLICE - FINGERPRINTING PROF AND OCC LICENSE -TAXI AMUSEMENTS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -COMCAST FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -VERIZON/FRONT IER FRANCHISE AGREEMENT -BLACKROCK OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS ANIMAL LICENSES STREET AND CURB PERMIT OT R NON -BUS LIC/P ERMIT S INTERGOVERNMENTAL: FEDERAL GRANT S-BUDGET ONLY DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST USDA FOREST SERVICE ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE GRANT ROOFTOP SOLAR CHALLENGE II WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE WA STATE ADMIN OFFICE COURTS GRANT 2014 COMMUNITY FORESTRY GRANT WATERFRONT ANALYSIS GRANT PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION -STATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS DUI - CITIES LIQUOR EXCISE TAX LIQUOR BOARD PROFIT S MISCELLANEOUS INTERLOCAL REVENUE 12 INTERLOCAL GRANTS VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 250 145 160 90 64% 300 - 165 135 55% 630 - - 630 0% C 4,740 4,325 - 4,740 0% 0 710,600 353,509 358,427 352,173 50% 44,900 19,773 17,649 27,251 39% T 100,900 49,706 50,705 50,195 50% N 18,400 9,091 8,172 10,228 44% R 268,000 134,672 138,558 129,442 52% 116,000 84,589 71,010 44,990 61% .. 42,000 18,865 21,240 20,760 51% 70,400 24,650 41,050 29,350 58% M 15,000 5,388 44,623 (29,623) 297% 525,000 251,999 295,154 229,847 56% 38,800 13,691 8,973 29,827 23% O 42,100 10,071 16,122 25,978 38% d 13,100 5,204 7,088 6,012 54% 2,011,120 985,677 1,079,094 932,026 54% �p - - - - 0% 11,970 1,472 6,920 5,050 58% - - - - 0% LL 3,000 - - 0% 6,000 5,250 - 6,000 0% - - 995 (995) 0% O 7,500 2,313 633 6,867 8% 22 3,000 - 2,663 337 89% c0 - - - - 0% O 300 300 - 300 0% N - - - - 0% - - 89,160 (89,160) 0% 192,500 - - 192,500 0% 4.: 10,000 5,215 5,441 4,559 54% y 13,000 8,189 9,150 3,850 70% E 36,980 19,160 19,893 17,087 54% V 7,240 3,512 3,166 4,074 44% 65,200 44,733 96,625 (31,425) 148% Q 357,800 87,538 87,409 270,392 24% - - 75,707 (75,707) 0% 383,330 - - 383,330 0% 2,000 2,000 (2,000) 0% 1,094,820 182,682 399,762 695,058 37% 9 2016 Real Personal/Property Taxrevenues are $42,741 higher than 2015 revenues 10 2016 EMS Property Taxrevenues are $154,355 higher than 2015 revenues. 11 2016 Local Retail Sales/Use Taxrevenues are $149,760 higher than 2015 revenues Please also see pages 18 & 19. 12 Difference between 2015 and 2016 revenues is due to funds received for closure of ESCA in 2016. 3 Packet Pg. 80 1 4.4.a Page 2 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 2,000 563 1,085 916 54% ATM SURCHARGE FEES 250 8 19 231 8% COURT RECORD SERVICES - - - - 0% D/M COURT REC SER 50 7 3 47 7% SHARED COURT COSTS - - - - 0% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN 400 248 235 165 59% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 100 - - 100 0% �F CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS 25,100 25,100 0% O BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 600 - - 600 0% d PHOTOCOPIES 2,000 990 425 1,575 21% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 4,000 1,983 1,452 2,548 36% �p ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 180,350 68,784 85,828 94,522 48% .V ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES - - - - 0% SNO-ISLE 58,000 29,757 33,996 24,004 59% C PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 15,000 8,760 9,450 5,550 63% LL POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 - - 26,000 0% OCDETF OVERTIME - - - 0% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 12,300 605 - 12,300 0% WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 39,500 20,030 20,907 18,593 53% MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES 1,500 - - 1,500 0% m DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES 300 200 - 300 0% FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FORDUI - - 26 (26) 0% t FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 45,000 27,223 28,234 16,766 63% C LEGAL SERVICES - - 6 (6) 0% 0 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 60,000 25,645 32,428 27,572 54% 2 BOOKINGFEES 6,000 2,825 1,721 4,279 29% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 8,000 9,086 11,616 (3,616) 145% N EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 15,000 4,519 3,630 11,370 24% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 13 822,100 407,087 487,513 334,587 59% 2 CRIM CONV FEE CT - - - - 0% CRIM CONV FEE CN - - - - 0% M FIBER SERVICES 9,200 3,825 5,330 3,870 58% C) INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES 7,200 3,000 3,000 4,200 42% " FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 1,800 600 630 1,170 35% t' ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 6,000 1,196 184 5,817 3% 0 ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 75,000 36,186 35,895 39,105 48% PLAN CHECKING FEES 425,000 223,243 198,022 226,978 47% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 3,000 4,680 5,040 (2,040) 168% .� PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 1,250 205 1,588 (338) 127% V C S.E.P.A. REVIEW 7,000 4,880 610 6,390 9% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 7,905 8,615 6,385 57% li DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,000 3,956 4,633 5,367 46% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES - - - - 0% ,C GYM AND WEIGHT ROOM FEES 7,800 3,758 5,952 1,848 76% +' C LOCKER FEES - - - - 0% O SWIM CLASS FEES - - - - 0% PROGRAM FEES 861,700 423,924 536,967 324,733 62% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 19,130 60,746 7,564 11,566 40% N SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM - 0% >, WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES 5,000 25 4,975 1% M BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 950 180 50 900 5% INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 2,964,600 351,196 712,042 2,252,558 24% 5,743,180 1,737,796 2,244,722 3,498,458 39% t 13 2016 EMS Transport User Fees are $80,426 higher than 2015 revenues. 4 Q Packet Pg. 81 1 4.4.a Page 3 of 3 C TTY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received FINES AND FO RFEITURES : PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 8,000 2,837 2,956 5,044 37% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 25,000 13,009 81,038 (56,038) 324% NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 260,000 124,760 27,374 232,626 11% CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 24,600 10,151 8,448 16,152 34% SPEEDING DOUBLE - - - - 0% NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 1,300 802 38,275 (36,975) 2944% OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 1,000 305 863 137 86% P ARKING INFRACT ION P ENALT IES 43,000 20,305 11,185 31,815 26% PR -HANDICAPPED - - - - 0% PARK/INDDISZONE 1,300 1,064 1,528 (228) 118% DWI PENALTIES 6,000 3,628 14,007 (8,007) 233% DUI - DP ACCT 2,500 992 1,183 1,317 47% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 300 221 219 81 73% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN - - - - 0% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 33,000 13,427 13,467 19,533 41% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 1,900 1,023 1,038 862 55% CRIM CONV FEE CT 2,300 899 841 1,459 37% OT HER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 130 90 - 130 0% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 9,000 5,442 4,382 4,618 49% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 900 436 134 766 15% CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 1,900 742 737 1,163 39% CRIM CONV FEE CN 900 218 247 653 27% CRIMINAL COST S-RECOUPMENT S 60,000 28,400 12,706 47,294 21 % PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 33,000 12,741 10,795 22,205 33% BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT - - 2,202 (2,202) 0% COURT INTERPRETER COSTS 100 256 65 35 65% BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 5,000 12,580 9,800 (4,800) 196% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,000 480 240 760 24% 522,130 2549811 243,728 278,402 47% MISCELLANEOUS : INVESTMENT INTEREST 38,600 9,896 13,434 25,166 35% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 5,700 1,251 2,242 3,458 39% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 5,000 2,601 2,224 2,776 44% PARKING 14,000 6,093 6,206 7,794 44% SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 128,000 33,709 42,699 85,301 33% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 1,880 2,560 2,440 51% LEASESLONG-TERM 218,100 73,796 75,506 142,594 35% VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 50,000 1,957 1,854 48,146 4% OTHER RENTS& USE CHARGES 4,500 2,700 1,500 3,000 33% DONATION/CONTRIBUTION 5,000 - - 5,000 0% PARKSDONATIONS 9,500 8,927 3,750 5,750 39% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 950 200 200 750 21% 125TH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS - 1,700 - - 0% VOLUNTEER PICNIC CONTRIBUTIONS - - - - 0% POLICE CONT RIBUT IONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 1,000 - - 1,000 0% PARKS GRANTS- PRIVATE SOURCES - - - - 0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 150 - - 150 0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 2,000 815 2,481 (481) 124% CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 2,000 - - 2,000 0% OT HER JUDGEMENT /SET T LEMENT 2,000 18 125 1,875 6% POLICE JUDGMENT SIREST IT UT ION 200 10 150 50 75% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - (61) 15,008 (15,008) 0% OTHER MISC REVENUES 1,000 8,375 4,702 (3,702) 470% SMALL OVERPAYMENT 50 9 16 34 33% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 120 30 - 120 0% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 330 104 134 196 40% FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES 1,010 - - 1,010 0% US BANK REBATE 6,000 821 2,714 3,286 45% 500,210 1549831 177,506 322,704 35% TRANSFERS -IN: PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT - - - - 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 012 800,000 - - 800,000 0% TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 25,840 - - 25,840 0% 825,840 - - 825,840 0% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $ 39,276,670 $ 16,760,751 $18,037,636 $ 21,239,034 46% Q 5 Packet Pg. 82 I 4.4.a I Page 1 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 14,010,590 $ 5,276,405 $ 5,579,476 $ 8,431,114 40% OVERTIME 423,510 196,376 188,728 234,782 45% HOLIDAY BUY BACK 217,790 1,543 2,349 215,441 1% BENEFITS 5,356,460 1,962,094 2,116,667 3,239,793 40% UNIFORMS 89,290 32,058 40,835 48,455 46% SUPPLIES 393,950 140,906 125,824 268,126 32% SMALL EQUIPMENT 155,480 75,590 48,057 107,423 31% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,600,403 722,222 1,022,665 2,577,738 28% COMMUNICATIONS 211,890 63,425 62,869 149,021 30% TRAVEL 46,210 13,925 10,340 35,871 22% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 - 1,284 5,216 20% ADVERTISING - 1,181 - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 916,390 373,270 384,599 531,791 42% INSURANCE 534,440 418,367 538,732 (4,292) 101% UTILITIES 457,800 173,982 177,075 280,725 39% REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE 425,530 219,240 108,132 317,398 25% MISCELLANEOUS 400,094 166,558 198,425 201,669 50% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 10,384,010 4,880,632 4,954,295 5,429,715 48% INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 135,000 - - 135,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2,909,320 - 936,429 1,972,891 32% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 14,777 - 40,000 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 168,300 - 168,300 0% CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES - 65,297 - 0% OTHER DEBT - 33 - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 46,150 15,495 12,265 33,885 27% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - - - 0% 40,929,107 14,813,377 16,509,045 24,420,062 40% LEO FF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE (009) BENEFITS IN HOME LTC CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL MISCELLANEOUS RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND (011) MISCELLANEOUS CONTINGENCY RESERVEFUND (012) INTERFUND LOAN INTERFUND SUBSIDIES HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND (014) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING MAINTENANCE SUBFUND (016) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANENCE MISCELLANEOUS MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DRUG INFO RC EMENT FUND (104) FUEL CONSUMED SMALL EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS REPAIR/MAINT MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ 178,720 $ 81,449 $ 72,346 $ 106,374 40% 100,480 40,262 32,871 67,610 33% - - 1,286 (1,286) 0% - - 179 (179) 0% 280 275 725 (445) 259% 279,480 121,986 107,407 172,073 38% 0% $ - $ - $ $ - 0% 800,000 $ - 800,000 0% 800,000 - 800,000 0% $ 100 $ - $ $ 100 0% 200 1,500 200 0% 5,100 - 5,100 0% 5,400 1,500 5,400 0% $ - $ 1,834 $ 1,756 $ (1,756) 0% 80,000 63,359 87,474 (7,474) 109% 2,062,000 10,337 35,390 2,026,610 2% - - 546 (546) 0% 33,000 - 169,691 (136,691) 514% - - 111,737 (111,737) 0% $ 2,175,000 75,530 406,593 1,768,407 19% $ 3,000 $ 568 $ 515 $ 2,485 17% 5,000 - - 5,000 0% 2,230 945 730 1,500 33% 800 - - 800 0% 20,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 25% 45,000 11,402 21,257 23,743 47% 76,030 17,914 27,503 48,527 36% r- O Q. d OC R C co C M t C O 2 cc 0 N M r C a� E t 0 ca Q 6 Packet Pg. 83 4.4.a Page 2 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DEIAAIL 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent STREETFUND (111) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 515,160 $ 216,492 $ 236,041 $ 279,119 46% OVERTIME 18,400 5,622 9,569 8,831 52% BENEFITS 265,870 107,010 123,594 142,276 46% UNIFORMS 6,000 4,927 3,745 2,255 62% SUPPLIES 240,000 59,440 107,689 132,311 45% SMALL EQUIPMENT 26,000 9,243 545 25,455 2% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,050 4,979 4,119 9,931 29% COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 1,637 1,473 2,027 42% TRAVEL 1,000 300 - 1,000 0% RENTAL/LEASE 190,950 78,938 78,817 112,133 41% INSURANCE 87,620 81,386 97,912 (10,292) 112% UTILITIES 270,170 103,184 92,135 178,035 34% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 45,000 13,602 7,912 37,088 18% MISCELLANEOUS 24,250 681 350 23,900 1% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 3,000 - 754 2,246 25% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - - - - 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 9,828 - 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 3,420 - 3,420 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERIVCE COSTS - - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 1,730 - - 1,730 0% $ 1,716,120 $ 697,269 $ 764,656 $ 951,464 45% COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 1,850,420 $ 320,130 $ 422,325 $ 1,428,095 23% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 358,240 - - 358,240 0% LAND 438,000 64,672 132,876 305,124 30% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,605,502 194,992 1,145,410 4,460,092 20% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,220 72,201 72,201 19 100% INTEREST 3,410 3,444 3,396 14 100% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - - - - 0% $ 8,327,792 $ 655,439 $ 1,776,209 $ 6,551,583 21% MUNICH'AL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND (121) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) MISCELLANEOUS TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADVERTISING MISCELLANEOUS $ 4,400 $ 520 $ 112 $ 4,288 3% 1,500 - 150 1,350 10% 166,500 22,068 7,232 159,268 4% 80 - 11 70 13% - - - - 0% 2,000 - 2,000 0% 300 - - 300 0% 6,600 1,174 2,650 3,950 40% $ 181,380 S 23,762 $ 10,155 $ 171,225 6% $ 77,500 $ 19,437 $ 21,382 $ 56,118 28% - - - - 0% 8,150 82 49 8,101 1% 4,000 - 4,000 0% 60,000 - - 60,000 0% $ 149,650 $ 19,519 $ 21,432 $ 128,218 14% $ 1,790 $ - $ $ 1,790 0% 25,090 25,090 0% $ 26,880 $ $ $ 26,880 0% $ 3,000 $ 1,040 $ 477 $ 2,523 16% $ 3,000 $ 1,040 $ 477 $ 2,523 16% $ 28,300 $ 3,965 $ 7,337 $ 20,963 26% - - - - 0% 3,200 - 1,260 1,940 39% $ 31,500 $ 3,965 $ 8,598 $ 22,902 27% Q 7 Packet Pg. 84 I 4.4.a I Page 3 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (125) SUPPLIES $ 21,000 $ 28,594 $ 35,419 $ (14,419) 169% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 186,788 47,182 24,684 162,104 13% RENTAL/LEASE - - 2,790 (2,790) 0% UTILITIES - - - - 0% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 140,000 5,696 12,605 127,395 9% MISCELLANEOUS - - 181 (181) 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,752,777 - 101,371 1,651,406 6% $ 2,100,565 $ 81,473 $ 177,049 $ 1,923,516 8% REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 1, PARKS AC (126) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MISCELLANEOUS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OTHER DEBT & DEBT SERVICE COST S INTEREST GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INTERFUND SUBSIDIES SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND (129) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CEWEIERY MAINTENANCE%IMPRO VEMENT (130) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFIT S UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (132) SUPPLIES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS INTERFUND SUBSIDIES SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) SUPPLIES TRAVEL MISCELLANEOUS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT (139) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INSURANCE INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ 212,050 $ $ $ 212,050 0% - - 0% 139,430 139,430 0% 692,180 476,669 215,511 69% 1,521,700 - - 1,521,700 0% 19,890 - 19,890 0% - - - 0% 10,070 - - 10,070 0% $ 2,595,320 $ - $ 476,669 $ 2,118,651 18% $ 13,110 $ 953 $ 999 $ 12,111 8% 6,000 273 6,300 (300) 105% 25,840 - - 25,840 0% $ 44,950 $ 1,226 $ 7,299 $ 37,651 16% $ - $ - $ $ - 0% $ - $ - $ $ - 0% $ 108,410 $ 31,483 $ 31,818 $ 76,592 29% i0 3,500 1,162 805 2,695 23% 2 44,500 13,587 14,264 30,236 32% 1,000 197 - 1,000 0% M 7,000 1,286 581 6,419 8% 20,000 5,741 7,063 12,937 35% v 4,200 351 294 3,907 7% 1,410 646 416 994 30% CL 500 - - 500 0% - - - - 0% 11,550 4,160 4,813 6,738 42% v 3,800 286 300 3,500 8% C 500 - - 500 0% 4,000 1,780 1,288 2,712 32% jL $ 210,370 $ 60,679 $ 61,642 $ 148,728 29% >, t $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% r� C 225,000 41,361 29,164 195,836 13% 2 500,000 - 475,710 24,291 95% �p 2,050,770 100,991 118,851 1,931,919 6% c - 4,200 - - 0% N $ 2,775,770 $ 146,552 $ 623,725 $ 2,152,045 22% $ 2,000 $ - $ 10 $ 1,990 0% 4,500 4,500 0% N 6,000 10 6,000 0% E $ 12,500 $ 10 $ 10 $ 12,490 0% v ca $ - $ - $ - $ - 0% Q 2,500 2,500 2,500 - 100% 680,000 307,608 292,205 387,795 43% $ 682,500 $ 310,108 $ 294,705 $ 387,795 43% 8 Packet Pg. 85 I 4.4.a I Page 4 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent BUSINESS EMPROVEVIENTDISTRICT FUND (140) SUPPLIES $ - $ 11,416 $ 789 $ (789) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 9,995 7,924 (7,924) 0% MISCELLANEOUS - 35 645 (645) 0% - 21,446 9,359 (9,359) 0% LID FUND C O NTRO L (211) INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND (232) GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND INTEREST WATER FUND (421) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXCISE TAXES RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES $ 14,400 $ - $ $ 14,400 0% $ 14,400 $ - $ $ 14,400 0% $ 536,270 $ - $ $ 536,270 0% 140,610 - 140,610 0% 500 54 500 0% $ 677,380 $ 54 $ $ 677,380 0% $ 933,210 $ - $ 933,208 $ 2 100% 16,330 9,201 3,221 13,109 20% $ 949,540 $ 9,201 $ 936,429 $ 13,111 99% $ 795,220 $ 304,476 $ 320,703 $ 474,517 40% 24,000 7,538 8,806 15,194 37% 372,550 137,148 149,181 223,369 40% 4,000 1,978 914 3,086 23% 151,000 63,413 30,653 120,347 20% 1,600,000 492,294 431,122 1,168,878 27% 143,000 50,947 42,592 100,408 30% 11,000 8,072 1,537 9,463 14% 1,793,286 216,143 402,413 1,390,873 22% 30,000 13,857 12,602 17,398 42% 200 - - 200 0% 340,000 124,601 153,105 186,895 45% 100,750 39,831 41,280 59,470 41% 58,920 70,904 52,335 6,585 89% 40,000 10,090 9,995 30,005 25% 17,000 16,460 1,819 15,181 11 % 70,450 33,962 30,823 39,627 44% 30,000 10,782 11,110 18,890 37% 1,229,110 415,352 457,539 771,571 37% 731,220 - - 731,220 0% 15,000 9,828 - 15,000 0% 4,551,921 461,301 453,681 4,098,240 10% 2,300 - - 2,300 0% 323,870 - - 323,870 0% 25,840 45,839 25,839 1 100% 256,870 1,184 1,163 255,707 0% - - - - 0% - 31 - 0% - - - - 0% $ 12,717,507 $ 2,536,030 $ 2,639,215 $ 10,078,292 21% r- O a d R C to c I.L 21 t C O 2 �O 0 N A O 2 r C N E t V O Q 9 Packet Pg. 86 I 4.4.a I Page 5 of 6 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent S TO RM FUND (422) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 640,470 $ 199,160 $ 225,113 $ 415,357 35% OVERTIME 6,000 6,710 4,047 1,953 67% BENEFITS 313,950 97,555 110,903 203,047 35% UNIFORMS 6,500 4,465 5,210 1,290 80% SUPPLIES 46,500 16,572 8,479 38,021 18% SMALL EQUIPMENT 4,000 787 - 4,000 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,638,530 271,300 307,163 2,331,367 12% COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 1,310 1,006 2,194 31% TRAVEL 4,300 - 200 4,100 5% EXCISE TAXES 55,000 21,991 23,138 31,862 42% RENTAL/LEASE 252,990 88,556 103,416 149,574 41% INSURANCE 64,120 39,269 63,187 933 99% UTILITES 10,500 4,026 4,252 6,248 40% REPAIR& MAINTENANCE 13,000 8,576 1,600 11,400 12% MISCELLANEOUS 94,950 22,596 20,355 74,595 21% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 85,000 59,214 72,215 12,785 85% INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT 330,430 136,982 143,281 187,149 43% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 410,080 - 4,923 405,157 1% LAND 25,000 - - 25,000 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 9,828 - - 0% CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 2,168,330 - (713) 2,169,043 0% GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 83,800 - - 83,800 0% REVENUE BONDS 158,300 - - 158,300 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 32,070 32,063 32,063 8 100% INTEREST 166,430 1,470 1,443 164,987 1% DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - - 0% OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 15 - 0% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES - - - - 0% $ 7,613,450 $ 1,022,443 $ 1,131,281 $ 6,482,169 15% SEWER FUND (423) SALARIES AND WAGES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES FUEL CONSUMED SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL EXCISE TAXES RENT AL/LEASE INSURANCE UTILITIES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT INTERFUND SUBSIDIES MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REVENUE BONDS INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS INTEREST DEBT ISSUE COSTS OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES BOND RESERVE FUND (424) REVENUE BONDS DEBT ISSUE COSTS INTEREST OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ 1,721,530 $ 683,882 $ 713,506 $ 1,008,024 41% 100,000 36,600 30,468 69,532 30% 771,920 297,596 322,205 449,715 42% 9,500 5,419 4,476 5,024 47% 420,200 103,718 98,939 321,261 24% 90,000 29,588 19,151 70,849 21% 4,000 - - 4,000 0% 46,000 11,651 19,201 26,799 42% 1,954,696 443,275 566,729 1,387,967 29% 43,000 17,542 16,244 26,756 38% 5,000 - 1,097 3,903 22% 150,000 64,894 81,809 68,191 55% 182,670 82,219 74,732 107,938 41% 96,630 139,648 105,637 (9,007) 109% 1,056,660 452,279 315,468 741,192 30% 325,000 162,294 120,352 204,648 37% 105,450 26,025 21,351 84,099 20% 150,000 67,206 71,403 78,597 48% 629,140 239,060 264,203 364,937 42% 2,563,949 38,324 - 2,563,949 0% - 25,251 - - 0% 6,999,825 212,942 54,182 6,945,643 1% 130,140 - - 130,140 0% 72,840 - - 72,840 0% 170,620 156,729 157,034 13,586 92% 122,280 10,350 10,028 112,252 8% - - - 0% - 3,093 2,955 (2,955) 0% - - - - 0% $ 17,921,050 $ 3,309,583 $ 3,071,169 $ 14,849,881 17% $ 655,010 $ $ $ 655,010 0% - - 0% 1,334,910 - 1,334,910 0% 1,000 54 1,000 0% $ 1,990,920 $ 54 $ $ 1,990,920 0% Q 10 Packet Pg. 87 I 4.4.a I Page 6 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) SALARIES AND WAGES $ 224,880 $ 86,549 $ 91,487 $ 133,393 41% OVERTIME 2,000 384 - 2,000 0% BENEFITS 105,050 39,471 40,508 64,542 39% UNIFORMS 1,000 610 559 441 56% SUPPLIES 110,000 38,463 41,741 68,259 38% FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - - 1,000 0% SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 308,200 50,893 54,657 253,543 18% SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 14,415 1,506 56,494 3% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 44,000 443 580 43,420 1% COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 822 1,000 2,000 33% TRAVEL 1,000 2,935 1,000 - 100% RENTAL/LEASE 19,440 6,006 8,225 11,215 42% INSURANCE 29,560 40,605 29,967 (407) 101% UTILITIES 14,000 5,613 5,646 8,354 40% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 18,579 29,253 30,747 49% MISCELLANEOUS 7,190 825 3,055 4,135 42% INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 - - 2,500 0% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 981,000 192,056 441,877 539,123 45% INTERFUND RENTAL - - - - 0% $ 1,971,820 $ 498,670 $ 751,060 $ 1,220,760 38% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617) BENEFITS $ 30,940 $ 11,211 $ 7,674 $ 23,266 25% PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 27,470 11,104 10,297 17,173 37% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 - 214 986 18% S 59,610 $ 22,315 $ 18,185 $ 41,425 31% TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 107,038,991 $ 24,451,145 $29,829,870 $77,209,121 28% 11 Packet Pg. 88 4.4.a Page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL $ 295,500 $ 90,440 $ 71,981 $ 223,519 240/c OFFICE OF MAYOR 260,250 102,832 106,249 154,001 410/c HUMAN RESOURCES 462,044 142,753 146,734 315,310 320/c MUNICIPAL COURT 909,270 335,527 366,411 542,859 400/c CITY CLERK 585,310 243,300 234,593 350,717 400/c ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,839,930 708,157 614,466 1,225,464 330/c CITY ATTORNEY 741,560 274,735 286,857 454,703 390/c NON -DEPARTMENTAL 14,956,000 5,563,278 6,679,708 8,276,292 450/c POLICE SERVICES 9,628,550 3,599,927 3,832,659 5,795,891 400/c COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV. 493,580 156,258 183,771 309,809 370/c DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2,656,652 888,971 985,455 1,671,197 370/c PARKS& RECREATION 3,774,541 1,260,011 1,333,112 2,441,429 350/c PUBLIC WORKS 2,842,120 868,268 1,071,371 1,770,749 380/c FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,483,800 578,920 595,677 888,123 400/c $ 40,929,107 $ 14,813,377 $ 16,509,045 $ 24,420,062 400/c Title C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Budget Expenditures Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent ,_ Q. d OC v WATER UTILITY FUND $ 12,717,507 $ 2,536,030 $ 2,639,215 $ 10,078,292 C 210/ STORM UTILITY FUND 7,613,450 1,022,443 1,131,281 6,482,169 LL 15 % >, SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 17,921,050 3,309,583 3,071,169 14,849,881 t 17% C BOND RESERVE FUND 1,990,920 54 - 1,990,920 Oo/ 0 $ 40,242,927 $ 6,868,110 $ 6,841,665 $ 33,401,262 170/c 0 N A r C N t V Q 12 Packet Pg. 89 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2016 Amended Budget 5/31/2015 Expenditures 5/31/2016 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES $ 119,100 $ 51,655 $ 38,241 $ 80,859 32% OVERTIME 1,000 - - 1,000 0% BENEFITS 88,550 30,362 28,956 59,594 33% SUPPLIES 2,000 467 725 1,275 36% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 832 - - 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47,160 5,062 1,432 45,728 3%' _ COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,200 1,200 1,800 40% 0 TRAVEL 6,700 483 1,207 5,493 18% RENTAL/LEASE 490 253 219 271 45% _ REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE 500 - - 500 0% MISCELLANEOUS 27,000 125 27,000 0% C $ 295,500 $ 90,440 $ 71,981 $ 223,519 24% C OFFICEOFMAYOR jL SALARIES $ 197,160 $ 81,614 $ 82,284 $ 114,876 42% �+ BENEFITS 48,190 18,599 20,029 28,161 42% a SUPPLIES 1,500 311 511 989 34% 0 SMALL EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% 'a PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000 764 946 1,054 47% m COMMUNICATION 1,400 160 497 903 35% >, TRAVEL 3,000 149 538 2,462 18% RENTAL/LEASE 2,400 795 645 1,755 27% C REPAIR/MAINTENANCE - - - - 0% 2 MISCELLANEOUS 4,600 440 800 3,800 17% �p $ 260,250 $ 102,832 $ 106,249 $ 154,001 41 % HUMAN RESOURCES N SALARIES $ 226,880 $ 86,540 $ 89,036 $ 137,844 39% OVERTIME - - 43 (43) 0% 2 BENEFITS 73,380 28,292 30,072 43,308 41% SUPPLIES 2,300 548 2,120 180 92% M SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 - - 300 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 114,000 28,010 20,476 93,524 18% v COMMUNICATIONS 700 381 383 317 55% O TRAVEL 1,000 - 386 614 39% 0- ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 2,200 795 588 1,612 27% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 7,850 7,793 - 7,850 0% MISCELLANEOUS 33,434 (9,606) 3,631 29,803 11% $ 462,044 $ 142,753 $ 146,734 $ 315,310 32% r- MUNIC H'AL C O URT LL SALARIES $ 566,190 $ 215,132 $ 235,424 $ 330,766 42% OVERTIME 600 1,093 28 572 5% BENEFITS 222,750 72,795 86,468 136,282 39% O SUPPLIES 9,930 6,490 3,704 6,226 37% 2 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 1,360 262 2,538 9% 10 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64,000 28,351 31,107 32,893 49% N COMMUNICATIONS 1,800 768 1,062 738 59% >, TRAVEL 2,500 2,082 878 1,622 35% M RENTAL/LEASE 800 172 402 398 50% , REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 1,700 428 794 906 47% MISCELLANEOUS 36,200 6,857 6,283 29,917 17% $ 909,270 $ 335,527 $ 366,411 $ 542,859 40% t O Q 13 Packet Pg. 90 Page 2 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 324,480 $ 145,924 $ 145,646 $ 178,834 45% OVERTIME - 742 1,509 (1,509) 0% BENEFITS 129,300 49,776 55,128 74,172 43% SUPPLIES 10,240 2,675 2,052 8,188 20% SMALL EQUIPMENT - 140 500 (500) 0% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,310 10,438 6,834 21,476 24% COMMUNICATIONS 50,000 16,252 7,031 42,969 14% TRAVEL 1,000 423 - 1,000 0% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 20,000 8,302 7,118 12,882 36% REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 17,980 7,096 6,343 11,637 35% MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 1,533 2,432 1,568 61% $ 585,310 $ 243,300 $ 234,593 $ 350,717 40% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES $ 892,390 $ 324,710 $ 345,065 $ 547,325 39% OVERTIME 6,670 1,192 1,308 5,362 20% BENEFITS 305,800 109,703 117,003 188,797 38% SUPPLIES 43,050 3,729 2,600 40,450 6% SMALL EQUIPMENT 110,650 42,358 24,018 86,632 22% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111,400 31,463 14,585 96,815 13% COMMUNICATIONS 61,500 15,390 21,508 39,992 35% TRAVEL 2,900 540 833 2,067 29% RENTAL/LEASE 8,200 3,271 2,992 5,208 36% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 242,680 137,471 32,999 209,681 14% MISCELLANEOUS 14 14,690 23,552 51,555 (36,865) 351% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 40,000 14,777 - 40,000 0% $ 1,839,930 $ 708,157 $ 614,466 $ 1,225,464 33% CITY ATTO RNEY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 741,560 $ 274,735 $ 284,721 $ 456,839 38% MISCELLANEOUS - - 2,137 (2,137) 0% $ 741,560 $ 274,735 $ 286,857 $ 454,703 39% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 100,000 0% BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT 34,500 1,444 1,037 33,463 3% SUPPLIES 3,000 1,107 2,005 995 67% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 643,420 139,648 192,620 450,800 30% EXCISE TAXES 6,500 1,181 1,284 5,216 20% RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 3,600 3,600 - 100% INSURANCE 534,440 418,367 538,732 (4,292) 101% REPAIR & MAINTENANCE - - - - 0% MISCELLANEOUS 69,010 46,746 47,715 21,295 69% INTERGOVT SERVICES 10,302,760 4,870,360 4,944,021 5,358,739 48% ECA LOAN PAYMENT 135,000 - - 135,000 0% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 2,909,320 936,429 1,972,891 32% GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 168,300 - - 168,300 0% INSTALLMENT PURCHASES - 65,297 - - 0% OTHER DEBT - - - - 0% INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 46,150 15,495 12,265 33,885 27% DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS - - - - 0% FISCAL AGENT FEES 33 - - 0% INTERFUND SERVICES - - 0% $ 14,956,000 $ 5,563,278 $ 6,679,708 $ 8,276,292 45% r_ O C. d !L' R C 10 C LL 21 t C O 2 co 0 N to 2 r C N E t 0 ca Q 14 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is due to Microsoft Office Windows Software Renewal in 2016. 14 r- Packet Pg. 91 1 1 4.4.a I Page 3 of 4 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENTIN DETAIL 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PO LIC E S ERVIC ES SALARIES $ 5,778,330 $ 2,178,930 $ 2,352,467 $ 3,425,863 41% OVERTIME 396,240 187,103 169,686 226,554 43% HOLIDAY BUYBACK 217,790 1,543 2,349 215,441 1% BENEFITS 2,220,940 841,573 910,415 1,310,525 41% UNIFORMS 80,310 27,377 37,109 43,201 46% SUPPLIES 86,730 33,451 27,114 59,616 31% SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,400 8,800 12,471 7,929 61% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117,170 37,279 37,109 80,061 32% COMMUNICATIONS 26,210 8,966 10,114 16,096 39% TRAVEL 17,310 9,292 2,399 14,911 14% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 595,100 238,780 246,017 349,083 41% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 14,620 3,727 3,717 10,903 25% MISCELLANEOUS 46,850 17,834 16,418 30,432 35% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 10,550 5,272 5,274 5,276 50% $ 9,628,550 $ 3,599,927 $ 3,832,659 $ 5,795,891 40% COMMUNITY SERVIC ES/EC 0 N DEV. SALARIES BENEFITS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES /PLANNING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL ADVERTISING RENT AL/LEASE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS ENGINEERING SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE REPAIR/MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS $ 224,960 $ 90,906 $ 94,132 $ 130,828 42% 67,430 26,055 28,678 38,752 43% 7,000 151 195 6,805 3% 800 - 125 676 16% 180,400 34,372 58,410 121,990 32% 1,490 366 387 1,103 26% 2,000 179 - 2,000 0% - - - - 0% 2,000 795 840 1,160 42% 500 - - 500 0% 7,000 3,434 1,004 5,996 14% $ 493,580 $ 156,258 $ 183,771 $ 309,809 37% $ 1,444,230 $ 558,086 $ 595,355 $ 848,875 41% 1,300 72 6,052 (4,752) 466% 534,670 198,427 216,814 317,856 41% d 500 - - 500 0% 16,100 5,885 5,231 10,869 32% 5,250 4,338 2,697 2,553 51% 571,442 67,035 123,425 448,017 22% 8,500 1,647 1,985 6,515 23% 4,250 459 3,828 422 90% LL - - - - 0% 24,750 13,637 8,674 16,076 35% 6,800 3,395 1,177 5,623 17% O 38,860 35,990 20,217 18,643 52% 2 $ 2.656.652 $ 888.971 $ 985,455 $ 1,671,197 37% T- 0 N $ 1,373,500 $ 509,124 $ 515,293 $ 858,207 38% >, 5,000 796 2,667 2,333 53% 561,900 199,389 207,503 354,397 37% , 360 - - 360 0% - - - 0% 2,200 1,143 1,057 52% t 465,000 - 171,617 293,384 37% 11,800 2,937 3,582 8,218 30% Q 600 - 216 384 36% 26,370 6,200 9,938 16,433 38% 2,600 - - 2,600 0% 21,000 4,947 11,002 9,998 52% $ 2,470,330 $ 723,392 $ 922,959 $ 1,547,371 37% 15 Packet Pg. 92 Page 4 of 4 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENTIN DETAIL 2016 Amended 5/31/2015 5/31/2016 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES $ 1,830,090 $ 681,146 $ 710,329 $ 1,119,761 39% OVERTIME 10,000 4,288 3,984 6,016 40% BENEFITS 695,310 252,684 271,862 423,448 39% UNIFORMS 5,370 3,505 2,391 2,979 45% SUPPLIES 117,500 45,363 51,185 66,315 44% SMALL EQUIPMENT 9,080 8,420 6,645 2,435 73% PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 514,341 64,983 79,276 435,065 15% COMMUNICATIONS 30,140 9,550 9,062 21,078 30% TRAVEL 4,450 316 53 4,397 1% ADVERTISING - - - - 0% RENTAL/LEASE 170,310 72,190 78,463 91,847 46% PUBLIC UTILITY 175,000 59,281 58,610 116,390 33% REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 50,800 20,861 25,694 25,106 51% MISCELLANEOUS 91,450 32,426 30,558 60,892 33% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - - 0% INTERGOVTL SERVICES 70,700 5,000 5,000 65,700 7% $ 3,774,541 $ 1,260,011 $ 1,333,112 $ 2,441,429 35% PUBLIC WORKS SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES OVERTIME BENEFITS UNIFORMS SUPPLIES SMALL EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS TRAVEL RENT AL/LEASE PUBLIC UTILITY REPAIR/MAINTENANCE MISCELLANEOUS TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 263,850 $ 106,028 $ 109,082 $ 154,768 41% 200 - - 200 0% 81,750 31,567 34,545 47,205 42% 7,600 1,795 825 6,775 11% 1,000 1,479 - 1,000 0% 200 20 31 169 16% 1,350 228 248 1,102 18% 500 - - 500 0% 7,640 2,460 2,560 5,080 34% 2,800 1,059 1,119 1,681 40% 1,000 - - 1,000 0% 3,900 240 3,900 0% $ 371,790 $ 144,875 $ 148,411 $ 223,379 40% 669,430 246,611 267,122 402,308 40% 2,500 1,091 3,452 (952) 138% 291,990 101,431 108,157 183,833 37% 2,750 1,176 1,334 1,416 49% 87,000 38,935 27,558 59,442 32% 3,000 7,863 197 2,803 7% - 64 76 (76) 0% 14,000 5,579 5,810 8,190 42% - - - - 0% 52,530 22,020 22,542 29,988 43% 280,000 113,641 117,346 162,654 42% 78,500 38,469 37,407 41,093 48% 2,100 2,040 4,675 (2,575) 223% $ 1,483,800 $ 578,920 $ 595,677 $ 888,123 40% S 40,929,107 $ 14,813,377 $ 16,509,045 $ 24,420,062 40% Q 16 Packet Pg. 93 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2016 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 1,918,825 $ February 4,636,071 March 6,895,675 April 10,557,110 May 18,448,540 June 20,425,003 July 22,546,548 August 24,735,497 September 26,741,970 October 29,963,416 November 37,305,043 December 39,276,670 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 1,918,825 $ 2,112,632 10.10% 2,717,246 4,307,339 -7.09% 2,259,604 6,797,209 -1.43% 3,661,435 10,797,010 2.27% 7,891,430 18,037,636 -2.23% 1,976,463 2,121, 545 2,188, 949 2,006,473 3,221,446 7,341,627 1,971,627 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2016 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 189,874 $ February 316,058 March 479,194 April 640,872 May 800,918 June 986,094 July 1,276,157 August 1,480,830 September 1,690,614 October 1,875,616 November 2,069,074 December 2,200,000 189,874 $ 216,395 13.97% 126,183 447,070 41.45% 163,136 551,728 15.14% 161,679 768,326 19.89% 160,046 977,560 22.05% 185,176 290,062 204,673 209,784 185,002 193,458 130,926 Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 17 Packet Pg. 94 1 I 4.4.a I Contractors 439,261 Health & Personal Carer 44,160 Retail Eating & Drinking 341,496 Gasoline Stations 12,946 Automotive Repair 71,605 Retail Automotive 697 Total Retail Automotive Misc Retail Trade Retail Eating & Drinking Business Services Retail Food Stores Others Amusement & Recreation Health & Personal Care Automotive Repair Accommodation Clothing and Accessories Gasoline Stations Wholesale Trade Communications Contractors Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: May 2016 Year -to -Date Total $2,754,132 Wholesale Trade 109,1481 Connrnuiications 102,229 Misc Retail Trade 351,737 Accommodation 15,555 Business Services 196,699 Amusement & Recreation 27,954 Retail Food Stores 112,119 Others 136,479 Clothing and Accessories 95,091 Change in Sales Tax Revenue: May 2016 compared to May 2015 $149 760 73 602 50 968 4,5051 31 306 $25 665 8,246 $1 876 $1 282 $1 183 $ ,138 $7C 3 ($527) ($3,470 ($16,505) $60 21 ($70,000)($50,000)($30,000)($10,000) $10,000 $30,000 $50,000 $70,000 $90,000 $110,000 $130,000 $150,000 r- 0 a d c co c LL 21 t c 0 2 co 0 N A to 2 r C a) E t 0 to Q 18 Packet Pg. 95 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2016 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 471,315 $ 471,315 $ 539,867 14.54% February 1,055,135 583,820 1,204,754 14.18% March 1,506,759 451,624 1,693,551 12.40% April 1,936,463 429,704 2,173,926 12.26% May 2,478,856 542,394 2,754,132 11.10% June 2,960,731 481,875 July 3,457,813 497,082 August 3,998,806 540,993 September 4,517,576 518,770 October 5,055,818 538,242 November 5,626,862 571,044 December 6,144,400 517,538 Sales and Use Tax 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget mar Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2016 Gas Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 90,678 $ 90,678 $ 85,977 -5.18% February 190,868 100,190 176,574 -7.49% March 272,706 81,838 249,556 -8.49% April 346,987 74,281 311,852 -10.13% May 405,847 58,860 352,987 -13.02% June 445,893 40,046 July 477,342 31,449 August 501,633 24,291 September 523,862 22,229 October 548,406 24,545 November 586,112 37,705 December 647,900 61,788 Gas Utility Tax 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget -0-- Prior Yeaz a+ Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 19 Packet Pg. 96 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2016 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance January $ 125,356 $ 125,356 $ 91,384 -27.10% February 226,461 101,105 230,098 1.61% March 344,917 118,456 328,246 -4.83% April 457,974 113,057 432,105 -5.65% May 577,752 119,778 532,012 -7.92% June 685,900 108,148 July 794,692 108,792 August 904,737 110,045 September 1,019,063 114,326 October 1,131,491 112,428 November 1,235,975 104,484 December 1,349,100 113,125 Telephone Utility Tax 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --dr- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2016 1lectric Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly TrD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 155,396 $ 155,396 $ 177,383 14.15% February 311,244 155,848 348,280 11.90% March 463,906 152,662 509,702 9.87% April 612,759 148,854 674,873 10.14% May 749,676 136,917 801,429 6.90% June 854,497 104,821 July 956,312 101,815 August 1,049,934 93,622 September 1,145,581 95,647 October 1,239,871 94,290 November 1,346,584 106,712 December 1,451,800 105,216 Electric Utility Tax 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year -Budget --O-Prior Year a+ Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 20 Packet Pg. 97 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2016 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 573,717 $ 573,717 $ 553,882 -3.46% February 969,279 395,562 943,114 -2.70% March 1,534,923 565,644 1,529,160 -0.38% April 1,915,226 380,303 1,904,819 -0.54% May 2,481,868 566,642 2,446,538 -1.42% June 2,912,390 430,522 July 3,586,469 674,079 August 4,157,711 571,242 September 4,946,125 788,414 October 5,503,014 556,889 November 6,162,012 658,998 December 6,572,750 410,738 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales 2016 Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 238,091 $ 238,091 $ 238,442 14.15% February 750,139 512,049 750,909 11.90% March 988,469 238,330 988,089 9.87% April 1,200,403 211,933 1,195,226 10.14% May 1,439,120 238,718 1,432,240 6.90% June 1,651,173 212,053 July 1,891,010 239,837 August 2,403,804 512,795 September 2,641,727 237,923 October 2,853,622 211,895 November 3,092,120 238,497 December 3,304,340 212,220 Storm Water Sales 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dr,- Prior Year a+ Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 21 Packet Pg. 98 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2016 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 571,975 $ 571,975 $ 566,825 -0.90% February 1,033,695 461,721 1,035,133 0.14% March 1,603,598 569,903 1,607,616 0.25% April 2,066,627 463,029 2,078,557 0.58% May 2,641,462 574,835 2,642,003 0.02% June 3,110,919 469,457 July 3,697,613 586,694 August 4,168,968 471,356 September 4,762,598 593,630 October 5,236,709 474,111 November 5,819,454 582,746 December 6,291,410 471,956 r_ O IZ d fC C R C LL t C O m r O N M r C N E L U M Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 22 Packet Pg. 99 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2016 General Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 4,560,564 $ 4,560,564 $4,953,956 8.63% February 7,080,568 2,520,004 7,893,221 11.48% March 10,254,855 3,174,287 10,217,655 -0.36% April 14,282,463 4,027,609 14,305,106 0.16% May 16,470,117 2,187,654 16,509,045 0.24% June 20,252,645 3,782,528 July 23,504,866 3,252,220 August 27,113,525 3,608,659 September 30,737,648 3,624,123 October 33,341,447 2,603,799 November 36,962,003 3,620,556 December 40,929,107 3,967,104 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2016 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 2,640,077 $ 2,640,077 $ 3,074,199 16.44% February 3,094,175 454,098 4,065,136 31.38% March 4,182,251 1,088,076 4,389,675 4.96% April 6,122,668 1,940,417 6,454,134 5.41% May 6,283,708 161,041 6,679,708 6.30% June 7,925,981 1,642,273 July 8,993,121 1,067,140 August 10,291,465 1,298,344 September 11,817,373 1,525,908 October 12,249,051 431,678 November 13,411,675 1,162,624 December 14,956,000 1,544,325 Non -Departmental 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year —Budget —dm- Prior Year r_ O d R C to C LL 21 t a O 2 �O T O N M 2 r C N E t V fC a+ a+ Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 23 Packet Pg. 100 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2016 City Council Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 19,588 $ 19,588 $ 13,340 -31.90% February 43,238 23,650 27,668 -36.01% March 68,617 25,379 44,120 -35.70% April 91,002 22,385 58,113 -36.14% May 115,388 24,386 71,981 -37.62% June 142,957 27,568 July 169,613 26,656 August 194,018 24,404 September 218,163 24,145 October 242,646 24,484 November 268,263 25,616 December 295,500 27,237 City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2016 Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 22,161 $ 22,161 $ 21,296 -3.90% February 44,020 21,859 43,294 -1.65% March 65,603 21,583 64,319 -1.96% April 86,693 21,090 85,409 -1.48% May 108,016 21,323 106,249 -1.64% June 129,368 21,352 July 151,400 22,032 August 172,781 21,380 September 193,702 20,921 October 217,172 23,470 November 239,237 22,065 December 260,250 21,013 Office of Mayor 300,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 0,00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dr,- Prior Year a+ Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 24 Packet Pg. 101 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development 2016 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 28,607 $ 28,607 $ 25,054 -12.42% February 66,541 37,934 61,145 -8.11% March 103,874 37,333 101,724 -2.07% April 155,321 51,448 146,484 -5.69% May 193,087 37,766 183,771 -4.82% June 227,738 34,651 July 269,744 42,006 August 309,552 39,808 September 353,224 43,671 October 396,203 42,979 November 438,246 42,044 December 493,580 55,334 City Clerk Community Services/Economic Development 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget -dp- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 50,489 $ 50,489 $ 44,524 -11.81% February 96,125 45,635 87,838 -8.62% March 145,204 49,079 142,107 -2.13% April 189,944 44,740 188,255 -0.89% May 234,027 44,083 234,593 0.24% June 281,576 47,549 July 329,270 47,695 August 379,179 49,909 September 428,220 49,041 October 485,933 57,714 November 535,319 49,385 December 585,310 49,991 700,000 City Clerk 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 25 Packet Pg. 102 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2016 Human Resources Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 34,273 $ 34,273 $ 28,007 -18.28% February 71,193 36,920 58,708 -17.54% March 115,298 44,105 90,412 -21.58% April 150,430 35,132 115,675 -23.10% May 189,556 39,126 146,734 -22.59% June 227,772 38,216 July 266,108 38,336 August 302,589 36,480 September 344,265 41,676 October 381,533 37,268 November 414,723 33,190 December 462,044 47,321 Human Resources 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget t Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2016 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 67,768 $ 67,768 $ 67,346 -0.62% February 140,999 73,231 145,300 3.05% March 219,268 78,269 219,191 -0.04% April 293,243 73,975 290,918 -0.79% May 365,511 72,268 366,411 0.25% June 440,872 75,361 July 515,865 74,993 August 594,541 78,676 September 669,574 75,033 October 750,559 80,985 November 828,307 77,748 December 909,270 80,963 Municipal Court 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Yeaz Budget -dm- Prior Year a+ Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 26 Packet Pg. 103 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Information Services 2016 Information Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance % January $ 87,065 $ 87,065 $ 55,507 -36.25% February 163,617 76,552 158,620 -3.05% March 224,796 61,179 205,381 -8.64% April 281,617 56,821 242,036 -14.05% May 331,746 50,129 283,871 -14.43% June 381,470 49,725 July 448,514 67,044 August 521,686 73,171 September 590,807 69,121 October 648,167 57,360 November 735,478 87,311 December 900,110 164,632 Finance Information Services 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year - Budget Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Finance 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast TrD Actuals Variance % January $ 97,947 $ 97,947 $ 62,994 -35.69% February 174,402 76,455 130,335 -25.27% March 249,528 75,126 197,850 -20.71% April 330,097 80,569 265,012 -19.72% May 403,825 73,728 330,595 -18.13% June 478,183 74,359 July 551,010 72,826 August 624,240 73,230 September 699,491 75,251 October 782,345 82,854 November 857,044 74,699 December 939,820 82,776 Finance 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --*---Current Year -Budget --&- Prior Year r_ O d R C co C LL t C O 2 tD T Q N M r C N E t 0 M a+ a+ Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 27 Packet Pg. 104 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2016 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 61,797 $ 61,797 $ 60,070 -2.79% February 123,593 61,797 120,220 -2.73% March 185,390 61,797 162,968 -12.09% April 247,187 61,797 224,651 -9.12% May 308,983 61,797 286,857 -7.16% June 370,780 61,797 July 432,576 61,797 August 494,373 61,797 September 556,170 61,797 October 617,966 61,797 November 679,763 61,797 December 741,560 61,797 Police 800,000 City Attorney 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC +Current Year - Budget -d�- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 742,439 $ 742,439 $ 771,955 3.98% February 1,500,827 758,388 1,527,193 1.76% March 2,270,564 769,738 2,295,467 1.10% April 3,024,634 754,070 3,078,848 1.79% May 3,778,474 753,839 3,832,659 1.43% June 4,596,174 817,700 July 5,361,301 765,126 August 6,134,061 772,761 September 6,899,091 765,029 October 7,695,105 796,015 November 8,764,862 1,069,757 December 9,628,550 863,688 Police 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year - Budget -*I,- Prior Year a+ Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 28 Packet Pg. 105 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2016 Development Services Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 201,835 $ 201,835 $ 170,060 -15.74% February 411,018 209,184 361,353 -12.08% March 641,000 229,982 565,548 -11.77% April 849,674 208,674 764,404 -10.04% May 1,065,243 215,570 985,455 -7.49% June 1,271,014 205,771 July 1,490,976 219,962 August 1,714,690 223,714 September 1,936,272 221,582 October 2,182,160 245,887 November 2,407,343 225,183 December 2,656,652 249,309 Parks & Recreation Development Services 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget t Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 243,592 $ 243,592 $ 252,899 3.82% February 505,386 261,794 502,972 -0.48% March 781,095 275,709 770,996 -1.29% April 1,058,904 277,810 1,041,241 -1.67% May 1,359,582 300,677 1,333,112 -1.95% June 1,677,232 317,651 July 2,108,378 431,146 August 2,567,286 458,908 September 2,889,106 321,820 October 3,183,247 294,141 November 3,438,023 254,776 December 3,774,541 336,518 Parks & Recreation 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Yeaz Budget -dm- Prior Year a+ Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 29 Packet Pg. 106 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works 2016 Public Works Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 31,230 $ 31,230 $ 29,570 -5.31% February 62,130 30,900 59,034 -4.98% March 92,810 30,680 89,046 -4.05% April 123,243 30,434 118,682 -3.70% May 154,320 31,076 148,411 -3.83% June 185,380 31,060 July 216,622 31,243 August 246,986 30,363 September 276,279 29,293 October 308,266 31,987 November 337,169 28,904 December 371,790 34,621 Facilities Maintenance Public Works 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget --AP- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2016 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 115,588 $ 115,588 $ 116,661 0.93% February 236,621 121,033 240,595 1.68% March 365,554 128,934 357,601 -2.18% April 487,500 121,946 468,138 -3.97% May 604,005 116,504 595,677 -1.38% June 723,757 119,752 July 857,071 133,314 August 967,719 110,648 September 1,099,287 131,567 October 1,211,418 112,132 November 1,335,849 124,431 December 1,483,800 147,951 Facilities Maintenance 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --#- Current Year -Budget --O-Prior Year r_ O C. d R C to C LL 21 t a O 2 �O T Q N A M 2 r C N E t t) fC a+ a+ Q *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 30 Packet Pg. 107 1 I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2016 Engineering Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 198,055 $ 198,055 $ 160,475 -18.97% February 396,423 198,368 303,810 -23.36% March 597,281 200,858 521,251 -12.73% April 796,160 198,879 763,107 -4.15% May 1,001,003 204,843 922,959 -7.80% June 1,201,964 200,961 July 1,401,670 199,706 August 1,603,612 201,942 September 1,807,951 204,339 October 2,023,470 215,519 November 2,232,307 208,838 December 2,470,330 238,023 500,000 0 +_ JAN Engine a ring FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC t Current Year Budget —dp-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 31 Packet Pg. 108 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY I 4.4.a I City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Summary As of May 31, 2016 (a) Term Purchase Agency/Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Washington State Local Investment Pool Various Government Investment Pool Snohomish County Investment Pool Various Investment Pool FICO Bonds 33 9/19/2014 FHLMC Bonds 55 12/27/2012 FHLMC Bonds 61 12/28/2012 FFCB Bonds 36 1 /25/2016 FFCB Bonds 37 1 /25/2016 FNMA Bonds 61 9/19/2014 FHLB Bonds 48 5/5/2016 FHLMC Bonds 48 5/5/2016 (a) To maturity. 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 TOTAL Investment Mix State Investment Pool Bonds Snohomish County Investment Pool Purchase Maturity Price Date $11,583,160 Various $35,498,977 Various 1,027,000 6/6/2017 1,000,000 6/27/2017 1,000,000 12/28/2017 2,000,000 12/28/2018 2,000,000 1 /25/2019 1,000,000 9/19/2019 2,000,000 3/30/2020 2,000,000 4/28/2020 $59,109,136 % of Total Rate Comparison 19.60% Current 6-month treasury rate 20.35% Current State Pool rate 60.06% Blended Edmonds rate 100.0% Interest Income Yield to Weighted Maturity Average 0.42% 0.08% i i 0.77% 0.46% j 0.96% 0.02% i 0.75% 0.01 % 0.90% 0.02% 1.42% 0.05% 1.23% 0.04% 1.87% 0.03% c 1.45% e C 0.05% C 1.35% 0.05% 0.80% 0.80% 0.49% 0.42% 0.80% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec r- O a am w w O c u_ 21 t a O 2 m r O N M ■ 2012 r ■ 2013 E 2014 ■ 2015 Q 2016 32 Packet Pg. 109 4.4.a GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND & SUBFUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- 0 ---- ACTUAL ---- 0- 12/31 /2015 3/31 /2016 5/31 /2016 Q1 YTD 001-General Fund $ 9,359,436 $ 5,775,692 $ 10,888,027 $ (3,420,446) $ 1,528,59, 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 519,409 453,760 413,426 (65,648) (105,98, 011-Risk Management Fund 961,513 963,340 964,385 1,828 2,87, .� u. 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 4,677,030 1,667,653 4,682,006 3,164 4,97E ?, 013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD 56,487 56,594 56,642 107 15! 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 2,590 9,043 2,611 17 2 -a 016-Building Maintenance 118,086 133,260 (112,312) 15,175 (230,39t pp Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 15,694,551 $ 9,059,344 $ 16,894,786 $ (3,465,802) $ 1,200,23! r c 0 co O N M General Fund & Subfunds CO) r 20 0 $16.89 Q- $15.69 16 �a .v 12 c $9.06 0 u. o 8 � c 4 m r O N Dec2015 Mar2016 May2016 r c a� E t v c� Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 33 Packet Pg. 110 4.4.a GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW GOVERNMENTAL FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31 /2015 3/31 /2016 5/31 /2016 Q1 YTD General Fund & Subfunds Special Revenue $ 15,694,551 7,711,341 $ 9,059,344 $ 11,887,729 16,894,786 10,233,748 $ (3,465,802) $ 2,681,185 1,200,23 s 2,522,40 p Debt Service 114,790 115,564 158,560 773 43,77, .S c Total Governmental Funds $ 23,520,682 $ 21,062,636 $ 27,287,093 $ (783,843) $ 3,766,41 20 16 ,12 0 8 4 Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group 1.89 General Fund & Subfunds t Special 1.23 Revenue Debt Service $0.11 $0.12 $0.16 Dec 2015 Mar2016 May 2016 Governmental Fund Balances - Combined 30 24 $23.52 c 18 0 12 6 $27.29 Dec 2015 Mar2016 May 2016 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. r_ 0 O_ m O c ii 21 t .r C O 2 m r O N M 2 r c a) E t v c2 Q 34 Packet Pg. 111 1 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW 1 4.4.a I GOVERNMENTAL SPECIAL REVENUE 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 111 - Street Fund 112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 118 - Memorial Street Tree 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 125 - Real Estate Tax 2 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 129 - Special Projects Fund 130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 132 - Parks Construction Fund 136 - Parks Trust Fund 137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 138 - Sister City Commission 139 - Transportation Benefit District 140 - Business Improvement Disrict Total Special Revenue 15 12 9 c 0 6 3 FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE; $ 68,732 $ 120,531 $ 109,819 $ 514,445 426,929 421,639 9,339 3,813,826 1,869,889 468,471 482,084 476,634 17,919 17,953 17,968 153,884 164,509 160,265 64,480 71,765 72,225 15,469 15,173 15,042 84,567 86,486 85,332 1,629,535 1,874,258 1,947,368 2,239,007 2,042,221 2,257,408 265,924 284,615 286,694 38,393 38,466 38,498 137,256 142,169 140,891 897,413 1,160,606 1,172,774 152,249 152,538 152,667 883,729 889,731 893,808 3,785 3,792 7,038 - 0 - 66, 744 100,076 107,788 $ 7,711,341 $ 11, 887, 729 $ 10, 233, 748 $ Special Revenue Funds $11.89 $10.23 ACTUAL 51,800 $ (87,517) 2,309,287 13,614 34 10,624 7,284 (295) 1,918 244,723 (196,784) 18,690 73 4,913 263,191 289 6,001 7 33,333 41,081 (92,80( 1,860,55( 8,16: 4� 6, 38' 7,74E (42 1 76E 317, 83: 18, 40' 20,77( 10E 3, 63E 275, 36' 41£ 10, 07� 3, 25: 41,04z 2,681,185 $ 2. 522.40 -� Special Revenue Dec 2015 Mar2016 Mav 2016 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. Q 35 Packet Pg. 112 1 4.4.a I ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND ENTERPRISE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- FUNDS 12/31/2015 3/31/2016 5/31/2016 Q1 YTD 421 - Water Utility Fund $ 16, 750, 820 $ 15, 513,148 $ 17, 505, 783 $ 512,373 $ 754, 96' 422 - Storm Utility Fund 9,695,327 10,572,881 10,260,080 539,894 564,75, 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 43,067,458 43,952,248 44,114,559 822,769 1,047,10' 424 - Bond Reserve Fund - 843,964 4 3 411 - Combined Utility Operation - 47,129 72,634 47,129 72,63z Total Enterprise Funds $ 69,513,605 $ 70,929,369 $ 71.953,059 $ 1.922,167 $ 2,439,45z . $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40, 000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10, 000,000 Enterprise Fund Balances as of May 31, 2016 $72,634 Combined Utility 17,505,783 $10,260,080 $4 Storm Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve r a *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 36 Packet Pg. 113 4.4.a SUMMARY OVERVIEW CITY-WIDE FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ---- ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2015 3/31 /2016 5/31 /2016 ---- ACTUAL ---- Q1 YTD Governmental Funds Enterprise Funds Internal Services Fund Agency Funds $ 23,520,682 69,513,605 7,645,840 203,101 $ 21,062,636 70,929,369 8,273,556 191,835 $ 27,287,093 71,953,059 7,574,950 234,507 $ (783,843) $ 3,766,41- 1,922,167 2,439,45z 107,063 (70,89( (11,265) 31,40E Total City-wide Total $100,883,228 $100,457,398 $107,049,610 $ 1,234,121 $ 6,166,38-, Governmental Fund Balances as of May 31, 2016 General Fund & Subfunds Drug Enforcement Fund Street Fund Combined Street Const/Improve Fund Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund Memorial Street Fund Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund Employee Parking Perrnit Fund Youth Scholarship Fund Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq Gifts Catalog Fund Special Projects Fund Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement Parks Construction Fund Parks Trust Fund Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund Sister City Commission Transportation Benefit District $ (0) Business Improvement District L.I.D. Fund Control L.I.D. Guaranty Fund 2012 LTGO Debt Service Fund Equipment Rental Fund Firemen's Pension Fund $1 J894,781 $109,819 $421,639 $1,869,889 $476,634 $17,968 $160,265 $72,225 $15,042 $85,332 $1,947,3 8 r $2,257, 08 $286,694 0 $38,498 Q- d � $140,891 W $1,172,774 � $152,667 $893,808 C $7,038 � $107,788 $10,428 � $105,135 $42,996 $234,507 *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. I.L t C 0 a 0 $7,574,95( N R $20,000,000 2 c a� E t v c� Q 37 Packet Pg. 114 I 4.4.a I INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES FUNDS ---- ACTUAL ---- - - ACTUAL ---- 12/31 /2015 3/31 /2016 5/31 /2016 01 YTD 511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 7,645,840 $ 8,273,556 $ 7,574,950 $ 107,063 $ (70,89( Total Internal Service Funds $ 7,645,840 $ 8,273,556 $ 7,574,950 $ 107,063 $ (70,89( 10 8 6 0 4 2 Internal Service Fund Balances $8.27 $7.65 $7.57 Dec 2015 Mar 2016 May 2016 r_ 0 0. 511-Equipment Rental Fund W 2 Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 38 Packet Pg. 115 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 Impact Fee Collection Ordinance Adoption Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Diane Cunningham Background/History The City of Edmonds collects impact fees on development projects, as authorized under state law. The revenues may be used only for eligible capital improvements to the City's street and park systems. These fees have always been collected at time of building permit issuance. However, in 2015, the state legislature enacted a new law (ESB 5923) that requires counties, cities, and towns collecting impact fees to adopt a "deferral process" for new single-family detached and attached residential construction. The requirement goes into effect September 1, 2016. Note: The new requirement has nothing to do with impact fee rates -only the timing for collecting the fees. Any consideration of revising rates would be the subject for a different Council meeting. An agenda memo and draft ordinance to address the new requirement was prepared and discussed at the City Council's June 28 meeting. The Council discussed the issues, along with the proposed addition of an administrative fee to help recover City costs in processing and tracking impact fees. At the June 28 meeting, Council concurred that the ordinance should be brought back for adoption on the next Consent Calendar. Staff Recommendation For Council to adopt the proposed Ordinance by approving the Consent Calendar Narrative The State's new impact fee deferral requirement follows several years of lobbying by the residential building industry. The builders had objected to paying impact fees prior to selling the new housing they were creating. Cities had maintained that trying to collect impact fees after a house was already built and new owners had closed on the purchase of their home, would very difficult --not to mention, confusing for buyers. In 2015, compromise legislation was adopted that gave local governments three options for deferring impact fee collection. The options allow impact fee payment for single-family housing to be deferred until: 1. City's final inspection; 2. City's issuance of the certificate of occupancy; or 3. Closing of the first sale of the property. Any of the options requires a change to the local impact fee regulations. The City's best interest is served by obtaining the impact fees in a simple manner during the construction process --and collecting from the developer, rather than a new homeowner. Therefore, staff is proposing Option 1. Packet Pg. 116 4.5 Draft text for an ordinance is attached that would amend the City's park and transportation impact fee regulations to implement Option 1 for single-family housing (detached or attached). With this option, the City would allow impact fees to be collected at the time of final inspection of a single-family development project. (Builders of single-family housing could still pay impact fees at the time of building permit issuance if they choose.) Impact fees for multifamily housing and commercial construction would continue to be required at the time of building permit issuance. Under the City's existing regulations, the collection of park impact fees is addressed in Chapter 3.36 ECC, while the collection of transportation impact fees is addressed in Title 18 ECDC (Chapter 18.82). The proposed regulatory language combines the process for collecting both park and transportation impact fees into one chapter (Chapter 3.36 ECC) under the Revenue title of the Municipal Code. Attachment 1 shows the language for a revised Chapter 3.36 (Park Impact Fees) that pulls in language from Chapter 18.82 (Traffic Impact Fees) and adds the proposed new "Option 1" for the impact fee collection process. In addition, the text specifically authorizes the City to collect an administrative fee when impact fees are collected. [Currently, the impact fees go entirely into a capital account and no additional amount is allowed to reimburse the cost for City staff to administer the process.] The administrative fee would need to be adopted by separate resolution. Attachment 2 is the ordinance template language (with "WHEREASES", etc.). The proposed language in Attachment 1 does not change other existing Edmonds impact fee policies. For example, the current policy remains that would provide an exemption from park impact fees for low-income housing provided by non -profits. However, the same exemption was not originally adopted for transportation impact fees and the proposed code language does not change that policy. At a later time, the City Council may consider other types of impact fee changes, including a rate change. However, the current proposal sticks closely with existing policies, except to add the new deferral option for collecting impact fees and to allow an administrative fee to be charged at the time of collection. An accompanying fee resolution (establishing the administrative fee on handling impact fees) is being proposed as a separate action item for the City Council. Attachments: 2016-06-22 draft of new 3.36 ECC 2016-06-22 ordinance Packet Pg. 117 4.5.a ATTACHMENT A Chapter 3.36 JMPACT FEES Sections: 3.36.010 Findings and authority. 3.36.020 Definitions. 3.36.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees. 3.36.040 Exemptions. 3.36.050 Credits. 3.36.060 Tax adjustments. 3.36.070 Appeals. 3.36.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts. 3.36.090 Refunds. 3.36.100 Use of funds. 3.36.110 Review. 3.36.120 Park impact fee rates. 3.36.125 Street impact fee rates. 3.36.130 Independent fee calculations. 3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired. 3.36.150 Procedures guide. 3.36.160 Deferral system for single-family residences. 3.36.010 Findings and authority. The city council of the city of Edmonds (the "council") hereby finds and determines that new growth and development in the city of Edmonds will create additional demand and need for public facilities in the city of Edmonds, and the council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. The city of Edmonds has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on public facilities, has prepared the rate study and procedures guide for park impact fees, has prepared the rate study and procedures guide for transportation impact fees, and hereby incorporates these studies into this title by reference. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the council adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter to assess impact fees for parks and streets. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the council in establishing the impact fee program. These fees can and will only be applied to projects resulting from city-wide development growth. These fees cannot be used to mitigate existing shortfalls of the park system or street system. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.020 Definitions. Deleted: PARK o a 0 Q d 0 a 0 c L O c 0 m 0 v d d U. M a E N LO M Packet Pg. 118 4.5.a The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090 and ECDC Title 21 or given their usual and customary meaning. A. "Accessory dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.05.015. B. "Building permit" means an official document or certification which is issued by the building official and which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure. C. "Capital facilities plan" means the capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan adopted by the city of Edmonds pursuant to Chapter 36.70A RCW, and such plan as amended. There are many references in state statutes to the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) as the basis for projects that are eligible for funding by impact fees. The parks element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan fulfills the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et seq., pertaining to a "capital facilities plan," and is considered to be the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) for the purpose of Edmonds' impact fees for parks. The transportation element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plan fulfills the requirements of RCW 82.02.050 et seq.. pertaining to a "capital facilities plan." and is considered to be the "capital facilities plan" (CFP) for the purpose of Edmonds' impact fees for streets.pepending on the context. . Deleted: All ......... references to a CFP in the impact fee chapter, rate study, and procedures guide are interpreted as referring to either the parks element of the city of Edmonds comprehensive plallor the transportation element of the city of Edmonds Deleted: . ............... comprehensive plan, including the projects eligible for impact fees listed in Appendix C of the procedures guide for the transportation impact fees. D. "City" means the city of Edmonds. E. "Council" means the city council of the city of Edmonds. F. "Department" means the development services department. G. "Development activity" means any construction, expansion, or change in the use of a building or structure that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. H. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the city of Edmonds which authorizes the commencement of a development activity. I. "Director" means the director designed by the mayor to administer thejmpact fee Deleted: park program or that director's designee. J. "Dwelling unit" is defined in ECDC 21.20.050. K. "Encumbered" means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public facilities. L. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land development activity which creates the demand for additional capital facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for an impact fee credit. M. Reserved. N. "Hearing examiner" is defined in ECDC 21.40.010. Packet Pg. 119 4.5.a 0. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed by the city of Edmonds on development activity pursuant to this chapter as a condition of granting development approval in order to pay for the public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, the administrative fee for collecting and handling school impact fees, the cost of reviewing independent fee calculations or any other charge or fee based upon the administrative costs of processing a development application. P. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account(s) established for each type of public facility for which impact fees are collected. The accounts shall be established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080 and 3.36.090 and comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. Q. "Independent fee calculation" means the jmpact fee calculation and/or economic documentation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the rates listed in ECC 3.36.120 and ECC 3.36.125or the calculations prepared by the director where none of the fee categories or fee amounts in ECC 3.36.120 and ECC 3.36.125 accurately describe or capture the impacts of the new development on public facilities. R. "Interest" means the average interest rate earned in the last fiscal year by the city of Edmonds. S. Reserved. T. "Occupancy permit" means the permit issued by the city of Edmonds authorizing the building to be occupied where a development activity results in a change in use of the preexisting structure, or the creation of a new use where none previously existed. U. "Owner" means the owner of record of real property, or a person with an unrestricted written option to purchase property; provided, that if the real property is being purchased under a recorded real estate contract, the purchaser shall be considered the owner of the real property. V. "Procedures guide" means the administrative guidance document prepared by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.150. W. "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development or users of the project and are not system improvements. No improvement or facility included in a capital facilities plan adopted by the council shall be considered a project improvement. X. "Public facilities" means the public parks, open space and recreation facilities owned by the city of Edmonds or other governmental entities in the context of the park impact fee and means the public streets and roads owned by the city of Edmonds or other governmental entities in the context of the street impact fee. Y. 'Rate study" means the "Rate Study for Impact Fees for Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities," city of Edmonds, dated July 12, 2013 in the context of the park impact fee and means the 'Rate Study for Impact Fees for Roads." city of Edmonds. dated October 29, 2009 in the context of the street impact fee. Z. "Residential' or "residential development" means all types of construction intended for human habitation. This shall include, but is not limited to, single-family, duplex, triplex, and other multifamily development. This also includes the residential portion of mixed -use developments. c 0 a 0 El d c 0 c T Deleted: park n c 0 m 0 U d d U. M 0. E N LO M Packet Pg. 120 4.5.a AA. Reserved. BB. "Service area" means the entire corporate limits of the city of Edmonds. CC. "Significant past tax payment" means taxes exceeding five percent of the amount of the impact fee, and which were paid prior to the date the impact fee is assessed and were earmarked or proratable to the same system improvements for which the impact fee is assessed. DD. Reserved. EE. "State" means the state of Washington. FF. Reserved. GG. "System improvements" means public facilities that are included in the city of Edmonds capital facilities plan and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project improvements. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.030 Assessment and payment of impact fees. A. Required. The city shall collect impact fees, based on the rates in ECC 3.36.120 and ECC 3.36.125from any applicant seeking development approval from the city for any development activity within the city as provided herein, including the expansion of existing structures or uses or change of existing uses that creates additional demand for public facilities. 1. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include miscellaneous improvements that do not add any demand for public facilities, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools accessory to a residential use, and signs. 2. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include replacement of a residential structure with a new residential structure of the same type at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior residential structure. Replacement of a residential structure with a new residential structure of the same type shall be interpreted to include any residential structure for which there is no increase in the number of residential units. 3. For the purposes of this chapter, development activity shall not include alterations, expansions, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are created and the use is not changed. Note: accessory dwelling units (ADU) are not considered to create additional dwelling units because ECDC 20.21.020 does not consider ADUs as increasing the overall density of a single-family residential neighborhood. B. Timing and Calculation of Fees. Impact fees shall be assessed based upon the jmpact fee rates in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit, including but Deleted: park not limited to change of use permit or remodel permit. 1. For a change in use of an existing building or dwelling unit, including any alteration, expansion, replacement or new accessory building, the impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the new use, less an amount equal to the applicable impact fee for the prior use. Packet Pg. 121 4.5.a 2. For mixed use developments, impact fees shall be imposed for the proportionate share of each land use based on the applicable measurement in the impact fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and ECC 3.36.125. 3. Where the impact fees imposed are determined by the square footage of the development, the building official will establish the gross floor area created by the proposed development Deleted: Reserved. 4. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.050 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit awarded. 5. Applicants shall pay an administrative fee that covers the cost of staff time in administering the impact fee program. The amount of the administrative fee shall be established and updated from time to time by resolution of the city council. C. Payment. Unless deferred pursuant to ECC 3.36.160Qmpact fees shall be paid at Deleted: I the time the building permit or business license is issued by the city. The department shall not issue the required building permit or business license or other approval unless and until the impact fees set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and ECC 3.36.125 have been paid in the amount that they exceed exemptions or credits provided pursuant to ECC 3.36.040 or 3.36.050, PROVIDED THAT building permits may be issued without impact fee payment when payment is deferred in accordance with ECC 3.36.160. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.040 Exemptions. A. Except as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the payment of all impact fees under this chapter: 1. Alteration of an existing nonresidential structure that does not involve a change in use and does not expand the usable space or add any residential units: 2. Miscellaneous improvements that do not expand usable space or add any residential units, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs: 3. Demolition or moving of a structure: 4. Expansion of an existing structure that results in the addition of 100 square feet or less of gross floor area: S. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size and use at the same site or lot when such replacement occurs within 12 months of the demolition or destruction of the prior structure. Replacement of a structure with a new structure of the same size shall be interpreted to include any structure for which the gross square footage of the building will not be increased by more than 100 square feet: or 6. Alterations, expansions, enlargement, remodeling, rehabilitation or conversion of an existing dwelling unit where no additional dwelling units are created and the use is not changed [Accessory dwelling units (ADU) are not considered to create additional dwelling units because ECDC 20.21.020 does not consider ADUs as increasing the overall density of a single-family residential neighborhood. and Packet Pg. 122 4.5.a because the city's traffic model does not assign additional trips to the network as a result of ADUs.I. of, as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the fees under this 1. Low-income housing provided by nonprofit organizations such as, but not limited to, Habitat for Humanity. Owners of low-income single-family dwelling units, condominiums and other low-income housing shall execute and record a lien against the property, in favor of the city, for a period of 10 years guaranteeing that the dwelling unit will continue to be used for low-income housing or that impact fees from which the low-income housing is exempted, plus interest, shall be paid. The lien against the property shall be subordinate only to the lien for general taxes. In the event that the development is no longer used for low-income rental housing, the owner shall pay the city the impact fee from which the owner or any prior owner was exempt, plus interest at the statutory rate. Any claim for an exemption for low-income owner occupied housing must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived. Deleted: A. Deleted: all g. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development Deleted: s activity falls within an exemption identified in this section, in any other section, or under other applicable law. Determinations of the director shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.050 Credits. A. Pursuant to the requirement of RCW 82.02.060(4), a feepayer shall be entitled to a credit for the value of any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the feepayer, to facilities that are identified in the capital facilities plan and that are required by the city as a condition of approving the development activity. B. The director shall determine if requests for credits meet the criteria in subsection (A) of this section. C. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall select an appraiser or the feepayer may select an independent appraiser acceptable to the director. D. The appraiser must be prequalified by the city and shall not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. A description of the appraiser's certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser shall certify that he/she does not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. E. The appraiser shall be directed to determine the total value of the dedicated land, improvements, and/or construction provided by the feepayer on a case -by -case basis. F. The feepayer shall pay for the cost of the appraisal or request that the cost of the appraisal be deducted from the credit which the director may be providing to the feepayer, in the event that a credit is awarded. Deleted: park Packet Pg. 123 4.5.a G. After receiving the appraisal, the director shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating his/her agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the director before the impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall nullify the credit. H. No credit shall be given for project improvements required of the development by city code and/or SEPA; only dedications in excess of those required by law are eligible for credit. In no event shall this provision be interpreted to authorize cash payment. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to limit the discretion of the city council to decline to accept any proposed dedication. I. A feepayer can request that a credit or credits for impact fees be awarded to him/her for significant past tax payments. For each request for a credit or credits for significant past tax payments forjmpact fees, the feepayer shall submit receipts and Deleted. park a calculation of past tax payments earmarked for or proratable to the particular system improvement. The director shall determine the amount of credits, if any, for significant past tax payments for public facilities. Deleted: park J. Any claim for credit must be made no later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a building permit. The failure to timely file such a claim shall constitute a final bar to later request any such credit. K. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. L. A feepayer may, in the alternative, appeal an assessment or mitigation requirement which he believes exceeds the total which may lawfully be imposed. See ECDC 18.50.020(C). [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.060 Tax adjustments. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the rate study has provided adjustments for future taxes to be paid by the new development which are earmarked or proratable to the same new public facilities which will serve the new development. The impact fee rates in ECC 3.36.120 and ECC 3.36.125 have been reasonably adjusted for taxes and other revenue sources which are anticipated to be available to fund public improvements. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.070 Appeals. A. Any feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit. B. Appeals regarding the amount of the impact fee imposed on any development activity may only be filed by the feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. This provision shall control over any other provisions of city ordinance. Packet Pg. 124 4.5.a C. The feepayer must first file a request for review regarding impact fees with the director, as provided herein: 1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the city; 2. The request for review by the director shall be filed within 14 calendar days of the feepayer's payment of the impact fees at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek such review; 3. An administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review by the director; this shall be the same as that imposed for a request for reconsideration of a staff decision; 4. The director shall issue his/her determination in writing within 14 days from the receipt of a request for review. D. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision concerning the independent fee calculation which is authorized in ECC 3.36.130, or the fees imposed by the director pursuant to ECC 3.36.120 and ECC 3.36.125, or any other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, can be appealed to the hearing examiner. E. The decision of the director may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II decision, [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. Deleted: in accordance with Chapter A ECDC 3.36.080 Establishment of impact fee accounts. A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in special interest -bearing accounts. B. There is hereby established a separate impact fee account for the park impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter, the park impact account. There is also hereby established a separate impact fee account for the street impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter, the street impact account. Funds withdrawn from hese Deleted: this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of ECC 3.36.100 and applicable state law. Interest earned on the fees shall be retained in the respective accounts and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were collected. C. On an annual basis, the finance director shall provide a report to the council on the impact fee accounts showing the source and amount of all monies collected, earned, or received, and the public improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. D. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within 10 years of receipt, unless the council identifies in written findings extraordinary and compelling reason or reasons for the city to hold the fees beyond the 10-year period. Under such circumstances, and prior to the expiration of the 10-year period, the council shall establish the period of time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.090 Refunds. A. If the city fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within 10 years of when the fees were paid or, where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time Packet Pg. 125 4.5.a periods as established pursuant to ECC 3.36.080, the current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first -in, first -out basis. B. The city shall notify potential claimants by first class mail that they are eligible for anjmpact fee refund. This notification shall be done by first class mail deposited Deleted: park with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such claimants. A potential claimant must be the owner of the property. C. Owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the director within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within this one-year period shall be retained by the city and expended on the appropriate public facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the city. F. When the city seeks to terminate any or all components of the impact fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds from any terminated component or components, including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the city shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail at the last known address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one year. At the end of one year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the city, but must be expended for the appropriate public facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within the account or accounts being terminated. G. The city shall also refund to the current owner of property for which impact fees have been paid, including interest earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed did not occur; provided, that if the city has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a refund, the director can decline to provide the refund. If within a period of three years, the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner can petition the director for an offset. The petitioner must provide receipts of impact fees previously paid for a development of the same or substantially similar nature on the same property or some portion thereof. Determinations of the director shall be in writing and shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in ECC 3.36.070. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.100 Use of funds. A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees: 1. Shall be used for public improvements that will reasonably benefit new development; and c 0 a ] 0 10 A c 0 m 0 U d d U. M 0. E N LO M Packet Pg. 126 4.5.a 2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in public facilities serving existing developments; and 3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operations. B.Impact fees may be spent for public improvements, including, but not limited to, planning, engineering, surveying, land acquisition, right-of-way acquisition, site improvements, necessary off -site improvements, construction, architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can be capitalized. C. Impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs previously incurred by the city to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or incurred costs. D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of public improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.110 Review. The fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and ECC 3.36.125 may be reviewed and adjusted by the council as it deems necessary and appropriate in conjunction with the annual update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan. The fee rates may be adjusted 12 months after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, or 12 months after the most recent review by the council. The council may determine the amount of any adjustment up or down and revise the fee rates set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and ECC 3.36.125. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.120 Park impact fee rates. The park impact fee rates in this section are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the rate study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECC 3.36.130exemptions in ECC 3.36.040 and credits in ECC 3.36.050all new developments in the city will be charged the park impact fee applicable to the type of development as follows: A. Effective October 1. 2014: 1. Single-family house: $2,734.05 per dwelling unit. 2. Multifamily residential housing: $2,340.16 per dwelling unit. 3. Nonresidential development: $1.34 per square foot. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.125 Street impact fee rates. Deleted: Park i Deleted: Effective October 1, 2013, thro September 30, 2014:1 1. Single-family house: $1,367.03 per dwe unit.¶ 2. Multifamily residential housing: $1,17f dwelling unit.¶ 3. Nonresidential development: $0.67 pei foot.¶ B. Packet Pg. 127 4.5.a The street impact fee rates in this section are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the rate study, which is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECC 3.36.130, exemptions in ECC 3.36.040 and credits in ECC 3.36.050, all new developments in the city will be charged the street impact fee applicable to the type of development as follows: A. Light industrial, ITE Land Use Code 110: $1.50 per square foot. B. Manufacturing, ITE Land Use Code 140: $1.12 per square foot. C. Mini -warehouse, ITE Land Use Code 151: $0.40 per square foot. D. Single-family house. ITE Land Use Code 210: $1,196.33 per dwelling unit. E. Apartment, ITE Land Use Code 220: $776.56 per dwelling unit. F. Condominium, ITE Land Use Code 230: $629.65 per dwelling unit. G. Mobile home. ITE Land Use Code 240: $671.62 per dwelling unit. H. Senior housing. ITE Land Use Code 251: $157.41 per dwelling unit. I. Motel, ITE Land Use Code 320: $629.65 per room. J. Marina, ITE Land Use Code 420: $188.89 per boat berth. K. Movie theater. ITE Land Use Code 444: $2.48 per square foot. L. Health/fitness club. ITE Land Use Code 492: $2.78 per square foot. M. High school. ITE Land Use Code 530: $0.82 per square foot. N. Church, ITE Land Use Code 560: $0.69 per square foot. 0. Day care center. ITE Land Use Code 565: $6.57 per square foot. P. Nursing home, ITE Land Use Code 620: $199.39 per bed. Q. General office. ITE Land Use Code 710: $2.07 per square foot. R. Medical office. ITE Land Use Code 720: $3.81 per square foot. S. Specialty retail, ITE Land Use Code 814: $0.93 per square foot. T. Shopping center. ITE Land Use Code 820: $1.34 per square foot. U. Supermarket, ITE Land Use Code 850: $4.80 per square foot. V. Convenience market 15-16 hours. ITE Land Use Code 852: $5.80 per square foot. W. Drive-in bank. ITE Land Use Code 912: $7.00 per square foot. X. Restaurant: sit-down, ITE Land Use Code 932: $4.70 per square foot. Y. Fast food no drive -up. ITE Land Use Code 933: $9.19 per square foot. Z. Fast food with drive -up. ITE Land Use Code 934: $11.23 per square foot. AA. Coffee/donut shop, no drive -up. ITE Land Use Code 936: $5.73 per square foot. AB. Coffee/donut shop, drive -up, no indoor seating, ITE Land Use Code 938: $10.55 per square foot. AC. Gas station with convenience, ITE Land Use Code 945: $3,347.62 per vehicle fueling position. 3.36.130 Independent fee calculations. A. If in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in ECC 3.36.120 and/or ECC 3.36.125 accurately describe or capture the impacts of a new development on parks and/or streets, the department may ask the applicant to conduct independent fee calculations and the director may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations. The alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be agreed E N LO CO) U U W W M M 0 N N W O co r O N c m E z U 0 r Q Packet Pg. 128 4.5.a to by the director and the feepayer. The documentation submitted shall show the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made. B. Any feepayer submitting an independent fee calculation will be required to pay the city of Edmonds a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. The fee required by the city for conducting the review of the independent fee calculation shall be $200.00 plus the actual cost of outside consultant review if required by the city, unless otherwise established by the director, and shall be paid by the feepayer prior to initiation of review. C. While there is a presumption that the calculations set forth in the rate study are valid, the director shall consider the documentation submitted by the feepayer, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which the director reasonably deems to be inaccurate or not reliable, and may, in the alternative, require the feepayer to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case -by -case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or principles of fairness. The fees or alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the feepayer. D. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may be appealed to the office of the hearing examiner as set forth in ECC 3.36.070. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.140 Existing authority unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the city from requiring the feepayer or the proponent of a development activity to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of Chapters 43.21C and 82.02 RCW. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.150 Procedures guide. The director is authorized to develop a procedures guide to facilitate the city's administration and enforcement of this chapter. The procedures guide shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter, shall be for the sole convenience of the city, and shall not vest any rights in or for any other person. [Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013]. 3.36.160 Deferral system for single-familv residences. A. An applicant for a building permit for a single-family detached or attached residence may request a deferral of the full impact fee payment until final inspection. The building official may withhold certification of final inspection, until the impact fees have been paid in full. Packet Pg. 129 4.5.a B. The amount of impact fees that maybe deferred under this section must be determined by the fees in effect at the time the applicant applies for a deferral. C. The term of an impact fee deferral under this section may not exceed eighteen months from the date of building permit issuance. D. An applicant seeking a deferral under this section must grant and record a deferred impact fee lien against the property in favor of the city in the amount of the deferred impact fee. The deferred impact fee lien, which must include the legal description, tax account number, and address of the property, must also be: (i) In a form approved by the city attorney (ii) Signed by all owners of the property, as demonstrated by a current title report. with all signatures acknowledged as required for a deed: (iii) Recorded with the Snohomish County auditor's office: (iii) Binding on all successors in title after the recordation: and (iv) junior and subordinate to one mortgage for the purpose of construction upon the same real property granted by the person who applied for the deferral of impact fees. E. If impact fees are not paid in accordance with a deferral authorized by this section, the city may institute foreclosure proceedings in accordance with chapter 61.12 RCW. F. In addition to the administrative fee collected pursuant to ECC 3.36.030.B.5, the city shall collect an additional reasonable administrative fee to implement this section from permit applicants who are seeking to delay the payment of impact fees under this section. The amount of the administrative fee shall be established and updated from time to time by resolution of the city council. G. The section shall be construed to be consistent with state law and RCW 82.02.050, in particular. E N LO M U U w m M M 4- 0 r O L N N w O �O O N �.i C d E m 0 O r r Q Packet Pg. 130 4.5.b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S IMPACT FEE REGULATIONS TO ADD A DEFERRAL SYSTEM FOR IMPACT FEES CHARGED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSOLIDATING THE TWO IMPACT FEE CHAPTERS INTO ONE CHAPTER. WHEREAS, the Washington state legislature amended the state laws regarding impact fees in 2015 by passing ESB 5923; and WHEREAS, ESB 5923 requires cities collecting impact fees to adopt, by September 1, 2016, and maintain a system for the deferred collection of impact fees for single-family residential construction; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is intended to satisfy the requirements of ESB 5923; and WHEREAS, city staff is recommending that the city's impact fee regulations be re - codified so that the two types of impact fees (streets and parks) may be found at the same place in the code; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 3.36 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Park Impact Fees," is hereby amended to be entitled "Impact Fees," and to read as set forth in Attachment A hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in s4ike dffettgh). Section 2. Chapter 18.82 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Traffic Impact Fees," is hereby repealed as the substance of that chapter was moved to the amended chapter 3.36 ECC as provided above. Packet Pg. 131 4.5.b Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 132 4.5.b 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 THE CITY'S IMPACT FEE REGULATIONS TO ADD A DEFERRAL SYSTEM FOR IMPACT FEES CHARGED TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSOLIDATING THE TWO IMPACT FEE CHAPTERS INTO ONE CHAPTER. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2016. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Pg. 133 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 Cemetery Board's "Walk Back in Time" at the Edmonds Cemetery (5 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Renee McRae Background/History The 26th annual Walk Back in Time guided tour, presented by the Edmonds Cemetery Board, will be held on Thursday, July 21, at 1pm, at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery & Columbarium. This year's focus will highlight Civil War Veterans. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Dale Hoggins, Cemetery Boardmember, will make a presentation on this annual program. Packet Pg. 134 5.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 Planning Board Update (15 min.) Staff Lead: N/A Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Consider and ask any questions Narrative Phil Lovell, Planning Board Chairman and Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair will present the Planning Board quarterly report. Packet Pg. 135 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 Resolution for Administrative Fee Related to Impact Fee Program (5 min.) Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Diane Cunningham Background/History The City of Edmonds collects impact fees on development projects, as authorized under state law. The revenues must be used only for eligible capital improvements to the City's street and park systems. On June 28, the Council discussed a draft ordinance to update the impact fee collection process. The Council concurred with adopting the ordinance on the next Consent Calendar and taking action on a fee resolution adding an administrative fee to help recover City costs in processing and tracking impact fees. Staff Recommendation For Council to adopt the proposed Fee Resolution Narrative Attaches is a fee resolution, which would establish the amount of an administrative fee to help recover the City's costs of calculating, explaining, processing, and tracking impact fees over time. The resolution identifies the amount of the administrative fee as $50 for each impact fee on a single-family structure and $100 on for each impact fee on a commercial or multifamily structure. If a builder chooses to defer an impact fee, as allowed by the proposed ordinance, an additional $50 would be due. (The deferral process requires extra City tracking, including for property liens and other legal requirements.) Attachments: 2016-06-30 admin fee resolution Packet Pg. 136 7.1.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE RELATED TO THE CITY'S IMPACT FEE PROGRAM. WHEREAS, ECDC 15.00.020 provides for the establishment and amendment of certain fees charged by the City by resolution; and WHEREAS, ECC 3.36.030.B.5 provides that applicants shall pay an administrative fee that covers the cost of staff time in administering the impact fee program, and that the amount of the administrative fee shall be established and updated from time to time by resolution of the city council; and WHEREAS, extensive effort has been made by City Staff to analyze the full costs associated with City permitting and service activities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously established and affirms as its goal that permit fees shall be set to cover the costs of processing and issuing permits and requests for service; WHEREAS, the city council adopted Resolution 1308 in 2013 which adopted a schedule of fees to be charged in relation to development activity; and WHEREAS, this resolution is intended to supplement, not replace Resolution 1308; and, now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following administrative fees are hereby established pursuant to ECC 3.36.030.B.5: A. $50 administrative fee on the park impact fee for each single-family dwelling (attached or detached); B. $50 administrative fee on the street impact fee for each single-family dwelling (attached or detached); C. $50 additional administrative fee for each impact fee deferral requested under ECC 3.36.160; D. $100 administrative fee on the park impact fee for each commercial or multifamily structure; and E. $100 administrative fee on the street impact fee for each commercial or multifamily structure. Section 2. The administrative fees established in Section 1, above, are due at time of building permit issuance. Section 3. This resolution shall take effect on the same date as Ordinance Packet Pg. 137 7.1.a RESOLVED this day of July, 2016. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 138 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 Presentation of Planning Board's Recommended Sign Code Amendments (30 min.) Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History The Planning Board has had several discussions on options for temporary portable signs downtown, including their meetings of April 27 and May 11, 2016. A Public Hearing was held on May 25, 2016 to gather input on three options dealing with temporary (e.g. A -frame) signs in the Downtown area, including (1) banning temporary portable signs such as A -frames, (2) allowing them as temporary signs for 60 days only (same as current code), or (3) allowing them as a form of permanent signage with restrictions on time, place and manner. In addition to the amendments regarding temporary portable signs, the draft amendments address a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates/issues. At the June 8, 2016 Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board indicated a preference for Option 3 and requested staff prepare a recommendation to City Council for Option 3 and the other clarifying amendments. Staff Recommendation Prepare for a public hearing scheduled for July 19, 2016. Narrative The City Council requested the Planning Board to provide recommendations concerning temporary portable signs in the downtown area. Staff is also working on updates to the City's development code on various subjects, and some minor updates to the sign code are incorporated into the drafts being considered here. Various types of signs are used as temporary portable signs downtown, including A -frames, stanchions, easels, etc. In the updated code the proposal is to call these types of signs "pedestrian signs" for simplicity's sake, and to recognize how they are used (as a form of semi -permanent signage). For pedestrian signs in the downtown area (e.g. A -frame, stanchion, or other freestanding portable signs), the existing code considers these to be 'temporary signs' and only allows them for a total of 60 days in a calendar year. However, no permit is currently required for such signs, so tracking them is extremely difficult. The Planning Board considered three options regarding these types of signs: Option 1 would have no longer permitted pedestrian signs, Option 2 would maintain pedestrian signs but require a permit so the signs could be tracked, and Option 3 would permit "pedestrian signs" as permanent signage (so that the 60-day limit no longer applies), but also include specific conditions on duration (only during business Packet Pg. 139 8.1 hours), placement (close to the building or curb, and only in front of the store), and how many (only one per ground floor entrance). After considering public comments and deliberating on the three options for pedestrians signs, the Planning Board settled on Option 3 as the preferred option. The Planning Board also expressed support for the other minor amendments to the sign code considered in this update. The Board's recommendation is summarized in Exhibit 1, with Exhibit 2 containing the code changes recommended by the Board. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Planning Board Recommendation Exhibit 2: Recommended Changes to Edmonds ECDC 20-60 Sign Code Exhibit 3: Meeting Minutes Exhibit 4: Sign Code Comment Letters Exhibit 5: Pictures of signs from Phil Lovell Exhibit 6: Draft Staff Presentation to City Council for July 5th Packet Pg. 140 8.1.a '(IC. 189V CITY OF EDMONDS 121 Sch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 42S.771.0220 • Fax: 42S.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Proposal: ECDC 20.60 Sign Code Update File Number: AMD20160002 From: Phil Lovell, Chair City of Edmonds Planning Board Date: June 22, 2016 SCOPE OF SIGN CODE UPDATE The City Council requested that the Planning Board provide recommendations concerning temporary portable signs (pedestrian signs) in the downtown area. While the broader code update may consider additional amendments to the sign code, this update is primarily focused on the temporary portable signs in the downtown area. In addition to the temporary portable sign issue, the recommendation also includes a number of minor amendments intended to clean up and update the code language based on issues that have arisen from implementing the existing code. None of the recommended changes would substantially change the number of signs or the amount of sign area currently allowed by the sign code. PUBLIC PROCESS The City has held two open houses (August 3, 2015 and December 15, 2015) soliciting opinions on and options to address portable signs in the downtown area. The Planning Board has discussed the sign code over the course of seven meetings, including a public hearing on May 25, 2016. In addition to the public meetings, numerous written comments were submitted with recommendations and concerns about portable signs in the downtown area. COMMENTS The Planning Board received comments from the downtown business community as well as citizens who frequent the downtown area. Some general concerns about portable signs included visual clutter, pedestrian obstacles as signs are placed on the sidewalks, and issues with enforcement as currently the temporary portable signs are limited to being displayed only 60 days during a calendar year. Businesses expressed the importance of pedestrian signs in attracting customers. Businesses outside of the main shopping corridor also expressed a need for off -site signage to direct customers to their locations. Opinions were also offered regarding sign design (e.g. uniform sign design) and difficulties of sign placement on older structures under the existing sign code. Packet Pg. 141 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION Having considered all of the public comments and evaluated the pros and cons of various options, the Planning Board respectfully submits the amendments included in Attachment 1 for the City Council's consideration. This recommended code will create a new section in the sign code for pedestrian signs (ECDC 20.60.055) that will permit pedestrian signs as a new type of permanent signage with specific conditions. This recommended code will: • Limit the number of pedestrian signs to one pedestrian sign per ground floor entrance, c • Require signs to be brought in when the business is closed, E • Restrict the placement of pedestrian signs to ensure a clear path for pedestrian access, • Provide enough flexibility for placement to address each site's specific conditions, Q m • Require a permit for signs to aid in enforcement, and o U • Count each pedestrian sign towards the overall number and square footage of signage allowed per c business. in The Planning Board also fully supports the other recommended amendments to clarifying and update the M sign code. These amendments will make the code more understandable and provide opportunity for the City to work with unusual architectural situations in order to accommodate necessary signage 0 opportunity. W M In addition to the recommended code amendments, the Planning Board encourages the City Council to consider the following items of concern. Neither the existing nor the recommended sign code allows for off -site signage. Businesses with locations off the beaten path or in hard to find locations expressed a strong need for signage that can direct traffic to their locations. The Planning Board recommends the City develop a program that provides directional signage at strategic locations downtown that could direct traffic to businesses similar to other City directional signage around town. The Planning Board recognizes there may be legal ramifications of such a program and maintenance issues with such signs; however, the City has a vibrant downtown with thriving businesses and signage is important for businesses to remain vital. Such a program could be developed with input from the Arts Commission and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED!). Numerous comments were received encouraging uniform design in signage. While the Planning Board was not interested in forcing uniformity on businesses, nothing in the proposed amendments would prevent businesses from creating a uniform sign program that meets the code requirements. The Planning Board encourages some level of uniformity in the design for pedestrian signs. • The sign code allows and encourages blade signs by not counting the sign area of blade signs four feet or less against the allowable sign area. Nothing in the code prevents blade signs from accommodating changing information. The City should encourage the use of blade signs as a means for businesses to provide changing information. • The City should seek to employ technological measures when available to assist is sign code application. Packet Pg. 142 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Sections: 20.60.000 Purpose. 20.60.005 Definitions. 20.60.010 Permit required. 20.60.015 Design review procedures. 20.60.020 General regulations for permanent signs. 20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area. 20.60.030 Wall signs— Maximum area and height. 20.60.035 Window signs — Maximum area. 20.60.040 Projecting signs — Maximum area and height restrictions. 20.60.045 Freestanding signs— Regulations. 20.60.050 Wall graphic and identification structures. 20.60.055 Pedestrian Signs 20.60.060 Campaign signs. 20.60.065 Real estate signs. 20.60.080 Temporary signs. 20.60.070 Construction signs. 20.60.090 Prohibited signs. Page 1/18 20.60.095 Exempt signs. 20.60.100 Administration. 20.60.000 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to enact regulatory measures to implement those goals and policies stated in the Edmonds Comprehensive Policy Plan and to achieve the following objectives: A. Protect the public right-of-way from obstructions which would impair the public's use of their right-of-way. B. Minimize the hazard to the public represented by distractions to drivers from moving, blinking, or other similar forms of signage or visual clutter. C. Provide for distinct signage for each distinct property. D. Encourage the use of graphics/symbols to reduce the visual clutter associated with overly large letters or extensive use of lettering. E. Minimize potential for view blockage and visual clutter along public rights -of -way. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.005 Definitions. For the purposes of the enforcement of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: "Attached sign" is any sign attached or affixed to a building. Attached signs include wall signs, projecting signs, and window signs. "Boxed cabinet sign" is a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that is roughly rectangular in shape and provides for internal illumination and changing the message of the sign by replacing a single transparent or translucent material such as a Plexiglas/lexan face. This definition is meant to distinguish between a cabinet sign that is essentially a rectangular box and one that follows the outlines of the letters of the sign, or an "outline cabinet sign." .r c a� E c a� E a a� 0 c� c a� C0 r LO Cl) Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 143 Edmonds Page 2/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE "Building ID/historic sign" is a permanent sign that identifies or names a building and assists in creating landmarks in the city. Examples include dates, "1890"; names, "Beeson Building"; or addresses. "Campaign sign" is a temporary sign displaying a message relating to a candidate, political party, or issue that is registered or certified for an upcoming election. "Commercial sign" is a sign displayed for the purpose of identifying a commercial use, or advertising a service, product, business or venture that is offered for trade or sale. "Community event banner" is a noncommercial sign composed of cloth, fabric, canvas or similarly flexible material that promotes a temporary community event endorsed, operated or sponsored wholly or in part by a local public entity the jurisdiction of which includes the city of Edmonds. "Community events" are nonprofit, governmental or charitable festivals, contests, programs, fairs, carnivals or recreational contests conducted within the city. "Construction sign" is a permanent or temporary sign displayed on premises where any physical excavation, construction, demolition, rehabilitation, structural alteration or related work is currently occurring, pursuant to a valid building permit. "Directional symbols" are small in size (two square feet or less) and intended to provide on -site directions to specific locations or areas (such as parking areas, drive -through facilities, ATMs and entries and/or exits), hours of operation, parking limitations, warnings of hazards, prohibition of activities (such as "no parking"), historical markers and similar public information. Directional symbols are not considered to be signage as regulated in this chapter. "Fixed sign" is any sign attached or affixed to the ground or any structure in such a manner so as to provide for continuous display for an extended or indeterminable period of time. Fixed signs include, but are not limited to, freestanding signs and wall signs. "Freestanding sign" is any sign that is not attached or affixed to a building. Freestanding signs can be further described as "monument signs" or "pole signs." "Governmental sign" is a sign owned, operated or sponsored by a governmental entity, and which promotes the public health, safety or welfare. Governmental signs include, but are not limited to, traffic signs, directional and informational signs for public facilities, publicly sponsored warning or hazard signs, and community event banners displayed by a governmental entity on public property. "Group sign" is a sign or signs on one sign structure serving two or more businesses sharing a parking facility. "Halo sign" is a sign where the light source is concealed behind an opaque face and the rays of illumination are projected outward around the edges of the sign or directed against the surface behind the sign forming a silhouette or halo effect. Halo signs are not considered to be internally illuminated signs for the purposes of this chapter. "Identification structure" is a structure intended to attract the attention of the public to a site, without the use of words or symbols identifying the businesses. Examples include fountains, sculptures, awnings, and totem poles. "Internally illuminated signs" include any sign where light shines through a transparent or semi -transparent sign face to illuminate the sign's message. Exposed neon is considered to be a form of internal illumination. "Marquee" or canopy is a permanent roofed structure attached and supported by the building. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 144 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 3/18 "Marquee sign" is any sign attached to or made a part of a building marquee. A marquee sign is a form of projecting sign. "Monument signs" are freestanding signs that have integrated the structural component of the sign into the design of the sign and sign base. "Noncommercial sign" is a sign that is intended to display a religious, charitable, cultural, governmental, informational, political, educational, or artistic message, that is not primarily associated with a good, product, or service offered for sale or trade. Noncommercial signs include signs advertising incidental and temporary commercial activities conducted by churches and nonprofit businesses, clubs, groups, associations or organizations. "Off -premises sign" is any sign that advertises or relates to a good, product, service, event, or meeting, that is offered, sold, traded, provided, or conducted at some location or premises other than that upon which the sign is posted or displayed. Off -premises signs include all signs posted or displayed in the public right-of-way. "On -premises sign" is any sign that advertises or relates to a good, product, service, event, or meeting that is lawfully permitted to be offered, sold, traded, provided, or conducted at the location or premises upon which the sign is posted or displayed. On -premises signs also include signs not related to any particular location or premises, such as signs displaying religious, charitable, cultural, governmental, informational, political, educational, or artistic messages that are intentionally displayed by the owner of the property or premises upon which the sign is displayed. "Outline cabinet sign" is a permanent sign that is mounted on the face of a building that roughly follows the shape of the text or symbology of the sign and provides for internal illumination. This definition is meant to distinguish between a cabinet sign that follows the outlines of the letters of the sign and one that is essentially a rectangular box or a "boxed cabinet sign." An "outlined cabinet sign" will be treated more like an "individual letter sign" where the area of the sign is calculated based on the actual outlined shape of the sign. "Permanent sign" is a fixed or portable sign intended for continuous or intermittent display for periods exceeding 60 days in any calendar year. "Pole signs" are freestanding signs where the structural support for the sign is one or more aexposed pole(s). Pole signs may include community event banners where the banner is supported by at least two poles that are permanently attached to the ground ("pole -mounted community event banners"). Signs with two poles that are not more than six (6) feet in height are considered to be monument signs. "Portable sign" is any sign that is readily capable of being moved or removed, whether attached or affixed to the ground or any structure that is typically intended for temporary display. Portable signs include, but are not limited to: 1. Signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels; .r c W E c a� E a 0 V c a� C0 LO Cl) Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 145 8.1.b Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 4/18 2. Pedestrian signs, including signs such as A -frame (sandwich board), stanchion, easel, or post -style signs 8. "A" and „T„ fFaFne signs; 4. Wooden, metal, or plastic "stake" or "yard" signs; S. Posters or banners affixed to windows, railings, overhangs, trees, hedges, or other structures or vegetation, except for pole -mounted community event banners; 6. Signs mounted upon vehicles parked and visible from the public right-of-way, except signs identifying the related business when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to-day operation of the business, and except for signs advertising for sale the vehicle upon which the sign is mounted; 7. Searchlights; 8. Inflatables. "Premises" is the actual physical area of the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed, except within the boundaries ef the BG eF BD zene iR the dewRtewn aetivity eenteF aS defined an the eeMpFehensive plan, where 11 pFemises" shall Include any portion of the public sidewalk which fronts upon the let. "Projecting sign" is any sign attached or affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends more than 12 inches beyond the surface of such building or wall. "Reader board sign" is a sign that is designed to allow for a change in the message, either by adding or removing plastic letters, or by means of electronics and lights. Reader boards do not include signs which have a changeable message where the sign does not change more than once per day and where the changeable features are integrated with the background and overall design of the sign, including the sign's typefaces, colors and symbology. Individual letters or numbers placed on a solid colored background is considered to be a reader board. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 146 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 5/18 Two Left: Acceptable changeable message sign; Two Rieht: A reader board. OPEN HOUSEIM 10- 'SOUMLARPOWEIRED BY THE SOH COME IN AMC WORSHIP PASTOR REV HARRY H JUNKS ill "Real estate sign" is a sign displaying a message relating to the sale or rent of real property. "Sign" is any structure, device or fixture that is visible from a public place, that incorporates graphics, symbols, or written copy for the purposes of conveying a particular message to public observers, including wall graphics or identification structures. "Sign area" is the maximurn actual area of a sign that as visible from any single point of observation from any public vantage point. SUPP90ing StFUGWFes which aFe paFt of a sign display shall be n the ealeulation of the sign area area of a sign on which copy is to be placed, as set forth in ECDC 20.60.020(A). "Temporary sign" is an allowed per a sign intended for short-term display, not to exceed 60 calendar days in any calendar year. Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 are not regulated as temporary Signs. "Wall graphic" is a wall sign, including murals, in which color and form, and primarily without the use of words, is a part of the overall design on the building(s) where the wall graphic is proposed. A wall graphic may be painted or applied (not to exceed one-half inch in thickness) to a building as a part of its overall color and design, but may not be internally lighted. Internally lighted assemblies, including those which project from the wall of the structure, or which are located on any accessory structure on the site, shall be considered wall signs and comply with the requirements of this chapter. "Wall sign" is a sign that is attached or affixed to a wall and that is parallel to and not projecting more than 12 inches at any angle from such wall. Wall signs include signs that are painted directly upon a wall. "Window sign" is a sign that is attached or affixed to a window, or a sign displayed within 24 inches of the inside of a window in such a manner as to be visible from any public place. [Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3631 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3628 § 8, 2007; Ord. 3561 § 1, 2005; Ord. 3514 § 1, 2004; Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.010 Permit required. A. Except as provided in this chapter, no permanent sign may be constructed, installed, posted, displayed or modified without first obtaining a sign permit approving the proposed sign's size, design, location, and display as provided for in this chapter. B. Design approval is not required for the posting of permanent signs in residential zones; provided, that the restrictions and standards of this chapter are met. If additional signage is requested for conditional or nonconforming uses in residential zones, the property owner shall apply for design review. Design review is not required for any sign which does not require a building permit. c a� E E a 0 c� c a� co r LO M Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 147 Edmonds Page 6/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE C. A sign modification shall include, but is not limited to, relocations, modifications to size, design, height or color scheme, or the replacement of 25 percent or more of the structural material in the sign area. Normal and ordinary maintenance and repair, and changes to the graphics, symbols, or copy of a sign, without affecting the size, structural design, height, or color scheme, shall not constitute modifications for purposes of this section. [Ord. 3514 § 2, 2004; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.015 Design review procedures. c E A. Staff Approval. Except as referred to the architectural design board pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section, and except as provided in subsection (B) of this section, the planning manager, or designee, shall review all W E applications for design review under this chapter, and shall approve, conditionally approve or deny the application Q in accordance with the policies of ECDC 20.10.000, the criteria set forth in ECDC 20.10.070, and the standards and -0 requirements of this chapter; provided, that for murals and artwork the planning manager or designee shall review �j the application in accordance with the criteria set forth in subsection (C) of this section. The decision of the planning manager on any sign permit application shall be final except that signs reviewed by the architectural to design board are appealable to the Hearing Examiner. rPv'P ;;hlP as Type II appeal (See ECDC 20 n1 005) In ChapteF 20.105 EGDG f9F deeisiens (A)(!) LO established appeal ef staff and signs reviewed Linder subseetien afthis . Etien are appealable aprovided therein. Cl) r 1. The planning manager or designee may refer design review applications to the architectural design board for the types of signs listed below, where the planning manager determines that the proposed sign has the potential for significant adverse impacts on community aesthetics or traffic safety: a. Any sign application for an identification structure as defined by this chapter; b. Any sign application for a wall graphic as defined by this chapter; c. Any proposed sign that the planning manager determines to be obtrusive, garish or otherwise not consistent with the architectural features of the surrounding neighborhood. B. Review by Architectural Design Board. The architectural design board shall review those signs listed below in subsection (B)(1) and any sign permit referred by the planning manager pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section. a n accordance with the pelleles A-f ECDC 2-0.10.000, the crite—ria Set fe—rth in ECDC 2-0.1-0.07-0, and the standards and requirements of this chapte.r. The deei-sien A-f the arehiteetuFal design beaFd en any sign peFmit applicatien may be appealed te the city eeuncil PUFSUant to the procedwe established in ECDC 20.10.080 faF appeal of aFEhiteetwal 1. The ADB shall review any Assign permit application that requests a modification to any of the standards prescribed by this chapter. The ADB shall only approve modification requests t",t m^^t -.II f the {.hewing criteria that arise from one of the followinE two situations: a. The request is for signage on a site that has a unique configuration, such as frontage on more than two streets or has an unusual geometric shape or topography; b. The request is for signage on a building that has unique architectural elements or features or details that substantially restrict the placement or size of signage relative to other buildings in the vicinity. 2. The ADB may approve the requested modification only if it meets the following criteria: ea. The design of the proposed signage must be compatible in its use of materials, colors, design and proportions with development throughout the site and with similar signage in the vicinity; Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 148 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 7/18 db. In no event shall the modification result in signage which exceeds the maximum normally allowed by more than 50 percent. C. Staff Review of Murals and Artwork. When a proposed wall graphic is proposed as a mural or artwork, the planning manager or designee shall review and approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application in accordance with the following criteria. While a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, the staff may make a single design review decision on wall graphics that consist of related murals or artwork. Related murals or artwork may include multiple proposals for sites within reasonable proximity to each other that are related by theme, style, materials used, and/or context. The decision of the staff on any design review application containing a mural or art as a wall graphic may be appealed to the city council pursuant to the procedure established in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. 1. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to enhance the aesthetics of the city and to ensure quality and maintenance standards are observed. No recommendation shall be based upon the content or message expressed by an artist or in a work of art. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design or architectural elements of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown area. 2. Specific submission requirements for design review include, but are not limited to: a. Site sketch showing locations of artwork; b. Minimum one -fourth -inch scale color drawings of the art concept or art component; c. Material/color samples; d. Written Proposal. A written proposal in eight-and-one-half-inch-by-11-inch format to include a description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork; detailed maintenance requirements; a schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; artist's resume; and evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee; and e. When required pursuant to ECDC 20.45.050, a certificate of appropriateness shall be obtained from the historic preservation commission for murals on designated historic structures or within a designated historic district. 3. Review Criteria. Review criteria for the design review include: Quality of the materials used to create the artwork. Materials should be resistant to fading; no fluorescent paints; b. Durability and permanence, including ability to withstand age, vandalism, and weathering. Consideration should be given to anti -graffiti coating; and c. Compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements, other elements of the street, and adjacent structures. Compatibility shall be determined by relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale, color, materials, surface treatment, and size and style of lettering. Lettering shall be minimized, but may be considered for inclusion when necessary to the artistic content. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A), (B), and (C) of this section, sign permit applications shall not be referred to or reviewed by the architectural design board if the proposed sign constitutes a modification to an existing sign and involves no significant alteration or modification to the size, height, design, lighting or color of the existing sign. Sign permit applications for such sign modifications shall be processed and subject to review in the same manner as provided for staff review in subsection (A) of this section. [Ord. 3800 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 60, 2009; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 149 8.1.b Edmonds Page 8/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE 20.60.020 General regulations for permanent signs. A. Sian Area. The area of a Bien shall be calculated as follows: 1. The area of a sign is maximum actual area of a sign that is visible from anv single point of observation from any public vantage point. The sign area is normally the smallest rectangle that encloses the entire w copy area of the sign. c d 2. Individual letters, numbers or symbols applied directly to a wall or structure and used to form the sign E shall be calculated individually; 3. Supporting structures which are part of a sign display shall be included in the calculation of the sign area, aD E except that the supporting structure of a monument sign or pole sign shall not be included when Q calculating the sign area. 0 0 U LM STORE VLO NAME 10S -0 0 U c Left: Sign Area = X * Y Right: Applied individual letters are calculated separately T Monument sign: the base is not included in the calculation of sign area (dashed rectangle) A. When located on a wall or mansard roof, no sign may extend above the highest point of the wall or mansard roof when the mansard roof is on a one-story building., or above the eave er drip line ^f a pitched roof on which it '`,s located. Other than a mansard roof on a one-story building, ,-a sign may not be attached above the eave or drip line on a pitched roof. B. Except for pole -mounted community event banners, no sign or any part of a sign may be designed or constructed to be moving by any means and shall not contain items such as banners, ribbons, streamers and spinners. Signs with type that is movable to change the message (reader boards) are allowed, subject to the specific requirements detailed elsewhere in this chapter. C. "moo^ signs shall Signs that extend into or over a public right-of-way unless an enff8aehment ^ „.,:} has been approved fseeshall comply with -Chapter 18.70 ECDC4. D. Exposed braces and angle irons are prohibited unless they are part of a decorative design that is integral to the design of the sign. Guywires are prohibited unless there are no other practical means of supporting the sign. E. No sign shall have blinking, flashing, fluttering or moving lights or other illuminating device which has a changing light density or color; provided, however, temperature and/or time signs that conform in all other respects to this chapter are allowed. Electronic reader boards may have messages that change, however, moving messages are not Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 150 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 9/18 allowed. Messages that change at intervals less than 20 seconds will be considered blinking or flashing and not allowed. F. No light source which exceeds 20 watts shall be directly exposed to any public street or adjacent property. G. No illumination source of fluorescent light shall exceed 425 milliamps or be spaced closer than eight inches on center. H. No commercial sign shall be illuminated after 11:00 p.m. unless the commercial enterprise is open for business and then may remain on only as long as the enterprise is open. I. No window signs above the first floor shall be illuminated. J. Sign height shall be determined as follows: 1. For attached signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the highest point on the sign to the average finished grade. 2. For freestanding signs, sign height is the vertical distance from the highest point of the sign area or its support to the average elevation of undisturbed se4the finished grade at the base of the supports. K. Portable signs may not be used as permanent signage; only fixed signs are permitted. L. The following matrix summarizes the types of signs permitted in each neighborhood/district within the city: Sign Type Downtown' SR-99' Westgate/SR-1043 Neighborhood Commercial (BN BP and FVMU Zones) Business Uses in RM Zones Wall -mounted P P P P P Monument C P P C C Pole N P N N N Projecting P P P P P Internal Illumination C P P C N Reader Boards C C C C C Individual Letters P P P P P Boxed Cabinet N P C C N Building ID P P P P p 5;A1g(a,.0,,h PARF,JS Pedestrian P N N N N Wall Graphics C C C C C ' Downtown includes all properties within the Downtown Activity Center defined in the Comprehensive Plan. SR-99 includes all properties within the Medical -Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 3 Westgate/SR-104 includes all properties within the Westgate Corridor, the Edmonds Way Corridor, and within the Westgate Community Commercial area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. c a� E c a� E a 0 c� c a� 7o r LO Cl) Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 151 Edmonds Page 10/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Note: In the above table, P = Permitted; N = Not permitted; C = Conditionally permitted through design review if consistent with the standards itemized in ECDC 20.60.020(M). M. The following standards clarify how some signs identified as "conditionally permitted" must be installed to be permitted in the city of Edmonds rn .r 1. Monument signs over six feet in height must be reviewed to ensure that the materials, colors, design and W proportions proposed are consistent with those used throughout the site. E c 2. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and neighborhood commercial areas may only light the E letters or logos/symbols. The background of a sign face may not be illuminated. Q W 3. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area and the neighborhood commercial areas must be �j mounted on the wall of the building. They may not be mounted on or under an attached awning. Im iA 4. Internally illuminated signs that use exposed neon may only be located in the interior of buildings in the downtown area and the neighborhood commercial areas. n M 5. Internally illuminated signs in the downtown area shall not be permitted to be higher than 14 feet in height. 6. Reader board messages are limited to alphanumeric messages only. 7. Reader boards are only permitted for public uses or places of public assembly. Public uses and places of assembly include. but are not limited to. schools and churches as well as local and reeional public facilities. 8. The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be coordinated with and compliment the colors used on the building. 9. The background color of a boxed cabinet sign face must be opaque and not allow any internal illumination to shine through. [Ord. 3631 § 2, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.025 Total maximum permanent sign area. A. Business and Commercial Zone Districts (BN, ABC, BD, WMU, CW and CG). 1. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or permitted uses in the BN, BC, BD and CW zones shall be one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of wall containing the main public entrance to the primary building or structure located upon a separate legal lot. 2. The maximum total permanent sign area for allowed or permitted uses in the CG zone shall be one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of building frontage along a public street and/or along a side of the building containing the primary public entrance to a maximum of 200 square feet. The allowable sign area shall be computed separately for each qualifying building frontage, and only the sign area derived from that frontage may be oriented along that frontage. Sign areas for wall -mounted signs may not be accumulated to yield a total allowable sign area greater than that permitted upon such frontage, except that businesses choosing not to erect a freestanding sign may use up to 50 percent of their allowable freestanding sign area for additional attached sign area. Use of the additional area shall be subject to the review of the architectural design board. 3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided between wall, projecting, and freestanding signs, in accordance with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type of sign, as provided in ECDC 20.60.030 through 20.60.050. Projecting signs (including blade signs) of four square feet or less and Window - window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total permanent sign area permitted. 4. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is three per site, or three per physically enclosed business space on commercial sites with multiple business tenants. A site with more than one street frontage Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 152 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 11/18 is allowed a maximum of five (5) signs. Pro[ecting (including blade) signs of four square feet or less and Wandew-window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total number of permitted permanent signs. Multi -tenant sites are allowed one additional group sign per street frontage identifying the individual subtenants at the site. The total sign area of all signs permitted on site must also comply with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in this chapter. 5. Where permitted, pedestrian signs do count against the permanent sign area and the number of signs permitted. B. Residential Zone Districts (RS, RM). 1. The maximum allowable signage area for individual residential lots shall be four square feet per street frontage, except as provided in subsection (13)(2) of this section. 2. The maximum allowable signage area for formal residential subdivisions, planned residential developments (PRD), or multifamily structures containing at least 10 dwelling units shall be 10 square feet per main street entrance into the subdivision or PRD. Only one sign may be provided at each main entrance. 3. The maximum total permanent sign area may be divided between wall and freestanding signs, in accordance with regulations and maximum sign area and height for each type of sign, as provided in ECDC 20.60.030 through 20.60.050. Window signs meeting the requirements of ECDC 20.60.035 do not count against the total permanent sign area permitted. 4. Signage in excess of that provided in subsections (13)(1) and (2) of this section for lawful nonconforming or conditional nonresidential uses in residential zones may be approved through the issuance of a sign permit pursuant to ECDC 20.60.010, subject to the maximum area and height limitations established for signs in the BN zone. 5. The maximum number of permitted permanent signs is one, except that multifamily sites with more than one vehicular entrance may have one permanent sign per entrance. The total sign area of all signs (excluding incidental signs) permitted on -site must also comply with the maximum total permanent sign area specified in this chapter. [Ord. 3805 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3628 § 9, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.030 Wall signs — Maximum area and height. A. The maximum area of any wall sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 4 square feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU, FVMU 1 square foot per lineal foot of attached wall B. The maximum height of any attached sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM 6 feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CGL 14 feet or the height of the face of the WMU, FVMU building on which the sign is located, consistent with ECDC 20.60.020(A) [Ord. 3628 § 10, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. .r c a� E c a� E a 0 c� c a� 7o LO Cl) Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 153 8.1.b Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 12/18 20.60.035 Window signs — Maximum area. The maximum area of any window sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 4 square feet BN, BPBC, BD, CW, CG, WMU,FVMU 1 square foot per each lineal foot of window frontage [Ord. 3628 § 11, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.040 Projecting signs — Maximum area and height restrictions. A. The maximum area of any projecting sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM Not permitted BN, BP BC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 16 square feet rCG 32 square feet B. The maximum height of any projecting sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM Not permitted BN, BPBC, BD, CW, CGS WMU, FVMU 34 fecEHeight of the wall to which the sign is attached C. The bettern of the sign area of projecting signs shall be at least eight feet in height and at least 1-1- feet in height if at projects ever a vehicle traveled right of- a-y The sign area of a marquee sign may not exceed two feet in vertical dimension. [Ord. 3628 § 12, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.045 Freestanding signs — Regulations. A. Regulation. Permanent freestanding signs are discouraged. Freestanding signs shall be approved only where the applicant demonstrates by substantial evidence that there are no reasonable and feasible alternative signage methods to provide for adequate identification and/or advertisement. B. Maximum Area. The maximum area of a freestanding sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Sign RS, RM 10 square feet (subdivision, PRD, multifamily) 4 square feet (individual residence sign) BN BP 24 square feet (single) 48 square feet (group) BC, BD, WMU, 32 square feet (single) FVMU 48 square feet (group) CW 32 square feet (single) 48 square feet (group) CG Sign area shall be governed by subsection (C) of this section Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 154 Edmonds Page 13/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE C. Allowable Sign Area for Freestanding Signs — CG Zone. The total allowable sign area for freestanding signs on general commercial sites shall be 56 square feet or one-half square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of street frontage, whichever is greater, up to a maximum of 160 square feet of freestanding sign area. Multiple business or tenant sites shall further be allowed an additional 24 square feet of freestanding sign area for each commercial tenant or occupant in excess of one up to a maximum sign area of 160 square feet. Corner lots choosing to accumulate sign area under the provisions of subsection E of this section shall be limited to 160 square feet. D. Maximum Height. The maximum sign height of freestanding signs shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign R5, RM 6 feet BN, BBC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 14 feet CG 25 feet E. Location. Freestanding signs shall be located as close as possible to the center of the street frontage on which they are located. Except for pole -mounted community event banners, freestanding signs may not be located on public property. Sites on a corner of two public streets may have one sign on the corner instead of a sign for each frontage. Monument signs not more than six feet in height may be located in a zoning setback, but not less than five (5) feet from a property line. F. Number. In all zones, each lot or building site shall be permitted no more than one freestanding sign, except in the business and commercial zones where a lot or site has frontage on two arterial streets, in which case there may be permitted one sign per street frontage subject to the restrictions on area contained within this chapter. G. Landscaping. 1. Each freestanding sign shall have a landscaped area twice the size of the sign area at the base of the sign The landscaping and sign base shall be protected from vehicles by substantial curbing. 2. The applicant shall provide a landscape performance bond in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of the landscaping, or $1,000, whichever is more. The bond shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 17.10 ECDC. [Ord. 3631 § 3, 2007; Ord. 3628 § 13, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.050 Wall graphic and identification structures. There are no area restrictions on wall graphics or identification structures. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.055 Pedestrian Signs. Pedestrian signs are only permitted on private property and in the adjacent right-of-way in the BC, BD, CW, and CG zones located within the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Pedestrian signs are only permitted if they meet the following requirements. 1. Pedestrian signs maybe permitted to be located either (1) between the business ground floor entrance and the public right-of-way, or (2) on the sidewalk in front of the business storefront if the pedestrian sign meets the following standards. a. Only one pedestrian sign is permitted per ground floor entrance; b. Businesses may make arrangements to rotate their pedestrian signs provided they meet the one sign -per -ground floor entrance standard; Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 155 Edmonds Page 14/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE c. The sign shall be located within 10 feet of the building entry, unless it is placed in a location that better preserves public pedestrian and vehicular access; d. A business with multiple eround floor entrances shall have no more than one pedestrian sign. c e. The sign shall be located to provide a minimum of five feet of clearance for pedestrians to ° pass. The preferred locations are within two feet of the building face or within two feet of -0 c the curb if that location does not block access to parked vehicles; ° E f. Pedestrian signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public. Q a0 g. Pedestrian signs are limited to six (6) square feet in area and 3-1/2 feet in height for A -frame ° c� or sandwich board signs, or six (6) square feet in area and 4-1/2 feet in height for stanchion, P easel or other types of pedestrian signs. rn r LO M 20.60.060 Campaign signs. A. On -premises campaign signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in all zones, subject to the maximum -aa sign size limitations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080. c B. Off -premises campaign signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in the public right-of-way; provided, that the following requirements are met: 1. All campaign signs shall be posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080(B). 2. All off -premises campaign signs shall be removed within 10 days after the primary, general, or special election to which they pertain. 3. Off -premises campaign signs shall be posted and displayed no earlier than upon declaration of candidacy in accordance with Chapter 29.15 RCW, or other formal registration or certification of the candidate, party, initiative, referendum or other ballot issue for an upcoming election, or 60 days prior to the election, whichever time period is greater. C. There is no maximum number of off -premises campaign signs that may be posted. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.065 Real estate signs. A. On -premises real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage in residential and commercial zones, subject to the maximum signage area and sign number limitations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080. B. Off -premises real estate signs are permitted as a form of temporary signage, subject to the following requirements: 1. Two and only two types of off -premises real estate signs shall be permitted: a. An off -premises real estate directional sign is a sign displaying a directional arrow and either a company or logo, or an indication that the property is for sale by its owner, and installed for the purpose of directing the public to the property. An off -premises open house sign is a form of temporary off -premises sign indicating the property is currently open for viewing. 2. All off -premises real estate signs shall be posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in ECDC 20.60.080(B ). Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 156 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 15/18 3. The maximum number of off -premises real estate signs allowed per property shall only be the number reasonably necessary to direct people to the premises. An agent or owner shall be permitted no more than one off -premises real estate directional sign per intersection and five in total. No more than one off -premises open house sign shall be displayed per intersection and no more than five in total. a. Each off -premises real estate directional sign shall bear a legible tag located on the sign or supporting post indicating the date of posting and the address of the property to which it pertains. b. Off -premises real estate open house signs shall only be posted during daylight hours when the real estate agent or owner is in attendance at the property for sale or rent, and shall be removed immediately upon the termination of an "open house" or other similar property display event. No off -premises real estate signs shall be fastened to any traffic control device, public structure, fence, rock, tree or shrub. C. All on -premises and all off -premises real estate directional signs shall be removed within seven days after the closing of the sale or lease of real property to which the sign pertains. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 20031. 20.60.070 Construction signs. Construction signs shall, irrespective of their duration, conform to the general regulations for permanent signs specified under ECDC 20.60.020. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the maximum area of a construction sign in any zone shall be 32 square feet. No sign permit is required for the posting of construction signs; provided, that all construction signs shall be removed from the premises within 10 days of the cessation of the excavation, construction, demolition, rehabilitation, structural alteration or related work on site. Zone Maximum Area of Signage (per Street Frontage) RS 16 square feet, or 32 square feet if one sign is displayed for a project consisting of building permits issued for four lots or more. Only one sign may be displayed per project. All other 32 square feet zones The preceding square footages shall be in addition to any other temporary signage permitted by ECDC 20.60.080 [Ord. 3514 § 3, 20041. 20.60.080 Temporary signs. A. On -Premises Temporary Signs. On -premises temporary signs are permitted in residential and commercial zones, in addition to any allowed or permitted permanent signage, subject to the following restrictions and standards: 1. Residential Zones (RS, RM). a. Only portable, freestanding or attached signs may be used as temporary signage. b. Commercial on -premises temporary signage is not permitted, except for real estate signs as defined by ECDC 20.60.065. c. Maximum number is one attached or freestanding sign. 2. Commercial Zones (BN, ABC, BD, WMU, FVMU, CW, CG). a. Only portable, freestanding or attached signs may be used for temporary signage; PFeVi ed, that "sandwiel; heard" er "A" frame portable signs shall only be permitted In the 13C, BD and QU zener. "Attached" signs may be affixed to any existing building or sign structure that is permitted as a .r c W E c W E a a� 0 c� c a� 7o LO M Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 157 Edmonds Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE Page 16/18 permanent structure on the property. New temporary structures whose sole purpose is to display the temDorary sien are not otherwise permitted. b. Maximum duration of display is 60 days in any calendar year for the cumulative posting of all temporary commercial signage upon each commercial location or premises. A permit is required, specifying the duration and location of display. Maximum number of temporary signs is one freestanding sign per property street frontage, and one attached sign per building. 3. The total maximum area of on -premises temporary signage shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Temporary Sign RS, RM 6 square feet BN, BP BC, BD, CW, WMU, FVMU 20 square feet CG 30 square feet 4. The total maximum area for each allowed on -premises temporary sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Area of Temporary Sign RS, RM 6 square feet (freestanding and attached) BN, BP BC, BD, 6 squape feet (fFeest nd ng) CW, WMU, 20 square feet (attached) FVMU CG 6 square feet (freestanding) 30 square feet (attached) 5. The maximum height of any allowed on -premises temporary sign shall be as follows: Zone Maximum Height of Sign RS, RM 6 feet (freestanding and attached) BN, BP BC, BD, CW, CG, WMU, FVMU 3 feet (freestand ng) 14 feet (attached) 6. In no case shall temporary signage be posted, located, or displayed in violation of the regulations for permanent signs set forth in ECDC 20.60.020 through 20.60.050. B. Off -Premises Temporary Signage. Off -premises temporary signs are allowed in residential and commercial zones, in accordance with the restrictions and standards set forth below: 1. Commercial off -premises temporary signage is prohibited, except for real estate signs as permitted by ECDC 20.60.065; provided, that such off -premises real estate signs shall be posted, displayed, and removed as provided for in that section, in addition to the provisions of subsections (13)(5) through (9) of this section. 2. Noncommercial off -premises signs are permitted in the public right-of-way; provided, that the posting and display of off -premises signs in the public right-of-way shall require a street use permit where required pursuant to Chapter 18.70 ECDC. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 158 Edmonds Page 17/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE 3. Maximum duration of display for all temporary off -premises signs is a cumulative of 60 days in any calendar year, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 20.60.060 for campaign signs. Display may be continuous or intermittent, except as otherwise provided in this section. 4. Except for campaign signs as provided in ECDC 20.60.060, all off -premises noncommercial signs relating to a y specific meeting, event, or occurrence shall be removed within 48 hours following the conclusion of the r_ meeting, event, or occurrence to which they relate. E c 5. Only portable freestanding signs may be used as temporary off -premises signage; provided, that the W following types of portable freestanding signs are prohibited from use as an off -premises sign: Q W a. Signs with a vehicular chassis or support with or without wheels; V b. Posters and banners; aP 7o c. Signs mounted upon vehicles; r LO M d. Searchlights; e. Inflatables. 6. Maximum number of allowed off -premises signs to be displayed simultaneously shall be one sign per sign poster except as provided in ECDC 20.60.060 for campaign signs and in ECDC 20.60.065 for real estate signs. 7. Maximum allowable sign area for all temporary off -premises freestanding signs is six square feet. 8. Maximum allowable sign height for all permitted off -premises signs is three feet. 9. All off -premises temporary signage shall be posted and displayed in accordance with the following restrictions: a. Off -premises signs may not be placed in any portion of the public right-of-way typically used by motor vehicles in a lawful manner. b. Off -premises signs shall be placed so as not to impede pedestrian, bicycle, or handicapped travel or access. c. Off -premises signs shall not be posted in a manner or location which impairs traffic safety by unreasonably blocking line of sight at intersections. d. Off -premises signs shall be constructed of suitable material and design to adequately withstand the reasonably expected normal or average weather conditions during the intended display period of the sign. e. Off -premises signs shall be regularly inspected to ensure that they have not been damaged or destroyed by natural forces or vandalism. Damaged and destroyed signs shall be immediately removed or repaired so as to avoid threats to public health and safety or the accumulation of unclaimed refuse upon the public rights -of -way. f. Off -premises signs shall not be posted upon public property other than the public right-of-way, and shall further not be posted within or upon planter boxes and flower beds within the publicly maintained landscaped portions of the public right-of-way. [Ord. 3628 § 14, 2007; Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. 20.60.090 Prohibited signs. A. General. All signs not expressly permitted by this chapter are prohibited. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 159 Edmonds Page 18/18 Chapter 20.60 SIGN CODE B. Hazards. Signs which the director of public works determines to be a hazard to vehicle or water traffic because they resemble or obscure a traffic control device, or because they obscure visibility needed for safe traffic passage, are prohibited. These signs shall be removed if they already exist. C. Confiscation of Prohibited Signs in Public Rights -of -Way. All signs which are located within a public right-of-way y and that have been improperly posted or displayed are hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be subject to immediate removal and confiscation. E c D. Any signs confiscated by the city shall be held for 10 working days after which such signs may be destroyed or aD E otherwise disposed of. The owner of any confiscated signs may recover the same upon payment of a $25.00 fee to Q cover the cost of confiscation and storage. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. aD 20.60.095 Exempt signs. 0 V c The following types of signs are exempted from regulations of this chapter, except that the dimensional and P placement standards shall apply unless variance is required by other provisions of local, state or federal law: co A. Governmental signs. r LO B. Signs required by provision of local, state, or federal law. C. Official public notices required by provision of local, state, or federal law. D. Signs not visible from a public location. E. Seasonal and holiday displays not incorporating the use of written copy or graphics to convey a message. F. Gravestones. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003] 20.60.100 Administration. A. General. The community development director is responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter. He or she shall adopt application requirements for sign permits. Fees shall be as stated in Chapter 15.00 ECDC. B. Installation Permits. Many signs require installation permits under Chapter 19.45 ECDC and may require plan checking fees as well. C. Notice of Violation. Whenever the planning director becomes aware of a violation of the provisions of this chapter, the planning director shall cause a notice to be sent to the alleged violator informing him or her of the violation, the applicable code section, and a time within which to remedy the violation. The notice shall also advise of the penalties for continued violation of the code as specified in this chapter. If the violation has not been corrected within the time limit specified, the planning director shall refer the matter to the city attorney's office for institution of appropriate legal action. D. Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of $25.00 for each day of continued violation. [Ord. 3461 § 2, 2003]. Sign Code Revisions - Option 3 (Planning Board Recommendation) Packet Pg. 160 8.1.c Council President Johnson acknowledged a number of FD1 staff in the audience, relaying her understanding Fitch & Associates had provided FD1 management a briefing. FD1's annual report to the City is scheduled on March 22, the next opportunity for the Council and FD1 to discuss this issue publically. Councilmember Nelson inquired about the distribution of ALS responses in Edmonds. Dr. Knight said the report maps out all call volumes and concentrated demand. There were 2 areas of concentration; he recalled they were Stations 20 and 17. A GIS component of the report maps where stations should be located, one uses current stations so there is no capital outlay and another identifies optimized station locations which the City and FD1 may find useful because current performance could be provided from 2 station in the future if they were relocated. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether citizens could expect a higher survivability rate from enhanced ALS coverage. Dr. Knight answered the majority of calls are BLS but ALS calls are very time sensitive and enhanced coverage would allow ALS units to arrive sooner, a reallocation of service to provide better service. For BLS calls there would not be much difference because the clinical condition does not require that level of service. Mayor Earling commented on the value of having FD1 personnel present. He recognized the FD1 union will be interested in interacting with Councilmember and there was nothing inappropriate about that. He invited Mr. Taraday to comment on that dialogue. Mr. Taraday said if Councilmembers were contacted by union members, they should feel free to discuss the matter with them but requested they forward any questions and/or concerns to him, Mayor Earling and Mr. James to ensure they get forward to Fitch & Associates and are addressed in the report. He wanted to ensure the Council has the ability to make a fully informed decision whether to implement one of the alternatives and has the best information. Mayor Earling commented Fitch & Associates have been stupendous in providing information and thorough analysis. B. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Development Services Director Shane Hope provided a project overview: • Development Code updated intended to: o Provide more readability, accuracy, consistency o Make inadequately addressed code topics more complete o Address new issues as appropriate (for example, stormwater LID techniques) o Clarify roles and processes o Resolve conflicts/overlaps Planning Board criteria for update: o Public Process: ■ Open & broad -based o Principles: ■ Consistency w/ state laws ■ Consistency w/ Comp Plan ■ Predictability + some flexibility ■ Recognition of property rights ■ Clear, user-friendly language & format ■ Enforceability o Key Objectives: ■ Reasonable & clear processes ■ Expanded & up-to-date definitions Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 161 8.1.c ■ Protection of critical areas & shorelines ■ Recognition of diverse neighborhoods & their characteristics ■ Pedestrian -friendliness & biking access ■ Low impact stormwater management Ms. Hope reviewed: • Project budget: o $150,000 allocated by City Council o $110,800 used by end of 2015 o Remaining $39,200 to be requested as 2016 carryforward in next quarterly budget amendment • Influencing factors o Staff resources ■ Amount of time remaining after regular ongoing work (development review, etc.) and special projects (e.g., SMP) o PB principles & objectives o Public process & input o Stormwater LID integration o Changing legal environment (new laws, court cases) John Owen, MAKERS. reviewed current code tonics: Land Division "Subdivisions" Types Current Code Proposed Code Short subdivisions Short subdivisions Formal Subdivisions Formal subdivisions Binding site plan (commercial) He provided details regarding short subdivisions: • Proposed concept: Define as 8 lots rather than 4 (state allows up to 9 lots) while adding stronger design standards and clearer criteria • Why? Eliminates incentive for property owners to do 2 side -by -side 4-lot ("short") subdivisions and instead have unified design Mr. Owen reviewed design options: Current Code Proposed Code Conventional Conventional Planned Residential Development (PRDs) PRD (?) Modification Requests Low impact design (LID) He explained the LID concept allows greater flexibility to cluster lots & achieve more conservation or enhancement for: • Existing trees • Natural areas • Stormwater LID features • Native vegetation or • Solar access Mr. Owen described standards for LID of subdivisions (concentual): May Must Width and area for individual lots may vary to Provide additional protection or enhancement of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 162 8.1.c certain extent trees, critical areas, natural features, LID stormwater management, or solar access Side & rear setbacks may be somewhat reduced Limit total impervious surfaces to certain % of lot when interior to the development (not adjacent to neighboring lots) Provide careful protection to trees being retained Not result in overall density greater than allowed for zoning district Mr. Owen identified other concepts for updating the subdivision code: • Allow "fee simple" unit lot design for townhomes • Require sidewalks on both sides of street for larger subdivisions • Require access directly from a public ROW or from a shared driveway or private street meeting updated City standards • Clarify language as needed for underground utilities, easements, dedications, etc. He described the subdivision review process: Short plat (8 or fewer lots) o Administrative review o Appeal to Hearing Examiner ■ Same as current short plat process Formal plat (9 or more lots): o Hearing Examiner decision on preliminary then Council decision on final plat o Appeal to courts ■ Same as current formal plat process He emphasized this would provide: Clearer standards re coverage, massing, stormwater infiltration, etc. Less need for staff interpretations" related to impacts to surrounding neighborhoods More "internal site flexibility" to protect trees, natural stormwater drainage, provide greater buffers around property, etc. Mr. Owen identified another current code topics, Signs: Sign standards issue: o How to calculate sign area o What counts as sign area? Entire sign board counts o Entire sign structure counts o Entire cabinet counts Mr. Owen reviewed: Proposed clarification #1 o Only the area of the individual letters count Sign Area Calculations: o Concept: Update the way maximum sign area is regulated for multi -tenant commercial buildings o Current: Maximum allowed sign area is now consolidated for all businesses in the building: 1 sf of sign area per 1 lineal foot of building frontage containing the main public entrance Proposed clarification #2 o Apply measurement to individual storefront (and not whole multi -tenant fagade) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 163 8.1.c He described: Design concept for wall mounted signs: o Signage to be centered, proportional, and shaped to architectural features of the buildings o Signage not to exceed 2/3 of individual storefront dimension. This standard also applies to upper level businesses o Drawings of examples o Allow face of mansard roof on existing 1-story buildings to serve as wall for wall sign Concepts for temporary signs downtown o Allow stanchion (aka portable post -style) signs as an alternative to A -frame signs o Require a permit for stanchion or A -frame signs so they can be tracked o Refine requirements for A -frame or "stanchion" signs in the ROW downtown o Other standards: o One sign per business o Must be temporary — not limited by # of days, but must be removed after business hours o Must have a city permit 0 3% foot height limit o Place sign within 2 feet of building and 10 feet of business entry o Place signs to maintain at least 4 feet of clearance or pedestrian traffic o Otherwise — a blade sign could be used to advertise the additional business • Downtown directional signs concept o Up to 4 locations o Master sign plan (subject to design approval from Architectural Design Board) o City permit o Maintained by entity that sponsors master sign plan • Pole signs o Many Washington cities no longer allow new pole signs o Along Highway 99 ■ Highway 99: only place in City where pole signs are currently allowed ■ Consider options to limit new pole signs • Sign code concepts for Highway 99 o Prohibit NEW pole signs altogether (or prohibit them only on properties smaller than a certain size) o Allow monument sign within setback, if sign is not taller than 6' and not blocking views for traffic safety • Other sign code issues o Legal issues under review based on recent court decisions about signs o Miscellaneous clean-up Ms. Hope recognized there are a lot of topics to be addressed; priorities proposed in the 2016 schedule are: • Subdivisions • Signs • Stormwater LID Ms. Hope identified next steps: • City Council questions/comments - Feb. 23 • Planning Board - Feb. 24 • Finalization of Critical Area Ordinance - TBD • Draft code language for subdivisions and signage - spring 2016 • Continued integration of stormwater LID practices • Preparation of additional code updates - 2016 schedule Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 164 8.1.c Ms. Hope highlighted other code updates that were not part of original discussion but need to be completed by July 2016: • Building and Fire Code update (every 3 years) • Impact fee process as a result of legislation changing the process for single family homes Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what is considered temporary in the sign code. Ms. Hope answered temporary is something that is not permanent or attached. The code refers to temporary as A - frame signs, banners, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council could determine the length of time for a temporary sign. Ms. Hope answered a temporary sign can be up during the day and taken down at night, displayed for a certain number of days, etc., there are several options. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to stanchion signs as an alternative to A -frame signs, recalling the stanchions used to designate outdoor dining impacted ADA access on sidewalks. She was concerned with the use stanchion signs on the sidewalk. Ms. Hope clarified the concept was allow one A -frame or one stanchion, not both, located next to the building and there would need to be ADA access. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented many of the sidewalks downtown are not considered ADA accessible due to their width. Ms. Hope commented the rationale for the stanchion sign as an alternative to the A -frame sign is it takes up less space on the sidewalk. For example, Mill Creek allows stanchion signs but does not allow A -frame signs. The disadvantage of stanchion signs to the business is they are more expensive than an A -frame sign; an advantage is they do not take up as much sidewalk area. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented in the past she rarely saw A -frame signs, they have proliferated downtown. Ms. Hope agreed there are a lot of A -frame signs; the intent of the proposal is to reduce the clutter. For example there are A -frame signs located around the corner from a business which would not be allowed. If the Council chose, another option is no A -frame signs although there would be pushback from businesses who believe A -frames and other signage provide visibility. She recognized the importance of an active, pedestrian friendly downtown, pointing out successful businesses contribute to that environment. Mr. Owens shared the concern with stanchion and A -board signs; the current proposal includes requirements to avoid blocking the path, providing ADA accessibility, etc. The primary change is requiring a permit for A -board signs. A proliferation of A -frame signs has been seen everywhere, in part because they are so easy. Requiring a permit will allow enforcement, ensures concerns with ADA access are addressed, and encourages more attractive, well-built signs. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Natalie Shippen's concerns with signage. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed A -board signs are clutter and need to be regulated as they are not temporary. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his interest in LID in subdivisions. He inquired about maintaining more natural vegetation in a subdivision and how that may relate to the CAO. Ms. Hope responded the CAO will apply regardless of the subdivision method. The idea of LID is providing more flexibility on internal dimensions of lots to preserve special features (not a critical area) on a property without reducing the number of lots and retaining the same perimeter requirements. Councilmember Tibbott said incorporating native vegetation into the design of a subdivision versus requiring a percentage on each lot would result in a better design for the neighborhood and potentially better habitat and sustainability. Ms. Hope agreed, relaying her understanding of Councilmember Tibbott's comments that the City should encourage preservation or planting of native vegetation even if it is not required. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with that emphasis and asked to what extent LID helps accomplish that. Ms. Hope said that the intent of LID is to provide ways to retain trees, native vegetation, solar access, etc.; the standard rectangular approach does not provide those additional values. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 165 8.1.c Councilmember Buckshnis commented which she agrees LID is a great idea and a trend in the future, it may be difficult to educate Edmonds citizens that it is good for the environment. She often receives complaints about houses that occupy the entire lot. She did not like zero lot line but has seen that used in other cities. Ms. Hope clarified the proposal does not include zero lot line but possibly less setback in the interior between properties. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his awareness of the controversy over A -frame signs and visual clutter on streets in Edmonds especially downtown. He asked whether staff has talked to businesses and/or the Chamber about A -frame versus blade signs. Ms. Hope answered yes; there is strong support from the business community for continuing to allow A -frame signs although some like blade signs. There was a lot of pushback on not allowing any A -frame signs. Councilmember Teitzel commented Carmel, California, allows blade signs and wall -mounted signs but not A -frame signs. It is very pleasant to stroll through Carmel; the sidewalks are wide and uncluttered N allowing 2-3 people to walk abreast. He was not a fan of A -frame signs and suggested the City consider c either strict regulations or banning them. Ms. Hope offered to provide options for more regulation if A- E 13 frame signs are allow or not allowing them which is a policy decision for the Council to make. m E Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. a m I. CONSIDERATION OF THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE U c LM Senior Planner Kernen Lien provided highlights of the CAO update: CO Update stated in fall 2014, with review of existing code and BAS r • 12 Planning Board and City Council meetings regarding the CAO chi • Council adoption January 26, 2016 and Mayor veto • December 15, 2015 code in Exhibits 1 and 2 He reviewed the intent of tonight's discussion and next steps: Review proposed Council amendments (8) Flesh out any new amendments Next step options: o Vote on amendments tonight and direct staff to bring back ordinance for consider, or o Decide whether to hold another public hearing and if so, o Schedule public hearing on March 15 o Schedule work session March 22 o Make decision on the ordinance on April 5 Councilmember Buckshnis said in response to Mr. Lien's opinions in the agenda memo, she changed some of her amendments and created new amendments. If the Council decides to hold a public hearing, Mr. Lien said he will provide comment on some amendments to flush out other potential amendments for the public hearing. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was a bit of a chicken or egg; he preferred to discuss the amendments tonight, the Council reach agreement on the amendments, and if they are not too different from staff s proposal, to make a decision tonight and schedule approval of the CAO on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Tibbott supported moving forward with a decision on the CAO without another public hearing, recognizing there have been two public hearings and a significant amount of public comment via Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 23, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 166 8.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 24, 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 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Samuel Kleven (Student Representative) BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2016 BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred to the written Director's report, which was included in their packets. He specifically noted the summary of what has been done to date to implement the Strategic Action Plan, and he encouraged Board Members to review the document. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE Mr. Chave advised that Ms. Hope and the consultant team provided a progress report on the Development Code Update to the City Council on February 23rd. For the Board's information, he played a video recording of the presentation. The following is a summary of the presentation: Packet Pg. 167 Ms. Hope advised that the Development Code Update is intended to make the code more readable, accurate and consistent; make inadequately -addressed code topics more complete; address new issues as appropriate; clam roles and processes and resolve conflicts/overlaps. She recalled that the Planning Board previously identified criteria by which the update would proceed, and the City Council allocated $150, 000 for the project. About $110, 000 of the funds were used in 2015, and $40, 000 will be carried over into 2016 to continue the project. Ms. Hope said the update is significantly influenced by staff resources. While they have helpful consultants, a large amount of staff time is needed to work through the topics. Staff time is influenced by other projects on the work program, as well as ongoing development review and special projects. The update is also influenced by the Planning Board principles and objectives, the public process and input, stormwater low -impact design (LID) integration, and the changing legal environment (new laws and court cases). Ms. Hope introduced John Owen of Makers, the consultant for the Development Code Update. John Owen, Makers, advised that he has been working with City staff on a number of code sections in tandem with each other. One, in particular, is the Subdivision (land development) Code, which is a topic that has received a lot of comments from the Planning Board, City Council, citizens, and development community. When reviewing the Subdivision Code, he considered three different types of land use actions: short subdivisions, formal subdivisions and binding site plans for commercial properties. The proposed concept at this time is to re -define short subdivisions as 8 lots or less rather than 4 lots or less, while adding stronger design standards and clearer criteria. It is believed that this approach will cut out incentive for property owners to do two, side -by -side, 4-lot (short) subdivisions and instead have unified design that results in better land utilization and more opportunities to mitigate impacts of development. Mr. Owen explained that there are several different design options to consider. The current code allows for conventional design, as well as Planned Residential Development (PRD), which relaxes some of the requirements for subdividing properties. Under the proposed new language, it is anticipated there would be less need for PRDs because the updated code would allow some flexibility that would make some aspects of land division easier. The current code also allows for modification requests, leading to what is commonly called "staff interpretation " or other review actions, and he proposed that this option be substituted with LID requirements or options. This approach would allow greater flexibility to cluster lots and achieve more conservation or enhancement for existing trees, natural areas; greater setbacks next to adjacent properties; stormwater and LID features; native vegetation protection and solar access. Relaxing the internal subdivision requirements will allow for greater outer buffers, more LID features, and a greater opportunity to save large trees. The idea is to do what is important for the environment and surrounding property owners, but allow more flexibility with regard to how the buildings relate to one another and how they are arranged internally on the lot. Mr. Owen observed that some may interpret the proposed changes as making it easier for property owners to subdivide by allowing short subdivisions of up to 8 units. While the proposed LID Standards would allow a developer to vary the width and area of individual lots to a certain extent and the interior setbacks may be somewhat reduced, there would be greater requirements for protecting and enhancing critical areas and natural features, stormwater management and solar access. The standards would also limit the amount of impervious surface to a certain percentage of a lot and require careful protection of the trees being retained. He emphasized that the concept would not result in an overall density that is greater than allowed in the zoning district. Mr. Owen reviewed other concepts for updating the Subdivision Code such as allowing `fee simple" unit lot design for townhomes, requiring sidewalks on both sides of street for larger subdivisions, requiring access directly from a public right- of-way, and clarifying language as needed for underground utilities, easements, dedications, etc. Mr. Owens said that, while the application requirements are nearly the same for both short and formal plats, the review processes vary. Short plats are administratively reviewed, with appeals going before the Hearing Examiner. Formal plats are preliminarily approved by the Hearing Examiner, with a recommendation to the City Council for the final decision and appeals go to the court. No changes have been proposed for the process. However, the proposed amendments will result in clearer standards related to coverage, massing, stormwater infiltration, etc. This will result in fewer "staff interpretations" related to impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and more internal site flexibility to protect trees, natural stormwater drainage, greater buffers around the property, etc. c m E c m E a m 0 U c a� co T LO M Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 168 Mr. Owen said there have also been a lot of comments pertaining to the Sign Code, particularly about how the City calculates sign area. He explained that there are different ways to measure sign area, and Edmonds currently only counts the actual size of the letters and not the area around the letters. This encourages larger letters instead of the objectionable panel or backlit signs you see in other communities. The concept is to update the way that maximum sign area is regulated for multi -tenant commercial buildings. Currently, the maximum allowed sign area is one square foot of sign area per one lineal foot of building frontage on the main public entrance. He recommended that the language be clarified to apply the measurement to individual storefronts and not an entire multi -tenant facade. Mr. Owen said another change that would improve the overall quality and design of signs is to make sure they are centered in proportion and shape to the architectural features of the building. In addition, signage should not two thirds of the individual storefront dimension or articulation of the building. In reviewing examples, these proposed changes will help keep the sign to a reasonable size and proportion to the rest of the building. Mr. Owen said another thing that is unique to Edmonds is allowing signs to be on the mansard roof of a one-story building, N and no changes are being proposed to this provision. However, one of the more controversial aspects of the sign code is sandwich board or A frame signs. The proposed concept is to encourage the use of stanchion (portable post style) signs as an alternative to A frame signs. Stanchion signs are less disruptive, yet highly visible. It is not the intent to discourage businesses from advertising. At the same time, they want to ensure there is a clear, safe pedestrian environment, as well as a sense of visual regularity and decorum in the downtown. Another option is to require a permit for stanchion or A frame Q signs so they can be tracked. It is also necessary to refine the requirements for A frame or stanchion signs in the right-of- way to make sure there is clear right-of-way, that they are close to the business, and that the numbers are limited. c U Mr. Owen said the proposed amendments also encourage blade signs to advertise the additional businesses. Blade signs do a� not have any of the disadvantages of the stanchion signs, and they actually have very good visibilityfor both pedestrians and v� people in vehicles. They are also considering a master plan for directional signs in the downtown so that signs can be placed r in key locations. These signs are particularly important for businesses that are off the main streets. Permitting would be M required and some organizational effort would be needed. Mr. Owen said many Washington Cities no longer allow new pole signs. Currently, the City only allows pole signs on Highway 99, and he recommended the City consider prohibiting new pole signs altogether and encouraging monument signs, instead. He recognized this may meet some opposition; but in the end, both businesses and other citizens tend to prefer signs that are visible but not intrusive. Mr. Owen said there are also legal issues under review related to signs that are based on recent court decisions. General miscellaneous clean-up of the sign code language also needs to be done. Ms. Hope noted that various items came up on the work plan that altered the City's ability to move forward with the Development Code Update. However, the current plan is to start with updates to the sign and subdivision codes. She reminded them that a related Development Code issue is the Critical Areas Ordinance, which has not yet been adopted. In addition, the fire code must be updated every three years and will be coming before the City Council for adoption before July. Also, the State implemented a change to the impact fee process, which requires that there be a different process for single-family homes; and the City needs to update its code to implement this new requirement before July. The intent is also to continue integrating stormwater LID techniques into various sections of the code, and staff is currently working with the Engineering Department to complete this task. Mr. Chave announced that the presentation was followed by approximately 15 minutes of questions by the City Council Members, and the entire presentation is available on line. Chair Lovell asked if the schedule was developed by the Development Services Department or the consultant. Mr. Chave answered that it was prepared by the Development Services Director, after consulting with Makers. Chair Lovell reported that he attended Ms. Hope's presentation to the City Council and recalled that a key concern was that the concept of "0" lot lines would force the housing units so close together that they could infringe on the concept of personal privacy while trying to preserve sections of a development site for natural habitat, LID, tree preservation, etc. He noted that if an area is deemed to be in a critical area, all of the requirements contained in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) would apply. Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 169 Chair Lovell recalled that there has been a lot of discussion in the past about sandwich board or A -frame signs, and the issue came up again at the Council level. These signs seem to populate the sidewalks and interfere with pedestrian access. It was asked if the City has solicited feedback from retail establishments that use the signs. Obviously, they want to preserve their sign capacity as much as possible. The task is to create balanced criteria that is acceptable to everyone but also provides a clear definition as to what comprises a temporary sign. Also, at the Council meeting, it was pointed out that Mill Creek Village does not allow sandwich board signs. Instead, they use blade signs that seem to go a long way to solving the issue. Chair Lovell advised that proposed amendments to the Sign and Subdivision Codes will come back to the Board for a\\ work sessions, a public hearing, and a recommendation to the City Council later in 2016. Mr. Chave agreed and advised that a major part of the Board's extended agenda will be filled with Development Code update topics. Board Member Crank said that, based on feedback from retailers in the City, the A -frame signs are more than just a logo. They provide valuable real estate for temporary advertising. Switching to stanchion or blade signs would eliminate a business's ability to highlight sales and specials. She presumes that this concern will come up at the public hearing regarding the proposed changes. A -frames offer critical advertising opportunities that businesses will have to pay for and provide in another way. c m Chair Lovell recalled that the proposed change would not eliminate a -frame signs, but it would add additional standards to Q get them closer to the entrances, provide adequate ADA access on the sidewalk, etc. He expects that the updated Sign Code would continue to allow A -frame signs, but it would clarify the requirements. He also acknowledged that retailers depend on c A -frame signs. U c a� Mr. Chave commented that stanchion signs would not preclude the ability to change messages. They are simply a different va type and shape of sign that takes up less footprint on the ground but still provides ample room for messaging. He noted that r the sidewalks in the downtown area are typically narrow, and the intent is to figure out specific limits and regulations that M will allow businesses to provide messaging without hindering pedestrian access. He commented that a variety of other stand- up sign types have been used effectively in the downtown. N Board Member Cheung asked if digital signs are allowed in Edmonds, and Mr. Chave answered that they are permitted along Highway 99, but the decision was made many years ago that digital signs were not appropriate for downtown and most other commercial areas in Edmonds. However, he acknowledged that there are a few existing digital signs that have been grandfathered and will be allowed to remain. Board Member Robles asked if neon or LED signs would be allowed, and Mr. Chave answered that small ones that are located inside windows are allowed. It's an evolving technology, and historically, it has been tight in the downtown area because people live in very close proximity to the businesses and it is important to limit glare and light. Board Member Cheung asked of projection lighting is allowed. Mr. Chave said the City actually encourages indirect lighting in the downtown. For example, halo signs are a new technology where there is some form of a sign face, with a light that comes from behind and illuminates outside of the sign area. The code prohibits cabinet signs in the downtown, but halo signs are indirectly lit and can produce some really attractive effects with very little light bleeding off the site. He explained that it is tricky to write sign code because the technology evolves quickly. It is necessary to look at performance standards rather than listing the specific types of signs that are and are not allowed. It is more about effect (what you are trying to prevent or encourage). For example, Mr. Owen called out the City's method for calculating sign area as unique because it only counts the area of the applied letters and not the area surrounding the letters. This is a powerful incentive for people to do block letters, which tend to be more subtle and get the message across well, without a large, bright sign background. Board Member Stewart commented on the importance of positioning structures on the site to allow for environmental features to be utilized favorably. Cluster developments use this approach, and it has been done quite a bit in other jurisdictions. The proposed code talks about LID, which is mandated by the state and will be incorporated into the code. It is also important that the updated Subdivision Code encourage green building. Under LID, it talks about energy efficiency, locally sourced and sustainable materials, indoor environmental quality, and a host of other things. Usually, when you talk about green building, you also analyze the site; and if you have flexibility, you can position buildings to take advantage of Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 170 8.1.c environmental features on the site. She noted that King County is moving forward with this evolving concept, and Snohomish County is lagging behind. Chair Lovell clarified that the idea would be to allow adjustments in the positioning of the units to enable larger areas of the site to be preserved for natural habitat, shared green space, mini parks, rain gardens, etc. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that signs in the downtown should be designed to attract pedestrians, whereas signs on Highway 99 must attract vehicles passing by. She recalled previous City discussions where it was decided that signs that can attract people from more than two blocks away create too strong of a presence in the downtown, and that is where the word "garish" came into play. It is important to remember that this is the perspective that has been taken when looking at what is considered acceptable signage. She said she supports the performance based approach, which allows new technologies to be considered. Chair Lovell agreed that pedestrian -oriented signs are more appropriate for the downtown. Chair Lovell voiced concern that, typically, when small -lot development occurs, developers put up a fence around the development and clear cut the entire site. Implementing LID concepts will require careful planning by the City staff and developers. Board Member Stewart agreed that more planning will be required, but developers can actually save time later by retaining some of the existing environmental features on the site. It's a different way of thinking, but the concept is being used more. There are developers that take this approach, and perhaps they can attract developers from outside the City so the concept can begin to happen more. Chair Lovell asked if there is sufficient funding to complete the Development Code update. Mr. Chave said he does not anticipate that the entire update will be finished in 2016. Right now, the consultant and staff are focusing on the most important parts (signage, subdivisions, and LID integration), and the remaining funds should be sufficient to complete these items. Staff hopes to complete the remaining work in house. He reminded the Board that another consultant is currently working with the Engineering Department to integrate LID into the engineering requirements, which will also require changes to other sections of the code. The City is also working with a consultant to prepare a Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He summarized that updating the Development Code is a very large project that involves various consultants and City departments. Board Member Monroe requested more information about the Council's concerns about "0" lot line development. Mr. Chave clarified that "0" lot line is not a concept that is currently being considered. Board Member Monroe asked if the changes to the short plat provisions would allow a developer to bypass some of the standards, and Mr. Chave answered no. The same standards would apply to both short and formal subdivisions. The proposed amendment relates more to the process. Short plats are administratively reviewed, but the City Council has to approve formal subdivisions. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the proposed amendment would result in eight, small houses placed in the corner of a large lot. Mr. Chave said there are standards and limitations that would prevent this from happening. However, there needs to be some flexibility given to allow LID to be worked into the site design. The current formal subdivision provisions offer very little flexibility and no opportunity to retain trees, etc. The real question is how much and what type of flexibility should be available in both the short and formal plat standards. Board Member Crank asked if the City Council's decision to postpone adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) would impact the timeline for updating the Development Code. Mr. Chave said it could complicate the schedule, depending on how elaborate finishing off the CAO gets, since it will prevent senior staff from being able to work on the code update. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that she does not anticipate a large number of subdivisions with more than eight lots, given the limited land available in Edmonds for development/redevelopment. Mr. Chave agreed and said most of the future subdivisions will be 2 or 3-lot short plats. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said that, in her experience with reviewing large subdivisions that have protected lands in the greater Seattle area, you end up with development that protects the last frontier of the resources that are left. There is not much left of the good part of nature, and the proposed LID regulations would actually protect what is left on the parcels. She also observed that people seem to like living on these properties. Protected lands are never going to be developed and they will have them to enjoy in perpetuity. There are some very fine tradeoffs. Although the houses could be smaller, there has not been a lack of interest on the part of consumers wanting to get into the developments. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said Mr. Owen made some fine points to help the Board turn its thinking when he referred to the proposed changes to the interior side and rear setback requirements. He pointed out that only the people living in the c m E c m E a m 0 U c am T LO CO) Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 171 8.1.c development would be impacted by the reductions, and they would have a clear understanding of the tradeoffs. Mr. Owen also made a point about lessoning the need for staff interpretation, which is something developers continue to ask for. Developers want to know what they are working with up front so there are no surprises. Subdividing is a rather expensive process that involves a large number of experts, and it is important for the City to be very clear about what the rules are. Staff interpretations can drive up the cost for consumers. UPDATE ON EDMONDS WATERFRONT ACCESS STUDY AT -GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Chair Lovell explained that his presentation is not an official briefing. He is a member of the Waterfront Access Study Task Force and volunteered to update the Planning Board on the process because he believes it is important that the Board and public are kept up-to-date on how the study is progressing. The primary source of information related to the study can be found on the City's website, including task force meeting agendas and minutes. He advised that the task force meets on the 2nd and 4th Thursdays of each month at 10 a.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall. The meetings are open to the public, N although the task force does not solicit public comment at their regular meetings. c m Chair Lovell reported that two public open houses have been held pertaining to the study. At the first open house, the task force outlined the purpose of the study, as well as the approach they would take towards the challenge. The second open m house was a work session where members of the public were allowed to walk through all of the proposed concepts being Q studied. m 0 Chair Lovell observed that the railroad has been in Edmonds for a very long time, and it is important to keep in mind that U over -implementation of any access solution concept could alter the character of the City. There is a risk that solving the aT railroad crossing problems in Edmonds could result in turning the City into a railroad town rather than a waterfront town. co Chair Lovell advised that the task force is comprised of five citizen representatives from the Edmonds community, as well as T M five representatives from the primary stakeholders: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Sound Transit (ST), Community Transit (CT), and Washington State Ferries (WSF). In addition to m staff members who attend the task force meetings, the City has hired consultants from TetraTec and EnviroIssues to assist in the work. 5 Chair Lovell provided an overview of the study schedule, noting that the project remains on schedule and the 2nd of five stages is currently underway. He reported that the task force has completed a technical analysis by observing, quantifying and documenting existing conditions at the Main Street and Dayton Street crossings. They have also reviewed data from previous studies and community input, compiled potential concepts to improve access and developed the following screening criteria: • Provide for continuous emergency response access. • Reduce delays to ferry loading/unloading. • Reduce delays and conflicts for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists at the Dayton Street and Main Street railroad crossings. • Provide safe and efficient intermodal passenger connectivity between ferry, commuter rail, bus transit, pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle modes of travel. Chair Lovell reported that the task force has completed its Level 1 review of each of the concepts based on the initial criteria. He provided an aerial photograph to illustrate the scope of the study area and explained that the remaining concepts have been divided into the following categories: overpass solutions, underpass solutions, on -site solutions, operational solutions, railroad modifications, and ferry facility modifications. He summarized that most of the concepts focus on overpass solutions, underpass solutions and ferry facility modifications. However, some concepts suggest on -site solutions such as providing first aid training and stationing a response team on the water side of the tracks and putting in a helipad. Railroad improvements, such as running the trains only at night, relocating the trains to Kirkland, or moving the tracks to the east of downtown so the waterfront is not interrupted, were also suggested. Planning Board Minutes February 24, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 172 8.1.c Permanent signs already require a permit, and these permits should be reviewed by the ADB, who understands the technicality of aesthetics. Temporary signs should require owner notification to the Planning Department. Ms. Shippen's written comments were entered into the record as an exhibit. Don Hall, Edmonds, said he owns a business in the downtown called Garden Gear and Gallery, so the subject of signs has an impact on him. He questioned why the current discussion only pertains to signs in the downtown. He suggested that the temporary sign ordinance should apply equally to all areas of the City so all businesses are on equal footing. He also questioned how requiring permits for temporary signs would improve the City's ability to enforce the Sign Code. He asked how much the permits would cost, how long they would be good for, and if a new permit would be required each year. He said he would prefer that store owners be required to remove their signs during non -business hours, but placing a 60-day time limit on temporary signs would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Hall said he supports many of the ideas proposed in the Development Services Director's memorandum, as they will improve the aesthetics of the downtown. However, enforcement will be vitally important, particularly in keeping signs in front of stores rather than further out on the sidewalk. He noted that many of the signs on the street corners are placed by real estate agents or by groups to advertise special events. These signs are typically A -frame types, similar to those used by the business owners. He questioned if real estate and group event signs would also require a permit and have a time limit placed upon them. Again he emphasized the need for the Sign Code to be equal. He noted that store owners have done a better job of keeping the signs off the street corners and closer to their storefronts, and the sign blight is no longer as bad as it used to be. However, he acknowledged there are still problems in some areas. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled that he was a member of the City Council 25 years ago, and he has lived in the same location of Edmonds for 50 years. He provided a drawing of the view he has across the street from his home towards the Olympic View Deli site at 196 h Street and Puget Drive. He emphasized the proliferation of signs at the shopping area, noting that some are the responsibility of the business and others were placed there by citizens. It is difficult to live across the street from a commercial establishment, but the City attempts to mitigate the impacts by requiring businesses to tone down their lights and activity during the evening hours. The drawing he provided is intended to illustrate how temporary signs are also a growing problem in areas other than downtown. Mr. Hertrich said he would like to see better enforcement of the Sign Code. At this time, it is primarily up to private citizens to report problems to the Code Enforcement Officer. He expressed his belief that the problem gets worse when the City allows less regulation and more proliferation. Eventually, it becomes difficult to get control of the situation. If the regulations are tight, fair and enforced equally throughout the City, there is less likelihood that signs will become a significant problem in the future. Mr. Hertrich reminded the Board that the City Council has been addressing the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in recent months. At their last discussion, he suggested that the CAO should specifically address the impacts associated with runoff from crumb rubber athletic fields into the City's creeks and waterways. Including crumb rubber fields in the CAO would assist in regulating the use to a greater depth in all areas of the City. Vice Chair Rubenkonig entered Mr. Hertrich's diagram to illustrate signage at the Olympic View Deli site into the record as an exhibit. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to the Development Services Director's written report to the Planning Board. She briefly reviewed the items contained in the report and invited Board Members to comment. Relative to the Public Workshop for the Highway 99 Area Plan, Board Member Crank indicated she would try to attend to represent the Planning Board. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she would try to attend the event, as well. Regarding the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC), Board Member Monroe indicated that he was assigned to serve as the Board's liaison to the Commission. DISCUSSION ON SIGN CONCEPTS: FOCUS ON TEMPORARY SIGNS Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 173 8.1.c Mr. Clugston reviewed that temporary signs in the downtown were previously discussed by the Board on February 241h, when staff provided an introduction to the topic. The purpose of tonight's discussion is to obtain feedback from the Board on how staff should proceed to craft draft regulations for their review on April 13th, followed by a public hearing on April 27th. He advised that members of the public have provided comments, and the consultant has prepared some draft language for the Board's consideration. Mr. Clugston advised that, currently, signs are regulated based on time, place and manner; and cities cannot treat signs differently based on content. This law was confirmed in a 2015 Supreme Court decision, Reed versus the Town of Gilbert. Although tonight's discussion will focus on signs in the downtown area, the entire sign code will need to be updated in the near future to make sure it is compliant with the law and the new court ruling. Mr. Clugston said the proliferation of A -frame signs in the downtown is a problem. The current code limits temporary signs to a maximum of 60 days of display per year. However, no permit is required, which makes it difficult to track how long a N sign has been up or whether or not it complies with the 60-day time period. In addition, the location requirements are not c well defined and the code does not place a limit on how many businesses can have temporary signs along a building frontage. E The intent of the update is to maintain the message and character of the signs, but provide enough standards and criteria for people to clearly understand what is and is not allowed. m E Mr. Clugston explained that, generally, temporary signs are intended to make pedestrians aware of what is going on inside a business. He referred to Attachment 2 of the Staff Report, which is a poster from the public open house on the code update. c The poster dealt with freestanding temporary signs and identified ideas for improving the code. Staff is seeking input from U the Planning Board on which provisions to include in the draft code language that will be the subject of further discussion on April 131h and a public hearing on April 271h. He provided examples of the types of temporary signs that are spread Fa sporadically throughout the downtown and briefly explained how the proposed concepts could be applied. He reviewed the r following questions in an attempt to seek specific feedback from the Board: M • Should freestanding temporary signs continue to be allowed in the downtown? The City could decide they want to keep the sidewalk as clear as possible and to minimize distractions. Recognizing that window signs and blade signs under canopies are already allowed and incentivized, the City may determine that freestanding 5 temporary signs are no longer needed. On the other hand, the City could determine there is a place for such signage, but wants to make sure the regulations are more effective. c • Should the 60-day provisions be replaced with more enforceable provisions? For example, the City could require that temporary signs can only be displayed during business hours or require that signs must have a permit? Requiring a permit would allow the City's Code Enforcement Officer to better track temporary signs. Should signs be more specifically located? For example, should they be limited to within 2 feet of the building, and/or within 10 feet of the building entry? Another option would be to require at least four feet of clearance for pedestrian traffic. The goal could be to create some distance criteria for where signs could be located relative to the building, and particularly to the entry, in order to avoid clutter and blockage of the pedestrian access. When a building is located right next to the sidewalk, it is easy to identify where the sign should be placed near the building. However, it is more difficult to make this determination in other situations. It is important to consider the context of each site. He provided several pictures to illustrate signs that are placed close to the building, as well as those that are placed further out into the right-of-way. • Should there be limits on how many freestanding signs can be located in front of a building? For example, should freestanding signs be limited to no more than one (or two) signs per building entry, or no more than one sign per ground level storefront business? If the intent is to limit signage in the right-of-way, it would be appropriate to limit the number of signs a business could have and perhaps even tie the signs to the ground floor storefronts. He provided an example of a business that had two A -frame signs, one next to the entrance and another across the sidewalk next to the street. Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 174 • Should specific types of signs be permitted or incentivized? While the Board may not be comfortable with A - frame signs, other similar sign types, such as stanchion or easel signs, might be appropriate. Perhaps the code should limit the maximum width and/or overall square footage of a sign. He provided examples of easel and stanchion signs, as well as suggested sign sizes the Board could consider. It is important to consider the right-of- way space, and large signs should probably not be allowed. Mr. Clugston provided pictures taken on Main Street to illustrate how temporary signs, blade signs, and wall signs have been used throughout the downtown. He particularly noted that most businesses on Main Street between 4th and 5th Avenues use blade signs, which are mounted under their canopies and are used to alert pedestrians of a business' location. He asked the Board to provide feedback about whether or not A -frame or other temporary signs are necessary in the downtown, given that blade signs and wall signs above the canopies are both allowed. Again, he reminded the Board that the focus of the current discussion is on downtown signage, recognizing that the entire sign code will need to be reviewed and updated at some point in the near future. Board Member Crank asked why the proposed revisions would only apply to signs in downtown Edmonds. She asked if the intent is to try the new regulations for a period of time and then consider their application elsewhere in the City at some point in the future. Mr. Clugston said it is not the City's intent to use the changes as a trial or test. Temporary signage in the downtown has been identified as an issue, and the goal of the current effort is to fix the problems. However, it is possible that some of the elements will be deemed useful for application in other locations in the City when the entire sign code is updated. Board Member Crank said she supports directional signs in the downtown. Businesses that are not located on the main streets often get overlooked and do not get a high level of foot traffic. Directional signs might help mitigate a City decision to prohibit and/or limit A -frame signs in the downtown. To address some of her other questions, Board Member Crank referred to an existing business in the downtown, Arista Wine Cellars. This business uses an A -frame sign as a true temporary sign in the sense that the information on the sign is changed on a regular basis. They do a tasting event every Saturday using different products, and their A -frame sign is used to advertise the event to pedestrian traffic. She questioned how the proposed zoning provisions would be enforced. Does Edmonds have code enforcement? Mr. Clugston answered that the City has a Code Enforcement Officer. However, it is difficult for the Code Enforcement Officer to enforce the limitation currently in the code because no permit is required to inform how long the sign has existed and when it needs to be removed. Board Member Crank asked if the City has the resources to enforce the sign code if it is updated as proposed, and Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. Board Member Crank asked how the 60-day limit would apply to Arista, which only displays the A -frame sign on Saturdays. Mr. Clugston said each sign would be allowed for a maximum of 60 days each calendar year, but the days would not have to run consecutive. Board Member Crank voiced her opinion that stanchion and blade signs are more permanent in the sense that they provide just enough advertising to identify the name of the business, and typically, the content cannot be easily changed to highlight special events. She pointed out that Gallery North is an example of a business that has taken advantage of all types of available advertising (A -frame, blade and wall signs) to catch the attention of both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. While this may seem excessive to some people, it is currently allowed. While she is not suggesting that the City take on the project, Board Member Crank said another potential mitigation to compensate for stricter rules related to temporary signs would be to create a digital map of the downtown that highlights the businesses, as well as their special activities. She noted that the City of Grape Vine, Texas, has a digital map of their downtown area, which is managed by the Chamber. A digital map could be a potential mitigation or business enhancement tool. It would be advantageous if the City could offer options outside of things that take up the limited space on the sidewalk. Board Member Cheung pointed out that most businesses bring their temporary signs in at night, so restricting the hours they can be on display would not be much of a change. He asked if there are any situations where a city owns the temporary signs and businesses can insert their own information onto the signs. If the signs were provided by the City, the City would have greater ability to track how long they are on display. Mr. Clugston said he does not know of any program of this type. The Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 175 8.1.c downtown association has tried to get larger, directional signs going. However, the purpose of this discussion is to focus on the signage that individual businesses can have. Board Member Stewart thanked staff for their presentation. She also thanked Ms. Shippen for her suggestions, which were summarized well. She asked if staff has looked at sign codes from other cities with similar downtown characteristics such as Fair Haven in Bellingham and Winslow on Bainbridge Island. Mr. Clugston answered no, but the examples provided by the consultant may have been culled from other jurisdictions. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that a number of years ago, the ADB reviewed signs, but this responsibility was more recently transferred to the Planning Department as a staff decision. Mr. Clugston said signs that meet the Sign Code requirements are exempt from design review. He reminded the Board that the intent of the Sign Code is to look at time, place and manner rather than focusing on sign design. The design standards for signs in the downtown are fairly minimal and more related to location, size, etc. It is left to individual business owners to work within the constraints of the code and design a sign that works for them. Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized that there would be no point in seeking feedback from the ADB regarding the Sign Code since they are no longer the relevant board to review signs. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that perhaps staff could provide additional information about a possible situational approach. For example, if a certain type of marketing strategy is needed, what type of sign would be appropriate. It might become more clear if they identify the size and criteria for the main signs, and then follow that discussion with criteria for temporary signs. Mr. Clugston cautioned that using a situational approach could end up considering the content of a sign, which is not something the City can regulate. However, the Board could identify a list of the sign types that are allowed and the standards that would apply. By a situational approach, Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she was thinking more about which types of signs are appropriate for each particular type of advertising. Staff shared the examples of easel, A -frame and stanchion signs, which may have different circumstances that suit their use best. Board Member Crank agreed that businesses have varied advertising needs, and one type of temporary sign might be more appropriate for their particular need. Mr. Clugston asked if Board Member Crank is suggesting that signs that allow for message changes should be handled differently than signs where the information is static. Board Member Crank answered that there may be situations where it is more suitable for a business to have a sign with static information, whereas another business might benefit more from a sign that can be easily changed. Mr. Clugston explained that, currently, businesses in the downtown are permitted to have three signs: a wall sign on the front of the building or canopy, a window sign, and either a blade sign located under the canopy or another allowed sign type. The Board could also recommend that a temporary sign be allowed as the third sign type, and it could have a changeable message. This would be a departure from the what the current code allows, but it is important to remember that the number of signs and the area allowed for signs is limited to a finite number. Mr. Clugston said that the intent of the examples provided by the consultant was to get away from having temporary signage located anywhere but right in front of the storefront. He recognized that businesses on side streets do not have as much pedestrian traffic, but they could pay more rent to move into a site that has more traffic. For temporary signage, the goal is to keep it right in front of the buildings. Board Member Stewart observed that the City does not have wide sidewalks, particularly in the downtown, and it was helpful to see the pictures that were provided by Mr. Clugston to get a perspective of the sidewalk width and how the temporary signs are impacting the space. If the City allows additional signs, they should be close to the building and out of the way of the walking pathway. However, she recognized that temporary signs have a function, and it is important to present some other options at the public hearing. She said she wants to hear from the business owners in the downtown about the how the changes would impact them and if adjustments could be made. Board Member Monroe asked if the City or business owner is responsible if someone were trip in front of a business. Mr. Clugston agreed to research the question and report back with an answer. Board Member Monroe said he supports less clutter and better pedestrian access routes so that pedestrians and people in wheelchairs are not blocked by signage in the walkway. Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 176 8.1.c Board Member Crank asked if staff has engaged the downtown business owners in the process, and Mr. Clugston answered that the Development Service Director and the Economic Development Director have had discussions with a number of business owners in the downtown. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said it is difficult to consider changes to the downtown sign code when they do not know what the downtown would look like if the current sign code were enforced. Having this information would help them understand the signage needs of the commercial areas. Mr. Clugston agreed that there are examples of both good and bad signage, and staff is seeking direction from the Board on what is the best balance of signage versus non -clutter. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that staff provide the Board with good examples of each of the sign types that are allowed. This would help her have a better understanding of temporary signage. Board Member Monroe suggested that because many of the temporary signs are up year round, perhaps it would be better to call them "movable signs." Mr. Clugston said it would be useful to separate temporary signs that have changing messages from those that do not. Board Member Monroe agreed that there must be a balance that provides business owners with the N signage they need, but keeps the signage out of the pedestrian walkways. m Board Member Crank agreed that permits should be required at some level, particularly if the City has a Code Enforcement Officer to enforce the rules. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled the Development Services Director's previous presentation, in which she explained why some of the rules were not enforceable. Without a permit requirement, it is difficult for the City to E know when a sign was put up and when it must come down. This was a strong reason to change the approach and require a permit for temporary signs. 3 U Board Member Monroe summarized that a permit requirement for temporary signs is one idea put forward for the Board's consideration. He asked if the limitations on time could be eliminated if a permit is required. Mr. Clugston said it goes back v� to how you define temporary. Most temporary signs are put out when the business opens and removed when it closes. Board r Member Crank added that some have temporary messaging and others have more permanent messaging. Board Member M Monroe said he hates to create code requirements that add more costs for the City's businesses. If the 60-day limitation is eliminated, there would be no need for a permit. Mr. Clugston said permits would still be helpful so the City can track the m signs. Board Member Monroe suggested that perhaps one temporary sign could be allowed per business. The signs could be displayed during business hours. It would be easy for the Code Enforcement Officer to see if there was more than one temporary sign or if a sign was left out after business hours, and no permit would really be necessary. Mr. Clugston agreed that could be a workable approach if the Sign Code is written clearly enough to provide good guidance. The City already has clear standards for wall signs, monument signs, freestanding signs, blade signs, etc. to make sure height, size and location requirements are met. Board Member Monroe's concept would require that specific standards be created for temporary signs, as well. However, it is important to note that all of these other sign types require a permit so they can be tracked to ensure that they are code compliant. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that staff provide an overview of the process and goals associated with permitting to give the Board and citizens a better understanding of the process. She expressed her belief that temporary signs would be relatively difficult to track even if permits are required. Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that the City's code enforcement is done primarily on a complaint basis, and the Code Enforcement Officer does not typically drive around looking for problems. Mr. Clugston summarized that the Board is interested in code language that differentiates between temporary signs and moveable signs. They would like him to provide examples of codes from other jurisdictions, as well as examples of good and bad signs. He agreed to also provide some draft language on the concepts that were recommended by the consultant. Planning Board Minutes March 23, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 177 8.1.c could not see a marked difference, and that the level of attendance at Planning Board meetings primarily depends on the agenda topics. Board Member Robles pointed out that there appears to be a willingness amongst the citizens to participate in the public process, but they typically are not aware of the process for doing so. He suggested that there needs to be improved communication with citizens to inform them of the Planning Board's agenda and how they can participate. Chair Lovell said he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig will work more closely with Council President Johnson to scope out the Planning Board's extended agenda and plan opportunities to meet jointly with the City Council. Board Member Crank commented on affordable housing and housing in general within the context of urban planning. She said she recently attended a Corporate Development Responsibility Conference where a professor from the University of Washington -Tacoma's Urban Study Program talked about the correlation between the large number of businesses moving into Seattle and the rising housing demand in South Snohomish County and North Pierce County. This reminded her of the need to have a broader sense of planning. They should focus less on numbers and more on who the people are and what is N driving the need for housing. Economic Development should be paired with urban planning, and job creation and movement E should play a role in the discussions. c m DUSCUSSION/REVIEW OF SIGN CODE: TEMPORARY SIGNS Q Chair Lovell referred to the discussion draft of potential sign code amendments and asked how it compares with the report m c prepared by the consultant. Mr. Chave explained that the discussion draft is intended to be a continuation of the Board's last U discussion and is not anything close to a firm proposal at this point. However, it does provide examples for how to differentiate between sign types (A -frame versus stanchion) and location (right -of --way versus private property). He v� explained that A -frame signs in the downtown are currently unenforceable. They are treated as temporary signs, with a 60- r day limit, but it is very difficult to know when the signs are placed. He suggested the Board could come up with a specific M proposal to present at a public hearing, or they could provide a few different alternatives for the public to comment on. For example: N A -frames could be prohibited, but other types of signs could be allowed. A -frame signs could be permitted, not as temporary signs, but as permitted signs that must meet more specific criteria related to location, size, etc. A -frame signs could be permitted as right-of-way signs, or a type of quasi -on -site sign. The code defines the area in front of your business as part of your premise where you do business. Mr. Chave explained that treating A -frame signs as right-of-way signs can be difficult, particularly when a business is set back. If an A -frame sign is placed in front of a store on private property, they probably would not want to allow a sign in the right-of-way, too. If businesses are only allowed to have one sign, the code should specify a preferred location. Mr. Chave specifically asked the Board to provide feedback about whether they support allowing A -frame signs as an legitimate type of signage in a pedestrian environment such as the downtown, but provide ways for them to be permitted and tracked. They could provide this as an option to solicit public comment. The current code allows the category of sign that includes A -frames in the downtown, recognizing that they have historically been allowed and the sign type fits best in a pedestrian environment. Although many businesses insist that A -frame signs are necessary and important, he did not feel they are an appropriate sign type on major arterials since they are not generally visible from the roadway and there is not significant pedestrian activity. Mr. Chave said it is important to consider that the sidewalks in Edmonds are typically narrow, and space is limited. There is always tension between pedestrian space and use of the space for a variety of amenities that complement the overall pedestrian environment. There is a purpose for signage to advertise specials that change on a daily basis, and it is much easier than a reader board that tends to get a little more garish and does not really fit with the environment. If A -frame type signs are allowed, the code should provide specific details about what the circumstances must be. For example, it would not make sense to allow one for every business. There are situations where a single entry leads into four or five businesses behind the street front, and allowing four or five A -frame signs along a single store front makes no sense. If the Board wants Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 178 8.1.c to allow A -frame signs, perhaps it would be appropriate to establish a standard for the maximum number of signs allowed per store front. Mr. Chave said the intent of the discussion draft was to put the information that was provided at the open house into verbiage for the Board's consideration. He emphasized that, under the existing code, A -frame signs are only allowed in the downtown. Continuing to regulate them as temporary signs is inconsistent with the way the signs are actually used. Referencing other types of signs makes some sense to provide some perspective. He cautioned that the sign code can regulate the type, location and dimensions of a sign, but it cannot regulate signs based on content. It is not possible to use examples from other jurisdictions because, by and large, most are out of compliance at this point. Board Member Crank said she recently visited three stores in downtown Edmonds that had A -frame signs. She asked the owners if they were aware of the sign code requirements. She also asked how they would feel if they were told they could no longer have A -frame signs in front of their establishments. None of them liked the idea of prohibiting A -frame signs. She recalled that, at the last meeting, she asked if the business owners had been contacted for feedback. The response was that the business owners had been contacted early in the process, but there was no follow up or description of the responses. She suggested that the Planning Board extend an invitation to the downtown business owners to attend the next Planning Board meeting in which the sign code is discussed to express their points of view. Mr. Chave said that the Development Services Director has reached out to the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED) and the Chamber for feedback. He commented that it is very difficult to discuss meaningful ideas with a large group of people in a regular Planning Board meeting setting. He suggested that a more effective way to solicit feedback from property owners and citizens would be to have an open house. As the discussion moves forward, the Board could offer a series of options and then solicit feedback. The feedback could be used to prepare a public hearing draft that hones in on the options the Board wants to pursue. Again, he suggested the Board put forward several options for the public to react to and encourage more specific comments. They can also use the City's website to solicit more feedback, and the Development Services Director could continue to work with the Edmonds Downtown Alliance and the Chamber as the discussion moves forward. Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to Board Member Crank's comments about responses she received from business owners, which relate back to the comment she made at the last meeting that the City does not know what Edmonds looks like with the sign code properly enforced. There is currently a proliferation of signs that are not allowed. For education purposes, she suggested the City could sponsor a campaign once or twice each year to get the illegal signs removed. Perhaps this could be done in cooperation with the Chamber and Edmonds Downtown Alliance. She expressed her belief that there is currently a lack of understanding, and perhaps the sign code is not as clear as it could be. She recalled that staff is recommending that only one sign per building be allowed, yet the graphic that was provided in the discussion draft is labeled as allowing one sign per business. Lastly, she voiced her opinion that stanchion signs pose less impediment to the pedestrian walkways than A -frame signs. Mr. Chave said staff is recommending that just one sign be allowed per building or one per entryway. He pointed out that, in some cases, a building hosts multiple businesses from a single entry. Allowing one sign per business could result in a large number of A -frame signs in front of the entryway and the sidewalk could become cluttered. Chair Lovell suggested that perhaps there could be a different standard to address buildings with multiple tenants. For example, a stanchion sign could be used with a strip of space on the sign for each business to advertise. Perhaps a larger sign size could be allowed in these situations. He acknowledged that this would necessitate design standards and an additional cost to businesses. Chair Lovell summarized that it appears that the Development Services Director has done some survey work with respect to the merchants in the downtown, and his understanding is that the merchants rely on the temporary signs to attract customers. However, staff has indicated that it is difficult to regulate A -frame signs as temporary signs based on the current code. The signs are currently allowed up to a 60-day period, but the City has no way of knowing when the signs are originally placed. In reading the Board's discussion from the last meeting, he gets the impression that the temporary signs are supposed to be of a nature that provides a message or information to the public that is not contained on the regular business signs. Examples of this include special sales, or daily menu items. While he supports the City continuing to allow the signs, he felt the number should be limited to one per business and they must be located within three feet of the business entry. He noted that this would be consistent with the consultant's recommendation. He observed that there are numerous other opportunities for signage, including wall signs, window signs, and blade signs. Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 179 Chair Lovell suggested that if temporary signs are going to be allowed, they must have clear guidelines that can be applied throughout the entire City. However, he does not see how the City can regulate anything other than size, number and location. He noted that A -frame signs are not just a problem in the downtown area, but the problem seems to be more noticeable in the downtown where the sidewalks are narrower and there is more pedestrian traffic. Board Member Monroe said he likes stanchion signs least of all because they are taller. A -frame signs are lower to the ground and not as visible from the street. He said he also believes that A -frame signs are a safer option, as long as the required 4-foot walkway can be maintained as per the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). Board Member Stewart said she believes there are certain benefits associated with both stanchion and A -frame signs. She expressed her belief that placing A -frame signs next to the buildings rather than away from buildings is a safer standard. It is easier for those in wheelchairs to get by stanchion signs. She suggested that perhaps one stanchion sign per building could be allowed, and the message on the sign could be changed and tenants of the building could take turns. A -frame signs could be allowed, as long as they are tucked against the buildings. She would like to hear from the public as to the appropriate number of A -frame signs to allow per building or business. While they want to avoid clutter, they also don't want to take away a business owner's right to notify the public of changing conditions at their business. Board Member Cloutier suggested the Board should start by identifying the specific problems before having a lengthy discussion about potential solutions. This approach would help the Board determine whether the proposed solutions will actually help address the problems or if they will simply address personal preferences. For example, ADA accessibility is a problem that can be addressed by requiring that the signs are ADA compliant. Rather than placing A -frame signs next to buildings, a better location might be near the street trees where they will not impede pedestrian traffic. Another example of a problem associated with A -frame signs is that they create clutter and detract from the appearance of the downtown. A possible solution might be to limit the number of signs allowed per building or per business. Chair Lovell asked it if would be appropriate to create aesthetic uniformity for downtown signage. Mr. Chave cautioned that when developing sign standards for the downtown, it makes sense to describe the parameters for signs rather than trying to enforce uniformity of design. Currently, there is a lot of variety along the downtown streets, and variety tends to attract people. He suggested that the code should be very specific about the standards that must be met, but still allow for creativity. The Board all agreed that the approach suggested by Board Member Cloutier would be appropriate, and they further agreed that maintaining adequate pedestrian walkways, per ADA requirements, in the downtown is an important criterion. Board Member Stewart pointed out that the sidewalks in the downtown all different widths. There are some places where the sidewalks are wide enough to accommodate a stanchion sign without impacting the walkway. However, she is hoping that as Edmonds becomes more discovered, there will be more people using the sidewalks. That may require the City to revisit the sign code, and businesses may have to come up with other solutions. Mr. Chave said that last year the City decided to be more flexible with other kinds of signage. For example, they now encourage blade signs or projecting signs that are more attractive and effective as permanent advertising of a business. Signage that gives notice of changing events has its place, but it must be regulated in a way that is content neutral. Board Member Robles agreed that allowing for creativity should be part of the Board's consideration, but there is also an argument for uniformity. For example, the gas lamp district in San Diego is defined by ornate gas lamps. He suggested the Board could actually populate the criteria and have a contest. They could invite designers in the City to actually interview the citizens on behalf of the Board and propose some solutions. Also, the City has a database of business owners in the City, and there are methods for statistically sampling those individuals to obtain a representative opinion. He suggested they could combine these different approaches into a strategy. Chair Lovell asked if the breadth and depth of the Board's discussion has been narrowed down to temporary signage. Mr. Chave agreed that is the main focus of tonight's discussion. Staff is trying to figure out which direction the Board wants to go so that draft code language can be prepared for their consideration at a future meeting. Chair Lovell suggested that perhaps a representative from the Planning Board could attend the next meetings of the Chamber and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance to give a brief presentation and solicit feedback. Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 180 8.1.c Board Member Cheung referred to Board Member Crank's earlier comment and said he is not surprised that business owners seem to be unaware of the regulations for signs. He voiced concern about creating a sign code that is overly restrictive and/or too specific. It will be difficult enough just getting them to comply with a simple ordinance. Business owners should already know not to place signs in the middle of walkways, even if it is not specifically prohibited in the code. He cautioned that the Board should be realistic about what the new sign code will convey to businesses and whether or not they will actually comply with a lot of specific rules. Mr. Chave referred to Vice Chair Rubenkonig's earlier comment that the City does not know what the downtown would look like if the current sign code were enforced. He advised that the City has occasionally sent out general notices when the signage has gotten out of control. The Code Enforcement Officer has sent word to the Chamber and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance that the signs need to be better controlled. This approach has worked well in the past. It is not that the business owners do not know the rules, it is a matter of what they can get away with. For example, businesses already know they are not supposed to put signs blocks away from the business. There tends to be a constant push/pull, and people will try to see how much they can get away with. However, if the new rules are well understood and a sign permit is required, enforcement will be easy and quick. People will quickly figure out that their signs will get pulled if they haven't been approved by the City. The sign code will become self -enforcing over time. Board Member Cheung asked what happens with non -compliant signs. Mr. Chave answered that sometimes the signs are confiscated. For example, signs that are put in the right-of-way by clubs have been confiscated by the City, and people have quickly figured out other ways to do their signage. He suggested that addressing signs in the City will require education, combined with enforcement and clear, understandable rules. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that window signs can also add to the visual clutter. Mr. Chave said the sign code allows signs in windows up to a certain percentage of the window area. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the window signs must reflect on the activity of the business within. Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City cannot regulate sign content. The idea behind allowing some amount of window signage is that it tends to be more temporary advertising. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the City currently has some wayfinding signs off the main road to direct citizens to public areas, but there are no wayfinding signs for businesses. She asked if it would be possible to allow wayfinding signs on Main Street to direct pedestrians to businesses off the main road. If this were allowed, then perhaps A -frame signs would not be necessary. Mr. Chave said that wayfinding signs for commercial uses would require a specific program that addresses design, maintenance, etc. The Edmonds Downtown Alliance could pursue this approach as one solution to signage, and another option would be the creation of a website or app for smart phones that advertise and direct people to the businesses. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if businesses could rent their window space to another business for advertising. Mr. Chave answered that there are restrictions on off -premise signage, which is generally not allowed. Chair Lovell suggested that permitted signs could be required to display stickers that provides physical evidence that they meet the sign code requirements. Board Member Cloutier felt this would be cumbersome for the City to administer, as it would require the Code Enforcement Officer to check all of the signs for labels. He reminded the Board that the goal is to enforce the standards without having to go business -to -business and sign -by -sign. For example, it would be easy to administer a requirement that ADA access must be maintained at all times. The Board discussed that the ADA standard will soon be updated to require 48-inches of sidewalk space. Board Member Cloutier suggested that once the Board has a clear understanding of the current sidewalk widths in the downtown, it will be easier for them to make an informed decision. Board Member Monroe reminded the Board that there are other competing factors that must be considered, as well, such as street trees and other amenities in the public rights -of -way. Board Member Monroe asked if the City would be held responsible if someone were to trip on a sign that is placed in the right-of-way. Mr. Chave said he does not have enough experience to say who would ultimately be responsible, but it would likely be both the City and the sign's owner. He reminded the Board that when the City issues a Street Use Permit, applicants must provide insurance verification and a Hold Harmless for the City, as well. He believes these same requirements would apply to Right -of -Way Permits. Board Member Monroe asked if the same would be required for signs, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. However, he acknowledged that there is no enforcement, and the requirement needs to be more clear. If signs are allowed in the rights -of -way, there needs to be some sort of insurance in the event that someone trips over them. c m E c m E a m 0 U c a� T LO M Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 181 Student Representative Klevin asked how the City monitors how many days per year a sign is put out. He suggested that a website could be set up that would allow businesses to schedule beforehand the days they will be displaying their signs. The City's Code Enforcement Officer could then check to make sure that only those businesses that signed up for the day are displaying signs. Board Member Cloutier agreed a website would be one option for showing when temporary sign permits are effective and/or expire. However, the Board has agreed that A -frame signs in the downtown will no longer fit the definition of a temporary sign. While the City wants to allow businesses to advertise special events, business owners should not be allowed to violate the standards. He summarized that staff is encouraging the Board to move away from temporary signs and make A -frame type signs their own category of business signage in the public right-of-way. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that "movable signage" would be a more accurate term. Board Member Crank suggested the Board go back to Board Member Cloutier's earlier suggestion that they hone in on what they are trying to solve. They should also consider what they are trying to prevent. Business owners are trying to prevent a loss of potential business for not having the signs as a source of advertising or marketing. If the City is focusing on issues they are trying to solve such as clutter, proliferation of signage, pedestrian access, etc. they should also try to mitigate any N potential issues for the business owners. Board Member Cloutier suggested that instead of thinking of it as "preventing," m they should focus on enabling the businesses to put out signage to continue their business. We can't give them everything they want, but we don't want to take away everything, either. E Board Member Monroe asked if the Board supports the idea of allowing public signage in rights -of -way. Chair Lovell said m the real problems seem to be fairly limited to the downtown bowl area, and it will be difficult for the City to regulate all 3 temporary signs throughout the City (including real estate signs, political signs, etc.). If the Board agrees that temporary U signs should be allowed in the pedestrian rights -of -way, there is not a lot more the City can do beyond requiring provisions for ADA accessibility and adequate clearance for pedestrians. He voiced concern about creating separate and different co standards for each of the business districts in Edmonds. Board Member Monroe pointed out that downtown Edmonds is r unique in that it is a pedestrian -friendly business area. Chair Lovell reminded the Board that one of the goals of the M Comprehensive Plan is to make neighborhoods more walkable and safe. The intent is to create zoning and land use provisions that allow people to work, live and shop in their neighborhoods. T Vice Chair Rubenkonig said her perception was that the discussion was focused on downtown Edmonds because it is unique in its walkability. The idea was to address this part of town and then look at other areas at a later time. Mr. Chave agreed that is the assumption staff has been working on. If you look at the sign code, A -frame types of signage are not allowed elsewhere in the City. Downtown is unique because the sidewalks are right up against the buildings. In other commercial areas, there are large pieces of property with buildings set way back from the sidewalk. He said the City Attorney has agreed that the City can regulate signs in the rights -of -way differently depending on the type of environment. However, he agreed with Chair Lovell that, if the City really wants to change the character of another business district at some point in the future, they could take a second look at the sign standards. But they are not there yet. He suggested the Board work on coming up with sign code standards that are unique to downtown Edmonds and see if they work before applying them elsewhere in the City. Chair Lovell noted that the chart that was included in the discussion draft implies that the same concepts they are considering for downtown signs would be applied elsewhere in the City. Mr. Chave said the chart needs more work and is not in keeping with the existing code. Chair Lovell voiced concern about having different sign code requirements for each commercial area in the City because it would make it more difficult to administer. He also voiced concern that, with the exception of the ADA requirements, many of the other requirements being suggested are subjective. Mr. Chave summarized that, based on the Board's discussion, staff will bring back more information to the next meeting for their consideration. He also agreed to meet with the Development Services Director to discuss future plans for outreach. He reminded the Board that the current focus is on right-of-way signs in the downtown. Although real estate and campaign signs are also temporary in nature, adjusting the sign code that applies to them will require close scrutiny from the City Attorney at some point in the future. They are not included in the current discussion. Board Member Robles recalled that a few months ago he provided a possible solution to the tree code based on a block chain, which is a new type of software. Such can also be developed for something like the sign code. He said he did not receive a Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 182 o Add more pedestrian crossings across Hwy 99. o Slow traffic turning off Hwy 99 onto side streets. Improve public space o Include more wayfinding signs. o Activate the street by bringing buildings to the sidewalks. o Include landscaping as buffer between street and sidewalk. o Concern expressed over the number of car lots. "Car lots do not make good neighborhoods." Attract new businesses o Diversify the business mix in the area o Focus on attracting catalyst developments Next steps include: • Use results from public workshop and online survey to draft alternative scenarios • Public Open house - Thursday May 19, 7:00 — 9:00 pm N o Swedish Hospital Auditorium, 21601 76`h Ae W, 41h floor, main building E Ways to participate include: • Periodically check City websites E o www.edmondsh)U99.org o www.edmondswa.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99-planning-project.html c • Take the survey v o www.edmondshw 9�g/workshop-survey • Get on the City email list in • Watch for announcements in local media and City newsletters LO • Send comments to brad. shipleykedmondwa.gov M v Ms. Hope reviewed the project timeline • March — April 2016: Understanding Existing Conditions • April — June 2016: Develop Land use and Transportation Scenarios • April — Oct 2016: SEPA & Planned Action Environmental Impact Assessment • July — Sept 2016: Develop Subarea Plan • Oct — Nov 2016: Final Sub -Area Plan Councilmember Nelson thanked Ms. Hope and the consultant for the public workshop. He commented the number of Councilmembers at the public workshop illustrates the Council's interest in Highway 99. He also commented on the public workshop attendees' interest and their participation in the mapping exercise. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. I. UPDATE ON REVISING SIGN REGULATIONS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained sign codes are complex and have many issues such as free speech, aesthetics, community character, public access, etc. Staff has has heard many different concerns with the sign code over the years such as things that were unclear, things that other cities doing such as replacing pole with monument signs, etc. The primary concern that has been expressed is temporary signs in the downtown area. Most downtown businesses believe the opportunity for signage is important, increases their business and keeps the area vital and lively. Conversely, signs can also get in pedestrians' way if not placed carefully and can be viewed negatively. There is also an issue related to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 183 8.1.c enforcement; the code provides for limitations on signs but there is no permitting or tracking system and the City has only one code enforcement officer. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board is initially focusing on temporary signs. Sandwich/A-board signs are allowed downtown but not elsewhere in City. They are generally associated with pedestrian environments and it makes sense to regulate them that way because pedestrian signs are very different than other signs. Under the existing sign code temporary sign are allowed but only for 60 days; however, there is no permitting system to track those signs. The Planning Board is considering what signs need time limits and how sandwich board signs are used. Mr. Chave explained currently A -board signs are not used on a temporary basis for a specific number of days; the temporary nature is related to their removal when the businesses are closed. Many A -board signs are used for ongoing advertisement for things like menus, daily specials, or other temporary statements that inform patrons what is occurring in the business. One of the challenges is the sidewalk area downtown is limited, most downtown sidewalks are 8 feet wide. Although there is ample room, the issue is not having to many A -board signs so they are ubiquitous, identifying the best location on a case - by -case basis, determining a logical number based on number of storefronts, doorways, etc. Those details are not reflected in the current code. Mr. Chave said another issue under review with the assistance of the City Attorney is the recent Supreme Court case that limits the ability to regulate signage; regulations have to be content neutral. The basic rule is if a person has to read the sign to determine whether it's permitted, that is a problem Other jurisdictions' codes cannot be used as samples because most allow specific signs. For example, a menu sign; it would be necessary to read the sign to determine it was a menu sign. The City Attorney's office has been reviewing the City's sign code and have identified definition problems as well as other issues. Ms. Hope relayed the intent is for Planning Board to gather public input and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Councilmember Buckshnis recognized there are a lot of issues associated with the sign code. Many temporary signs are not actually temporary; they have been in place for a very long item. She was unclear why temporary signs are a freedom of speech issue. Other cities do not allow sandwich board signs; if the City has never tried not allowing sandwich board signs, how do businesses know they are helpful. She suggested not allowing A -board signs for a 30-60 day trial period. Ms. Hope anticipated options would be presented to the Council that could include no temporary signs allowed on the sidewalk or other regulations such as where and when they can be displayed. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said if the Council was interested in completely prohibiting temporary signs, he would need to research whether that was defensible. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether a permit for A -board signs had been considered. She wondered how many would be displayed if a permit were required. Ms. Hope answered consideration is being given to requiring a permit; most other sign types require a permit. A -board signs in Edmonds do not require a permit which makes them difficult to track. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she has been contacted by members of the disability community on more than one occasion with concerns about outdoor dining in the right-of-way blocking access; A- board signs adjacent to outdoor dining further block access. After measuring some sidewalks downtown, she found some are only 6 feet wide. Mr. Chave said the Planning Board is discussing the requirement for a permit especially for signs in the right-of-way. Requiring a permit would allow the sign location to be reviewed as well as whether there was a conflict with outdoor dining. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remarked people without a disability often don't think about signs blocking access Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 184 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if a permit fee was required for blade signs. Mr. Chave answered no; a decision was made during Stephen Clifton's tenure not to require a permit. The signs are required to be mounted at a certain height but there is no fee for the permit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas liked the blade signs and would like to see more. She remarked blade signs, A -frame, and signs in window can all be too much. Mr. Chave agreed that was the difficult part about the sign code; there were no objective studies that state what was more or less effective. There are only government ordinances regulating signs and publications from the sign industry that state more is better. That is why jurisdictions look at other jurisdictions' regulations; unfortunately, most are not in accordance with Supreme Court decision. Ms. Hope said another challenge is whether the business is located where it can display blade sign. Councilmember Teitzel said he attended a recent Edmonds Downtown Alliance meeting where the issue of signs was raised and there was a lot of emotion about A -board signs. Most business owners at that meeting believed it was the most cost effective sign method to attract customers. He agreed it would be N important to find research that would inform business of other other options that may be as effective or c more effective than an A -frame sign. Ms. Hope said it has been very difficult to find any academic E research; most information is anecdotal. m E Council President Johnson recalled Natalie Shippen raising this issue in the past including the visual a pollution in downtown Edmonds, the number of signs she observed and what they advertised. Council c President Johnson said after a while, people become immune to what Ms. Shippen saw and she was v unsure whether people actually read the signs. She agreed a range of options would be helpful, one of aM options should be a ban or a temporary ban and encouraged the City Attorney to work with the Planning CO Board and staff on a ban. She acknowledged a ban may not be popular but several Councilmembers have r indicated they are not particularly supportive of sandwich -board signs. She recognized they are chi inexpensive and serve a purpose but questioned whether they were in the best interest of downtown Edmonds. a) Councilmember Nelson expressed support for temporary signs that were actually temporary; A -boards tend to be permanent. He supported options for temporary signs with regard to the type of signs, size, location, etc. He noted visitors may not walk by the A -board signs every day and may be informed by the information on the sign. He favored finding a balance to accommodate visitors, people with disabilities and pedestrians but did not support a temporary or permanent ban at this point. Councilmember Mesaros relayed as he was walking to tonight's meeting, the veterinarian was bringing in the sandwich -board sign at the Veterinary Clinic on 5th. The sign appears to be very temporary as it is brought in every night. Councilmember Mesaros pointed out real estate sandwich boards are often displayed outside the downtown area, typically on the weekend to direct people to open houses. He anticipated regulating those would be difficult. Ms. Hope agreed that is an issue; staff is not proposing to address those signs at this time. Mr. Chave clarified only commercial A -board signs are allowed downtown; A -board signs are allowed in residential zones. The challenge with real estate sign is they are located off -premise. Councilmember Mesaros commented there are two types of real estate signs, the A - frame and the small arrow stake signs. 7. REPORTS OF OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Councilmember Buckshnis the WRIA 8's granting committee did two site visits for King County Flood Control grant program and two visits for the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and submitted their recommendations to the WRIA 8 Board. The WRIA 8 Board will review the recommendations on May 19. She abstasined from voting on the recommendation related to the Edmonds Marsh. She reported the Tree Board is hosting Cass Turnbull on May 5, 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. in Council Chambers to speak on "The Seven Myths of Site, Selection and Care of Trees." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 26, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 185 8.1.c response on his suggestion for the tree code, and he questioned if it would be appropriate to specify a block chain solution for regulating signs. He explained that block chains are a new technology, and he could provide more information if the Commission is interested. It is basically a decentralized database, where multiple writers can write in. In the case of signs, the City could provide a map of where signs could be allowed, and then the community decides and trades with local currency and/or credit. Board Member Cloutier summarized that the signs still end up where you want them, but you aren't saying that all businesses have to use their spot. Someone else can use that spot. Board Member Robles said it is a self- regulating and self -enforcing approach that would allow the City to stay out of the business of regulating signs. Chair Lovell said he is not sure the City is ready to apply the concept. Board Member Cloutier summarized that with this type of program, it would be the City's responsibility to set the standards, and it would be up to the Edmonds Downtown Alliance to create and administer the database consistent with the standards. Mr. Chave said the intent of the process is to adopt a new sign code. The draft language that has been provided to date was intended for information purposes. At their next meeting, staff will present draft language for the Board's consideration. A tentative public hearing is scheduled for May. N U) c DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT Chair Lovell briefly reviewed the written report, noting that two Board Members attended the recent public open house relative to the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He also announced that Sound Transit's ST-3 draft program is available for public Q comment, and he urged Board Members to review the plan and provide appropriate comments. 0 Board Member Stewart reported that the City Council spent little time on the Critical Areas Ordinance at their April 12th C) meeting. The agenda was quite full, and the Council only got through one amendment having to do with the mapping of critical areas being made available to the public on the City's website. The mapping system allows citizens to apply layers to co the GIS maps to identify such things as critical areas, steep slopes, streams, pipes, infrastructure, etc. The intent is for r citizens to have the ability to access the information on their own, and then approach City staff with questions when M necessary. She said it was emphasized that the maps are not 100% accurate, and the mapping system makes note of this in a disclaimer. N Mr. Chave provided more information about how the mapping system works. However, he cautioned that including critical areas in the mapping system can be misleading because they are not precise regulatory maps. Board Member Stewart shared examples of the information that can be accessed from the City of Seattle's website. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she receives regular communication from other jurisdictions in the area concerning the permitting activity that occurred throughout the month. This is helpful information, and she asked if it would be possible for the City of Edmonds to generate a report of this type, as well. Mr. Chave said the City's permit tracking system is available on line, but the City does not issue an email that summarizes the monthly permitting activity. Board Member Crank suggested that Vice Chair Rubenkonig provide examples to staff of reports that have been issued by other jurisdictions. Mr. Chave said the Building Division does a monthly report that summarizes the building permits that were issued, but it is not linked to a more extensive database. They do not currently have a method of doing a realistic report on all of the development activity in the City. Vice Chair Rubenkonig felt this would be a wonderful tool for the Board to have on hand. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed that the agenda for the April 27th meeting will include a continued discussion on the sign code, as well as a review and discussion of land division concepts. Chair Lovell asked staff to provide feedback from the City Council regarding the timeframe for rewriting the Development Code. Mr. Chave said the plan is to get as much of the update as possible finished in 2016. The sign code is a priority, as is the process section. The update of other elements will extend into 2017. He agreed to invite the Development Services Director to provide materials to update the Board on the overall schedule. Chair Lovell questioned the timing of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Board Member Crank reported that she attended the public meeting, but the timeline was not provided. The meeting was presented as the first step in getting the public involved Planning Board Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 186 8.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 11, 2016 Vice Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Philip Lovell (excused) Valerie Stewart (excused) Samuel Klevin (Student Representative (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2015 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, referred to an email she sent to the Board prior to the meeting in which she shared an example of boxes being placed near the door of a business on which advertising materials could be placed. She noted that the boxes are small, mailbox type that can hang on the wall next to the entryways or on the walls. She also pointed out that the Board has had significant discussion about the purpose of A -frame signs, and there seems to be a general acceptance that they provide an economic benefit to the businesses in the downtown. However, there has been no discussion about how the signs benefit the general public. She urged the Board to have a discussion about the public purpose of having the signs in the rights -of -way. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written Director's Report. None of the Board had comments or questions about the report. REVIEW OF SIGN CODE: TEMPORARY SIGNS c m E c m E a m 0 U c a� LO CO) Packet Pg. 187 8.1.c Mr. Chave announced that a public hearing on the draft sign code amendments is scheduled for May 25"'. The purpose of the current discussion is to finalize or get closure on the options that will be presented to the public at the hearing. Staff s intent is to publish information relative to the three options by Friday, May 13"', so the public has adequate time to review and prepare for the hearing. He briefly reviewed the three options as follows: Option 1 — This option would essentially prohibit A -frame and sandwich board signs from being allowed in the downtown. The business "premises" would no longer be defined as including the sidewalk in front of the building, and these types of signs would no longer be permitted as an allowed sign type downtown. Option 2 — This option would add a new definition of "pedestrian sign" that would specify more types of signs, including stanchion signs and other similar types. This option would continue the ability of businesses to use pedestrian signs as a form of "temporary signage," but a permit would be required and the 60-day limit would be retained as it currently exists for other types of temporary signage. Basically, this option would continue the status quo, but add a permit requirement to help staff administer the regulations. Option 3 — This option would change how "pedestrian signs" are treated downtown, considering them as a type of regular signage rather than "temporary." In exchange for this, there would be more standards in terms of where they can be located and how many would be permitted. The pedestrian signs would also count against the total sign area permitted for a business or building. This option would acknowledge how a number of businesses in the downtown currently use temporary signs. Option 3 is similar to Option 2, but more specific. Rather than allowing signs along the entire storefront, the location would be limited to either two feet next to the building or two feet out at the edge of the sidewalk, whichever provides the best through -way for people. In some cases, it may be less intrusive to the pedestrian walkway if the signs are placed closer to the street near trees, etc. This approach allows the City to determine the best location for the signs in order to maintain optimal pedestrian access. Mr. Chave emphasized that the three options would be tied to pedestrian signs in the downtown/waterfront area, where there is a pedestrian environment. They would still not be allowed elsewhere in the City. Mr. Chave advised that in addition the three options pertaining to "pedestrian signs," there are a number of other suggested code amendments included in the draft material. These are attempts to clarify or rectify problems or inconsistencies staff have encountered in applying the sign regulations to specific circumstances over the years. He emphasized that none of the proposed amendments would increase the sign area or the number of signs allowed per business. Vice Chair Rubenkonig explained that the Board should focus its discussion on the three options that will be presented at the public hearing on May 25"'. Mr. Chave said the other proposed amendments will be included in the draft language that is published for the public hearing to solicit public comment. However, he agreed that the most significant change is to the temporary sign provisions. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested it would be helpful for the Board to discuss the differences and identify the criteria by which the Board will review each of the three options. She reminded the Board that other sign types, including blade signs and window signs, are allowed in the downtown and do not count against the total sign area that a business is allowed to have. Mr. Chave agreed and noted that additional language from the sign standards was inserted into the draft code to make this clear. He noted that these signs are already allowed in the existing sign code. However, Option 3 would include pedestrian signs as part of the total sign area. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if staff has the resources to administer either Option 2 or Option 3, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. He explained that, while Options 2 and 3 would both require permits, Option 2 would require a new permit every 60 days, and Option 3 would require just one permit that would be valid as long as the sign consistent with the code. Vice Chair Rubenkonig noted that the Board received written comments regarding the draft sign code from Phil Lovell, Chair of the Board, and from Laura Zeck, the owner of Zinc Art + Interiors. They also received a memorandum from the Edmonds Downtown Business Association (ED) outlining their Sign Advisory Board's proposed revisions related to the sign code. Board Member Crank noted that Board Members received the written comments just prior to the meeting. She suggested they wait to discuss their content until the public hearing. The remainder of the Board concurred that would be appropriate. c m E c m E a m 0 U c a� LO CO) Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 188 8.1.c Board Member Crank referred to ECDC 20.60.080(A)(2)(c)(2), which states that portable temporary signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public. She asked if this same provision would apply to Option 2, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and agreed to check the language to make sure the provision was included in both options. Board Member Crank suggested that it would be helpful if staff could provide pictures at the public hearing to illustrate signs that would and would not be allowed per each of the options. Seeing examples of what is currently happening in the downtown would also be a helpful tool, and graphic illustrations would help the conversation move along faster. Mr. Chave said he is planning to prepare a PowerPoint presentation that talks about the key provisions of each of the options, and examples will be provided, as well. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said it would also be useful for staff to prepare a matrix to clearly identify the differences between the three options. Board Member Robles observed that Option 1 would be easy to implement and administer, but Options 2 and 3 would be more difficult to control and manage. He recalled that, at the last meeting, he suggested that the Board also consider a "green dot" option, which originated from Board Member Cloutier's recommendation that the Board's discussion should focus on what problems they are trying to solve. The only tangible problem that has been identified is the need to maintain adequate N pedestrian access and meet the American's with Disabilities (ADA) requirements. Given that the Board is accountable for E ensuring the safety, health and welfare of the public, sign location should be planned based on this criterion. If the City wants to be in the business or regulating signs, he suggested this could best be accomplished if the City were to make the pedestrian signs and determine exactly where they can be located. Q Board Member Robles observed that signs are a type of contract, statement of fact or statement of value. Any sign that does m 3 not accomplish this should not be considered a sign. He said he believes the "green dot" approach is an easy way to manage U pedestrian signs, and he is surprised that staff didn't put more effort into developing the concept further. There are other ideas that haven't been adequately heard, as well. He suggested that the Board postpone their recommendation until all ideas co have been heard. Mr. Chave said that is the purpose of tonight's discussion. The intent is to offer several options for the r public to respond to. Board Member Robles voiced concern that limiting the hearing to the three options would result in M people commenting without having a full menu of options. He asked that his planned -location approach be included as an option for the hearing. Mr. Chave agreed to develop the option further if that is the Board's consensus. N Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that the City Council agreed to work with students from Washington State University to develop a wayfinding sign program and/or technology that would provide information about businesses in Edmonds. Mr. Chave clarified that the City Council authorized staff to submit an application to participate in the program, but the selection is competitive and there is no guarantee that the City will be chosen. Board Member Monroe pointed out that, in addition to safety and maintaining pedestrian access, the Board has also discussed a desire to address visual clutter. Board Member Robles suggested it would be the Architectural Design Board's responsibility to establish the visual aspects of the sign code. Board Member Monroe concurred, but suggested that clutter should at least be part of the Board's discussion. Mr. Chave said that Option 3 would be easy to implement, and Option 2 would be more difficult. Board Member Monroe asked if the permit fee would be the same for both Option 2 and Option 3. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and explained that the fee would be minimal. The permit is intended to enable the City to track pedestrian signs to ensure that pedestrian areas are clear. The fee should be high enough to cover the cost of administration, but not so costly that it becomes an obstacle. Board Member Monroe suggested that both Options 2 and 3 imply a "green dot" solution, since they both limit where the signs can be placed. While the concept was not specifically included as an option, it was not necessarily excluded, either. Mr. Chave agreed and cautioned that what actually happens on the sidewalk can change over time. Adopting a "green dot" approach would require the City to update the sign code each time something changes. Board Member Robles suggested that the dots could be identified on a map rather than physical dots on the sidewalk. He cautioned against creating a sign code that is too detailed and difficult to understand, and he felt that the "green dot" approach would be the simplest approach and represent a good compromise. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 189 8.1.c Board Member Monroe asked the public benefit of allowing restaurants to serve food on the sidewalks. Mr. Chave answered that a study was done some years ago that looked at how to create a more vibrant and attractive downtown, and street life came up as being an important goal for the public environment. Allowing restaurants to have a limited presence on the sidewalk adds to street life. However, it is also important to manage where they can be located. Board Member Robles observed that, sometimes, outdoor dining expands beyond what the City approved and encroaches into the pedestrian area. Mr. Chave agreed and said that would be a code enforcement issue. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Board should review each of the options based on the following criteria: 1. Whether or not pedestrian signs will be allowed. 2. What size of pedestrian signs can exist? 3. Where can pedestrian signs be located? 4. How many pedestrian signs will be allowed? 5. What benefit do pedestrian signs provide. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that this criterion should also be presented at the public hearing, along with examples to illustrate existing pedestrian signs, as well as how Option 2 and 3 would be implemented. Board Member Cheung suggested it would also be helpful for staff to specifically identify the differences between the three options. Vice Chair Rubenkonig led a discussion about the differences between the options and suggested that a matrix be prepared for the public hearing to visually illustrate the differences. The following is a summary of their discussion: • Permits: Both Option 2 and Option 3 would require permits for pedestrian signs. Option 1 would not allow pedestrian signs at all. Location: Both Option 2 and Option 3 would require that pedestrian signs provide a minimum of 4 feet of clearance for pedestrians to pass. Option 3 states that the preferred locations are within 2 feet of the building face or within 2 feet of the curb if that location does not block access to parked vehicles. This would provide more flexibility to place the sign in an area that is the least intrusive to the pedestrian walkway. The Board agreed that the location criteria should be the same in both Option 2 and Option 3. Board Member Cloutier observed that requiring the signs to be within 2 feet of the building or street would be similar to the "green dot" approach. Instead of dots, there would be green bands. This requirement would eliminate the need for a case -by -case sign review to determine location. Board Member Robles pointed out that, in some cases, putting the pedestrian sign next to the building requires pedestrians to walk closer to the street where there is no weather protection. He would prefer that the signs be placed closer to the street so that pedestrians do not have to walk in the rain. • Time Limitations. It was pointed out that Option 2 would impose a 60-day time limit on pedestrian signs, and Option 3 would not. In both Option 2 and Option 3, pedestrian signs cannot be left outside during hours that the business is closed to the public. • Number of Pedestrian Signs Allowed: Option 2 would limit the number of pedestrian signs to one per ground floor storefront. Option 3 would also limit the number of pedestrian signs to one per ground floor storefront, but the signs would count against the permanent sign area and the number of signs permitted. • Sign Size: Options 2 and 3 both identify the same maximum size for pedestrian signs. The difference is that the pedestrian sign area would count as part of the total sign area in Option 3, but not in Option 2. • Benefits. The Board had a brief discussion about the pros and cons of permanent signs to both businesses and citizens. The Board decided against having a lengthy discussion about the benefits criteria until after the public hearing. They discussed that the public would inform them of their views relative to the benefits of each of the options. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recommended that, at the public hearing, the Board should specifically solicit comments from the public relative to the pros and cons of each option. c m E c m E a m 0 U c a� co T LO M Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 190 8.1.c Rather than focusing on the pros and cons of each of the options, Board Member Crank reminded the Board that they should focus on trying to solve the problems, which are ADA access and the proliferation of pedestrian signs. Board Member Cheung pointed out that all three options would require ADA compliance, which is a federal mandate. Board Member Robles asked if the City has a mission statement in place that could guide the discussion at the public hearing. Board Member Cloutier answered that the City has a mission statement, which is contained in the Comprehensive Plan. However, it is important to keep in mind that the Comprehensive Plan is a vision rather than the rule. Mr. Chave encouraged the Board Members to review the Downtown Waterfront Plan, as well as the Economic Development Element, which are part of the Comprehensive Plan. While the two documents do not specifically address pedestrian signs, they do speak about the pedestrian environment. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Board's recommendation to the City Council relative to sign code amendments should tie in with the Comprehensive Plan, and specifically the two elements identified by Mr. Chave. Mr. Chave said he anticipates the Board will receive a lot of input at the public hearing to help inform their recommendation. Board Member Monroe asked why staff is recommending a 60-day limit for pedestrian signs in Option 2. Mr. Chave said this is consistent with the current code language, so it would simply maintain the status quo. The Board prepared the following chart to illustrate their discussion: Existing Sign Type Sign Location Sign Size Time Limitation Pedestrian Sin Containment Option 1 No N/A N/A N/A N/A Option 2 Yes Pedestrian "Green Zone" Limited to 6 sq. ft. 60 days Perhaps within 2 Does not count feet of the against total sign building face or area or total within 2 feet of number of signs. the curb. Option 3 Yes Pedestrian "Green Zone" Limited to 6 sq. ft. No limit Perhaps within 2 Does count feet of the against total sign building face or area or total within 2 feet of number of signs. the curb. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that a public hearing on the draft Sign Code Amendments is scheduled for May 25th Also on May 25th, the Board will continue its discussion about the Subdivision Code Update. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the Planning Board oversees the City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Planning Department, and they get quarterly, or at least regular reports. In that capacity, she would like to explore how the activities of the department are chosen. In particular, she wants to focus on whether the Board has any oversite of the programs and volunteer opportunities for the environment, education and service. The Planning Board represents the community's interest, so their activism on behalf of the sustainability, health, and viability of the City Marsh, solar power, energy consumption, and involvement in volunteer service is important. She asked if Public Works or Parks and Recreation Departments are the managers of such programming. She reviewed that the Deer Creek Hatchery is located in Edmonds, and Edmonds has been designated as a Backyard Natural Habitat. The City also has a Beach Watcher Program and the Frog Lady, who is integral to many programs. She said she would like the Planning Board to look at all the programming (activities and commercial provisions) and consider what oversight should be provided. Planning Board Minutes May 11, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 191 8.1.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES May 25, 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 — 5t" Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Samuel Kleven (Student Representative) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 11, 2016 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. Board Member Monroe asked when the Board would receive an update on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Chair Lovell noted that the item is identified as "pending" on the Board's Extended Agenda, but no specific dates have been identified. Mr. Chave reported that there was a public open house on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan last week. At this time, the consultant and staff are sifting through the comments received to prepare a summary report, which can be forwarded to the Planning Board. PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS SIGN CODE Packet Pg. 192 8.1.c Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council requested that the Board provide recommendations concerning temporary portable signs in the downtown area. The focus of the hearing is to gather input on three options dealing with temporary signs. In addition to the amendments regarding temporary signs, the draft amendments also address a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates and issues. He emphasized that the Board has not singled out any of the three options as preferred, and they are interested in hearing from citizens and business owners regarding their preferences. The Planning Board will consider the public input as they formulate a recommendation for the City Council. He noted that the code language for the three options refers to temporary signs in the downtown as "pedestrian signs." He reviewed the three options as follows: • Option 1 would ban pedestrian signs such as A -frames. The Board has received public comment that the signs are an eyesore, block sidewalks, etc. Option 1 is a simple solution. If pedestrian signs are not allowed, then there is no need for regulations to govern them. • Option 2 is a variation of the existing code, which considers pedestrian signs in the downtown to be temporary signs N that are only allowed for a total of 60 days per calendar year. The 60-days can be spread out, such as once per week or focused around particular sales events. Option 2 would continue this practice, but add a new requirement for a low-cost permit so that the 60 days can be tracked and to ensure that signs are ADA compliant. Based on the existing code, these types of signs cannot be placed off of the property, and Option 2 would not change the requirement. However, Option 2 would specify where the signs can be placed and limit them to one pedestrian E Q sign per street front, which could potentially equate to one pedestrian sign per business. 0 • Option 3 would permit pedestrian signs as permanent signs, so the 60-day limit would no longer apply. It would V also include specific conditions on duration (only during business hours), placement (close to the building or curb, a� and only one in front of the store), and how many (only one per store front). Some have commented that pedestrian signs are supplemental signage that is important for businesses, and a number of businesses use them on a regular r basis. Option 3 recognizes the importance of pedestrian signs, but places restrictions on them. For example, only CO one would be allowed per store rather than one for each business in a building. Mr. Chave summarized neither Option 2 or Option 3 would allow pedestrian signs to be located away from the property, which is consistent with the existing code. That means that signs could not be placed on the corner to direct pedestrians to a business down the street. Because a permit would be required, the enforcement mechanisms would be clearer. Mr. Chave said that the Board is interested in the public's reaction to the three alternatives, particularly the benefits of each one. They have heard why prohibiting pedestrian signs would be a good thing, and they have received some commentary about why some business think they are important. Mr. Chave said there are also a number of proposed amendments that are not tied to pedestrian signs. These are intended to clean up and update the code language based on staff s working knowledge of the code. For example: • Directional signs are not specifically addressed in the code, and a proposed amendment would allow directional signs and not count them as part of the overall signage allowed for a business. • The code specifies when illuminated text is allowed, and a proposed amendment would clarify that logos can be illuminated, as well. • A proposed amendment clarifies that sign height is tied to the building and not what the original grade might have been. • The existing code considers monument signs on very short poles to be pole signs. For all practical purposes these are monument signs, and a proposed amendment will make this clarification. • The roof is the natural place for a sign on a one-story building with a mansard roof because there is no room on buildings with the storefront windows. A proposed amendment would clarify this exception for one-story buildings. • A proposed amendment would codify what has long been the practice for calculating sign area, which provides a strong incentive for letter signs. Rather than drawing a rectangle around the entire area the letters are applied to, sign are would be calculated by measuring the actual letters. This allows the letters to be larger. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 193 8.1.c • Currently, the Architectural Design Board (ADB) can grant modifications that are tied specifically to a site. Because there are a number of unique architectural features associated with buildings in the downtown, and strictly following the code may require that these features be covered up. A proposed amendment would allow flexibility for the ADB to consider other solutions put forth by property owners. The amendment would not result in more signage, but there would be more flexibility as to how the signs can be arranged on the building. Although he did not attend the Board's last meeting (May 1 lth) where the sign code was discussed, he read the minutes and met with Vice Chair Rubenkonig to review the Board's discussion. He summarized that the Planning Board's discussion has focused on the following: Pedestrian signs must adhere to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The Board heard a lot of feedback about the issue of clutter. Citizens have expressed concern that there are too many signs and they are being used in locations that are not adjacent to the businesses. Although pedestrian signs are currently limited to just the downtown commercial zones, the sign type if used prolifically in other commercial areas of the City, too. The Board is interested in providing adequate guidelines in the code to allow for fair administration of the regulations. It is also important that the regulations can be easily understood by citizens, business owners, and staff. Mr. Chave reported that the consultant the City hired to review the Sign Code has identified a number of sections that need to be clarified, particularly with respect to the size and configuration of signs on buildings. In addition, it has also been discussed that there are many other ways to advertise a business via social media such as Yelp, Google searches, etc. However, the real purpose of tonight's discussion is to hear from the public about the pros and cons of each of the options for regulating pedestrian signs in the downtown. After the Board forwards its recommendation to the City Council, the City Council will study the issue further and invite additional public comment before a final decision is made. Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the hearing. Kimberly Koenig, Edmonds, said she owns a business at 542 Main Street. Her background is in advertising, and she spent 20 years in advertising before opening her small business. Because her business is located above the fountain and not in the core business district, signage is a challenge. Sidewalk signage is extremely important to the success of her business, as it draws in foot traffic. She hears daily that people did not know her business was there until they saw her sign. Her business would suffer if pedestrian signs are no longer allowed. Temporary is an important way to communicate sales and special events. She voiced concern that Option 2 would significant limit the use of pedestrian signs to advertise special events, such as the Fire Station Open House or downtown merchant events that are done as a group. Without temporary signage, advertising these events would be challenging. Ms. Koenig suggested the Board consider an Option 4, which would allow pedestrian signs are permanent signs with some restrictions. She understands the importance of having a cohesive look, adhering to sign code rules, and maintaining ADA compliance. She suggested the City consider a universal sign design that would allow business to add their own images but maintain a cohesive look. Lastly, she commented that advertising via social media works for special events, but it does not bring in foot traffic. People walking downtown do not know her store is there until they see the pedestrian sign. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if Ms. Koenig was referring to pedestrian signage when talking about a universal, cohesive look, and Ms. Koenig answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if Ms. Koenig was referring to a specific sign when talking about bringing in foot traffic. Ms. Koenig answered that she has been using an A -frame sign that is placed next to a tree to advertise her business. In light of the proposed sign code changes, she has been trying other methods of signage that is closer to the building. However, they have not been successful because her building is set back off the street. Pam Stuller, Walnut Street Coffee, said she is fortunate to have a great clientele, and she no longer needs A -frame signs to advertise her business. However, she is tucked in on Walnut Street off the beaten path and putting a sign at the corner of 5th and Walnut was instrumental in establishing her business. She voiced concern that the proposed sign code amendments would no longer allow signs to be placed off -premise. She also pointed out that her building is unique, and the current code does not allow signs above the roof line. That means her sign was limited to just two feet in height, and she had to modify her round logo to be an oval in order to maximize her sign space. From a marketing perspective, she is lucky she didn't fail c m E c m E a m 0 U c a� T LO CO) Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 194 8.1.c because the brand logo is typically instrumental to a business. It would be great if the sign code were flexible enough to address these unique situations. Robert Boehlke, Edmonds, said he is the owner of Housewares on Main Street, as the newly -elected present of the Edmonds Downtown Alliance (ED). He said he is also a member of Ed's Environment Committee, which is conducting a preliminary study of street amenities, and gathering information about A -frame signs is a part of the study. He said ED understands that the Board has defined three pedestrian sign options for consideration, and they are seeking additional input. The Environmental Committee has examined pedestrianss ignage as it relates to economic vitality, but also as to how the sign types impact the rights of the public to use and enjoy the sidewalks. Safety is an issue for the general public, and an additional concern for those with mobility and visual impairments. He said the purpose of his comments is to discuss the pros and cons of A -frame signage and offer some suggestions for additional or alternative sign options. Mr. Boehlke explained that because A -frame signs occupy public space, the stakeholders involved are business owners who may feel that the signs are their most important means of advertising and pedestrians who use the sidewalks. Most pedestrians that the committee has talked to want the sidewalks to be free of visual clutter and freestanding obstacles, and some even feel that A -frame signs should be banned. Other's don't have strong feelings about the subject either way, but they are concerned about the growing quantity of signs placed on the sidewalks and wonder if there are any regulations for limiting their size and quantity. He shared a summary of the pros and cons the committee has gathered over the past month as follows: Pros (input gathered primarily from business owners): • A -frame signs are seen by some business owners as an important, and in some cases, the only street level marketing tool available to them. This is especially the case for those businesses that are not located on 5"' Avenue or Main Street. Other business owners have said that they do not particularly like A -frames but they do not see any alternatives that are available for communicating specific messages about their businesses to pedestrians. • Pedestrian signage is needed because, typically, wall -mounted signs placed high above eye level are not seen by pedestrian traffic walking below them. Buildings without overhead canopies do not offer a place for "blade signs," making A -frames the only eye -level option for placing a message perpendicular to, and thus readily visible to, traffic flow. • A -frames offer businesses the opportunity to announce special offers and events. • Businesses located off the beaten path have found A -frame signs to be effective in drawing attention to their place of business. One reported that they have documented an increase in sales when this type of sign is on the street and a decrease when it is not. Cons (input gathered primarily from pedestrians): • They can create visual distraction and obstruct pathways, especially on smaller sidewalks, reducing the quality of the walking experience and affecting the easy flow of pedestrian traffic. • There is no control of materials, one was made with heavy metal and had sharp edges. • Too many occupy the street corners, making it difficult to cross the street. • Some are not designed to withstand winds and blow over on the sidewalk and/or into the street. • Some are placed too close to the curb so you can't open your car door. • A -frames advertising a condo in Firdale Village are brought into town and left out overnight. • It is difficult to navigate around them with a baby carriage or stroller. • It is difficult to push a wheel chair around them, especially when sidewalks are also cordoned off for restaurant eating areas. • A -frames are starting to creek back, is there no limit to them? • A -frames serve a function, but are difficult to control. Mr. Boehlke summarized that the subject of A -frame signs seems to elicit passionate and diverse options, and the committee has also noticed the challenges involved for the City when attempting to secure a consistent and fair approach to pursuing breaches of A -frame regulations as stated in the existing sign code. He explained that the issues of visual and physical clutter, as well as concern for public safety, are the reasons the committee began to seek other options. While the committee does not recommend that A -frames be banned, the thought is that, given additional choices, there will be an incentive for c m E c m E a 0 U c am T LO M Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 195 8.1.c businesses to choose something more appropriate to their needs and more appealing to the customer that they are trying to attract (pedestrians). Although the initial options are preliminary, the committee has identified a couple of ideas that look promising: A. One idea is that each business, especially those located on side streets and at the edges of the downtown core, would be given the opportunity to have a removable sign hung from a permanent directional post and panel structure, which would be strategically placed at the street corners out of the pedestrian path. This sign type would be designed to be compatible with the existing historic light standard in downtown or become part of the "family of sign" types that the City has recently installed around town. B. Another alternative to A -frame signs for street businesses is to offer changeable mini -projecting signs about the size of a small A -frame sign. These would be doubled sided and attached to the building. They would be similar to A - frame signs in the sense that the message would be perpendicular to pedestrian traffic and changeable; but unlike A - frame signs, they would not impede pedestrian traffic. N U) c C. Because stanchion signs typically take up 50% less sidewalk space than A -frame signs, they would be an excellent alternative. Also, at the ADA ideal height of 5 feet above grade, they would be less of a tripping hazard than the 3- foot A -frame signs. E D. An additional pedestrian level sign option should be made available for businesses located on the second floor. One idea would be to allow a building -mounted sign at their entry door. This option would be attached to the wall of c their building and would be limited in size and quantity. U c aM Mr. Boehlke concluded his remarks by proposing that a long-term solution be developed providing a framework of v� wayfinding and informational signs with a cohesive, attractive and standardized framework within which each business may r present their personalized message. He summarized that the most successful solution will have the support of both M businesses and the walking public. The goal should be to make the town visually inviting and pedestrian friendly and to maximize the ability of small businesses to community with and attract customers. N Judy Salinas, Edmonds, said she is the owner of Glazed and Amazed in Edmonds at 514 Main Street. She currently has a professionally -made A -frame sign that is located next to her window and changed up on a regular basis. However, the sign is only out during business hours. She said the A -frame sign helps people find her business, and she uses it to advertise special events. She voiced support for Option 3 and questioned how staff would control the 60-day limit proposed in Option 2. She summarized that small business struggle to stay in business so anything that can help them get the word out and get people to stop in is important. She said her business has been located in downtown Edmonds for 11 years, and it would be a huge disservice to her business to prohibit pedestrian signs altogether. Her business has an awning, which makes it difficult to see the name of her business other than the A -frame sign. Board Member Monroe asked if Ms. Salinas has considered the option of using a blade sign to advertise her business. Ms. Salinas answered that she has a small blade sign, but it does not allow her to advertise events. Debbie Rosenfelt, Edmonds, said she has lived in the City since 2001 and has been a business owner (Snap Fitness) since February 27, 2008. She said she is very blessed to have her business located at the corner of 5`h Avenue and Walnut Street, since she is able to place a sign on the corner without blocking pedestrian traffic. She explained that she always asks new customers how they learned about her business, and 95% of them indicated that they drove by and saw her sign out front. She commented that visibility is very important. When people drive down 5th Avenue and stop at the light, her sign near the corner is very easy for people to see. The sign is used to advertise personal training and classes. The sign on the building is just general, and the A -frame sign advertises that the business is more than a gym. Ms. Rosenfelt recalled that at the last meeting, it was suggested that businesses use window signs to advertise. She tested this option out and found that members of the club took down the signs because they wanted to be able to see out the window while they were using the equipment. Also, when cars park on the street in front of the business, they block the view of the signs. She emphasized that it is imperative for business to have signs that are visible at eye level. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 196 Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked Ms. Rosenfelt to describe her pedestrian sign. Ms. Rosenfelt said it is a stand-up sign with a sand base so it doesn't blow over. The sign can be changed up with professional inserts. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that the sign would best fit the description of a stanchion sign. Board Member Monroe asked how clutter could be addressed at the corner. Ms. Rosenfelt said there are four corners at the intersection, and her business is the only one that uses the location now. She noted that her building is located at the corner, so the sign would actually be considered on -premise. The mixed use building has commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Signs would have to be located next to the street rather than on the sidewalk since there is a garden area on both sides of 5"h and Walnut. Joan Archer, said she has owned Aria Studio Gallery on Main Street for 15 years. She is also a member of the Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association (DEMA) and ED. She agreed with the concerns raised by the previous speakers, and her overall thought is that A -frame signs make businesses more visible. She said she puts out an A -frame sign on occasion, and it is very helpful in attracting customers to her business. It is located next to the building and is just visible from the fountain, but it does not disrupt pedestrian access. While other methods of advertising are good, it is important to keep in mind that downtown businesses have a number of other expenses: ED, Artwalk, and increased business taxes. She expressed her belief that A -frame signs have their place, but they should not be allowed to impair access or cause major issues. They should also be limited in size. Ms. Archer questioned why pedestrian signs are being discussed as a problem, except perhaps clutter. On the other hand, businesses are an integral part of the community, and they bring people to Edmonds. There are already a number of nit -picky requirements that businesses must deal with. While some restrictions are necessary, the City should be careful before placing additional requirements on businesses. Denise Schwind, Edmonds, said she has been a resident of the City for 26 years and owns PUR Skin Clinic in downtown Edmonds. She commented that she has actually learned about many of the businesses in the downtown because of the pedestrian signs on the street. She said that when new patients come in, she asks how they learned about the clinic. Most were referred by existing patients, but 35% came in after seeing the A -frame sign on the street. Prohibiting pedestrian signs would impact her business and the ability for it to grow in Edmonds. She said her business is located in front of a bus stop, which inhibits visibility of her building sign. She has a small pedestrian sign on the sidewalk, and people walking by see the sign and come into her business. The sign does not impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked why kind of pedestrian sign Ms. Schwind uses, and she replied that it is an A -frame sign that is only out during business hours. Randy Hutchens, Edmonds, said he has been a resident of Edmonds for 68 years. He lives and works in downtown Edmonds, and is the owner of SnoKing Signs. He commented that numerous good ideas have been put forward by the business owners. He said he reviewed the sign code and found it to confusing. He suggested that it should be written as bullet points that identify exactly what is and is not allowed. He suggested that perhaps the preferred option could be a combination of Options 2 and 3, which would require a low-cost permit, but consider the pedestrian signs permanent. He felt this approach could be enforced by using a sticker that obtained via the permit and placed on the actual sign. He said tehr are variety of pedestrian sign types, and the code language should not specifically out any one type. A combination of Options 2 and 3 would eliminate the 60-day limitation so people would no longer need to stress over how many days a sign is out, and the low-cost permit would make enforcement easy. He said he likes Option 2 because it specifically identifies where the signs can be located. He felt that pedestrian signs should be allowed, but only during business hours. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, commented that the proliferation of temporary commercial signs on streets of the bowl is recent and began four years ago when spots of signs began to appear her and there. Edmonds now looks as though it has an advancing case of the measles. The owners of the "spots" claim that they are necessary because, for some reason or another, their businesses aren't visible enough. However, none of these owenrs claim that their visibility problem developed after they purchased or leased their properties. The potential problem already existed. Business, itself cautions that the first rulers for a successful business is location, location, location. If local merchants chose the wrong location, that is their responsibility. Adjusting the sign code to accommodate private misjudgments is not the role of a city council. If an owner is certain that he is being wronged, his remedy is the Hearing Examiner, not the ADB as has been suggested. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 197 Ms. Shippen said that, so far, no one argues that temporary commercial signs embellish the appearance of Edmonds. Reducing the attractiveness of a pleasing residential community on a gamble that ugly commercial signs will attract more customers to a business would be a poor decision. It sacrifices a public value and the public gets nothing in return. The acceptance of more and permanent commercial street signs, as recommended in Options 2 and 3, would be a step backwards in Edmonds' history. The Planning Board should choose Option 1. She encouraged them to keep the existing code, with amendments that prohibit all temporary commercial signs through Edmonds except for 60 consecutive days one-time only for grand opening events. Prohibited signs would include A -frames, sandwich boards, stanchions, banners, streamers, posters, clusters of lights, flags, pennants, and balloons. The simplest and best way to regulate temporary commercial signs is to not allow them except for one business opening period. Ms. Shippen suggested that Edmonds examine the purpose of the sign code. The City's current sign code is dishonest for those who oppose signs, as well as those who use them for business purposes. As an example, she read from the City of Carmel, California's sign code, which states that, "This chapter establishes standards and guidelines to preserve and enhance the appearance of the community as a place in which to live and work. These standards and guidelines ensure that signage is used as identification and not as advertisement or a notice -attracting device. Furthermore, these standards prevent an excessive number of signs, avoid visual clutter and eliminate hazards to pedestrians and motorists brought about by distracting signs. " Don Hall, Edmonds, said he and his wife have been merchants in downtown Edmonds for 20 years, and they have used A - frame signs to advertise their business. They used to have two, and now use just one because they did not feel it was appropriate to have one at the corner, too. Their current A -frame sign is next to the store and is used as part of the front display. He commented that A -frame signs can be very attractive, and if businesses use imagination, the signs can excite those who see them. He pointed out that prohibiting pedestrian signs has not worked well in other areas of Edmonds because, as mentioned, they are all over the City when they are really only allowed in the downtown. He also questioned how Options 2 and 3 would be enforced. The City only has one Code Enforcement Officer, and he is not available on weekends. He noted that on weekends, particularly during the summer months, there are numerous signs around the fountain advertising special events. He suggested that blight is more of an issue with these signs than the signs that are placed on the sidewalk by local merchants. He agreed that the pedestrian signs should be located in front of the businesses and should only be out during business hours. However, A -frame signs are very visible to people driving down thte street. He said he has a blade sign, but it is not highly visible to passing cars because it is blocked by the awning. Without the A -frame sign, drivers would have to look up to identify his business, but A -frame signs can be placed at eye level so they are easier for people to see. Mr. Hall said he would like the Board to figure out a way to make the sign code enforceable. He suggested that the existing code, if enforced properly, would work well with just a few small tweaks. He recommended that pedestrian signs should be considered permanent rather than limited to 60 days. He commented that most business owners do not have a clear understanding of the City's current sign code requirements and how they are applied. He suggested that Option 3 would be a good approach, along with education and enforcement. Chair Lovell asked if there was anyone in the audience who has a business outside of the downtown business district, and none raised their hands. Chair Lovell asked if all those present had reviewed the three options currently on the table, and all indicated affirmatively. Chair Lovell summarized that a few citizens comment on the pros and cons and indicated which option he/she preferred, but he is perplexed that few alternative solutions were presented. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chair Lovell announced that the Board would continue its discussion about the sign code at their next meeting. At that time, they will consider the public input and formulate a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Chave explained that code amendments are legislative actions, which do not have as stringent of requirements as quasi-judicial actions. He invited Board members and citizens to continue to submit their comments and suggestions to the City. Those that are received by Thursday, June 2nd will be included in the Board's June 8th meeting packet for consideration. He emphasized that the Board's continued discussion on June 8th is not scheduled as a public hearing, but members of the public would have the opportunity to provide oral comments during the "General Public Comment" portion of the meeting. Planning Board Minutes May 25, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 198 8.1.c F. Value. The relative gain to the public health, safety and welfare compared to the potential increase or decrease in value to the property owners. Mr. Clugston said that rezoning the subject parcel would bring it into agreement with the Comprehensive Plan and make the existing development on the site conforming. Based on the findings of fact, analysis, conclusions and attachments to the Staff Report, Mr. Clugston recommended the Board make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the rezone request as presented. Chair Lovell invited members of the audience to participate in the public hearing, but none came forward. As there were no further questions from the Board, Chair Lovell closed the testimony portion of the hearing and invited the Board to begin its deliberations. Chair Lovell asked if the property owner is aware of and understands the proposed rezone. Mr. Clugston answered affirmatively. Chair Lovell noted that there is an easement on the subject parcel that serves as access to the single-family residential home located behind it. He asked if the owner of the subject parcel has jurisdiction over the access driveway. Mr. N Clugston said the owner of the subject parcel must have granted an easement to the owner of the rear parcel, but the easement E would not have any bearing on the proposed rezone. c m Board Member Crank asked if there is documentation that affirms the fact that the property owner has been appraised of the Q rezone application and agrees with it. Mr. Clugston said a letter was sent to the property owner and was included as an attachment in the Staff Report. He also spoke to the property owner by phone. Board Member Cheung asked if the owner of c property behind the subject parcel was also notified of the change. Mr. Clugston answered that all property owners within U 300 feet of the subject parcel were notified by mail, and a sign was posted on the site, as well. In addition, the rezone was advertised on the City's website and in THE EVERETT HERALD. The rezone would not have any impact to the access easement. The intent is to simply make what is already developed on the site conform to the Comprehensive Plan and r Zoning Map. M Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that, typically, jurisdictions handle rezones on a once -a -year basis. She asked if this is N the City's general policy, as well. Mr. Clugston answered that area -wide rezones and those that require a Comprehensive Plan amendment are usually scheduled once a year, but site -specific rezones that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 5 are moved forward when the application is received. 2 Board Member Stewart asked about the size of the subject parcel, and Chair Lovell answered that it is 10,016 square feet. Board Member Stewart pointed out that lots in the RS-8 zone must be a minimum of 8,000 square feet, and the portion of the property that is identified as access easement would not be counted as part of the lot area. Mr. Clugston affirmed that the subject parcel has sufficient lot area to meet the requirements of the RS-8 zone. Board Member Stewart asked if the owner of the subject parcel has been paying property taxes based on the OS zoning. If so, will the tax amount change when the property is rezoned? Mr. Clugston answered that he is fairly certain the property has been taxed as a single-family residence for the past 45 years and only the zoning map is incorrect. VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE REQUEST TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 21805 — 98Tn AVENUE WEST FROM OPEN SPACE (OS) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8). BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DELIBERATION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS SIGN CODE REGARDING THREE POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH TEMPORARY SIGNS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF MINOR CLARIFICATIONS AND CODE LANGUAGE UPDATES/ISSUES Mr. Lien referred the Board to the staff report, and recalled that the following three options were presented at the public hearing on May 25tn: Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 199 8.1.c Option 1 would no longer permit portable or temporary signs in the downtown. Option 2 would be essentially the existing code. Portable signs would be permitted as temporary signs, but a permit would be required. Option 3 would permit portable signs (pedestrian signs) as permanent signage and the 60-day limit would no longer apply. It would also include specific conditions on duration (only during business hours), placement (close to the building or curb and only in front of the store), and how many (only one per store front). Mr. Lien said a few changes have since been made to Option 3. First, ADA compliance was changed from four feet to five feet based on direction from the Engineering Department. Second, a Street Use Permit would no longer be required, but the signs would still have to comply with the Street Use Section of the code. Third, as opposed to allowing one pedestrian sign per store front, the language was changed to allow one pedestrian sign per street level entry. Mr. Lien reviewed that a number of suggestions were made during the hearing, which the Board could consider incorporating into their final recommendation: N U) • Allow changeable projecting signs. This option could be accommodated on a hanging bracket within the size c E limitations allowed in the current code. c • Allow blade signs for second story businesses. The current code allows second -story businesses to have pedestrian or blade signs. Q • Allowing permanent directional signage. A number of business owners spoke about the need for off -premise signs -0) to direct people to their places of business. The current code does not allow off -premise signs, and having V directional signs in strategic locations that point to the businesses was suggested as a way to address this need. While this option is doable, there may be some restrictions. The directional signs could become a City project, with the Arts Commission coming up with the overall design, but the City Attorney has cautioned that using City signage to advertise specific businesses could be problematic. The City Attorney suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for the directional signs to be more general, simply pointing out the location of additional restaurants, retail stores, etc., without naming specific businesses. Another option would be to auction off the sign space to local businesses. Depending on where the Board decides to go with directional signage, the City Attorney has requested an opportunity to research the legalities and report back. In addition to the proposed changes relative to temporary signs in the downtown, Mr. Lien said staff is proposing other changes to the sign code to address a number of minor clarifications and code language updates/issues. Chair Lovell referred to an email he sent to the Board Members earlier in the day summarizing their most recent written comments regarding the three options currently being considered for temporary signs in downtown Edmonds. He summarized the comments as follows: • Temporary/moveable/pedestrian signs are important to the City for businesses, for logistical purposes and for atmosphere. • Controls are needed as to the quantity of such signs, locations of such signs, and enforcement of the code and guidelines. • Uniformity is desirable. • Fairness could become an issue if pedestrian signs are allowed in the downtown, but not in other commercial areas or if the sign code is strictly enforced in the downtown but not in other commercial areas of the City. • There are costs associated with implementation, achieving uniformity, enforcement, permitting, etc. • The Green Dot concept has valid points, but the cost and logistics of setting up and maintaining it are highly questionable, particularly given the previous "universals" sited above. Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 200 Chair Lovell provided a satellite view of the City of Carmel, California, which was previously put forth as an example for the City to follow. He pointed out that Carmel is significantly different than Edmonds. Although their current sign code prohibits "temporary" or "pedestrian" signs, he provided several pictures to illustrate that they are being used extensively by businesses anyway. He cautioned the Board that when making a recommendation to the City Council, they should consider guidelines and regulations that are realistic and achievable. Board Member Crank said she also provided photographs along with her written comments. She shared her experience while visiting South Center earlier in the day for lunch. She said she almost didn't notice that the businesses were using the same type of temporary signs, and the signs were placed in the same location in front of each business. She spoke with the owner of one of the businesses and learned that businesses on the block got together to come up with a common design for signs. The signs were so uniform that they blended in with the scenery, and this made her like the idea of having a uniform sign design more. The fact that the businesses sought out each other says that they care enough to make signage look nice. Even if the City does not promote uniformity, the concept is out there and businesses may choose to do it anyway. Board Member Stewart agreed that uniformity would help solve the issue of clutter, and the Arts Commission could participate and come up with something that is artistically pleasing. Placing the signs on the sidewalk close to the buildings they are serving is also important to provide sufficient pedestrian access. That means that some signs will have to be placed closer to the buildings than others given that sidewalk widths vary. E Chair Lovell said he recently discussed the matter with Randy Hutchins, owner of Sno-King Signs, to obtain more of his thoughts on signage. Mr. Hutchins indicated that he has made a number of the A -frame signs that are used by businesses in c the downtown. He commented that changeable signs can be problematic because the information can be difficult for people U to read. He expressed that some uniformity would be helpful and easy to achieve. Most merchants are concerned about cost, but he felt that a sign design that is artistic and durable could be produced for a reasonable cost. co Chair Lovell said he also spoke with Francis Chapin, Cultural Services Director, to learn her thoughts about the concept of T M directional signs. She agreed that something amenable to the businesses and the City could be worked out, but she cautioned that maintenance and administrative costs could be an issue. She noted that signs would have to be updated each time a m business changes, and the space on each of the signs would be limited and not all businesses would have an opportunity to participate. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the plumb line she used to review the sign code options for pedestrian signage is answering, "how much signage is too much?" She noted that there has been no request to reduce the amount of signage available to each business in Edmonds, and there has been no protest to the revisions to the definitions in the sign code. Generally, what exists appears to be somewhat acceptable to the public and the downtown commercial community. Where there is discord is the presence of pedestrian signage on the sidewalks in the downtown business core. The arguments have centered on elimination of temporary/pedestrian signage, the fairness of appropriating part of the sidewalk for cafe seating yet restricting the sidewalks' use for a six-foot square pedestrian sign, and concern for the random appearance of the pedestrian signs. w .. c m Vice Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that the City has a comprehensive sign package for businesses. Wall -mounted signs, wall E graphics, and blade signage is available. But wall graphics that meet certain criteria, blade signs that are less than 4 square n feet, and window signs do not count against the sign package quota. Currently, it appears that temporary or pedestrian Q signage can be utilized, as well, and would not go against the sign package total. Given the concern of the commercial businesses to market appropriately, the provision of temporary/pedestrian signage could be proposed as being part of the overall sign package quota for each building. However, there is a tipping point of too much signage and too much clutter. This approach allows each business their proportionate amount of signage to use as they prioritize. However, the businesses would not get additional signage as they currently do with the use of temporary/pedestrian signage. Vice Chair Rubenkonig felt that Option 3 would be a step in the right direction. The Board heard at the public hearing that there are known businesses who abuse the sign ordinance and that out of town businesses in town for the weekend litter the downtown streets with their signs. A biannual enforcement effort and/or enforcement campaign could be a joint Citylbusiness event, but it does not need to be included in the ordinance. Wayfinding signage for businesses off Main, 5"' and Dayton appears to be acceptable in the current sign code and no revision was proposed. Again, this effort is beyond the Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 201 8.1.c Planning Board's purview. She expressed her belief that the issue of how much signage is allowed needs to be easy to understand and easy for the viewers (pedestrian) to perceive. The current formula for signage can remain and now include the option of incorporating a temporary/pedestrian sign less than six square feet. The limitation of three signs per business — present in the current code and not proposed for revision —would remain. Chair Lovell asked staff to clarify Vice Chair Rubenkonig's comments relative to window signs, blade signs, and wall graphics not counting against the overall sign area allowed for each business. Mr. Lien responded that, generally speaking, each business is appropriated one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of frontage. The overall sign area can be divided up amongst a maximum of three signs per business. However, wall graphics, window signs and blade signs that meet specific criteria do not count against the overall sign area. With Option 3, pedestrian signs would count as one of the three signs that a business is allowed to have. Board Member Robles said he did not expect that his "Green Dot" concept would receive immediate rejection by the Board Chair. He was hoping it could be discussed further. He said there are a lot of things the Board cannot solve. They do not understand what sign density is unless they know how many signs there are. The City is allocating a public good to private enterprise, and then they are externalizing the cost of interpreting those rules on the public. It would take some work to put together a map, but it would only need to be done once. The work would all be done up front and the map would hold the City to task over its responsibilities related to signs (ADA access, safety, health and welfare of citizens, etc.). He felt this approach would be extremely easy to enforce and would be a single point of compromise. The concept would push the sign code in one spot, but expand it someplace else. This would allow the City to have a discussion about a single sign in a single location, taking into account the specific needs of the business. Board Member Robles commented that if the City is not going to enforce the law, there ought not be one. Or they could look at how people are already behaving and try to accommodate that. To him, that seems to be the more productive way of regulating signs. If there is an update to a map, the notification only has to go to the individuals affected by the update. Whereas, if the code is updated, it has to go through everyone, making it tremendously inefficient. It is possible to imbed all the excellent research that has been put into the sign code discussion into the City's graphic interface. This would be a form that business owners could immediately see prior to making a decision about moving into or investing in property in the downtown. They would be able to immediately see where they stand in relation to the law or to the allocation of a public good. Board Member Robles suggested that the City could constrain a corner to one dot, and ask the people to collaborate around the dot and share the space with each other. This would give them the opportunity to innovate around a constraint, which is a very typical way of introducing innovation. This approach would meet and exceed the spirit and intent of the existing sign code. While there are some persistent members who complain about the existence of signs, there should be a way to compromise on the number of signs that are allowed. The City cannot know how many signs there should be if it doesn't know how many signs there are. He said he does not believe the sign code is ready to move forward. It is too complicated, and it is hard to interpret. He recommended Option 3 with a graphic interface that people can understand using a computer, intemet and modern technology. This approach would require the City to do work up front, but they would only have to do it once and it would be easy to change and modify and imbed the public innovation into the code rather than just inducing it on everyone. He said he would like hear the opinions of other Board Members and City staff before shooting the idea down entirely. Chair Lovell asked who would be responsible for updating the map each time redevelopment occurs or a business is changed. Board Member Robles answered that this could be the responsibility of the Architectural Design Board or the City staff. There is already an individual who is responsible for implementing and managing the sign code. Mr. Lien explained that the intent is to tackle the issue of temporary signs in the downtown as a hot -button item and Mr. Chave has taken the lead. With the larger sign code update, the City's consultant has proposed various amendments that have not been included in the code amendments currently before the Board for consideration. Apart from that, there is no other group looking at the sign code besides the Planning Board, and the Planning Division staff implements the sign code through review and enforcement. Chair Lovell advised that the City Council has asked the Planning Board to review and share their thoughts and recommendations relative to temporary signs in the downtown. If the Board chooses to coalesce around the concept of creating a signage map for the City, he would not veto the option, but he might not support it, either. He asked if Board Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 202 8.1.c Member Robles is suggesting that all of the signs in the City should be counted and identified on a map. Board Member Robles said that is his intent. They know how many businesses there are in the downtown and how many signs there should be. Mr. Lien cautioned that it would take serious work to survey all of the signs in the City. This approach would limit the total signage in the City rather than just per building. Before implementing the concept, he felt it would be appropriate to solicit considerable input from the business community. Board Member Robles voiced concern that all of the work the City does not want to do forces other people to interpret the sign code and limit their business accordingly. Board Member Robles suggested that his concept could be developed over time. There are big questions with the existing sign code that have not been answered. They are making assumptions that have no objective value assigned to them. If the City does not want to go look for those values, they are stuck with the existing sign code. He has listened to the public and their different needs and it would be hard to accommodate everyone unless you let them have some control over signage. Part of this plan should be about allowing the artistic community to standardize signs and allowing people to allocate signs as they see fit. The City should only be talking about certain components of signs, such as American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) access and the health, safety and welfare of citizens. He sees instances where the sign code is applied, but it is not practical given the specifics of the location. He summarized that the City should decide where signs can and cannot go and place the information in a graphic interface that is easy to understand. Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized the Board Member Robles' concept would allow perspective businesses to look up the location of the building they are considering on a website and see how much signage would be allowed. This would help them determine whether or not the site would suit how they tend to market their company. Board Member Robles would like this information to be embedded in the sign code and available visually rather than just verbally. Board Member Crank asked if Board Member Robles concept would be a determining factor in the Board's recommendation relative to Options 1, 2 or 3 or if it should be considered as a second level of discussion after the Board selects its preferred option. Board Member Robles suggested that his concept is actually consistent with Option 3, but presented differently. Board Member Stewart said there is some merit to Board Member Robles' concept, as it would reduce the language in the code and the visual information could cater to the need for businesses to figure out what is and is not allowed relative to signage. She asked if the concept has been implemented anywhere else in the United States. Board Member Robles said he is not certain. The concept would more or less result in a shared database, which today's technology allows. There are databases available, but that's not where the City is at now. He is looking at it in terms of LEAD methodology, which provides a lot of visuals, pre -thinking, and simplification, and you gain the efficiencies later in the process from doing the work in the beginning. There are precedents for this type of work. Board Member Stewart summarized that, conceptually this type of work is being done in green building. Board Member Stewart asked if Board Member Robles is referring to "green dots" for pedestrian signs only. Board Member Robles answered that is his intent. Board Member Stewart suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate for a block in the City to serve as a pilot program for the concept. While it is too much to take on for the entire City at one time, she is intrigued by the idea. Chair Lovell suggested that the Board consider a type of Option 3 for temporary signs, but create some mechanisms and guidelines that enable staff to work with business owners to establish workable plan for their signs within the parameters of the code. Board Member Robles agreed that this approach would go a long way towards accommodating individual needs. Chair Lovell expressed his belief that there should be some way to verify that signs have been permitted by using a sticker system, etc. Board Member Robles said there are other ways to simulate permitting. For example, businesses could lease artistic signs from artists, and the lease agreements would effectively become the permit. Business owners would pay money directly to the artists rather than the City. However, he cautioned that if the City is going to accommodate individual businesses, they must have a way to keep track of the accommodations such as a database or map. Mr. Lien commented that although the technology to implement Board Member Robles concept may be available, the City is not there yet. However, the City is moving in that direction by incorporating more graphics as part of the code update that is currently in progress. He said Option 3, as currently written, allows some flexibility for the City to accommodate the needs of individual businesses. It simply states that the signs must be located within 10 feet of the ground floor entrance and within Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 203 two feet of the building or two feet of the curb. The intent is to ensure pedestrian access. As far as businesses being able to look at the code and determine the types of signs allowed, staff often speaks with prospective business owners to inform them of the sign code requirements. He reminded the Board that the intent of this sign code update is to address the specific issue of temporary signs in the downtown, as well as a number of minor clarifications and code language updates and issues. Board Member Cheung commented that the number, size and design of signs is subjective. Some people may feel that no signs would be better, and others may think that prohibiting signs would result in a desolate downtown. With regard to sign location, he emphasized that the signs must not block ADA accessibility, which is a federal law. He summarized his belief that pedestrian signs have a huge impact on businesses, and they are used to attract customers. If the City makes the sign code too restrictive or prohibits pedestrian signs altogether, businesses may actually leave the downtown. Businesses are in competition with each other. While it could be mutually beneficial to limit the number of signs, they need to work together with the business owners before any final decisions are made. He voiced support for Board Member Crank's comment about businesses voluntarily coming together to create uniformity of signs that benefit them all. Those businesses didn't need anyone to step in and make it happen; they did it on their own. He said he would prefer to collect as much input as possible from the business owners. Instead of forcing a sign code upon them, they should be allowed to work together and provide recommendations that help improve the downtown business community. He said he is leaning towards allowing the most freedom and flexibility for pedestrian signs, and letting the business owners figure out their own limitations and restrictions. Board Member Monroe recalled that, at the public hearing, there were several comments about the need for off -premise signs to direct pedestrian to the businesses that are located on the side streets. He asked the Board to share their thoughts on how these businesses could be best served in a way that does not put more clutter and signage on the street. He suggested that Board Member Robles' idea may work well for these situations. The City could provide directional signs and auction off the space to businesses. Board Member Robles cautioned that there is real peril when the City starts allocating public good to a private enterprise. However, they are ways of having exchanges that are not necessarily financial and there are ways to share the spots without bidding for property. Having a social agreement in place with the business owners would address the legal concerns. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she supports Option 3, which counts pedestrian signs as part of the overall sign area and number of signs allowed for each business. As per Option 3, pedestrian signs would become one of the several options a business owner can choose for signage. Vice Chair Rubenkonig summarized that staff has had some discussion with the City Attorney about the legality of the City providing wayfinding signs. The current code allows them, but whether or not they can be used to advertise specific businesses is in question and must be reviewed by the City Attorney. The intent of the signs would be to help businesses that are located off the main roads. Board Member Monroe referred to a picture of a directional sign that allows the individual signs to be changed as needed. The City could construct the sign to a certain standard, and then businesses could purchase the individual plaques that are attached to the sign. Board Member Cheung asked if the directional sign would be in addition to allowing one pedestrian sign per storefront, and Board Member Monroe agreed that was his intent. Board Member Robles expressed his belief that commercial property in the downtown would become more valuable if there was a way to have off -site signage. Board Member Cheung agreed it would be helpful to provide off -premise directional signs to direct customers to the businesses located on side street, but he does not believe the directional signs would completely solve the desire of businesses to use pedestrian signs. The code must still be updated to address pedestrian signs, but directional signs would have value to businesses and auctioning off the space could help pay for the signs, themselves. Chair Lovell agreed that directional signage could be done with the concept of uniformity, along with elements of flexibility to add or change the signs as needed. However, it is important to realize that there would be cost to the City. He suggested the Board could recommend that the City Council direct staff to investigate the feasibility of establishing a directional sign program. Vice Chair Rubenkonig emphasized that the sign code already allows directional signs. The Board's comments can be noted that they think this is a private concern and the City Attorney will need to set some language for how wayfinding signs could be used. But as far as the Board's current review of the sign code, no changes need to be made to implement a directional sign program. Mr. Lien said the City Attorney has affirmed that no changes would be needed to the Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 204 existing code to allow directional signs, but the Board could also include this in its recommendation to the City Council as something they want the City Council to pursue. Board Member Cheung agreed that directional signs might reduce the need for businesses to use off -site pedestrian signs to attract customers to their businesses, but the Board still needs to address on - premise pedestrian signs. Mr. Lien reminded the Board of the changes that were made to Option 3 since the public hearing. Pedestrian signs would become a type of permanent sign that must be brought in at night when the business is closed. In addition, staff is proposing that the language be changed to allow one pedestrian sign per ground floor entrance rather than one sign per ground floor storefront. He provided examples to illustrate why this change was made. Chair Lovell pointed out that, with the exception of downtown, the current code does not allow temporary signs in any other commercial zone. He voiced concern that the regulations are not currently being enforced, and business owners in the downtown may feel that they are being discriminated against if they are required to comply with strict enforcement of the code when other commercial areas are not. c Board Member Robles shared a story about an architect who designed a university campus without any sidewalks. The E owner decided not to pay the architect until the sidewalks had been installed. Six months later, there were clear paths through the grass, and the architect knew exactly where the sidewalks should go. The moral to the story is to observe what people are doing, memorialize it, and then adapt to what is needed. If the City knows how many signs there are currently, Q they will have a better idea of whether there is not enough or too many. Chair Lovell asked if Board Member Robles is m inferring that all of the existing signs in the downtown should be memorialized and accepted. Board Member Robles said 3 that seems to be what the City has allowed up to this point. U c a� Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the downtown is supposed to be walkable. While pedestrian signs near the curb are co more visible to drivers passing by, they are not conducive to a pedestrian environment. Mr. Lien emphasized that, as r currently proposed, the signs must be located within two feet of the entry or within two feet of the curb. They would not be M allowed to block pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. Chair Lovell summarized that Option 3 allows pedestrian signs, but it could be further improved to provide flexibility and guidelines for staff to utilize when working with business owners to fit what is best for each individual site. He felt that would be the best option. The City could not only work with business owners to limit pedestrian signs, but they could encourage them to create solutions for their businesses. The "green dot" concept may be an option to consider in the future as the City moves towards a more sophisticated GIS system. Board Member Crank said she appreciates the change from one pedestrian sign per storefront to one pedestrian sign per entrance. She recalled that at the last meeting she voiced concern about how the regulations would impact businesses that are located in buildings with multiple tenants. In an effort to move the discussion forward, she reminded the Board that the focus of their discussion is supposed to be on identifying a preferred option (1, 2 or 3). She noted that most of the Board's discussion has been relative to Option 3, with some tweaks. If that is the direction the Board wants to go, she suggested that they affirm this and then move the discussion forward. Chair Lovell summarized that the Board is generally in support of Option 3, which requires a permit, limits the number of pedestrian signs allowed and provides guidelines. However, there are certain accompanying provisions and guidelines the Board would like the City Council to consider. He summarized that the Board is in favor of: • Creating the ability to work with a specific business given the conditions. • Limiting pedestrian signs to one per storefront entrance. • Counting pedestrian signs as one of the three signs that a business is allowed to have and also part of the overall sign area allowed. • Giving City staff the opportunity to work with odd architectural situations in order to accommodate a necessary business signage opportunity. • Developing criteria or a program that provides hard -to -find -business locations with a type of directional sign, recognizing that there may be legal ramifications. The City has a vibrant downtown with thriving businesses, and signage is an important part of that. Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 205 8.1.c • Considering what can be done to increase enforcement of the regulations and guidelines. • Allowing and even encouraging blade signs that accommodate changing information. • Encouraging some level of uniformity for pedestrian signs. While the Board was not interested in forcing uniformity on businesses, nothing in the proposed amendments would prevent businesses from creating a uniform sign program that meets the code requirements. Mr. Lien agreed to prepare draft code language for Option 3 based on direction provided by the Board. He could also prepare a memorandum to the City Council outlining the Board's additional recommendations in conjunction with the proposed sign code amendments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was prepared by the Development Services Director. He noted that there is some work being done with respect to housing affordability, and the Housing Affordability Alliance of Snohomish N County provided a presentation on the topic to the City Council on May 25`'. Council Member Tibbott is particularly in tune c with affordable housing issues. It was pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the goal of creating housing that is affordable, and he anticipates the issue will come before the Board for further discussion at some point in the future. m Chair Lovell reported that the City recently entered into a Sustainable Cities Partnership with Western Washington E a University with respect to elements of sustainability that the City is trying to achieve. This will be an ongoing project, and a m number of the elements will likely pass through the Board in the next few months. c U Board Member Crank referred to the announcement in the report that the City would no longer allow people to line chairs up a� along the street in anticipation of the 4th of July Parade. She said she informed the Chamber of this change, since they are the co event sponsor. r M REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Lien advised that the Board would continue its discussion on the sign code amendments on June 22nd. The land division update would be postponed to a future agenda. He reminded the Chair and Vice Chair that they are scheduled to present a Planning Board Update to the City Council on June 28th. Chair Lovell said the City Council has requested that the Board also have a discussion about redevelopment opportunities at Five corners, similar to what was done for Westgate. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that work done by Green Lab from the University of Washington included both Five Corners and Westgate. In the near future, Mr. Chave will revisit the work that was done relative to Five Corners with the City Council. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Stewart acknowledged Sam Kleven's service to the Planning Board as the Student Representative. He has spent the past academic year getting to know what the Board does and sharing his thoughts. He plans to attend Washington State University in the fall and will pursue student government there. Board Member Stewart announced that the Students Saving Salmon Streams Team from Edmonds Woodway High School will present the results of their water quality monitoring program to the City Council on June 14'h. She encouraged Board Members to either attend the meeting or watch the audio recording. Board Member Crank reported that she served as a volunteer at the Edmonds Waterfront Festival this past weekend. It was a great event that was well attended. The most popular attraction at the event was a large 2,500-pound fiberglass salmon that people were allowed to climb inside. There was a mural inside that provided educational information. Planning Board Minutes June 8, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 206 8.1.c the Development Services Director have met on several occasions with property owners along the corridor, and many have attended the open house events as active participants. The public appears to be excited about Highway 99 finally getting some attention. Many have indicated they would like to see changes, and they are optimistic about what can happen. He summarized that there has been good engagement so far via on-line surveys and public open houses, and the opportunities for public involvement will continue throughout the process. Chair Lovell said he was pleased to see that there is a strong desire for increased housing opportunities along the corridor, At this time, there is significant economic diversity as far as the quality of the existing residential and commercial stock. He asked if this factor has been considered, as well. Mr. Shipley said that a lot of diverse interests have emerged amongst the business and residential property owners, but they all agree that it is important to improve the safety and overall feel of the corridor. Board Member Monroe asked if the numbers provided for property tax revenue take into account expected tax breaks that will be given to developers in coming years. Mr. Shipley said he did not prepare the information, so he is not sure what it N includes in terms of affordable housing tax breaks. Board Member Monroe asked him to find out and address the issue in the next iteration. Mr. Chave pointed out that tax breaks would not be permanent. They are intended to get development in place and then the break would disappear over time. 13 c m Chair Lovell summarized that, going forward, he is primarily interested in what can realistically be done on the corridor and Q when. He observed that without support from the residential and commercial property owners along the corridor, nothing will happen. Mr. Shipley said the property owners he has talked to are very supportive and interested in moving forward. c Mr. Chave added that, overall, the consultant and staff have been very pleased with the degree of interest. A diverse group of U people are participating in the process. a� RECOMMENDATION ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r CODE (ECDC) REGARDING TEMPORARY (E.G. A -FRAME) SIGNS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO M ADDRESS A NUMBER OF MINOR CLARIFICATIONS AND CODE LANGUAGE UPDATES/ISSUES Chair Lovell referred the Board to the introductory memorandum with respect to the sign code amendments, which outlines the Board's previous discussions related to the amendments. He reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Board came fairly close to agreement in terms of a recommendation to the City Council. This direction is reflected in the draft Sign Code and the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations that were attached to the Staff Report. Chair Lovell reviewed that, in addition to the proposed amendments relative to pedestrian signs in the downtown, the proposal also includes a number of other minor clarifications and code language updates/issues. He asked if these other proposed amendments were brought forward by the consultant. Mr. Chave answered that a few definition changes were suggested by the consultant, but most of the proposed amendments address problems staff has run into over the years with things that were not clearly defined in the code or things that get in the way of what is reasonable. For example, an applicant approached the City with a request to place a sign on the mansard roof a building, and staff agreed that it was the only logical place for the sign. However, a provision in the sign code did not technically allow staff to approve the sign, as proposed. He clarified that the changes suggested by staff are intended to be clarifications or updates rather than wholesale changes to how signs are regulated. The overall signage allowed would remain unchanged. Mr. Chave said one issue that repeatedly came up in the public hearing was the need for businesses that are not located on the main streets to get attention to let people know they exist. These types of signs are not necessarily permanent, but mostly used during an initial period when businesses first open. If the proposed changes are forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, the Board's recommendation could call attention to this issue and recommend that the City partner with the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID to develop a signage system that provides an avenue for these businesses to get attention in certain ways. If a program of this type were instituted, businesses may be less likely to feel a need for pedestrian signs. He summarized that the initial changes could be made now to address pedestrian signs in the downtown, and then the City could pursue other options. The Board could revisit pedestrian signs again in three to five years when the situation may be different. Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 207 8.1.c Chair Lovell referred to ECDC 20.60.080(2)(a), which allows attached signs to be used for temporary signage. Mr. Chave said the intent is to allow retailers to put up temporary signs for 60 days to advertise business openings or other special events. This is allowed in the current code, and no change has been proposed. The proposed amendment clarifies where attached signs can be located. Board Member Robles observed that the means and methods by which people can accommodate their specific interests are spread throughout the sign code. Although they may not be obvious, they are there. Mr. Chave said the intent is to provide more flexibility to respond to what people want and need to do, but not change the overall character of signage in the downtown. Chair Lovell commented that the proposed amendment outlines how pedestrian signs would be managed in the downtown area, but it does not recognize that there are other areas in Edmonds where pedestrian signs are, in theory, prohibited. The question still exists in his mind to what degree will the sign code be enforced in other commercial zones in the City. If it is enforced in all commercial areas, will business owners in other commercial areas complain because downtown business owners are allowed to have pedestrian signs and they are not? Or if it is not enforced in all commercial areas, downtown business owners may complain that they are being discriminated against. Mr. Chave explained that code enforcement is generally complaint driven. To the extent there are more pedestrians in the downtown, it is likely that more complaints will be filed for that area. Chair Lovell recalled that, as requested by the Board, the proposed language provides flexibility that allows property owners and business owners to work with staff or the Architectural Design Board to reach agreement on how to handle signage in difficult situations. Board Member Robles asked if the agreement would be transferrable to future occupants or owners of a building. If it is transferrable, he questioned if the City has a database to memorialize the special agreements for future reference. Mr. Chave responded that once a sign structure has been approved and placed on a building, the agreement would be valid for any future business or property owner as long as no structural changes are proposed. Any structural changes would require the property owner or business owner to obtain a new permit. If the sign does not comply with the current sign code, a new exception agreement would be required. Mr. Chave reviewed that most of the special situations that the code previously talked about were related to site conditions. The proposed amendment expands the language to acknowledge that, in addition to site conditions, the sign code provisions may not quite fit for some buildings due to unique architectural features. Board Member Stewart expressed her belief that incorporating additional pictures into the code would make the provisions easier for people to understand. For example, it would be helpful to provide examples of the types of pole signs that would be considered monument signs. Otherwise, the written language is a bit difficult to digest. Mr. Chave explained that the existing code considers signs that are located on one or more exposed poles to be pole signs rather than monument signs, and pole signs are not allowed. The additional sentence was added to clarify that pole signs with two poles that are not more than six feet in height would be considered monument signs and should be allowed. He agreed that pictures would be helpful in this section, as well as others, and staff plans to added them before the amendments are forwarded to the City Council for review. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested, and the remainder of the Board concurred, that the last sentence in the definition of "Pole Sign" should be changed to remove the word "pole" before "signs." Board Member Stewart suggested that pictures would be particularly helpful to clarify the difference between a stanchion sign and a pole sign, as well as the difference between changeable message signs and reader board signs. She suggested that perhaps there should be separate categories for reader board and changeable message signs. Mr. Chave explained that it is very difficult to distinguish between reader board and changeable signs. For example, you could make the case that gas station price signs are changeable rather than reader board signs, but the City hasn't prohibited them because they are necessary. The intent was to write the language in such a way that allows a distinction to be made. The proposed language is not ideal, but it is the best staff has come up with thus far. Again, Board Member Stewart suggested it might be helpful to have separate categories for the two sign types. Board Member Stewart referred to ECDC 20.60.020(A)(2), and requested clarification about why individual letters that are applied directly to a wall or structure are calculated individually instead of as a whole. Mr. Chave said that many sign codes calculate sign area by drawing a box around the individual letters, but the City calculates the area of the individual letters if Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 208 8.1.c they are applied individually to a building. This provision offers a powerful incentive for people to do this type of signage because it allows for larger letters. This type of signage is considered more aesthetically attractive because the letters are flush with the building rather than in a large cabinet sign. Board Member Stewart said she would like the draft code to provide an illustration of a monument sign. Mr. Chave that this example has already been provided in ECDC 20.60.020. Board Member Stewart said she was amused to read about the signs that are prohibited because she anticipates someone will come up with a clever sign that is not on the list. This will require an expensive process to get special approval to deviate from the sign code. Mr. Chave explained that staff often has to issue interpretations when these situations come up. For example, halo signs did not exist when the current code was written. Staff determined that the existing code provision related to indirect lighting would apply to this sign type, as well. He summarized that when someone proposes a sign, staff tries to identify the closest provisions that apply. Just because a sign is a different type does not mean it would be automatically ruled out. The intent is for the code to be descriptive rather than rigid in its definitions, and that is why sign codes are so difficult to write. Chair Lovell reviewed that one of the desires expressed in the recommendation memorandum is that some exploration be done as to the feasibility of directional signage on the street corners. He asked if this is something the City's sign shop could help with. Mr. Chave agreed that is a possibility, depending on the style, design, materials, etc. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the Board previously discussed the idea of having a GIS-imbedded mechanism that business owners could use to determine what type of sign package he/she would be allowed. However, this concept was not included in the draft recommendation that was prepared by staff. While this may be more of an administrative issue as the City becomes more technologically advanced, perhaps the Board should be more clear that they heartily support the concept. Board Member Robles commented that the matrix tells what signs can go in what areas, and the information could also be served on a map. Adding pictures would also provide helpful information. However, this approach is archaic given current technology. He asked about the timeline for reviewing the sign code again in the future. Mr. Chave explained that the current sign code amendments were put forward at the request of the City Council to specifically address pedestrian signs in the downtown. In addition, staff has included some minor amendments to clean up and clarify the existing sign code. He said he is not sure that GIS would be the best solution so he would be hesitant to include it in the Board's recommendation. However, it could be a subject that his considered as part of a future discussion of trying to make the code easier to understand. Board Member Robles suggested that if updating the sign code is an ongoing process, it should be articulated in the recommendation. He said he would support the proposed changes as long as there remains an avenue by which the sign code could be improved upon in the future. Board Member Robles asked if all enforcement of the sign code is done on a complaint basis. Mr. Chave answered that all code enforcement is done on a complaint basis. Board Member Robles suggested that this should be noted in the sign code. Mr. Chave cautioned against adding language relative to enforcement in the sign code. Otherwise, the sign code would have to be updated every time the enforcement provisions are changed and vice versa. Board Member Robles expressed concern that citizens should have a clear understanding of how they are being judged. Mr. Chave advised that, in addition to complaint -based enforcement, there are general compliance requirements on how the overall code is administered. Staff ensures that code provisions are being met whenever someone applies for a permit. Board Member Stewart said she understands the concerns that have been raised about the proliferation of pedestrian signs in the downtown. Because there are a lot of pedestrians in the downtown area, it is likely that more people will speak up about illegal signs. On the other hand, Highway 99 is mostly a drive -by situation so there will not be as many complaints. She said she is not sure how the fairness issue can be resolved except with additional enforcement that will require more manpower. Mr. Chave advised that the City only has one Enforcement Officer, and he does an amazing job of enforcing the Development Code provisions. It would be an entirely different thing to start patrolling the commercial areas to enforce the sign code provisions. Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that another bullet point should be added to the Board's recommendation to read, "Employ technology measures, when available, to assist in sign code application. Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 209 8.1.c VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE REVISION OF ECDC 20.60 (SIGN CODE), INCLUDING THE SCOPE OF THE SIGN CODE UPDATE, PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS, AND PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS AS FOUND IN THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF ON JUNE 22, 2016, TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS WRITTEN, AND WITH ONE ADDITIONAL BULLET POINT TO READ, "EMPLOY TECHNOLOGY MEASURES, WHEN AVAILABLE, TO ASSIST IN SIGN CODE APPLICATION." BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell announced that the Board is scheduled to present a report to the City Council on June 28th. He asked that this date be incorporated into the extended agenda. Chair Lovell asked when the Board can expect to hear from the City Council regarding a subarea plan for Five Corners. Mr. Chave answered that he is scheduled to provide an update to the City Council on July 12th. Chair Lovell suggested that the E topic be added to the Board's extended agenda for August as a placeholder. c m Chair Lovell left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Q m PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 0 U Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. co PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS T M Board Member Cloutier said he attended the first part of a meeting at the Senior Center regarding the Edmonds Waterfront Center Proposal, which was formerly known as the South County Senior Center Proposal. The name change is intended to ensure that the new facility is placed on the water. c Board Member Stewart announced that an open house regarding the Civic Park Master Plan is scheduled for June 23`d from 2 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library Building. She said she plans to attend the meeting as a committee member, and she encouraged other Board Members to attend, as well. Board Member Robles referred to an article in the May 3 1 " Seattle Times regarding Airbnb regulations in the City of Seattle. He recalled that he raised this issue earlier, and some provisions were added to the City's code to address the use. The use is quickly expanding, and he felt it would be appropriate for the Board to give further consideration to potential regulations that need to be in place. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 22, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 210 8.1.d From: Natlie Shippen Received Email: June 7, 2016 Planning Board Members: If Option 3 is adopted, signs that are currently listed as "temporary' in the Edmonds sign code would become "permanent". The Code now says a "temporary sign" is an "allowed portable sign not to exceed 60 calendar days in any calendar year." The "portable" definition lists those signs as: 1. signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels; 2. menu and "sandwich" board signs, 3. "A" and "T" frame signs, 4. wooden, metal or plastic "stake" or "yard" signs, 5. posters or banners affixed ... 7. searchlights. 8. inflatables. If Option 3 is adopted, there will be no 60-day time limit on the signs listed above. They could be out all day (currently, brought in at night for practical reasons), all month, all year for the length of their business life. Options 2 and 3 together are "simply" word games to turn temporary signs into permanent signs. If you doubt that, read the "Narrative" section of the packet closely and note the transition in terminology from temporary, to pedestrian to permanent. The City Council has two choices. Adopt Option 3 which turns temporary signs into permanent ones; that's easy to enforce. Or, adopt Option 1 which prohibits temporary signs. To explain the PURPOSE of Option 1, adopt the language of the carmel code with its emphasis on community quality and explicitly denying the use of public streets for advertising. I suggest that no action be taken on the rest of the proposed amendments (red -lined) "not tied to the pedestrian signs " but based on "staff's working knowledge." (the correct word is "temporary" not "pedestrian" I think blanket approvals should be avoided especially on detailed subjects that lend themselves to doctoring for a specific benefit. Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 211 8.1.d MeDoftgldP,,,,CGa 630 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 May 23, 2016 Edmonds Planning Board 250 51h Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Pedestrian Sign Code Revisions Dear Board Members: I am submitting this written comment as I cannot attend the Public Hearing. However, I did attend the Planning Board Meeting on May 11, 2016 and have also read the Agenda Packet regarding the three options for the sign code, so I am familiar with the general nature of the options. My wife, Sandy, and I own the property at 630 Main St. which houses our Insurance Agency, McDonald McGarry. We have been there since 1996 and have used pedestrian signs for most all of that time. At the May 11 meeting, a citizen asked "What is the public benefit of pedestrian signs?" The signs themselves do not directly benefit the public, however the signs benefit the businesses that utilize them and in turn those businesses benefit the public by creating a vibrant downtown core. While on a different scale, the theory is no different than allowing sidewalk dining. The dining may not benefit the public, but the increase in the economic health of the business in the downtown core does. Most likely all of you have all been here long enough to remember when downtown Edmonds was pretty dreary and oftentimes, it was where businesses went to die. Cleary these signs are helpful to sustaining some businesses. One concern that is common to all three proposals is that we do not want the sidewalks to be overly cluttered and in turn pose a burden on pedestrians with mobility issues or any pedestrians at all. I acknowledge this as a valid concern, however sidewalk encroachment is not a problem that is unique to the downtown core. We live in the Seaview neighborhood. Not every street has a sidewalk and those that do are not always easily passable. Most often the cause is a neighbor that does not keep shrubbery trimmed back, so a 4 foot wide sidewalk can easily be reduced to half that width. In addition, on garbage collection days garbage, recycling and yard waste cans pose an obstacle to easy and safe passage along the sidewalk. So while we need to keep the downtown sidewalks open, please do not be misled to believe that this is only a problem caused by pedestrian signage in the downtown core. Option one is basically an outright ban on pedestrian signs. I feel that this is an overly harsh response to the problem. The common sense elements of the other two proposals, such as having the signage allowed only in front of the sign owner's business, should reduce the clutter and allow easy passage for all pedestrians. Second, I believe it is punitive. The problems with excessive signs is probably created by a handful of businesses and as a result all of the businesses in the area would be punished. This situation is much like the neighbor c as E c d E a 0 U c in LO M n (425)774-3200 www.mcdonaldmggaLU.com (800)466-4700 Fax (425)774-3 Packet Pg. 212 8.1.d that does not keep their bushes off of the sidewalk, they may be either unaware or simply ignore the applicable rules. Unfortunately, developing personal responsibility and morality is something that no planning code can accomplish. In our office, we use pedestrian signs to promote our business. In addition, we use them to promote a number of community events which we sponsor throughout the year. Please see the next page for a sample of those signs. The purpose of these events is of course to build our business, however they are open to all members of the community, not just our clients or prospective clients. For example, our annual document shredding event has well over 100 total participants. (We were down a bit this last Saturday due to the rain.) By our estimate, less than one fourth of these are our clients. So the pedestrian signboards do have a community benefit. Option two is basically a continuation of the current code. Adopting this without any consistent corresponding enforcement mechanism does not make any sense either. In all likelihood the problems which are trying to be corrected by revising the code would most likely reoccur. Without an excessive monetary burden on the city, I am unaware of any way to regulate the signs to a 60 day annual display period. In addition, I'm not sure how the 60 day term was determined and that time period itself could be a discussion point (or argument) long into the future. Option three seems to me to make the most sense. It has the potential to eliminate sign clutter and it removes the necessity of creating an elaborate process to ensure that businesses are not exceeding the 60 day time limit that has been proposed in option two. This seems to be a reasonable compromise that would keep the sidewalks accessible to all, while at the same time allowing businesses to use pedestrian signage to promote their establishment. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. Sincerely, McDONALD McGARRY Jo A. McDonald il: john(ibracdonaldmcgarry.com losure M/hs c 0 E 13 c 0 a a� 0 U c Co LO M Packet Pg. 213 I 8.1.d I McDonald McGarry Insurance School Supply ..'� Drive! ab Drop off new sup PECO rr�s�rtian*,� lies here. CELL PHONES FOR LDI ER Now Collecting Gently Used to Help Troops Call Home 425-774-3200 vrrww.m donaIdmcgarry.ccrn :_. a MCDOUN IG"7 1mrAncr ,an btLLI mr-dei 1 MIflFftr. naa FIV -Nei ll Packet Pg. 214 1 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Laura Zeck <laura@zincartinteriors.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 9:43 AM To: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane; Nelson, Michael Subject: Re: Public Hearing on Signs Wed. May 25 Hi - I am a business owner and would love to attend this meeting, however I have a conflict as my 5th grader is performing in her school orchestra that night at the same time. Please feel free to pass the information below on at the hearing. As the owner of Zinc Art + Interiors at the corner of 3rd and Main in Edmonds, WA. I would like to state that use of A -Boards has been essential to my business, it's visibility and it's viability. As many of you know the circle/fountain is the hub of Edmonds. This is reinforced by the location of the Saturday Market, Chamber Events, and traffic patterns. ZINC has now been open for 28 months and it is still a daily struggle to get the general population and visitors to understand that Edmonds does exist beyond the circle, and A -Boards have played a huge role. I can actually look at days where we have neglected to put out our A -Board and see a dramatic difference in that days sales. At the time that we leased our space, sign code would not allow for a sign that actually made sense for the length of our street front. We are now stuck with a sign that is incredibly small above our front door. It is low to the ground and at times completely disappears behind vehicles parked in front of the building. I have asked the parking division to either make the space in front of the building a 15 minute zone or to clearly mark the space as the 3 hour parking that space that they say it is because on many days the space is occupied by one car for the entire duration of our business hours 10-7pm. I have mentioned this to many police as they pick up their uniforms next door at Corry's Dry Cleaning, but their response is that the space is not marked clearly and therefore they can not ticket the vehicle parked there all day. Many days these vehicles are very large and tall and completely block our building. Without the use of an A -Board on the corner of 3rd and Main, many people would not even see we exist. As a tax paying business of Edmonds, I feel it is essential that you take these frustrations and issues with the sign code into account. One citizen with complaints does not make up for the amount of revenue that our business brings to the city, let alone the culture, community and service we provide on a daily basis. In addition I have attached the current street view of our building that is available on Google. As you can see our business doesn't "exist", and the pole in front of our building has no sign indicating parking regulations. ZINC needs all the help it can get as a new business struggling to become part of the community Please help us by improving the sign code and making it friendlier for businesses within the business district where signage is and should be visible and helpful. Thanks so much for your time! Please contact me if you have any questions at all. Best! Laura On May 11, 2016, at 8:37 AM, Cunningham, Diane<Diane.Cunningham@edmondswa.gov> wrote: Packet Pg. 215 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 8:05 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Chave, Rob Subject: FW: Edmonds sign code FYR From: Monillas, Adrienne Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 10:37 PM To: Hope, Shane Subject: Fwd: Edmonds sign code FYI Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Date: May 5, 2016 at 9:13:47 PM PDT To: <council@u,edmondswa.gov> Cc:<diane.cunningham@edmondswa.com> Subject: Edmonds sign code Council Members: What public purpose is served by allowing a 4-foot high advertising structure i.e. a mini - billboard, in front of every business in the Bowl? Or, anywhere in Edmonds since the Westgate Plan suggests city-wide walkability is now a city goal? Instead of posting daily message changes ON that billboard structure, why not provide a decorative box near the business entrance and place daily new advertising IN it? The Downtown Business Alliance could design it, have it produced and sell it to those who want a location for periodic advertising material. The Box might be introduced with a campaign to Visit Edmonds and Check the Box. Adding the Box would allow business three (3) permanent means of reaching the public: A wall sign, a blade sign and the Box, plus one short-term temporary sign could be added for a business opening event and/or a special event organized by the Downtown Business Alliance. Many businesses already use a permanent, red, small, non -flashing "OPEN" sign. Isn"t that enough signage? I noted in the April 26, 2016 minutes that an instant poll at a public workshop re Hwy. 99 asked residents what their top priority would be if just one thing could be done for the corridor. Their answer was "public space improvements and beautification-42%". Edmonds residents, regardless of their home's location, know they live in a town that has a reputation for attractiveness and they want their area to share that reputation. No one has ever argued that big signs on public sidewalks are a public space improvement or that they contribute to the beautification of Edmonds. Sandwich boards, stanchions and other c m E c m E a a� 0 U c co LO CO) n Packet Pg. 216 8.1.d From: Brent Malgarin [mailto:elegantaems@amx.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 7:30 AM To: Hope, Shane Subject: sign code Dear Shane, I have been reading the proposal for changes to the sign code. I find it rather amazing that the City acts, after one person complains about "A -boards", yet the BID wants to add significant sign clutter by putting ED! badges all over town. If a person does not know they are shopping in Downtown Edmonds, then they should not be out walking around. Alley signage--- what a joke. Seattle has it because there are businesses located in those locations with no other point of entry or egress. Pathetic. E I am filing a complaint about pole and Ed! sign pollution in Edmonds. E Q I have spent 17 years selling in resort towns, and this City does not have the slightest idea what it is doing. v Although-- the corrupt BID Directors figured out how to personally benefit from their positions.... Only r_ goes to show the integrity of the people--- who want other peoples money. 0 in T Brent Malgarin. �"',, Packet Pg. 217 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:46 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Chave, Rob Subject: FW: sign code update Attachments: color_logo_pantone_REV2.pdf N From: Pam Stuller [mailto:pare_@walnutstreetcoffee.cam] as Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:12 PM E To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Hope, Shane E Subject: sign code update Q as 0 Hi Diane, v c am As requested, here is my feedback for consideration during your sign code update process. �!? My building is uniquely squat and sits slightly into the public right of way. When going through the permitting process to create my sign, current code would not allow my sign to be above my roof line - regardless of the height of my building. With the required minimum height from the sidewalk for pedestrians and the maximum height allowed by my roof line, I ended up with about 2' of workable height to create my blade sign. I ended up modifying my logo so my sign would have enough visual impact from up the street. I've attached an image of my sign, my building and my logo - so you can see the circle version I would ultimately like to replace my current sign with. I am not encouraging allowing enormous signs that are out of scale with their building/neighbors, but if there is a way to accommodate some variances in the sign code for unique site situations - allowing signs to go a certain amount above a roof line or exceed the size restrictions in some cases - I'd support it. Please let me know if you have quesitons or if I can provide any additional info. T LO Packet Pg. 218 8.1.d 611 -green -big circle 7459 - blue - inner circle 1535 - brown - cup handle, cup, and cup rim 497 - dark brown -STREET and oval area attached to S 7401 - tan -WALNUT and part of S and inner cup 716 - orange - OFFEE white - foundation base coat w c 0 E c a) E Q a� 0 U c 2 to LO M Packet Pg. 219 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:49 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Chave, Rob Subject: FW: Signage From: Clayton Moss [mailto:cmoss@formaseattle.com] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 4:23 PM To: Hope, Shane Subject: Signage a� Hello, Q Well, over the past month I believe we have manage to gather enough feedback from people regarding the different sign types that we discussed at our last meeting to feel confident that we are moving in the right v direction. �n I was just wondering if looking at it from your perspective, is there is any kind of timeline that I should be V- aware of? I would like to get some schematics over to you that illustrates our proposed recommendations. Clayton Moss Designer 206.920.5912 FORMA 114 4th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Packet Pg. 220 8.1.d From: D Talmadge [justme56@me.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:53 AM To: Council Subject: Edmonds City Council/ panning Board Council/ Planning Board Members, Firstly, please note there is no email address listed on the City website to direct emails to the planning board. About the sign code, it is mystifying to me that there is outdoor seating allowed in the downtown area so that the restaurants can monopolized a portion of the public walkways particularly when the sidewalks are so narrow to begin with. It is difficult to get around the tables and chairs if there is more than one person trying to pass by ( with the signs and posts) but for persons who have mobility issues it is nearly impossible. I have wondered often if it is ADA compliant, and I can't see how it would be. When it is busy down there, just strolling on the street is not a pleasant experience at all Those of us who can walk easily are merely inconvenienced with all the signs and sidewalks taken up by outdoor seating and abundant signage. But for anyone with any difficult at all, it is truly daunting and I don't believe it should be. Most of those sidewalks are simply too narrow to accommodate outdoor seating, sandwich board signs and much foot traffic at all. In your considerations of sign boards, please take into account those folks who have mobility issues first and foremost. Those are public sidewalks not the property of the restaurants who want to expand their space and businesses who put signs in the middle of them. And the signs all over further clutter what should be a public sidewalk for all to use. Thank you. N c as E c a� E Q as 0 U c T LO M Packet Pg. 221 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: D Talmadge <justme56@me.com> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:15 AM To: Planning Subject: Signs, sidewalks and ADA Planning Board members, About the sign code, it is mystifying to me that there is outdoor seating allowed in the downtown area so that the restaurants can monopolized a portion of the public walkways particularly when the sidewalks are so narrow to begin with, particularly with the sandwich boards strewn about. It is difficult to get around the w tables and chairs if there is more than one person trying to pass by ( with the signs and posts) but for persons who have mobility issues it is nearly impossible. I have wondered often if it is ADA compliant, and I can't see how it would be. When it is busy down there, just strolling on the street is not a pleasant experience at all Those of us who can walk easily are merely inconvenienced with all the signs and sidewalks taken up by Q outdoor seating and abundant signage. But for anyone with any difficult at all, it is truly daunting and I don't c believe it should be. Most of those sidewalks are simply too narrow to accommodate outdoor seating, sandwich board signs and much foot traffic at all. In your considerations of sign boards, please take into account those folks who have mobility issues first and v) foremost. Those are public sidewalks not the property of the restaurants who want to expand their space and M businesses who put signs in the middle of them. And the signs all over further clutter what should be a public sidewalk for all to use. ;n Thank you. Diane Talmadge Sent from Cloud 9 Packet Pg. 222 8.1.d Below Councilmember Buckshnis's message is one from Diane Talmadge. -----Original Message ----- From: Buckshnis, Diane Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:07 AM To: D Talmadge Cc: Hope, Shane Subject: RE: Edmonds City Council/ panning Board Good Morning Diane, Here is the planning boards' email and you can watch what various Council Members said in the Council Meeting last week and Ms. Fraley Monillas also brought up the ADA issue as well as the street dining. The outdoor dining was a HUGE council discussion issue four or five years back and I can't recall it all but it was only for the spring/summer months, I think. You can email Shane Hope and ask. Personally, I think we should try a 30 day temp ban and see if business are affected. It would be similar to going on a specific diet - you don't know if you like it or not because you have never tried it! Why not try it to see if business really need those signs. I noticed that I mentioned Zinc and that I see the bright orange and who needs that a -frame and they didn't have it out yesterday (which I am sure they don't watch City Council) with the orange balloons. But, it looked so nice on that corner. Snap Fitness is another sign always out .... you either work out or you don't and folks either get it or they don't - so why clutter? So, much for my ranting. planning@edmondswa.gov is the address that will get to everyone. Have a great day, Diane Diane Buckshnis City Council Position #4 206-228-3462 From: D Talmadge [justme56@me.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:53 AM To: Council Subject: Edmonds City Council/ panning Board Council/ Planning Board Members, Firstly, please note there is no email address listed on the City website to direct emails to the planning board. About the sign code, it is mystifying to me that there is outdoor seating allowed in the downtown area so that the restaurants can monopolized a portion of the public walkways N c as E c a� E Q as 0 U c T LO M Packet Pg. 223 8.1.d Date: April 27, 2016 From: Ashley Systsma (for Rick Steves who is currently out of the Country) Ashley@ricksteves.com Even though my company puts one out, I'm opposed to sandwich boards in Edmonds. I'd be happy to see our town rid of these completely, including my own. -Rick Steves N c a� E c a� E Q a� 0 U c H N T LO M T Packet Pg. 224 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:52 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Council Subject: Edmonds sign code Planning Board Members: As I listen to the Planning Board and read its minutes, I get the strong impression that the Planning Board y accepts temporary commercial on Edmonds streets as needed, desirable and even inevitable. The only questions Board members discuss is how many and where. E I think its unfortunate that a small, but well -organized downtown group, feels it must soil its own nest to c a� Q make a living but I don't believe that others should have to pay to solve their problem. 0 U Those others are the 40,000 people who share that nest. They are called residents and THEIR home is a a� flourishing, attractive residential community. Those residents have spent thousands of dollars in over 50 years N to make residential and commercial Edmonds look the way it does today. Their efforts deserve more M consideration than they are now receiving from the Planning Board. Temporary commercial signs are a blight. About four years ago a consultant, Roger Brooks, was retained to explore ways make edmonds more inviting. He had a long list; the theme of one of the items was "First Impressions Are Lasting". Applying that old adage, he suggested that the entering "Edmonds" sign NOT be placed at Westgate but further along where SR104 enters the Bowl.lt's easy to see why. Entering Westgate one is met with a flashing car -wash sign on the right and, on the left, a collection of drab, low commercial buildings with a row of sandwich board signs, strung along SR 104, identifying each business. (The car wash sign no longer flashes but the board signs are still there). It is the perfect poor first impression. Edmonds residents don't deserve more blight and more poor impressions on Main and on Fifth streets. Temporary commercial signs are a stigma. They send a far more significant message than the actual words on the sign. They convey a state of mind, they cry economic distress, even panic; they cry cheap.None of these attitudes reflect the reality of a prosperous, attractive RESIDENTIAL community. Locating temporary commercial signs (sandwich boa rds,stanchions, banners etc) in the public right-of-way creates the picture of a fine home with a seedy front yard. Does the Planning Board believe that is the image residents want their sign code to produce? Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 225 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:47 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Council Subject: Edmonds sign code Planning Board Members: I read the minutes of your last meeting with interest.Mr. Clugston says, "the proliferation of A -frame signs in the downtown is a problem." and, later, temporary signage in the downtown has been identified as an issue and the GOAL of the current effort is to fix the problems.." It's not the message on the temporary A -frame signs that is the PROBLEM. It's the number of those signs on the street. Changing the message doesn't solve the PROLIFERATION problem. It's not the style of the A -frames that is the PROBLEM it's the number of those signs on the street. Substituting another type of temporary sign doesn't solve the PROLIFERATION problem. Currently, those "temporary" signs are, in fact, permanent because they have been out on the street all day, all week, all year for several years. The time limit on temporary signs is 60 cumulative days annually. No owner complies with that time limit and it can't be enforced using a "Request for Code Enforcement Action" because no City record is kept of when the sign was put on the street. Requiring a permit for temporary signs is overkill; requiring notification and the expiration date on the sign itself would partially solve the time limit problem. Changing the word "cumulative" to "consecutive" would complete the solution to the time limit problem. Other cities do not use the word "cumulative" presumably because it's too difficult to track.They use the word "consecutive" which produces a specific date that can be easily checked Other city codes also use number of days to measure the time limit. Shifting A -frame or sandwich board signs from the "temporary" category to a "right of way" category (see "note" on back page) and then allowing them on the street all the time except for non -business hours (at night) isn't a time limit:i it's an absurdity. It doesn't solve the proliferation problem and it doesn't solve the potential for pedestrian/sign conflict. Enforcing the existing code time limit might reduce the number of temporary signs on the street at one time, but whether it would appreciably reduce proliferation hasn't been examined. Natalie Shippen N c as E c a� E Q as 0 U c a� in T LO M Packet Pg. 226 I-r c- J�4�2 � g& I y "y � C d a— �6LQV, ;! M d r C d _ aacL m o _--. U c z C � t i r.+ Q Packet Pg. 227 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 5:27 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Council Subject: sign code revisions Planning Board Member: FACTS: v, c as 1. "TEMPORARY" signs (Edmonds sign code) a) definition - "allowed portable signs intended for short-term display,not to exceed 60 calendar days E (cumulative) in any calendar year" Portable sign - "...any sign that is capable of being moved or removed ... that is typically intended for c temporary display.: v Portable signs include but are not limited to: 1. signs designed and constructed with a chassis or support aM with or without wheels (stanchion?), 2. "menu" and SANDWICH BOARD" signs, 3. A and T frame signs, 4. (n wood, metal or plastics "stake" or it signs, 5. pos tees ters or M banners affixed to windows, railings, overhangs, trees etc., 6. searchlights, inflatables etc. b)PROBLEM - No record is kept of when any of the above signs are posted; that allows "temporary" signs to be, in fact, permanent. solution - Rewrite Code to limit temporary commercial signs to "60 CONSECUTIVE days, one-time only" (business opening): business owner must notify Planning Dept. when a temporary sign is placed anywhere so °' E there is a date from which to calculate the time limit on signs, E 2. "PREMISES - 'Premises "is the actual physical area of the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed, except within the boundaries of the BC or BD zone in the downtown activity center as defined in the C.P where "premises shall include any portion of the sidewalk which fronts upon the lot. PROBLEM - Changes what would normally be an off -premise sign (>usually not allowed) into an on -premise sign. Results, for example,in Old Milltown each business in that complex is allowed one sign on 5th AND one sign on Dayton OR one sign at the corner of 5th and Dayton. That's a lot of signs adjacent to a privately - funded, attractive, land-scaped plaza. Here Edmonds sign policy is counter -productive to the desire of a private owner to make Edmond a more attractive town. of solution - remove "premiises" from the "definition"section.;other codes don't bother to define it because it has a common meaning. 3. ADMINISTRATION —"The Community Development director is responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of this chapter. He or she shall adopt application requirements for sign permits. COMMENTS: I have filed about 20 ""Requests For Enforcement" in the last two+ years in the Bowl, at Westgate and in between on SR104. In the course of following those requests I found that the Edmonds sign code is special interest legislation. In neither wording nor enforcement does the Code emphasize the importance of Packet Pg. 228 8.1.d protecting Edmonds reputation as an attractive, up -scale residential community. Rather, it offers a crutch to those marginal businesses that claim they need cheap advertising signs in the public right-of-way in order to survive. The Planning Dept. recommendations regarding "temporary"" signs don't improve the Code; they make it worse.The temporary sandwich board sign which now litter the Bowl are illegal under two separate chapters of the Code;they don't have street permits ($115)as required by (18.70), and they exceed the time limit on "temporary" signs (20.60). The Planning Dept. recommendations would simply make those signs permanently legal by requiring a permit but eliminating the time limit. Permanent signs have a valid purpose. They identify and locate a town business. Temporary signs do not. If a walker is close enough to a "temporary" sign to read it, the walker is also close enough to the business to read its permanent sign. As identification temporary signs are redundant Iitter.They are really just advertising signs in the public right-of-way and should be prohibited except for one commercial event, and closely y monitored, time -limited public events. E c a� The following are my suggestions for sign code changes: Q 1. EMPHASIZE that the Edmonds Sign Code exists to protect the quality of the community a la Carmel. 2,Commercial "temporary" signs are prohibited except for a 60 consecutive day, one-time only business - v opening event (some towns allow a limited number of 4-day special events). a� 3. "Premises" - remove that word from the "definition" section. N 4.Permit the use of a temporary sign while a permanent sign is being reviewed by the ADB, and then mounted. L, M 5, Permit permanent directional signs subject to ADB approval. 6. Prohibit pole signs every where; use monument signs instead 7. Have ADB approve permanent signs, and ;n ask it to review the proposed recommendations re calculation, classification and wall -mounted signs. 8. No one shall put any sign in the public right-of-way without first notifying the Planning Dept. J Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 229 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:55 PM To: Council Cc: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Revision of Edmonds sign code Council Members: Currently, there are no "temporary' signs in Edmonds; they are all "permanent" because sign regulation isn't enforced except by citizen complaint. However, because the Planning Dept. keeps no record of when E temporary signs are erected, the time limit can't be calculated and enforced upon citizen Request. In Edmonds the major and most controversial signs, "temporary ones" aren't regulated by time limits or in any other way. Q REMEDY: Make it clear in the code that "temporary" means temporary by enacting the following ordinance: "Time limit for temporary signs —a new business may install a temporary sign on a one-time basis only. No v business shall be allowed to display this type of sign more than once. All temporary signs are to be removed no later than 60 consecutive days from the date of notification to" the Planning Dept.(The words within in quotation marks are from another municipal code.)REMEDY:Require that a business owner shall notify theLO r Planning Dept. of the day on which a sign will be placed on a roof, wall, or public right-of-way and the date it will be removed. Require that the Planning Dept. keep a record of the above information. U) REMEDY —Under the ADMINISTRATION section of the sign code, include a statement that the sign code is enforced only upon citizen request. It's deceptive to let Edmonds residents think that their executive branch enforces the laws enacted by their legislative branch, an age-old assumption. In the "definition" section of the Edmonds sign code, there appears a definition of the word "premises" which is unlike that found in any other municipality. The definition says,"premises is the actual physical area of the lot upon which a sign is posted or displayed EXCEPT within the boundaries of the BC or BD zone in the downtown activity area ... where "premises" shall include any portion of the public sidewalk which fronts upon the lot." What does this exception allow? There was an Old Milltown business that was located on Dayton St. about one-half block East of Fifth St. It had a sign at the Fifth/Dayton intersection which I appealed as an off -premise sign. The City's reply was, "The City's position is that the signs in question (I had appealed sign at Third and Main) are not off -premise, but on - premise DUE to the DEFINITION of "PREMISES (my emphasis), and that their premises extend to the lot of the business, not just the business sidewalk frontage."I was told there are other "lots" in downtown Edmonds where the "premises" definition would apply. I lost the appeal but I learned that every business on the Old Milltown lot is allowed one sign on 5th and one sign on Dayton OR one sign at the corner of Fifth and Dayton. Is that number of signs the desired result of a sign code that seeks to control "visual clutter" in Edmonds, a goal listed four times in the PURPOSE section? REMEDY: Strike all the words that follow EXCEPT in the code definition of "premises". Finally, I suggest that all PERMANENT signs be reviewed and approved by the ADB. The ADB is a quality - control Board, and most of its members are selected for their training in assessing quality; signs and their location quality-sensative issues Packet Pg. 230 8.1.d A few years ago two large permanent signs appeared too high on two facades of Old Milltown. I appealed them and they were removed. The question is, "How did those signs get by Staff? Did they approve them and then not check their final location because they were too busy? I think the ADB has more members and more time to ensure that the conditions of its approval are obeyed. Natalie Shippen N C N E C N E Q N O U C N T LO M Packet Pg. 231 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:30 AM To: Council Cc: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Edmonds sign code revision Council Members: As of today, I haven't seen a copy of the sign code changes that will be presented to the Council at its Feb. 23, 2016 work meeting. Based upon a Planning Dept. presentation at an earlier public meeting in December, I expect that only two code revisions will be proposed: 1. minor changes to "permanent" sign regulations and, 2. significant changes to the regulation of "sandwich board" signs which are usually classed as "temporary" E signs. In this e-mail letter I will describe the current confusion that exists in the regulation of signs; later I will suggest code remedies. v c Sign code regulations appear in two separate ECDC chapters: 1. Chapt. 20.60 administered by the Planning in Dept.; and 2. Chapt. 18.70 Street Use and Encroachment Permits administered by the Engineering Dept. r Chapt.18.70 defines sandwich board sign as "temporary objects" which require a street permit. A permit costs M $115.; the duration of the permit isn't defined. On 9-2-15 1 appealed three sandwich board signs citing failure to obtain a street permit as the reason for a Request for Code enforcement action. Phil Williams determined that the three businesses I cited did not have street permits; however, no enforcement action was taken because Code revision is in progress. Meantime, all the sandwich board signs that litter the commercial streets of the Bowl (the ONLY location where they're allowed) are illegal, have been for years, and the City of Edmonds is owed thousands of dollars. (Incidentally, in the last couple of years I have appealed signs under Chapt. 20.60. When my requests were upheld, the signs were removed.There was no mention of a code revision in progress.) believe code enforcement is, partly,an issue that is separate from the language of the code itself, but one that should also be addressed.) While the language of Chapt. 18.70 is clear,Chapt. 20.60 is confusing. It defines sandwich boards as "temporary" in one section, and as "permanent" in another. Under the "definitions" section of 20.60, a "temporary" sign is "an allowed portable sign intended for short-term display, not to exceed 60 calendar in any calendar year." ( That's a lax time limit; other municipal codes have a fixed number of CONSECUTIVE days for one-year only. Further along in the code there is a section (20,60.020) titled "General Regulations for PERMANENT signs." In that section there is a chart which "summarizes the types of signs permitted in each neighborhood/district within the City. On that chart sandwich boards are listed as permitted only in Downtownl. I consider sandwich boards a temporary sign. In mid-2014 I filed a Request for Code Enforcement against three temporary signs including two sandwich boards. The reply was, "The City advises businesses of the 60- day limit, but does not monitor the site or count the days a sign is out. The City could not proceed with enforcement without City verified information and could not progress to a hearing or legal proceeding with third party information." I asked whether the City required that businesses notify the Planning Dept. of the date a sign was placed in the public right-of-way or elsewhere. the answer was "No". It is impossible to Packet Pg. 232 8.1.d calculate the 60-day limit without that knowledge, and very difficult to do even if known, because the 60 days are cumulative rather than consecutive. That method of counting days is peculiar to Edmonds. (To be continued) Natalie Shippen N C N E C N E Q N O U C N T LO M Packet Pg. 233 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:47 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Monillas, Adrienne; Hope, Shane Subject: Shippen Requests for Enforcement To the Planning Board Chairman: Will the Planning Board Chairman (Neil Tibbot) please request that the Planning Department include copies (or y a list) of my Requests for Enforcement in the Sign Code reform packet, and the enforcement decision(s) that was made for each? Early on, Shane Hope invited me to submit a list to her of any suggested code changes I E might have. I couldn't do that as I was learning with each appeal how the code did or didn't address my Requests. Q Like the Planning Department I didn't keep records; I assume it does now. I believe my Requests demonstrate how the sign code operates. I recall only twelve Requests for Enforcement which involved 26 signs. As you will v see, some of my Requests were approved and some were denied. a, in Natalie Shippen M Packet Pg. 234 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: English, Robert Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 5:27 PM To: 'Natalie Shippen' Cc: Spellman, Jana; Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane; Williams, Phil Subject: RE: Code enforcement under 18.20 - sandwich board signs Ms. Shippen —Sections 20.60 and 18.70 of the current City code are not consistent with regard to temporary signs (including A -frames). For this reason, the City will not pursue code enforcement action. The City's Planning Division will be updating the sign code this fall to address this issue. The process will include public meetings at the Planning Board and City Council. E -----Original Message ----- From: Natalie Shippen[ma ilto:natalieshippen@comcast.net] Q Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:25 PM c To: English, Robert v Cc: Spellman, Jana; Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane a� Subject: Code enforcement under 18.20 - sandwich board signs N Mr. English. On September 3, 2015 1 submitted three (3) Requests for Enforcement to the Planning Department. I cited Code Chapter 18.70.000.B.1.2.3. which requires a street use permit to place any temporary object in a "public space or City right-of-way..." I said that three sandwich board signs,two on Fifth and one on Main, did not have street use permits. The Planning Dept. flipped my Enforcement Requests to you, the City Engineer and you appear to have flipped them right back to the Planning Dept. I want answers to the following questions. Do the three sandwich board signs that I cited have street use permits? Do any of the sandwich board signs that litter Main St. and Fifth Ave. have street use permits? Chapter 18.70 is clear. "No person SHALL use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit from the development services director or City engineer." It then defines "use", "temporary in nature", and "temporary object" which specifically mentions "sandwich boards." Please explain why the Administration hasn't enforced 18.70.000 b.1.2.3. ? And why Requests for Enforcement don't result in code enforcement? Natalie Shippen T LO M Packet Pg. 235 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:25 PM To: English, Robert Cc: Spellman, Jana; Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane Subject: Code enforcement under 18.20 - sandwich board signs Mr. English. On September 3, 2015 1 submitted three (3) Requests for Enforcement to the Planning Department. I cited c Code Chapter 18.70.000.B.1.2.3. which requires a street use permit to place any temporary object in a "public E space or City right-of-way..." I said that three sandwich board signs,two on Fifth and one on Main, did not have street use permits. The Planning Dept. flipped my Enforcement Requests to you, the City Engineer and Q you appear to have flipped them right back to the Planning Dept. I want answers to the following questions. Do the three sandwich board signs that I cited have street use c permits? Do any of the sandwich board signs that litter Main St. and Fifth Ave. have street use permits? Chapter 18.70 is clear. "No person SHALL use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit in from the development services director or City engineer." It then defines "use", "temporary in nature", andLO r "temporary object" which specifically mentions "sandwich boards." Please explain why the Administration hasn't enforced 18.70.000 b.1.2.3. ? And why Requests for Enforcement don't result in code enforcement? Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 236 8.1.d To: Shane Hope From Ed! Advisory Board: Signage Committee Clayton Moss, Pam Stuller, Jordana Turner, Robert Boehlke RE: Recommendations for Sign Code Revisions Date: September 18, 2015 Recommendations: Amend the code to allow the applicant or the planning manager to refer design review applications to the Architectural Design Board (ADB) in the following unique situations: 1. When the applicants specific building set back (from the public street) is significantly greater than the adjacent buildings or when there are other special physical circumstances or physical conditions, such as topography, sign structures or other physical features on adjacent properties or public right-of-way obstacles that substantial restrict the effectiveness of the proposed sign in question. These special circumstances are peculiar to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention to and do not apply generally to other businesses in the area. 2. When there are special physical circumstances or physical conditions of the applicants specific building such as architectural features or details that substantially restrict the placement and effectiveness of the proposed sign in question or which make it impossible to both integrate the sign with the architectural design of the building and at the same time adhere to various code restrictions with regards to sign type, area or height. 3. When certain exceptional design features are included in a proposed sign design which enhances the appearance & quality of the sign but by doing so would exceed code constraints. Examples would be monument sign designs which are designed to be in harmony with the landscape design and/or integrate with the design and scale of a particular building or multi -building complex. 4. When a retail center or multi -tenant building or complex submits a comprehensive master sign program. Section References Definitions of Signs— request for clarification/revision. 1. "Internally illuminated sign" —Add "Halo Lit" 2. "Marquee": add description/definiation 3. "Outline cabinet sign" — Can also be non -illuminated 4. "Portable Sign" — add stanchion sign type to this group. Encourage artistry. 1. Identify who is responsible for the sign — require sticker "license tab". Add Registration requirement, street use, provide application form, submittal requirement check -list. Establish areas for legal portable signs in downtown. Allow for a little bit of character, for instance restaurants to show their happy hour specials, but protect quaint downtown streetscape so that it does not Packet Pg. 237 8.1.d become littered with portable signs. Consider public wayfinding group signs at critical decision points to direct people to businesses off the beaten path, (Main street & 5th Ave). Restrict placement so portable signs are within two of the building. 5. Projecting Sign — is perpendicular to the building fagade, usually double face. Maximum projection from building surface is 4 ft. (Note maximum depth of wall sign is 12") 6. "Sign Area" supporting brackets which are required by engineering and are designed to be integral to the sign & building design will not be included in the calculation of the sign area. 7. "Wall Graphic" - clarify differences between wall graphic and murals. 8. "Wall Sign" - revise to read affixed to building: wall, surface, or structure — is single faced. Maximum depth of sign is 12" — not to extend further than 12" from 9. surface. Freestanding signs- raise height limit to 5' and sq. ft area of graphic area — do not c include base in sq. ft area calculation- especially for monuments Q 10. Internally illuminated signs may only light letters "and graphic marks or logos" c U 20.60.025 a, 1. Add zoning map showing commercial areas. i) 2. Facades at entry do not always lend themselves to signage. Allow signage on facades and or have ADB review the situation. Small Micro -frontage businesses M like Daphne's should be allowed the 20'sq. ft area. v 20.60.050 This section states there are no restrictions on wall graphics which contradicts the previously stated restrictions. 20.60.070 "Construction Signs" increase area from 32 to 40 sq ft of graphic area. Encourage visual imagery of the project. Staff Review of Murals & Artwork;- designs have been approved by staff that are not in harmony with architecture an neighborhood. Need to include a public notice, so adjacent building owners have opportunity for input. Case in point Edmonds Historical Museum was not informed. Include ADB in review process. New Sign Types to consider: A. Light Standard Graphics — banners B. Portable Sign: "Stanchions" encourage stanchions vs A -Boards, allow ht to 5'. C. Wayfinding/Directionals- purpose to reduce quantity of portable signs C. Alley Gateway: refer to Post Alley Seattle, Bellen Alley in SF. Packet Pg. 238 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:08 PM To: English, Robert Cc: Cunningham, Diane; Spellman, Jana Subject: Code appeal Mr. English, 1 understand the Planning Dept. has referred my "inquiry" to you. a) E I asked that three sandwich board signs (Waterfront Coffee; State Farm Mutual; Cafe de Louvre) be removed because they didn't have a street use permit as required by ord. 18.70.000. Was that assertion correct? I also asked where I could get a blank copy of a street use permit and an encroachment permit. And how much each of those would cost (to clarify - not the cost to me for the blank permit forms, but to the owners of the v sandwich board signs). How much does each permit type cost an applicant? r- aM in Natalie Shippen r LO M Packet Pg. 239 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Pam Stuller <pam@edmondsdowntown.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 10:23 AM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Robert Boehlke Subject: Housewares sign input Robert from Housewares was mentioning that the current sign code did not allow for his sign to be lit. He couldn't remember the code limitations exactly, but as his sign was above 14' it's in the dark once the -sun goes down. r dodo Oro-, Pam Stuller Edmonds Downtown Alliance 206-914-1753 N c E c a� E Q 0 U c N LO M Packet Pg. 240 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Sent: Hope, Shane Friday, August 14, 2015 1:01 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Sign Code Comments Pls add this to your record of sign code comments: I just got off the phone with the owner of Elegant Gyms (on 5th Ave.). He wanted to comment that A -board signs are okay, that they are needed and useful. The only thing is they should be located close to the building, not in other parts of the sidewalk. Shane Hope, AICP Development Services Director City of Edmonds 425.771.0220 x-1216 sh ane. h ope @ edm o nds wo. Ao v N c as E c a� E Q a� 0 U c 2M N T LO M Packet Pg. 241 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Pam Stuller < Pam @walnutstreetcoffee.com> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:12 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Hope, Shane Subject: sign code update Attachments: color_logo_pantone_REV2.pdf Hi Diane, As requested, here is my feedback for consideration during your sign code update process. c E My building is uniquely squat and sits slightly into the public right of way. E When going through the permitting process to create my sign, current code would not allow my sign to be above my roof line - regardless of the height of my building. v c With the required minimum height from the sidewalk for pedestrians and the maximum height allowed by my CLM roof line, I ended up with about 2' of workable height to create my blade sign. I ended up modifying my logo so T my sign would have enough visual impact from up the street. M I've attached an image of my sign, my building and my logo - so you can see the circle version I would ultimately like to replace my current sign with. I am not encouraging allowing enormous signs that are out of scale with their building/neighbors, but if there is a way to accommodate some variances in the sign code for unique site situations - allowing signs to go a certain amount above a roof line or exceed the size restrictions in some cases - I'd support it. Please let me know if you have quesitons or if I can provide any additional info: Packet Pg. 242 8.1.d 611 -green -big circle 7459 - blue - inner circle 1535 - brown - cup handle, cup, and cup rim 497 - dark brown -STREET and oval area attached to S 7401 - tan -WALNUT and part of S and inner cup 716 - orange - OFFEE white - foundation base coat N C N E C N E Q N O U C N T LO M T Packet Pg. 243 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:35 AM To: Spellman, Jana Cc: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane Subject: Edmonds Sign Code revision Council Members: REAL ESTATE There shall be no exceptions from the Code for real estate signs. Real estate signs shall be used only to direct buyers to SPECIFIC properties for sale, rent or lease. Directional signs are permitted as regulated by the current code. Real estate offices may not use temporary signs to advertise their office location (see flocks of little signs at intersections), or to identify their office location with sidewalk signs. The City of Edmonds invites residents to contribute to the maintenance of their corner parks and hanging baskets by making an annual donation. What is the residents incentive to do so when downtown businesses are allowed to plunk their tacky signs on the adjacent public sidewalks? Down town business argues that their business will suffer without signs. How do they prove that? Open their books to justify their signs? Not likely. Should businesses that don't need signs to prosper still be allowed to place junk in the public right -of ways because then they will make still more money? I remind the Council of a long-standing principle of organized business i.e. if you've got a problem, government is not the solution.. Nowhere is that principle more applicable than in your current discussion of the Edmonds Sign Code. Sign codes are about maintaining the quality of a municipality, not private profitability. Natalie Shippen N C E c a� E Q 0 U c LO M Packet Pg. 244 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:21 AM To: Spellman, Jana Cc: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane Subject: Edmonds sign code Council Members: Signs are junk; signs create visual blight on Edmonds landscaped streets. They diminish the results of long-time efforts to improve the appearance of an ugly gritty mill town. The only valid commercial sign is 10 the permanent facade sign that identifies the business below it. New rules should state that each business is allowed one facade sign to identify the business; two, if on a corner a la Star Bucks at the corner of Fifth and Main.A multi -business building may add one Q landscaped monument -style group sign e.g. the 210 building on Fifth. An area of stores may do the same c e.g. the Westgate QFC sign at the corner of Ninth and 104. r_ Commercial pole signs are not permitted. Landscaped monument signs are permitted are permitted. in Roof mounted signs are prohibited.LO r Administration —All permanent signs shall be approved by the ADB. If, as alleged, by the Administration, the Planning Dept. doesn't have time to enforce the Code, its responsibility for N evaluating new signs should be removed to save time. The ADB is better positioned to judge quality, and maintaining quality is the goal of a good sign code.I think some Edmonds permanent signs have _J deteriorated. Natalie Shippen 1 Packet Pg. 245 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:02 PM To: Spellman, Jana Cc: Cunningham, Diane; Hope, Shane Subject: Edmonds sign code Council Members: TEMPORARY signs — In Edmonds "temporary" signs are permanent because the 60 "cumulative" days limitation isn't enforced, indeed, can't be enforced. Businesses aren't required to notify the City when they stick signs on their building or on the sidewalk.The new code should say: a temporary sign is one displayed for a limited time. Commercial temporary signs shall not be allowed except for a one-time, 60 CONSECUTIVE days opening event. Three temporary signs are then allowed only one of which may be Q place on a public sidewalk. c Other temporary signs (besides commercial) shall not be allowed in the public right of way. U Temporary include, but are not limited to (in case I omitted to mention one of the pests): signs N designed and constructed with a chassis or support with or without wheels; menu and sandwich board r signs; "A" and "T" frame signs; wooden, metal or plastic "stake" or "yard"; signs; posters or banners M affixed to windows, railings overhangs; trees,hedges, or other structures or vegetation; flags; pennants, L banners; feather, ribbons and balloons. Banner signs (including real estate signs may not be placed on roofs or walls (e.g. west wall of the _J Chanterelle Building; roof of the business on the NW corner of Olympic View Dr. and 196th.). Banner signs may not substitute for permanent signs. E Administration: Businesses must inform the Planning Dept. where and when they plan to place temporary signs and the date they will remove them (within 60 CONSECUTIVE days). This is not an onerous requirement as an opening event will occur only once. Natalie Shippen 1 Packet Pg. 246 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Natalie Shippen <natalieshippen@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:40 AM To: Spellman, Jana Cc: Hope, Shane; Cunningham, Diane Subject: Edmonds sign code Council Members: The public meeting on August 3, 2015 to discuss Edmonds sign code changes is a welcome beginning and one that, I hope, is concluded well before the holiday season. I will bring before the Council and Planning Board some of the problems that I have found and their suggested remedies. I' start with the Edmonds Code definition of "premises". I believe the Edmonds code should not include the public sidewalk as part of the definition of "Premises." Other cities don't include a definition of premises, but refer to it indirectly in their on- premise/Off premise definitions as the "property" on which a sign is/isn't to be located. I question the propriety, and possibly the legality of selectively giving use of the public right-of-way to adjacent, private land -owners. The current definition of "premises"also allows other junk to be placed on the public sidewalk e.g. the clothes rack in front of the Savvy Traveler and a small promotional red fire truck in front of Coldwell/Bain reality. These are in addition to their signs and banners. The result is the messiest corner in Edmonds adjacent to the most landscaped area in Edmonds (Fountain, Corner Parks, and Trees). Natalie Sh'ippen Packet Pg. 247 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 10:01 AM To: 'Natalie Shippen' Cc: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Sign Code Meeting Mrs. Shippen, I know you have been long interested in potential amendments to the city's sign code. That is also on our work program for this year. You are invited to a public meeting about issues and options for our sign code on August 3, 6 pm, in the a) Council Chambers. I hope you can attend. a� We will be issuing a press release about this soon and encouraging both residents and businesses to provide their Q input. We are especially looking at the issue of A -frame signs downtown. 0 U After the meeting, we will work on draft amendments to the sign code, so that in the fall, the public can review the draft a� and provide input. Then the draft will be refined as needed and brought to the Planning Board for at least 2 public in meetings (including a public hearing) and recommendation, followed by at least 2 public meetings (including a public r hearing) and a decision of the City Council. A more detailed meeting schedule will be identified later. M Feel free to share this information with others that you think will be interested. Thanks. Note: Interested parties, whether or not they attend the August 3 meeting, are welcome to send comments about sign regulations to the City at: diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov. Regards, Shane Hope Shane Hope, AICP Development Services Director City of Edmonds 425.771.0220 x-1216 shane.hope@edmondswa. gov_ Packet Pg. 248 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: randall@randalijhodges.com Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:20 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Opinion about signs, from Randall J Hodges Photography Gallery Hello To all concerning Signs I am unable to attend the August 3rd meeting but wanted to share my thoughts I own the Randall I Hodges Photography Gallery at 317 Main Street. I do use an A Frame sign and find it Very, Very Helpful and Valuable, especially to announce special features events or lesson in the gallery, like Art Walk My A Frame is not in anyone's way, and I keep it in great condition, and I invested a lot of money into it. I believe it is only fair to let us keep the A Frame Signs, in light of the many restaurant's who get to seat customers outside, taking up way more space than our little A Boards and causing much more congestion, and hazardous situations, which I have witnessed. I am no way saying that they should go away also, but if they get to utilize the side walk for extending there restaurant's seating, I should be able to take up 3 square feet to put out my sign I know the new restaurant The Salt and Iron, gets to use over 150 square feet of sidewalk space taking up over 1/2 of the passible sidewalk If the A board are no longer able to be put out, then the restaurants should also stay inside and not invade the sidewalks. Otherwise I would like to apply to put tables in front of my Gallery space also, then I could place my A Frame Sign on top of it, calling it a table tent .... I think that sounds very fair and reasonable. For me it is a question of what is fair, and if some of the businesses get to use the sidewalk as space, than so should the other merchants.... Many of us shop keepers need all the help we can get to get customers in the door, and the A Frame Signs help me greatly Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments on this important issue Have a great day! Randall Hodges Randall J Hodges Photography www.randalljhodges.com randali@randallihodcies.com cell 425-210-2506 Randall J Hodges Photography Fine Art Photography Gallery 317 Main Street, Edmonds, WA 98020 ph: 425-582-0803 "Take Only Pictures, Leave Only Footprints" "Walks Far" Packet Pg. 249 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Hope, Shane Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:42 AM To: Planning Work Group Cc: McConnell, Jeanie; Zulauf, JoAnne; Lambert, Jennifer; English, Robert; Building Work Group Subject: FW: City meeting on sign code options Just wanted you to know we are starting to get the word out about a public meeting (August 3, 6 pm; see below) to identify issues and options for our sign code —especially regarding A -frame type signs in the ROW downtown. I'd like at N least a couple of city staff persons to be at the meeting with me. Let Rob C. or me know if you are interested. More c as details later. E c a� Shane E as From: Hope, Shane ° Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:55 AM v c To: 'andy@clinejewelers.com' °' in Cc: Doherty, Patrick Subject: City meeting on sign code options M Hello Mr. Kline, Yn As you may know, the City has gotten various complaints about signage, esp. A -frame signs downtown in the public right of way. The City Council has asked my department to look into whether our city's sign code should be amended and, if so, how. We are sensitive to the signage needs of businesses, as well as community preferences. To kick off this effort, we are holding a public meeting August 3, 6 pm, in the Council Chambers (250 5th Ave. N.) and welcome both residents and business representatives. Please feel free to share this invitation with other DEMA members. The intent of the August 3 meeting is to identify sign issues and options. In the fall, the City expects to have a draft of any code changes for further review and input. The draft will then be refined and, as part of more public process, brought to the Planning Board for a recommendation and the City Council for a decision. The existing sign code is available on the City's webpage: http1Jwww.edmondswa.gaY/rules-and- regulations.html. Then click "Community Development Code (ECDC)", then "Title 20", then "20.60 Sign Code" Interested parties, whether or not they attend the meeting, are welcome to send comments about sign regulations to the City at: diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov. Note: We have shared this information with the ED! board, as well. Thanks for your interest, Shane Hope, AICP Development Services Director City of Edmonds 425.771.0220 x-1216 shone. ha a edmondswo. av Packet Pg. 250 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Kurt Mattingly <kurt@dragonfire.gallery> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:33 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Dragonfire Art Gallery sign regulations to the City Statment To whom it may concern: Sadly I will not be able to attend the meeting discussing the "A" boards, but wanted to express my opinion. I thinks it crucial, especial for small businesses not located right on 5tn or main to be able to display "A" boards. A huge of my not so great traffic is due to our board placement on 51h It would most definitely put us in a scary position of survival, and eventually out of business. My boards are placed in areas that do not cause a safety concern for anyone. PLEASE, I beg of you: DO NOT PASS a regulation stating NO "A" board usage in town. Kindest regards, Kurt Mattingly KurtMattingly GALLERY DIRECTOR 425-275-7670 10 facebook.com/DragonfireEdmonds N C as E c a� E Q as 0 U c H N T LO M Packet Pg. 251 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: Namascandystore@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 9:17 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: the A Board and sign issues Hello: I own Nama's Candy Store and am a 20+ year resident of Edmonds. I have been involved in many aspects of Edmonds retail including President of DEMA and member of the Chamber Board of Directors. I agree with those that think there needs to be more control over signs and A Boards in Edmonds. I do admit to being guilty of signage indiscretion at times and have some suggestions that I believe would solve most of the issues and still be w fair to all concerned. a� E A Boards: _ One A Board per business location, no more than 3' tall and 21/2 ' wide. All A Boards must be within 5 feet of the building housing the business and they must come in at closing. They cannot block any public walkway, curb or ramp. They Q cannot be placed on property planted by the city or parks dept. This would be a city wide code and include all business including Real estate. An open house sign would be placed within v 5' of the home for sale. Event promotion boards would not be allowed. a� in Signage: Two signs per Business, both attached to the business foot print not the building footprint. This pertains to buildings that LO house multiple business. Hwy 99 signs would be larger than downtown core signs. Windows are at the business owners M r discretion. These simple changes would put an end to the following: The Restaurant that puts a 5' sign in the handicap ramp at the fountain in front of Starbucks and never brings it in. The store that puts 4 A Boards up on 4 separate corners, 1 block apart, 7 days a week. He does not even own a corner business. The gift store west of the theater that puts an A Board in the corner garden on 5th at the fountain. The 3 businesses closer to 6th that bring signs down to both sides of 5th The Realtor who puts 4 A Boards at each corner of 5th at the fountain for open houses and broker events The store that has draped itself with banners and signs. The solome courses pedestrians must negotiate on may of our sidewalks all over town. The list goes on. The solutions must be all inclusive and fair to commerce. Pat McKee Packet Pg. 252 8.1.d From: David Harb [mailto:dh42674 mail.com] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 1:36 PM To: Spellman, Jana Subject: A Boards Council Members: When are you going to restrict A boards that take over the majority of the sidewalks making walking difficult. Our sidewalks are narrow and uneven and almost ever service provides and business owner feels that it's their right to put at least one sign out. Some business even have as many as three signs out. Please do something that would be community friendly and provides for safe walking in Edmonds. Besides it is doubtful that these signs generate any business. Regards, David Harb c a� E c m E a a� 0 U c co LO M n Packet Pg. 253 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: natalieshippen@comcast.net Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 1:07 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Subject: Enforcement of Edmonds sign code re temoroary signs Planning Board Members: Mr. Clugston's reply to my question about owner notification to the City when signs are placed in the street is, "No, the code does not require that the business inform the City that they are going to put out a temporary sign." My question to the Planning Board is How can the 60-day cumulative period, each year requirement be enforced when the Planning Department has no record of the signs, and third -party (complainant) information isn't accepted at a hearing or legal proceeding? The Edmonds situation is aggravated because its Code requires more monitoring. Other towns a forbid temporary signs with two exceptions. a ONE-TIME business opening period of various lengths c (none as long as 60 days) and special events periods measured by a few days. U My appeal is a good example of a problem that could be corrected quickly. Temporary signs are the c worst visual offenders, and, for practical purposes, all temporary signs in Edmonds are permanent. I respectfully suggest that the Board adopt a piece -meal approach to correcting the sign code. One LO section of the code doesn't hinge upon another. Natalie Shippen Packet Pg. 254 8.1.d Cunningham, Diane From: natalieshippen@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:52 PM To: Cunningham, Diane Cc: Spellman, Jana Subject: Revision of the Edmonds sign code To the Edmonds Planning Board: Since only God knows when and how the City council will, procedurally, exercise its will, I hereby submit some of my sign code concerns to the Planning Board. I shoot my ideas into the air, they'll fall to earth I know not where (the City Council, perhaps? in this century, maybe). PURPOSE of the sign code: To maintain Edmonds reputation as an attractive residential community by protecting it from visual blight. I think the following changes should be made to the Edmonds sign code: TEMPORARY signs shall not be permitted anywhere at any time except: 1. to announce a new business opening - for a 60 CONSECUTIVE day period in the first year of operation only, the 60 day period to begin the day the business license is issued. 2. to promote a special event - for four days prior to the event and a one -day clean-up following the event. 3. Three of the following TYPES of TEMPORARY signs may be used for the opening and the special events: a) sandwich board b. feather (banner on a tall vertical pole) c)banners d)pennants e)small placards on a stick used at intersections There shall be no "indeterminable" lengths of time for "TEMPORARY" signs. There is a stigma attached to signs and their temporary use is a privilege granted to business for a strictly limited time PERMANENT signs that shall not be permitted anywhere: Pole signs; Blinking signs and movable scrawl signs GENERAL: 1. ALL signs require require a permit; the enforcement period begins on the day the permit is issued. 2. No off -premise signs are permitted 3. The word "premise" should be re -defined. The public right-of-way is NOT a part of the premise 4. All PERMANENT signs must be approved by the ADB. Example of bad sign include but is not limited to: the WALL banners on the Wells Fargo building on 5th; Chanterelle's-west wall'; SNAP Fitness; Claires Pantry -west wall; and the NW corner of 3rd/Dayton. The worst collection of signs are on the: SW corner of Fifth/Main; N. side of Main between 3rd and Forth, and the NE corner of Milltown. WESTGATE Natalie Shippen N E E a 0 U c in LO M Packet Pg. 255 00 fD Attachment: Exhibit 5: Pictures of signs from Phil Lovell (1351 : Sign Code Amendments) Aw t r � • ra"a 5 eP , , .. � � � � a • j4 d�: a "� � FS d 9G _, _'v — ,tier.+ F•a •, ., r►- � ' . ' .` _r - : • N. - - Fly p �-YTY , �.• Y � , r i k� 4�� Y •iti.. L Sign Code Update Focus on "Pedestrian Signs" Edmonds City Council July 5, 2016 un =3 N Attachment: Exhibit 6: Draft Staff Presentation to City Council for July 5th (1351 : Sign Monument Signs IS w Packet Pg. 261 ] Planning Board Hearing Options Size Allowed How Many Option 1: No Portables (A -frames) No No Benefits of ? approach? Option 2: Pedestrian Signs as Temporary Signs (Existing Code) 6 sq. ft. r business Option 3: Pedestrian Signs as Permanent Signs with. restrictions 6 sq. ft. r storefront M rvoOO Dim X ZT _ • ram+ ,G ,G n Q �, 3 rD O rD rD 0, — • rD rt N _. rD rD rD z vo o rD ,� 3 o °-O -, o=N :3 O h rD r+ rDZ3 rD r+ rD rU Z3 _ -0 ram+ ram+ � Cl CL � � ram+ O � N--h Off+ •Ln rD N, CL 0-q O , � Orq rD O �, rD O r-r = r+ rD rD � rD — rU N —• � �o C� r+ � o 0 O D cn cn = rD r-r 0- rD pQ :3 N O C: orqC:L N �p e-r rn-r �q' m CD � rD 3 3 O M- CD n n �. O rt °� n n r� rt -• o rt w — — rD rt +'o � �' � �, o rD o � �,• � 0- � rD rD c o D o 0 rD 0 e-+ 3 0 0 UQ rD Z3• � -• V' �p ram+ n r-r CAD rD O cn w rD n 0 Q CD 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 2016 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment (20 min.) Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Debra Sharp Background/History Budget Ordinances 4014, 4019, and 4024 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council forward the 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment to Consent for Approval of Ordinance No. XXXX amending the 2016 Budget. Narrative There are a total of 9 budget amendments. There are four items that have previously been discussed by Council. They include the federal lobbyist, the fishing pier rehabilitation, the 236th St SW Walkway and the 12th and Sierra storm improvements project. Along with additional budget request, two of these amendments also correct previous budget appropriations. The fishing pier rehabilitation was budgeted in both the Parks Construction Fund (132) and the Building Maintenance Fund (016). The attached budget amendment removes the grant money and expenditures budgeted in Fund 132 and adds additional budget appropriation and grant revenue to Fund 016. The 236th St SW Walkway was included in the first quarter budget amendment. The amendment included additional expenditures offset by new revenue. The additional expenditures should have been funded by REET1 and not grant revenue. The attached amendment increases the budget appropriation for REET 1 and reduces the grant revenue in the Street Construction Fund (112). There are five new items before Council, all from the General Fund, for a total reduction in ending fund balance of $78,529. There are three requests for new equipment, one request for additional funding for the online streaming services due to the new City Council audio visual system upgrade and additional professional services funding for the City's permit tracking system. Attachments: 2nd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance 2nd Qtr 2016 Budget Amendment Packet Pg. 265 8.2.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4024 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2016 Budget; and THEREFORE, WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 4024 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2016 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take I Packet Pg. 266 8.2.a effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVE EARLING 2 Packet Pg. 267 8.2.a 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 ORDINANCE NO. 4024 AS A RESULT EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of ,2016. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Pg. 268 EXHIBIT "A": Budget Amendment Summary (July 2016) 8.2.a FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 2016 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES 2016 ENDING FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 6,601,702 39,280,321 41,011,287 4,870,736 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 538,960 278,770 279,480 538,250 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 951,820 6,660 - 958,480 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 4,680,340 28,110 800,000 3,908,450 013 MULTI MODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 56,020 - - 56,020 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 970 5,000 5,400 570 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 229,850 2,505,000 2,395,000 339,850 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 27,530 153,000 76,030 104,500 111 STREET FUND 516,350 1,760,500 1,716,120 560,730 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 242,450 8,160,017 8,173,112 229,355 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 438,050 106,008 181,380 362,678 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,900 110 - 18,010 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 131,670 82,150 149,650 64,170 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 59,430 21,390 26,880 53,940 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 16,000 5,550 3,000 18,550 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 82,780 27,530 31,500 78,810 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,174,702 1,108,000 2,100,565 182,137 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 1,978,970 1,102,000 2,750,000 330,970 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 255,550 46,900 44,950 257,500 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 38,360 280 - 38,640 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 121,770 177,260 210,370 88,660 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,286,050 1,352,240 1,575,770 1,062,520 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 151,640 630 - 152,270 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 882,510 19,880 - 902,390 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 1,510 12,010 12,500 1,020 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 682,500 682,500 - 211 LID FUND CONTROL - 14,400 14,400 - 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 101,810 14,400 - 116,210 231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND - 677,380 677,380 - 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND - 949,540 949,540 - 421 WATER 20,256,697 8,443,460 12,717,507 15,982,650 422 STORM 13,624,010 4,131,780 8,057,048 9,698,742 423 SEWER / TREATMENT PLANT 50,898,580 12,645,240 17,921,050 45,622,770 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 842,940 1,989,900 1,990,920 841,920 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 7,099,240 1,579,570 1,971,820 6,706,990 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 196,490 64,840 59,610 201,720 Totals 113,502,6511 87,432,326 106,584,769 94,350,208 00 M N v C cC C 'a 0 C N E C N E Q N i� 3 m N 7 cy C N a N E t V t4 Q Packet Pg. 269 8.2.a EXHIBIT "B": Budget Amendments by Revenue (July 2016) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 4014 12/18/2015 ORD. NO. 4019 2/19/2016 ORD. NO. 4024 May 2016 ORD. NO. July 2016 2016 Amended Budget 001 General Fund $ 39,266,670 $ $ 10,000 $ 3,651 $ 39,280,321 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 278,770 - - 278,770 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 6,660 6,660 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 28,110 28,110 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,000 - 5,000 016 Building Maintenance 1,680,000 325,000 500,000 2,505,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 153,000 - - 153,000 111 Street Fund 1,760,500 - 1,760,500 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 5,290,850 2,735,647 288,200 (154,680) 8,160,017 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 102,410 - - 3,598 106,008 118 Memorial Street Tree 110 - 110 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 82,150 82,150 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 21,390 21,390 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 5,550 5,550 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 27,530 27,530 125 Park Acq/Improvement 1,108,000 1,108,000 126 Special Capital Fund 1,102,000 11102,000 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,900 46,900 129 Special Projects Fund 280 280 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 177,260 - - 177,260 132 Parks Construction 2,037,240 500,000 15,000 (1,200,000) 1,352,240 136 Parks Trust Fund 630 - - 630 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd 19,880 19,880 138 Sister City Commission 12,010 12,010 139 Transportation Benefit District 682,500 682,500 211 Lid Fund Control 14,400 14,400 213 Lid Guaranty Fund 14,400 14,400 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 677,380 677,380 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 949,540 - 949,540 421 Water 8,429,970 13,490 8,443,460 422 Storm 4,131,780 - 4,131,780 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 12,414,120 231,120 12,645,240 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,989,900 - 1,989,900 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,579,570 1,579,570 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 64,840 - 64,840 Totals $ 84,161,300 1 $ 3,805,257 1 $ 313,200 1 $ (847,431) $ 87,432,326 r C d E C E Q d 3 m L R 7 CY C N t0 O N 00 M N V C cC C O C N E C N E Q N 3 m N 3 CY C N C N E t V 2 Q Packet Pg. 270 8.2.a EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendments by Expenditure (July 2016) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 4014 12/18/2015 ORD. NO. 4019 2/19/2016 ORD. NO. 4024 May 2016 ORD. NO. 0 July 2016 2016 Amended Budget 001 General Fund $ 39,733,780 $ 957,500 $ 237,827 $ 82,180 $ 41,011,287 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 279,480 - - - 279,480 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 800,000 800,000 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,400 - - 5,400 016 Building Maintenance 1,754,000 421,000 220,000 2,395,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 76,030 - - 76,030 111 Street Fund 1,712,370 - 3,750 1,716,120 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 5,311,460 2,728,132 288,200 (154,680) 8,173,112 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 181,380 - - 181,380 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 149,650 149,650 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,880 26,880 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 3,000 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 31,500 - - 31,500 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,523,650 484,982 91,933 - 2,100,565 126 Special Capital Fund 1,934,390 545,930 115,000 154,680 2,750,000 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 44,950 - - - 44,950 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 210,370 - - 210,370 132 Parks Construction 2,100,000 660,770 15,000 (1,200,000) 1,575,770 138 Sister City Commission 12,500 - - 12,500 139 Transportation Benefit District 682,500 682,500 211 Lid Fund Control 14,400 14,400 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 677,380 677,380 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 949,540 - - 949,540 421 Water 12,323,960 389,797 3,750 - 12,717,507 422 Storm 6,612,170 997,530 3,750 443,598 8,057,048 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 17,172,110 569,190 179,750 - 17,921,050 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,990,920 - - 1,990,920 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,955,820 16,000 1,971,820 P17 Firemen's Pension Fund 59,610 59,610 Totals $ 98,329,200 $ 7,754,831 $ 954,960 1 $ (454,222)1 $ 106,584.769 O M d v C M C L O C 0 E C N E a m L L M /may V N C E t C� M r r+ Q Packet Pg. 271 EXHIBIT "D": Budget Amendments (July 2016) 8.2.a Fund Number Change in Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expense Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 3,651 82,180 (78,529) 016 500,000 220,000 280,000 112 (154,680) (154,680) - 117 3,598 - 3,598 126 - 154,680 (154,680) 132 (1,200,000) (1,200,000) 422 443,598 (443,598) Total Change (847,431) (454,222) (393,209) r C d E C E Q d i� 3 m L �Q1 L /may V N t0 O N 00 M N V C t4 C L 0 E E Q a) IM m L CD V N a N E t V Q Packet Pg. 272 8.2.a EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Summary (July 2016) Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Pg# Description Previously Discussed by Council General Fund 0011 000 61 557 20 41 00 Professional Services 42,000 Federal Lobbyist General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 42,000 Building Maintenance 016 000 66 518 30 41 10 Interfund Services 21,000 Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Building Maintenance 016 000 66 518 30 41 00 Professional Services 61,459 Building Maintenance 016 000 66 594 19 65 00 Construction 237,541 Building Maintenance 016 000 66 594 19 65 00 Construction other fund 100,000 Building Maintenance 016 000 334 WDFW Grant Revenue 50,000 Building Maintenance 0161 000 334 RCO Grant Revenue 450,000 Building Maintenance 0161 000 66 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 280,000 Parks Construction 1321 000 64 594 76 65 00 Construction 1,300,000 Parks Construction 1321 000 64 594 76 65 91 Construction other fund 100,000 Parks Construction 132 000 334 00 000 00 Grant Revenue 1,200,000 Street Construction 112 000 68 595 33 41 91 Prof Sery other fund 80,360 236th St SW Walkway Street Construction 112 000 68 595 33 41 19 Interfund Sery other fund 22,150 Street Construction 112 000 68 595 33 65 90 Construction other fund 52,170 Street Construction 112 000 333 20 205 17 Grant Revenue 154,680 REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 41 90 Prof Sery other fund 80,360 REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 41 19 Interfund Sery other fun 22,150 REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 65 90 Construction other fund 52,170 REET 1 126 000 39 508 30 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 154,680 Storm Utility 422 200 72 531 31 41 10 Interfund Services 20,000 12th & Sierra Storm Improvements Storm Utility 422 200 72 594 31 41 00 Professional Services 25,000 Storm Utility 422 200 72 594 31 65 00 Construction 395,000 Storm Utility 422 200 72 1 5971 73 55 17 Interfund Transfer 3,598 Storm Utility 422 200 72 1 5081 30 00 1 00 jEnding Fund Balance 443,598 Municipal Arts Fund 117 200 1 397 1 73 411 1 00 linterfund Transfer 3,598 Municipal Arts Fund 117 200 64 1 5081 40 00 I 00 I Ending Fund Balance 3,598 New Items for Council General Fund 0011 000 25 514 30 48 00 Repair & Maintenance 3,980 Online Streaming Service General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 3,980 General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 35 00 Small Equipment 4,500 Police Small Equipment Recall General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 849 General Fund 001 000 369 40 000 00 Miscellaneous Revenue 3,651 General Fund 001 000 62 594 58 64 00 Equipment 27,500 Replace large format printer scanner General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 27,500 General Fund 0 62 524 10 41 00 Professional Services 2,500 Permit Receipting System General Fund 0 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 2,500 General Fund 0 62 524 20 35 00 Small Equipment 1,700 Ergonomic Work Space General Fund 140 0 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,700 r C d E C E Q d s� 3 m L N R 3 CY C N t0 0 N 00 M N v C ca C 'a L O C N E C N E Q N i� 3 m L CD V N a N E t V Q Packet Pg. 273 8.2.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (July 2016) Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: Funding for federal lobbyist/strategiest. Approved by City Council 4/5/16. Department: Community Services Fund Name: GENERAL Division: N/A Title: Federal lobbyist Preparer: Patrick Doherty Department Account Number: 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 14a Items Budget Amendment Type? Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Apr 5 2016 What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description [s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Professional services 98,900 42,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $98,900 $42,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $140,900 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001.000.39.508. 42,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and EndingCash $42,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 M r c m E c m E Q m 00 L a� 3 CY C N t0 0 N 00 M Packet Pg. 274 8.2.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (July 2016) Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: Fishing Pier Rehabilitation: This amendment will program additional budget authority and grant revenue for the increased construction costs to complete the project. Department: Public Works Fund Name: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Division: Engineering Title: Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Preparer: Henry Schroder Department Account Number: E4MB/c443 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: June 14th City Council Meeting What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budge 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016 Budget 1,580,000 0 0 0 016.000.66.518.30.41.10Inter and Services 21,000 0 0 0 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 Professional Services 61,459 0 0 0 016.000.66.594.19.65.00 Construction 0 237,541 0 0 0 016.000.66.594.19.65.00 Construction rom fund 0 100,000 0 0 0 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Construction 1,300,000 1,300,000 0 0 0 132.000.64.594.76.65.91 Construction rom and 100,000 Sub -Total $2,880,000 ($980,000) $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $1,900,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 016.000.66.508.00.00.00 280,000 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions Fund 016 WDFW 50,000 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions Fund 016 RCO 450,000 0 0 0 RCO Fishing Pier Grant 132.000.334.00.000.00 1,200,000 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $980,000) $0 $0 $0 10 Packet Pg. 275 8.2.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (July 2016) Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: Additional funds from the 2016 pavement preservation program are being programmed into the 236th St. Walkway project to fund an overlay of 236th within the project limits. Construction is expected to begin Summer, 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STREET CONSTRUCTION Division: Engineering Title: 236th St SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona) Preparer: Ryan Hague Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 14a.3 Walkways Budget Amendment Type? Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: April 26, 2016 City Council meeting - The original budget amendment used grant money to offset the additional expenditures. The budget amendment should have been coded to REET 1. See Attached. What is the nature of the expenditure? Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? One -Time Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budge 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 112.000.68.595.33.41.91 Professional Services 74,337 80,360 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.197nter and Services 21,856 22,150 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.90 Construction 497,272 52,170 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.41.90 REET I Pro Sery to Other 0 80,360 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.41.19 REET I Inter and Sery to Oth 0 22,150 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.65.90 REET I Const Pro' to Other 0 52,170 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $593,465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $593,465 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 126.000.39.508.30. 00. 00 154,680 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 112.000.333.20.205.17 154,680 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11 Packet Pg. 276 8.2.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (July 2016) Budget Amendment for: First Quarter Item Description: Additional funds from the 2016 pavement preservation program are being programmed into the 236th St. Walkway project to fund an overlay of 236th within the project limits. Construction is expected to begin Summer, 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STREET CONSTRUCTION Division: Engineering Title: 236th St SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona S Preparer: Ryan Hague Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 14a.3 Walkways Budget Amendment Type? New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description [s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Professional Services 74,337 80,360 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41. 10 Interfund Services 21,856 22,150 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 Construction 497,272 52,170 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.41.90 REST I Prof 'Sery to Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.41.19 REST I Interfund Sery to OM 0 0 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.65.90 REST I Const Proj to Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $593,465 $154,680 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $748,145 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 112.000.333.20.205.16 154,680 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and EndingCash $154,680 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 r c m E c m E Q m 00 L a� 3 CY C N t0 0 N 00 M Packet Pg. 277 8.2.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (July 2016) Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: 12th & Sierra Storm Drain Improvements project: The project design was accelerated in late 2015, so it could be built this year. This provided an opportunity to add the work to the 2016 Sewerline Replacement project and save costs since the project is in the same vicinity. This amendment programs the necessary construction funding to build the project this year. Department: Public Works Fund �J STORM Division: Engineering Title: 12th & Sierra Storm Improvements Name: Preparer: Michele (Mike) De Lilla Department Account Number: E5FE/c484 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? I Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: April 26, 2016 City Council meeting. What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 422.200.72.531.31.41.10 Inter and Services 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Professional Services 64,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.594.31.65.00 Construction 0 395,000 0 0 0 0 1% or arts 422.200.72.597.73.55.17 0 3,598 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $84,000 $443,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $527,598 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 422.200.72.508.30. 00. 00 443,598 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 117.200.64.508.40. 00. 00 3,598 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 117.200.39 7.73.411. 00 3,598 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $443,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Packet Pg. 278 8.2.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (July 2016) Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: The City Council audio visual system upgrade includes high definition (HD) video that now requires expanded services from our online streaming provider Accela to upgrade from standard definition (SD) recording and streaming to HD. This will cover the increased size of the recordings as well as the increased bandwidth to stream those higher quality recordings to the public. Net price = $331.50/month $3,978/ ear Department: Mayor's Office Fund GENERAL Division: City Clerk's Office Title: Online Streaming Service Name: Preparer: Scott Passey Department Account Number: 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 Repairs and Maintenance Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: I N/A What is the nature of the expenditure? I On -Going Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description [s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Repair & Maintenance 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 17,980 3,980 3,980 3,980 3,980 3,980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $17,980 $3,980 $3,980 $3,980 $3,980 $3,980 Total Expenses 1 $21,960 1 $21,960 1 $21,960 1 $21,960 1 $21,960 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001. 000.39.508. 00.00. 00 3,980 3,980 3,980 3,980 3,980 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other - Re and rom EO Tech 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $3,980 $3,980 $3,980 1 $3,980 1 $3,980 14 r c m E c m E Q m 00 L a� 3 CY C N t0 0 N 00 M Packet Pg. 279 8.2.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (July 2016) Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: Department patrol rifles have been equipped with optical sights. The model that we utilized were subject to a class action suit and the manufacturer (EO Tech) purchased them back. The funds were deposited into 001.000.369.40.000.00 (Judgements and Settlements). The funds need to be transferred to 001.000.41.521.22.35 (Police -Patrol -Small Equipment) so that replacements (non - budgeted) can be purchased as soon as possible. Department: Police Fund GENERAL Division: Field Services Title: Police Small Equipment Recall Name: Preparers 1ACOP Jim Lawless Department Account Number: 001.000.421.521.22 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: N/A What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description [s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Small Equipment 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 4,500 4,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $4,500 $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $9,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001. 000.39.508. 00.00. 00 849 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other - Re and rom EO Tech 001. 000.369.40. 000. 00 3,651 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and EndingCash $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 15 r c m E c m E Q m 00 L a� 3 CY C N t0 0 N 00 M Packet Pg. 280 8.2.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (July 2016) Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: Replace old multifunction large format printer/scanner. The old device is beyond its service life and has become unreliable and needs to be replaced. A new multi- function printer/scanner is actually significantly faster than the old one; the technology has changed significantly in the 9 years since the old one was purchased. The new one provides printing/scanning/format conversion in one unit which will also save time and operating expense. This is a critical operating device. Department: Development Services Fund GENERAL Division: Administration Title: Replace old large format printer/scanner. Name: Preparer: Shane Hope Department Account Number: 62 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Description [s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 DSAdmin Captial 001. 000. 62.594.58.64. 00 0 27,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $27,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $27,500 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001.000.39.508. 27,500 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and EndingCash $27,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 16 r c m E c m E Q m 00 L a� 3 (Y C N t0 0 N 00 M Packet Pg. 281 8.2.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (July 2016) Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: Due to the impending discontinuation of the City's cashiering system (CLASS), the City's permit tracking system needs to be augmented to enable multiple permits to be paid and receipted simultaneously. Without this capability, large amounts of customer and staff time will be consumed when issuing multiple permits -- which is a common occurrence. This is a one-time programming cost and should be completed as soon as possible. Department: Development Services Fund GENERAL Division: Administration Title: Add "shopping cart" to permit system receipting. Name: Preparer: Shane Hope Department Account Number: 62 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description [s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 DSAdmin Prof Svc 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 0 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $2,500 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 001.000.39.508 2,500 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and EndingCash $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 17 r c m E c m E Q m 00 L a� 3 CY C N t0 0 N 00 M Packet Pg. 282 8.2.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (July 2016) Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: New desk system for Permit Technician to stand or sit at. Provide needed desk depth for working on projects and preparing plans for review. Add space to accommodate new technology which does not fit on existing 15 + year old desk. Create an ergonomic work space. Department: Development Services Fund Name: GENERAL Division: Building Department Title: Replace desk with an ergonomic work space Preparer: Kristin Johns Department Account Number: 62 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description [s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Build Small Equip 001.000.62.524.20.35.00 0 1,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $1,700 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 1,700 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and EndingCash $1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 r c m E c m E Q m 00 L a� 3 CY C N t0 0 N 00 M Packet Pg. 283 8.2.b 2ndQuarter Budget Amendment 'f1C. 1009V ➢ Review 2"d Quarter Budget Amendment Decision Packages ➢ Q&A Packet Pg. 284 8.2.b 2ndQuarter Budget Amendment 'Ile. 1 009V ➢ 9 Decision Packages ➢ ($847,43 1) reduction in revenues ➢ ($494,402) reduction in expenditures for Items Previously Discussed by Council ➢ $40,180 are New Items for Council to Consider expenditures Packet Pg. 285 'Ile. 1 009V 8.2.b Page 9- Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: Funding for federal lobbyist/strategiest. Approved by City Council 4/5/16. Department: Community Services Fund Name: GINERAI. DiAsion: N/A Title: Federal lobbyist Preparer: Patrick Doherty Department Account Number: 00 1.000.61.557.20.4 1.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 4a Items Budget Amendment Type? Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Apr 5 2016 What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Fill In Item Description [s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Professional services 98,900 42,000 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $98,900 $42,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses $140,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001.000.39.508. 42,000 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $42,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 c m E c m E a m a� 00 to 0 N L +ry+ V c N c d E t U M Q Packet P9. 286 'Ile. 1 009V 8.2.b Pa,e 10 Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter v Item Description: Fishing Pier Rehabilitation: This amendment will program additional budget authority and grant revenue for the increased construction costs to complete the project. Department: Public Works Fund Name: BUILDING MAINTENANCE Division: Engineering Title: Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Preparer: Henry Schroder Department Account Number: E4MB/c443 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion Previously Discussed By Council June 14th City Council Meeting What is the nature of the expenditure? Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? One -Time Capital Fill In Item Descri Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2016 Budget 1,580,000 0 0 0 0 016.000.66.518.30.41. 10 Interfund Services 21,000 0 0 0 0 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 Professional Services 61,459 0 0 0 0 016.000.66.594.19.65.00 Construction 0 237,541 0 0 0 0 016.000.66.594.19.65.00 Construction om fund 0 100,000 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Construction 1,300,000 1,300,000 0 0 0 0 132.000.64.594.76.65.91 Construction firomfiind 100,000 Sub -Total $2,880,000 $980,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total apenses $1,900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 016.000.66.508.00.00.00 280,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions Fund 016 WDFW 50,000 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions Fund 016RCO 450,000 0 0 0 0 RCO Fishing Pier Grant 132.000.334.00.000.00 1,200,000 01 0 1 01 0 Total Rewnue and Ending Cash $980,000 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 d 3 m L d M 7 C'J C N co 0 N 00 M c CD E C d E a m m 0 N L C'l c N c a) E M U M r Q Packet Pg. 287 "Ile. l 009V 8.2.b Page 11 Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: Additional funds from the 2016 pavement preservation program are being programmed into the 236th St. Walkway project to fund an overlay of 236th within the project limits. Construction is expected to begin Summer, 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STREET CONSTRUCTION Division: Engineering Title: 236th St SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona) Preparer: Ryan Hague Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 4a.3 Walkways Budget Amendment Type? If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion Previously Discussed By Council April 26, 2016 City Council meeting -The original budget amendment used grant money to offset the additional expenditures. The budget amendment shouldhaw been coded to REEr 1. See Attached What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Capital Fill In Item Descri ion[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 112.000.68.595.33.41.91 Professional Services 74,337 80,360 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.19 Interfund Services 21,856 22,150 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.90 Construction 497,272 52,170 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.41.90 REST I Pro Sery to Other 0 80,360 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.41.19 REST I Inter nd Sery to Ott, 0 22,150 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.65.90 REST I Const Pro'to Other 0 52,170 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $593,465 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 Total EXpenses 1 $593,465 SO $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 126.000.39.508.30.00.00 154,680 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 112.000.333.20.205.17 154,680 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Packet Pg. 288 'Ile. 1 009V First Quarter Decision Package as support B.Z.b Page 12 Budget Amendment for: First Quarter Item Description: Additional funds from the 2016 pavement preservation program are being programmed into the 236th St. Walkway project to fund an overlay of 236th within the project limits. Construction is expected to begin Summer, 2016. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STREET CONSTRUCTION Division: Engineering Title: 236th St SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Nladrona Scho Preparer: Ryan Hague Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 4a.3 Walkways Budget Amendment Type? If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion What is the nature of the expenditure? New Item For Council To Consider One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Capital Fill In Item Description Is] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Professional Services 74,337 80,360 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 Interfund Services 21,856 22,150 0 0 0 0 112.000.68.595.33.65.00 Construction 497,272 1 52,170 1 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total 1 $593,465 r $154,680 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Total Expenses $748,145 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 New Revenue 112.000.333.20.205.16 154,680 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $154,680 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 m L m M 3 U c N 0 N Do v Cl) c Cl) E c m E a 00 to 0 N L +ry+ V c N c a) E t 5 M Q Packet Pg. 289 'Ile. 1 009V 8.2.b Page Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: 12th & Sierra Storm Drain Improvements project: The project design was accelerated in late 2015, so it could be built this year. This provided an opportunity to add the work to the 2016 Sewerline Replacement project and save costs since the project is in the same vicinity. This amendment programs the necessary construction funding to build the project this year. Department: Public Works Fund STORM Division: Engineering Title: 12th & Sierra Storm Improvements Name: Preparer: Michele (Mike) De Lilla Department Account Number: JE5FUc484 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: I N/A Budget Amendment Type? If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? Previously Dis cus s ed By Council April 26, 2016 City Council meeting. One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Capital FIllInItem Des cri ion[sI Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 422.200.72.531.31.41.10 Interfund Services 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Professional Services 64,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 422.200.72.594.31.65.00 Construction 0 1 395,000 1 0 0 0 1 0 1% or arts 422.200.72.597.73.55.17 0 1 3,598 1 0 0 0 1 0 Sub -Total $84,000 r $443,598 1 $0 1 $0 $0 1 $0 Total Fkpenses 1 $527,598 1 $0 I $0 $0 1 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 422.200.72.508.30.00.00 443,598 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 117.200.64.508.40.00.00 3,598 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 117.200.397.73.411.00 3,598 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $443,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 d a� 3 m L m M 3 U c N 0 N ao v Cl) c CD E c d E a m to 0 N I- CY c N c a) E t v M Q Packet Pg. 290 'Ile. 1 009V 8.2.b Page Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: The City Council audio visual system upgrade includes high definition (HD) video that now requires expanded services from our online streaming provider Accela to upgrade from standard definition (SD) recording and streaming to HD. This will cover the increased size of the recordings as well as the increased bandwidth to stream those higher quality recordings to the public. Net price = $331.50/month ($3,978/year) Department: Mayor's Office Fund Division: City Clerk's Office Title: Online Streaming Service Name: Preparer: Scott Passey Department Account Number: 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 Repairs and Maintenance Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: N/A What is the nature of the expenditure? On -Going Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Fill InItem Des cri ion[sI Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Repair & Maintenance 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 17,980 3,980 3,980 3,980 3,980 3,980 Sub -Total $17,980 $3,980 $3,980 $3,980 $3,980 $3,980 Total Eipenses $21,960 1 $21,960 1 $21,960 1 $21,960 1 $21,960 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 3,980 3,980 3,980 3,980 3,980 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $3,980 $3,980 $3,980 $3,980 $3,980 as 3 m L m M 3 c N 0 N ao v Cl) c m E c m E a m a� 00 to 0 N CY c N c a) E t U M Q Packet Pg. 291 'Ile. 1 009V 8.2.b Page Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: Department patrol rifles have been equipped with optical sights. The model that we utilized were subject to a class action suit and the manufacturer (EO Tech) purchased them back. The funds were deposited into 001.000.369.40.000.00 (Judgements and Settlements). The funds need to be transferred to 001.000.41.521.22.35 (Police -Patrol -Small Equipment) so that replacements (non - budgeted) can be purchased as soon as possible. Department: Police Fund GENERAL Division: Field Services Title: Police Small Equipment Recall Name: Preparer: ACOP Jim Lawless Department Account Number: 001.000.421.521.22 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: N/A What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Small Equipment 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 4,500 4,500 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $4,500 $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $9,000 1 $0 I $0 1 $0 $0 Revenue and Encling Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 849 0 0 0 0 Other - Refund from EO Tech 001.000.369.40.000.00 3,651 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Encling Cash $4,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 r M a� m L d ca CJ c N co 0 N 0 V M .r c m E c a� E Q m a� m m r 0 N L U N c w E M U r Q Packet Pg. 292 '11C. 1009V 8.2.b Page Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter��M Item Description: Replace old multifunction large format printer/scanner. The old device is beyond its service life and has become unreliable and needs to be replaced. A new multi- function printer/scanner is actually significantly faster than the old one; the technology has changed significantly in the 9 years since the old one was purchased. The new one provides printing/scanning/format conversion in one unit which will also save time and operating expense. This is a critical operating device. Department: Development Services Fund GINERAI. Division: Administration Title: Replace old large format printer/scanner. Name: Preparer: Shane Hope Department Account Number: 62 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Capital Fill InItem DescrI ion[s] Baseline Bu =et 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 DSAdmin Ca tial 001.000.62.594.58.64.00 0 27,500 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $27,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total &penses 1 $27,500 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I$0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001.000.39.508. 27,500 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $27,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 as a� m `m M 3 U c N co 0 N 00 v Cl) c m E c m E a m a� 00 to 0 N L +ry+ V c N c a) E t U z Q in Packet Pg. 293 '11C. 1009V 8.2.b Pag Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: Due to the impending discontinuation of the City's cashiering system (CLASS), the City's permit tracking system needs to be augmented to enable multiple permits to be paid and receipted simultaneously. Without this capability, large amounts of customer and staff time will be consumed when issuing multiple permits -- which is a common occurrence. This is a one-time programming cost and should be completed as soon as possible. Department: Development Services Fund Division: Administration Title: Add "shopping cart" to permit system receipting. Name: Preparer: Shane Hope Department Account Number: 62 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? New Item For Council To Consider One -Time Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 DSAdmin Pro Svc 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 0 2,500 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Ekpenses 1 $2,500 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001.000.39.508 2,500 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 a 3 m L m M 3 0 c N 0 N ao v Cl) c m E c m E a m a� 00 to 0 N CJ c N c m E t 0 M Q 11 Packet Pg. 294 'Ile. 1 009V Budget Amendment for: Second Quarter Item Description: New desk system for Permit Technician to stand or sit at. Provide needed desk depth for working on projects and preparing plans for review. Add space to accommodate new technology which does not fit on existing 15 + year old desk. Create an ergonomic work space. Department: Development Services Fund Name: GINII2AL Division: Building Department Title: Replace desk with an ergonomic work space Preparer: Kristin Johns Department Account Number: 62 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Fi11InItem Descri ion[sl Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Build Small E ui 001.000.62.524.20.35.00 0 1,700 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total > nses $1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 1,700 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 d 3 m L m M 3 U c N 0 N ao v Cl) c Cl) E c m E a m a� 00 to 0 N L Cl c N a a) E t U M Q Packet Pg. 295 rnc. 1$y" Exhibit D (Changein Fund Balance) 8.2.b Fund Number Change in Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expense Change in End Fund Balanc, 001 - 3,651 82,180 (78,5 016 - 500,000 220,000 280,0 112 - (154,680) (154,680) 117 - 3,598 - 3,5 126 - - 154,680 (154,6 132 - (1,200,000) (1,200,000) 422 - - 443,598 (443,5 Total Change - (847,431) (454,222) (393,2 N a) 7 m L d M M a c N tD r 0 N CO M r a� E c a� E Q tM M m r 0 N L /r V r- N C N E M V f� r Q Packet Pg. 296 8.2.b Summary, Recommendation & Questions? Summary of the 2na Quarter Budget Amendment ✓ Revenues Decreased $847,431 ✓ Expenditures Decreased $454,222 ✓ Ending Fund Balance Decreased ($393,209) ✓ Council Questions or Comments Council Action: Move to Consent on July 12, 2016 for Approval 14 Packet Pg. 297 -417c. 1S9\Y Exhibit A FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 2016 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES 2016 ENDING FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 6,601,702 39,276,670 40,929,107 4,949,265 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 538,960 278,770 279,480 538,250 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 951,820 6,660 - 958,480 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 4,680,340 28,110 800,000 3,908,450 013 M U LTI MODAL TRANSPORTATI ON FD. 56,020 - - 56,020 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GI FT FUND 970 5,000 5,400 570 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 229,850 2,005,000 2,175,000 59,850 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 27,530 153,000 76,030 104,500 111 STREET FUND 516,350 1,760,500 1,716,120 560,730 112 COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE 242,450 8,314,697 8,327,792 229,355 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 438,050 102,410 181,380 359,080 118 MEMORIAL STREETTREE 17,900 110 - 18,010 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 131,670 82,150 149,650 64,170 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 59,430 21,390 26,880 53,940 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 16,000 5,550 3,000 18,550 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 82,780 27,530 31,500 78,810 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,174,702 1,108,000 2,100,565 182,137 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 1,978,970 1,102,000 2,595,320 485,650 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 255,550 46,900 44,950 257,500 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 38,360 280 - 38,640 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 121,770 177,260 210,370 88,660 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,286,050 2,552,240 2,775,770 1,062,520 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 151,640 630 - 152,270 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 882,510 19,880 - 902,390 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 1,510 12,010 12,500 1,020 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 682,500 682,500 - 211 LID FUND CONTROL - 14,400 14,400 - 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 101,810 14,400 - 116,210 231 2012 LTGO DEBTSERVICE FUND - 677,380 677,380 - 232 2014 DEBTSERVICE FUND - 949,540 949,540 - 421 WATER 20,256,697 8,443,460 12,717,507 15,982,650 422 STORM 13,624,010 4,131,780 7,613,450 10,142,340 423 SEWER/TREATMENT PLANT 50,898,580 12,645,240 17,921,050 45,622,770 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 842,940 1,989,900 1,990,920 841,920 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 7,099,240 1,579,570 1,971,820 6,706,990 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 196,490 64,840 59,610 201,7 Totals 113,502,651 88,279,757 107,038,991 94,743, F 8.2.b 'acket Pg. 298 rnc. 1 Sy" Exhibit B (Revenues) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 4014 12/18/2015 ORD. NO. 4019 2/19/2016 ORD. NO. April2016 2016 Amended Budget 001 General Fund $ 39,266,670 $ $ 10,000 $ 39,276,670 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 278,770 - 278,770 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 6,660 6,660 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 28,110 28,110 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,000 5,000 016 Building Maintenance 1,680,000 325,000 2,005,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 153,000 - 153,000 111 Street Fund 1,760,500 - - 1,760,500 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 5,290,850 2,735,647 288,200 8,314,697 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 102,410 - - 102,410 118 Memorial Street Tree 110 - 110 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 82,150 - 82,150 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 21,390 - - 21,390 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 5,550 - - 5,550 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 27,530 - - 27,530 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,108,000 - - 1,108,000 126 Special Capital Fund 1,102,000 - - 1,102,000 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,900 - - 46,900 129 Special Projects Fund 280 - - 280 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 177,260 - - 177,260 132 Parks Construction 2,037,240 500,000 15,000 2,552,240 136 Parks Trust Fund 630 - - 630 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd 19,880 - - 19,880 138 Sister City Commission 12,010 - - 12,010 139 Transportation Benefit District 682,500 - - 682,500 211 Lid Fund Control 14,400 - - 14,400 213 Lid Guaranty Fund 14,400 - - 14,400 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 677,380 - - 677,380 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 949,540 - - 949,540 421 Water 8,429,970 13,490 - 8,443,460 422 Storm 4,131,780 - - 4,131,780 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 12,414,120 231,120 - 12,645,240 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,989,900 - - 1,989,900 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,579,570 - 1,579,570 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 64,840 - - 64,840 Totals $ 84,161,300 1 $ 3,805,257 1 $ 313,200 $ 88,279.757 8.2.b Packet Pg. 299 rnC. 1 Sy" Exhibit C (Expenditures) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 4014 12/18/2015 ORD. NO. 4019 2/19/2016 ORD. NO. 0 April2016 2016 Amended Budget 001 General Fund $ 39,733,780 $ 957,500 $ 237,827 $ 40,929,107 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 279,480 - - 279,480 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 800,000 - 800,000 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,400 - - 5,400 016 Building Maintenance 1,754,000 421,000 - 2,175,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 76,030 - - 76,030 111 Street Fund 1,712,370 - 3,750 1,716,120 112 Combined Street Const/Improve S,311,460 2,728,132 288,200 8,327,792 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 181,380 - - 181,380 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 149,650 - - 149,650 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,880 - - 26,880 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 - - 3,000 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 31,500 - - 31,500 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,523,650 484,982 91,933 2,100,565 126 Special Capital Fund 1,934,390 545,930 115,000 2,595,320 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 44,950 - - 44,950 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 210,370 - - 210,370 132 Parks Construction 2,100,000 660,770 15,000 2,775,770 138 Sister City Commission 12,500 - - 12,500 139 Transportation Benefit District 682,500 - - 682,500 211 Lid Fund Control 14,400 - - 14,400 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 677,380 - - 677,380 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 949,540 - - 949,540 421 Water 12,323,960 389,797 3,750 12,717,507 422 Storm 6,612,170 997,530 3,750 7,613,450 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 17,172,110 569,190 179,750 17,921,050 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,990,920 - - 1,990,920 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,955,820 16,000 1,971,820 617 Firemen'S Pension Fund 59,610 - 1 5JEIQ- Tota I s $ 98,329,200 $ 7,754,831 1 $ 954,960 1 $ 107,03 Pac 8.2.b ;ket Pg. 300 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/5/2016 HR Director position (10 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Human Resources Preparer: MaryAnn Hardie Background/History Carrie Hite has been serving as the Reporting Director for the HR department since Fall 2011. Mary Ann Hardie, the HR Manager, has been managing the department since Fall 2011. The work duties for the HR Manager position has needed to evolve and continue be enriched given the nature of the organization's HR needs and strategic work items. Given the scope of projects in the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services department, authorization of this position will allow Ms. Hite to continue to provide the level of excellent services for the organization's growing parks, recreation and cultural services needs and to have a dedicated HR Director to provide the continued high level of service needed in the HR department. For this reason, it is recommended that the HR Director position be authorized in the budget at the same director level salary range (NR 20) as the other director positions, with the full scope of the director level duties. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that this item be placed on the consent calendar for approval at the 7/12/16 Council meeting. Narrative The Mayor is recommending the creation of a new director position in the Human Resources department. There has been an increase in staffing levels, additional state and federal regulations, additional HR programs (safety, wellness, light duty program, SAW program, ergonomic assessments, etc.), organizational training and development needs (supervisory training program, workplace violence training, etc.) labor relations needs (labor management conference committees, Health Benefits Committee, PPACA education and regulations) and the cyclical negotiations processes. The scope of work for this position is extensive and will involve oversight of the department. Attachments: HR Director 2016 Packet Pg. 301 8.3.a City of EDMONDS Washington HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR Department: Human Resources Pay Grade: NR 20 Bargaining Unit: Non -Represented FLSA Status: Exempt Revised Date: June 2016 Reports To: Mayor POSITION PURPOSE: Under administrative direction, plans, organizes, control and directs the Human Resources functions and programs of the City; provide internal consulting assistance to the City's management and supervisory staff in a variety of Human Resources areas; supervise and evaluate the performance of assigned personnel. Directors are responsible for the operations of the departments and may delegate signing authority except as limited by the provisions of Edmonds City Code or state or federal law. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties. • Plans, organizes, controls and directs the Human Resources functions and programs of the City including recruitment/selection, compensation/classification, training/development, labor relations, safety, personnel records, policy development, general management assistance and supervision of the Human Resources office. • Plans, organizes, coordinates and administers employee development and training programs including performance evaluation, educational assistance and in-service training; coordinate a variety of employee recognition programs; assist and counsel employees with confidential matters requiring internal or external resources; provide general conflict resolution assistance in employee related disputes. • Provides internal consulting assistance to the City's management and supervisory staff in a variety of areas including staffing and organization, employee development, disciplinary problems, and other special employment needs. • Plans, organizes and coordinates the City's recruitment and selection processes to assure compliance with legal requirements, human resources needs, and budgetary authority; provides staff assistance and guidance to the hiring authority in the selection of new employees and promotions; provides new employee orientations, exit interviews and payroll/benefit processing; • Coordinates the City's civil service program of recruitment, selection, classification and discipline; provide advice on selection techniques and procedures; advise Police management as needed and serve as Secretary & Chief Examiner to the commission. • Attends, conducts and participates in a variety of committee meetings; coordinates and participates on various labor-management committees, performs special projects involving research and report writing. Human Resources Director Packet Pg. 302 8.3.a JOB DESCRIPTION Human Resources Director • Supervises, coaches, trains, motivates and evaluates the performance of assigned staff; interview and selects employees and recommends transfers, reassignments, terminations and disciplinary actions; plans, coordinates and arranges for appropriate training of subordinates. • Manages the workflow and prioritization of projects and measures the performance of the department and all related staff and takes appropriate corrective action when necessary. • Administers the City's classification and compensation programs and systems including maintaining job descriptions, position control, salary and benefit administration, and policy development and compliance; conducts research on salary and benefit issues with outside agencies; analyze related cost areas and recommend changes to compensation and benefit programs as appropriate. • Prepares and conducts labor negotiations as directed by the Mayor and may serve as Chief Negotiator with a variety of organized bargaining units, including: public safety, public works and office technical employees; administers the labor agreement during the terms of the contract, and assists the management staff with grievances and related employee concerns. • Performs employee investigations and resulting investigatory reports; provides recommendation on follow up and/or corrective action based on investigatory findings. • Develops and recommends new or modified policies to address human resource needs within the City; direct and interpret the application of established personnel policies; develops employee communications to disseminate policy information. • Develops and prepares the annual preliminary budget for the Human Resources department; analyzes and reviews budgetary and financial data; monitors and authorizes expenditures in accordance with established limitations; reviews and approves reports, purchases, and payments according to established policies and practices and make recommendations and forecast for future funds needed for staffing, equipment, materials and supplies • Serves as primary staff liaison to the Disability Board and oversees the staff work on the Disability Board; serves as staff appointed representative as needed to the City MEBT Committee and the City-wide Safety Committee. • Directs the preparation and maintenance of a variety of narrative and statistical reports, records and files related to assigned activities and personnel; prepares information and materials for presentations on human resource issues to the City Council; prepares a variety of annual reports for the State and federal government. • Oversees and manages the City's worker's compensation and health/wellness programs, review programs for compliance with state and federal regulations. • Communicates with other administrators, personnel and outside organizations to coordinate activities and programs, resolve issues and conflicts and exchanges information. • Oversees records retention and records management for the department under Washington State Record retention rules including responding to and disseminating information appropriately for public records requests. • Responsible for determining needs for and maintenance of information for the City's Human Resources website. • Performs long-range planning activities including organizational planning and development, and strategic planning as needed. • Performs related duties as assigned. Human Resources Director Packet Pg. 303 8.3.a JOB DESCRIPTION Human Resources Director Required Knowledge of: • Employment and labor related law, city ordinances, state & federal legislation and industry best practices. • Governmental HRIS or information systems programs (Eden) for HR reporting. • Operations, services and activities of comprehensive Human Resources program. • Principles and practices of human resources administration and program development (HRD and HRM), including those specific to the public sector. • Job analysis, classification and evaluation techniques and practices. • Basic payroll processing. • Investigatory techniques. • Principles and methods of job analysis/evaluation and salary administration. • Structure, organization and inter -relationships of city departments, agencies and related governmental agencies and offices affecting assigned functions. • Employee relations, labor and contract negotiations and administering bargaining agreements. • Federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations related to assigned activities and programs including employment law and hiring practices. • Effective oral and written communication principles and practices to include public relations and public speaking. • Program/project management techniques and principles. • Research methods and report preparation and presentation. • Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications such as: word processing, spreadsheets, and statistical databases. • English usage, spelling, grammar and punctuation. • Principles of business letter writing. • Principles and practices of governmental budget preparation and administration. • Supervisory and training principles, best management practices, methods and techniques. Required Skill in: • Planning, organizing and directing a variety of assigned programs, projects and activities related to the diverse activities of the Human Resources Department. • Directing assigned human resource programs in a public -sector setting. • Interpreting, applying and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve and explain them. • Keeping updated on legislation changes and state and federal laws related to and affecting human resources policies and best practices. • Performing professional -level work in the recruitment, screening, hiring, position classification and job evaluation. • Providing consultation, guidance and assistance regarding human resources and risk management policies and procedures, rules and regulations to administration, elected officials, department heads and supervisors, employees and the general public. • Analyzing complex problems, conducting comprehensive research, identifying alternative solutions, projecting consequences of proposed actions and making recommendations for resolution and implementation. • Performing investigations and providing investigatory reports. • Internal risk management and minimizing risk exposure. • Responding to inquiries or complaints from customers, regulatory agencies, or members of the general public. Human Resources Director Packet Pg. 304 8.3.a JOB DESCRIPTION Human Resources Director • Labor relations and contract negotiations in the public sector including grievance administration and binding arbitration. • MS Office Suite including: MS Excel, Access, Word, PowerPoint, Outlook, Publisher, Sharepoint, etc. • Algebra for mathematical computations regarding compensation and benefits information. • Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work and in compiling and preparing spreadsheets. • Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside agencies, community groups and the general public. • Interpreting and administering policies and procedures sufficient to administer, discuss, resolve and explain them. • Industrial health and safety program administration. • Maintaining confidentiality and communicating with tact and diplomacy. • Applying program/project management techniques and principles. • Preparing comprehensive narrative and statistical reports. • Developing and monitoring departmental and program/project operating budgets, costs and schedules. • Communicating effectively verbally and in writing, including public relations and public speaking. • Supervising, leading, and delegating tasks and workload assignments. • Working under deadlines, pressure and meeting schedules and timelines. • Working independently with little direction. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: Bachelor's Degree in Human Resources, Public Administration, Employment Law, Business Administration or related field and seven years of increasingly responsible human resource experience that includes direct responsibility for managing or supervising operations, programs and/or services in one or more human resource functional areas. Four years of staff supervisory, management and budgetary responsibility for a department or major division/functional area within a department; preferably in a public sector environment; OR an equivalent combination of education, training and experience to demonstrate the ability to perform the duties of the position. SHRM-SCP or other HR certifications such as CEBS, CMS, CLRP or CCP preferred. Required Licenses or Certifications: Valid State of Washington Driver's License. Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check. Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) preferred. WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Office environment. • Constant interruptions. Physical Abilities • Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone. • Operating a computer keyboard and other office equipment. • Reading and understanding a variety of materials. Human Resources Director Packet Pg. 305 8.3.a JOB DESCRIPTION Human Resources Director • Sitting or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time. • Bending at the waist, reaching above shoulder or horizontally or otherwise positioning oneself to accomplish tasks. • Lifting and/or carrying or otherwise moving or transporting up to 30 lbs. (occasionally). Hazards: • Contact with angry, dissatisfied and/or distressed employees and/or customers. Incumbent Signature: Department Head: Date: Date: Human Resources Director Packet Pg. 306