2016-09-06 City Council - Full Agenda-17461.
2.
3.
4.
5
6
7
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
SEPTEMBER 6, 2016, 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2016
2. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2016
3. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Diane M. Lobaugh (amount undetermined)
and from Jackie L. Studioso ($240.00)
4. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
5. July 2016 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report
6. Approval of Updated Interagency Agreement with Western Washington University for the
Sustainable Cities Partnership
7. Authorization for Mayor to sign the Resolution for the 2017-2022 Six -Year Transportation
Improvement Program
PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. Presentation on 2016 Scarecrow Festival - Edmonds Museum (10 min.)
2. Presentation on Homelessness by City of Lynnwood Council President M. Christopher Boyer (15
min.)
3. June 2016 Quarterly Financial Report (10 min.)
AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
JOINT DISCUSSION - BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1. Joint Discussion with the Edmonds Planning Board (60 min.)
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. Rejection of Bids for the Edmonds Veteran's Plaza Project (10 min.)
2. Settlement Agreement for ROW Acquisition related to the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
Project (10 min.)
9. STUDY ITEMS
1. Stormwater Management Code Update, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter
18.30 (20 min.)
10. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Edmonds City Council Agenda
September 6, 2016
Page 1
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(1)
14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
September 6, 2016
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of August 23, 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:
Cm082316
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
August 23, 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
E. Yamane, Police Officer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Scott James, Finance Director
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA M
N
00
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, 0
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED t�
UNANIMOUSLY.
d
4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS z
c�
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER Q
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2016
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2016
3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ANNE JOHNSON
($500,000.00), AND FRONTIER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT DIRECT DEPOSIT, CHECKS AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 4
4.1.a
5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS
1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PRESENTATION
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty provided background on the
Economic Development Commission (EDC), explaining from June 2009 to December 2015 there was a
17-member EDC. The code provisions that enabled the EDC provided for it to sunset at the end of 2015.
In February 2016 the City Council created a new 9-member EDC and the first meeting was held in April.
Since its inception, the EDC has met monthly to identify key priorities and establish its short and long
term work program.
Jamie Reece, Chair, EDC, explained the new EDC is starting over with a blank slate. The EDC is
comprised of nine diverse members with respect to age, occupational backgrounds and neighborhoods.
He thanked the commissioners for their dedication and a passion for building consensus and creative
ideas. He also thanked the liaisons from the Council, Planning Board, Port and Chamber who provide
valuable contributions and a greater perspective on the economy and the City's goals. He described:
• EDC's duties and responsibilities:
o Explore and recommend strategies, programs or activities
o Generate economic development
o Increase economic activity, jobs and municipal revenue
• Process and methodology
o Leverage Resources:
0
■ Strategic Action Plan (SAP) v
■ Comprehensive Plan c
■ Reports of Edmonds Mayor, Council, Staff & Boards/Commissions >
■ Work & Reports of Prior Commission a
o Collaborate: Q
■ Council & Mayor
- EDC is seeking direction to align goals 000
■ City Staff
■ Other Boards & Commissions
■ Citizens & Citizen Groups N
■ Monthly Meetings - Entire Commission c
■ Interim Ad Hoc Sub -Committee Meetings v
Short term focus
o High priority
■ Hwy 99 subarea planning z
■ Civic Field planning and development (alignment with year round Farmers and Art
Market)
a
■ Parking Strategies and Policies
o Standby
■ Five Corners Planning
■ Attract boutique hotel to downtown
■ Recruit mid or large sized businesses
Long term focus
o High priority
■ Identify opportunities for redevelopment
■ Explore and support Harbor Square planning
■ Ground floor retail requirements
o Standby
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 2
Packet Pg. 5
4.1.a
■ Community visit and branding, sense of place
■ Alignment of arts and economic development
■ City code related to mixed use and commercial development
■ Growth Management goals
Subgroups
o Civic Field
o Parking
o Highway 99
Next steps
o Collaboration
■ Discussion with community groups, commissions, citizens, businesses, etc.
■ Presentations at our meetings
■ Encourage public attendance & feedback
o Discussion, deliberation and decisions
■ Review, discuss and evaluate work from subgroups
■ Make recommendations based on consensus
o Reporting
■ Written recommendations to Council & Mayor's Office
■ Presentations to Council and others
Council President Johnson commented Chair Reece brings the history of the former EDC to the new
EDC. Observing that one of the the EDC's short term priorities is Civic Field, she announced the second
open house tomorrow from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Library plaza room. Chair Reece recognized
Commissioners Darrol Haug and Stephen Clifton and former Commissioner Bruce Witenberg in the
audience.
Councilmember Tibbott liked that the priorities had been divided into short term, long term and standby. a
He asked how the EDC evaluated its effectiveness in reaching objectives, whether there were any
Q
measures/metrics for measuring how goals are attained. Chair Reece answered measuring achievement of
goals was a high priority but it is often difficult to identify direct impacts. As the EDC identifies its goals, 00
it also seeks to identify metrics to measure effectiveness as well as timeliness. Councilmember Tibbott
said part of measuring effectiveness is if a priority is not achieved, asking why it was not achieved and cfl
what improvements could be made. In his experience, the EDC is comprised of go-getters, creative people N
with a variety of skill sets. He looked forward to what the EDC comes up with in the coming year. Chair c
Reece thanked Councilmember Tibbott for his service as the Council liaison. E
c.�
Councilmember Buckshnis said one of the metrics is the SAP, noting some the short and long term
focuses do not jibe with the SAP. She referred to the survey which provides additional information and z
asked if the EDC planned to integrate the SAP and the survey in its priorities. Chair Reece answered yes,
noting the SAP and Comprehensive Plan were available to the EDC as they were creating priorities. A Q
number of the SAP items are longer term; one of the EDC's goals is to identify things that are not
necessarily easy but demonstrable in the first 6-12 months. The SAP and Comprehensive Plan will have
greater influence on the long term goals. There is a great deal of information from the survey which the
EDC will consider in the coming months. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested integrating the SAP and
survey; the SAP is a living document and the survey may/may not identify new issues. She asked whether
the EDC's ad hoc subcommittees were open to the public. Chair Reece answered no, they are comprised
of 3-4 members so there is not a quorum.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed her appreciation for the EDC's work. She noted ideas often
come to the Council and while they are great ideas, they have not been vetted by the public. She
suggested the EDC consider how to better include the public in their process, commenting if the public
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 3
Packet Pg. 6
4.1.a
had more buyoff on the issues the EDC is pursuing, things may move more smoothly through the process.
For example, writing articles so the public is aware of what the EDC is doing. Chair Reece referred to his
entrepreneurial and marketing background, expressing his interest in having more public involvement in
the EDC. EDC members are a reasonable representation of the Edmonds demographic but not
representative of all.
2. EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUNDATION PRESENTATION ON YOUTH
HOMELESSNESS
Deborah Anderson, Director, Edmond School District Foundation, explained the Foundation was
established by the Edmonds School District (ESD) in 1984 to be their partner to help bring resources to
the ESD and help support student learning. The ESD came to the Foundation two years ago asking for
help with homeless students who leave school on Friday and lunch is their last meal until Monday. The
Foundation worked with ESD to launch the Nourishing Network Program. She described:
• District Profile w
o Largest school district in Snohomish County 3
r
0 11 st largest school district in the state
o Serving the cities of Brier, Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Woodway and
a
unincorporated Bothell
0 20,229 students in 33 schools
0 10,487 students in 20 K-6 schools
0 3,049 students in 4 middles schools
0 6,763 students in high schools 'o
o On average 37% (7,400) students body participates in free/reduced lunch programs t�
0 13 Title 1 schools (more than 50% of students receive free/reduced lunch) o
■ SW quadrant (Edmonds, Woodway) = 2 Title 1 schools >
■ SE Quad (Mountlake Terrace, Brier) = 2 Title 1 schools a
■ NW and NE (Edmonds, Lynnwood, Bothell) = 9 Title 1 schools Q
Homeless demographics:
o City of Edmonds 00
■ 641 homeless students at June 2016
■
114 in shelters
■
383 families doubling up N
■
23 families unsheltered c
■
71 families living in motels v
■
14 students couch surfing
- Number understated; approximately 40% of Scriber Lake High School students are
homeless and couch surfing z
■
17 students waiting for foster care
o Homeless by school a
■
City of Edmonds schools = 164
■
City Lynnwood schools = 245
■
City of Mountlake Terrace schools = 127
■
City of Bothell schools = 49
■
City of Brier schools =36
■
Other schools = 10
Nourishing Network's objective, in partnership with the ESD, is to develop a systemic solution to help
feed hungry and homeless students. What started as a meal program two years ago has expanded to
include more services: This year by the end of June, the program had:
• 4,573 weekend meals
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 4
Packet Pg. 7
4.1.a
• 1,240 feminine hygiene kits
• 550 hygiene kits
• 3 families saved from homelessness
Ms. Anderson provided several photographs of students helping with food at the pantry at the Edmonds
Heights K-12 campus; the program's partner, Frontier Communication, delivering weekend meals to
schools, a cookie drive, and Lanie's birthday party where she asked guests to bring food for Nourishing
Network. She explained in addition to weekend meals, the program also provided:
• 350 holiday stockings to every documented homeless student in district
• 60 holiday meals
Summer meal program
0 10-15 children per day
0 2 sites
o Feeds low income and homeless kids who not get free/reduced lunch during summer
o Allowed ESD to discontinue their summer meal program
Ms. Anderson described
• Community coalition:
0
45 churches
0
13 businesses and foundations
0
6 civic groups
0
2 scout troops
o
VOA
o
Verdant
• Reports of increased attendance
• Board requested program expansion o
• Program adopted by Leadership Snohomish County as a team project n
• Homelessness Task Force that discusses: Q
o Meet basic needs to
o Provide long term prevention and stability
o Transitional housing
M
Councilmember Teitzel was shocked by the numbers, 164 homeless in Edmonds schools. He asked how w
citizens can assist Nourishing Network. Ms. Anderson said they rely on an extensive volunteer network to E
support the organization as well as food drives and assistance with bagging food and working with the v
summer meal program. She invited anyone interested in assisting to contact her directly. c
a�
E
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented when you see the numbers and hear the stories, it makes a
big impact. She was thankful Nourishing Network was assisting with feeding homeless students in
Edmonds on non -school days. a
Councilmember Mesaros commented the first step in solving any problem is recognizing that a problem
exists. He was hopeful the Council will look at solutions to these problems. Ms. Anderson commented
one of the gaps in South County is transitional housing and teen housing. Cocoon housing is considering
the feasibility of transition teen housing in South Snohomish County and a women shelter is considering
another capital campaign. There is a lack of affordable housing for families throughout Snohomish
County.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Nourishing Network has done well in just two years. Every $30
provides 3 snacks and 6 meals; they can expect a check from her.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 5
Packet Pg. 8
4.1.a
Councilmember Nelson agreed with a comment from a citizen, George Keefe, at last week's public
hearing that all children deserve a home in which to study, learn and thrive. He noted 164 children in
Edmonds are not sure where they are sleeping each night, whether on a friend's couch, in a motel, at a
foster home, outside or in a shelter. The issue is not just homelessness or hunger but poverty and it's clear
poverty cannot be tackled with the help of non -profits and charities alone. He looked forward to the
Council discussing its role in assisting those who cannot afford to put food on their table or a roof over
their head. Ms. Anderson offered to be a part of that discussion. She explained 90% of homeless families
are facing tough economic times; they cannot afford to make ends meet and are one paycheck away from
a major catastrophe. She recalled one family where the mom had to make a choice between making her
car payment so she had a way to get to work or money for breakfast and lunch for her kids during the
summer. These are the difficult choices that families are making.
Council President Johnson thanked Ms. Anderson for putting a face on homelessness. Often it is a
theoretical issue; but seeing the number of homeless children in Edmonds helps everyone understand the
problem. Ms. Anderson relayed a story when she was touring a classroom project with a donor to see
kindergarten learner play kits that a group of kindergarten teachers had written a grant to the Foundation 3
to fund. The teacher received a call from the office, a kindergartener was sent to the office and returned
with her bag of weekend food. The teacher helped her put it in her backpack and the other students were a
unaware. She was proud to see the program at work and the people who make it happen.
a�
a�
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 2
c
Al Zahnow, Edmonds, said he moved in three weeks ago after building a new home on Sunset Avenue.
0
Due to the City's concern about heights, he kept his home low to preserve others' view. The cars on t�
Sunset block their view but the City does seem to be concerned about parked cars that block views. c
Although Sunset is not a parking lot, some people park their all day because the 4-hour limit is not >
enforced. A van parks on Sunset every day for 8-10 hours/day and a camper often parks at the south end. 0
If the City wants a parking lot, it should build a parking lot; it is a public street not a city park. He has Q
owned the property for 20 years and imagined it would be the ideal place to retire but now is not so sure.
co
00
Marlin Phelps, Edmonds, reported on Saturday he called 911 from the Edmonds Police Department
parking lot, saying "I'm about to be obnoxious, please bring the cops." A plethora of police showed up,
young and old. Among the old, was a huge man, who immediately put on blue gloves because he was N
about to get hurt. A young, free thinking crew of handsome, law abiding cops came up against this regime c
of murderers and profiteers. He questioned why any member of the police force would work for 36 years, E
6 years over full retirement, essentially working for free unless they had a cause. An articulate, young, v
black female cop began talking to him and gave him a ride home and his girlfriend a ride to her car. As a
result of a conversation during that ride, he learned the slander against his name and who he is continues z
in the Edmonds Police Department, invoking harm on him. He is an intelligent man; the police
department has no idea. The City has a cancer in its police force, old crooked men who have hurt people. a
He urged the Council to fire the police chief tomorrow and hire someone like Bryan Stanifer,
Lynnwood's Assistant Police Chief. He summarized the Edmonds Police Department is a powder keg.
Tom Goebel, Edmonds, Mr. Zahnow's neighbor on Sunset, thanked the Councilmembers who visited
residents on Sunset. One issue that has not been addressed in any of the proposals is the impact on people
who live on Sunset; it is more for the rest of the community. He recalled a consultant's presentation
approximately three years ago that stated the location of the parallel parking was because the road was too
narrow in places to allow parking elsewhere. Now the parking is back in the old location as well as in
additional places although the road configuration has not changed. He asked the Council to investigate
whether the road was wide enough to include the walkway, curb, a 2-foot buffer and parking. As was
stressed to the Councilmembers who visited their neighborhood, the prominent issue is enforcement.
Before and after the interim solution, there has been no enforcement of parking restrictions. Parking on
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 6
Packet Pg. 9
4.1.a
Sunset is solid every day from approximately 5 until after 10 p.m. The police drive by and do not make
any effort to move people parked in no parking areas. Residents called about a car abandoned for 24
hours; the dispatcher was dismissive of the call and the responding officer was very annoyed and simply
ticketed the car, leaving it in the no parking zone for another 24 hours. Residents are effectively the
parking enforcers which is a bad position to put the residents in. He stressed the need for enforcement,
regardless of the scheme the Council adopts.
Robin Goebel, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, said she has the same issues; this has been a challenging
summer. There were promises of more enforcement of parking limits and parties after 10 p.m. but that has
not happened. She referred to the new proposals, stating the walking lane is great but parking is out of
control; people park longer than four hours, in no parking areas, and have parties after 10 p.m. and
residents get a lot of resistance when they call the police. If the Council makes any changes, there needs
to be a desire and a commitment to enforcement. It appears everyone is allowed to park wherever they
want and the police fear there will be too many complaints to the Mayor's office if they ask people to
move. She invited the Council to visit to see what it is like living there. She summarized the proposed
changes were fine but there needs to be enforcement.
Shirley Pauls, Edmond, a resident of Sunset Avenue, said she looked forward to the presentation on
Sunset to see what changes can be made. She has had better success calling the police which she does 1-2
times/week, usually due to people partying in parked cars on Sunset after 11 p.m. In the past, police drove
through stating no parking after 10 p.m. and moving people along. People are then less likely to parking
there when there are no other cars. The police could drive through again an hour later and ticket cars that
haven't left. She supported a 2 or 3-hour parking limit plus enforcement, noting people often park on
Sunset and take the ferry. They have lived on Sunset and shared the street with the public for 41 years.
Before changes were made in the 1980s there would be 600 cars driving through from 10-11 p.m. on a
weekday during the summer in addition to cars parked on the street. That is one of the reasons there is no
right turn on 2nd Avenue. If that was proposed to be an escape route off Caspers, she recommended
consideration be given to how to prevent it becoming a cruising area. She agreed it was definitely an
enforcement issue and recommended the parking be spread out to see if that would help calm things
down.
Darrol Haug, Edmonds, said he has served on several boards and commissions and is currently the vice cfl
chair of the EDC, but speaking as private citizen. He referred to the recent public survey, commenting N
while the statistically valid survey was being conducted, there was also on online survey that produced c
essentially the same results. He suggested the Council consider more online surveys to gather citizen v
input rather than just three minutes at Council meetings. While the Council was finalizing the survey
questions, he recalled discussion about the wording of questions and the survey results helping with
budgeting for the coming year. Due to the uniformity of the questions and interpretation of the results, he z
questioned whether the Council knew what citizens wanted with regard to projects. He referred to a list of
projects, the Five Corners roundabout, Sunset Avenue, Main Street, 228t1i & Hwy 99, and purchase of a
Civic Field, pointing out Edmonds residents paid pennies on the dollar for those projects. He asked
whether the same pennies on the dollar should be expected for other services. As an example, street
overlays cost $1.5 million/year or $90/year for the average household. He questioned whether the
wording of the survey questions provided an accurate response. The survey identified affordable house as
a priority; the EDC has considered that issue and he suggested the Council give the EDC direction
regarding how to accomplish it.
Jim Wassall, Edmonds, a resident on Sunset, between the Zahnows and Goebels, was happy his new
neighbors have moved in and there is no more construction. Although he has not yet seen the proposal for
Sunset Avenue, he recommended there not be any angle parking on Sunset because of the dangers caused
by people backing out without looking. He questioned why there had never been a proposal for parallel
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 7
Packet Pg. 10
4.1.a
parking only on Sunset all the way to the north end, pointing out parallel parking is much safer than angle
parking. He thanked the police department for their enforcement when residents call about illegally
parked cars; the police are good about telling people to move on but are not good about giving tickets to
people parked in no parking areas. He expressed his appreciation for the happy sounds from a wedding
reception at the Zahnow's home last week.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented the Council has been talking about Sunset Avenue for years. He
visited Sunset Avenue earlier today and had to squeeze by an angle -parked vehicle that was sticking out
in the roadway. He visited Sunset Avenue again later today to measure the distance between an angle -
parked vehicle and the curb, finding it about 13 feet. He agreed angle parking was very dangerous, and
relayed the difficulty he had seeing cars and pedestrians when backing out of the angle parking. A simple
solution to the problem, to provide enough room to drive and park, would be to push the walkway
westward approximately one foot, raise the sidewalk, make the sidewalk narrower and install a curb. It
appears improvements will take a long time due to the involvement of the utilities. A narrower, elevated
sidewalk on the west side would hardly be noticeable because the grass would be at the same level. He
encouraged the Council to work diligently on the Sunset Avenue design, commenting the residents on
Sunset are the ones who have suffered and the Council's inaction is ruining the neighborhood.
7. STUDY ITEMS
1. SUNSET AVE WALKWAY DESIGN PROPOSALS
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained it has become apparent to staff over the last 2-3 years that c
whatever final configuration is selected for Sunset Avenue and whatever surface improvements are t�
constructed to implement it, they will be in addition to improvements to all three utilities. There is a large o
pump station at the north end of Sunset that has an inadequate wet well and there is the potential for an
overflow in a power outage if the backup generator does not come on, a significant environmental o
concern. A study has been commissioned to look at options, some that could eliminate the pump station Q
but would require a new gravity main on Sunset and/or a new force main. Those decisions have not yet
been made and the Council would consider the options before a direction is adopted. The old cast iron
00
watermain line also needs to be replaced as well as the service to homes along Sunset and the storm
system that needs to be improved. Accomplishing that work will require disturbing most of the surface so
it makes little sense to design and build an entirely new surface on Sunset Avenue for the transportation
system and tear it up to install new utilities in the future. He requested Council authorization to: c
• Continue with overall project design E
• Incorporate project design into upcoming utilities projects v
• Apply low-cost interim solutions to address issues with current configuration
E
z
He displayed and reviewed design concepts for final design:
• Overlook — concept design, 2020s construction a
o Build overlook
o Remove blackberries, plant dense low growth along hillside
o Lengthen lane transition
• Intersection Sunset / Edmonds— concept design (2020s construction)
o Add crosswalk
o Install intersection table
• Caspers St — concept design, 2020s construction
o Install sidewalk link to 3rd Avenue
o Make permanent the interim wrong -way driver solutions
o Other features to be determined
• Project Wide Surface Amenities
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 8
Packet Pg. 11
4.1.a
o Picnic tables
o Telescope
o Landscaping
o Kiosks
o Decorative solid waste containers
Mr. Williams displayed and reviewed interim solutions:
• Angled parking — current configuration
• Angled parking — concept configuration
o Move stalls west by 3' — 5'
o Add raised curb areas for viewshed and sightline improvement
o Evaluate reducing parking angles
• Parallel parking — current configuration
o 11 Stalls
• Parallel Parking — Concept Configuration
o Potential for seven to nine additional stalls possible without significant impacts to adjacent
property ingress / egress.
• Caspers Street — current conditions — wrong way drivers
o Contributing Problems
1. 2-way traffic allowed all the way to 624 Sunset
2. No possible turnaround without using private driveways —
3. Traffic from Caspers to southbound 2nd Avenue forbidden (to discourage `cruising')
• Caspers Street wrong way driving reduction v
o Possible solution
1. Close/restrict westbound Caspers St traffic at 2nd Avenue
2. Route westbound Caspers traffic onto 2nd Avenue c
3. Retain no -right turn from eastbound Caspers St. n
• Interim Solutions -- Other Q
o Reduced parking times — 3 hours from 4 hours
00
■ Requires an ordinance changing the code
o Discourage idling vehicles — educational opportunity
o Physical separation between walkway and roadway
M
N
00
Council President Johnson preferred to give staff general direction versus reviewing individual final c
design and interim project descriptions. v
c
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
THAT THE COUNCIL GIVE STAFF GENERAL DIRECTION TO HAVE FEWER ANGLE z
PARKING SPACES AND MORE PARALLEL PARKING SPACES ON SUNSET AVENUE. M
a
Council President Johnson commented Mr. Williams outlined several ways to accomplish this and make
the roadway safer such as moving the curb and the walkway to the west, provide gaps in the angle parking
and change the angle and the length of the parking spaces. She summarized all staff needed was general
direction and the Council would trust staff to carry out implementation.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why not make Caspers one way. Council President Johnson raised
a point of order that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not speaking to the motion. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas said she need to have the question answered before she could speak to the motion. Mayor
Earling ruled Councilmember Fraley-Monillas could proceed with her question.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 9
Packet Pg. 12
4.1.a
Mr. Williams responded there was the same issue on Sunset; residents on the north end of Sunset end up
driving downtown and back up Sunset to reach their homes. Some do that and some use Caspers and
sneak into the first few houses on the north end. He anticipated the same would happen on 2nd Avenue; if
Caspers was one way eastbound to reach the same point on 2nd, residents would need to go all the way to
Edmonds Street and up 2nd. If there was a physical way to get into 2nd, residents would like do that
because many do it now.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what was wrong with a one-way street. Mr. Williams explained
then all the residents on Caspers, even those on the far east end, would need to drive to Edmonds Street
and come up either Sunset or 2nd Avenue which would be quite inconvenient and he was unsure it was
necessary. He and Council President Johnson talked about the local traffic only sign on 3rd Avenue, a
commonly used sign but one that has not been very effective. The Council could adopt an ordinance
stating no access onto Caspers other than described in the ordinance; the ordinance would allow residents
and their visitors and vendors to access homes via Caspers but does not allow others. Without reading the
fine print, the sign would appear to restrict access. That could be tried and supplemented with additional
signage at 2nd Avenue
Councilmember Buckshnis said she will not support the motion and preferred to be more specific. The
interim project has been in place two years. She has friends who live on Sunset and many are not happy
with the design and have been traumatized long enough.
Councilmember Mesaros said he likely will not support the motion because if it passes, many of his
questions will remain unanswered. He referred to concerns expressed about angle parking and the safety
of angle parking, noting angle parking with slightly more angle existed prior to the interim project. He
asked about the safety record of the previous angle parking and the current angle parking. Mr. Williams
recalled there were previously 12 spaces configured similarly to the ones in the proposal although 10 feet
further west. He did not recall that the angle parking in the previous configuration was a big safety issue.
Although there has been a great deal of concern with the current angle parking, there have not been any
accidents in the two years the project has been in place.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the picture of the existing angle parking and a jog in the right-of-way
at the north end, noting there was a great deal of flexibility south of the jog. He asked what agreement the cfl
City has with BNSF north of the jog. Mr. Williams answered there are no agreements with BNSF other N
than the agreements related to the pump station, generator, pipelines and a guardrail if the City wanted to 0
install one. Councilmember Mesaros observed if BNSF wanted to get heavy handed with the City, they v
could do something about it north of the jog. Mr. Williams answered north of the jog, the curb has been in
place for 50-70 years in the current location but from that point north, it is on BNSF property. He has
gotten no indication from BNSF that that is an issue for them; going further west certainly would be. z
c�
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND Q
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON, BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS AND TEITZEL VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO REMOVE ALL ANGLE PARKING ON SUNSET AVENUE FOR SAFETY
PURPOSES.
Councilmember Buckshnis said driving her large car on Sunset does not feel safe. If the intent is a
walkway, there should be parallel parking only and people can sit on the bluff to look at the view. She
preferred to make this residential street as safe as possible.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 10
Packet Pg. 13
4.1.a
Councilmember Mesaros asked about the reduction in parking if angle parking is eliminated. Mr.
Williams said the linear distance where the angle parking is currently located would support about 9
parallel parking spaces, reducing parking from 21 to 9.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed interest in recapturing the ambiance that has been lost on Sunset; one
way to do that is to reduce the concentration of cars on Sunset via parallel parking. He agreed with
Councilmember Buckshnis that it was appropriate to have parallel parking the length of Sunset.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis' motion regarding parallel
parking, commenting there have been many problems with the angle parking. She assumed as many
spaces as possible would be located to the north, recalling previously there was parallel parking nearly the
entire length.
Council President Johnson said it was not possible to make everyone happy; about 50% of people like the
angle parking and about 50% like parallel parking. As the diagram indicates, the configuration could be
moved 3-5 feet on City property which would make the roadway on Sunset wider. By changing the angle
and enforcing the compact -only spaces, it may be possible to get a few more feet. Although the angle
parking has clearly has been a problem, it can be improved and allow people who like the angle parking
to enjoy it.
Councilmember Mesaros emphasized regardless of whether the parking is angle or parallel, he too has
also experienced enforcement issues. He walks on Sunset 1-2 times/week and has seen a number of
people who ignore the parking limits. Whatever the Council decides, there needs to be a commitment
from the administration and the police department that there will be enforcement. The intent is to make
Sunset a place the entire community can enjoy without infringing on the residents. He acknowledged it
was a delicate balance but if the Council creates rules and they are not enforced, there is no balance.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was leaning toward the idea of parallel parking along the entirety of
Sunset, especially with the idea of preserving green space west of the walkway which would be an
appropriate place for benches. He suggested parallel parking along the entire length may be easier to
enforce.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALL FOR THE N
QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. c
E
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3). COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, V
BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS AND TEITZEL VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS NELSON AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
z
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JOHNSON, TO LIMIT PARKING ON SUNSET TO TWO HOURS. Q
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said experience has shown extended stays are difficult to control. A 4-
hour limit is excessive unless a person is taking ferry. This is a public parking area, and watching sunsets
is one of the things that draws visitors to Edmonds. She did not see any reason a person would need to
park longer than two hours. For citizens who live on Sunset and their guests, parking permits allow longer
parking. She did not see any harm in a 2-hour parking limit and preferred to have the parking turn around
more quickly.
Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the motion, stating four hours was more than enough time
to enjoy Sunset and many do not abide by that time limit. If someone is visiting the area to eat their lunch,
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 11
Packet Pg. 14
he did not envision it would take more than two hours. A 2-hour parking limit coupled with enforcement
would encourage people to move on and allow more people to enjoy the view on Sunset.
Councilmember Tibbott asked whether a 2-hour limit versus the 3-hour limit in the downtown area would
create an enforcement issue. Mr. Williams recalled the police department's preference was to keep the 3-
hour parking limit uniform throughout the City. The 4-hour parking limit was special and 2 hours would
still be special.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO CHANGE THE WALKWAY WIDTH TO THE SAME WIDTH AS ALL SIDEWALKS IN
EDMONDS, FROM 8 FEET TO 6 FEET WITH A 2-FOOT BUFFER.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the walkway width is the same width as a car, which creates a
public safety issue when vehicles mistakenly drive on the walkway. She felt six feet was wide enough; if
necessary, people on the walkway can step up onto the curb to let others pass.
Councilmember Teitzel recognized the need for a compromise due to limited space on Sunset, traffic
issues, and difficulty exiting driveways. He measured Sunset and found the width between the curb on the
east side and the eastern buffer where vehicles parallel park to be 18 feet. Subtracting 8 feet for a car
width leaves 10 feet between the car and the curb which is tight for someone to back out of their
driveway. Reducing the walkway width by two feet would increase the roadway to ten feet. The 6-foot
walkway would also include a 2-foot buffer as well as the top of the bluff that ranges from 2-8 feet where
people can walk and stand to enjoy the view. He summarized six feet accommodated the residents' needs
and was sufficient for most uses; bicycles are not allowed on the path.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the current width of the path and what is required for ADA. Mr.
n
Williams answered 8 feet, advising this is not an ADA issue but national guidelines for recommended Q
widths. He commented on how the path is used today with people walking side by side pushing strollers00
co
with a child beside them, and people on rollerblades, Segways, etc. He envisioned the level of satisfaction
would be dramatically changed if those uses in the existing volumes occurred on a 6-foot sidewalk.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the change from angle parking to parallel parking would
M
provide additional space. Mr. Williams commented on the history of parking on Sunset; previously there w
was both angle and parallel parking but since it was all 10 feet further west, it was less of an issue. c
Moving everything 10 feet east to accommodate the walkway makes not abiding by the parking rules V
more problematic due to driveway issues. He said the driveways could be fixed if funds were available r-
and in a project design, that would occur. There are areas on Sunset where he did not recommend parallel a)
E
parking be installed; there were only 17 spaces previously and 11 now, the proposal would add 7-9.
c�
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated her question about the change from angle to parallel parking. a
Mr. Williams answered adding 2 feet would increase the drive lane to 20 feet. He questioned whether that
would be noticeable in the operation of the drive lane but envisioned reducing the width of the walkway
by 25% would be very impactful. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not support the motion and
preferred to retain the 8-foot walkway because it encouraged gathering and walking together and did not
appear to have a big impact now that the parking would be parallel.
Councilmember Nelson opposed the motion, observing the name was Sunset Avenue Walkway and he
wanted to encourage people to walk and exercise in a comfortable environment. Eight feet is a standard
walkway width; having a narrower width would not be helpful to someone pushing a stroller or in a
wheelchair. With regard to the danger of vehicles driving on the walkway, he suggested a wooden or
concrete post at both ends of the walkway with reflectors to physically prevent a car from entering the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 12
Packet Pg. 15
walkway. Mr. Williams answered the solution may not need to be that onerous; a good solution to wrong
way driving can be designed.
Councilmember Mesaros did not support the motion, finding an 8-foot width ideal for people walking on
the walkway. He asked whether the City has the authority to ban bicycles from the walkway. Mr.
Williams answered yes, he thought so and because that was the Council's previously stated preference,
bicycles on the walkway was not included in the proposal. Councilmember Mesaros relayed his
understanding that bicycles have the right to ride on sidewalks. Mr. Williams answered bicycles are not
allowed on City sidewalks. The walkway is still a multiuse pathway but it will not include bicycles other
than a small child on training wheels accompanied by an adult.
Council President Johnson did not support the motion because; 1) the 8-foot walkway is very popular and
enjoyable, 2) the yellow striped area will be a mountable or c-curb and not an area to walk in, and 3)
wrong way drivers from Caspers onto Sunset can be solved in other ways.
Councilmember Teitzel said the width between the curb on the east side and a parked car is about 10 feet.
If the walkway is reduced by 2 feet to 6 feet, it adds to 2 feet to the travel lane making it easier for
residents to back out of their driveways. He pointed out a 6-foot walkway plus the 2-foot buffer as well as
space on top of the bluff provided sufficient space to walk, step out of the way, etc.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND
TEITZEL VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS
NELSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, MESAROS, AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO INSTALL A MODIFIED C-CURB ALONG THE WALKWAY WHERE POSSIBLE TO
BETTER SEPARATE AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC FROM PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Council needed to provide specific direction on each item. Mr. Q
Williams answered that was his original intent but as this item was scheduled for one hour, he requested
direction regarding items that could be accomplished on an interim basis until the utility work can be00
completed.
Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the c-curb would need to be removed when utility work was done N
in 1-2 years. Mr. Williams answered the intent would be to do it in a way that would salvage the c-curb. 0
Councilmember Teitzel said if the c-curb could not be salvaged, this plan would not proceed. Mr. v
Williams agreed.
c
a�
Council President Johnson asked if a c-curb was different than a mountable curb. Mr. Williams answered z
yes. There have been discussions in the past about a raised concrete walkway with a mountable curb M
which would require 6 inches of concrete on BNSF property. He did not recommend that as it would a
require BNSF permission.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO HAVE A ONE-WAY ROAD FOR
CASPERS STREET FROM 3" AVENUE TO SUNSET.
Council President Johnson said several things could be done to make it safer such as clear visual clues to
drivers that the street is one-way/do not enter and residents who rely on this short section could be
notified they are excused by ordinance. There also needs to be other visual clues such as cars parked in
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 13
Packet Pg. 16
4.1.a
the same direction as Sunset. It is confusing now because cars are facing west when they should be facing
east. There may be other visual clues and signage to prevent wrong way drivers.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
NELSON, BUCKSHNIS, MESAROS, TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO.
Mr. Williams observed the Council had provided direction on the following interim improvement design
issues and asked if Council wanted these done on an interim basis. Council indicated yes. Mr. Williams
advised funds would be required.
• Should appropriate signage and and changes in raised islands be made on Caspers to further
discourage and/or prevent wrong way driving on Sunset?
• Should parking restrictions on Sunset be changed from 4-hours to 3-hours or 2-hours?
• Should a modified c-curb be installed along the edge of the walkway where possible to better
separate automobile traffic from pedestrian traffic?
• Should additional parallel parking spaces be added to Sunset where driveway issues don't exist or
where they can be mitigated
Mr. Williams reviewed the following interim improvement design issue:
• Should changes be made on an interim basis at 2°d Avenue to prevent circulation motion on 2°d
and Sunset but allow vehicle to access it from 3rd Avenue
Councilmember Mesaros expressed support for an interim solution to solve the existing issues.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO HAVE AN INTERIM SOLUTION TO CASPERS/2ND AVENUE INTERCHANGE AS
RECOMMENDED BY MR. WILLIAMS. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Williams asked whether a decision package should be submitted to make interim improvements as
discussed. The Council indicated there should be.
W
Councilmember Mesaros suggested before the parallel parking was implemented, staff return with the r,
design. Although he was interested in maximizing the parking, it was not about squeezing in the most w
parking, he wanted it to be comfortable. E
c.�
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the timeline for the interim improvements, noting the one-year c
interim had become two years plus. Mr. Williams answered the cost and timeline of the interim E
improvements as well as the utility projects will be discussed during the budget process.
c�
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked when the pocket park and the intersection table would be a
constructed. Mr. Williams said the request is for Council authorization to design the final condition of
Sunset Avenue which include the overlook and final design of Caspers.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
MESAROS, TO AUTHORIZE DESIGN OF THE FINAL CONDITION OF SUNSET VENUE TO
INCLUDE THE OVERLOOK AND FINAL DESIGN OF CASPERS.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether this had already been designed. Mr. Williams answered there
was no detailed design for anything. There was a preliminary design concept for Caspers but it was not
finished because the funding was eliminated. Staff will review what was done, establish a process to work
with the neighbors, and bring it back to Council. The source of funds would be the $147,000 in grant
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 14
Packet Pg. 17
4.1.a
funds that have not been used. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the sidewalk was on the north
side versus the south side and parking eliminated. Mr. Williams said the design proposed tonight was a
walkway on the north side of Caspers. He did not guarantee that would be the location once it was
designed but it was believed that that would fit. He acknowledged parking may be eliminated.
Councilmember Teitzel suggested getting input from residents on Sunset regarding the parallel parking
configuration. Mr. Williams answered said once something is designed, it will be vetted with the Council
and the public.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas restated the motion as follows:
TO APPROVE DESIGNING THE POCKET PARK AND THE INTERSECTION TABLE.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling declared 5-minute recess.
2. PRESENTATION OF THE 2017-2022 SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss recalled on May 24, 2016, staff presented the draft TIP, a public
hearing held on June 17, 2016 and Council requested staff return at a later date. He highlighted changes
since the last presentation, primarily due to grants secured or grant applications submitted:
• 84"'
Ave W Overlay from 220t'' St SW to 212t" St W v
o
Secured $750,000 STP grant c
■ $190,000 local match
o
Previously identified as unsecured o
• Hwy 99 Safety Improvements from 216t" SW to 224t" St SW n
o
Previously identified as $10,000 construction fee to add c-curb Q
o
More improvements required to allow turns at signalized intersections
00
■ Required design cost $300,000
■ Submitted grant application
• 220t"
St SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy 99 to 76t" Ave W
o
New project w
o
Submitted grant application E
o
Co -application with Mountlake Terrace for signal coordination from Hwy 99 to I-5 on 2201" v
0 95t"
PI SW Walkway from 224t" St SW to 220t" St W
o
TIB grant submitted E
■ TIB grants require road be classified as collector or minor arterial. This is one of last
remaining stretches of a collector/minor arterial without a sidewalk
a
■ Identified in the 2015 walkway plan
o
Completes connection from SR-104 to 220t"
o
Design in 2017
o
$20,000 local match
• 15t"
St SW from 8t" Ave S to 9t" Ave S
o
Recently added project
o
Design in 2016 with minor sidewalk program funding
o
Complete design and construct in 2017 with funds from $200,000 minor sidewalk program
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the TIB includes installation of a traffic signal or mini roundabout at
Main Street & 9`' and asked if that was included as a placeholder. Mr. Hauss answered the City's
accepted LOS standard is D; the intersection is currently LOS E and projected to be LOS F in the future.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 15
Packet Pg. 18
4.1.a
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a second lane was added. Mr. Hauss advised that was at 91h &
Walnut. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that could be done at Main & 91h. Mr. Hauss said that same
configuration could be considered at Main. Mr. Williams said the second lane at Walnut has not been
fully embraced by Edmonds citizens due to confusion with short distance of the second lane. With two
lanes instead of four through the intersection, bike lanes could be considered. With additional space at the
corner, a traffic circle or signal could be installed. A project needs to be included in the TIP that addresses
the level of service. Councilmember Buckshnis observed traffic in Edmonds at 5 p.m. has increased.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis. Mr. Williams answered the
Mayor's Task Force has been meeting every 2 weeks since October 2015. They have assembled several
alternatives that address the ferry, pedestrian/bicycle and emergency access as well as some low hanging
fruit. The Task Force will be making recommendation to the Mayor in the next 1-2 moths.
Councilmember Teitzel inquired about the trackside warning project. Mr. Williams answered it is funded
this year but additional time has been required to work with BNSF on interfacing with their signal
cabinet. Answers have been provided by BNSF and a diagnostic meeting will be held in early September.
Council President Johnson referred to the trackside warning system and asked if a quiet zone funded by a
local improvement of residents affected by the noise had been considered. Mr. Williams answered a full
quiet zone at the two intersections would cost approximately $2 million. The trackside warning system
will eliminate most of the problem for $300,000. A quiet zone could be pursued when the double track is
built; if a quiet zone were established now, it would need to be moved when the double track is installed.
Further, BNSF questioned how a full quiet zone would work in that compact geometry particularly at
Main. He concluded a quiet zone had been considered but was not being pursued.
Council President Johnson asked if the problem of increased number horn blasts would be solved by the
trackside warning system. Mr. Williams answered no. Council President Johnson pointed out there would
be more noise in a smaller footprint. Mr. Williams answered only for the 8 per day passenger trains out of
40 trains per day. On those eight trains there will be additional horn blasts but it will be quieter for 95%
of Edmonds.
0
Council President Johnson inquired about left turn movements from Maplewood Drive across 196th, N
recalling the Council discussed a right turn only several years ago to eliminate sight distance issues and 0
0
put it on hold awaiting a traffic signal. Mr. Hauss advised that is 88`h and 196`h; staff recommended that to v
Council in the past but it was not approved. Council President Johnson agreed the previous City Council
did not approve it but it was in the Transportation Plan previously. She believes it was still a good project
and wanted to know how to move it forward. Mr. Hauss said the LOS at that intersection is failing which z
is why it is identified in the TIP as SR 524 @ 88t' Avenue W Intersection Improvements. That project �
could be brought back to Council. a
It was the consensus of Council to schedule approval of the 2017-2022 TIP on the Consent Agenda.
3. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CODE UPDATE, EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.30
City Engineer Rob English recalled the Stormwater Management Code was originally presented in June
and on August 2, Craig Dubberstein, CPD Solutions, made a presentation and a public hearing was
held. At the conclusion of the August 2 meeting, Councilmembers expressed interest in submitting
additional questions. One question was received from Councilmember Teitzel yesterday. The SEPA
process should be completed by mid -September and the State is in the process of reviewing the code and
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 16
Packet Pg. 19
will do an expedited 30-day review. He expected the reviews and the SEPA process to be complete by
mid -September and ordinance scheduled on the Consent Agenda in late September.
Mr. Dubberstein advised there are no technical or policy changes, only clarifications and corrections. He
reviewed changes made since August 2:
• Definition of project site and roadway: impervious surface changed to hard surface
• Definition of substantially developed removed as the term is no longer used in the code
• 18.30.060.C.2, amendment to clarify how the section applies
o Mr. Dubberstein will email Councilmembers the exact change
Council President Johnson asked how a project such as Main Street that had permeable surface would
meet these requirements and asked if there was an exception for 5,000 square feet or more of permeable
surface. Mr. Dubberstein advised this paragraph is related to projects that replace or expand the surface.
Mr. Williams advised areas where pervious asphalt was installed on portions of Main Street and routed to
detention would be counted against the threshold because it is a hard surface but credit for permeability of
pavement would be provided at the modeling stage. He said permeable asphalt is still a hard surface.
Mr. Dubberstein continued his review of changes made since August 2:
• 18.30.060.C.3: Impervious changed to hard surface
• 18.30.060.D.4: Sentence changed to read, "To demonstrate compliance with this core
requirement, all projects shall submit an off -site qualitative analysis a,.,.,ast+ea- from the site *�
ther-eeeivingwatef.
With regard to Councilmember Teitzel's question, Mr. Dubberstein advised the wording following
"underdrain" was deleted in the definition of impervious surface.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this update was very confusing because language had been moved a
around. She was concerned about the amount of knowledge whoever administered this code would have Q
to have and asked whether the City planned to hire a stormwater specialist. Mr. Williams answered a job
offer has been made and accepted and the person will start work September 1. The stormwater specialist00
will report to Mike DeLilla who reports to Rob English. He acknowledged there will be a learning curve
for staff. An addendum will be prepared by the end of the year that puts the language in more
understandable terms. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was surprised by the amount of director N
responsibility. 0
0
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the definition of critical area was removed. Mr. Dubberstein said
either it is not a term that needs to be defined or the term is not used in the code. Councilmember Ea)
Buckshnis said she did not submit any questions because it had already been sent to the State. Mr. z
Williams said it was submitted to the State Department of Commerce for review. Councilmember 2
Buckshnis said she will review the code again and submit questions. Mr. Dubberstein advised the code Q
can be sent to Ecology for a courtesy review; Ecology reviewed the 7 Phase 1 jurisdictions but have stated
they are unable to do formal review of the 100 Phase 2 jurisdictions.
As Ms. Dubberstein will email Council details regarding one change, it was agreed to have approval
scheduled as an agenda item.
4. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS
CITY EQUIPMENT
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained surplusing of City vehicles is done annually. A number of
new vehicles have been purchased and the old ones will be auctioned.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 17
Packet Pg. 20
4.1.a
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she has friends who ride Harleys; the Harleys to be
surplused and auctioned are 2008 models and she asked why they were being surplused when they were
only eight years old. Mr. Williams expected they have reached their expected lifecycle where they are due
to be replaced. The two that have been surplused have been replaced.
It was the consensus of Council to schedule this for approval on the Consent Agenda.
5. PRESENTATION OF BIDS AND AWARD FOR DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
Mayor Earling recalled staff wanted Council to take action on this tonight.
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty reviewed:
Background:
o April 19, 2016 Council approve final design, including unisex/family restroom + landscaped
plaza 3
o $390,000 cost estimate
o $60,000 from lodging tax funds a
o $10,000 from Edmonds Downtown Alliance
o $5,000 from Noon Rotary Club
o City funds: $315,000 from REET 1 (Fund 126)
o Intention: Open for Fall/Holiday activities — by Halloween
c
Final design and bids 'o
o Final design and permitting have ensued v
o August 3, 2016 project out to bid — MRSC Small Works Roster
o Project consists of site preparation for the new restroom, and support of the prefabricated >
restroom placement, and related site improvements °
a
o Site work cost estimate: $134,800 ($148,010.40 incl tax)
Bids received Q
o Five bids received Noon, August 19, 2016 00
o Lowest bidder, K-A General Construction, withdrew bid on August 22, 2016 due to error.
o Second lowest bidder, Forrest Gardens, at $147,987 cfl
Summary of bids received: N
o Construction Estimate: $134,800.00 0
o K-A General Construction: $108,930.50 (withdrawn) E
o Forrest Gardens LLC: $147,987.00
o Spirit Ridge Construction: $192,600.65
o ESE Corporation: $234,633.82 z
o Accord Contractors LLC: $236,673.90
Available Funding: $390,000 a
Final budget
o Management Reserve of 15% ($16,340)
o Construction Management costs of 20% ($26,960)
o Final Project Budget = $428,637
o Increase of $38,637
• Proposed action:
o Accept bid by Forrest Gardens and award contract for site preparation and restroom support
project in the amount of $147,987.
o Approve total project budget of $428,637, approving an increase of $38,637, to be funded by
REET 1 (Fund 126) 2015 positive ending cash balance.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 18
Packet Pg. 21
4.1.a
o Authorize potential use of 15% Management Reserve (up to $16,340) for changes or
unforeseen conditions
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ACTION.
Council President Johnson asked whether maintenance of the facility was included in the 2017 budget.
Mayor Earling answered the 2017 budget is being developing; approximately $25,000 is included for
maintenance of the restroom.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. AUTHORIZATION TO MODIFY AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COLD SPRING
GRANITE COMPANY FOR THE VETERAN'S PLAZA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Public Works Director Phil Williams advised this is a proposal to change the size of the stones in the
Veteran's Plaza that can be inscribed. The proposal is to cut the stones in half to double the opportunity
for revenue via inscriptions. The additional cost is $950.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
FOR APPROVAL. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO.
9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
This item was postponed to future meeting.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reminded of the Civic Field open house tomorrow and the Town Hall on Thursday at at
Faith Community Church. He advised HR Director interviews will be held on Friday.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nelson thanked Council President Johnson for organizing the presentations on
homelessness; he has found them helpful and informative.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was pleased the Council's long process regarding Sunset
Avenue was completed.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' comment about Sunset Avenue,
commenting the residents on Sunset breathed a sigh of relief.
Council President Johnson reminded of the Civic Field open house tomorrow.
Councilmember Teitzel said today was his wife's and his 415t wedding anniversary.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 19
Packet Pg. 22
4.1.a
12. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
13. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 20
Packet Pg. 23
M
N
O
O
E
c.i
�.i
C
d
E
t
U
2
a
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of August 23, 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:
Cm082316 spec mtg
Packet Pg. 24
4.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
AUGUST 23, 2016
The City Council Special Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The Council then convened in the Jury
Meeting Room.
Elected Officials Present
Kristiana Johnson, Council President
Mike Nelson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Tom Mesaros, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Mayor Dave Earling
Others Present
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR
POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I).
The City Council adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room to discuss pending or potential litigation
per RCW 42.3 0.11 0(l)(i).
O
The meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 23, 2016
Page 1
Packet Pg. 25
4.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Diane M. Lobaugh (amount undetermined) and from
Jackie L. Studioso ($240.00)
Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead}
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Linda Hynd
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Narrative
Diane M. Lobaugh
20227 Densmore Avenue North
Shoreline, WA 98133
(Amount undetermined)
Jackie L. Studioso
19107 83rd Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98026
($ 240.00 )
Attachments:
Lobaugh Claim for Damages
Studioso Claim for Damages
Packet Pg. 26
4.3.a
RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS
AUG 2 6 2016 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
Date Claim Form
�Of Received by CK
)MONDS CITY CLERK i /P 8
Please take note that O` t a'rie � Gt"G/ who currently resides at 12OZ-Z- A!yamjlKio!"e-
V`U Z I A QYe� P WA mating address r L Pq sr •o '-eAve- ka � 1t
home phone # 233 ,work phone # It% n h-e _ and who resided a � �'L�- r, f!N'ri
oW r r $ A` at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is91Z .S is claiming damages
against C (2�z U G a Ma P1 Asin the sum of $ 79-0 arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 4_// g'1 b
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: P� /e V f�- . b i S' C.
DESCRIPTION:
Describe the con uct and circumsta ce that br ght about the injury r damage. !Also
TIME:
describe
6fo-O AWL,
the i'mury or
(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed)
2. Provide a list o witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
F r►z e wr,��r P 11 �c � :�- �- I ,L- -- � L �f g �
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes No
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
* * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * *
License Plate # A l Driver License #
Type Auto: tq q A C (-Cgr Lt kPiC, 2; ate.
(year) (make) (model) c
DRIVER: OWNER: { �J &L4_ II
Address: l-- J ti,r Address: LZ ,A N
' 3
Phone#: Phone#: n 3
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address:
Address:
Forth Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 27
4.3.a
* NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * *
�l g - `'° r U being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above
described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any
information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.
X 6t 1-� 4
Signature of C}ai nt(s)
State of Washington
County of �511yo tclyl _
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that SI N 2p46u l is the person who appeared before me, and said
person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated:
-``t4�N��11111j!
S ray llr,,
' natur��g51Qay''+++,�5
xv
'+, ❑ fi
Title s 0 +et��� 'r%� i
My appointment expir
v A
us
vy
'r��# � 11W11i61i
Please present the completed claim form to: City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 51h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Fonn Revised 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2
Packet Pg. 28
4.3.a
EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION
OFFICER NAME. E FALK 10361 COLLISION: 084511608:00 AM CASE#: 16-20492
AGENCY: EDMONDS PD DISPATCH 0811511608:10 AM LOCALION DALEYSTBN:600
ARRIVAL: 0811511608:15 AM 109.00 FEET SOUTH OF / AVE N
NARRATi'dE1 NOTES:
UNIT 1 MOTOR VEHICLE•
201: FORD 1`450 PLATE: 52415D (UVA)
TOWED BY
.......,
i
i
DRIVER:
WILLIAMT SANDERS
VCH OWNER
CITY O EDMONDS
i
I
ADDRESS:
1925 107TH OR SE
ADDRESS
7110 210TH ST SW
I
I
LAKE STEVENS, WA 982582008
EDMONDS, WA 98026
I
j DL #:
SANDEWT405NO
STATE: WA
!
i
PHONE:
(425) 771-0235
PHONE:
ALT PHONE
ALT PHONE
INSURED BY:
WCIA
INSURED BY
WCIA
I
i
POLICY #:
SELF INSURED
POLIO' #:
SELF INSURED
I
I
r-- — -- ..-.._---- •............... ..
l'NIT 2 MOTOR VEHICLE-
1995 ACCORD PLATE: AJU1174 (VVA7
:.........:..
TOI'VED BY
r._ ..
_ _.._�
-. _ _.....-.-.-...... ...... ...... ...... ..-.
.... .. _............__.....-
i DRIVER:
i
NONE
VEH OIiVNER:
DIANE LOBAUGH
i
ADDRESS:
ADDRESS:
20221 DENSMOREAVE N
SHORELINE, WA 98133
i
i
DL #:
STATE:
i
)
i PHONE:
PHONE:
(206) 533-2337
ALT PHONE:
ALT PHONE.
INSURED BY:
INSURED BY.
USAA
POLICY #.
PGLIC)' #:
2648269
I
I
I
I
"CV
�11G 2 � 2016
Page: 1 of 1
N
N
a1
R
E
cC
w
N
E
Cu
U
CM
00
N
N
a1
R
4-
E
Cu
U
t
O
O
O
J
C
N
t
V
O
a
Packet Pg. 29
RIECEWED CITY OF EDMONDS
AUG 2 6 2016 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
4.3.b
Date Claim Form
EDMONDS CM CLM eceived by Cit
Please take note that c— ;l Il(T I ho currentlly�,resides at -_yA I o 1 � v
2�mailing address P t d`� �5 S" 1 VV.• q t L
home phone #10�733LI-MSz-/work phone # and who resi ed a
at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is is claiming damages
against t G f o 7)2d 5 in the sum of $ 2-� CAL arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: MID ry v U� ti` � � U Ito TIME: L4 S
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE �. W 0 f y� V� r A'k (-,nt4 Cy
c�
E
c�
L
0
to
DESCRIPTION:
1. Describe the conduct and ci ctlrnstance that rought about the in'yiry or damage. Also describe the injury or damage.
. ri .` i'\ r l� � r] , e 0' t \--L L s � -e- r\ , L i G
t c- r- o- V-1 i r < <7 L
-,, -, 1�1 ri �r [rll9 r� C1 enr .�i.,r r-. I. C 1llaraR r r r,�ti t7 _n �l iAlr�
c, rr1 1 {1,A AM1`Y�4 i
i I ' i - r. � •g6ttach an e a sheet for additional informatidfi, if needed)
2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers.
3- Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company?
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
License Plate #
Type Auto:
Yes A No
""ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * *
Driver License #
(year) (make) (model)
DRIVER: OWNER:
Address: Address:
Phone#: Phone#:
Passengers:
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
E
� U
I M
00
Ct )
rn
m
a�
E
L
0
E
M
tU
0
U)
0
�a
3
Cn
c
0
E
t
U
r
r
Q
Fenn Revised 05/06/14 Page 1 of 2
Packet Pg. 30
4.3.b
* NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * *
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the claimant for the above
described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the same to be true. I further acknowledge that any
information I provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and majbub,,ect to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.
Signature of Claimant(s)
State of Washington
County of �N014a vn )614
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that JC e,0 M u it is the person who appeared before me, and said
person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dated: �` �D %�
�.��!\\\111111it
t1
Rr0 li,
Sigii . r
Title
My appointment expires:
Q h 0 co'4 a RS
YYY Ifll��S1HLN\t����y_ 0
Please present the completed claim form to:
City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 5'h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Form Revised 05/06/14 p
Packet Pg. 31
4.3.b
11
AW#
' a
� by
` 1
a:
`
t [
■
Packet Pg. 32
. _ .'r •• is � yy��i ►i=• �d :.
�I !' - r, 1.-' '!Y' k ► .f.
Phi
' �'. r - �� s.t `F.��'�'•-�•i �i'r is Y���iiv••-. pti
i l%*
..;ti rk .. . •"
M. # i
Attachment: Studioso Claim for Damages (1483 : Claims for Damages)
Attachment: Studioso Claim for Damages (1483 : Claims for Damages)
/00
HARVY'S BIKE SHOP
(425) 774-8951
Fax 776-3746
19920 Hwy 99 #C
Lynnwood, WA 98036
www.harveysbikeshop.com
H rvy Massnudrr
�`�s VU, c1 � IY i7 Y1�1
CY
C
E
U
PL
4.3.b
Packet Pg. 36
4.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #221461 through #221597 dated August 25, 2016 for $1,128,687.98 and
checks #221598 through #221672 dated September 1, 2016 for $2,477,628.58.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #62302 through #62311 for $509,288.96, benefit checks
#62312 through #62320 and wire payments of $479,977.77 for the pay period August 16, 2016 through
August 31, 2016.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
Financial Impact
Claims $3,606,316.56
Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $509,288.96
Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $479,977.77
Total Payroll $989,266.73
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 08-25-16
claim cks 09-01-16
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 09-01-16
Payroll summary 09-02-16
payroll benefit 09-02-16
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221461 8/25/2016 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
221462 8/25/2016 068201 ACTIVE NETWORK INC
221463 8/25/2016 074473 AHERN, RACHEL
221464 8/25/2016 065568 ALLWATER INC
221465 8/25/2016 073620 ALLWEST UNDERGROUND INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
373213
1000115318
11080840
8/1-8/22 ATTEND
081916034
58217
221466 8/25/2016 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 4388400
PO # Description/Account
WWTP: 8/18/16 PEST CONTROL
8/18/16 PEST CONTROL
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Tota
PIN PADS FOR ACTIVE
PIN PADS FOR ACTIVE
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
SCANNER FOR ACTIVE PASSES
SCANNER FOR ACTIVE PASSES
001.000.64.571.22.35.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.35.00
Tota
8/1-8/22/16 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBA
8/1-8/22/16 OUTDOOR VOLLEYBA
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Tota
WWTP: 8/19/16 DRINKING WATE
8/19/16 Water services (plus
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
WWTP: PIPE PLUG & INF LINE RE
PIPE PLUG & INF LINE RENTAL, F
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
Tota
RETIREE MEDICAL INSURANCE
4.4.a
Page: 1
c
ca
lid
U
a�
R
�
Amoun c
a
m
73.0(
=a
7.1: :a
1 : 80.1E c
m
c
c�
585.0( o
57.3, a
E
321.2(
4-
0
31.4E
I : 995.0: o
L
Q
LI Q-
Q
LI ••
150.0( 0)
1 : 150.0(
;
N r
16.3: ao
I : 16.3, w
�
E w
57.6`. U
1 : 57.6`.
m
E
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 38
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221466
8/25/2016 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC
(Continued)
AMWINS COVERAGE for Barnard, C
617.000.51.517.20.23.10
AMWINS COVERAGE - ALL OTHER
009.000.39.517.20.23.10
Tota I :
221467
8/25/2016 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC
11642
CHEMICALS YOST POOL
CHEMICALS YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total:
221468
8/25/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
1988742586
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
1988742587
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
1988746566
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
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
4.4.a
Page: 2
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
1,130.61
a�
L
8,373.6� =a
9,504.3E
a�
c
m
240.0(
0
23.5,
263.5; a
E
U
5.1( o
0
115.9E o
L
a
0.5( Q
11.31 rn
m
56.7: r
N
0
0
1.6' Y
U
6.1' E
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 39
m
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221468 8/25/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
221469 8/25/2016 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT:
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1988746567 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
Tota I :
0946227-IN FLEET - REGULAR 6600 GAL
Fleet - Regular 6600 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.11
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.77.548.68.34.11
Diesel - 2850 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.10
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
4.4.a
Page: 3
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
6.1' -0a
6.0£ aUi
L
=a
0.1E
aD
c
0.6(
0.6( c�a
0
0.6( L>%
c�
a
0.6(
0.5� U
w
0
6.4( o
a
0.
17.3z Q
0.6<
1.7( m
r
251.05 Ul)
N
00
0
N
Y
10,299.3(
E
3,407.0(
r
4,126.8(
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221469 8/25/2016 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
221470
221471
221472
8/25/2016 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
8/25/2016 064706 AWC
8/25/2016 072276 BADGER METER INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
0955521-IN
PO # Description/Account
511.000.77.548.68.34.10
Bio-Diesel - 150 Gal
511.000.77.548.68.34.13
WA St Service Fees
511.000.77.548.68.34.13
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.13
WA St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.77.548.68.34.13
WWTP: DIESEL FUEL
ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (includ
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
81084 UNIT E112PO - GRAPHICS
Unit E112PO - Graphics
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
45684
1113943 / 1113943A
Tota
4.4.a
Page: 4
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
1,467.7( -a)
240.0( aa)
L
=a
50.1:
a�
c
4.9'
77.5, c�a
0
e
2,304.2( a
Total
WAPELRA CONFERENCE MAH
2016 WAPELRA FALL CONFERENC
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
WATER - HYDRANT METER
Water - Hydrant Meter
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
Freight
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
Tota
E
225.8 'M
22,203.5E 6
0
ca
0
L
200.0( a
219.6( 0)
m
T
220.0( N
220.0( c
N
E
756.8( 'W
6
25.6,
m
E
76.6E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 41
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221472 8/25/2016 072276 072276 BADGER METER INC (Continued)
221473 8/25/2016 073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2016-EDM-07
221474 8/25/2016 071348 BERGERABAM 315864
221475 8/25/2016 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 8022
8024
221476 8/25/2016 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 626150
221477 8/25/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0210583-IN
6452
M-off
PO # Description/Account
Tota
PLAN REVIEW BLD2016-0506
PLAN REVIEW BLD2016-0506- po
001.000.62.524.20.41.00
Tota
E4MB.SERVICES THRU 8/12/16
E4MB.Services thru 8/12/16
016.000.66.518.30.41.00
Tota
E5GB.SERVICES THRU 7/22/16
E5GB.Services thru 7/22/16
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
E5JB.SERVICES THRU 7/22/16
E5JB.Services thru 7/22/16
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
Tota
UNIT 23 - MOTOR
Unit 23 - Motor
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.6% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota
UNIT 452 - PARTS
Unit 452 - Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 501.5 GA
4.4.a
Page: 5
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
1 : 859.1( 0
m
st
a�
10,981.3�
1 : 10,981.3$
4-
a�
c
m
L
r
488.9,
L E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221477
8/25/2016
074307 BLUE STAR GAS
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.34.12
6529
FLEET AUTO PROPANE 657.1 GA
4.4.a
Page: 6
L
Y
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
666.6( -0a
},
U
a�
L
603.8'
1 : 1,931.Oi
w
Y I a0i
I �
1,970.71 r
I : 1,970.71
0
1, >'
0
7 0'
1,966.9' ,
I: 1,966.9'
4-
0
1,920.0( o
1,920.0( Q
O
rn
64.0(
m
T
64.0( ,n
N
ao
89.0( G
N
89.0(
w
15.0( 6
c
14.9( E
R'
R
.r
r
a
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221481 8/25/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR
221482 8/25/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
REMOVE/REPLACE 5 NAMETAGS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
REMOVE/REPLACE JACKET NAM
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
EMBROIDER 7 NAME TAGS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
19547 INV#19547 - EDMONDS PD - HAIR
S/S TRADITIONAL SHIRT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
EMBROIDER NAMETAG
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Tota
16400429 INV#16400429 - EDMONDS
COPY RENTAL#6255 FOR 8/2016
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
B/W METER USAGE 4/1-7/31/16
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
COPY RENTAL #3325 FOR 8/2016
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
B/W METER USAGE 4/1-7/31/16
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
COLOR METER USAGE 4/1-7/31/1
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
COPY RENTAL #5240 FOR 8/2016
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
B/W METER USAGE 4/1-7/31/16
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
COLOR METER USAGE 4/1-7/31/1
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
4.4.a
Page: 7
c
Un
lid
a�
Amoun };
0
0-
a)
50.0(
E m
32.0( =a
4-
56.0( c
m
13.5.
D\ ca
0
59.0( L>%
M
a
8.0(
6.5 - u
4-
1 : 561.01 0
0
0
L
a
Q.
151.8i Q
230.3,
60.7( w
T
LO
34.8, N
6 c
429.2: Y
160.0( .
c�
97.5< r
6
180.5( E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221482 8/25/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
16400434
COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.23.523.30.48.00
16400435
C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 3091/0521
Finance dept copier contract charge
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
B&W Meter usage IRC5250
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
Color Meter usage IRC5250
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
16400436
CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE & US
CITY CLERKS COPIER CONTRACT
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
COPIER BW METER USAGE
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
COPIER COLOR METER USAGE-
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
16400437
PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON'
PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON'
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
16400439
WWTP: 8/16 MO CHG+4/21-7/31 BUA
Aug 2016 Monthly Charge - Contract
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
4/21 - 7/31/16 BW Meter Usage
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
4/21 - 7/31/16 Color Meter Usage
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
4.4.a
Page: 8
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
131.8'
a�
L
313.1E
d
c
m
209.6'
c�
114.7z o
L
354.1: a
E
w
0
340.3� >
0
213.3E a
Q
1,520.7E
rn
203.3'
m
T
896.9� N
0
0
N
75.0�
E
75.7E
139.1: a0i
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221482 8/25/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
16400443
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
16400444
PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi
PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
16400446
RECEPTIONIST DESK CITY CLERK;
RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEA
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.45.00
16403671
ENG. COPIER CHARGES AUGUST
Eng. Copier Charges August 2016
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
Total:
221483 8/25/2016 075728 CARDINAL HEATING & A/C
221484 8/25/2016 065171 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC
BLD20161074 REFUND- OVERPAY OF PERMIT BL
Refund, overpay of permit bld2016-1(
001.000.257.620
Total
SIN001931Taxonly CARTEFLEX ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTI(
CarteflexAnnual Subscription Renew
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
CarteflexAnnual Subscription Renew
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
CarteflexAnnual Subscription Renew.
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
CarteflexAnnual Subscription Renew.
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
CarteflexAnnual Subscription Renew
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
4.4.a
Page: 9
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
28.4' -0a
U
a�
L
71.0.
4.
W
c
58.0E
c
c�
26.6z o
2.6, a
E
1,171.1�
7,357.7E o
0
L
a
20.0( Q
20.0(
421.8 1
N
421.8 1 ao
0
N
421.8 1
E
421.8 1
421.8E c
2,109.31 E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221485 8/25/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC
221486 8/25/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
9433844765
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9433853325
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9433853326
ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT
Roadway - Liquid Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9433861527
ROADWAY - ASPHALT
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9433861528
ROADWAY - LIQUID ASPHALT
Roadway - Liquid Asphalt
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
Tota I :
LY 236597
WATER SUPPLIES
Water Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
LY 236856
SPRAY PARK CYLINDER RENTAL
SPRAY PARK CYLINDER RENTAL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
4.4.a
Page: 10
c
ca
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
212.8(
a�
L
20.2.
a�
c
247.1(
23.4 , c�a
0
L
55.0( a
E
5.2: 'M
U
4-
0
110.6( >
0
L
10.5' a
Q
55.0(
5.2: r
745.1( L6
s
0
0
N
Y
47.0< 0
E
4.6'
r
c
m
69.0( E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 47
4.4.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 11
08/25/2016
11:30:11AM
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code :
usbank
U
a�
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
221486
8/25/2016
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
(Continued)
a
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6.7 1 d
Total:
127.4'
m
221487
8/25/2016
003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS
48229453
INV#48229453 ACCT#7898305185 E
FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE-POFF
104.000.41.521.21.32.00
4"
101.6: c
TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE
104.000.41.521.21.32.00
1.0,
Total:
102.61,
221488
8/25/2016
063902 CITY OF EVERETT
116001998
WATER QUALITY - WATER LAB AN/
o
L
Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis
ca
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
664.2(
Total:
664.2( .
221489
8/25/2016
064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO
54110
EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRONI
w
EDMONDS CITY CODE ELECTRONI
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
533.5( >
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
a
52.2E Q.
Total:
585.7E Q
221490
8/25/2016
062975 COLLISION CLINIC INC
30954
UNIT 42 - REPAIRS
Unit 42 - Repairs
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
1,843.0( r
9.8% Sales Tax
,n
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
180.6'
00
Total:
2,023.6' G
N
Y
221491
8/25/2016
069529 D & G BACKHOE INC
ESJA.Pmt 2
ESJA.PMT 2 THRU 7/29/16
ESJA.Pmt 2 thru 7/29/16
E
421.200.74.594.34.65.00
279,684.5E
ESJA.Ret 2 thru 7/29/16
421.200.223.400
-12,736.1(
Total: 266,948.4E E
R
.r
r
a
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221492
8/25/2016
006200
DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
3316406
E6MA.INVITATION TO BID ADVER
221498 8/25/2016 061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS TP DRIFTWOOD TP DRIFTWOOD
TP DRIFTWOOD
123.000.64.573.20.41.00
4.4.a
Page: 12
T
E: m
T
359.7( �n
1 : 359.7(
00
SC Y
SC
500.0( .
1 : 500.0(
r
c
m
E
2,000.0(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 49
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221498 8/25/2016 061384 061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS
221499 8/25/2016 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
10064680
221500 8/25/2016 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 8/18 REFUND
221501 8/25/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001736
221502 8/25/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001733
221503 8/25/2016 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 5127 CYBORON
5128 RAFIPOUR
221504 8/25/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575
PO #
Description/Account
4.4.a
Page: 13
lid
ca
U
aD
U
_ Amoun };
N
Total:
2,000.0( a
m
PM: HATCH STRUT, MOTOR OIL
PM: HATCH STRUT, MOTOR OIL
m
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
51.7' ia
9.8% Sales Tax
=
4
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
5.0 , c
Total :
56.7E
8/18/16 REFUND CANCELLED REN'
c
8/18/16 REFUND CANCELLED REN'
f°
001.000.239.200
300.0( o
Total:
300.0(
a
PM: PAINT, KEY RINGS_
PM: PAINT, KEY RINGS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
108.5E 4-
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
cu
10.6z >
Total:
119.15 0
a
Q.
STREET - SUPPLIES
Q
Street - Supplies
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
40.9E
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.61.31.00
4.0'
Total :
44.9( Ul)
N
5127 ELIZABETH CYBORON YOUTF
00
0
5127 ELIZABETH CYBORON YOUTI-
Y
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
75.0(
5128 SURI RAFIPOUR YOUTH SCH,
E
5128 SURI RAFIPOUR YOUTH SCHi
f°
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
75.0(
Total:
150.0(
OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / ME -
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 50
E
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221504 8/25/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / ME-
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-00875
SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 11
SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 11
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-02125
SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ M
SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-03710
SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER
SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-03900
SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METE
SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / MET[
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-05125
SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METE
SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-05285
SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / M[
SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / MI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-05340
SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / MET[
SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / MET[
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-05650
CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71,
CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71,
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-05675
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP /
CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-05700
SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER
SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
4.4.a
Page: 14
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
m
917.8E
a�
L
1,230.2:
a�
c
m
ca
0
101.5(
0
a
158.2( �a
0
L
a
0.
80.2' Q
m
T
76.6( N
0
0
N
Y
41.1
E
783.9(
c
m
E
342.8z
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221504 8/25/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
1-09650
SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER i
SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER i
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-09800
SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METE
SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / METE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-10778
FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75'
FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75'
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-10780
SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER
SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-16130
SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METEI
SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METEI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-16300
SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / MET[
SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / MET[
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-16420
LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 6'
LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 6'
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-16450
CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 1
CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 1
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-16630
SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER
SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-17475
SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / MET[
SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / MET[
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-19950
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-36255
SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METE
SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METE
4.4.a
Page: 15
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
a)
97.9E aa)
L
=a
4-
76.6E c
m
371.2<
0
87.3( a
E
133.4z
4-
0
ns
275.4' o
L
a
Q.
Q
51.8'
rn
328.6E
T
L6
N
676.4( o
N
Y
76.6( ,E
ca
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221504 8/25/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
221505 8/25/2016 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
4-34080
14442
221506 8/25/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR48119
221507 8/25/2016 065789 ESTES, KEN
221508 8/25/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
221509 8/25/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
051
EDH714712
EDH715244
EDH716019
WAMOU40687
4.4.a
Page: 16
c
ca
lid
U
a�
PO # Description/Account Amoun j
U)
0
a
001.000.64.576.80.47.00 41.1 1 m
LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL S'
LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL S'
L
423.000.75.535.80.47.10 41.1 1 'a
Total: 6.193.0E
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Tota
PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078
PM PRINTER C1030 #A7078
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Tota
LEOFF1 REIMBURSEMENT
LEOFF1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEME
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
Tota
E6MA.INVITATION TO BID ADVERT
E6MA.Invitation to Bid Advertiseme
132.000.64.594.76.41.00
CITY ORDINANCES 4039
CITY ORDINANCE NO. 4039
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
INV#EDH716019 ACCT#14126500
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AD 8/12/
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Tota
WATER - MARKING PAINT, SUPPL
Water - Marking Paint, Supplies
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
103.2z
103.21
—
0
L
0
a
6.41
E
6.4!
4-
0
n
ru
>
4,060.8E
4,060.8(
Q
nt
258.0(
m
T
L6
24.0E N
0
- o
1E w
18.9' Cj
I : 301.0( •�
0
c
m
419.8z E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221509
8/25/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
(Continued)
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
WAMOU40850
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
WAMOU40954
PM: PLIERS, BATTERY CHARGER
PM: PLIERS, BATTERY CHARGER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
WAMOU40991
PM: IC WB CAUTN, 1/4-20X1 S/S
PM: IC WB CAUTN, 1/4-20X1 S/S
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
221510
8/25/2016 071026 FASTSIGNS OF LYNNWOOD
443-21390
VINYL NUMBERS FOR BIRD FEST
Vinyl letters for Bird Fest signage
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
Tota
221511
8/25/2016 009880 FEDEX
5-511-58734
STORMWATER PLAN REVIEW - C
Stormwater Plan Review - Courier
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
Tota
221512
8/25/2016 011900 FRONTIER
425-775-2455
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUS
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER A
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER F
4.4.a
Page: 17
P
PF
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun
};
0
41.1<
a
-0a
U
6.41
0.6:
c
m
112.8E
0
11.0(
F
a
43.9.
4.3(
o
1 : 640.2(
0
a
Q.
Q
11.2(
1.1(
I :
12.3( m
r
O
Ul)
N
0
0
29.9( w
1 :
29.9(
E
5
IC
63.0(
t
IF
R
.r
r
Q
Page:
17
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221512 8/25/2016 011900 FRONTIER
221513 8/25/2016 075731 FULLER, ELIZABETH
221514 8/25/2016 075538 GAMEZ, OMAR
221515 8/25/2016 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR
221516 8/25/2016 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES
221517 8/25/2016 075725 GIRLS ROCK MATH
221518 8/25/2016 012199 GRAINGER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
82416
8116
13570
34450
20914 GIRLS ROCK MAT
9188130216
221519 8/25/2016 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007H4587
PO # Description/Account
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Tota
REIMBURSEMENT FOR BANK CH
REIMBURSEMENT FOR BANK CH
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
Tota
TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT FOR
TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT FOR
001.000.23.523.30.43.00
Tota
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01
Tota
ESJA.SERVICES THRU JULY 2016
ESJA.Services thru July 2016
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
Tota
20914 GIRLS ROCK MATH CRAFT
20914 GIRLS ROCK MATH CRAFT
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Tota
UNIT 37 - FOLDING STEP
Unit 37 - Folding Step
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota
WWTP: VALVE BALL TUBV ELEC
4.4.a
Page: 18
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
0
0-
131.5( -0a
I : 194.55 +.
Al m
Al
4
12.0( c
1 : 12.0( �
PF
c
P FR f°
313.2( o
1 : 313.2( ca
a
E
.2
105.3. ,-
105.3, c
c�
0
L
Q
0.
2,910.2, Q
1 : 2,910.21, '*
rn
Y
Y m
3,186.0(
1 : 3,186.0( N
0
0
N
Y
91.6. E
8.9£
r
1 : 100.6(
E
R1
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 55
PF
c
P FR f°
313.2( o
1 : 313.2( ca
a
E
.2
105.3. ,-
105.3, c
c�
0
L
Q
0.
2,910.2, Q
1 : 2,910.21, '*
rn
Y
Y m
3,186.0(
1 : 3,186.0( N
0
0
N
Y
91.6. E
8.9£
r
1 : 100.6(
E
R1
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221519 8/25/2016 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS (Continued)
221520 8/25/2016 074814 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC
221521 8/25/2016 012900 HARRIS FORD INC
PO # Description/Account
4.4.a
Page: 19
c
ca
lid
U
W
_ Amoun };
0
0-
VALVE BALL TUBV ELEC REPLACEI
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
459.1E
Freight
i
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
11.4E =a
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
46.1
Tota
32119 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 6/30/16
E3FH.Services thru 6/30/16
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
32219 E3DB.SERVICES THRU 7/31/16
E3DB.Services thru 7/31/16
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
32234 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 6/30/16
E3FH.Services thru 6/30/16
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
Tota
162933 UNIT 959 - LOCKSET
Unit 959 - Lockset
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
163487 UNIT 452 - PARTS
Unit 452 - Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
163862 UNIT E113PO - BULB
Unit E113PO - Bulb
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Freight
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
9.8% Sales Tax
516.7;
c
c�
0
566.0,
c�
a
905.6E
4-
0
5,900.4E
I: 7,372.2( 0
L
Q
Q
Q
31.7E
3.1'
T
L(i
N
63.8, c
N
6.2E
E
122.0(
r
c
m
11.9E E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
221521 8/25/2016 012900 HARRIS FORD INC (Continued)
164081
164298
164630
FOCS417965
221522 8/25/2016 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 38960
221523 8/25/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2064964
Description/Account
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
UNIT 451 - HOUSING
Unit 451 - Housing
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 10 - LENS
Unit 10 - Lens
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 49 - KIT
Unit 49 - Kit
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
FLEET OIL PLUG DRAIN
Fleet Oil Plug Drain
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 947 -ALIGNMENT
Unit 947 - Alignment
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
4.4.a
Page: 20
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
11.9( -a)
U
a)
L
51.4E !a
4
5.0E
m
18.7E
0
1.8z j,
ca
a
E
72.0.
7.0E o
ca
0
L
48.3E a
Q
4.7z
119.9E to
T
11.7E N
00
Total: 591.9' o
N
STORMWATER PLAN REVIEW SUP cYi
Stormwater Plan Review Support thrL E
001.000.67.518.21.41.00 2,203.4,
Total : 2,203.4,
c
PM: FILTER NUT/DRAIN CAP, PAPE
E
PM: FILTER NUT/DRAIN CAP, PAPE
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221523 8/25/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2232403
PARKS CM FULL GRAIN DEERSK O
PARKS CM FULL GRAIN DEERSK O
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2562301
PM: FLOWER PROG SUPPLIES HO
PM: FLOWER PROG SUPPLIES-HO
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
2574612
PM: TRANSPLANTER, PAINTERS T(
PM: TRANSPLANTER, PAINTERS T(
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2574613
PM: EHC, PLC, MULTITOOL
PM: EHC, PLC, MULTITOOL
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
3084846
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIEF
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM SUPPLIE:
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
3086667
PM: BUCKET, NUTS, BOLTS, GALV
PM: BUCKET, NUTS, BOLTS, GALV
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6011426
PM: CONCRETE FOR HICKMAN SIC -
PM: CONCRETE FOR HICKMAN SIC-
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6064652
PM: BUCKET, PAINT
PM: BUCKET, PAINT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
6082253
PM: ROLLER FRAME, TUBE, HOOK,
PM: ROLLER FRAME, TUBE, HOOK,
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
7011253
PM: HOSE CONNECTION VACUUM
PM: HOSE CONNECTION VACUUM
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
8060650
PM: DECK SCRUBBER, BRUSH, SLR
PM: DECK SCRUBBER, BRUSH, SLd
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.4.a
Page: 21
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
24.0, -0a
U
-17.4�
d
c
13.1(
c
c�
47.8< o
0
a
64.4:
U
41.1< o
0
L
178.7z a
5.6z CD
m
40.1z
N
00
0
70.5, Y
U
E
25.3'
r
c
m
46.9< E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
221523 8/25/2016 067862 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
221524 8/25/2016 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 26865
221525 8/25/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2837101
2837382
2839594
2839840
2841366
Description/Account
4.4.a
Page: 22
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
540.3( 0
CL
a�
25,380.0(
25,380.0(
a�
c
m
�
39.7: c
c�
3.8� o
a
208.5 1 ,
w
0
1,711.7E -
0
a
131.7: Q
..
PP �
rn
46.4(
4.5,
2,146.6° N
ao
221526 8/25/2016 071634 INTEGRATELECOM 14072629 C/A768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
001.000.31.518.88.42.00 913.6E E
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; w
Tota
E4MB.SERVICES THRU 7/30/16
E4MB.Services thru 7/30/16
016.000.66.518.30.41.00
Tota
WIRELESS MOUSE, SUPER GLUE
Wireless mouse, super glue
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
DESK-KRISTIN
Desk- Kristin
001.000.62.524.20.49.00
OFFICE SUPPIES- PAPER
office supplies- paper
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
CITY CLERKS LEGAL SIZE PAPER
LEGAL SIZE PAPER AND 11 X 17
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
Tota
001.000.61.558.70.42.00 8.5(
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00 8.5(
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221526 8/25/2016 071634 071634 INTEGRATELECOM
221527 8/25/2016 069366 ISSAQUAH HONDA KUBOTA
221528 8/25/2016 074888 JOYOUS NOISE LLC
221529 8/25/2016 066489 KENT D BRUCE CO LLC
221530 8/25/2016 069343 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC
221531 8/25/2016 017050 KW ICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH
221532 8/25/2016 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
Tota
644911
CEMETERY MOWER PARTS
CEMETERY MOWER PARTS
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
Tota
21187 KINDERMUSIK
21187 KINDERMUSIK INSTRUCTI
4.4.a
Page: 23
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
930.6£ 0
m
m
351.9£
33.4z c
385.4,
or
or
�
466.4( o
I : 466.4(
a
L1 E
ou 2
23.0( ,-
0
10.3( >
0
L
Q
3.1( o.
1 : 36.4E Q
H
1E
1,137.1( r
6 L6
1,137.1(
00
1 2,274.2( G
N
Y
J1
7 E
141.1: 2u
141.1; �.;
r
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221532 8/25/2016 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC
221533 8/25/2016 075260 LAU, PING
221534 8/25/2016 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
221535 8/25/2016 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA
221536 8/25/2016 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC
221537 8/25/2016 061900 MARC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
13933
Aug-16
958584
965200
E0066346
0586889-IN
PO #
Description/Account
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
Tot
INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01
Tot
08-16 LEGALS FEES
08-16 Legal fees
001.000.36.515.31.41.00
Tot
STORM - GENERATOR
Storm - Generator
422.000.72.531.40.35.00
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.35.00
PM: PARTS EQUIPMENT REPAIR
PM: PARTS EQUIPMENT REPAIR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tot
FS 20 - PAINT SUPPLIES
FS 20 - Paint Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Total:
WWTP: SUPER-ZYME 05 COMPOUI
SUPER-ZYME 05 COMPOUND CLE)
423.000.76.535.80.31.59
4.4.a
Page: 24
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun
};
0
1,243.0(
a
a)
1,243.0(
a�
L
109.3z
4.
c
109.3i
a)
c
ca
42,640.0( o
42,640.0( ca
a
E
.2
979.9� ,-
0
96.0zcu
>
0
a
Q.
23.3( Q
2.2(
1,101.61 "
m
T
L6
N
ao
16.9� G
N
1.6'
18.6(
r
c
m
1,017.0( E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221537 8/25/2016 061900 MARC
221538 8/25/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
221539 8/25/2016 063773 MICROFLEX
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.59
Tota
74390884
WWTP: NESTABLE POLYETHYLE
NESTABLE POLYETHYLENE PAN
221540 8/25/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC 241694
221541 8/25/2016 068662 MINNIHAN, TERRY
242513
053
STREET - SUPPLIES
Street - Supplies
111.000.68.542.71.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.31.00
STREET - PARTS FOR PLATE CO
Street - Parts for Plate Compactor
111.000.68.542.71.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.31.00
Tota
LEOFF1 REIMBURSEMENT
LEOFF1 MEDICAL REIMBURSEM
4.4.a
Page: 25
S
c
ca
U
a�
Amoun };
0
0-
am
99.6 1
1 : 1,116.6, i
=a
41 =
4-
c
52.4,
18.81
0
100.41 a
6.5� •�
1 : 178.3: 6
4-
0
c�
0
10.0( a
1 : 10.0( Q
12.7: "
m
T
1.2E N
M f ao
0
N
17.6:
E
1.7: 'w
1 : 33.3E
r
c
m
E� E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 62
18.81
0
100.41 a
6.5� •�
1 : 178.3: 6
4-
0
c�
0
10.0( a
1 : 10.0( Q
12.7: "
m
T
1.2E N
M f ao
0
N
17.6:
E
1.7: 'w
1 : 33.3E
r
c
m
E� E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221541 8/25/2016 068662 MINNIHAN, TERRY
221542 8/25/2016 072151 MLA ENGINEERING PLLC
221543 8/25/2016 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES
221544 8/25/2016 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING
221545 8/25/2016 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
Tota
2941
GRAND STANDS - PROJECT - UN
Grand Stands - Project - Unexpecte
016.000.66.518.30.41.00
Tota
15-1662-16
E4JC.SERVICES THRU 7/31/16
E4JC.Services thru 7/31/16
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
15-1715-12
ESKA.SERVICES THRU 7/31/16
ESKA.Services thru 7/31/16
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
16-1852-1
E6JB.SERVICES THRU 7/31/16
E6JB.Services thru 7/31/16
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
4.4.a
Page: 26
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun
};
0
161.9,
0-
a)
1 : 161.9;
a�
L..
E•
=a
d
2,453.7,1
4"
c
I : 2,453.7!
c
ca
4,238.5( o
0
a
2,705.0(
n:
U
4-
0
14,455.5(
Total: 21,399.0( c
0
14 WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR, 0'
Q.
WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PAF Q
125.000.64.575.50.41.00 937.5(
CD
WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING EN,
422.200.72.594.31.41.00 1,312.5( "
Total : 2.250.0(
0591623-IN FLEET SHOP - COOLANT
Fleet Shop - Coolant
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
0592406-IN FLEET - FILTER INVENTORY
Fleet - Filter Inventory
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
9.8% Sales Tax
N
ao
0
530.7E Y
U
52.0'
57.2' a0i
E
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 63
4.4.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 27
08/25/2016 11:30:11AM
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code : usbank
U
a�
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
221545 8/25/2016 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
(Continued)
a
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
5.6' m
Total:
645.51
m
221546 8/25/2016 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS
75181
UNIT 89 - GAS METER, TANK NOZZ
Unit 89 - Gas Meter, Tank Nozzle,
=
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4"
434.3( c
9.2% Sales Tax
m
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
39.9( -0
Total:
474.3,
221547 8/25/2016 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC
0550099914
MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY B
o
L
MADRONA ELEMENTARY HONEY B
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
111.6E o-
0550099915
MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET
E
MARINA BEACH HONEY BUCKET
f°
U
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
2,938.8E o
0550099916
FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET
FISH HATCHERY HONEY BUCKET
-
c
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
113.8E a
0550099917
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY Bl
Q-
Q
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & BELL HONEY Bl
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
113.8E
0550099918
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
178.8E r
0550099919
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
N
HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC
ao
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
218.7E w
0550099920
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
Y
SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET
E
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
113.8E 'ca
0550099921
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
CIVIC FIELD 6TH & EDMONDS HON
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
113.8E E
0550099922
BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCKET
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221547 8/25/2016 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC (Continued)
221548 8/25/2016 025690 NOYES, KARIN
221549 8/25/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
221550 8/25/2016 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
PO # Description/Account
BALLINGER PARK HONEY BUCK
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550099923
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550099924
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET
YOST PARK HONEY BUCKET
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550099925
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUC
PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUC
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550099926
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY HONEY
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
0550102076
YOST PARK OFF MAIN HONEY B
YOST PARK OFF MAIN HONEY B
4.4.a
Page: 28
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
a
ET
111.6E
a�
L
587.6,
d
c
m
309.2'
KE ca
U
KE o
113.8E
B f°
a
B
111.6E
UC
C o
60.0(
1 : 5,197.5' i
a
PI Q'
Q
g ..
280.0(
1 : 280.0(
m
T
L(i
N
66.1( ao
0
N
6.4�
I : 72.6E E
c
575.0(
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 28
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221550
8/25/2016
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
(Continued)
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
221551
8/25/2016
072539 OTAK INC-WASHINGTON
81600167
E6DA.SERVICES THRU 8/5/16
E6DA.Services thru 8/5/16
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
Tota
221552
8/25/2016
075694 PACIFIC SOUND DESIGN
2
PMT 2 CONCERT STATE
PMT 2 CONCERT STATE
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
Tota
221553
8/25/2016
070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC
111262
INV#111262 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 1995 FORD #151XKD
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
111288
INV#111288 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 2002 VW JETTA#AWP0121
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
Tota
221554
8/25/2016
027450 PAWS
JULY 2016
JULY 2016 ANIMAL SHELTERING -
SHELTERING 12 ANIMALS @ $17
4.4.a
Page: 29
5
r
Q
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221555 8/25/2016 069690 PERFORMANCE RADIATOR
221556 8/25/2016 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO
221557 8/25/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
221558 8/25/2016 075730 POFF, MICHELLE
221559 8/25/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE
221560 8/25/2016 030695 PUMPTECH INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
Unit 40 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota
357219
WELNESS COMMITTEE FRUIT
PLUOTS 25# BOX
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
PEACHES 25# BOX
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
Tota
K021767
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
City Hall - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
AZ12647
L&I SICK LEAVE BUY BACK REIM
157.68 REFUNDED FOR HOLIDAY
001.000.41.521.21.11.00
Tota
291104
ALARM MONITORING - PARKS M
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARK
4.4.a
Page: 30
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
160.0(
a�
L
15.6E =a
175.61
W
c
m
28.8(
0
15.0( "%
43.8( a
E
U
16.9< —00
1.6( o
I : 18.5t a
0.
Bl Q
S
S
F7
rn
182.5<
I : 182.5:
m
T
Alf
I 00
21.3z o
I �
21.3z E
1 : 42.61
�
1,894.1, E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221560 8/25/2016 030695 PUMPTECH INC
221561 8/25/2016 070955 R&R STAR TOWING
221562 8/25/2016 071702 RAILROAD MGMT CO III LLC
221563 8/25/2016 074156 RAZZ CONSTRUCTION INC
221564 8/25/2016 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Tota
114768
INV#114768 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 1994 CAD DEVILLE #AWP39
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
Tota
331857
LIC # 305234 MEADOWDALE STO
Lic # 305234 Meadowdale Storm Dr
4.4.a
Page: 31
a
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
185.6<
I: 2,079.8( i
=a
4-
3 c
166.0(
16.21 cm
1 : 182.2 , o
0
R CU
a
176.8E .
D F f°
U
w
0 @
176.8E
R >
0
a
176.8E Q
R
176.8E
1 : 707.41
r
LO
N
ao
400,937.0E w
Total: 400,937.0E
1607071 E3FE/E6FA.SERVICES THRU 7/22/1 E
.2
E3FE.Services thru 7/22/16
422.200.72.594.31.41.00 2,784.0(
E6FA,Services thru 7/22/16
422.200.72.594.31.41.00 8,353.2(
R
.r
r
a
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221564 8/25/2016 031500 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC (Continued)
221565 8/25/2016 067447 RILEY, CHARLES H. 052
221566 8/25/2016 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-010294
221567 8/25/2016 074256 RYDIN DECAL 322765
221568 8/25/2016 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2393408
221569 8/25/2016 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 623943
221570 8/25/2016 073752 SCIACCA, MATTHEW 8/23 HMP CONCERT
PO # Description/Account
Tota
LEOFF1 REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM
MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENTS
009.000.39.517.20.23.00
Tota
UNIT 998 - BATTERY
Unit 998 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota
EMPLOYEE & RESIDENTIAL PARK
EMPLOYEE & RESIDENTIAL PARK
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
Freight
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
Tota
STORM-SPEEDCRETE
Storm -Speedcrete
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
Tota
INV#623943 CUST#1733 - EDMON
LAWMAN CLEANFIRE .40 S&W
001.000.41.521.23.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.23.31.00
Tota
8/23/16 HMP CONCERT RANGER
8/23/16 HMP CONCERT RANGER
4.4.a
Page: 32
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
11,137.2( 0
CL
a)
U
a)
622.0E
622.0E
4-
a�
c
m
89.1� c
c�
8.71 o
97.8£ ca
a
E
.2
1,537.5( ,-
0
34.4£ >
1,571.9£ a
Q.
Q
1,242.0(
121.7. m
T
1 : 1,363.7;
N
D 00
0
N
Y
4,984.6(
E
488.4�
1 : 5,473.0$
c
m
AI E
AI �
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221570 8/25/2016 073752 SCIACCA, MATTHEW (Continued)
221571 8/25/2016 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S3-1035556
S3-1053481
S3-1064000
S3-1072486
Yc�iIiI:Z:1:Li�]
S3-1090553
PO # Description/Account
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
Tota
UNIT 455 - SPARK PLUGS & COIL
Unit 455 - Spark Plugs & Coil
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 452 - COOLING MOTOR W/F
Unit 452 - Cooling Motor w/Fan
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 36 - BATTERY
Unit 36 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
FLEET RETURNS
Fleet Returns
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 62 - BATTERY
Unit 62 - Battery
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
UNIT 125 - ANTIFREEZE
Unit 125 - Antifreeze
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota
4.4.a
Page: 33
AI
221.5z L-
c�
a
21.7' E
.2
U
85.8( 0
8.4' o
L
a
Q.
Q
-34.0,
rn
-3.3:
E
32.41 f°
r
3.1f y
I : 484.95 E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221572
8/25/2016
068489 SIRENNET.COM
0203786-IN
UNIT E122EN - LIGHTS
Unit E122EN - Lights
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Tota
221573
8/25/2016
060889 SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL
ARV/29747643
FLEET SHOP TOOLS
Fleet Shop Tools
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
Tota
221574
8/25/2016
037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST# 1
20977 FIRSTAID/CPR
20977 FIRSTAID/CPR INSTRUCTI
20977 FIRSTAID/CPR INSTRUCTI
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Tota
221575
8/25/2016
066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS
1000416130
E6CA.SERVICES THRU JUNE 201
E6CA.Services thru June 2016
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
Tota
221576
8/25/2016
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
2002-0254-7
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 9
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 9
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2002-6027-1
YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2003-8645-6
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDAL
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT R
4.4.a
Page: 34
E
E
T
T
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
0-
am
349.7:
I : 349.7E
=a
4.
aD
c
107.7 1
10.5( CM
I : 118.X o
0
O (a
O 0-
150.0( ._
1 : 150.0( TU
w
6 0
5,858.7' a
1 : 5,858.7' Q
5-
5-
19.1(
m
r
U
1,493.0�
00
Y
27.7 1
: •�
D
659.2(
/ m
D/ E
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 71
4.4.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 35
08/25/2016 11:30:11AM
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code : usbank
U
a�
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
221576 8/25/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
a
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
190.01 d
2006-1131-7
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
L
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
121.4E
2006-3860-9
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
;_'
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON
w
c
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
129.4<
2007-1403-8
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
34.7( o
2007-3984-5
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
a
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
13.4E E
2011-9708-4
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
61.6E o
2012-3682-5
FISHING PIER
FISHING PIER
p
L
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
223.5� 0-
2012-6598-0
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL �
a
Q
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL �
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
120.6E 0)
2013-7496-4
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P
v
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P
m
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
15.4E
2014-3124-4
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
N
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC
00
0
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
16.8E Y
2014-4175-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
E
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
264.0,
2015-5174-4
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
r
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
m
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
1,735.2z E
2015-7289-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 72
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221576 8/25/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2015-9448-8
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
2017-5147-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2017-8264-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / �
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / �
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2019-4248-9
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
2022-9166-2
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 ,
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 ,
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2023-8937-5
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / I
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY / I
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
2024-3924-6
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2025-4064-7
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
4.4.a
Page: 36
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
34.4'
a�
L
14.3( V
aD
c
m
36.9(
c�
0
15.1 0 j,
0
a
E
85.1(
323.3 0
323.3 1 o
a
0.
323.3 1 Q
323.3 1 Tq
323.3 1 m
T
L6
N
5,274.5'00
o
N
8.0, .E
ca
U
2,388.9z a0i
E
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 73
4.4.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 37
08/25/2016 11:30:11AM
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code : usbank
U
W
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
221576 8/25/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
a
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
a)
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.5z
2028-0763-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
L
TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
18.7,
2030-9778-7
WWTP: 7/16-8/15/16 200 2ND AVE,'
WWTP: 7/16-8/15/16 200 2ND AVE!
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
26,786.3E
2036-5215-1
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
0
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
126.5� j,
2202-1638-6
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
f°
a
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
56.5E
2205-4757-4
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
o
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
52.0<
Total:
41,658.9E i
a
221577 8/25/2016 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE
2016-3304
INV 2016-3304 INMATE MEDICAL JL
Q'
Q
INMATE HOSPITAL SERVICES - 05/'
001.000.39.523.60.41.00
680.2E
INMATE HOSPITAL SERVICES - 04/'
001.000.39.523.60.41.00
302.0( m
INMATE MEDICATION - 06/16
r
001.000.39.523.60.31.00
365.4( N
2016-3304
CM 2016-3304 CREDIT INMATE ME[
00
0
CREDIT FOR INMATE MEDS - 05/16
w
001.000.39.523.60.31.00
-8.6:
Total:
1,339.w E
221578 8/25/2016 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
L116003
07-16 AUDIT FEES
07-16 Audit Fees
c
001.000.39.514.20.51.00
10,119.5( E
07-16 Audit Fees
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 37
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221578 8/25/2016 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
221579 8/25/2016 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
111.000.68.543.30.51.00
07-16 Audit Fees
421.000.74.534.80.51.00
07-16 Audit Fees
422.000.72.531.90.51.00
07-16 Audit Fees
423.000.75.535.80.51.00
07-16 Audit Fees
423.000.76.535.80.51.00
07-16 Audit Fees
511.000.77.548.68.51.00
Tota
4.4.a
Page: 38
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
299.0( -0a
3,685.1( i
=a
1,978.1(
aD
c
5,208.2,
1,365.0' c�a
0
521.6' L>%
I : 23,176.61 a
E
20922 BEACH CAMP 20922 BEACH CAMP
•2
20922 BEACH CAMP
U
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
13,588.0( o
20930 BEACH CAMP 20930 BEACH CAMP - SLEEPOVER
20930 BEACH CAMP - SLEEPOVER
0
0
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
L
11,448.0( 0-
Total :
25,036.0( Q
221580 8/25/2016 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18125280
221581 8/25/2016 075729 TERRY GRALL
221582 8/25/2016 071666 TETRATECH INC
3-20675
51078310
FLEET SHOP SUPPLIES
Fleet Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
Tota
#4243-2680819 UTILITY REFUND
#4243-2680819 Utility refund due to
411.000.233.000
Tota
E4GC.SERVICES THRU 7/22/16
E4GC.Services thru 7/22/16
137.4' m
T
13.41 N
150.81 c
N
E
59.6: 'M
59.6:
r
c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 38
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221582
8/25/2016
071666 TETRA TECH INC
(Continued)
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
Tota
221583
8/25/2016
069596 THE DOWNTOWN MOUNTAIN BOYS
8/21 CONCERT
8/21/16 CONCERT DOWNTOWN
8/21/16 CONCERT DOWNTOWN
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
Tota
221584
8/25/2016
075139 THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP INC
110871
E4FE.SERVICES THRU 7/29/16
E4FE.Services thru 7/29/16
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
Tota
221585
8/25/2016
072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY
93203
HP PAGEWIDE COPY MACHINE L
HP PAGEWIDE COPY MACHINE L
001.000.62.594.58.64.00
Tota
221586
8/25/2016
069357 THIES, MIKE
Aug-16
WACE CONFERENCE AND DUES
WACE- conference, THIES, Leaven
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
WACE- membership dues
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Tota
221587
8/25/2016
042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY
40800
FAC MAINT - KEY STOCK
Fac Maint - Key Stock
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
221588
8/25/2016
075556 TSUTAKAWA, DEEMS
8/18 HMP CONCERT
8/18/16 HMP CONCERT DEEMS A
8/18/16 HMP CONCERT DEEMS A
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
4.4.a
Page: 39
MC
MC
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun
};
0
16,327.7(
a
m
I: 16,327.7(
m
600.0(
4
c
1 : 600.0(
a)
c
c�
9,499.41
o
I: 9,499.4,
M
a
X, E
X 2
27,448.9( ,-
I: 27,448.9( c
c�
0
L
W Q
0.
200.0( Q
40.0(
240.0(
m
r
LO
N
42.0( c
N
Y
4.1,
1 : 46.1, .
ca
NI
r
NI
1,000.0( E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 39
Packet Pg. 76
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221588 8/25/2016 075556 075556 TSUTAKAWA, DEEMS
221589 8/25/2016 070774 ULINE INC
221590 8/25/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued) Tota
79254210 INV#79254210 CUST#2634605 - E
7X4X4 KRAFT MAILERS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
7X7X4 KRAFT MAILERS
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
15X12X10 STORAGE BOXES
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
24X15X10 STORAGE BOXES
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.80.31.00
Tota
2674 AMAZON - FLEET SHOP - SCANNF
Amazon - Fleet Shop - Scanner Bat
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
Tire Rack - Unit 10 - Tire
511.000.77.548.68.34.30
Crest Chev - Unit 5 Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Home Depot - Unit 52 Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
David Clark - Unit 46 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Sirennet - Uint EQ96PO - Parts
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Car Toys - Unit 36 - Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
WeatherTech - Unit E123SO - Parts
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
David Clark - Unit 46 - Comm Cord
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
4.4.a
Page: 40
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
I: 1,000.0( 0
CL
DI
m
62.0(
4
121.0( c
m
35.4(
c
c�
135.6( o
69.8: a
41.5: E
1 : 465.3E U
4-
0
M
to >
0
20.2E a
Q.
Q
230.6(
623.8'
m
265.6z r
N
136.7E c
N
1,574.2: cYi
E
65.8z f°
U
r
74.9E
KI E
291.5(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 40
Packet Pg. 77
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221590 8/25/2016 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
Chuck Olson - Unit 89 - Latch
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Innovative Light - Unit E112PO -
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Home Depot - Shop Supplies
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
Wesco - Unit E112PO - Supplies
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
3535
NAPA - PARTS
Napa - Parts
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Apple - Charging Cords
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
NW Restaurant - Charged for Svc cal
001.000.65.518.20.48.00
7000
US BANK VISA- SHANES
Parking fee's
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
8592
RETURN OF FILE FOLDERS
Amazon- File Folders
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
8592
DEPT VISA, MISC CHARGES
office supplies- Dev Services
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Framed zoning map- Hobby Lobby
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Meter- for code enforcment
001.000.62.524.10.35.00
Code Books- Bldg
001.000.62.524.20.49.00
Brad class- Presenting Data and info
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
software fee's- Adobe and Bluebeam
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
4.4.a
Page: 41
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
0
a
am
105.0E
a�
L
82.5� =5
4-
11.2E c
m
114.4 c
c�
0
26.11 L>%
ca
a
63.6E
.5
522.2 1 U
w
0
635.4: r
L6
252.20 N
0
0
389.9( Y
90.0( •�
420.0(
m
65.8(
R
.r
r
a
Page: 41
Packet Pg. 78
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221590 8/25/2016 062693 US BANK
221591 8/25/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
BID-1687 POSTAGE, FACEBOOK AD, UMBRE
Facebook advertising
140.000.61.558.70.41.40
Postage for mailing Ed! logo for bike
140.000.61.558.70.49.00
Purchase of umbrella container
140.000.61.558.70.31.00
Total
9770277050 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.67.518.21.42.00
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
Cell Service-PD 104 Fund
104.100.41.521.21.42.00
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
Cell Service-PW Water
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Cell Service-WWTP
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
9770277050 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service -Bldg
4.4.a
Page: 42
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
a)
8.7z aa)
L
=a
12.0z it
a�
c
55.0E
6,076M
c�
0
92.6 1 a
127.1z
62.61 0
328.6, o
L
a
Q.
133.5, Q
18.5(
32.71 m
T
LO
32.7( N
00
0
56.2z Y
80.3, .
ca
36.9( r
c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 42
Packet Pg. 79
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221591 8/25/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS (Continued)
221592 8/25/2016 072312 VERSATILE MOBILE SYSTEMS INC 0000082231
221593 8/25/2016 073472 WAPRO
221594 8/25/2016 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
1674
1704
1716
9674992 CR
9683320
9700708
PO # Description/Account
001.000.62.524.20.42.00
Tota
INV#0000082231 CUST#EDMPOL
HONEYWELL BAR CODE SCANN
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
Tota
INV 1674 WAPRO FALL CONFERE
FALL CONFERENCE REGISTRATI
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
INV 1704 WAPRO FALL CONFERE
FALL CONF REGISTRATION
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
INV 1716 - FALL CONF REGISTRA
FALL CONF REGISTRATION
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
FAC MAINT RETURNS
Fac Maint Returns
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
Tota
4.4.a
Page: 43
-
TI
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
0-
-0a
1 : 988.0' +.
m
I
EF
4"
687.0( c
m
67.3<
1 : 754.1
N o
0 CU
175.0(
N E
U
175.0( o
�
0
175.0( a
1 : 525.0( Q
Cn
-281.9( "
m
T
-27.6: N
ao
0
N
508.5: �
E
49.81
c
42.7� E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 43
Packet Pg. 80
vchlist
08/25/2016 11:30:11 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221594 8/25/2016 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
221595
221596
221597
8/25/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC
8/25/2016 074609 WEST COASTARMORY NORTH
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
7090
7137
JUL-16
8/25/2016 069605 WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 2016-EDM-JUL
137 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
PO # Description/Account
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
BUSINESS CARDS COUNCIL, EN(
CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS CARD
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
ENGINEERING BUSINESS CARD
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
PARKS AND REC BUSINESS CAR
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
9.8% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
1500 DOOR HANGERS
1500 Door Hangers
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
Tota
INV#JUL-16 CUST ID-EDMONDS
RANGE USAGE-GAGNER 7/8/16
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
Tota
FIRE PLAN REVIEW BLD2016-011
FIRE PLAN REVIEW BLD2016-011
001.000.62.524.20.41.00
Tota
Bank tota
4.4.a
Page: 44
I
S
S
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
0
0-
4.1� m
1 : 295.8;
U
a�
- .•�
4
35.0(
- �
35.0(
D;
c�
35.0( o
3.4: a
3.4: E
U
3.4: c
0
L
306.3z m
I : 421.6: Q
PC
13.6(
T
1.3z N
I : 15.0( c
N
7, �c
7, E
3,654.1E 'm
I : 3,654.1E
r
c
I: 1,128,687.91 E
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 44
Packet Pg. 81
4.4.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 45
08/25/2016 11:30:11AM City of Edmonds
lid
ca
Bank code: usbank U
a�
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun };
137 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,128,687.91 a
m
m
L
Page: 45
Packet Pg. 82
4.4.b
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221598 9/1/2016 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC
221599
221600
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
669242
C116153162
9/1/2016 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 11741
PO # Description/Account
RETURNED GLOVES 2012 INV C112
RETURNED GLOVES 2012 INV CI1;
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
HORTICULTURAL VINEGAR
HORTICULTURAL VINEGAR
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
CHEMICALS SPRAY PARK
CHEMICALS SPRAY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
9/1/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988753203 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
1988757200 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT:
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT:
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT:
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
Page:
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
-30.9E L
150.5E c
119.5,
c
c�
0
406.0(
c�
a
39.7�
445.75
4-
0
M
56.2E o
L
0-
0.
Q
1.6'
rn
6.1'
m
6.1' r
r
0
6.1' o
N
Y
6.1'
E
6.0E f°
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 83
4.4.b
vchlist Voucher List Page: 2
09/01/2016
8:20:47AM
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code :
usbank
U
W
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
221600
9/1/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
a
9.8% Sales Tax
m
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
0.6(
9.8% Sales Tax
a�
L
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
0.6( =a
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
0.6(
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
0.5�
1988757201
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
c�a
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
mm
o
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
6.4(
FLEET DIVISION MATS
a
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
19.4(
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
0.6: u
9.8% Sales Tax
4-
C
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1.9' >
Total:
119.95 0
a
221601 9/1/2016 075678 BOYD LEGAL PLLC BL-16-007
CONFLICT PUBLIC DEFENDER
Q'
Q
CONFLICT PUBLIC DEFENDER
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
1,200.0(
Total :
1,200.0( v
221602 9/1/2016 075739 BUSHNELL, JEANETTE 8/22 REFUND
8/22/16 REFUND UNUSED MONITOI
m
8/22/16 REFUND UNUSED MONITOI
c
001.000.239.200
515.0( c
Total:
515.0( w
221603 9/1/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 16388335
CONTRACT CHARGE -PLANNING Ci
E
CONTRACT CHARGE -PLANNING 0
ca
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
36.2(
16388336
CONTRACT CHARGE-BLDG COPIEI
CONTRACT CHARGE-BLDG COPIEI
E
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
36.2(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 84
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221603 9/1/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
16400438
C5250
Contract charge
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
Contract charge
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
Contract charge
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
BW meter usage
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
BW meter usage
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
BW meter usage
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
CLR meter usage
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
CLR meter usage
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
CLR meter usage
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
16400440
C250
Contract charge
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
B&W meter usage
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
Color meter usage
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
4.4.b
Page: 3
c
ca
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
146.7: aUi
L
=a
31.4z V
W
c
31.4z
201.2' c�a
0
43.1, L>%
ca
a
43.1'
426.5E U
w
0
75.9(
16.2 1
m
r
16.2( r
0
o�
0
26.4,
13.8(
56.6(
m
9.5' t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 85
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221603 9/1/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
221604
221605
221606
221607
221608
9/1/2016 075627 CAPITOL STRATEGIES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
16400441
16400442
826
9/1/2016 075023 CAROLYN DOUGLAS COMMUNICATION 57
9/1/2016 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS
9/1/2016 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD
9/1/2016 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
E6GA.ENG20160312
12455
221609 9/1/2016 004095 COASTWIDE LABS GW2903861
PO # Description/Account
CONTRACT CHARGE -COPIER BL
CONTRACT CHARGE -COPIER BL
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
CONTRACT CHARGE-PLNNING C
CONTRACT CHARGE -PLANNING
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
Tota
FEDERAL LOBBYIST FOR AUGUS
Federal Lobbyist for August 2016
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
Tota
COMMUNICATIONS/COMMUNITY
Communications/community outrea
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
Tota
E6GA.ENG20160312 ROW PERMI
E6GA.ENG20160312 ROW Permit
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
Tota
WWTP: JULY 2016 M/O & SEWER
July 2016 M/O & SEWER
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
Tota
EDMONDS PORTION OF FALL CR
EDMONDS PORTION OF FALL CR
001.000.64.571.22.42.00
Tota
PM: LINERS, ECOGREEN RL, TT
PM: LINERS, ECOGREEN RL, TT
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
4.4.b
Page: 4
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun
};
_
0
DI
a
4)
D(
+.
71.0,
m
L
O
••
C1
71.0.
4-
c
I : 1,535.8t
T
c�
5,000.0(
I: 5,000.0(
a
O E
cr f°
U
2,500.0( o
I: 2,500.0(
T 0
a
Q.
115.0( Q
1 : 115.0(
m
r
27,602.0( r
1 : 27,602.0( 9
0
A, Y
A,
6,842.31 .E
I : 6,842.31
r
c
m
E
679.7�
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 86
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221609 9/1/2016 004095 COASTWIDE LABS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
N W 2903861
221610 9/1/2016 075738 CORRECTIONAL COUNSELING INC SEA-DV-SEP16-60715
221611 9/1/2016 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON
221612 9/1/2016 068190 DATEC INC
221613 9/1/2016 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY
7100166392
32817
MS17001001
221614 9/1/2016 070864 DEX MEDIA 610028337724
[:Ti[i0
PO # Description/Account
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: ACCLAIM, BRAWNY, DISNF C
PM: ACCLAIM, BRAWNY, DISNF C
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
PROBATION TRAINING OMAR
PROBATION TRAINING OMAR
001.000.23.523.30.43.00
Tota
WWTP: AUG 2016 JANITORIAL SE
AUG 2016 janitorial service
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Tota
INV#32817 - EDMONDS PD
POCKET 7 USB THERMAL PRINTE
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
Tota
WWTP: EDUENAS+MVANPELT IN(
Incinerator Renewal Certificates for
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
Tota
C/A 730211600
07/2016 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
C/A 730211599
4.4.b
Page: 5
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun
};
_
0
a
am
66.6,
L
L
647.2
a�
c
63.4:
I: 1,457.1'
c�
0
500.0( a
500.0(
F U
4-
0
514.0( @
514.0( c
L
Q
Q.
F Q
719.4(
70.5( "
789.9(
:I o
o�
0
400.0(
400.0( U
2
U
r
39.9E a0i
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 87
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221614 9/1/2016 070864 DEX MEDIA (Continued)
610028822941
610028822977
221615 9/1/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 16-3688
221616
221617
221618
9/1/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001747
9/1/2016 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP 5062 DIAZ
9/1/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150
2-25175
2-26950
PO # Description/Account
Basic e-commerce hosting 07/02/16
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
C/A 730211600
08/2016 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
C/A 730211599
Basic e-commerce hosting 08/02/16
001.000.31.518.88.42.00
Tota
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8/23/201
08/23/16 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
Tota
PM: ZINC QUICK LINK, TURNBUC
PM: ZINC QUICK LINK, TURNBUC
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
5062 OMAR DIAZ YOUTH SCHOL
5062 OMAR DIAZ YOUTH SCHOL
122.000.64.571.20.49.00
Tota
WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870
WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875
EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTR
LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTR
4.4.b
Page: 6
c
ca
hd
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
39.9E
5D
40.5(
a�
c
m
40.5(
160.9( c�a
E/
6 0
P 0
a
346.5(
1 : 346.5(
KI o
KI ra
10.9E c
a
1.0E Q
1 : 12.0E
AF
AF
75.0(
1 : 75.0( c
C o
C Y
73.1'
94.4(
�
E/ E
R
.r
r
a
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 88
4.4.b
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
09/01/2016
8:20:47AM
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code :
usbank
U
a�
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
221618
9/1/2016
008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
(Continued)
a
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
83.8(
2-28275
PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AV
+.
PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH AV
L
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
112.1E
2-29118
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
c
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
44.7'
2-37180
SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER £
SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER £
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
55.6E o
7-05276
CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820
>,
CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820
a
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
154.8E
Total:
618.6£
221619
9/1/2016
075566 EHRBAR, PAMELA
BID-083016
BID ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 8/
o
BID Administrative services 8/12-8/29
@
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
532.5( o
Total:
532.5( a
Q.
221620
9/1/2016
008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
AR47848
COPIER B&W COPIES
Q
COPIER B&W COPIES
001.000.23.512.50.48.00
7.8E
AR48117 CONTRACT CHARGE -PLANNING Cj
CONTRACT CHARGE -PLANNING C
tD
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
1.1E c
AR48118 CONTRACT CHARGE-BLDG CANOP
d6
CONTRACT CHARGE-BLDG CANOP
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
N
1.4£
AR49007 ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
E
Maintenance for printers 08/21/16 -
001.000.31.518.88.48.00
307.2(
Overage charge for 07/21/16 - 8/20/1
001.000.31.518.88.48.00
15.9, E
9.8% Sales Tax
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 89
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221620 9/1/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued)
PO # Description/Account
001.000.31.518.88.48.00
4.4.b
Page: 8
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
0-
31.6 1 a)
Total : 365.3' 41
U
m
221621 9/1/2016 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU41102
PM: SUPPLIES
PM: SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
4"
163.7( c
9.8% Sales Tax
m
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
16.0:
Total:
179.8'
221622 9/1/2016 065427 FCS GROUP 2509-21608020
E6JA.SERVICES THRU 8/19/16
0
L
E6JA.Services thru 8/19/16
ca
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
960.0( o-
E6JA.Services thru 8/19/16
E
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
960.0( TU
E6JA.Services thru 8/19/16
c
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
960.0( -,;
Total:
2,880.0( c
0
221623 9/1/2016 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
a
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR)
Q
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
30.9E
253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
161.7 0
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
c
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
300.4z
253-012-9189
WWTP: 8/25-9/24/16 AUTO DIALER
8/25-9/24/16 AUTO DIALER - 1 VOIC
N
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
41.3z E
253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
19.7(
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
t
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
36.7(
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 90
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221623 9/1/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued)
253-017-4360
253-017-7256
425-712-8347
425-771-0158
425-771-5553
425-776-6829
509-022-0049
PO # Description/Account
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
WWTP: 8/25-9/24/16 TELEMETRY
WWTP: 8/25-9/24/16 TELEMETRY
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND F
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND F
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
WWTP: 8/25-9/24-16 AUTO DIALE
8/25-9/24-16 AUTO DIALER - 1 BU
423.000.76.535.80.42.00
CITY HALLALARM LINES 121 5TH
CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL AC(
LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL AC(
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
Tota
221624 9/1/2016 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 13640 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01
14126 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.23.523.30.41.01
Tota
221625 9/1/2016 073821 GEODESIGN INC 1607-303 ESGA.SERVICES THRU 7/22/16
ESGA.Services thru 7/22/16
4.4.b
Page: 9
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
46.7 0 aUi
L
=a
86.8E
a�
c
m
224.0E
c�
0 j 68.3< ,
A}
E
131.5(
R
S o
114.6E @
P o
L
AI a
131.5( Q
26.2E
1,420.9 i to
0
o�
0
105.3, Y
E
105.3, ca
1 : 210.61
r
c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 91
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221625
9/1/2016
073821 GEODESIGN INC
(Continued)
423.200.75.594.35.41.00
Tota
221626
9/1/2016
075740 GIL, ROSA
8/23 REFUND
8/23/16 REFUND DAMAGE DEPO
4.4.b
Page: 10
S
SI-
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
0
0-
3,164.4( -0a
I : 3,164.45
m
I'
4
500.0( c
1 : 500.0( a)c
c�
s —
3,975.0( o
I: 3,975.0( M
a
V E
.2
200.0( ,-
1 : 200.0( c
c�
D o
eti 0-
0.
1,500.0( Q
1 : 1,500.0(
Tf
me m
674.0(
r
ei C
221.6' c
ed w
221.6'
E
109.4�
I : 1,226.7'
c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 92
V E
.2
200.0( ,-
1 : 200.0( c
c�
D o
eti 0-
0.
1,500.0( Q
1 : 1,500.0(
Tf
me m
674.0(
r
ei C
221.6' c
ed w
221.6'
E
109.4�
I : 1,226.7'
c
m
E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 92
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
221631
9/1/2016
060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC
(Continued)
016.000.66.518.30.41.00
Tota
221632
9/1/2016
073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
2840807
OFFICE SUPPLIES -STAMP
OFFICE SUPPLIES -STAMP
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
2841421
OFFICE SUPPLIES -STAMP
OFFICE SUPPLIES -STAMP
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
2843394
WWTP: COPIER PAPER - LTR SIZI
Navigator Platinum Office Multipurp
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
2844019
WWTP: DRY ERASE MARKERS
DRY ERASE MARKERS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
221633
9/1/2016
014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
300-10012405
PM: GLOVES, BRAKE CLEAN
PM: SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
221634
9/1/2016
075661 JANET MAPLES DESIGN /IZZY GIRL
BID-08312016
BID SOCIAL MEDIA
Social media for 8/16-8/31 /16
140.000.61.558.70.41.00
Tota
221635
9/1/2016
075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC
014
STATE LOBBYIST FOR AUGUST 2
State lobbyist for August 2016
4.4.b
Page: 11
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
0
a
14,262.7( a)
14,262.7(
m
L
95.4E c
m
21.6, r-
o:
41.9E a
4.1, •�
U
4-
0
2.7(
0
0.2 1 a
I : 166.21 Q
rn
m
r
22.4< c
1 : 251.2E d6
0
N
U
E
1 : 510.0(
r
01 a0i
E
t
U
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 93
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221635 9/1/2016 075356 JENNIFER ZIEGLER PUBLIC
221636 9/1/2016 074168 JOHNSON, MELISSA
221637 9/1/2016 070019 JUDICIAL CONF REGISTRAR
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
8/11 CEMETERYAD
101716
1018716
221638 9/1/2016 075646 K-A GENERAL CONST CONTRACTOR 10142
221639 9/1/2016 074135 LAFAVE, CAROLYN
PO # Description/Account
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
Tota
8/11/16 CEMETERYAD EWHS
8/11/16 CEMETERYAD EWHS
130.000.64.536.20.41.40
Tota
LINE -STAFF COURT TRAINING K
LINE -STAFF COURT TRAINING K
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
LINE -STAFF COURT TRAINING G
LINE -STAFF COURT TRAINING G
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
Tota
DAYTON STREET PLAZA
DAYTON STREET PLAZA
132.000.64.594.76.65.00
RETAINAGE
132.000.223.400
Tota
081116 ESCC STUDENT EXCHANGE
Gas for ESCC student exchange
138.100.21.557.21.49.00
Tota
221640 9/1/2016 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC 0037747
221641 9/1/2016 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER September 2016
4.4.b
Page: 12
c
ca
lid
U
W
Amoun };
0
a
3,358.0( a)
3,358.0(
a�
L
4
75.0( c
75.0(
ER
E
R�
R�
c
R f°
50.0( o
0-
50.0( .
1 : 100.0(
4-
0
n:
114,840.01 0
CL
Q.
-5,229.5' Q
109,610.5E
m
r
187.0( r
1 : 187.0( 9
0
PROFESSIONAL SVC
Y
PROFESSIONAL SVS-ENV SERVICE
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
3,000.0( .
Total:
3,000.0( f°
SEPTEMBER 2016 CIGNA PREMIUK
c
September 2016 Cigna premiums
m
E
811.000.231.550 11,433.41
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 94
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
221641 9/1/2016 075159 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER (Continued)
221642 9/1/2016 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 014371 00
221643 9/1/2016 075664 MAJOR, JENNA
221644 9/1/2016 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD
221645 9/1/2016 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
221646 9/1/2016 024910 NORMED
014521 00
8/4-8/25 FIELDATTEN
16748
243331
24808-727785
Description/Account
Tota
PM: ELEC VALVE, SXM UNIN
PM: ELEC VALVE, SXM UNIN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
FISHING PIER SUPPLIES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
8/4-8/25/16 SOFTBALL FIELD ATT
8/4-8/25/16 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTE
001.000.64.571.25.41.00
Tota
SCANNING
SCANNING
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
Tota
WWTP: PROPANE FOR FORKLIST
Propane for forklift
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
INV#24808-727785 EDMONDS PD
PROPRINAL PAIN RELIEVER
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
NUTRALOX ANTACID
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
4.4.b
Page: 13
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
11,433.41 0
am
m
417.1�
40.8E c
m
177.4z
17.3E
1 : 652.9( a
E1` E
r �
U
135.0( o
135.0( -cu-
0
a
Q.
2,313.1 ' Q
1 : 2,313.1 ,
cc
28.6z
0
a�
2.8' o
1 : 31.4! Y
E
41.8E
c
m
15.3( E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 95
4.4.b
vchlist Voucher List Page: 14
09/01/2016
8:20:47AM
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
Bank code :
usbank
U
a�
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
221646
9/1/2016
024910 NORMED
(Continued)
a
RELIEF - PE COLD TABLETS
m
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
17.7z
Freight
i
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10.5( =a
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
8.30
Total:
93.7E
221647
9/1/2016
073213 NORTHWEST TRAVEL& LIFE
2016-116
TOURISM AD SEPTEMBER/OCTOBI
c�
Tourism promotion ad September/Ocl
0
120.000.31.575.42.41.40
998.0( ",
Total:
998.0( a
221648
9/1/2016
063511 OFFICE MAX INC
846934
P&R OFFICE SUPPLIES
P&RADMIN: TAPE, PAPER, LAM PC
f°
U
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
172.6< c
P&R DISC: LABELS
-cu-
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
22.0, c
9.8% Sales Tax
0-
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
16.9' Q
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.23.31.00
2.1(
857604
P&RADMIN: CLOCK
P&RADMIN: CLOCK
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
c
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
0.9E c
Total:
224.7( rn
221649
9/1/2016
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
23314
CHEMICALS YOST
E
CHEMICALS YOST
ca
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
924.6E
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
90.6, E
t
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 96
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221649 9/1/2016 063750 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC (Continued)
221650 9/1/2016 075735 PACIFIC SECURITY 16505
221651 9/1/2016 064070 PALMATIER, LISA 8/25 CONCERT COORD
CONCERTS LP
221652 9/1/2016 070003 PAXTON, LAUREL 21046 ACTING CAMP
221653 9/1/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC K068141
221654 9/1/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821
200002411383
200007876143
200009595790
PO #
Description/Account
COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
Tota
Tota
8/25/16 CONCERT COORDINATO
8/25/16 CONCERT COORDINATO
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
CONCERTS LP
CONCERTS LP
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
Tota
21046 ACTING CAMP INSTRUCTI
21046 ACTING CAMP INSTRUCTI
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Tota
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA PUMP
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA PUMP
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOW DOI
YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOW DOI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTO
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTO
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH S
4.4.b
Page: 15
R
R
c
ca
lid
U
a�
_ Amoun };
1 : 1,015.21 a
m
a�
45.0(
1 : 45.0(
4-
a�
�
m
�
1,250.0( c
c�
0
320.0( ca
1,570.0( a-
E
or to
or
w
4,508.4( o
I: 4,508.4( >
0
Q
L
Q.
Q
70.4z
rn
6.9(
N
N
T
1 : 77.31 m
IL
r CD
0( °)
0
599.0' Y
N
N E
1,414.2E
�
m
35.2E E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 97
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221654 9/1/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
200011439656
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
200016815843
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
200017676343
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
200019375639
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
200019895354
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
200020415911
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
200021829581
WWTP: 7/21-8/22/16 200 2ND AVE E
WWTP: 200 2ND AVE S / METER 00
423.000.76.535.80.47.63
200024711901
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
4.4.b
Page: 16
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
85.7(
51.8:
a�
c
m
123.3E
c�
0
56.1( j,
0
a
E
35.2E
4-
0
35.2E @
0
L
a
0.
3.6( Q
13.9.
13.9. w
r
r
13.9. c
a�
0
13.9, Y
13.9< E
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 98
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221654 9/1/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
221655 9/1/2016 075737 ROBINSON, HUA
221656 9/1/2016 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC
221657 9/1/2016 075733 SIBREL, ED
221658 9/1/2016 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST# 1
221659 9/1/2016 066754 SNO CO PUBLIC WORKS
4.4.b
Voucher List
Page: 17
City of Edmonds
ca
lid
U
a�
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun };
(Continued)
0
CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
77.4:
Total:
2,628.3E i
=a
11792
INTERPRETER FEE
=
INTERPRETER FEE
4-
001.000.23.523.30.41.01
115.7E
Total:
115.7E
c
37680
REMOTE COMPUTER SUPPORT
Remote Computer Support 7/27/16
0
001.000.31.518.88.41.00
87.5(
37789
ONSITE COMPUTER SUPPORT
Q-
Onsite computer support 7/19/16, 7/2
001.000.31.518.88.41.00
697.5(
Total:
785.0( c
8/3 REIMB PLAN COPIE 8/3/16 REIMB PLAN COPIES
8/3/16 REIMB PLAN COPIES
132.000.64.594.76.65.00
Tota
Q4-2016 Q4-2016 FIRE SERVICES CONT
RA
1,776,042.5(
b r
200,507.6( 9
1,976,550.1( G
N
Y
E
32,774.5E 2u
r
61,076.8(
93,851.3E E
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 99
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221660 9/1/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
1900015566
E1 CA.RELOCATION
E1 CA.Relocation
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
2001-2487-3
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2003-4823-3
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2004-2241-8
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2004-9314-6
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2007-4860-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2008-6520-2
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
2013-2711-1
PINE ST PARK
PINE ST PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2015-5730-3
CEMETERY BUILDING
CEMETERY BUILDING
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2015-6343-4
TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA
TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2015-8215-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
2016-1027-6
OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT i
OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT 1
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
4.4.b
Page: 18
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
21,101.9z
28.8'
d
c
m
39.4<
c�
0
904.1�
0
a
E
17.4,
4-
0
17.9E
0
L
a
Q.
58.3( Q
14.6'
m
r
r
43.9E c
a�
0
N
Y
21.41
E
27.2E
c
m
E
8.0,
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 100
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221660 9/1/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
2016-1195-1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
2016-5690-7
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN,'
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN,'
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
2017-0375-8
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10(
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10(
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2017-6210-1
415 5TH AVE S
415 5TH AVE S
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2019-0786-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
2019-2991-6
WWTP: 7/23-8/23-16 FLOW METER
7/23-8/23-16 FLOW METER 23219 7
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
2020-8787-0
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
2021-6153-5
CEMETERY WELL PUMP
CEMETERY WELL PUMP
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2022-8912-0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
2024-2158-2
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI
LOG CABIN & DECORATIVE LIGHTI
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2026-2041-5
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
2042-9221-3
CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST
CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST
4.4.b
Page: 19
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
am
28.9E
L
97.7E c
m
22.2'
0
17.3( a
E
32.0z
4-
0
17.9E o
L
a
0.
El
209.8E
rn
212.6( m
r
0
57.31 c
N
Y
38.5 1 E
ca
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 101
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
221660 9/1/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued)
2044-6743-5
221661 9/1/2016 038100 SNO-KING STAMP
221662 9/1/2016 075495 SOFTWARE ONE
60214
US-PSI-510431
221663 9/1/2016 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES 1075277
221664 9/1/2016 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT
1088509
20923 BEACH CAMP
PO # Description/Account
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
Tota
INV#60214 - EDMONDS PD
LOCKER MAGNET - BRUGGMAN
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
MAGMATE PLATES - BRUGGMAN
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
Tota
ADOBE ACROBAT PROFESSIONA
Adobe Acrobat Professional DC
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
Tota
E4JB.SERVICES THRU 7/1/16
E4JB.Services thru 7/1/16
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
E4JB.SERVICES THRU 7/29/16
E4JB.Services thru 7/29/16
421.200.74.594.34.41.00
20923 BEACH CAMP
20923 BEACH CAMP
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Tota
4.4.b
Page: 20
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
0
a
52.6z -0a
a�
L
34.2.
23,121.9'
a�
c
m
4.5(
6.0(
ca
a
2.7E E
.2
1.3( U
1 : 14.5E o
L c
a
612.8E Q
60.0(
1 : 672.91
m
r
0
867.8E
0
N
U
2,428.1z E
1 : 3,296.0,
c
13,588.0( t
U
R
.r
r
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 102
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
221664 9/1/2016 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT
221665
221667
221668
221669
9/1/2016 071666 TETRATECH INC
9/1/2016 070744 TIGER OAK MEDIA
9/1/2016 075741 TREDER, LISA
9/1/2016 043935 UPS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
20931 BEACH CAMP
35009-10B
35009-9B
51078837
2016-159041
8/22 REFUND
00002T4T13346
9/1/2016 047455 WA ST DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB60815001
PO # Description/Account
20931 BEACH CAMP - SLEEPOVE
20931 BEACH CAMP - SLEEPOVE
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Tota
ESDB.SERVICES THRU JULY 201
ESDB.Services thru July 2016
001.000.67.518.21.41.00
ESDB.SERVICES THRU JUNE 201
ESDB.Services thru June 2016
001.000.67.518.21.41.00
ESFD.SERVICES THRU JULY 201
ESFD.Services thru July 2016
422.200.72.594.31.41.00
Tota
BUSINESS RECRUITMENT AD IN
Business recruitment ad in Seattle
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
Tota
8/22/16 REFUND UNUSED MONIT
8/22/16 REFUND UNUSED MONIT
001.000.239.200
Tota
SHIPPING FEE FOR GROUNDWA
Shipping Fee for Groundwater Moni
422.000.72.531.40.35.00
Tota
IT MAINTENANCE & OPERATION
IT Maintenance & Operations Fiber
001.000.31.518.87.48.00
Tota
4.4.b
Page: 21
6
c
ca
lid
U
W
_ Amoun };
0
0-
R -0)
R },
8,586.0( i
1 : 22,174.0(
a
c
m
45,518.3(
6
c�
6
S
60,835.4z L,
0
a
18,378.0( •�
I: 124,731.8(
w
31 0
0
1,200.0( a
I: 1,200.0( Q
OI
OI
522.0( "
1 : 522.0(
TE C
tc o
21.1( Y
1 : 21.1(
1
O
768.1'
1 : 768.1, E
t
R
.r
r
a
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 103
vchlist
09/01 /2016 8:20:47AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
221670
9/1/2016 075283 WAVE BROADBAND
8136 50 211 00055035
FIBER HIGH SPEED INTERNET S
High Speed Internet service 09/01/1
001.000.31.518.87.42.00
Tota
221671
9/1/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC
7142
#10 WINDOW ENVELOPES FOR
#10 Window Envelopes - Qty 5,000
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
9.8% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
Tota
221672
9/1/2016 075736 YOUNG FINE ART STUDIO INC
1
50% PAYMENT TO START ART W
50% PAYMENT TO START ART W
132.000.64.594.76.65.00
Tota
75 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank tota
75 Vouchers in this report
Total voucher
4.4.b
Page: 22
c
ca
lid
U
a�
Amoun };
a
6 -a)
816.0(
1 : 816.0( i
=a
Fit
4-
aD
c
324.0(
31.7: cm
I : 355.7! o
L
OF CU
OF Q-
4,250.0( .
I: 4,250.0( TU
w
I: 2,477,628.5E c
c�
s : 2,477,628.5E o
a
Q.
Q
r
C
d
E
t
V
R
r
a
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 104
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering c
Accounting
4
Project s
c
Funding
Project Title
Number
Number E
STM
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
c484
E5FE s
STR
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
c424
s
E3DC c
SWR
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
c390
E2GB z
s
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA c
STR
2014 Chip Seals
c451
c
E4CB
c
STM
2014 Drainage Improvements
c433
E4FA
STM
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STR
2014 Overlay Program
c438
E4CA
WTR
2014 Waterline Overlays
c452
E4CC z
i
STM
2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E41FC ;
STM
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
c466
E5FA
STR
2015 Overlay Program
c463
w
E5CA i
c
SWR
2015 Sewerline Overlays
i007
E5CC s
s
SWR
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
c441
E4GA i
STR
2015 Traffic Calming
c471
E5AB
s
WTR
2015 Waterline Overlays
c475
E5CB i
s
WTR
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
c440
E4J13 I
STR
2016 Overlay Program
i008
E6CA
c
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
E5GA
SWR
2016 Sewerline Overlays
i010
E6CC S
WTR
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
c460
i
E4JC i
WTR
2016 Waterline Overlays
i009
E6CB <
WTR
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
c468
E5JA c
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA 19
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6J13 a
STR
220th Street Overlay Project
c462
E4CD
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB c
WTR
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
c418
E3J13 c
i
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c425
E3DD
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB G
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA i
c
STM
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
i012
E6FC
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB =
c
FAC
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
c476
E5LA u
STR
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
c426
E3DE i
c
STR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
s
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA i
PRK
City Spray Park
c417
E4MA
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c456
E4GB
Revised 9/1/2016
Packet Pg. 105
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
4.4.c
Funding Project Title
Protect Engineering
Accounting Project
Number Number
SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB
WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB
Revised 9/1/2016
Packet Pg. 106
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding
Project 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
General
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
c478
E5DB
FAC
ESCO III Project
c419
E3LB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E51KA
STIR
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
c342
E1AA
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
E8MA
STIR
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
c405
E2AD
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
sol l
E5GB
STM
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
c434
E4FB
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E2FA
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
i011
E6FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
E3FE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
c376
E1 FN
STM
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
c408
E3FC
FAC
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
c444
E4LA
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
E5FD
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
STIR
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
c427
E3AB
STIR
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
c454
E4DB
STIR
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
s014
E6AA
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
E5NA
STM
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
c429
E3FG
STIR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
c379
E2FB
STM
SW Edmonds-105th/l06th Ave W Storm Improvements
c430
E3FH
STIR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
STIR
Train Trench - Concept
c453
E4DA
STIR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
STM
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
c467
E5FB
UTILITIES
Utility Rate Update
s013
E6JA
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
c480
E6MA
STM
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
c459
E4FF
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
Revised 9/1/2016 Packet Pg. 107
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
E1AA
c342
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR 368
ve W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR
E1DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STM
yton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM
E1 FN
c376
Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STR
ransportation Plan Updat
STR
E2AB
c392
9th Avenue Improvement Project
STR
E2AD
NE1Wy
99 Enhancements (Phase
STM
E2FA
c378
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW t an Park Infiltration System
STM
E2FC
c380
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR
0
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR
E3AB
c427
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STR
E3DC
c424
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STR
E3
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STR
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
STM
E3FG
c429
Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th
STM
E3FH
c430
SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements
SWR
E3GA
c398
2013 Sewerline Replacement Pr '
WTR
E3J13
c418
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC
E3LB
c419
ESCO III Proje INV
STR
E4CA
c438
2014 Overlay Program
STR
E4CB
c451
2014 Chip Seals
WTR
E4CC
c452
2014 Waterline Overlays
STR
E4CD
c462
220th Street Overlay Project
STR
E4DA
c453
Train Trench - Concept
STR
E4DB
c454
SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing
STM
E4FA
c433
2014 Drainage Improvements
STM
c434
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
STM
E4FC
c435
2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
NET
c436
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
STM
E4FE
c455
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
`STM
Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines
SWR
E4GA
c441
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
`,SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
SWR
E4GC
c461
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
Revised 9/1/2016 Packet Pg. 108
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
WWTP
E4HA
c446
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
WTR
E4JB
c440
2015 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR
E4JC
c460
2016 Water Comp Plan Update
FAC
E4LA
c444
Public Safety Controls System Upgrades
PRK
E4MA
c417
City Spray Park
FAC
E4MB
c443
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
STIR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
STIR
E5AB
c471
2015 Traffic Calming
STIR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
WTR
E5CB
c475
2015 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
STIR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
General
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM
E51FA
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
E51FE
c484
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5JA
c468
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
WTR
E5JB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
WTR
E5KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
FAC
E5LA
c476
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
STIR
E6AA
s014
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
STIR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
WTR
E6CB
i009
2016 Waterline Overlays
SWR
E6CC
i010
2016 Sewerline Overlays
STIR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STIR
E6DB
s016
ADA Transition Plan
STM
E61FA
i011
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
STM
E6FC
i012
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
WTR
E6J13
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
STIR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
PM
E7MA
c276
Dayton Street Plaza
Revised 9/1/2016 Packet Pg. 109
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding Number
Number Proiect Title
PM EBMA
c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
Revised 9/1/2016 Packet Pg. 110
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Proiect Title
PM
E7MA
c276
Dayton Street Plaza
PM
E8MA
c282
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
STIR
E1AA
c342
Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STIR
E1 DA
c354
Sunset Walkway Improvements
STIR
E1CA
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
E21FA
c378
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM
E2FB
c379
SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM
E2FC
c380
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
SWR
E2GB
c390
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STIR
E2AA
c391
Transportation Plan Update
STIR
E2AB
c392
9th Avenue Improvement Project
SWR
E3GA
c398
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
STIR
E2AD
c405
Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III)
STM
E3FC
c408
Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study
STM
E31FE
c410
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
PRK
E4MA
c417
City Spray Park
WTR
E3J13
c418
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
FAC
E3LB
c419
ESCO III Project
STIR
E3DB
c423
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
STIR
E3DC
c424
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
STIR
E3DD
c425
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
STIR
E3DE
c426
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
STIR
E3AB
c427
SR104 Corridor Transportation Study
STM
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
STIR
E4CA
c438
2014 Overlay Program
WTR
E4J13
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
STIR
E4CB
c451
2014 Chip Seals
WTR
E4CC
c452
2014 Waterline Overlays
Revised 9/1/2016 Packet Pg. 111
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Project
Accounting
Funding
Number
Number
Project Title
STR
E4DA
c453
Train Trench - Concept
STR
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
STR
E4CD
c462
220th Street Overlay Project
STR
E5CA
c463
2015 Overlay Program
STM
E51FA
c466
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
STM
E5FB
c467
Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects
WTR
E5JA
c468
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
SWR
E5GA
c469
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
STR
E5AA
c470
Trackside Warning System
STR
E5AB
c471
2015 Traffic Calming
STM
E5FC
c472
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
WTR
E51KA
c473
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
STR
E5DA
c474
Bikelink Project
WTR
E5CB
c475
2015 Waterline Overlays
FAC
E5LA
c476
AN Upgrades - Council Chambers
General
E5DB
c478
Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis
STM
E5FD
c479
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
PRK
E6MA
c480
Veteran's Plaza
WWTP
E5HA
c481
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
WTR
E5JB
c482
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
STM
E51FE
c484
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
STR
E6DA
c485
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
STM
E6FB
c486
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
SWR
E6GB
c488
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
STR
E7AC
i005
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
SWR
E5CC
i007
2015 Sewerline Overlays
STR
E6CA
i008
2016 Overlay Program
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
SWR
E6GA
i013
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
WTR
E6J13
i014
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
STM
E7FG
m013
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
UTILITIES
E5NA
solo
Standard Details Updates
SWR
E5GB
s011
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
UTILITIES
E6JA
s013
Utility Rate Update
STR
E6AA
s014
SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th)
Revised 9/1/2016 Packet Pg. 112
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Engineering
Project
Proiect
Accounting
Funding Number
Number Proiect Title
STIR E6DB
s016 ADA Transition Plan
Revised 9/1/2016 Packet Pg. 113
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Protect
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
FAC
A/V 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
PRK
Veteran's Plaza
c480
E6MA
STM
12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements
c484
E5FE
STM
2014 Drainage Improvements
c433
E4FA
STM
2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
STM
2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
STM
2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects
c466
E5FA
STM
224th & 98th Drainage Improvements
c486
E6FB
STM
3rd Ave Rain Gardens
i012
E6FC
STM
Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
c374
E1 FM
STM
Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave)
c472
E5FC
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
STM
Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
c380
E2FC
STM
LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin
c434
E4FB
STM
North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
c378
E2FA
STM
Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive
i011
E6FA
STM
Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive
c410
E3FE
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
STM
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
STR
15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave)
c424
E3DC
STR
2014 Chip Seals
c451
E4CB
STR
2014 Overlay Program
c438
E4CA
STR
2015 Overlay Program
c463
E5CA
STR
2015 Traffic Calming
c471
E5AB
Revised 9/1/2016 Packet Pg. 114
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Protect
Fundinq
Protect Title
Number
Number
STR
2016 Overlay Program
i008
E6CA
STR
220th Street Overlay Project
c462
E4CD
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
STR
236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School)
c425
E3DD
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99)
c485
E6DA
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
E1CA
STR
9th Avenue Improvement Project
c392
E2AB
STR
ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S
c426
E3DE
STR
ADA Transition Plan
s016
E6DB
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
E1 DA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
E5AA
STR
Train Trench - Concept
c453
E4DA
STR
Transportation Plan Update
c391
E2AA
SWR
2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehablitation
c390
E2GB
SWR
2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
c398
E3GA
SWR
2015 Sewerline Overlays
i007
E5CC
SWR
2015 Sewerline Replacement Project
c441
E4GA
SWR
2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects
c469
E5GA
SWR
2016 Sewerline Overlays
iolo
E6CC
SWR
2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project
i013
E6GA
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I
c456
E4GB
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
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
io09
E6CB
WTR
2016 Waterline Replacement Projects
c468
E5JA
WTR
2017 Waterline Replacement Projects
i014
E6JB
WTR
224th Waterline Relocation (2013)
c418
E3JB
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
E5JB
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
E5KA
Revised 9/1/2016 Packet Pg. 115
4.4.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Project
Funding Project Title
Number
Number
WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
E5HA
Revised 9/1/2016 Packet Pg. 116
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 782 (08/16/2016 to 08/31/2016)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
-ed2
REGULAR HOURS
Educational Pav Correction
0.00
-156.28
111
ABSENT
NO PAY LEAVE
50.50
0.00
118
ABSENT
UNPAID L & 1
57.81
0.00
120
SICK
SICK LEAVE - L & 1
38.69
931.91
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
469.58
15,158.21
122
VACATION
VACATION
1,993.55
67,663.67
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
33.00
1,253.86
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
49.00
1,418.04
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
219.00
7,389.59
129
SICK
Police Sick Leave L & 1
144.00
5,137.50
130
COMP HOURS
Holidav Compensation Used
9.00
299.27
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
40.00
1,534.17
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
74.00
2,623.53
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kellv Dav Used
228.00
8,335.21
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
45.64
1,926.19
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
2.00
98.94
170
REGULAR HOURS
COUNCIL BASE PAY
700.00
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
17,902.20
584,329.67
191
REGULAR HOURS
FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS
4.00
1,886.58
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
24.00
856.25
205
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME .5
41.00
676.84
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
6.00
194.20
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
60.00
2,879.48
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
14.00
1,213.42
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
251.25
13,899.97
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
1.00
71.72
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
118.80
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
1,471.47
600
RETROACTIVE PAY
RETROACTIVE PAY
0.00
144.27
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP
29.50
0.00
m
rt
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME
49.25
0.00
(Q
9/01 Toni F
Attachment: Payroll summary 09-02-16
(1494 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.)
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 782 (08/16/2016 to 08/31/2016)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
606
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME
5.00
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
cpl
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAINING CORPORAL
0.00
147.28
crt
MISCELLANEOUS
CERTIFICATION III PAY
0.00
622.35
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
102.75
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
891.06
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
5,117.28
fmla
ABSENT
FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID
91.00
0.00
hol
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
8.00
270.25
k9
MISCELLANEOUS
K-9 PAY
0.00
102.75
Iq1
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2%
0.00
888.29
Ig10
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY 5.5%
0.00
396.36
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
737.53
Iq2
LONGEVITY PAY
LONGEVITY PAY 4%
0.00
997.22
I0
LONGEVITY PAY
LONGEVITY 6%
0.00
5,661.69
Iq4
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
240.75
Ici6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
274.75
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
931.11
Iq9
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3.5%
0.00
82.46
mels
SICK
Medical Leave Sick
102.00
3,646.94
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
200.57
nds
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
47.12
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
1,923.49
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
slw
SICK
SICK LEAVE ADD BACK
35.30
0.00
m
rt
str
MISCELLANEOUS
Street Crimes
0.00
157.56
(Q
9/01 Toni F
00
Attachment:
Payroll summary 09-02-16
(1494 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct
deposit, checks and wire payments.)
P-
A
porn 2 o a
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 782 (08/16/2016 to 08/31/2016)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 323.67
22,777.27 $757,982.96
Total Net Pay: $509,288.96
9/01 i.)ni F
Attachment: Payroll summary 09-02-16 (1494 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.)
A
porn 3 o a
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 782 - 08/16/2016 to 08/31/2016
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
62312
09/02/2016
chapl
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
50.00
0.00
62313
09/02/2016
epoa
EPOA-1 POLICE
1,219.00
0.00
62314
09/02/2016
epoa4
EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT
104.00
0.00
62315
09/02/2016
jhan
JOHN HANCOCK
1,028.10
0.00
62316
09/02/2016
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
789.99
0.00
62317
09/02/2016
cope
SEIU COPE
72.00
0.00
62318
09/02/2016
seiu
SEIU LOCAL 925
4,187.93
0.00
62319
09/02/2016
uw
UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY
698.24
0.00
62320
09/02/2016
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
1,449.81
0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
9,599.07 0.00
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
2438
09/02/2016
pens
DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS
240,281.52
0.00
2439
09/02/2016
aflac
AFLAC
6,161.10
0.00
2443
09/02/2016
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
19,766.00
0.00
2444
09/02/2016
us
US BANK
104,387.23
0.00
2445
09/02/2016
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N3177B1
93,419.43
0.00
2447
09/02/2016
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
5,715.92
0.00
2448
09/02/2016
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
647.50
0.00
0.00
470,378.70
Grand Totals:
479,977.77
0.00
c 1 /201 R
Attachment: payroll benefit 09-02-16 (1494 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.)
poge 1 io
4.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
July 2016 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Sarah Mager
Staff Recommendation
No Action needed; informational only.
Narrative
July 2016 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report
Attachments:
July 2016 Monthly Financial Report
Packet Pg. 121
Z
O
z
r
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: July 2016 Monthly Financial Report (1498 : July 2016 Monthly Budgetary Financial Report)
►�-Tt
C11
4.5.a
Page 1 of 1
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
No.
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
%Received
001
GENERAL FUND
$ 39,280,321
$ 20,889,506
$ 22,256,068
$ 17,024,253
570
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
278,770
139,760
140,085
138,685
500
011
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
6,660
4,813
5,137
1,523
770
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
28,110
25,240
8,911
19,199
320
013
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
-
264
288
(288)
00
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
5,000
3
2,531
2,469
510
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1
2,505,000
252,640
921,723
1,583,277
370
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
153,000
11,295
68,705
84,295
450
111
STREET FUND
1,760,500
1,041,090
1,119,234
641,266
640
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2
8,160,017
936,416
4,577,872
3,582,145
560
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
106,008
38,286
35,097
70,911
330
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
110
84
91
19
830
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
82,150
37,446
41,799
40,351
510
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
21,390
9,061
8,740
12,650
410
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
5,550
243
85
5,465
20
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
27,530
12,655
14,113
13,417
510
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
1,108,000
824,820
728,690
379,310
660
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXI, PARKS ACQ FUND
1,102,000
823,351
729,679
372,321
660
7
127
GIFTSCATALOGFUND
46,900
37,679
28,604
18,296
61°
129
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
280
179
196
84
700 00
14
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
177,260
114,770
104,008
73,252
59° v
132
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND
1,352,240
193,786
1,095,637
256,603
810, C
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
630
711
776
(146)
1230 CD
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD
19,880
14,542
13,997
5,883
700 W
TV
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
12,010
3,613
5,779
6,231
480,
C
139
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
682,500
413,803
423,195
259,305
620
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
-
58,976
59,909
(59,909)
00 LL
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
75,464
70,301
607,079
100 2
232
2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND
949,540
9,201
936,429
13,111
990 p
N
411
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION
-
28,259
95,769
(95,769)
00 >,
421
WATER UTILITY FUND 4
8,443,460
4,137,629
4,893,911
3,549,549
580
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
4,131,780
2,301,593
2,216,582
1,915,198
540 C
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND s
12,645,240
5,460,864
6,163,141
6,482,099
N
490, E
t
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,989,900
337,210
667,447
1,322,453
340
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
1,579,570
929,894
966,070
613,500
r
610 Q
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
64,840
56,840
57,650
7,190
890,
$ 87,432,326
$ 39,231,705
$ 48,459,024
$ 38,973,302
550,
Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to grant
invoicing for Fishing Pier Rehab and mid -year transfer from Fund 001.
2 Difference between 2015 and 2016
is due to grant invoicing for various projects in 2016.
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 islargely 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. 123
4.5.a
Page 1 of 1
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
No.
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
001
GENERAL FUND 6
$ 41,011,287
$ 21,504,246
$ 23,796,385
$ 17,214,902
580/(
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
279,480
165,488
152,760
126,720
5501(
011
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND
-
70,546
-
-
00/(
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
800,000
400,000
800,000
0°/
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
5,400
5,250
-
5,400
0°/ Q.
016
BUILDING MAINT ENANCE
2,395,000
105,250
1,045,633
1,349,367
44% tY
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
76,030
29,637
43,559
32,471
570/( .�
v
111
STREET FUND
1,716,120
963,970
1,088,895
627,225
630/(
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8
8,173,112
2,019,302
2,514,392
5,658,720
310/( LL
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
181,380
35,023
34,084
147,296
19%
ca
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
-
-
-
-
0% d
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
149,650
30,084
27,681
121,969
180/(
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
26,880
-
-
26,880
00/( M
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
3,000
1,416
985
2,015
33% r
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
31,500
6,501
10,703
20,797
C
340/, O
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
2,100,565
125,849
296,873
1,803,692
14% to
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 9
2,750,000
28,845
498,915
2,251,085
180/( N
127
GIFTSCATALOGFUND
44,950
20,296
35,120
9,830
780/( �+
7
129
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
-
-
-
-
00/(
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
210,370
91,397
92,223
118,147
440/( 00
132
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 9
1,575,770
283,468
596,604
979,166
qq
380/(
136
PARKSTRUST FUND
-
-
-
-
00
O
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
12,500
3,414
2,895
9,605
230/( d
139
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
682,500
441,738
423,195
259,305
620/(
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
-
38,759
33,667
(33,667)
R
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
75,517
70,301
607,079
100/( t
232
2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 6
949,540
9,201
936,429
13,111
99% C
421
WATER UTILITY FUND
12,717,507
4,171,305
4,481,014
8,236,493
350/(
c2o
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
8,057,048
1,464,315
1,862,356
6,194,692
230/( p
N
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
17,921,050
4,905,107
5,179,657
12,741,393
290/( >,
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,990,920
388,251
667,442
1,323,478
340/(
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
1,971,820
691,455
978,698
993,122
5001(
d
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
59,610
29,735
24,471
35,139
41% E
s
$ 106,584,769
$ 38,105,364
$ 44,894,937
$ 61,689,832
420%
r
Q
6 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to final payment of 2014 debt.
7 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project.
8 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to invoices for construction projects in 2016.
9 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to purchase of Civic Field in 2016.
2
.Pack__ .,_ 12
rac,ecei Pg. ie4
4.5.a
Page 1 of 3
C TIY O F IDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2016 Amended 7/31/2015 7/31/2016 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX
EMS PROPERTY TAX 10
VOTED PROPERTY TAX
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 11
NATURAL GAS USE TAX
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
GAS UTILITY TAX
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX
WATER UTILITY TAX
SEWER UT ILIT Y TAX
ST ORMWAT ER UT ILIT Y TAX
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
PULLTABS TAX
AMUSEMENT GAMES
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX
LICENSES AND PERNHTS:
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 12
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 13
INTERLOCAL GRANTS
VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS
$ 10,068,020
$ 5,355,897
$ 5,377,548
$ 4,690,472
53%
3,688,090
1,818,569
1,967,958
1,720,132
53%
949,540
496,545
507,295
442,245
53%
6,144,400
3,704,663
3,843,359
2,301,041
63%
9,800
4,121
3,688
6,112
38%
626,700
356,614
381,738
244,962
61% .-.
1,451,800
980,692
1,025,239
426,561
71% p
647,900
442,408
415,562
232,338
64%
306,500
184,169
189,248
117,252
62%
1,229,110
616,137
669,719
559,391
54%
629,140
335,806
371,244
257,896
59% 'v
330,430
179,870
188,132
142,298
57%
846,000
495,327
496,447
349,553
59%
1,349,100
768,922
732,953
616,147
54% li
60,600
36,295
38,477
22,123
63% �+
40
-
141
(101)
351%
242,200
121,178
126,667
115,533
52%
28,579,370
15,897,212
16,335,416
12,243,954
57%
7
250
215
190
60
76% m
300
-
250
50
83% z
630
-
-
630
0% C
4,740
4,325
-
4,740
0% O
710,600
532,250
534,338
176,263
75% 2
44,900
27,184
24,664
20,236
55%
100,900
49,706
50,705
50,195
50% N
18,400
9,091
8,172
10,228
44%
268,000
197,208
138,558
129,442
52%
116,000
90,852
80,066
35,934
69%
42,000
28,440
32,090
9,910
76% co
70,400
30,750
45,000
25,400
64%
15,000
5,388
46,623
(31,623)
311%
525,000
371,334
446,158
78,843
85%
38,800
16,068
10,507
28,293
27% O
42,100
21,179
29,212
12,888
69% y
13,100
8,405
10,707
2,393
82% �!
2,011,120
1,392,395
1,457,239
553,881
72% �p
-
-
-
-
0%
11,970
3,018
6,920
5,050
58%
-
-
-
-
0% LL
3,750
-
-
0%
6,000
5,250
5,250
750
88%
-
-
995
(995)
0% O
7,500
5,287
2,830
4,670
38% 22
3,000
-
2,663
337
89% c0
-
-
614
(614)
0% o
300
300
-
300
0% N
-
1,000
-
-
0%
-
-
330,649
(330,649)
0%
192,500
-
-
192,500
0%
10,000
7,946
8,297
1,703
83% d
13,000
8,189
9,150
3,850
70% E
36,980
29,139
30,279
6,701
82% V
7,240
4,458
4,740
2,500
65% M
65,200
63,087
139,331
(74,131)
214% Q
357,800
175,055
174,541
183,259
49%
-
-
75,757
(75,757)
0%
383,330
-
-
383,330
0%
2,000
2,120
(2,120)
0%
1,094,820
308,478
794,135
300,685
73%
10 2016 EMS Property Tax revenues are $149,390 higher than 2015 revenues.
11 2016 Local Retail Sales/Use Taxrevenues are $138,696 higher than 2015 revenues. Please also see pages 18 & 19.
12 2016 Building Structure Permits are $74,823 higher than 2015 revenues.
13 Difference between 2015 and 2016 revenues is due to funds received for closure of ESCA in 2016.
3
Packet Pg. 125 1
4.5.a
Page 2 of 3
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
%Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
MUNICIPAL COURT CIVIC FILINGS
$ -
$ -
$ 25
$ (25)
0%
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS
2,000
1,430
1,413
588
71%
ATM SURCHARGE FEES
250
67
152
98
61%
COURT RECORD SERVICES
-
-
-
-
0%
D/M COURT REC SER
50
7
17
33
33%
SHARED COURT COSTS
-
-
-
-
0%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN
400
294
298
102
74%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS
100
-
-
100
0%
C
CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMITS
25,100
25,100
0%
N
BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT
600
-
-
600
0%
PHOTOCOPIES
2,000
1,182
558
1,442
28%
cC
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS
4,000
2,407
2,003
1,997
50%
V
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES
180,350
123,372
147,614
32,736
82%
R
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES
-
-
-
-
0%
.�
SNO-ISLE
58,000
29,757
50,484
7,516
87%
LL
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES
15,000
11,975
13,428
1,572
90%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS
26,000
11,746
13,363
12,637
51%
OCDETF OVERTIME
-
-
-
-
0%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.
12,300
3,782
2,873
9,427
23%
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION
39,500
31,510
49,211
(9,711)
125%
m
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES
1,500
-
538
962
36%
>,
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES
300
305
-
300
0%
r
FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FOR DUI
-
-
36
(36)
0%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS
45,000
27,223
39,031
5,969
87%
0
LEGAL SERVICES
-
-
177
(177)
0%
to
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE
60,000
37,893
41,099
18,901
68%
BOOKINGFEES
6,000
4,001
2,382
3,618
40%
N
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES
8,000
13,276
15,536
(7,536)
194%
>+
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES
15,000
6,135
4,960
10,040
33%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 14
822,100
407,087
487,513
334,587
59%
CRIM CONY FEE CT
-
-
-
-
0%
00
CRIM CONV FEE CN
-
-
-
-
0%
r
FIBER SERVICES
9,200
5,355
6,860
2,340
75%
"
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES
7,200
4,200
4,200
3,000
58%'
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS
1,800
1,226
1,171
629
65%
0
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER
6,000
1,636
184
5,817
3%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE
75,000
61,297
53,146
21,854
71%
PLAN CHECKING FEES
425,000
324,937
250,865
174,135
59%
.�
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES
3,000
6,345
6,885
(3,885)
230%
V
C
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE
1,250
939
1,740
(490)
139%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW
7,000
7,545
610
6,390
9%
LL
CRITICAL AREA STUDY
15,000
11,625
11,660
3,340
78%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES
10,000
5,538
6,486
3,514
65%
t
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES
-
-
-
-
0%
GYM AND WEIGHT ROOM FEES
7,800
4,605
7,520
280
96%
0
LOCKERFEES
-
-
-
-
0%
SWIM CLASS FEES
-
-
-
-
0%
w
PROGRAM FEES
861,700
545,591
623,291
238,409
72%
N
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES
19,130
79,426
964
18,166
5%
SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM
-
0%
WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES
5,000
25
4,975
1%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES
950
180
220
730
23%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS
2,964,600
488,815
1,186,041
1,778,559
40%
5,743,180
2,262,709
3,034,579
2,708,601
53%
a)
s
t�
ea
r+
Q
14 2016 EMS Transport User Fees are $80,426 higher than 2015 revenues.
4
Packet Pg. 126
4.5.a
Page 3 of 3
C PIY O F EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
%Received
FINES AND FO RFEITURES :
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY
8,000
4,039
4,159
3,841
52%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
25,000
25,338
119,093
(94,093)
476%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION
260,000
164,592
35,718
224,282
14%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)
24,600
14,700
12,365
12,235
50%
SPEEDINGDOUBLE
-
-
-
-
0%
NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
1,300
1,780
38,868
(37,568)
2990%
OTHER INFRACTIONS'04
1,000
352
1,284
(284)
128%
PARKINGINFRACTION PENALTIES
43,000
26,698
13,860
29,140
32%
PR -HANDICAPPED
-
-
-
-
0%
PARK/INDDISZONE
1,300
1,134
1,903
(603)
146%
DWI PENALTIES
6,000
3,129
15,544
(9,544)
259%
DUI - DP ACCT
2,500
1,700
1,544
956
62%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI
300
309
310
(10)
103%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN
-
-
-
-
0%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03
33,000
19,284
18,930
14,070
57%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT
1,900
1,475
1,602
298
84%
CRIM CONV FEE CT
2,300
1,147
1,051
1,249
46%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN
130
92
-
130
0%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03
9,000
7,547
5,058
3,942
56%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT
900
763
307
593
34%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN
1,900
1,101
1,056
844
56%
CRIM CONV FEE CN
900
388
284
616
32%
CRIMINAL COST S-RECOUPMENTS
60,000
36,628
16,983
43,017
28%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT
33,000
18,471
14,648
18,352
44%
BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT
-
-
3,709
(3,709)
0%
COURT INTERPRETER COSTS
100
256
66
34
66%
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY
5,000
12,810
10,580
(5,580)
212%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES
1,000
720
720
280
72%
522,130
3449454
319,643
202,487
61%
MISCELLANEOUS :
INVESTMENT INTEREST
38,600
18,392
31,246
7,354
81%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES
5,700
2,020
3,862
1,838
68%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS
5,000
3,302
3,250
1,750
65%
PARKING
14,000
9,610
9,591
4,409
69%
SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS
128,000
70,019
83,239
44,762
65%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL
5,000
3,480
3,160
1,840
63%
LEASESLONG-TERM
218,100
103,530
104,667
113,433
48%
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION
50,000
24,216
15,030
34,970
30%
OTHER RENTS& USE CHARGES
4,500
3,300
1,800
2,700
40%
DONATION/CONTRIBUTION
5,000
-
-
5,000
0%
PARKSDONATIONS
9,500
11,282
4,350
5,150
46%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS
950
1,200
1,200
(250)
126%
125TH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS
-
1,700
-
-
0%
VOLUNT EER P ICNIC CONTRIBUTIONS
-
-
1,201
(1,201)
0%
POLICE CONT RIBUT IONS FROM PRIV SOURCES
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
PARKS GRANT S-PRIVATE SOURCES
-
-
-
-
0%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE
150
-
303
(153)
202%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY
2,000
896
4,802
(2,802)
240%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
OT HER JUDGEMENT /SET T LEMENT
5,651
58
3,801
1,850
67%
POLICE JUDGMENTS✓RESTITUTION
200
10
276
(76)
138%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES
-
(88)
161
(161)
0%
OTHER MISC REVENUES
1,000
15,214
12,966
(11,966)
1297%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT
50
25
22
28
45%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC
120
30
-
120
0%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT
330
201
141
189
43%
FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES
1,010
-
-
1,010
0%
US BANK REBATE
6,000
4,774
4,153
1,847
69%
503,861
273,170
289,221
214,640
5707c
TRANSFERS -IN:
PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT
-
-
-
-
0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 012
800,000
400,000
-
800,000
0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 127
25,840
11,088
25,835
5
100%
825,840
411,088
25,835
800,005
3%
TO TAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE
$ 39,280,321
$ 20,889,506
$ 22,256,068
$17,024,253
57%
5
Packet Pg. 127
I 4.5.a I
Page 1 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 14,010,590
$ 7,420,784
$ 7,836,963
$ 6,173,627
56%
OVERTIME
423,510
282,482
273,106
150,404
64%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK
217,790
1,543
2,349
215,441
1%
BENEFITS
5,356,460
2,754,394
2,978,015
2,378,445
56%
UNIFORMS
89,290
48,384
52,220
37,070
58%
SUPPLIES
393,950
197,659
197,818
196,132
50%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
161,680
83,303
66,877
94,803
41%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,644,903
1,144,840
1,573,470
2,071,433
43%
COMMUNICATIONS
211,890
93,255
85,450
126,440
40%
TRAVEL
46,210
20,903
18,760
27,450
41%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
-
2,211
4,289
34%
ADVERTISING
-
2,118
-
-
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
916,390
528,750
543,616
372,774
59%
INSURANCE
534,440
418,367
538,732
(4,292)
101%
UTILITIES
457,800
252,458
258,534
199,266
56%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
429,510
266,929
129,424
300,086
30%
MISCELLANEOUS
400,094
185,515
220,067
180,027
55%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
10,384,010
7,168,437
7,256,298
3,127,712
70%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS
135,000
-
-
135,000
0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
2,909,320
526,556
1,739,021
1,170,299
60%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
67,500
14,777
-
67,500
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
27,460
23,454
22,696
51%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS
-
-
-
-
0%
INTERFUND SERVICES
-
-
-
-
0%
41,011,287
21,504,246
23,796,385
17,214,902
58%
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 $
108,663 $
98,441 $
80,279
55%
100,480
56,550
51,861
48,619
52%
-
-
1,286
(1,286)
0%
-
-
447
(447)
0%
280
275
725
(445)
259%
279,480
165,488
152,760
126,720
55%
$ - $ 70,546 $ - $ - 0%
70,546 - $ - 00/0
$ - $ - $ $ - 0%
800,000 400,000 800,000 0%
800,000 400,000 800,000 0%
$ 100 $ - $ $ 100 0%
200 5,250 200 0%
5,100 - 5,100 0%
5,400 5,250 5,400 0%
$ - $
1,834
$ 1,756
$ (1,756)
0%
162,459
80,931
195,329
(32,870)
120%
2,062,000
22,178
35,390
2,026,610
2%
-
-
546
(546)
0%
33,000
307
170,972
(137,972)
518%
137,541
-
641,640
(504,099)
467%
$ 2,395,000
105,250
1,045,633
1,349,367
44%
$ 3,000 $
949 $
743 $
2,257
25%
5,000
-
4,968
32
99%
2,230
1,215
1,009
1,221
45 %
800
-
-
800
0%
20,000
5,000
5,000
15,000
25%
45,000
22,473
31,839
13,161
71%
76,030
29,637
43,559
32,471
57%
r-
O
Q.
d
OC
R
C
co
C
M
t
C
O
2
cc
0
N
7
C
N
s
c�
ev
w
Q
6
Packet Pg. 128
4.5.a
Page 2 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND
- DEIAAIL
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
STREETFUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 515,160
$ 322,697
$ 353,469
$
161,691
69%
OVERTIME
18,400
9,801
13,706
4,694
74%
BENEFITS
265,870
163,484
181,335
84,535
68%
UNIFORMS
6,000
4,927
3,745
2,255
62%
SUPPLIES
240,000
70,063
169,153
70,848
70%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
26,000
9,243
545
25,455
2%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
14,050
5,756
8,634
5,416
61%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,500
2,325
2,210
1,290
63%
TRAVEL
1,000
300
-
1,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
190,950
110,513
110,344
80,606
58%
INSURANCE
87,620
81,386
97,912
(10,292)
112%
UTILITIES
270,170
145,042
135,884
134,286
50%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
45,000
26,332
8,470
36,530
19%
MISCELLANEOUS
24,250
1,349
1,430
22,820
6%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
3,000
-
1,193
1,807
40%
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
925
865
865
50%
$ 1,716,120
$ 963,970
$ 1,088,895
$
627,225
63%
COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$ 1,747,910
$ 600,117
$ 710,812
$
1,037,098
41%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
358,240
40,956
40,908
317,332
11%
LAND
438,000
90,160
132,896
305,104
30%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
5,553,332
1,212,424
1,554,179
3,999,153
28%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS
72,220
72,201
72,201
19
100%
INTEREST
3,410
3,444
3,396
14
100%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
-
-
-
0%
$ 8,173,112
$ 2,019,302
$ 2,514,392
$
5,658,720
31%
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 $
132 $
4,268
3%
1,500
-
150
1,350
10%
166,500
32,725
30,912
135,588
19%
80
-
11
70
13%
-
-
-
0%
2,000
2,000
0%
300
-
-
300
0%
6,600
1,778
2,879
3,721
44%
$ 181,380 S
35,023 $
34,084 $
147,296
19%
$ 77,500 $
28,003 $
25,580 $
51,920
33%
-
-
-
-
0%
8,150
82
101
8,049
1%
4,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
50%
60,000
-
-
60,000
0%
$ 149,650 $
30,084 $
27,681 $
121,969
18%
$ 1,790 $ - $ $ 1,790 0%
25,090 - 25,090 0%
$ 26,880 $ $ $ 26,880 0%
$ 3,000 $ 1,416 $ 985 $ 2,015 33%
$ 3,000 $ 1,416 $ 985 $ 2,015 33%
$ 28,300 $ 5,228 $ 8,282 $ 20,018 29%
- - - - 0%
3,200 1,273 2,420 780 76%
$ 31,500 $ 6,501 $ 10,703 $ 20,797 34%
7
Packet Pg. 129
I 4.5.a I
Page 3 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (125)
SUPPLIES
$ 21,000
$ 31,652
$ 44,574
$ (23,574)
212%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
186,788
86,372
81,751
105,037
44%
RENTAL/LEASE
-
-
2,790
(2,790)
0%
UTILITIES
-
-
-
-
0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
140,000
7,825
12,605
127,395
9%
MISCELLANEOUS
-
-
181
(181)
0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
1,752,777
-
154,972
1,597,805
9%
$ 2,100,565
$ 125,849
$ 296,873
$ 1,803,692
14%
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
$ 314,560 $
- $
$ 314,560
0%
-
1,200
-
0%
139,430
18,263
17,213
122,218
12%
692,180
4,000
476,669
215,511
69%
1,573,870
-
-
1,573,870
0%
19,890
-
19,890
0%
-
-
-
-
0%
10,070
5,382
5,033
5,037
50%
$ 2,750,000 $
28,845 $
498,915
$ 2,251,085
18%
$ 13,110 $
8,793 $
2,985 $
10,125
23%
6,000
415
6,300
(300)
105%
25,840
11,088
25,835
5
100%
$ 44,950 $
20,296 $
35,120 $
9,830
78%
$ - $ - $ $ - 0%
$ - $ - $ $ - 0%
$ 108,410 $ 46,197 $ 48,384 $ 60,026 45%
3,500 1,438 1,015 2,485 29%
44,500 19,532 20,625 23,875 46% 00
1,000
197
-
1,000
0%
7,000
1,393
1,376
5,624
20%
20,000
7,763
10,516
9,484
53%
v
4,200
5,676
654
3,546
16%
G
1,410
811
583
827
41%
Q.
500
-
-
500
0%
-
-
-
-
0%
11,550
5,824
6,738
4,813
58%
v
3,800
434
455
3,345
12%
C
500
-
-
500
0%
4,000
2,132
1,878
2,122
47%
jL
$
210,370
$
91,397
$
92,223
$
118,147
44%
>,
t
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
0%
r�
C
225,000
44,602
37,058
187,942
16%
2
500,000
-
475,710
24,291
95%
�p
850,770
234,666
83,837
766,933
10%
C
-
4,200
-
-
0%
N
$
1,575,770
$
283,468
$
596,604
$
979,166
38%
�+
7
$
2,000
$
-
$
98
$
1,902
5%
4.;
4,500
2,953
2,515
1,985
56%
r-
6,000
461
282
5,718
5%
N
$
12,500
$
3,414
$
2,895
$
9,605
23%
s
t�
ev
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
0%
w
Q
2,500
2,500
2,500
-
100%
680,000
439,238
420,695
259,305
62%
$
682,500
$
441,738
$
423,195
$
259,305
62%
8
Packet Pg. 130
I 4.5.a I
Page 4 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2016 Amended 7/31/2015 7/31/2016 Amount
Title
Budget Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
BUSINESS EMPROVEVIENTDISTRICT FUND (140)
SUPPLIES
$ - $ 13,840
$ 1,436
$ (1,436)
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
- 24,885
31,289
(31,289)
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
- 35
941
(941)
0%
$ - 38,759
33,667
(33,667)
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 75,464 70,301 70,309 50%
500 54 - 500 0%
$ 677,380 $ 75,517 $ 70,301 $ 607,079 10%
$ 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 $
424,066
$ 459,041
$ 336,179
58%
24,000
9,752
13,130
10,870
55%
372,550
192,351
209,727
162,823
56%
4,000
2,032
2,311
1,689
58%
151,000
89,174
67,910
83,090
45%
1,600,000
829,968
858,568
741,432
54%
143,000
81,414
59,554
83,446
42%
11,000
8,251
2,846
8,154
26%
1,793,286
372,036
586,064
1,207,222
33%
30,000
18,175
17,167
12,833
57%
200
-
-
200
0%
340,000
181,242
220,386
119,614
65%
100,750
55,564
57,454
43,296
57%
58,920
70,904
52,335
6,585
89%
40,000
12,804
12,861
27,139
32%
17,000
16,764
5,480
11,520
32%
70,450
39,674
37,908
32,542
54%
30,000
16,173
22,076
7,924
74%
1,229,110
616,137
669,719
559,391
54%
731,220
119,415
219,326
511,894
30%
15,000
9,828
-
15,000
0%
4,551,921
825,913
752,302
3,799,619
17%
2,300
-
-
2,300
0%
323,870
-
-
323,870
0%
25,840
45,839
25,839
1
100%
256,870
133,799
129,008
127,862
50%
-
-
-
-
0%
-
31
-
0%
-
-
-
-
0%
$ 12,717,507 $
4,171,305
$ 4,481,014
$ 8,236,493
35%
r
Q
9
Packet Pg. 131
I 4.5.a I
Page 5 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
S TO RM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 640,470
$ 261,252
$ 297,030
$ 343,440
46%
OVERTIME
6,000
8,584
6,717
(717)
112%
BENEFITS
313,950
130,187
150,344
163,606
48%
UNIFORMS
6,500
4,850
5,210
1,290
80%
SUPPLIES
46,500
21,595
11,826
34,674
25%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
4,000
1,510
130
3,870
3%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,683,530
385,966
496,511
2,187,019
19%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,200
1,856
1,510
1,690
47%
TRAVEL
4,300
-
300
4,000
7%
EXCISE TAXES
55,000
38,518
30,673
24,327
56%
RENTAL/LEASE
252,990
123,779
144,583
108,407
57%
INSURANCE
64,120
39,269
63,187
933
99%
UTILITES
10,500
5,318
5,672
4,828
54%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
13,000
8,576
2,266
10,734
17%
MISCELLANEOUS
94,950
32,206
29,441
65,509
31%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
85,000
69,082
88,101
(3,101)
104%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT
330,430
179,870
188,132
142,298
57%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
413,678
20,254
95,380
318,298
23%
LAND
25,000
-
-
25,000
0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
-
9,828
-
-
0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
2,563,330
2,000
129,348
2,433,982
5%
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
87,739
83,932
82,498
50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS
-
-
-
-
0%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
-
15
-
0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
-
-
-
0%
$ 8,057,048
$ 1,464,315
$ 1,862,356
$ 6,194,692
23%
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 $
958,596
$ 996,531
$ 724,999
58%
100,000
55,596
48,606
51,394
49%
771,920
420,352
447,177
324,743
58%
9,500
5,740
5,730
3,770
60%
420,200
130,695
146,378
273,822
35%
90,000
35,760
24,395
65,605
27%
4,000
-
-
4,000
0%
46,000
13,835
20,829
25,171
45%
1,954,696
629,270
871,111
1,083,585
45%
43,000
24,060
22,917
20,083
53%
5,000
-
1,097
3,903
22%
150,000
80,992
118,208
31,792
79%
182,670
114,610
104,139
78,531
57%
96,630
140,834
106,915
(10,285)
111%
1,056,660
574,317
812,388
244,272
77%
325,000
187,415
160,424
164,576
49%
105,450
34,063
33,677
71,773
32%
150,000
75,386
89,400
60,600
60%
629,140
335,806
371,244
257,896
59%
2,563,949
367,729
518,760
2,045,189
20%
-
25,251
-
-
0%
6,999,825
470,233
58,445
6,941,380
1%
130,140
-
-
130,140
0%
72,840
-
-
72,840
0%
170,620
156,729
157,034
13,586
92%
122,280
64,747
61,299
60,981
50%
-
-
-
-
0%
-
3,093
2,955
(2,955)
0%
-
-
-
-
0%
$ 17,921,050 $
4,905,107
$ 5,179,657
$ 12,741,393
29%
$ 655,010 $ - $ $ 655,010 0%
- - - 0%
1,334,910 337,208 667,442 667,468 50%
1,000 51,044 - 1,000 0%
$ 1,990,920 $ 388,251 $ 667,442 $ 1,323,478 34%
10
Packet Pg. 132
I 4.5.a I
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 224,880
$ 121,491
$ 128,898
$ 95,982
57%
OVERTIME
2,000
554
-
2,000
0%
BENEFITS
105,050
55,546
56,711
48,339
54%
UNIFORMS
1,000
883
770
230
77%
SUPPLIES
110,000
53,260
48,596
61,404
44%
FUEL CONSUMED
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
308,200
90,894
62,971
245,229
20%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
58,000
20,210
4,647
53,353
8%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
44,000
682
795
43,205
2%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
1,177
1,372
1,628
46%
TRAVEL
1,000
2,935
1,000
-
100%
RENTAL/LEASE
19,440
8,408
11,347
8,093
58%
INSURANCE
29,560
40,605
29,967
(407)
101%
UTILITIES
14,000
7,026
7,156
6,844
51%
REPAIRS& MAINTENANCE
60,000
24,743
31,880
28,120
53%
MISCELLANEOUS
7,190
3,834
6,760
430
94%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
2,500
-
766
1,734
31%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
981,000
259,206
585,062
395,938
60%
INTERFUND RENTAL
-
-
-
-
0%
$ 1,971,820
$ 691,455
$ 978,698
$ 993,122
50%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS
$ 30,940 $
14,329
$ 10,258
$ 20,682
33%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
27,470
15,406
13,999
13,471
51%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,200
-
214
986
18%
S 59,610 $
29,735
$ 24,471
$ 35,139
41%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS
$ 106,584,769 $
38,105,364
$ 44,894,937
$ 61,689,832
42%
11
Packet Pg. 133
4.5.a
Page 1 of 1
CITY
OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES
- GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
'%, Spent
CITY COUNCIL
$ 295,500 $
125,175 $
120,390
$ 175,110
410/c
OFFICE OF MAYOR
260,250
145,515
148,207
112,043
570/c
HUMAN RESOURCES
462,044
203,528
206,637
255,407
450/c
MUNICIPAL COURT
909,270
473,213
503,006
406,264
550/c
CITY CLERK
589,290
332,476
323,638
265,652
550/c
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1,839,930
915,521
829,876
1,010,054
450/c
CITY ATTORNEY
741,560
385,025
425,065
316,495
570/c
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
14,956,000
8,463,703
9,839,305
5,116,695
660/c
POLICE SERVICES
9,633,050
5,029,065
5,342,881
4,290,169
550/c
COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV.
535,580
223,086
274,304
261,276
510/c
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
2,688,352
1,222,591
1,381,541
1,306,811
510/c
PARKS& RECREATION
3,774,541
1,899,573
2,007,609
1,766,932
530/c
PUBLIC WORKS
2,842,120
1,218,288
1,571,283
1,270,837
550/c
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
1,483,800
867,487
822,642
661,158
550/c
$ 41,011,287 $
21,504,246 $
23,796,385
$ 17,214,902
580/c
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
r_
EXPENDITURES - UTILITY-
BY FUND IN
SUMMARY
O
C.
d
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
v
WATER UTILITY FUND
$ 12,717,507
$ 4,171,305 $
4,481,014
$ 8,236,493
C
C
35"�
STORM UTILITY FUND
8,057,048
1,464,315
1,862,356
6,194,692
LL
23%
>,
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
17,921,050
4,905,107
5,179,657
12,741,393
t
29%
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,990,920
388,251
667,442
1,323,478
34"�
0
$ 40,686,525
$ 10,928,979 $
12,190,469
$ 28,496,056
300/c
0
N
7
r+
C
N
E
t
t�
O
r
r
Q
12
Packet Pg. 134
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Title
2016 Amended
Budget
7/31/2015
Expenditures
7/31/2016
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES
$
119,100
$ 72,806
$ 64,190
$
54,910
54%
OVERTIME
1,000
-
93
907
9%
BENEFITS
88,550
43,032
49,131
39,419
55%
SUPPLIES
2,000
467
1,178
822
59%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
-
832
-
-
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
47,160
5,062
1,432
45,728
3%
t'
COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
1,801
1,801
1,199
60%
O0.
TRAVEL
6,700
723
1,277
5,423
19%
RENTAL/LEASE
490
327
219
271
45%
_
REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE
500
-
15
485
3%
2
MISCELLANEOUS
27,000
125
1,055
25,945
4%
C
$
295,500
$ 125,175
$ 120 390
$
175,110
41%
R
C
O FFIC E O F MAYO R
li
SALARIES
$
197,160
$ 115,465
$ 115,198
$
81,962
58%
�+
BENEFITS
48,190
26,317
28,045
20,145
58%
+O,
SUPPLIES
1,500
545
733
767
49%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
-
-
-
-
0%
D
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,000
908
1,191
809
60%
m
COMMUNICATION
1,400
240
700
700
50%
>,
TRAVEL
3,000
149
538
2,462
18%
r
RENTAL/LEASE
2,400
1,108
813
1,587
34%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
-
-
-
-
0%
2
MISCELLANEOUS
4,600
782
989
3,611
21%
to
$
260,250
$ 145,515
$ 148,207
$
112,043
57%
p
HUMAN RESOURCES
N
SALARIES
$
226,880
$ 121,293
$ 125,267
$
101,613
55%
7
OVERTIME
-
-
43
(43)
0%
BENEFITS
73,380
39,851
42,877
30,503
58%
SUPPLIES
2,300
766
2,503
(203)
109%
00
C1
SMALL EQUIPMENT
300
-
-
300
0%
qq
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
114,000
41,512
29,898
84,102
26%
v
COMMUNICATIONS
700
572
586
114
84%
O
TRAVEL
1,000
482
416
584
42%
0-
ADVERTISING
-
-
-
-
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
2,200
1,109
680
1,520
31%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
7,850
7,793
-
7,850
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
33,434
(9,849)
4,368
29,066
13%
$
462,044
$ 203,528
$ 206,637
$
255,407
45%
MUNIC H'AL C O URT
LL
SALARIES
$
566,190
$ 305,167
$ 325,303
$
240,887
57%
OVERTIME
600
2,301
1,738
(1,138)
290%
BENEFITS
222,750
105,102
116,765
105,985
52%
O
SUPPLIES
9,930
9,161
4,307
5,623
43%
2
SMALL EQUIPMENT
2,800
1,360
262
2,538
9%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
64,000
36,775
42,424
21,576
66%
N
COMMUNICATIONS
1,800
1,143
1,354
446
75%
TRAVEL
2,500
2,971
1,546
954
62%
RENTAL/LEASE
800
172
539
261
67%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
1,700
687
794
906
47%
MISCELLANEOUS
36,200
8,375
7,973
28,227
22%
$
909,270
$ 473,213
$ 503,006
$
406,264
55%
s
13
Packet Pg. 135
Page 2 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 324,480
$ 195,336
$ 198,397
$ 126,083
61%
OVERTIME
-
797
1,509
(1,509)
0%
BENEFITS
129,300
69,370
74,785
54,515
58%
SUPPLIES
10,240
3,694
2,866
7,374
28%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
-
420
1,416
(1,416)
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
28,310
16,585
13,172
15,138
47%
COMMUNICATIONS
50,000
24,365
7,183
42,817
14%
TRAVEL
1,000
423
-
1,000
0%
ADVERTISING
-
-
-
-
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
20,000
12,094
10,310
9,690
52%
REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE
21,960
7,096
10,448
11,512
48%
MISCELLANEOUS
4,000
2,296
3,553
447
89%
$ 589,290
$ 332,476
$ 323,638
$ 265,652
55%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES
$ 892,390 $
453,218 $
481,259 $
411,131
54%
OVERTIME
6,670
1,192
1,633
5,037
24%
BENEFITS
305,800
153,059
163,247
142,553
53%
SUPPLIES
43,050
3,823
3,412
39,638
8%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
110,650
46,512
35,295
75,355
32%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
111,400
37,310
18,699
92,701
17%
COMMUNICATIONS
61,500
25,558
29,830
31,670
49%
TRAVEL
2,900
540
833
2,067
29%
RENTAL/LEASE
8,200
7,078
6,819
1,381
83%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
242,680
146,762
35,285
207,395
15%
MISCELLANEOUS 15
14,690
25,692
53,564
(38,874)
365%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
40,000
14,777
-
40,000
0%
$ 1,839,930 $
915,521 $
829,876 $
1,010,054
45%
CITY ATTO RNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$ 741,560 $
385,025 $
422,929 $
318,631
57%
MISCELLANEOUS
-
-
2,137
(2,137)
0%
$ 741,560 $
385,025 $
425,065 $
316,495
57%
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES
$ 100,000 $
- $
- $
100,000
0%
BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT
34,500
4,099
2,775
31,725
8%
SUPPLIES
3,000
1,880
1,185
1,815
39%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
643,420
209,381
234,079
409,341
36%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
2,118
2,211
4,289
34%
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
48,223
20,787
70%
INTERGOVT SERVICES
10,302,760
7,158,165
7,246,024
3,056,736
70%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT
135,000
-
-
135,000
0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
2,909,320
526,556
1,739,021
1,170,299
60%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
168,300
-
-
168,300
0%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES
-
65,297
-
-
0%
OTHER DEBT
-
-
-
-
0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT
46,150
27,460
23,454
22,696
51%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS
-
-
-
-
0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES
33
-
-
0%
INTERFUND SERVICES
-
0%
$ 14,956,000 $
8,463,703 $
9,839,305 $
5,116,695
66%
r_
O
a
d
R
C
to
C
LL
21
t
C
O
2
co
O
N
7
C
N
s
eo
r
Q
15 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is due to Microsoft Office Windows Software Renewal in 2016.
14 r-
Packet Pg. 136 1
I 4.5.a I
Page 3 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTIVIENTIN DETAIL
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PO LIC E S ERVIC ES
SALARIES
$ 5,778,330
$ 3,045,321
$ 3,272,269
$ 2,506,061
57%
OVERTIME
396,240
268,074
247,955
148,285
63%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK
217,790
1,543
2,349
215,441
1%
BENEFITS
2,220,940
1,173,209
1,271,729
949,211
57%
UNIFORMS
80,310
41,503
46,794
33,516
58%
SUPPLIES
86,730
45,546
36,126
50,604
42%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
24,900
10,361
17,116
7,785
69%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
117,170
48,640
51,479
65,691
44%
COMMUNICATIONS
26,210
13,047
15,644
10,566
60%
TRAVEL
17,310
13,975
7,978
9,332
46%
ADVERTISING
-
-
-
-
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
595,100
334,511
343,888
251,212
58%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
14,620
6,587
4,971
9,649
34%
MISCELLANEOUS
46,850
21,478
19,311
27,539
41%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES
10,550
5,272
5,274
5,276
50%
$ 9,633,050
$ 5,029,065
$ 5,342,881
$ 4,290,169
55%
COMMUNITY SERVIC ES/EC 0 N DEV.
SALARIES
BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
DEVELOPMENT S ERVIC ES/PLANNING
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
ENGINEERING
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
UNIFORMS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
$ 224,960 $
127,471 $
131,805 $
93,155
59%
67,430
36,863
40,162
27,268
60%
7,000
192
5,847
1,153
84%
800
-
125
676
16%
222,400
52,953
93,040
129,360
42%
1,490
545
585
905
39%
2,000
179
-
2,000
0%
-
-
-
-
0%
2,000
1,109
1,117
883
56%
500
-
-
500
0%
7,000
3,774
1,623
5,377
23%
$ 535,580 $
223,086 $
274,304 $
261,276
51%
$ 1,444,230 $
776,290 $
842,061 $
602,169
58%
1,300
72
6,103
(4,803)
469%
G
534,670
274,979
307,556
227,114
58%
d
500
-
-
500
0%
16,100
8,174
8,138
7,962
51%
6,950
4,338
2,855
4,095
41%
'V
573,942
90,072
170,141
403,801
30%
8,500
2,428
3,059
5,441
36%
4,250
568
3,976
274
94%
-
-
-
-
0%
24,750
20,442
12,204
12,546
49%
6,800
6,612
1,177
5,623
17%
O
38,860
38,617
24,272
14,588
62%
2
27,500
-
-
27,500
0%
r
$ 2,688,352 $
1,222,591 $
1,381,541 $
1,306,811
51%
N
$ 1,373,500 $
714,006 $
735,288 $
638,212
54%
7
5,000
796
3,290
1,710
66%
561,900
280,451
292,624
269,276
52%
360
-
-
360
0%
-
79
(79)
0%
s
2,200
1,952
248
89%
465,000
-
296,254
168,746
64%
Q
11,800
4,447
5,746
6,054
49%
600
21
296
304
49%
26,370
8,680
13,497
12,873
51%
2,600
-
-
2,600
0%
21,000
6,105
13,351
7,649
64%
$ 2,470,330 $
1,014,506 $
1,362,376 $
1,107,954
55%
15
Packet Pg. 137
I 4.5.a I
Page 4 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2016 Amended
7/31/2015
7/31/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PARKS & REC REATIO N
SALARIES
$ 1,830,090
$ 988,817
$ 1,020,927
$ 809,163
56%
OVERTIME
10,000
6,499
7,277
2,723
73%
BENEFITS
695,310
358,771
387,426
307,884
56%
UNIFORMS
5,370
5,094
3,786
1,584
70%
SUPPLIES
117,500
74,823
88,270
29,230
75%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
9,080
9,205
6,645
2,435
73%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
514,341
174,911
196,843
317,498
38%
COMMUNICATIONS
30,140
10,410
9,926
20,214
33%
TRAVEL
4,450
871
1,889
2,561
42%
ADVERTISING
-
-
-
-
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
170,310
104,362
115,013
55,297
68%
PUBLIC UTILITY
175,000
95,004
98,592
76,408
56%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
50,800
27,658
31,337
19,463
62%
MISCELLANEOUS
91,450
38,147
34,678
56,772
38%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
-
-
-
-
0%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES
70,700
5,000
5,000
65,700
7%
$ 3,774,541
$ 1,899,573
$ 2,007,609
$ 1,766,932
53%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES
$ 263,850 $
148,963 $
152,709 $
111,141
58%
OVERTIME
200
-
-
200
0%
BENEFITS
81,750
44,701
48,363
33,387
59%
SUPPLIES
7,600
2,320
2,028
5,572
27%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
1,479
108
892
11%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200
33
46
154
23%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,350
340
381
969
28%
TRAVEL
500
-
-
500
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
7,640
3,444
3,584
4,056
47%
PUBLIC UTILITY
2,800
1,400
1,493
1,307
53%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
3,900
1,103
195
3,705
5%
$ 371,790 $
203,782 $
208,907 $
162,883
56%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES
669,430
356,632
372,292
297,138
56%
OVERTIME
2,500
2,751
3,465
(965)
139%
BENEFITS
291,990
144,590
152,530
139,460
52%
UNIFORMS
2,750
1,787
1,641
1,109
60%
SUPPLIES
87,000
46,269
41,146
45,854
47%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
3,000
8,795
1,104
1,896
37%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
-
45,675
1,843
(1,843)
0%
COMMUNICATIONS
14,000
8,359
8,656
5,344
62%
TRAVEL
-
-
12
(12)
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
52,530
30,716
31,331
21,199
60%
PUBLIC UTILITY
280,000
156,054
158,449
121,551
57%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
78,500
63,735
45,397
33,103
58%
MISCELLANEOUS
2,100
2,122
4,777
(2,677)
227%
$ 1,483,800 $
867,487 $
822,642 $
661,158
55%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
$ 41,011,287 $
21,504,246 $
23,796,385 $
17,214,902
58%
r
Q
16
Packet Pg. 138
I 4.5.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund
2016
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals
January $ 1,919,004 $
February 4,636,502
March 6,896,316
April 10,558,092
May 18,450,255
June 20,426,901
July 22,548,644
August 24,737,797
September 26,744,456
October 29,966,202
November 37,308,511
December 39,280,321
Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2
1,919,004 $ 2,112,632 10.09%
2,717,499 4,307,339 -7.10%
2,259,814 6,797,209 -1.44%
3,661,775 10,797,010 2.26%
7,892,163 18,037,636 -2.24%
1,976,647 20,334,355 -0.45%
2,121,742 22,256,068 -1.30%
2,189,153
2,006,660
3,221,745
7,342,310
1,971,810
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 1,234,188 25.16%
290,062 1,436,215 12.54
204,673
209,784
185,002
193,458
130,926
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
17
Packet Pg. 139 1
4.5.a
Contractors 604,113
Health & Personal Care
59,115
Retail Eating & Drinking
489,624
Gasoline Stations 19,225
Automotive Repair 98,894-
Retail Automotive 1,000,
Total
Retail Automotive
Misc Retail Trade
Retail Eating & Drinking
Business Services
Retail Food Stores
Others
Amusement & Recreation
Wholesale Trade
Accommodation
Clothing and Accessories
Health & Personal Care
Gasoline Stations
Automotive Repair
Communications
Contractors
($150,000)
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: July 2016
Year -to -Date
Total $3,843,476
Wholesale Trade 155,885
1 Corrnnwiications 142,437
I
-Misc Retail Trade 469,065
23,603
Services 264,995
_ Amusement & Recreation
39,472
Retail Food Stores 154,140
Others 196,139
Clothing and Accessories
125,772
Change in Sales Tax Revenue:
July 2016 compared to
July 2015
($100,000) ($50,000) $0 $50,000 $100,000
$150,000
r-
O
a
d
c
c�
c
LL
21
t
C
O
2
co
0
N
7
r.+
C
N
E
t
U
O
r
r
Q
18
Packet Pg. 140
I 4.5.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
3,295,015
11.29%
July
3,457,813
497,082
3,843,359
11.15%
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
385,669
-13.51%
July
477,342
31,449
415,562
-12.94%
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
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
19
Packet Pg. 141 1
I 4.5.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
633,125
-7.69%
July
794,692
108,792
732,953
-7.77%
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
913,790
6.94%
July
956,312
101,815
1,025,239
7.21%
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
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
20
Packet Pg. 142 1
I 4.5.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
2,888,880
-0.81%
July
3,586,469
674,079
3,581,142
-0.15%
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
1,642,773
6.94%
July
1,891,010
239,837
1,880,842
-0.54%
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
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
21
Packet Pg. 143 1
I 4.5.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
3,115,575
0.15%
July
3,697,613
586,694
3,712,853
0.41%
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
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
22
Packet Pg. 144 1
I 4.5.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund
2016
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 4,569,721 $
4,569,721
$ 4,953,956
8.41%
February
7,094,785
2,525,063
7,893,221
11.25%
March
10,275,445
3,180,660
10,217,655
-0.56%
April
14,311,141
4,035,695
14,305,106
-0.04%
May
16,503,187
2,192,046
16,509,045
0.04%
June
20,293,310
3,790,123
19,669,418
-3.07%
July
23,552,060
3,258,750
23,796,385
1.04%
August
27,167,965
3,615,905
September
30,799,365
3,631,400
October
33,408,392
2,609,027
November
37,036,218
3,627,826
December
41,011,287
3,975,069
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
7,828,525
-1.23%
July
8,993,121
1,067,140
9,839,305
9.41%
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
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
23
Packet Pg. 145
I 4.5.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
98,095
-31.38%
July
169,613
26,656
120,390
-29.02%
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
127,277
-1.62%
July
151,400
22,032
148,207
-2.11%
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
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
24
Packet Pg. 146 1
I 4.5.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 $
31,041 $
31,041 $
25,054
-19.29%
February
72,203
41,162
61,145
-15.31%
March
112,713
40,509
101,724
-9.75%
April
168,538
55,825
146,484
-13.09%
May
209,518
40,980
183,771
-12.29%
June
247,117
37,599
232,729
-5.82%
July
292,697
45,580
274,304
-6.28%
August
335,893
43,196
September
383,280
47,387
October
429,917
46,636
November
475,538
45,621
December
535,580
60,042
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
$ 50,833 $
50,833
$ 44,524
-12.41%
February
96,778
45,946
87,838
-9.24%
March
146,191
49,413
142,107
-2.79%
April
191,236
45,044
188,255
-1.56%
May
235,619
44,383
234,593
-0.44%
June
283,490
47,872
281,026
-0.87%
July
331,509
48,019
323,638
-2.37%
August
381,757
50,248
September
431,132
49,374
October
489,238
58,106
November
538,959
49,721
December
589,290
50,331
City Clerk
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 -dr- Prior Year
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
25
Packet Pg. 147 1
I 4.5.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources
2016
Human Resources
Cumulative
Budget Forecast
Monthly
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
175,479
-22.96%
July
266,108
38,336
206,637
-22.35%
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
435,326
-1.26%
July
515,865
74,993
503,006
-2.49%
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 Year Budget -dm- Prior Year
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
26
Packet Pg. 148
I 4.5.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
325,732
-14.61%
July
448,514
67,044
370,139
-17.47%
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
391,632
-18.10%
July
551,010
72,826
459,737
-16.56%
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 -dP-- Prior Year
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
27
Packet Pg. 149
I 4.5.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
347,078
-6.39%
July
432,576
61,797
425,065
-1.74%
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
$ 742,786 $
742,786
$ 771,955
3.93%
February
1,501,528
758,742
1,527,193
1.71%
March
2,271,626
770,097
2,295,467
1.05%
April
3,026,048
754,422
3,078,848
1.74%
May
3,780,240
754,192
3,832,659
1.39%
June
4,598,322
818,082
4,596,670
-0.04%
July
5,363,806
765,484
5,342,881
-0.39%
August
6,136,928
773,122
September
6,902,315
765,387
October
7,698,702
796,387
November
8,768,959
1,070,257
December
9,633,050
864,091
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
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
28
Packet Pg. 150
I 4.5.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services
2016
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast
YTD
Actuals
Variance
January
$ 204,243 $
204,243
$ 170,060
-16.74%
February
415,923
211,680
361,353
-13.12%
March
648,648
232,726
565,548
-12.81%
April
859,812
211,164
764,404
-11.10%
May
1,077,954
218,142
985,455
-8.58%
June
1,286,181
208,226
1,183,128
-8.01%
July
1,508,767
222,586
1,381,541
-8.43%
August
1,735,150
226,383
September
1,959,377
224,226
October
2,208,198
248,821
November
2,436,068
227,870
December
2,688,352
252,284
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
1,609,632
-4.03%
July
2,108,378
431,146
2,007,609
-4.78%
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
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
29
Packet Pg. 151
I 4.5.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
178,420
-3.75%
July
216,622
31,243
208,906
-3.56%
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
697,556
-3.62%
July
857,071
133,314
822,642
-4.02%
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
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
30
Packet Pg. 152 1
I 4.5.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering
2016
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly
Budget Forecast 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
1,161,113
-3.40%
July
1,401,670
199,706
1,362,376
-2.80%
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
Engine a ring
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 —dp-- Prior Year
r
Q
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
31
Packet Pg. 153
4.5.a
INVESTMENT
PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Investment Portfolio Summary
As of July 31, 2016
(a)
Term
Purchase
Purchase
Maturity
Yield to Weighted
Agency/Issuer
Investment Type
(months)
Date
Price
Date
1
Maturity Average
Washington State Local
Investment Pool
Various $12,631,968
Various
0.49%
0.10%
Government Investment Pool
!
Snohomish County
Investment Pool
Various $30,561,335
Various
0.82%
0.42%
Investment Pool
FICO
Bonds
33
9/19/2014
1,027,000
6/6/2017
0.96%
0.02% Li
s
FHLMC
Bonds
61
12/28/2012
1,000,000
12/28/2017
0.90%
0.02% 1
FFCB
Bonds
36
1/25/2016
2,000,000
12/28/2018
1.42%
0.05%
C
FFCB
Bonds
37
1/25/2016
2,000,000
1/25/2019
1.23%
0.04%
FNMA
Bonds
61
9/19/2014
1,000,000
9/19/2019
1.87%
0.03%
FHLB
Bonds
48
5/5/2016
2,000,000
3/30/2020
1.45%
0.05% `
c
FHLMC
Bonds
48
5/5/2016
2,000,000
4/28/2020
1.35%
0.05%
FHLB
Bonds
49
7/13/2016
3,000,000
7/13/2020
1.20%
0.06%
FNMA
Bonds
55
7/19/2016
2,000,000
1/19/2021
0.95%
0.03%
(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
$59,220,302 0.87%
% of Total Rate Comparison
21.33% Current6-monthtreasuryrate 0.38%
27.06% Current State Pool rate 0.49%
51.61% Blended Edmonds rate 0.87%
100.0%
Interest Income
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.87%
O
m
ca
.v
O
c
LL
21
t
.r
c
O
2
m
r
O
N
21
■ 2012
■ 2013 y
2014 t
■ 2015
2016 Q
32
Packet Pg. 154
4.5.a
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
GENERAL FUND
& SUBFUNDS
---- ACTUAL ----
0
---- ACTUAL ----
0-
12/31 /2015 6/30/2016
7/31 /2016
Q2
YTD
001-General Fund
$ 9,359,436 $ 10,024,373 $
7,819,119
$ 4,248,681
$ (1,540,31"
Fa
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
519,409 532,581
506,734
78,821
(12,67t
c
011-Risk Management Fund
961,513 965,713
966,650
2,373
5,13-
c�
ii
012-Contingency Reserve Fund
4,677,030 4,684,313
4,685,941
3,016,660
8,91
013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD
56,487 56,720
56,775
126
28t
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund
2,590 5,116
5,121
(3,927)
2,53
-a
016-Building Maintenance
118,086 (48,433)
(5,824)
(181,693)
(123,91(
m
Total General Fund & Subfunds
$ 15,694,551 $ 16,220,385 $
14,034,516
$ 7,161,041
$ (1,660,03!
c
0
co
r
O
N
_A
7
7
O
O
General Fund & Subfunds
r
20
0
$15.69
$16.22
0
16
$14.03
�
.v
12
c
o
0
u.
� 8
21
c
0
4
2
m
_
r
O
N
,
Dec 2015
June 2016
July 2016
3
c
a�
E
t
U
r
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. 155
I 4.5.a I
GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW
CHANGE IN FUND
FUND BALANCES
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2015
6/30/2016
7/31 /2016
Q2 YTD
General Fund & Subfunds
$ 15,694,551
$ 16,220,385 $
14,034,516
$
7,161,041 $ (1,660,03
s
Special Revenue
7,711,341
10,255,835
11,067,758
(1,631,894) 3,356,41 p
Debt Service
114,790
115,563
115,563
(0) 77 .�
i
Total Governmental Funds
$ 23,520,682
$ 26,591,783 $
25,217,837
$
5,529,147 $ 1,697,15 i
20
16
,12
0
8
4
Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund Group
General
Fund &
1.03 Subfunds
$11.or Special
0.26 Revenue
$7.71
Debt
Service
$0.11 $0.12 $0.12
Dec 2015 June 2016 July 2016
30
24
c 18
0
12
6
Governmental Fund
Balances - Combined
Dec 2015 June 2016 July 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
c
ii
21
t
.r
a
0
2
m
r
O
N
21
c
a�
E
t
v
r
Q
34
Packet Pg. 156 1
4.5.a
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
OVERVIEW
GOVERNMENTAL
SPECIAL REVENUE
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE;
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31/2015 6/30/2016 7/31/2016
---- ACTUAL ----
Q2 YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund
$ 68,732
$ 109,613
$ 93,878
$ (10,919) $
25,14(
111 - Street Fund
514,445
556,641
544,784
129,712
30,33�
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve
9,339
1,393,845
2,072,819
(2,419,981)
2,063,48(
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
468,471
472,727
469,484
(9,357)
1,01:
118 - Memorial Street Tree
17,919
17,993
18,010
40
9'
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
153,884
162,241
168,002
(2,268)
14,11E
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund
64,480
72,599
73,220
835
8,74(
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund
15,469
14,705
14,569
(468)
(90(
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
84,567
86,674
87,977
188
3,41(
125 - Real Estate Tax 2
1,629,535
1,996,449
2,061,352
122,191
431,811
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1
2,239,007
2,366,504
2,469,771
324,283
230,76z
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund
265,924
261,169
259,408
(23,445)
(6,51(
129 - Special Projects Fund
38,393
38,551
38,589
85
19(
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
137,256
154,038
149,040
11,869
11,78z
132 - Parks Construction Fund
897,413
1,392,690
1,396,446
232,085
499,03:
136 - Parks Trust Fund
152,249
152,877
153,025
339
77(
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
883,729
895,815
897,726
6,085
13,991
138 - Sister City Commission
3,785
6,921
6,669
3,129
2,88z
139 - Transportation Benefit District
-
-
-
(0)
-
140 - Business Improvement Disrict
66,744
103,780
92,986
3,704
26,24,'
Total Special Revenue
$ 7,711,341
$ 10,255,835
$ 11,067,758
$ (1,631,894) $
3,356,41
15
12
9
c
0
6
3
Special Revenue Funds
$10.26
■ Special
Revenue
Dec 2015
June 2016
July 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. 157
I 4.5.a I
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
ENTERPRISE
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL
----
FUNDS
12/31/2015
6/30/2016
7/31/2016
Q2
YTD
421 - Water Utility Fund
$ 16,750,820
$ 17,135,816
$ 17,163,717
$
1,622,668 $
412,891
422 - Storm Utility Fund
9,695,327
10,084,412
10,049,553
(488,470)
354,22E
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund
43,067,458
44,186,132
44,050,942
233,885
983,48, <
424 - Bond Reserve Fund
-
4
5
(843,959)
411 - Combined Utility Operation
-
83,251
95,769
36,122
95,76� .
Total Enterprise Funds
$ 69,513,605
$ 71,489,615
$ 71.359,986
$
560,246 $
1,846,38' ,
$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 July 31, 2016
$95,769
Combined Utility
17.163.717
$10,049,553
$5
Storm Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve
r
Q
*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. 158
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
4.5.a I
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
ACTUAL
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
Governmental Funds
$ 23,520,682
$ 26,591,783
$ 25,217,837
$
5,529,147 $
1,697,15E
Enterprise Funds
69,513,605
71,489,615
71,359,986
560,246
1,846,38-
Internal Services Fund
7,645,840
7,549,040
7,633,212
(724,516)
(12,62E
Agency Funds
203,101
239,169
236,280
47,333
33,M
Total City-wide Total
$100,883,228
$105,869,607
$104,447,315
$
5,412,209 $
3,564,08i
Governmental Fund Balances as of July 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 Permit 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 $ (0)
Equipment Rental Fund
Firemen's Pension Fund
$1
$14,034,511
$93,878
$544,784
� $2,072,8�9
$469,484
$18,010
- $168,002
� $73,220
$14,569
� $87,977
$2,061,3$2 r
$2,469, 71
- $259,408 O
$38,589 Q'
m
— $149,040 W
$1,396,44
— $153,025
$897,726
C
$6,669
� $92,986
r $10,428
$105,135
S236.280
*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
O
co
0
• $7, 33,21: N
,
7
$20,000,000 };
c
a�
E
t
v
is
r
Q
37
Packet Pg. 159
I 4.5.a I
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUNDal
INTERNAL SERVICE BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ---- - - ACTUAL ----
FUNDS
12/31 /2015 6/30/2016 7/31 /2016 02_ YTD
511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 7,645,840 $ 7,549,040 $ 7,633,212 $ (724,516) $ (12,62£
i
Total Internal Service Funds $ 7,645,840 $ 7,549,040 $ 7,633,212 $ (724,516) $ (12,6Z
10
8
6
0
4
2
Internal Service Fund Balances
$7.65 $7.55 $7.63
Dec 2015 June 2016 July 2016
r_
0
0.
511-Equipment Rental Fund M
r
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. 160
4.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Approval of Updated Interagency Agreement with Western Washington University for the Sustainable
Cities Partnership
Staff Lead: Rob Chave
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Rob Chave
Background/History
The City Council had presentations of the Sustainable Cities Partnership on April 12 and 26, 2016, and
approved an Interlocal Agreement with Western Washington University on July 19, 2016.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the updated Interagency Agreement with Western Washington University
(Exhibit 1).
Narrative
On July 19, 2016, the City Council approved an Interlocal Agreement with Western Washington
University for the Sustainable Cities Partnership for 2016-2017. However, the University has realized
that in order to sign the interlocal agreement, the Board of Trustees has to approve the document, and
unfortunately the Trustees don't meet until October. In order to complete the agreement, the University
has proposed substituting an "Interagency Agreement" for the interlocal. In all other respects the
provisions and projects remain the same; essentially only the form (title) of the agreement has changed.
The Edmonds City Attorney has reviewed the Interagency Agreement and has approved it, noting that
Washington State law does not mandate an interlocal as the required form.
In order to meet the University's contracting needs, staff recommends approving the updated form of
the agreement. Note the University has already provided its signatures.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Proposed Interagency Agreement
Packet Pg. 161
Aoue6eialul polepdn jo lenoaddV : 99-p luaweeAV Aoua6eaalul pesodWd : l llgl4x3 :1uawL1oepV
co
a.
m
M
a.
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Between the City of Edmonds and Western Washington University
THIS Agreement is by and between the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal
corporation ('Edmonds"), and Western Washington University, a higher education institution of
the State of Washington ("WWU"), known collectively as "the Parties."
I. RECITALS
WHEREAS, there are numerous pending municipal projects in Edmonds, the completion
of which would result in sustainable ecological, economic and social benefits; and '
WHEREAS, WWU's Sustainable Cities Partnership ("SCP") works with a single city
each academic year, arranging to use the resources of WWU to undertake projects of
benefit to said city; and
WHEREAS, Edmonds wishes to contract with WWU to be SCP's partner city for the
2016 — 2017 academic year; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations hereinafter
set forth, the Parties agree as follows:
II. AGREEMENT
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the scope of work that WWU's SCP will
perform for Edmonds, as well as the terms and conditions of the relationship between the
Parties.
2. SERVICE
Aoue6eia;ul pa;epdn jo lenoaddd : 99-p .) }uaweeAV Aoua6eaa}ul pesodWd : l }Igl4x3 :}u9uayoe11V
M
q CO
t0 �
a.
m
M
WWU SCP agrees to provide those services and deliverable products set forth in attached a.
Exhibit "A," Scope of Work and Budget, incorporated herein by reference. Edmonds
agrees to provide the staff collaboration and background data set forth in Exhibit "A."
3. ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
3.1 The Parties are not creating any new or separate organization or entity to
administer the provisions of this agreement. WWU shall administer the planning
and implementation of the Scope of Work.
3.2 The Edmonds Planning Manager, Rob Chave, shall have primary responsibility
for administering and approving services to be performed by WWU, and shall
coordinate all communications between WWU and Edmonds.
3.3 The WWU SCP Program Coordinator, David Davidson, shall have primary
responsibility for administering and approving services to be performed by
WWU, and shall coordinate all communications between WWU and Edmonds.
4. INVOICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES
4.1 Edmonds shall reimburse WWU for incurred project expenses and program
overhead expenses, as specified in attached Exhibit "A."
4.2 At the end of each academic quarter (i.e., on approximately December 31, 2016,
March 31, 2017, and June 30, 2017) WWU shall submit to Edmonds an invoice
for work performed in the prior quarter. Edmonds shall initiate authorization for
payment after receipt of said invoice and shall make payment to WWU within
approximately 45 days of initial receipt.
PROPERTY
5.1 Real: No real property shall be acquired or held under this Agreement.
5.2 Intellectual: Any and all reports, electronic databases and datasets, plans,
drawings, videos, photographs, or other creation of the mind created by WWU
SCP pursuant to completion of the Scope of Work shall be shared jointly among
the Parties and may be used by Edmonds and WWU for any purpose. WWU
retains intellectual property rights in documents and intangible property created
by WWU prior to engagement with Edmonds, or not created by WWU for its
performance of this Agreement.
6. MODIFICATION AND TERMINATION.
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
"U—Edmonds Page 2 of 6
Aoue6eialul polepdn jo 1eAoaddd : gg-p�) }uaweeAV Aoua6eaa}ul pesodWd : }igiyxg :}u9uayoe11V
q CD
co
a.
m
M
6.1 Modification. Any change, addition or other modification to this Agreement shall a.
not be valid or binding upon any party hereto unless such change, addition or
modification is in writing and executed by an authorized representative of the
Parties hereto.
6.2 Termination. Termination of this Agreement may be initiated by either party
hereto with or without cause. Such termination shall be memorialized by written
agreement of all Parties hereto, which shall be executed by an authorized
representative of each party. In the event of termination, Edmonds shall reimburse
WWU pursuant to the terms of paragraph (7) below.
7. ADJUSTMENT OF BUDGET AND SCOPE OF WORK
7.1 Paragraph (4) of Exhibit "A" governs instances in which either party seeks to
delete one or more specific projects from the Scope of Work.
7.2 In the event that WWU initiates termination of the Agreement, Edmonds shall
reimburse WWU for only the cost of completed projects (i.e., projects for which
deliverables have already been received by Edmonds) and for the cost of program
overhead incurred as of the date of termination.
7.3 In the event that Edmonds initiates termination of the Agreement, WWU will
complete projects that are underway and Edmonds shall reimburse WWU the
actual costs incurred for said projects. WWU will not commence projects not yet
underway (i.e., projects with scheduled start dates that fall after the date of
termination of the Agreement) and will not invoice Edmonds for said projects.
WWU will make its best effort (consistent with union contracts and labor laws) to
minimize program overhead costs incurred after the date of termination of the
Agreement, and Edmonds shall reimburse WWU for program overhead costs that
are unavoidably incurred by WWU.
TERM
This Agreement shall become effective on the date upon which it has been executed by
both Parties. The Agreement shall remain in effect until September 30, 2017.
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
)WU—Edmonds Page 3 of 6
Aoue6eialul polepdn jo IeAoaddd : 99-p .) }uaweeAV Aoueftie;ul pesodWd : l }Igl4x3 :1uawL1oepV LO
to
co
a.
m
M
9. LEGAL RELATIONS AND INDEMNIFICATION
The Parties agree to the following distribution and allocation of legal responsibility and
indemnification:
9.1 Neither party to this Agreement will be considered the agent of the other nor does
either party assume any responsibility to the other party for the consequences of
any act or omission of any person or entity not a party to this Agreement.
9.2 The Parties shall separately maintain their own liability and casualty insurance
policies as they, in their sole discretion, deem appropriate. The Parties further
agree that no indemnification shall be provided for, except as specifically set forth
below, and that the respective liability of the Parties to each other and to third
persons shall be deemed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
9.3 WWU will protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Edmonds, its officers,
employees, or agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments or awards of
damages arising out of, or in any way resulting from, the acts or omissions of
WWU, its officers, employees or agents. Edmonds will protect, defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless WWU, its officers, employees or agents from any
and all costs, claims, judgments or awards of damages arising out of, or in any
way resulting from, the acts or omissions of Edmonds, its officers, employees
volunteers or agents. In the event of concurrent liability, the parties shall have the
right of contribution in proportion to the respective liability of each party.
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to waive immunities
established pursuant to state statutes or to create third party rights or immunities.
9.4 Notwithstanding the provisions set forth above, Edmonds understands and
supports the project's academic and experiential learning benefits for WWU
students. Edmonds acknowledges that many aspects of the project will be
completed by WWU students under the supervision of WWU faculty, and that
neither the faculty nor students are licensed professionals. Neither WWU, nor
anyone acting on behalf of WWU, makes any warranty or representation, express
or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the
information provided pursuant to this agreement, whether or not contained in any
written report; or that use of any data, information, method or process disclosed in
any report may not infringe privately owned rights. Edmonds hereby releases
WWU from liability for damages which may result to the City from the negligent
acts or omissions of WWU students in the performance of work under this
Agreement.
9.5 The terms of this section (9) shall survive the termination of the Agreement.
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
WNW —Edmonds Page 4 of 6
Aoue6eaa;ul pa;epdn jo lenoaddV : gg-p�) }uaweeAV Aoueftie;ul pesodWd : I }Igl4x3 :;uawLjoejjV
10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1 Entire Agreement. This document is the complete and exclusive agreement among
the Parties with respect to the SCP program. It supersedes all oral or written
proposals and/or other communications among the Parties regarding the SCP.
10.2 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or
unenforceable for whatever reason, that shall not affect or impair, in any manner,
the validity, legality or enforceability of the remainder of this Agreement.
10.3 Waivers. A waiver or failure by either party to enforce any provision of this
Agreement shall not be construed as a continuing waiver of such provisions, nor
shall the same constitute a waiver of any other provision of this Agreement
10.4 Status of Employees. This Agreement shall not create any employment or
worker's compensation rights, duties or obligations.,No agent, employee or other
representative of the Parties shall be deemed an employee of any other party
hereto for any reason.
10.5 Status of Agreement. This Agreement is in addition to, and is not intended to
replace, substitute, modify or otherwise amend any other agreement between the
Parties. Those other agreements continue in effect according to the terms of those
agreements.
10.6 Rights and Remedies. The rights and remedies provided in this Agreement are in
addition to any other rights and remedies that may be provided by law.
10.7 Third Parties. The Parties do not intend to create any rights or benefits in any
entity, organization or person that is not a party hereto.
10.8 Venue. Washington law shall govern the interpretation of this Agreement.
Whatcom County shall be the venue of any arbitration or lawsuit arising out of
this Agreement.
10.8 Compliance with Laws. WWU shall comply with all applicable federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations.
10.9 Assignment. The Parties hereto shall not assign or delegate any or all duty,
obligation, right or interest in this Agreement.
10.10 Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the parties shall
comply with all federal and, state nondiscrimination laws and regulations and
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
WWU — Edmonds
Page 5 of 6
to
a.
d
1
M
a.
Aoue6eao;ul polepdn jo IeAoaddd : gg-p�) }uewe9jBV Aoueftie;ul pesodWd : I }Igl4x3 :}uouayoejjV
q
co
v
policies. In the event of a party's noncompliance or refusal to comply with any
nondiscrimination law or regulation, this Agreement may be rescinded, canceled,
or terminated in whole or in part. The party shall, however, be given a reasonable
time in which to cure this noncompliance.
10.11 Force Majeure. The obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall be
suspended and excused if the performance of either is prevented or delayed by .
acts of nature, earthquakes, fire, flood, or the elements, malicious mischief,
insurrection, riots, strikes, lockouts, boycotts, picketing, labor disturbances, war,
compliances with any directive, order or regulation of any governmental authority
or representative thereof made under claim or color of authority or for any reason
beyond the control of either party whether or not similar to the foregoing.
10.12 Records. The Parties shall each maintain records in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles of the funds expended pursuant to this Agreement.
Such records shall be available during normal working hours for the review of the
other party, their accounting representatives or the State Auditor.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year last below written.
City of Edmonds
Western Washington University
David Earling, Mayor Title
Date: Date:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sharon Cates
Office of the City Attorney
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
W WU — Edmonds
Title ���_Ul
Date jV
Page 6 of 6
4.6.a
Exhibit "A"
Scope of Work and Budget
1. Preamble. This Exhibit contains the best available information regarding the scope of work
(SOW) and associated budget, as of the date of execution of the Agreement. For each
identified project, a WWU faculty member has confirmed that he/she will undertake the
project and has also provided a best estimate of the associated logistics (e.g., the enrollment
cap and the number and timing of anticipated visits to Edmonds). The Parties understand
that the actual logistics will likely differ from the estimates provided here, based upon actual
enrollment and upon the professor's final decision regarding number of visits to Edmonds.
2. Scope%ost of individual projects. The Parties agree that the actual cost of an individual
project might exceed or might fall short of the estimate provided in this Exhibit. The Parties
agree that for each individual project, a refined project definition and cost estimate (in
written form and signed by the Parties' representatives identified in paragraph (3) of the
Agreement) shall be established a minimum of two weeks prior to the scheduled start date
(see section (8) below) of the project. The refined definitions shall contain information such
as: identification of personnel at Edmonds and WWU that will collaborate on the project;
resources to be provided by Edmonds (e.g., data, reports, visits to WWU campus by
Edmonds staff); deliverables to be produced by WWU; logistics of travel.
3. Firm overall SOW and cost. The Parties agree that the projects listed below shall comprise
the SOW, and that the total amount due WWU from Edmonds in completion of the SOW
shall not exceed $77,500, EXCEPT that pursuant to section (7.c) below, said total amount
may be increased to account for excess laboratory analytical costs. The quarterly invoices
described in paragraph (4.2) of the Agreement shall be based upon actual expenses, so
overall cost might fall short of the "not to exceed" value established here.
4. Reduction in SOW. With written notice at least 30 days prior to the scheduled start date of a
project (see section (8) below), either party may delete a project from the SOW. In that
event, the overall cost identified in paragraph (3) above shall be reduced by an amount equal
to the estimated project cost as identified in this Exhibit.
5. Augmentation of SOW. An augmentation of the SOW shall be in the form of a written
addendum to this Exhibit, ratified pursuant to paragraph (6.1) of the Agreement.
6. Program overhead. Edmonds acknowledges that the overall cost identified in paragraph (3)
above includes overhead costs incurred by WWU in operation of the SCP program in the
period July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2017. SCP overhead costs amount to $44,800 and
include:
a. Project Coordinator. A part-time position averaging 0.6 FTE.
b. Incidental travel. Travel necessary for generic support of the SCP program.
c. Office expense. The costs of I.T., telecom, copying, supplies, etc.
d. Events. SCP will host a program -launch event in September 2016 and a finale event in
May 2017. Edmonds officials will participate in these events, which will be held at
WWU.
Packet Pg. 168
4.6.a
7. Suite ofprojects. Following are brief descriptions of the manner in which WWU's academic
capacity will be used upon specific Edmonds projects. The estimated cost directly assignable
to each project is identified. That cost includes course -specific travel, faculty support, Intern
salary (if any), field crew salaries (if any), laboratory analytical costs (if any), and report
production (editorial/ design/ duplication).
a. Sea -level Rise Mitigation Planning. $2,150.
At the current sea level elevation, Edmonds experiences occasional flooding in the
waterfront area when high tides combine with storm events. As sea level rises in response
to climate change, extreme weather events and flooding in the waterfront area are likely
to become more frequent and potentially more damaging. The City has a Hazard
Mitigation Plan, but it doesn't address specific risks related to climate change. In
addition, the City doesn't have a current specific strategy on how to approach the issue in
the coming years. This project would assist the City in evaluating risks associated with
climate change and sea level rise and identifying scenarios and options to address
prospective impacts.
The course will be the focus of the Disaster Reduction and Emergency Planning Studio
course (ENVS 476, 25 students) taught in spring 2017 by Dr. Rebekah Paci-Green. The
course provides students with an opportunity to apply their knowledge and skills in
disaster reduction and emergency planning, with an emphasis on community -based
approaches. Students work in groups with a client on a quarter -long project of practical
significance. Students are exposed to best practices through case studies across disaster
reduction and emergency planning. Project management, client interactions, report
writing, and communicating technical information to diverse audiences are
emphasized. Dr. Green anticipates three field trips to Edmonds. A single report will be
delivered.
b. Edmonds Memorial Cemetery. $7,000.
Since 1982, when the City acquired the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, the City has been
operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or accurate electronic mapping. It
is essential that the City procure an accurate digital map of the cemetery, linked to their
existing MS Access database that identifies occupants, and also linked to digital photos
(not yet in existence) of headstones. The digital map can then be used for management of
the cemetery, as well as public -access research.
The GIS/cartographic component of the course will be the focus of a student team in the
Advanced Spatial Analytics course (ENVS 422, 25 students) taught in spring 2017 by Dr.
Aquila Flower. The course focuses upon computer tools for identifying spatial patterns
and processes, effective communication of results (including web -based display via tools
such as StoryMaps), and professional development for geospatial analysts. While making
predominate use of ESRI software, it includes an introduction to open source analytical
and cartographic software options.
Packet Pg. 169
4.6.a
Some of the necessary tasks (e.g., digital photos of gravestones) are not suited to any
course's curriculum and must be completed before the Spatial Analytics course begins.
Following are such tasks:
• Edmonds will deploy survey -grade GPS to determine the coordinates of existing
capped rebars placed throughout the cemetery.
• A GIS-track 4th-year Intern will use existing survey records and paper maps, together
with the GPS points delivered by Edmonds, to build a shapefile of the grid of graves.
• The Intern will link the existing MS Access database to the shapefile by way of a
grave -addressing scheme developed in cooperation with city staff.
• The Intern and a field team will take photos of all gravestones and assess the
condition of each. The Intern will incorporate the photos/data into the GIS
application, correlated to matching polygons. The team will also map other features
in the cemetery, such as benches, flagpoles, light standards, etc., and such features
will be incorporated into the GIS application.
The Spatial Analytics course will use all of the above material to develop the
administrative and public -display (web -based) GIS applications that will be provided to
Edmonds
c. Stella's Landing Site Assessment. $4,950.
The project relates to Stella's Landing, a parcel of private property adjacent to the
Edmonds Marsh, east of SR 104, which may soon be donated to the City. Edmonds
needs to identify restoration options and complete a Phase 1 environmental assessment.
Public participation and ongoing community stewardship are key aspects.
The course will be the focus of a two -course sequence, Science and Management of
Contaminated Sites (ESCI 453 winter 2017 & ESCI 454 spring 2017, 25 students), taught
by Dr. Ruth Sofield. The winter quarter discusses methods, but with reference to the
specific site. Students develop a proposal for work to be completed in the subsequent
course. The spring quarter involves completion of the cleanup design, including
technical components and with emphasis upon communication of technical information
to a general audience. Students will visit the site once in winter quarter and four times in
spring quarter. A single report will be delivered at the conclusion of each quarter. The
exact cost of necessary laboratory analyses is not yet known and will be subject to
discussion and confirmation with Edmonds. The estimated budget includes an allowance
of $1,000 for lab work. Should Edmonds opt for extensive lab analyses (e.g., pesticides),
costs in excess of the $1,000 allowance will be added to the "not to exceed" amount
identified in paragraph (3) above.
d. Promotion of 0' Ave. Cultural Corridor. $1,575.
The City wants to promote planning and development for a three to four block
arts/culture corridor, just off the main downtown street (Main Street), which links to the
performing arts center (Edmonds Center for the Arts) to the north. The corridor was
designated as an Arts Corridor with unique zoning in 2006 and initial concept planning
for the corridor was completed in 2009. Since then the project has languished, and a
Packet Pg. 170
4.6.a
promotion campaign is needed in order to reengage the community and foster support for
the project. The target audience includes citizen stakeholders, as well as elected officials
and staff within city government.
The project will be the focus of the Public Relations Research and Campaigns course
(JOUR 440, 14 students) taught in fall 2016 by Dr. Jennifer Keller. The class will be
organized as three competing independent teams. City staff will visit the class to discuss
the project goals, describe the geographic scope and the prior concept planning, etc.
Each of the teams will thereafter proceed independently, scheduling at least one (and
possibly as many as three) trips to Edmonds, in order to conduct interviews with citizens
and staff. The three competing P.R. campaigns will be presented, and Edmonds will then
select a "winner." Edmonds will receive all three reports, allowing the city to opt for
preferred items gleaned from any of the three teams.
e. Zero -Waste Program and Food -Waste Program. $1,500.
Zero -Waste: Research an approach to increase diversion (from landfill) of recyclable
construction and demolitions materials generated by commercial development in the
City. This should include an examination of resources and companies that are doing this
type of recycling and what is, or could be, available to the Edmonds community. Are
incentives or requirements the way to go? How can we be assured that materials are
actually being recycled?
Food -Waste: The City is interested in introducing a food waste reduction program,
focusing initially on public events that take place at City facilities. We need a policy or
ordinance with procedures that specifies the added collection of organic discards at
organized public events taking place on City property.
Both projects will be the focus of the Campus Sustainability Planning Studio course
(ENVS 471, 10 students) taught in fall 2016 by Seth Vidaiia. While typically focused
upon projects on the WWU campus, the course can readily focus upon projects in
Edmonds. In the past, the course has worked on topics such as reduction of food waste
and solid waste. Student teams will determine relevant parameters and conditions in
Edmonds, research programs in existence elsewhere, and provide recommendations
appropriate to Edmonds. One team will address each waste stream. The students will
visit Edmonds twice, and two reports will be delivered.
f. Edmonds Marsh Enhancement. $2,475
The estuarine marsh ("Edmonds Marsh"), which is greatly loved but impacted by past
and present urban uses, including adjacent development and stormwater runoff, could
benefit from creation of "buffer" areas that feature new low impact stormwater
management (raingardens or other techniques) while still allowing adjacent development.
What conceptual designs should be considered? How would we know the approach
would work? This project needs to be coordinated with the City, the Port of Edmonds,
and environmental and business interests.
Packet Pg. 171
4.6.a
This project will be the focus of the Ecological Restoration course (ESCI 470, 20
students) taught in fall 2016 by Dr. James Helfield and Dr. John Tuxill. Through the lens
of an actual restoration project, the course investigates the theory and practice of
ecological restoration, including methods for evaluating success. Physical, ecological,
economic, and cultural considerations are all incorporated in analyses. A single report
will be delivered, including a set of detailed recommendations for restoration work (e.g.,
schemes for plantings, stormwater management bioswales) and plans for monitoring and
assessment and public education. The students will visit Edmonds twice, and Edmonds
staff will visit campus once, near the start of the quarter, to describe the site and the
objectives of the restoration.
g. Wastewater Treatment Plant Educational Material. $4,675.
Edmonds seeks a new brochure pertaining to the wastewater treatment process,
describing what's been done to improve the plant and what might be next for energy
efficiency.
A 4th-year Intern in the Environmental Education track will be recruited by faculty
member Wendy Walker, who is a specialist in environmental interpretation and
education. This paid Intern will work closely with city staff to develop the brochure, as
well as signs and content for WWTP tours (both adult and youth). The Intern will make
four visits to Edmonds and will deliver the brochure and other described content.
h. Downtown Business/Tourism Mobile App. $125.
The City and the Edmonds Downtown Alliance have created websites, brochures, ads,
and other materials both to attract visitors to Edmonds as well as to inform and orient
them to businesses, attractions and events in Edmonds. Greater information about the
type and locations of various businesses, as well as the various attractions and events,
helps bring visitors to town and keeps them there longer, thereby enhancing economic
activity through their expenditures. Edmonds has not yet developed a mobile -device app
or apps that could help guide the more tech -savvy visitor who does not necessarily rely
on brochures or printed maps. In addition, apps can convey greater and more updated
information than printed materials. Key to this project is to understand the true potential
for app usage among Edmonds visitors, make the app extremely accessible, as well as a
sustainable tool that staff of both the City and the Downtown Alliance can access and
update easily.
The course will be the focus of a three- or four -person team of computer science students,
completing a full -year senior capstone project (CSCI 491, 492, & 493). In the first week
of fall quarter 2016, an Edmonds staff member will visit campus to describe the project to
the cohort of senior C.S. majors. Students will self-select onto a team. The team is likely
to visit Edmonds no more than three times over the course of the year. There will be
extensive interaction with Edmonds staff (to identify content, select a software platform,
discuss application aestheticsibranding, etc.), which primarily would occur via Skype, but
which also will involve visits to Western by Edmonds staff. The application is the main
Packet Pg. 172
4.6.a
deliverable, but it will be accompanied by a specifications document and other
documentation related to internal structure, software maintenance, etc.
i. "Playful City" Recreation Program. $3,350.
Playful City USA is a national recognition program that honors cities and towns across
the country for taking bold steps that make it easy for all kids to get the balanced and
active play they need to thrive. These communities are recognized for their efforts to
create more playable, family -friendly cities. Through policy changes, programs, and
infrastructure investments, Playful City USA communities are driving a deeper
understanding of the importance of play and engaging their citizens to reimagine cities
with kids in mind. The City seeks to explore the possibility of achieving designation as a
Playful City USA.
This project will be the focus of two courses in winter 2017: Management of Recreation
and Leisure Services (RECR 372, 60 students) taught by Dr. Randy Burtz, and
Recreation Programming (RECR 373, identical 60 students) taught by Dr. Jasmine
Goodnow. The students will visit Edmonds twice —first for a discussion with city staff
and a parks/facilities tour, and later for a workshop reviewing deliverables. City staff
will visit the course once, soon after the parks/facilities tour, to discuss expectations and
specifics. A single report will be delivered.
j. Green Business Program. $2,400.
The City established a Green Business Pledge in the spring of 2014. The purpose of the
pledge was to raise awareness amongst the City's business community and encourage
local businesses to employ green business practices in their daily operations. To date,
approximately 35 businesses have taken the pledge. Due to limited staff time, the City
has not been able to provide as much follow-up with the businesses who have taken the
pledge, nor further get the word out to encourage additional businesses to take the pledge.
Additionally, the intention when creating the pledge was for it to be converted into a full
Green Business Program where additional resources and benefits would be available to
participants. The City would like assistance in fleshing out and marketing the Green
Business Program.
The project will be the focus of the Greening Business Applications course (MGMT 466,
30 students) taught in spring 2017 by Dr. Craig Dunn. The course is an experiential
capstone that draws upon both the business school and the environmental studies
department. The students will visit Edmonds three times and will deliver a single report.
k. Walkability Assessment. $2,500
Like many other cities, Edmonds' pedestrian infrastructure is lacking, outside the
downtown core. The City is interested in identifying gaps and obstacles in the pedestrian
network that impede walkability. The study area lies just outside the downtown core and
contains important route between key destinations (two schools, a medical campus, parks,
and three shopping nodes). The goal of the project is to analyze the relationship between
the perception of the urban street environment and how it affects walking behavior.
Packet Pg. 173
4.6.a
The project will be the focus of the Participatory Action Research course (ANTH 454, 25
students) taught in spring 2017 by Dr. Sean Bruna. The course teaches a methodology of
researching, analyzing, and carrying out actions that directly benefits members of a
community. Aside from cataloguing the state of pedestrian assets in the target area, the
course will interact with citizens to understand the human factors that influence people's
decisions regarding walking. The students will visit Edmonds four times and will deliver
a single report
8. Summary of projects, courses, timetable and costs.
Project
Course (or other WWU
resource)
Scheduled
start
Cost
7.d. 4th Avenue Promotion
JOUR 440 fall `16
9/21/16
$1,575
Te. Zero Waste & Food Waste
ENVS 471 fall `16
9/21/16
$1,500
71. Edmonds Marsh
ESCI 470 fall `16
9/21/16
$2,475
7.g. WWTP Ed. Material
Intern, all 3 quarters
9/21/16
$4,675
Th. Mobile app.
C.S. capstone team, all 3
quarters CSCI 491, 492, 493
9/21/16
$125
7.c. Stella's Landing
ESCI453 winter `17
ESCI454 spring `17
1/4/17
$4,950
Ti. Playful City
RECR 372 winter `17
RECR 373 winter `17
1/4/17
$3,350
7.b. Cemetery
GIS intern, field crew, &
ENVS 422 spring `17
1/4/17
$7,000
Ta. Sea -level Rise
ENVS 476 spring `17
3/28/17
$2,150
7.j. Green Business
MGMT 466 spring `17
3/28/17
$2,400
71. Walkability Assessment
ANTH 454 spring `17
3/28/17
$2,500
6. Program Overhead
Program Coordinator, etc.
7/1/16 —
6/30/17
$44,800
Total Cost
$77,500
Packet Pg. 174
4.7
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Authorization for Mayor to sign the Resolution for the 2017-2022 Six -Year Transportation Improvement
Program
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On May 24, 2016, staff presented the draft 2017-2022 Transportation Improvement Program to Council.
On June 7, 2016, a Public Hearing was held on the 2017-2022 Six -Year Transportation Improvement
Program
On August 23, 2016, staff presented the 2017-2022 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program to
Council and it was forwarded to the September 6, 2016 consent agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize Mayor to sign the Resolution.
Narrative
The Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a transportation planning document that
identifies funded, partially funded, and unfunded projects that are planned or needed over the next six
calendar years. The TIP also identifies the expenditures and secured or reasonably expected revenues
for each of the projects included in the TIP. The City practice in preparing the TIP each year has been to
keep it financially constrained the first 3 years (2017-2019), but not the last 3 years (2020-2022).
RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city update and adopt their TIP prior to adoption of the
budget. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Washington
State Department of Transportation, and adjacent jurisdictions after it has been approved by City
Council.
Some of the projects in the TIP are shown as funded through secured or unsecured Federal / State
grants, as well as from the local funds. Due to a shortfall in transportation funding, a number of
unsecured State and Federal transportation grants have been programmed to fund projects beginning in
2020. Most transportation grants are competitive, and the success of how many grants are secured in
the future will depend on other transportation needs and funding requests in the region. Projects not
identified in this document may not be eligible for Federal / State funding. All projects in the
2017-2022 TIP are identified in the 2015 Transportation Plan. Since the June 7t", 2016 Public Hearing,
the following projects have been added / modified to the document:
Packet Pg. 175
4.7
The funding source for the 84th Ave. W Overlay from 2201h St. SW to 212" St. SW has been
modified from "unsecured" to "Federal secured", since a grant will be awarded later this
year.
The funding amount identified for the Hwy 99 Safety Improvements from 224th St. SW to
220th St. SW in 2017 has been increased from $10,000 to $300,000 since additional
improvements need to be completed (Federal grant recently submitted).
The 220th St. SW Coordination project from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W has been added (grant
recently submitted).
95th Pl. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW has been added (grant recently
submitted).
15th St. SW Walkway from Sth Ave. S to 9th Ave. S has been added in 2017 (Minor Sidewalk
Program).
The funding for the Minor Sidewalk Program is eliminated in 2017, since staff is proposing to
fund the 15th St. SW Walkway project from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S.
Attachments:
Resolution for TIP
2017-22 6-yrTIP Version
Packet Pg. 176
4.7.a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE 2017-2022
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AND
DIRECTING FILING OF THE ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH
THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 require that each city and town is
required to adopt a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and file a copy of such adopted
program with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); and
WHEREAS, the TIP identifies all planned projects over the next 6 years, along
with the appropriate funding source; now, therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Transportation Improvement Program is hereby adopted pursuant
to the requirements of RCW 35.77.010 and 36.81.121 to be effective on September 71h, 2016 and
to continue in full force and effect until amended. A copy of such Transportation Improvement
Program for the years 2017 to 2022 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this
reference as fully as if herein set forth.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby requested and directed to file a certified copy
of the Transportation Improvement Program with the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
-1-
Packet Pg. 177
4.7.a
RESOLVED this day of 32016.
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVE O. EARLING
-2-
Packet Pg. 178
City of Edmonds
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2017-2022)
Project Name
Purpose
Grant Opportunity
Proj
Phasect es)
(2017-2022)
Total Cost
Source(s)
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
New projects not included in 2016-2021 TIP
Secured rant since 2016-2021 TIP
Recently submitted gmnt
Preservation/Maintenance Projects:
Annual Street Preservation
Grind pavement, overlay, chip seal,
Possible Grant
Engineering
$1,900,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$900,000
$1,000,000
Program
&
&
$0
(State)
and slurry seal
Local Funds
Construction
$10,976,000
Local, General Fund
$1,190,000
$1,420,000
$2,000,000
$2,060,000
$2,120,000
$2,186,000
84th Ave. W Oveday from
220th St. SW to 212th St. SW
Grind pavement and overlay Or
Possible Grant
&
Engineering
&
$750,000
$0
(Federal, secured)
(State)
$750,000
Local Funds
Construction
$190,000
Local, General Fund
$190,000
Citywide Signal
Upgrade traffic signal cabinets and
Possible Grant
Engineering
$650,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$325,000
$325,000
Improvements
&
&
$0
(State)
improve technology
Local Funds
Construction
$0
Local
Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades
Possible grant
Engineering
$287,500
(Federal, unsecured)
$37,500
$250,000
Upgrade traffic signal
&
&
$0
(State)
Local Funds
Construction
$212,500
Local
$37.500
1 $175,000
238th @ 100th Ave. Signal Upgrades
Rebuild traffic signal system
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
with new signal mast arms, cabinet, and
Possible Grant
&
$765,000
(State, unsecured)
$765,000
video detection
Construction
$0
Local
Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades
Possible grant
Engineering
$287,500
(Federal, unsecured)
$37,500
$250,000
Upgrade traffic signal
&
&
$0
(State)
Local Funds
Construction
$87,500
Local
$37,500
$50,000
TOTAL
$2,130,000
$1,420,000
$2,900,000
$3,225,000
$3,945,000
$2,486,000
Safety Capacity Projects:
228th St. SW. Corridor Safety
Construct missing roadway link on 228th St. SW between
Secured grant
$10,000
(Federal, secured)
$10,000
Improvements
Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W, with various utility upgrades.
&
Construction
$0
(State)
Local Funds
$0
Local
228th St. SW. from
Widen roadway to add two-way left turn lane along stretch or
Possibe grant
$50,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$50,000
Hwy. 99 to 95th PI. W
left turn lanes at specific intersections.
&
Design
$0
(State)
Install sidewalk and bike lanes.
Local Funds
$50,000
Local
$50,000
76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection
Re -design intersection to reduce intersection delay and
$3,006,500
(Federal, secured)
$2,920,000
$86,500
$1,930,827
(State, unsecured)
$1,930,827
$113,500
Improvements
improve level of service (LOS). Various utility
Secured Grant
(Local, Traffic Impact Fees)
$100,000
$13,500
improvements are also included in the project.
&
Construction
$776,475
(Local, Fund 421)
$776,475
$450,528
Local Funds
(Local, Fund 422)
$450,528
$718,685
Loral, Fund 423
$718,685
Hwy. 99 Safety Improvements
Install C-Curb along this section of Hwy. 99 to restrict left turns into
Local Funds /
Design,
$4,012,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$300,000
$700,000
$474,000
$2,538,000
from 216th St. SW to 224th St. SW
driveway from the two-way left turn lane and add left turn pockets
Possible Grant
ROW, &
$0
(State, secured)
in certain areas.
Construction
$282,000
Local, General Funds
$282,000
SR-99 Gateway / Revitalization
Install gateway elements and safety improvements
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
along the SR-99 Corridor.
Grant secured
&
$5,000,000
(State, secured)
$500,000
$4,500,000
Construction
$0
Local
SR 524 (196th St. SW) @
Design intersection improvements and addition of guardrail on
Design
$0
(Federal)
881h Ave W. Intersection
the west side of intersection due to 12' vertical drop (grade.
Possible Grant
$122,000
(State, unsecured)
$122,000
$71,000
Improvements
adjustment to improve sight distance to be considered).
Local, traffic impact fees
$71,000
ROW acquisition
ROW
$0
(Federal)
&
$87,500
(State, unsecured)
$87,500
$87,500
Local
$87:500
Complete intersection improvements
Construction
$585,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$585,000
Local Funds
$0
(State)
$0
Local
Main St. @ 9th Ave.
Installation of traffic signal or mini -roundabout.
Possible grant
Engineering
$788,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$118,000
$670,000
&
&
$0
(State)
Local Funds
Construction
$123,000
Local
$18,000
1 $105,000
76th Av. W @ 220th St. SW
Installation of new traffic signal to convert existing split phasing for
Possible Grant
Engineering,
$5,186,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$951,500
$951,500
$3,283,000
Intersection Improvements
eastbound and westbound movements to concurrent lef turn phasing
&
ROW, &
$0
(State)
with addition of right turn lane for the southbound movement.
Local Funds
Construction
$809,000
Local
$148,500
$148,500
$512,000
220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination
Coordinate the traffic signals along 76th Ave. W
Engineering
$300,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$300,000
from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W to
Possible Grants
&
$0
(State)
improve corridor efficiencies through adaptive system.
Construction
$0
Local
Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW
Widen 212th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane.
Possible Grants
Engineering,
$2,427,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$152,000
$943,000
$1,332,000
Intersection Improvements
Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both
&
ROW, &
$0
(State)
movements shared jurisdiction with Cityof Lynnwood)
Local Funds
Construction
$379,000
Local w/ _It,
i of Lynnwood)
$23,000
$148,000
$208,000
Page 1 y
Attachment: 2017-22 6-yrTIP Version (1499 : 2017-2022 TIP - Presentation)
City of Edmonds
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2017-2022)
Grant Opportunity
Project
(2017-2022)
Project Name
Purpose
Phase(s)
Total Cost
Source(s)
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW
Widen 216th St. SW to add a WB and EB left turn lane.
Possible Grants
Engineering,
$2,021,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$142,000
$289,000
$1,590,000
Intersection Improvements
Provide protected / permissive left turn phasing for both
&
ROW, &
$0
(State)
movements.
Local Funds
Construction
$314,000
Local, w/ City of Lynnwood)
$22,000
$45,000
$247,000
Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW
Widen 220th St .SW to add westbound right turn lane and
Possible Grants
Engineering,
$2,783,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$152,000
$939,000
$1,692,000
Intersection Improvements
Hwy. 99 to add 2nd southbound left turn lane.
&
ROW, &
$0
(State)
Local Funds
Construction
$432,000
Local, w/. City Mountlake Terrace)
1 $23,000
$146,000
1 $263,000
SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW
Extend SR-104 Westbound left turn lane and complete pedestrian
Possible Grants
Engineering,
$179,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$15,000
$164,000
Intersection Improvements
and bicycle improvements with signage and traffic signal
&
&
$0
(State)
improvements.
Local Funds
Construction
$15,000
Local
$15,000
SR-104 @ 95th PI. W
Modify existing signal timing to include protected left turn phasing
Possible Grants
Engineering,
$420,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$65,000
$355,000
Intersection Improvements
and provide C-Curb with left turn channeli-tion
&
&
$0
(State)
for access management.
Local Funds
Construction
$75,000
Local
$10,000
$65,000
SR-104 @ 238th St. SW
Install traffic signal and other
Possible Grants
Engineering,
$1,157,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$173,000
$984,000
Intersection Improvements
improvement intersections.
&
ROW, &
$0
(State)
Local Funds
Construction
$181,000
Local
$27,000
$154,000
Type 2 Raised Pavement
Install Type 2 Raised Pavement Markers
Engineering
$100,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$100,000
Markers
along the centerline of arterials and collectors, improving
Possible Grant
&
$0
(State)
roadway safety during night hours and on rainy days
Construction
$0
Local
Trackside Warning Systerm
Install Wayside Homs
$0
(Federal)
at Dayton St. and Main St.
at (2) railroad crossings, reducing noise levels
Local Funds Only
Construction
$0
(State)
railroad crossings
within Downtown Edmonds during train crossings.
$10,000
Local, General Fund
$10,000
TOTAL
$7,516,515
$800,000
$474,000
$5,168,000
$6,782,000
$14,312,000
Pedestrian Projects:
Sunset Ave. Walkway
Provide walkway on the west side of Sunset Av.,
Secured Grant,
Engineering
$44,000
(Federal, secured)
$44,000
from Bell St. to Caspem St.
w/ various utility upgrades.
$687,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$687,000
$650,000
Unsecured Grant, &
&
(Local, Fund 421)
$75,000
$575,000
$200,000
(Local, Fund 423)
$50,000
$150,000
Local Funds
Construction
$692,000
Local
$5,000
$687,000
Maplewood Walkway from Main St. to
Install sidewalk on Maplewood St. from Main St. to 200th St. SW,
Engineering
$1,591,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$100,000
$130,000
$1,361,000
200th St. SW
creating connection to Maplewood Elementary and Yost Park.
Possible Grant
&
$0
(State)
Construction
$0
Local
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S
Install sidewalk on Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S, creating
Engineering
$789,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$56,000
$600,000
$133,000
to 9th Ave. S
connections to Westgate and Sherwood Elementary Schools.
Possible grant
&
$0
(State)
Construction
$0
Local
80th Ave. W Walkway from
Install sidewalk on 80th Ave. W from 2121h St. SW to 206th St. SW,
Engineering
$1,449,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$100,000
$110,000
$1,239,000
212th St. SW to 206th St. SW
creating connections to Chase Lake and College Place
Possible Grant
&
$0
(State)
Elementary Schools.
Construction
$0
Local
Citywide Pedestrian
Add Flashing pedestrian beacons, HAWK signal, or pedestrian actuations
Engineering
$1,310,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$100,000
$800,000
$410,000
Crossing Enhancements
existing signal at various location throughout the City
Possible Grants
&
$0
(State)
to improve pedestrian safety.
Construction
$0
Local
95th PI. SW Walkway from
Install sidewalk on 95th PI. W from
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
Possible Grants
&
$468,000
(State, unsecured)
$80,000
$388,000
to improve pedestrian safety.
Construction
$117,000
Local
$20,000
$97,000
Dayton St. Walkway from 7th Ave. S to
Install sidewalk on the south side of Dayton St.
Possible Grant
Engineering
$37,500
(Federal, unsecured)
$37,500
8th Ave. S
&
&
$0
(State)
Local Funds
Construction
$37,500
Local
$37,500
232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to
Install sidewalk on one side of 232nd St. SW
Possible Grant
Engineering
$1,055,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$100,000
$955,000
SR-104
&
&
$0
(State)
Local Funds
Construction
$250,000
Local
$100,000
$150,000
236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to
Provide sidewalk on south side of 236th St.
Secured Grant
$10,000
(Federal,secured)
$10,000
Madrona Elementary
&
Construction
$0
(State)
Local Funds
$10,000
Local, Fund 422
$10,000
236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to
Provide sidewalk on one side of 236th St. SW
Possible Grant
Engineering
$697,500
(Fedeml,unsecured)
$106,500
$591,000
97th PI. W
&
&
$0
(State)
Local Funds
Construction
$697,500
Local
$106,500
$591,000
84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th St. SW to
Provide sidewalk on one side of 841h Ave. W
Possible Grant
Engineering
$45,000
(Fedeml,unsecured)
$45,000
234th St. SW
&
&
$0
(State)
Local Funds
Construction
$45,000
Local
$45,000
2nd Ave. S Walkway from James St.
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
to Main St.
Provide sidewalk along short missing link.
Local Funds Only
&
$0
(State)
Construction
$30,000
Local
$30,000
fl1
0
X
F411(Q
Page 2
CO
CO Attachment: 2017-22 6-yrTIP Version (1499 : 2017-2022 TIP - Presentation)
City of Edmonds
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2017-2022)
Grant Opportunity
Project
(2017-2022)
Project Name
Purpose
Phase(s)
Total Cost
Source(s)
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
218th St. SW Walkway from 76th Ave. W to
Possible Grant
Engineering
$615,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$100,000
$515,000
Install sidewalk along missing link
&
&
$0
(State)
84th Ave. W
Local Funds
Construction
$600,000
Local
$100,000
$500,000
Wanut St. Walkway from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave.
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
Install sidewalk along short missing link
Possible Grant
&
$105,000
(State, unsecured)
$105,000
Construction
$0
Local
216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99
Install 300' sidewalk on the north side of 216th St. SW
Possible Grant
Engineering
$137,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$137,000
to 72nd Ave. W
&
&
$0
(State)
from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W
Local Funds
Construction
$20,000
Local
$20,000
238th St. SW Walkway from SR-104
Install 800' of sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW
Secured Grant
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
to Hwy. 99
&
&
$294,000
(State, secured)
$294,000
from SR-104 to Hwy. 99
Local Funds
Construction
$95,000
Local
$95,000
15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
Install sidewalk on the south side of 15th St. SW from
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
Local Funds
&
$0
(State)
8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S
Construction
$200,000
Local
$200,000
4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement
Create corridor improvements to encourage pedestrian
Possible Grant
Engineering
$3,450,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$100,000
$1,000,000
$2,350,000
Walkway
activity along 4th Ave. N from Main St. to
&
&
$0
(State)
3rd Ave. N from Downtown retail to Edmonds Center for the Arts
Local Funds
Construction
$675,000
Local, Fund 125
$100,000
1 $150,000
$425,000
Minor Sidewalk
Complete sidewalk missing links (from Short Walkway list of
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
Program
2015 Transportation Plan or other identified projects)
Local Funds
&
$0
(State)
Construction
$1,000,000
Local, General Fundt$50,OOOI
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
ADA Curb Ramps Improvements
Construct Citywide ADA compliant curb ramps where
Possible Grant
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
facilities don't exist nor meet current standards
&
Local Funds
&
Construction
$750,000
900,000
(State, unsecured)
Local, General Fund
$50,000
1 $50,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
Audible Pedestrian
Install audible pedestrian signals to
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
Signals
pedestrians heads at signalized intersections to improve
Possible Grant
&
$0
(State)
pedestrians with disabilities safety
Construction
$25,000
Local
$25,000
TOTAL
$1,314,000
$2,375,000
$793,000
$6,179,000
$3,432,000
$5,685,000
Bike -Link Install bike lanes and sharrows [ key bicycle locations to ) g ( (Fede 91) )
complete missinglinks such as along76th Ave. W, 212th St. SW... Secured rent Construction $560,000 Verdant rant $560,000
Traffic Calmina / Non -Motorized Transportation Safetv Protects
Traffic Calming Program /
Traffic circles, speed cushions,
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
Non -Motorized Transportation
radar feedback signs, bulb -outs, etc.
Local Funds only
&
$0
(State)
1
1
Safety
Construction 1
$120,000
(Local, General Fund)
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
Ferry Projects
Ferry Storage Improvements from
Provide additional ferry storage area closer to the Ferry Terminal
Engineering
$357,000
(Federal, unsecured)
$357,000
Dayton St. to Pine St.
(through striping revisions / C-Curb addition...).
Possible Grant
&
$0
(State)
Construction
$0
Local
Traffic Plannina Projects:
Edmonds Waterfront
Study: 1) Waterfront Access issues emphasizing and prioritizing near term solutions t(
Engineering
$0
Port of Edmonds
Analysis
providing emergency access; 2) At -grade conflicts where Main and Dayton St. interSE
Unsecured Grant and
&
$0
(State)
$865,000
BNSF rail lines; 3) Pedesitrian /Bicycle Access; 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossin
(Federal, unsecured)
$200,000
$665,000
Multimodal Terminal Pro'act identified as Modified Alternative 2 within the 2004 EIS
Local Funds
Planning
$135,000
Local, General Funds
$31,000
$104,000
Citywide
Complete an compliance evaluation of all existing ADA
Engineering
$0
(Federel)
Transition Plan
curb ramps, as well as long range plan on how to address
Local Funds Only
&
$0
(State)
those deffciencies.
Planning
$50,000
Local, General Funds
$50,000
Pavement Rating
Analyse the pavement condition of all arterial, collector, and local streets
$0
(Federal)
Study
to determine the stretches to be repaved as part of future
Local Funds Only
Planning
$0
(State)
annual overa s.
$30,000
Local / General Funds
$30,000
Transportation Plan Update
Engineering
$0
(Federal)
Update Transportation Plan
Local Funds Only
&
$0
(State)
Planning
$175,000
Local
$175,000
TOTAL
1 $311,000
$769,000
$0
$0
$175,000
so
Total $73,228,515
Page 3
$11,851,515 $5,384,000 $4,187,000 $14,949,000 $14,354,000 $22,503,000
Attachment: 2017-22 6-yrTIP Version (1499 : 2017-2022 TIP - Presentation)
P-
a'
City of Edmonds
Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (2017-2022)
Grant Opportunity
Project
(2017-2022)
Project Name
Purpose
Phases)
Total Cost
source(s)
2017
2018
2019
M.
2021
2022
Total Federal
$5,190,000
$3,091,500
$1,917,000
$8,794,000
$8,699,000
$12,647,000
Tolal Federal (Secured/
$3:734,000
$86,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Federal (Unsecured)
$1,456,000
$3,005,000
$1,917,000
$8,794,000
$8,699,000
$12,647,000
Total State
$2,304,827
$388,000
$0
$1,242,000
$837,500
$4,750,000
Total State (Secured)
$294,000
$0
$0
$0
$50() 00
$4,500,000
Total State (Unsecured)
$2,010,827
$388,000
$0
$1,242,000
$337,500
$250,000
Total Verdant
$560,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Verdant (Secured)
$560,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Port of Edmonds
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Local Fund
$4,096,688
$1,904,500
$2,270,000
$4,913,000
$4,671,500
$5,106,000
Total Local (Fund 112)
$125,000
$0
$0
$1,137,000
$1,738,500
$1,307,000
Total Local (Fund 125)
$0
$0
$0
$100,000
$150,000
$425,000
Toal Local (Fund 421)
$851,475
$0
$0
$575,000
$0
$0
Total Local (Fund 422)
$460,528
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total Local (Fund 4231
$768,685
$0
$0
$150,000
$0
$0
Total Local with other jurisdictions
$0
$0
$0
$68,000
$339,000
$718,000
Total Local (Tra10c Impact Fees)
$100,000
$13,500
$0
$71,000
$0
$0
Total Local (General Fundl
$1,571,000
$1,794,000
$2,270,000
$2,812,000
$2,370,000
$2,436,000
fl1
<i
rt[411
(Q
Page 4
�'JAttachment: 2017-22 6-yrTIP Version (1499 : 2017-2022 TIP - Presentation)
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Presentation on 2016 Scarecrow Festival - Edmonds Museum (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Andrew Pierce
Department: City Council
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
For information only.
Narrative
The Edmonds Historical Museum is sponsoring the Fourth Annual Edmonds Scarecrow Festival. Dave
Buelow of the Edmonds Historical Museum Board will provide a brief presentation about the event.
Packet Pg. 183
5.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Presentation on Homelessness by City of Lynnwood Council President M. Christopher Boyer (15 min.)
Staff Lead: Andrew Pierce
Department: City Council
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
City of Lynnwood Council President M. Christopher Boyer will make a presentation on issues related to
homelessness.
Packet Pg. 184
5.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
June 2016 Quarterly Financial Report (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Sarah Mager
No action needed; informational only.
Attachments:
Complete June 2016 Quarterly Financial Report
2nd Qtr 2016 Financial Management Report
Packet Pg. 185
5.3.a
bAt
vX, OF E� O,�
d
u
"J7 1 Rao
AT A GLANCE:
General Fund operating
revenues are ahead of last
year's revenues. 2016 sales
tax revenue out performs
2015 (see page 18)
2016 Interest Earnings are
higher than 2015.. (see page
32)
INSIDE THIS
ISSUE:
Revenues By Fund
Summary
Expenditures By Fund
Summary 2
General Fund
Summary of All Operating Funds: Revenue
The Financial Management Report is a summary report of the City's
2nd Quarter 2016 financial results with a comparison to 2nd Quarter 201
• Notable Revenue Highlights:
=> 2016 Investment earnings are
$54,714 Higher than 2015
=> 2016 tax revenues are $654,975
higher than 2015. These increases
are led by:
*Property Taxes $198,441
*Sales Taxes $154,185
*Real Estate Excise Tax $185,110
Revenues
Expenditures By Fund Specific Revenue Highlights by Fund:
• Additional Special Revenue Fund
Highlights:
• Street Fund 1112016 grant revenues
are $85,516 higher than 2015.
• Hotel/Motel Lodging tax revenues
grew 12.1 % over 2015.
• Real Estate Excise Tax revenues in-
creased $185,110 or 17.6% over
2015.
Details
6
• General Fund second quarter 2016
General Fund
operating revenue is $1.4 million
park Construction Fund 132 Park
grant revenues increased $456,474
Expenditure Detail
or 7.5 percent over last year,
over 2015.
largely due to increased property
tax, sales tax and grant revenues. A
Utility Funds:
Investment Portfolio
32
detailed analysis of General Fund
=> Water sales increased by $251,918 or
revenues can be found on page 4,
9.6 percent over 2015.
Fund Balance
33
with sales tax performance dis-
Overview
cussed on page 18.
=> Stormwater sales increased by
• Special Revenue Funds 2016 rev-
$70,968 or 4.5 percent over 2015.
Comers
8 enues are $4,252,886 or 121.per-
p
=> Sewer sales increased by $285,941 or
cent higher than 2015. The 2016
10.1 percent over 2015.
revenue increase is primarily due
to:
• During 2016 the Street Construc-
tion Fund 112 billed grant agen-
cies for $2.9 million more than in
2015.
F
0
a
m
c
M
c
U_
0
M
cY
c�
0
N
c
CD
Financial Management Report as of June 30, 2016
Packet Pg. 186
City of Edmonds
Purchase of Civic
Field completed
with help of $1.4
million in grants
Pr1_ffL
http://
visitedmonds.com/
http://
visitedmonds.com/
— — — — — — — — — — — —
Summary of All Operating Funds: Expenditures
• General Fund expenditures ended
the quarter with 48% of the budget
expended. Operating expenditures
increased $216,915 or 1.1% over
2015.
General Fund expense by catego-
ries are on page 6 and departmental
expenses are on pages 13-16
Additional General Fund expendi-
tures information can be found on
pages 23-31.
Special Revenue Fund expendi-
tures increased $2,613,602 in 2016
over 2015. The majority of this
increase comes from increased con-
struction outlays, with street con-
struction expenses being
$1,494,871 higher than 2015. Ad-
ditional Special Revenue Fund ex-
penditure information can be found
on pages 6-8.
• Utility Funds 2016 expenses in-
creased $900,4444 over 2015, pri-
marily due to increase capital ex-
penses for water line replacements.
Additional Utility Fund expense
information can be found on pages
9 —10.
I
• The Water Fund expenditures for
were $333,492 higher than 2015
mainly due to increased capital ex-
penditures. (see page 11 for ex-
penditure details.)
I
Investment Portfolio
• The City's investment earnings in-
creased over 36.7% over 2015
1
earnings primarily due to diversifying
the portfolio. (see page 32 for addition-
al investment details)
I
I
I
Fund Balances
• During the first two quarters of 2016,
the General Fund balance decreased
$3,40,446. The 2016 fund balance de-
crease is primarily due to the timing of I
when the City receives its bi-annual
property tax payments.
• Additional fund balance information can
be found on pages 3338.
I
Other Notable Highlights
I
• In 2014, the City received a $1.67 mil-
lion retroactive invoice from Fire Dis-
trict 1 as the result of their settled labor
agreement. Subsequently to receiving
this invoice, the City negotiated a small
reduction and were able to pay the re-
maining $1,603,000 over eight quarterly
payments. To date, the City has paid
$1,202,250 towards this settlement.
• During the Week of May 2nd 2016, the
City invested in another $4,000,000 of
investment bonds (see page 32 for in-
vestment portfolio summary.)
• City closed on purchase of Civic Field
on February 9, 2016.
• On February 12, 2016, the City made its
last Public Safety Bond payment early,
saving the City approximately $13,000
in interest expense.
Sunset in Edmonds
By Deb Sharp
Financial Management Report as of June 30, 2016
Packet Pg. 187
I 5.3.a I
Page I of I
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
No.
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
%Received
001
GENERAL FUND
$ 39,276,670
$ 18,922,673
$ 20,334,355
$ 18,942,315
520
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
278,770
139,484
139,584
139,186
500
011
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
6,660
4,285
4,200
2,460
63°
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
28,110
22,594
7,283
20,827
260 p
C.
013
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
-
234
233
(233)
00,
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
5,000
3
2,526
2,474
51°
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
2,005,000
237,914
591,195
1,413,805
.0
290 C
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
153,000
11,276
68,661
84,339
450
IL
111
STREET FUND
1,760,500
907,722
989,658
770,842
56"
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE t
8,314,697
805,704
3,779,444
4,535,253
450
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
102,410
37,748
29,531
72,879
290
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
110
74
74
36
670, Cy
co
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
82,150
30,743
34,503
47,648
420 p
N
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
21,390
8,598
8,119
13,271
38' C
C
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
5,550
189
71
5,479
10,
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
27,530
10,402
11,649
15,881
420
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 2
1,108,000
531,403
625,801
482,199
560 14
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 2
1,102,000
530,078
626,412
475,588
570 ..
r-
127
GIFTSCATALOGFUND
46,900
34,538
28,386
18,514
610 0
0.
129
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
280
159
158
122
570
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 177,260 96,753 94,494 82,766 530
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTIONFUND3 2,552,240 131,214 1,079,454 1,472,786 420, C
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
630
631
628
2
1000
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD
19,880
12,091
12,086
7,794
610
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
12,010
3,611
5,772
6,238
480
139
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
682,500
339,276
350,193
332,307
510
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
-
48,443
51,256
(51,256)
00
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
14,400
9,718
773
13,627
50,
213
L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND
14,400
-
-
14,400
00
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
677,380
75,464
70,301
607,079
100
232
2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND
949,540
9,201
936,429
13,111
990
411
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION
-
12,880
83,251
(83,251)
00
421
WATER UTILITY FUND 4
8,443,460
3,260,676
4,041,301
4,402,159
480
422 STORM UTILITY FUND 4,131,780 2,043,886 1,946,923 2,184,857
470
423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 5 12,645,240 4,368,878 5,321,028 7,324,212
420
424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,989,900 337,210 667,446 1,322,454
340
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,579,570 803,646 831,427 748,143
530
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 64,840 56,725 57,418 7,422
890,
$ 88,279,757 $ 33,846,124 $ 42,832,027 $ 45,447,730
490,
1 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 $185,110 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. 188 1
5.3.a
Page 1 of 1
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Fund 2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
No. Title Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining %Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 6 $ 40,929,107
$ 19,452,503
$ 19,669,418
$ 21,259,689 480/(
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 279,480
138,255
126,411
153,069 450/(
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - - 00/(
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
800,000
400,000
800,000
0% C
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
5,400
3,750
-
5,400
0°/ d
016
BUILDING MAINT ENANCE 7
2,175,000
96,369
757,714
1,417,286
350/(
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
76,030
18,256
27,780
48,250
370/( _
111
STREET FUND
1,716,120
826,372
947,462
768,658
5501(
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 8
8,327,792
900,067
2,394,938
5,932,854
290/( LL
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
181,380
27,036
25,274
156,106
140/(
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
-
-
-
-
00/( M
7
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
149,650
25,294
26,145
123,505
170/( U'
co
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
26,880
-
-
26,880
00/( C
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
3,000
1,341
835
2,165
28% 4)
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
31,500
5,501
9,543
21,957
307 %
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
2,100,565
113,403
258,888
1,841,677
120/(
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 9
2,595,320
28,845
498,915
2,096,405
r
190/( 14
127
GIFTSCATALOGFUND
44,950
12,631
33,140
11,810
T
740/(
129
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
-
-
00/( p
CL
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
210,370
74,803
77,712
132,658
370/c
132
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 9
2,775,770
223,266
584,177
2,191,593
21%
136
PARKSTRUST FUND
-
-
-
00% .D
C
M
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
12,500
10
2,636
9,864
210/( ,r
LL
139
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
682,500
367,211
350,193
332,307
5101(
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
-
25,924
14,219
(14,219)
L
0°/
211
L.I.D. FUND CONTROL
14,400
-
14,400
0°/
213
L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND
-
-
00% CY
co
231
2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND
677,380
75,517
70,301
607,079
100/, p
232
2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND 6
949,540
9,201
936,429
13,111
N
990/( d
C
421
WATER UTILITY FUND
12,717,507
3,322,813
3,656,305
9,061,202
290/(
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
7,613,450
1,315,116
1,557,839
6,055,611
200/( 2;
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
17,921,050
4,187,306
4,202,354
13,718,696
230/( Q.
p
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,990,920
358,261
667,442
1,323,478
34%
V
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
1,971,820
584,355
928,227
1,043,593
470/( r
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
59,610
24,782
21,351
38,259
C
360/, G1
E
$ 107,038,991
$ 32,618,187
$ 37,845,648
$ 69,193,343
350%
6 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to final payment of 2014 debt.
7 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are primarily due to the Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project.
8 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to invoices for construction projects in 2016.
9 Differences between 2015 and 2016 are due to purchase of Civic Field in 2016.
2
rac,ecei Pg. 189
5.3.a
Page 1 of 3
C TTY O F IDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX
EMS PROPERTY TAX 10
VOTED PROPERTY TAX
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 11
NATURAL GAS USE TAX
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX
GAS UTILITY TAX
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX
WATER UTILITY TAX
SEWER UT ILIT Y TAX
ST ORMWAT ER UT ILIT Y TAX
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
PULLTABS TAX
AMUSEMENT GAMES
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX
LICENSES AND PERNHTS:
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 12
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 13
INTERLOCAL GRANTS
VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS
$ 10,068,020
$ 5,309,480
$ 5,343,422
$ 4,724,598
53%
3,688,090
1,802,797
1,955,463
1,732,627
53%
949,540
492,243
504,076
445,464
53%
6,144,400
3,140,830
3,295,015
2,849,385
54%
9,800
3,743
3,365
6,435
34%
626,700
305,477
327,165
299,535
52% C
1,451,800
871,282
913,790
538,010
63% Q.
647,900
413,611
385,669
262,231
60% 4'
306,500
157,023
162,220
144,280
53%
1,229,110
493,120
540,263
688,847
44% 5
629,140
282,765
311,566
317,574
50%
330,430
157,184
164,329
166,101
50%
846,000
423,940
425,407
420,593
50% jL
1,349,100
664,312
633,125
715,975
47% >,
60,600
24,272
25,643
34,957
42%
40
-
141
(101)
351%'
242,200
121,178
126,667
115,533
52%
28,579,370
14,663,255
15,117,325
13,462,045
53% (+J
co
250
215
190
60
76% p
300
-
200
100
67% N
630
-
-
630
0%
4,740
4,325
-
4,740
0% 7
710,600
353,509
358,427
352,173
50%
44,900
23,684
21,148
23,752
47% f�
100,900
49,706
50,705
50,195
50%
18,400
9,091
8,172
10,228
44% v
268,000
134,672
138,558
129,442
52%
116,000
88,922
76,241
39,759
66% O
42,000
23,090
26,515
15,485
63% C
70,400
27,850
42,900
27,500
61% W
15,000
5,388
44,623
(29,623)
297%
525,000
310,690
402,155
122,846
77%
38,800
15,135
9,792
29,008
25% C
42,100
12,757
21,432
20,668
51%
13,100
6,715
8,987
4,113
69% L+
2,011,120
1,065,749
1,210,044
801,076
60% i
d
0% M
11,970
1,472
6,920
5,050
58% =
-
-
-
-
0%
3,000
-
-
0% r
6,000
5,250
-
6,000
0% N
995
(995)
0% C
7,500
5,287
2,273
5,227
30%
3,000
-
2,663
337
89%
614
(614)
0% r
300
300
-
300
0% Q.
-
1,000
-
-
0%
-
-
251,859
(251,859)
0% O
192,500
-
-
192,500
0% V
10,000
5,215
5,441
4,559
54%
13,000
8,189
9,150
3,850
70% d
36,980
19,160
19,893
17,087
54% E
7,240
3,512
3,166
4,074
44% U
65,200
44,733
96,625
(31,425)
148%
357,800
175,055
174,541
183,259
49% Q
-
-
75,757
(75,757)
0%
383,330
-
-
383,330
0%
2,000
2,000
(2,000)
0%
1,094,820
274,174
651,896
442,924
60%
10 2016 EMS Property Tax revenues are $152,666 higher than 2015 revenues.
11 2016 Local Retail Sales/Use Taxrevenues are $154,185 higher than 2015 revenues. Please also see pages 18 & 19.
12 2016 Building Structure Permits are $91,464 higher than 2015 revenues.
13 Difference between 2015 and 2016 revenues is due to funds received for closure of ESCA in 2016.
3
Packet Pg. 190 1
I 5.3.a I
Page 2 of 3
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount
Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS
ATM SURCHARGE FEES
COURT RECORD SERVICES
D/M COURT REC SER
SHARED COURT COSTS
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURREXPEN
SALE MAPS & BOOKS
CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKING PERMIT S
BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT
PHOTOCOPIES
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES
ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES
SNO-ISLE
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS
OCDETF OVERTIME
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.
WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES
FIRE PROTECTION & EMS FORDUI
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS
LEGAL SERVICES
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE
BOOKING FEES
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 14
CRIM CONV FEE CT
CRIM CONV FEE CN
FIBER SERVICES
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FIBER SERVICES
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE
PLAN CHECKING FEES
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE
S.E.P.A. REVIEW
CRITICAL AREA STUDY
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES
GYM AND WEIGHT ROOM FEES
LOCKER FEES
SWIM CLASS FEES
PROGRAM FEES
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES
SWIM TEAM/DIVE TEAM
WINTER MARKET REGISTRATION FEES
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS
2,000
1,120
1,251
750
63%
250
67
86
164
34%
-
-
-
-
0%
50
7
7
43
13%
-
-
-
-
0%
400
270
284
116
71%^,
100
-
-
100
0%
p
25,100
25,100
0%
600
-
-
600
0%
2,000
1,111
540
1,460
27%
4,000
2,179
1,772
2,228
44%
'7j
180,350
108,952
139,289
41,061
77%
-
-
-
-
0%
C
58,000
29,757
33,996
24,004
59%
M
15,000
10,085
11,100
3,900
74%
2%
26,000
1,365
8,757
17,243
34%
d
-
-
-
-
0%
12,300
3,782
2,873
9,427
23%
7
39,500
20,030
20,907
18,593
53%
U'
1,500
-
-
1,500
0%
r
300
230
-
300
0%
N
-
-
31
(31)
0%
C
45,000
27,223
28,234
16,766
63%
C
-
-
159
(159)
0%
60,000
31,359
36,610
23,390
61%
6,000
3,397
2,081
3,919
35%
8,000
11,293
14,119
(6,119)
176%
15,000
5,587
4,460
10,540
30%
.r.
822,100
407,087
487,513
334,587
59%
C
-
-
-
-
0%
C.
-
-
-
-
0%
9,200
4,590
6,095
3,105
66%
7,200
3,600
3,600
3,600
50%
v
1,800
993
876
925
49%
C
6,000
1,556
184
5,817
3%
75,000
47,198
47,321
27,679
63%
jy
425,000
259,285
231,123
193,877
54%
>,
3,000
5,265
6,255
(3,255)
209%
d
1,250
750
1,740
(490)
139%
V_
7,000
5,715
1,220
5,780
17%
3
15,000
9,920
10,590
4,410
71%
CY
10,000
4,747
5,560
4,440
56%
c0
-
-
-
-
0%
r
0
7,800
4,109
6,578
1,222
84%
N
-
-
-
-
0%
C
-
-
-
-
0%
861,700
497,941
596,167
265,533
69%
C
19,130
75,715
881
18,249
5%
-
-
-
-
0%
Q.
5,000
-
25
4,975
1%
E
950
180
190
760
20%
V
2,964,600
422,095
1,107,179
1,857,421
37%
5,743,180
2,008,559
2,819,651
2,923,529
49%
C
14 2016 EMS Transport User Fees are $80,426 higher than 2015 revenues.
4
Packet Pg. 191 1
5.3.a
Page 3 of 3
C TTY O F EDMO NDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Revenues
Revenues
Remaining
%Received
FINES AND FO RFEITURES :
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY
8,000
3,497
3,632
4,368
45%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
25,000
15,950
99,153
(74,153)
397%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION
260,000
149,533
31,109
228,891
12%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)
24,600
12,653
10,353
14,247
42%
SPEEDING DOUBLE
-
-
-
-
0%
NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES
1,300
902
38,628
(37,328)
2971%
OTHER INFRACTIONS'04
1,000
316
1,068
(68)
107%
P ARKING INFRACT ION P ENALT IES
43,000
22,980
12,645
30,355
29%
PR -HANDICAPPED
-
-
-
-
0%
PARK/INDDISZONE
1,300
1,064
1,820
(520)
140%
DWI PENALTIES
6,000
2,476
14,581
(8,581)
243%
DUI - DP ACCT
2,500
1,408
1,420
1,080
57%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI
300
292
274
26
91%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN
-
-
-
-
0%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03
33,000
15,996
16,805
16,195
51%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT
1,900
1,221
1,396
504
73%
CRIM CONV FEE CT
2,300
1,019
962
1,338
42%
OT HER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN
130
91
-
130
0%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03
9,000
6,445
4,659
4,341
52%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT
900
522
283
617
31%
CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN
1,900
914
939
961
49%
CRIM CONV FEE CN
900
316
267
633
30%
CRIMINAL COST S-RECOUPMENTS
60,000
31,836
15,430
44,570
26%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT
33,000
15,457
12,823
20,177
39%
BANK CHARGE FOR CONV. DEFENDANT
-
-
2,935
(2,935)
0%
COURT INTERPRETER COSTS
100
256
65
35
65%
BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY
5,000
12,810
10,050
(5,050)
201%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES
1,000
720
240
760
24%
522,130
2989675
281,536
240,594
54%
MISCELLANEOUS :
INVESTMENT INTEREST
38,600
15,772
24,758
13,842
64%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES
5,700
1,728
3,332
2,368
58%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS
5,000
2,868
2,697
2,303
54%
PARKING
14,000
7,786
7,899
6,101
56%
SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS
128,000
53,925
65,334
62,666
51%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL
5,000
2,120
3,160
1,840
63%
LEASESLONG-TERM
218,100
88,218
90,087
128,013
41%
VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION
50,000
1,969
2,769
47,231
6%
OTHER RENTS& USE CHARGES
4,500
3,300
1,800
2,700
40%
DONATION/CONTRIBUTION
5,000
-
-
5,000
0%
PARKSDONATIONS
9,500
9,282
4,250
5,250
45%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS
950
1,200
700
250
74%
125TH ANNIVERSARY CONTRIBUTIONS
-
1,700
-
-
0%
VOLUNT EER P ICNIC CONT RIBUT IONS
-
-
1,201
(1,201)
0%
POLICE CONT RIBUT IONS FROM PRIV SOURCES
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
PARKS GRANTS- PRIVATE SOURCES
-
-
-
-
0%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE
150
-
324
(174)
216%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY
2,000
896
4,770
(2,770)
239%
CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY
2,000
-
-
2,000
0%
OT HER JUDGEMENT /SET T LEMENT
2,000
58
3,801
(1,801)
190%
POLICE JUDGMENT SIREST IT UT ION
200
10
276
(76)
138%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES
-
(87)
161
(161)
0%
OTHER MISC REVENUES
1,000
8,376
6,439
(5,439)
644%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT
50
20
16
34
33%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC
120
30
-
120
0%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT
330
174
140
190
42%
FLEX -PLAN SERVICES FORFEITURES
1,010
-
-
1,010
0%
US BANK REBATE
6,000
1,829
4,153
1,847
69%
500,210
2019174
228,068
272,142
46%
TRANSFERS -IN:
PROCEEDS OF REFUNDING DEBT
-
-
-
-
0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 012
800,000
400,000
-
800,000
0%
TRANSFER FROM FUND 127
25,840
11,088
25,835
5
100%
825,840
411,088
25,835
800,005
3%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE
$ 39,276,670
$18,922,673
$ 20,334,355
$18,942,315
52%
F
O
C.
<0
C
C
IL
L
4)
ev
7
Cl
co
O
N
C
C
7
r
CD
5
Packet Pg. 192
I 5.3.a I
Page 1 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 14,010,590
$ 6,343,286
$ 6,703,094
$ 7,307,496
48%
OVERTIME
423,510
240,823
232,475
191,035
55%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK
217,790
1,543
2,349
215,441
1%
BENEFITS
5,356,460
2,355,934
2,543,636
2,812,824
47%
UNIFORMS
89,290
42,017
43,398
45,892
49%
SUPPLIES
393,950
176,111
161,232
232,718
41%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
155,480
81,268
57,399
98,081
37%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,600,403
879,502
1,294,297
2,306,106
36%
COMMUNICATIONS
211,890
76,661
74,771
137,119
35%
TRAVEL
46,210
20,056
15,499
30,711
34%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
-
1,699
4,801
26%
ADVERTISING
-
1,546
-
-
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
916,390
456,373
456,537
459,853
50%
INSURANCE
534,440
418,367
538,732
(4,292)
101%
UTILITIES
457,800
201,261
201,160
256,640
44%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
425,530
230,990
123,090
302,440
29%
MISCELLANEOUS
400,094
175,977
210,608
189,486
53%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
10,384,010
7,116,666
5,246,967
5,137,043
51%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS
135,000
-
-
135,000
0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
2,909,320
526,556
1,739,021
1,170,299
60%
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
27,460
23,454
22,696
51%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS
-
-
-
-
0%
INTERFUND SERVICES
-
-
-
-
0%
40,929,107
19,452,503
19,669,418
21,259,689
48%
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 $
89,604 $
80,462 $
98,258
45%
100,480
48,376
43,491
56,989
43%
-
-
1,286
(1,286)
0%
-
-
447
(447)
0%
280
275
725
(445)
259%
279,480
138,255
126,411
153,069
45%
0%
$ - $ - $ $ - 0%
800,000 400,000 800,000 0%
800,000 400,000 T 800,000 0%
$ 100 $ - $ $ 100 0%
200 3,750 200 0%
5,100 - 5,100 0%
5,400 3,750 5,400 0%
$ - $
1,834 $
1,756
$ (1,756)
0%
80,000
79,741
161,272
(81,272)
202%
2,062,000
14,487
35,390
2,026,610
2%
-
-
546
(546)
0%
33,000
307
169,691
(136,691)
514%
-
-
389,059
(389,059)
0%
$ 2,175,000
96,369
757,714
1,417,286
35%
$ 3,000 $
785 $
647 $
2,353
22%
5,000
-
-
5,000
0%
2,230
1,069
877
1,354
39%
800
-
-
800
0%
20,000
5,000
5,000
15,000
25%
45,000
11,402
21,257
23,743
47%
76,030
18,256
27,780
48,250
37%
6
Packet Pg. 193
5.3.a
Page 2 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND
- DEIAAIL
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
STREETFUND (111)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 515,160
$ 272,252
$ 291,347
$
223,813
57%
OVERTIME
18,400
7,428
10,757
7,643
58%
BENEFITS
265,870
135,865
149,949
115,921
56%
UNIFORMS
6,000
4,927
3,745
2,255
62%
SUPPLIES
240,000
62,821
167,167
72,833
70%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
26,000
9,243
545
25,455
2%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
14,050
5,006
4,146
9,904
30%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,500
2,011
1,850
1,650
53%
TRAVEL
1,000
300
-
1,000
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
190,950
94,725
94,581
96,369
50%
INSURANCE
87,620
81,386
97,912
(10,292)
112%
UTILITIES
270,170
124,057
113,801
156,369
42%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
45,000
14,248
8,470
36,530
19%
MISCELLANEOUS
24,250
1,349
1,430
22,820
6%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
3,000
-
896
2,104
30%
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
925
865
865
50%
$ 1,716,120
$ 826,372
$ 947,462
$
768,658
55%
COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE(112)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$ 1,850,420
$ 393,387
$ 654,883
$
1,195,537
35%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
358,240
40,956
40,908
317,332
11%
LAND
438,000
82,247
132,896
305,104
30%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
5,605,502
307,832
1,490,654
4,114,848
27%
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
$ 900,067
$ 2,394,938
$
5,932,854
29%
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 $
132 $
4,268
3%
1,500
-
150
1,350
10%
166,500
24,943
22,232
144,268
13%
80
-
11
70
13%
-
-
-
-
0%
2,000
-
2,000
0%
300
-
-
300
0%
6,600
1,573
2,750
3,850
42%
$ 181,380 S
27,036 $
25,274 $
156,106
14%
$ 77,500 $
23,212 $
24,080 $
53,420
31%
-
-
-
-
0%
8,150
82
65
8,085
1%
4,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
50%
60,000
-
-
60,000
0%
$ 149,650 $
25,294 $
26,145 $
123,505
17%
$ 1,790 $ - $ $ 1,790 0%
25,090 25,090 0%
$ 26,880 $ $ $ 26,880 0%
$ 3,000 $ 1,341 $ 835 $ 2,165 28%
$ 3,000 $ 1,341 $ 835 $ 2,165 28%
$ 28,300 $ 4,228 $ 8,282 $ 20,018 29%
- - - - 0%
3,200 1,273 1,260 1,940 39%
$ 31,500 $ 5,501 $ 9,543 $ 21,957 30%
O
C.
d
2
v
C
C
IL
L
d
ev
7
Cl
co
T
0
N
C
C
7
r
CD
7
Packet Pg. 194
I 5.3.a I
Page 3 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
REAL ES TATE EXC IS E TAX 2 (125)
SUPPLIES
$ 21,000
$ 30,508
$ 42,366
$ (21,366)
202%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
186,788
77,199
47,575
139,213
25%
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
153,371
1,599,406
9% C
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
$
2,100,565
$
113,403
$
258,888
$
1,841,677
12%
0)
$
212,050
$
$
$
212,050
0%
ea
-
1,200
-
-
0%
_
139,430
18,263
17,213
122,218
12%
692,180
4,000
476,669
215,511
69%
LL
1,521,700
-
-
1,521,700
0%
19,890
-
19,890
0%
i
-
-
-
-
0%
.�M+
10,070
5,382
5,033
5,037
50%
(a
$
2,595,320
$
28,845
$
498,915
$
2,096,405
19%
3
co
$
13,110
$
1,271
$
1,005
$
12,105
8%
C
6,000
273
6,300
(300)
105%
N
25,840
11,088
25,835
5
100%
4)
$
44,950
$
12,631
$
33,140
$
11,810
74%
7
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
0%
$
108,410
$
39,267
$
40,451
$
67,959
37%
3,500
1,388
963
2,537
28%
p
44,500
16,595
17,524
26,976
39%
d
1,000
197
1,000
0%
w
7,000
1,286
745
6,255
11%
20,000
7,238
9,096
10,904
45%
'tt
4,200
719
594
3,607
14%
1,410
729
499
911
35%
r-
500
-
500
0%
-
-
-
0%
11,550
4,992
5,775
5,775
50%
G�
3,800
434
300
3,500
8%
R
500
-
500
0%
=
4,000
1,958
1,765
2,235
44%
Cy
$
210,370
$
74,803
$
77,712
$
132,658
37%
r
$ - $
- $
-
$ -
0%
225,000
41,931
30,809
194,191
14%
500,000
-
475,710
24,291
95%
2,050,770
177,136
77,659
1,973,111
4%
-
4,200
-
-
0%
$ 2,775,770 $
223,266 $
584,177
$ 2,191,593
21%
$ 2,000 $
$ 98 $
1,902
5%
4,500
- 2,515
1,985
56%
6,000
10 23
5,977
0%
$ 12,500 $
10 $ 2,636 $
9,864
21%
$ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
2,500 2,500 2,500 - 100%
680,000 364,711 347,693 332,307 51%
$ 682,500 $ 367,211 $ 350,193 $ 332,307 51%
8
Packet Pg. 195
I 5.3.a I
Page 4 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount
Title
Budget Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
BUSINESS EMPROVEVIENTDISTRICT FUND (140)
SUPPLIES
$ - $ 14,726
$ 789
$ (789)
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
- 11,164
12,536
(12,536)
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
- 35
894
(894)
0%
- 25,924
14,219
(14,219)
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 75,464 70,301 70,309 50%
500 54 - 500 0%
$ 677,380 $ 75,517 $ 70,301 $ 607,079 105/0
$ 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 $
364,575
$ 387,645
$ 407,575
49%
24,000
9,072
11,046
12,954
46%
372,550
164,407
181,285
191,265
49%
4,000
2,032
1,517
2,483
38%
151,000
78,804
52,790
98,210
35%
1,600,000
623,442
695,668
904,332
43%
143,000
71,827
48,285
94,715
34%
11,000
8,072
2,087
8,913
19%
1,793,286
315,687
532,814
1,260,472
30%
30,000
15,832
14,523
15,477
48%
200
-
-
200
0%
340,000
155,645
189,240
150,760
56%
100,750
47,697
49,367
51,383
49%
58,920
70,904
52,335
6,585
89%
40,000
11,607
11,502
28,498
29%
17,000
16,612
5,328
11,672
31%
70,450
37,227
34,332
36,118
49%
30,000
16,173
18,423
11,577
61%
1,229,110
493,120
540,263
688,847
44%
731,220
119,415
219,326
511,894
30%
15,000
9,828
-
15,000
0%
4,551,921
511,166
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
133,799
129,008
127,862
50%
-
-
-
-
0%
-
31
-
0%
-
-
-
-
0%
$ 12,717,507 $
3,322,813
$ 3,656,305
$ 9,061,202
29%
F
O
Q.
d
w
C
C
IL
L
d
ev
7
Cl
co
T
O
N
O
C
7
r
O
9
Packet Pg. 196
I 5.3.a I
Page 5 of 6
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
S TO RM FUND (422)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 640,470
$ 229,709
$ 263,505
$ 376,965
41%
OVERTIME
6,000
7,374
6,750
(750)
113%
BENEFITS
313,950
113,241
130,472
183,478
42%
UNIFORMS
6,500
4,611
5,210
1,290
80%
SUPPLIES
46,500
20,988
10,382
36,118
22%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
4,000
787
23
3,977
1%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,638,530
347,573
414,875
2,223,655
16%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,200
1,611
1,276
1,924
40%
TRAVEL
4,300
-
300
4,000
7%
EXCISE TAXES
55,000
35,155
27,043
27,957
49%
RENTAL/LEASE
252,990
106,168
124,000
128,990
49%
INSURANCE
64,120
39,269
63,187
933
99%
UTILITES
10,500
4,451
4,691
5,809
45%
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
13,000
8,576
2,266
10,734
17%
MISCELLANEOUS
94,950
26,456
25,800
69,150
27%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
85,000
62,065
83,369
1,631
98%
INTERFUND TAXES AND OPERATING ASSESSMENT
330,430
157,184
164,329
166,101
50%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
410,080
20,254
91,782
318,298
22%
LAND
25,000
-
-
25,000
0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
-
9,828
-
-
0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
2,168,330
-
22,583
2,145,747
1%
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
87,739
83,932
82,498
50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS
-
-
-
-
0%
OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS
-
15
-
0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
-
-
-
-
0%
$ 7,613,450
$ 1,315,116
$ 1,557,839
$ 6,055,611
20%
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 $
820,648
$ 857,530
$ 864,000
50%
100,000
48,118
39,997
60,003
40%
771,920
358,199
385,485
386,435
50%
9,500
5,659
4,717
4,783
50%
420,200
117,367
125,809
294,391
30%
90,000
29,588
21,000
69,000
23%
4,000
-
-
4,000
0%
46,000
13,835
19,596
26,404
43%
1,954,696
562,955
735,582
1,219,114
38%
43,000
21,014
19,231
23,769
45%
5,000
-
1,097
3,903
22%
150,000
67,152
96,745
53,255
64%
182,670
98,489
89,518
93,152
49%
96,630
139,648
105,637
(9,007)
109%
1,056,660
510,417
344,354
712,306
33%
325,000
178,455
139,778
185,222
43%
105,450
29,978
28,195
77,255
27%
150,000
74,786
82,285
67,715
55%
629,140
282,765
311,566
317,574
50%
2,563,949
312,301
518,760
2,045,189
20%
-
25,251
-
-
0%
6,999,825
266,110
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
64,747
61,299
60,981
50%
-
-
-
-
0%
-
3,093
2,955
(2,955)
0%
-
-
-
-
0%
$ 17,921,050 $
4,187,306
$ 4,202,354
$ 13,718,696
23%
$ 655,010 $ - $ $ 655,010 0%
- - - 0%
1,334,910 337,208 667,442 667,468 50%
1,000 21,054 - 1,000 0%
$ 1,990,920 $ 358,261 $ 667,442 $ 1,323,478 34%
F
O
C.
d
C
C
M
L
M
7
Cl
co
T
0
N
C
C
7
r
CD
10
Packet Pg. 197
I 5.3.a I
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511)
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 224,880
$ 103,968
$ 110,075
$ 114,805
49%
OVERTIME
2,000
384
-
2,000
0%
BENEFITS
105,050
47,363
48,651
56,399
46%
UNIFORMS
1,000
815
600
400
60%
SUPPLIES
110,000
48,481
46,214
63,786
42%
FUEL CONSUMED
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE
308,200
58,319
55,716
252,484
18%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
58,000
14,698
4,462
53,538
8%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
44,000
520
696
43,304
2%
COMMUNICATIONS
3,000
1,006
1,194
1,806
40%
TRAVEL
1,000
2,935
1,000
-
100%
RENTAL/LEASE
19,440
7,207
9,786
9,654
50%
INSURANCE
29,560
40,605
29,967
(407)
101%
UTILITIES
14,000
6,103
6,175
7,825
44%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
60,000
20,569
31,687
28,313
53%
MISCELLANEOUS
7,190
3,834
6,711
479
93%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
2,500
-
249
2,251
10%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
981,000
227,547
575,043
405,957
59%
INTERFUND RENTAL
-
-
-
-
0%
$ 1,971,820
$ 584,355
$ 928,227
$ 1,043,593
470/.
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND (617)
BENEFITS
$ 30,940 $
11,527
$ 9,024
$ 21,916
29%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS
27,470
13,255
12,112
15,358
44%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,200
-
214
986
18%
S 59,610 $
24,782
$ 21,351
$ 38,259
36%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS
$ 107,038,991 $
32,618,187
$ 37,845,648
$ 69,193,343
35%
F
O
C.
d
C
C
IL
L
ev
7
Cl
co
T
0
N
C
C
7
CD
11
Packet Pg. 198
5.3.a
Page 1 of 1
CITY
OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES
- GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
CITY COUNCIL
$ 295,500 $
107,828 $
98,095
$ 197,405
33%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
260,250
123,379
127,277
132,973
490/c
HUMAN RESOURCES
462,044
177,419
175,479
286,565
38%
C
MUNICIPAL COURT
909,270
400,792
435,326
473,944
48%
d
w
CITY CLERK
585,310
285,114
281,026
304,284
481/c
i3
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1,839,930
818,119
717,364
1,122,566
390/c
_
CITY ATTORNEY
741,560
329,666
347,078
394,482
47%
LL
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
14,956,000
8,369,406
7,828,525
7,127,475
520/c
2'
L
POLICE SERVICES
9,628,550
4,329,129
4,596,670
5,031,880
480/c
4)
COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV.
493,580
188,019
232,729
260,851
470/c
CY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
2,656,652
1,059,255
1,183,128
1,473,524
450/c
r
0
PARKS& RECREATION
3,774,541
1,528,030
1,609,632
2,164,909
430/c
C
PUBLIC WORKS
2,842,120
1,041,687
1,339,534
1,502,586
470/c
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
1,483,800
694,660
697,556
786,244
470/c
$ 40,929,107 $
19,452,503 $
19,669,418
$ 21,259,689
480/c
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - U ITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY
Title
2016 Amended
Budget
6/30/2015
Expenditures
6/30/2016
Expenditures
Amount
Remaining
%Spent
WATER UTILITY FUND
$ 12,717,507
$ 3,322,813 $
3,656,305
$ 9,061,202
290/
STORM UTILITY FUND
7,613,450
1,315,116
1,557,839
6,055,611
200/
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
17,921,050
4,187,306
4,202,354
13,718,696
230/
BOND RESERVE FUND
1,990,920
358,261
667,442
1,323,478
340/
$ 40,242,927
$ 9,183,496 $
10,083,940
$ 30,158,987
25%
12
Packet Pg. 199
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DEIAAIL
2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount
Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
OFFICEOFMAYOR
SALARIES
BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATION
TRAVEL
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
ADVERTISING
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
MUNIC IPAL C O URT
SALARIES
OVERTIME
BENEFITS
SUPPLIES
SMALL EQUIPMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
TRAVEL
RENT AL/LEASE
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
MISCELLANEOUS
$ 119,100 $ 62,169 $ 51,510 $ 67,590 43%
1,000 - - 1,000 0%
88,550 36,893 40,257 48,293 45%
2,000 467 885 1,115 44%
832 - - 0% 'C
47,160
5,062
1,432
45,728
3%
0
CL
3,000
1,501
1,501
1,500
50%
4)
6,700
483
1,277
5,423
19%
w
490
296
219
271
45%
ea
500
-
15
485
3%
_
27,000
125
1,000
26,000
4%
$ 295,500 $
107,828 $
98,095 $
197A05
33%
jL
$ 197,160 $
97,937 $
98,741 $
98,419
50%
d
48,190
22,346
24,042
24,148
50%
'i
1,500
352
635
865
42%
7
-
-
-
-
0%
CY
2,000
764
1,191
809
60%
r
1,400
200
599
801
43%
N
3,000
149
538
2,462
18%
O
2,400
1,098
720
1,680
30%
-
-
-
-
0%
4,600
533
813
3,787
18%
$ 260,250 $
123,379 $
127,277 $
132,973
49%
cn
$ 226,880 $
103,878 $
107,092 $
119,788
47%
..
-
-
43
(43)
0%
O
73,380
33,959
36,467
36,913
50%
0
2,300
624
2,306
(6)
100%
lY
300
-
-
300
0%
114,000
39,894
24,266
89,734
21%
'V
700
476
485
215
69%
r-
1,000
482
416
584
42%
,r-
_
-
-
-
-
0%
LL
2,200
1,098
646
1,554
29%
i
7,850
7,793
-
7,850
0%
a)
33,434
(10,786)
3,759
29,675
11%
M
$ 462,044 $
177,419 $
175,479 $
286,565
38%
M
$ 566,190 $
259,843 $
282,245 $
283,945
50%
600
1,469
419
181
70%
222,750
87,659
101,792
120,958
46%
9,930
6,627
4,263
5,667
43%
2,800
1,360
262
2,538
9%
64,000
32,067
35,884
28,116
56%
1,800
1,006
1,272
528
71%
2,500
2,413
1,040
1,460
42%
800
172
467
333
58%
1,700
585
794
906
47%
36,200
7,591
6,886
29,314
19%
$ 909,270 $
400,792 $
435,326 $
473,944
48%
13
Packet Pg. 200
Page 2 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES
$ 324,480
$ 170,547
$ 172,246
$ 152,234
53%
OVERTIME
-
742
1,509
(1,509)
0%
BENEFITS
129,300
59,308
63,634
65,666
49%
SUPPLIES
10,240
3,373
2,626
7,614
26%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
-
420
610
(610)
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
28,310
14,773
11,331
16,979
40%
COMMUNICATIONS
50,000
16,308
7,093
42,907
14%
TRAVEL
1,000
423
-
1,000
0%
ADVERTISING
-
-
-
-
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
20,000
10,019
8,337
11,663
42%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
17,980
7,096
10,448
7,532
58%
MISCELLANEOUS
4,000
2,105
3,193
807
80%
$ 585,310
$ 285,114
$ 28L026
$ 304,284
48%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES
$ 892,390 $
388,906 $
410,852 $
481,538
46%
OVERTIME
6,670
1,192
1,308
5,362
20%
BENEFITS
305,800
130,850
139,652
166,148
46%
SUPPLIES
43,050
3,756
2,538
40,512
6%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
110,650
46,301
28,760
81,890
26%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
111,400
34,614
17,762
93,638
16%
COMMUNICATIONS
61,500
22,216
26,068
35,432
42%
TRAVEL
2,900
540
833
2,067
29%
RENTAL/LEASE
8,200
6,487
3,555
4,645
43%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
242,680
144,126
34,479
208,201
14%
MISCELLANEOUS 15
14,690
24,354
51,555
(36,865)
351%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
40,000
14,777
-
40,000
0%
$ 1,839,930 $
818,119 $
717,364 $
1,122,566
39%
CITY ATTO RNEY
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$ 741,560 $
329,666 $
344,942 $
396,618
47%
MISCELLANEOUS
-
-
2,137
(2,137)
0%
$ 741,560 $
329,666 $
347,078 $
394,482
47%
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES
$ 100,000 $
- $
- $
100,000
0%
BENEFITS -UNEMPLOYMENT
34,500
1,444
1,037
33,463
3%
SUPPLIES
3,000
1,888
2,089
911
70%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
643,420
170,076
233,976
409,444
36%
EXCISE TAXES
6,500
1,546
1,699
4,801
26%
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
48,223
20,787
70%
INTERGOVT SERVICES
10,302,760
7,106,394
5,236,693
5,066,067
51%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT
135,000
-
-
135,000
0%
INTERFUND SUBSIDIES
2,909,320
526,556
1,739,021
1,170,299
60%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
168,300
-
-
168,300
0%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES
-
65,297
-
-
0%
OTHER DEBT
-
-
-
-
0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT
46,150
27,460
23,454
22,696
51%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS
-
-
-
-
0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES
33
-
0%
INTERFUND SERVICES
-
0%
$ 14,956,000 $
8,369,406 $
7,828,525 $
7,127,475
52%
F
O
C.
<0
U
C
W
C
IL
L
d
e0
7
Cl
co
T
0
N
0)
C
7
r`
CD
15 Difference between 2015 and 2016 is due to Microsoft Office Windows Software Renewal in 2016.
14 r-
Packet Pg. 201 1
I 5.3.a I
Page 3 of 4
CITY OF EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENTIN DETAIL
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PO LIC E S ERVIC ES
SALARIES
$ 5,778,330
$ 2,612,850
$ 2,812,687
$ 2,965,643
49%
OVERTIME
396,240
229,070
211,860
184,380
53%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK
217,790
1,543
2,349
215,441
1%
BENEFITS
2,220,940
1,010,101
1,090,825
1,130,115
49%
UNIFORMS
80,310
36,063
39,223
41,087
49%
SUPPLIES
86,730
43,669
33,652
53,078
39%
0
SMALL EQUIPMENT
20,400
8,800
16,103
4,297
79%
CL
4)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
117,170
44,860
45,981
71,189
39%
w
COMMUNICATIONS
26,210
11,120
12,897
13,313
49%
ea
TRAVEL
17,310
13,998
6,674
10,636
39%
C
ADVERTISING
-
-
-
-
0%
C
RENTAL/LEASE
595,100
286,660
294,955
300,145
50%
li
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
14,620
4,665
6,065
8,555
41%
>,
MISCELLANEOUS
46,850
20,458
18,124
28,726
39%
d
INTERGOVTL SERVICES
10 550
5 272
5 274
5 276
50%
':
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
$ 9.628.550 $
4329.129 $
4.596 670 $
5.031,880
48%
7
Cl
$ 224,960 $
109,166 $
112,969 $
111,991
50%
r
67,430
31,283
34,424
33,006
51%
N
7,000
192
280
6,720
4%
4)
800
-
125
676
16%
r-
180,400
41,872
82,038
98,362
45%
1,490
454
486
1,004
33%
2,000
179
-
2,000
0%
as
-
-
-
-
0%
2,000
1,098
955
1,045
48%
..
500
-
-
500
0%
7,000
3,774
1,453
5,547
21%
C
$ 493,580 $
188,019 $
232,729 $
260,851
47%
W
$ 1,444,230 $
668,256 $
718,769 $
725,461
50%
1,300
72
6,052
(4,752)
466%
534,670
236,997
261,658
273,012
49%
500
-
-
500
0%
16,100
7,492
6,513
9,587
40%
5,250
4,338
2,745
2,505
52%
571,442
80,990
145,991
425,451
26%
8,500
2,034
2,523
5,977
30%
4,250
517
3,945
305
93%
-
-
-
-
0%
24,750
18,211
10,699
14,051
43%
6,800
3,395
1,177
5,623
17%
38,860
36,953
23,056
15,804
59%
$ 2,656,652 $
1,059,255 $
1,183,128 $
1,473,524
45%
$ 1,373,500 $
610,990 $
624,922 $
748,578
45%
5,000
796
2,890
2,110
58%
561,900
239,095
249,286
312,614
44%
360
-
-
360
0%
-
79
(79)
0%
2,200
1,952
248
89%
465,000
-
252,650
212,350
54%
11,800
3,693
4,691
7,109
40%
600
-
296
304
49%
26,370
7,440
11,717
14,653
44%
2,600
-
-
2,600
0%
21,000
5,427
12,630
8,370
60%
$ 2,470,330 $
867,442 $
1,161,113 $
1,309,217
47%
15
Packet Pg. 202
Page 4 of 4
C ITY O F EDMO NDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENTIN DETAIL
2016 Amended
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Amount
Title
Budget
Expenditures
Expenditures
Remaining
%Spent
PARKS & REC REATIO N
SALARIES
$ 1,830,090
$ 823,210
$ 861,110
$ 968,980
47%
OVERTIME
10,000
5,696
4,928
5,072
49%
BENEFITS
695,310
304,482
328,840
366,470
47%
UNIFORMS
5,370
4,537
2,643
2,727
49%
SUPPLIES
117,500
63,638
71,171
46,329
61%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
9,080
9,205
6,645
2,435
73%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
514,341
84,567
96,739
417,602
19%
COMMUNICATIONS
30,140
9,974
9,492
20,648
31%
TRAVEL
4,450
871
468
3,982
11%
ADVERTISING
-
-
-
-
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
170,310
90,872
90,716
79,594
53%
PUBLIC UTILITY
175,000
68,491
67,472
107,528
39%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
50,800
21,737
31,337
19,463
62%
MISCELLANEOUS
91,450
35,749
33,069
58,381
36%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
-
-
-
-
0%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES
70,700
5,000
5,000
65,700
7%
$ 3,774,541
$ 1,528,030
$ 1,609,632
$ 2,164,909
43%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES
$ 263,850 $
127,495 $
130,896 $
132,955
50%
OVERTIME
200
-
-
200
0%
BENEFITS
81,750
37,926
41,455
40,295
51%
SUPPLIES
7,600
1,997
1,410
6,190
19%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
1,000
1,479
-
1,000
0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200
27
39
162
19%
COMMUNICATIONS
1,350
290
315
1,035
23%
TRAVEL
500
-
-
500
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
7,640
2,952
3,072
4,568
40%
PUBLIC UT ILITY
2,800
1,171
1,235
1,565
44%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
1,000
-
-
1,000
0%
MISCELLANEOUS
3,900
908
3,900
0%
$ 371,790 $
174,245 $
178,420 $
193,370
48%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES
669,430
308,038
319,055
350,375
48%
OVERTIME
2,500
1,785
3,465
(965)
139%
BENEFITS
291,990
123,592
130,267
161,723
45%
UNIFORMS
2,750
1,418
1,531
1,219
56%
SUPPLIES
87,000
42,037
32,786
54,214
38%
SMALL EQUIPMENT
3,000
8,531
197
2,803
7%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
-
270
76
(76)
0%
COMMUNICATIONS
14,000
7,388
7,350
6,650
52%
TRAVEL
-
-
12
(12)
0%
RENTAL/LEASE
52,530
26,368
26,878
25,652
51%
PUBLIC UTILITY
280,000
131,599
132,454
147,546
47%
REPAIR/MAINTENANCE
78,500
41,594
38,775
39,725
49%
MISCELLANEOUS
2,100
2,040
4,711
(2,611)
224%
$ 1,483,800 $
694,660 $
697,556 $
786,244
47%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
$ 40,929,107 $
19,452,503 $
19,669,418 $
21,259,689
48%
F
O
C,
<0
U
C
ILC
L
d
'C
ev
7
Cl
to
T
0
N
C
C
7
r
CD
16
Packet Pg. 203
I 5.3.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 20,334,355 -0.44%
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 1,234,188 25.16%
290,062
204,673
209,784
185,002
193,458
130,926
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
17
Packet Pg. 204 1
5.3.a
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: June 2016
Year -to -Date
Total $3,295,015
Wholesale Trade 136,045
Corrnnwiications 122,075 �
Contractors 518,015 Q'
Misc Retail Trade 407,222 �
Health & Personal Care
51,387 i0
Retail Eating & Drinking Accommodation 19,521 M
414,328
IL
Business Services 231,267
Gasoline Stations 15,819
O
Amusement & Recreation y
34,139
co
Automotive Repair 85,558 r
Retail Food Stores 133,652 N
O
Retail Automotive 847,642
7
Others 167,992
Clothing and Accessories
CD
110,355
Total
Retail Automotive
Misc Retail Trade
Retail Eating & Drinking
Business Services
Retail Food Stores
Others
Amusement & Recreation
Wholesale Trade
Clothing and Accessories
Accommodation
Health & Personal Care
Gasoline Stations
Automotive Repair
Communications
Contractors
($100,000)
Change in Sales Tax Revenue:
June 2016 compared to
June 2015
($50,000) $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000
O
CL
18
Packet Pg. 205
I 5.3.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
3,295,015
11.29%
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 too
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
385,669
-13.51%
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
O
O
C
M
a
LL
O
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
19
Packet Pg. 206 1
I 5.3.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
633,125
-7.69%
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
913,790
6.94%
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
F
O
C.
C
O
C
M
C
LL
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
20
Packet Pg. 207 1
I 5.3.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
2,888,880
-0.81%
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
1,642,773
6.94%
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
O
C.
O
C
M
C_
M
C
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
CD
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
21
Packet Pg. 208 1
I 5.3.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
3,115,575
0.15%
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
O
C.
FY
O
C
M
C
M
C
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
CD
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
22
Packet Pg. 209 1
I 5.3.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
19,669,418
-2.88%
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
7,828,525
-1.23%
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
F
O
C.
O
C
M
C_
M
O
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
CD
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
23
Packet Pg. 210 1
I 5.3.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
98,095
-31.38%
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
127,277
-1.62%
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
F
O
C.
O
C
M
C
LL
C
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
CD
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
24
Packet Pg. 211 1
I 5.3.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
232,729
2.19%
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
281,026
-0.20%
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
City Clerk
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year
O
C.
O
C
M
C
LL
O
O
M
CY
to
T
O
N
O
C
7
7
CD
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
25
Packet Pg. 212 1
I 5.3.a I
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources
2016
Human Resources
Cumulative
Budget Forecast
Monthly
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
175,479
-22.96%
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
435,326
-1.26%
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 Year Budget -0-- Prior Year
O
C.
C
O
0
C
M
C
LL
O
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
CD
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
26
Packet Pg. 213
I 5.3.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
325,732
-14.61%
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 -dr- 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
391,632
-18.10%
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
F
O
C.
C
O
C
M
C
LL
O
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
CD
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
27
Packet Pg. 214
I 5.3.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
347,078
-6.39%
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
4,596,670
0.01%
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
-*--Current Year - Budget -*I,- Prior Year
F
O
C.
C
O
C
M
C
LL
C
M
M
CY
to
O
N
O
C
7
7
CD
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
28
Packet Pg. 215
I 5.3.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
1,183,128
-6.91%
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
1,609,632
-4.03%
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
F
O
C.
d
t0
C
C
M
21
L
._
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
CD
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
29
Packet Pg. 216 1
I 5.3.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
178,420
-3.75%
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 FL 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
697,556
-3.62%
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
O
C.
C
O
C
M
C
LL
O
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
30
Packet Pg. 217 1
I 5.3.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
1,161,113
-3.40%
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
Engine a ring
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 —dp-- Prior Year
O
C.
C
FY
O
C
M
C
LL
C
O
M
CY
O
N
O
C
7
7
CD
*The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average.
31
Packet Pg. 218
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
I 5.3.a I
City of Edmonds
Investment Portfolio Summary
As of June 30, 2016
(a)
Term Purchase Purchase Maturity
Agency/Issuer Investment Type (months) Date Price Date
Washington State Local Investment Pool Various $12,734,097 Various
Government Investment Pool
Snohomish County Investment Pool Various $30,533,049 Various
Investment Pool
FICO
Bonds
33
9/19/2014
1,027,000
6/6/2017
FH LMC
Bonds
61
12/28/2012
1,000,000
12/28/2017
FFCB
Bonds
36
1/25/2016
2,000,000
12/28/2018
FFCB
Bonds
37
1/25/2016
2,000,000
1/25/2019
FNMA
Bonds
61
9/19/2014
1,000,000
9/19/2019
FHLB
Bonds
48
5/5/2016
2,000,000
3/30/2020
FHLMC
Bonds
48
5/5/2016
2,000,000
4/28/2020
(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
% of Total Rate Comparison
Yield to
Weighted
Q.
Maturity
Average
IY
0.49%
0.12%
v
c
tv
0.82%
0.46%
ii
0.96%
0.02%
`
m
0.90%
0.02%
3
CI
1.42%
0.05%
m
1.23%
0.05%
0
C14
a�
1.87%
0.03%
1.45%
0.05%
rn
1.35%
0.05%
23.45% Current 6-month treasury rate 0.36%
20.31 % Current State Pool rate 0.49%
56.24% Blended Edmonds rate 0.85%
100.0%
Interest Income
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.85%
2012
■ 2013
2014 .
■ 2015
2016
32
Packet Pg. 219
5.3.a
GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW
FUND BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
GENERAL FUND
�
& SUBFUNDS
---- ACTUAL ---- 0.
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2015 3/31 /2016
6/30/2016
Q2
am
YTD W
001-General Fund
$ 9,359,436 $ 5,775,692 $
10,024,373
$ 4,248,681
$ 664,93 'U
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
519,409 453,760
532,581
78,821
c
13,17, m
c
011-Risk Management Fund
961,513 963,340
965,713
2,373
4,20( ii
012-Contingency Reserve Fund
4,677,030 1,667,653
4,684,313
3,016,660
21
7,28.
013-Mulitmodal Transportation FD
56,487 56,594
56,720
126
23: i
014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund
2,590 9,043
5,116
(3,927)
2,52E CY
016-Building Maintenance
118,086 133,260
(48,433)
(181,693)
(166,51$
0
Total General Fund & Subfunds
$ 15,694,551 $ 9,059,344 $
16,220,385
$ 7,161,041
$ 525,83, N
a�
c
ti
rn
0
a
a�
-
General Fund & Subfunds
2
20
U
$15.69
$16.22
0
ii
16
>,
a�
1`
12
c
$9.06
CY
o
—
8
m
r
O
N
4
N
a�
_
a�
Q
Dec2015
Mar2016
June 2016
E
0
t)
c
m
E
t
v
cv
r
r
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. 220
5.3.a
GOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS OVERVIEW
CHANGE IN FUND
FUND BALANCES
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
---- ACTUAL ----
FUNDS
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2015
3/31 /2016
6/30/2016
Q2 YTD
0
General Fund & Subfunds
$ 15,694,551
$ 9,059,344 $
16,220,385
$
7,161,041 $
525,83
Q-
Special Revenue
7,711,341
11,887,729
10,255,835
(1,631,894) 2,544,49,
m
Debt Service
114,790
115,564
115,563
(0)
77
u-
c
Total Governmental Funds
$ 23,520,682
$ 21,062,636 $
26,591,783
$
5,529,147 $ 3,071,10
ii
21
L
L
CY
Governmental Fund Balances
-By Fund Group
Governmental Fund
CD
N
20
16
N12
c
0
8
4
$16.22 General
Fund &
Subfunds
t Special
$10.26 Revenue
Debt
Service
$0.11 $0.12 $0.12
Dec 2015 Mar2016 June 2016
Balances - Combined
c
0
ti
30 1
$26.59
24
c 18
0
12
6
$23.52
Dec 2015 Mar2016 June 2016
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
34
Packet Pg. 221 1
5.3.a
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
OVERVIEW
FUND
BALANCES
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCE;
GOVERNMENTAL
---- ACTUAL ----
---- ACTUAL
----
SPECIAL REVENUE
12/31/2015
3/31/2016
6/30/2016
Q2
YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund
$ 68,732
$ 120,531
$ 109,613
$ (10,919) $
40,88' ..
111 - Street Fund
514,445
426,929
556,641
129,712
42,19E o
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve
9,339
3,813,826
1,393,845
(2,419,981)
1,384,50E
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
468,471
482,084
472,727
(9,357)
4,25E
118 - Memorial Street Tree
17,919
17,953
17,993
40
7e 2
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
153,884
164,509
162,241
(2,268)
8,35d r-
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund
64,480
71,765
72,599
835
8,11 t
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund
15,469
15,173
14,705
(468)
LL
(76,e >,
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
84,567
86,486
86,674
188
2,10- `m
125 - Real Estate Tax 2
1,629,535
1,874,258
1,996,449
122,191
366,91,
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1
2,239,007
2,042,221
2,366,504
324,283
127,491 CY
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund
265,924
284,615
261,169
(23,445)
(4,75,
129 - Special Projects Fund
38,393
38,466
38,551
85
15£ N
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
137,256
142,169
154,038
11,869
16,78.
132 - Parks Construction Fund
897,413
1,160,606
1,392,690
232,085
495,271
136 - Parks Trust Fund
152,249
152,538
152,877
339
62£
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
883,729
889,731
895,815
6,085
12,08E cn
138 - Sister City Commission
3,785
3,792
6,921
3,129
3,13E
139 - Transportation Benefit District
-
0
-
(0)
-
140 - Business Improvement Disrict
66,744
100,076
103,780
3,704
37,03E Q.
Total Special Revenue
$ 7,711,341
$ 11,887,729
$ 10,255,835
$ (1,631,894) $
2,544,49,
15
12
9
c
0
6
3
Special Revenue Funds
$11.89
$10.26
Special
Revenue
Dec2015 Mar2016
m4--
June 2016
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
35
Packet Pg. 222
ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 5.3.a I
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
421 - Water Utility Fund
422 - Storm Utility Fund
423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund
424 - Bond Reserve Fund
411 - Combined Utility Operation
Total Enterprise Funds
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$ 16, 750, 820 $ 15, 513,148 $ 17,135, 816 $
9,695,327 10, 572, 881 10, 084, 412
43, 067, 458 43, 952, 248 44,186,132
- 843,964 4
- 47,129 83,251
$ 69, 513, 605 $ 70, 929, 369 $ 71, 489, 615 $
CHANGE IN FUND Q.
---- ACTUAL ----
1,622,668 $
(488, 470)
233,885
(843, 959)
36,122
560,246 $
YTD @
384,99( c
389,08!
LL
1,118, 67L >,
L
L �
1`
83, 25'
1,976,01( co
0
N
N
C
7
7
$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 June 30, 2016
583.251
Combined Utility
$17,135,816
$10,084,412
16
Storm
Sewer/WWTP Bond Reserve
*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. 223
SUMMARY OVERVIEW
5.3.a I
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
ACTUAL
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
Governmental Funds
$ 23,520,682
$ 21,062,636
$ 26,591,783
$
5,529,147
Enterprise Funds
69,513,605
70,929,369
71,489,615
560,246
Internal Services Fund
7,645,840
8,273,556
7,549,040
(724,516)
Agency Funds
203,101
191,835
239,169
47,333
Total City-wide Total
$100,883,228
$100,457,398
$105,869,607
1 $
5,412,209
Governmental Fund Balances as of June 30, 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 Pennit 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 $ (0)
Equipment Rental Fund
Firemen's Pension Fund
$ 3,071,10p
1,976,01(
(96,80(
36,06E c
$ 4,986,37E
LL
y+
fC
CI
W
$16,220,38! o
$109,613 N
a�
$556,641 3
$1,393,845
$472,727 ti
$17,993
$162,241
$72,599 r-
$14,705
$86,674
$1,996,4 9 6
$2,366, 04 '3
$261,169
ca
$38,551
LL
$154,038 >
a
$1,392,
- $152,877
$895,815
$6,921
$103,780
$10,428
$105,135
$7,549,04(
$239,169
$1 $20,000,000
*Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles.
This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles.
37
Packet Pg. 224
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW
I 5.3.a I
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
Total Internal Service Funds
10
8
6
0
4
2
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
12/31 /2015 3/31 /2016 6/30/2016
$ 7,645,840 $ 8,273,556 $ 7,549,040 $
$ 7,645,840 $ 8,273,556 $ 7,549,040 1 $
Internal Service Fund Balances
$8.27
$7.65 $7.55
Dec 2015 Mar 2016 June 2016
CHANGE IN FUND
0
BALANCES
Q'
m
---- ACTUAL ----
02_ YTD
(724, 516) $ (96, 80(
LEL
21
(724,516) $ (96,80(
0
M
Cl
c0
T
0
N
M
C
7
7
CD
511- Equipment Rental Fund i
*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. 225
5.3.b
2nd Quarter 2016 Financial
Management Report
'(11C. t oo9v
➢ 2nd Quarter Financial Highlights
➢ Financial Quiz
➢ Q &A
Packet Pg. 226
5.3.b
Quiz
rnc. 1$y"
Question:
1) The City has beautiful parks, open spaces, a spray park and beach
access, playgrounds, walking trails, picnic shelters, scenic views
of Puget Sound and more! Our 23 city parks include more than
325 acres of parkland and X# feet of waterfront shoreline for our
citizens to enjoy.
Tonight's first quiz question is: How many feet of beach are available
for our citizens to enjoy
a) 1,000 Feet
b) 750 Feet
c) 2,250 Feet
Packet Pg. 227
5.3.b
Quiz
Question:
2. In addition to the many park amenities our citizens get to enjoy,
our City also offers numerous and different restaurants for our
citizens and visitors to Edmonds to patronize.
Our 2"d quiz question is: How many Eating &Drinking
establishments are operating in Edmonds today?
a) 97
b)102
c)122
Packet Pg. 228
5.3.b
General Fund - Funds
Revenue Comparison
'Ile. 1009V
2nd QUARTER 2016 REVENUE SUMMARY - GENERAL FUND TYPES
Fund
N0.
Fund Name
YTD 2015
Receipts
YTD 2016
Receipts
$ Change
' 16 - ' 15
% Change
' 16 - ' 15
001
GENERAL FUND
$18,9229673
$209334,355
$194119682
7.5%
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
$1399484
$139,584
$100
0.1%
O11
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
$49285
$4,200
($85)
-2.0%
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
$229594
$79283
($15,311)
-67.8%
013
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FUND
$234
$233
($1)
-0.4%
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
$3
$29526
$29523
84114.0%
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
$237,914
$5911195
$353,281
148.5%
Totals
1 $1993279187
1 $2190799377
1 $197529190
9.1%
Packet Pg. 229
General Fund Revenue Budget to Actual
General Fund
Year -to -Date Actual
Budget
% of Budget
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
%
2015
2016°
2015
2016
Resource Category
Taxes
Property Taxes
7,604,520
7,802,961
2.6%
14,320,535
14,705,650
2.7%
53.1%
53.1%
Sales Tax
3,140,830
3,295,015
4.9%
5,627,000
6,144,400
9.2%
55.8%
53.6%
Utility Taxes
3,463,237
3,536,369
2.1%
6,732,519
6,789,980
0.9%
51.4%
52.1%
Other Taxes
454,668
482,981
6.2%
872,750
939,340
7.6%
52.1%
51.4%
Total Taxes
14,663,255
15,117,325
3.1%
27,552,804
28,579,370
3.7%
53.2%
1 52.9%
Licenses & Permits
Business Licenses & Misc. Permits
143,162
138310
-3.4%
236,680
244,220
3.2%
60.5%
56.6%
Franchise Fees
570,662
577:010
1.1%
1,093,490
1,142,800
4.5%
52.2%
50.5%
Development Related Permits
351,925
494,724
40.6%
567,370
624,100
10.0%
62.0%
79.3%
Total Licenses & Permits
1,065,749
1,210,044
13.5%
1,897,540
2,011,120
6.0%
56.2%
60.2%
Intergovermnental Revenues
Liquor Board Profits
175,055
174,541
-0.3%
356,890
357,800
0.3%
49.1%
48.8%
Liquor Excise Tax
44,733
96,625
116.0%
65,000
65,200
0.3%
68.8%
148.2%
Grants
18,310
267,324
1360.0%
48,470
412,100
750.2%
37.8%
64.9%
Other Intergovernmental
36,076
113,407
214.4%
254,190
259,720
2.2%
14.2%
43.7%
Total Intergovernmental Revenues
274,174
651,896
137.8%
724,550
1,094,820
51.1%
37.8%
59.5%
Fees For Service
Interfund Reimbursement
422,095
1,107,179
162.3%
1,902,614
2,964,600
55.8%
22.2%
37.3%
Engineering Services
108,952
139,289
27.8%
272,000
180,350
-33.7%
40.1%
77.2%
Plan Check & Inspection Fees
292,228
265,047
-9.3%
323,060
459,250
42.2%
90.5%
57.7%
Zoning& Subdivision Fees
47,198
47,321
0.3%
75,000
75,000
0.0%
62.9%
63.1%
EMS Transport Fees
412,674
491,973
19.2%
818,000
837,100
2.3%
50.4%
58.8%
Parks & Recreational Fees
577,945
603,841
4.5%
1,066,360
889,580
-16.6%
54.2%
67.9%
Other Charges for Services
147,467
165,001
11.9%
395,452
337,300
-14.7%
37.3%
48.9%
Total Fees For Service
2,008,559
2,819,651
40.4%1
4,852,486
5,743,180
18.4%
41.4%
49.1%
Fines & Forfeitures
Fines & Forfeitures
298,675
281,536
-5.7%
602,450
522,130
-13.3%
49.6%
53.9%
Total Fines & Forfeitures
298,675
281,536
-5.7%
602,450
522,130
-13.3%
49.6%
53.9%
Miscellaneous Revenues
Interest Earnings & Misc.
201,174
228,068
13.4%
366,539
500,210
36.5%
54.9%
45.6%
Total Miscellaneous Revenues
201,174
228,068
13.4%
366,539
500,210
36.5%
54.9%
45.6%
Other Financing Sources
Interfund Transfers
411,088
25,835
-93.7%
822,175
825,840
0.4%
50.0%
3.1%
Total Other Financing Sources
411,088
25,835
-93.7%
822,175
825,840
0.4%
50.0%
3.1%
Total Revenues
18,922,673
20,334,355
7.5%
36,818,544
39,276,670
6.7%
51.4%
51.8%
d
M
CY
co
0
N
a)
c
3
Q
Packet Pg. 230
General Fund Revenue Comparison D.3.b771
Year -to -Date Actual
%
General Fund
Resource Category
6/30/2015
6/30/2016
Change
Taxes
Property Taxes
704,520
702,961
2.6%
Sales Tax
3J40,830
3,295,015
4.9%
Utility Taxes
3,4631237
315361369
2.1%
Other Taxes
4541668
4821981
6.2%
Total Taxes
149663,255
1591179325
1 3.1%
Licenses & Permits
Business Licenses & Misc. Permits
143,162
1381310
-3.4%
Franchise Fees
5701662
577M 10
1.1 %
Development Related Permits
351X5
4941724
40.6%
Total Lice ns e s & Pe rmits
19065J49
14109044
13.5 %
2,
to
c�
0
N
d
r-
r
Q
Packet Pg. 231
I 5.3.b I
Sales Tax Analysis By Category
Current Period: June 2016
Year -to -Date
Total $3,295,015
Wholesale Trade 136,045
Contractors 518,015
Health & Personal Care
51,387 1 N
Retail Eating & Drinking
414,328
Gasoline Stations 15,819
Automotive Repair 85,558
Retail Automotive 847,642
Communications 122,075
Clothing and Accessories
110,355
Retail Trade 407,222
Accommodation 19,521
Business Services 231,267
;nt & Recreation
34,139
Retail Food Stores 133,652
Others 167,992
Packet Pg. 232
5.3.b
Change in Sales Tax Revenue:
June 2016 compared to
June 2015
Total
Retail Automotive
Misc Retail Trade
Retail Eating & Drinking
Business Services
Retail Food Stores
Others
Amusement & Recreation
Wholesale Trade
Clothing and Accessories
Accommodation
Health & Personal Care
Gasoline Stations
Automotive Repair
Communications
Contractors
($100,000) ($50,000) $0
$50,000 $100,000
$150,000
Packet Pg. 233
'Ile. 1009V
General Fund Type5.3.b
Expenditure Comparison
2nd QUARTER 2016 EXPENSE SUMMARY - GENERAL FUND TYPES
Fund
NO.
Fund Name
YTD 2015
Expenses
YTD 2016
Expenses
$ Change
'16 -'15
% Change
16 -'15
001
GENERAL FUND
$1994529503
$1996699418
$2169915
1.1%
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
$1389255
$1269411
($119844)
-8.6%
O11
RISK MANAGEMENT FUND
$0
$0
$0
0.0%
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
$4009000
$0
($400,000)
0.0%
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
$39750
$0
($39750)
0.0%
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
$969369
$757,714
$661,345
686.3%
Totals
$2090909877
$2095539543
$462,666
2.3%
Packet Pg. 234
'11C. 1009v
General Fund Departm
Expense Summary
r_
�.j
N
d
2016 Amended 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 Amount M
'Title Budget Eipenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent
CITY COUNCIL
OFFICE OF MAYOR
HUMAN RESOURCES
MUNICIPAL COURT
CITY CLERK
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
CITY ATTORNEY
NON -DEPARTMENTAL
POLICE SERVICES
COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECONOMIC DEV
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PARKS & RECREATION
PUBLIC WORKS
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
$ 295,500 $
107,828 $
98,095 $
197,405
33%
on
260,250
123,379
127,277
132,973
49%
o
462,044
177,419
175,479
286,565
38%
a
909,270
400,792
435,326
473,944
48%
585,310
285,114
281,026
304,284
48%
c
1,839,930
818,119
717,364
1,122,566
39%
M
741,560
329,666
347,078
394,482
47%
•5
14,956,000
8,369,406
7,828,525
7,127,475
52%
c
c
ii
9,628,550
4,329,129
4,596,670
5,031,880
48%
493,580
188,019
232,729
260,851
47%
cm
cJ
2,656,652
1,059,255
1,183,128
1,473,524
45%
N
3,774,541
1,528,030
1,609,632
2,164,909
43%
d
2,842,120
1,041,687
1,339,534
1,502,586
47%
z
1,483,800
694,660
697,556
786,244
47%
cc
Q
$ 40,929,107 $
19,452,503 $
19,669,418 $
21,259,689
48%
in
Packet Pg. 235
5.3.b
Special Revenue Funds Revenue Comparison
2nd QUARTER 2016 REVENUE SUMMARY - SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Fund
YTD 2015
YTD 2016
$ Change
L
% Chang
NO.
Fund Name
Receipts
Receipts
'16 -'15
'16 -'15 C:'y
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
$119276
$689661
$579385
508.9' o
111
STREET FUND
$9079722
$989,658
$819936
N
9.0' o
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
$805,704
$397799444
$299739740
369.14
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
$379748
$29,531
($89217)
-21.8'
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
$74
$74
($0)
-0.1'
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
$309743
$349503
$39760
12.2' OQ
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
$89598
$89119
($479)
-5.64
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
$189
$71
($118)
-62.3'
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
$109402
$11,649
$19247
12.04
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
$5319403
$6259801
$949398
17.8'
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1
$5309078
$6269412
$969334
18.2' .
127
GIFTS CATALOG FUND
$349538
$289386
($6,152)
-17.8'
129
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
$159
$158
($1)
-0.4'
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
$969753
$949494
($29259)
r
-2.34 N
132
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND
$1319214
$1,0799454
$9489240
L
722.7'
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
$631
$628
($3)
-0.5' N
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD
$129091
$129086
($5)
0.04 r-
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
$3,611
$59772
$29161
59.9' E
139
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
$3399276
$3509193
$10,917
3.24
a
Totals
$394929210
$79745,096
$492529886
121.84
11
Packet Pg. 236
'Ile. 1009V
5.3.b
Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues
$500,000
$4501000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
2nd Quarter 2016 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Revenues
$390,998 $391,699 $408,618
$387
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
The City receipts 82% of its Motor Vehicle Fuel Excise Tax (gas tax) into
the Street Fund. This fund is used for costs related to street maintenance.
The remaining 18% of the gas tax is used for street construction and
improvement projects.
19
Packet Pg. 237
5.3.b
$0
Hotel/Motel Lodging
Revenues
Quarter 2016 Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax Revenues
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 j
21
L
L
M
ry�
V
r
0
N
d
C
3
ti
Cn
The City receipts 75% of its Lodging Tax into the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund, which uses the funds for
the purpose of promoting tourism and visitors to Edmonds. The remaining 25% of the Lodging Tax a
is receipted into the Fund 123 Tourism Promotion/Arts Fund, which uses the funds to promote
tourism through support arts and culture events. 1.11
Packet Pg. 238
rnc. 1$y"
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
Real.,Estate Excise
3.b
Tax Revent j
2nd Quarter 2016 Real Estate Excise Tax Revenue Comparison
$600,000 r
$636,825
$400,000
$200,000
$888,732 $820,540
$1,049,07
$1,234,188
$0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
14
Packet Pg. 239
Special Revenue Funds Expenditure
0
5.3.b
Comparison
2nd QUARTER 2016 EXPENSE SUMMARY - SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Fund
NO.
Fund Name
YTD 2015
Expenses
YTD 2016
Expenses
$ Change
'16 -'15
% Change
16 -'15
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
$189256
$27,780
$9,524
52.20%
111
STREET FUND
$8269372
$947,462
$1219090
14.70%
112
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE
$9009067
$2,394,938
$1,4949871
166.10%
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
$279036
$25,274
($1,762)
-6.50%
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
$0
$0
$0
0.00%
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
$259294
$269145
$851
3.40%
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
$0
$0
$0
0.00%
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
$1,341
$835
($506)
-37.70%
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
$5,501
$99543
$49042
73.50%
PP
125
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2
$113,403
$2589888
$1459485
128.30%
126
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1
$28,845
$498,915
$4709070
1629.60%
127
GIFTS CATALOG FUND
$12,631
$33,140
$209509
162.40%
129
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND
$0
$0
$0
0.00%
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT
$74,803
$779712
$29909
3.90%
132
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND
$223,266
$5849177
$3609911
161.70%
136
PARKS TRUST FUND
$0
$0
$0
0.00%
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
$10
$29636
$29626
26260.00%
139
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
$3679211
1
$3509193
($179018)
-4.60%
Totals
$2,624,036
$592379638
$296139602
99.60%
L
c�
to
0
N
r
0
CL
U-
r
O
N
L
V
N
E
0
M
a
Packet Pg. 240
Utility FwOP
Revenue Comparison
2nd QUARTER 2016 REVENUE SUMMARY - UTILITY FUNDS
Fund
NO.
Fund Name
YTD 2015
Receipts
YTD 2016
Receipts
$ Change
'16 -'15
% Change
'16 -'15
411
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION
$12,880
$83,251
$70,371
546.4%
421
WATER UTILITY FUND
$39260,676
$490419301
$780,625
23.9%
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
$29043,886
$199469923
($969963)
-4.7%
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
$493689878
$5,3219028
$9529150
21.8%
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
$3379210
$6679446
$3309236
97.9%
Totals
$1090239530
$1290599950
$2,036,420
20.3%
Packet Pg. 241
Utility FuifjP
Expense Comparison
r17C. 1009v
2nd QUARTER 2016 EXPENSE SUMMARY - UTILITY FUNDS
Fund
NO.
Fund Name
YTD 2015
Expenses
YTD 2016
Expenses
$ Change
'16 -'15
% Chang(
16 -'15
421
WATER UTILITY FUND
$393229813
$396569305
$3339492
10.00/
422
STORM UTILITY FUND
$193159116
$195579839
$2429723
18.50/
423
SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND
$491879306
$492029354
$159048
0.40/
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
$3589261
$6679442
$3099181
1 86.30/
Totals
$991839496
$1090839940
$9009444
1 9.80/
17
Packet Pg. 242
I .i Z
�f `.r'� ���'C'r .-"•�..._ t -j J .!"'
-YAW
...-� \ � � -* � �F �.... s�4 � _j r, _ .. t � „fs 5�ai.4. { �yt,.k•"��t��2
ti" A! ,,..--� .'"'. t't4a � _ �.'-.s^• 1 _ c �r< Garr �`�''•�.�
4Ei',��{,.tiv',2tix.,rY;y*i;r.
lk
xC9
...1' _e, :t. ,� ��.' �'..: �' 1r - ..i4�`��., r -. ���x�=k'-x__ .. .,,,. � _�'.� ,- �►.urL R�a.�.�.-'S '>n � � �.__ _ _ i4' ` •c ��,
5.3.b
http://visitedmonds.com/
Quiz
Answer 2
How many restaurants are
operating in Edmonds today?
a) 97
b) 102
c) 122
Packet Pg. 244
CD
� O .
m
co C/1 cn
w
Attachment: 2nd Qtr 2016 Financial Management Report (1497 : June 2016 Quarterly
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Joint Discussion with the Edmonds Planning Board (60 min.)
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Rob Chave
Background/History
The Planning Board typically meets at least once per year with the City Council.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
This is an opportunity to meet and discuss upcoming issues and priorities with the Planning Board.
Exhibit 1 contains a discussion memo from Shane Hope to the Planning Board, along with other related
materials.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1: Discussion memo from Shane Hope to the Planning Board
Exhibit 2: Discussion memo from Phil Lovell
Exhibit 3: Housing Element from the Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit 4: AHA Housing Profile for Edmonds 2014
Exhibit 5: Planning Board minutes
Exhibit 6: PB Retreat Summary Minutes 3/9/16
Exhibit 7: Council Retreat Minutes of 3/4 - 3/5/16
Packet Pg. 246
7.1.a
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/24/2016
Preparing for Joint City Council / Planning Board Meeting
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Rob Chave
Background/History
The Planning Board and City Council periodically have joint meetings to discuss issues and for the
Council to provide direction. The next such joint meeting is scheduled to be on September 6. It will
focus primarily on housing, but other topics may be discussed too. In preparation for the joint meeting,
the Planning Board had some discussion at its August 10 meeting. (See Attachment 1 for the menu of
issues, developed by the Board's Chair and Vice Chair, which was discussed on August 10.) Preparation
for the joint meeting will continue at the Planning Board's August 24 meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss preparing for the September 6 joint meeting, especially:
1. Developing a Housing Strategy, with data and a policy basis, for consider housing ideas
2. Getting City Council direction on any other topics
Narrative
A. Housing
Housing, especially affordable housing for different income levels, is a big issue in our region. Edmonds
cannot solve it alone. But we do have a role.
For example, Edmonds partners with organizations, such as Alliance for Housing Affordability, to help
identify and meet affordable housing needs. The Alliance prepared a Housing Profile for Edmonds,
which contains extensive housing data. It is on the City website at:
<http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Development Services/Planning
Division/Data/AHA Profile Edmonds 2015.pdf>.
Edmonds is also a member of larger organizations, such as Puget Sound Regional Council and Snohomish
County Tomorrow, which provide coordination and guidance on housing issues. Edmonds' share of
additional housing is projected at about 2200 more units by 2035. While existing zoning may be able to
accommodate the additional units, other issues -such as affordability, location, sustainability, and
diversity -are important too.
The City's Comprehensive Plan has a Housing Element (attached as Attachment 2), which includes:
Background information
Goals and Policies
Implementation Action and Performance Measure
Packet Pg. 247
7.1.a
The Housing goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are broad -based, for example, calling for our
regulatory systems to avoid adding to the cost of housing and for decent housing in a suitable
environment to be provided for "special needs" populations.
The implementation and monitoring part of the Housing Element gets more specific:
Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable
housing and meeting diverse housing needs.
Performance Measure: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal
of reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional units annually.
Proposed key questions for discussion with the City Council on September 6 include:
1. Should the Planning Board be involved with the Housing Strategy that is promised in the
Comprehensive Plan? If so, should the Strategy start getting developed sooner than 2019?
2. Should the Housing Strategy provide a framework that includes both data and
recommendations for addressing housing issues?
3. While the Housing Strategy is to focus on "increasing the supply of affordable housing and
meeting diverse housing needs", should it prioritize particular issues or population groups (for
example, seniors)?
B. Other Topics
The City Council may have input for the Planning Board on other topics, too. Here is a partial list, as
developed by the Board:
1. Highway 99 area redevelopment
2. 5 Corners redevelopment
3. Edmonds Marsh progress
4. Railroad crossing alternative
5. Civic Field master planning
Whether these topics -or other topics -get discussed at the joint meeting on September 6 will depend on
the available time, as well as the choices of Council and Board members.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Planning Board menu of joint topics
Exhibit 2: Housing Element of Comprehensive Plan
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Discussion from Phil Lovell
Attachment 2: Housing Element from the Comprehensive Plan
Packet Pg. 248
Aug 1, 2016
Rev. 8/6/16
PBL
RE: Joint PB/Council work meeting scheduled for Sept. 6, 2016
Strategy menu for increasing housing units within Edmonds. Ideas/concepts/procedures generated and/or discussed
over several recent years and during PB 2016 Retreat [3/9/16] in the interests of increasing available housing units
within the City of Edmonds. The below list is 'neutral' with respect to tax revenues generated by housing ownership
within the City, nor does the order of listing represent any priorities associated.
A. Refer to Seattle Sunday Times of 7/31/16 for Op. Ed.: "Growth Management Act can't keep up with housing
demand". [Some smaller cities have already been advised by PSRC to 'up' their projections based on current
trending regarding population growth in the area.] Current PSRC target for Edmonds is +/- 5200 housing units
B. Housing 'expansion' in Edmonds
• Adjust residential zoning criteria to allow smaller platting towards accommodating increased housing
units and PRD's. [current Code Revisions in progress]
• Look at RM vs. RS zoning changes ['nibble at the edges' of current RS/RM areas within the city with goal
of rezoning given areas to RM from RS].
• Rezone to lower requirement for mixed use retail/commercial to 15t floor of buildings. —particularly 5-
Corners and Hwy. 99. [done already on Hwy 99]
• Study codes with goal of allowing/encouraging more ADU's on given RS properties.
• 'Apodments' on given parcels (ala ADU's). 'Additions' to RS homes to enable double units —either
horizontally or vertically [study height criteria for each situation and proceed accordingly/appropriately-
be aware of Esperance conditions]
• Incentivize developers/property owners, builders to incorporate affordable housing within their
new/redevelopments.
• If appropriate/available, create public -private partnership(s) with developer(s) in order to
generate/create/develop more RM housing within the city
• Residential Target Area [Tax exemption -deferral program] —currently being looked at for Westgate area
• Encourage mix of condos vs. rental units which address market demands.
• Impacts/trending of Air B&B towards more 'room rentals' or'in-law apt living'?
• Look at'subdividing'/retrofitting existing RS homes to RM configurations —conditions allowing/enabling
same within RS zones.
• Esperance?
C. Other potential areas for discussion/exploration/future undertakings [2016 vs. 2017]:
• Hwy 99 redevelopment
Low entry housing (homeless challenge)
Trailer parks
Low rent motels
• 5 Corners redevelopment
• Edmonds Marsh progress
• RR crossing alternatives
• Civic Field
Packet Pg. 249
7.1.c
Housing Element
Introduction. This section looks at the character and diversity of housing in the City of Edmonds.
Part of this process includes looking at housing types and affordability. The goal of this section is to
provide the necessary information to anticipate housing needs.
General Background
According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), there were an estimated 18,378 housing
units within the City of Edmonds in 2010. This represents an increase of 5 percent in the city's
housing stock since 2000, when there were 17,508 housing units. In comparison, over the period
1990-2000, the city's housing stock grew 35.2 percent, or approximately 3.5 percent per year. This
increase is largely explained by annexations that occured during the 1990s in the south and southwest
portions of the city. Figure 21 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for the City of
Edmonds.
Of the total stock of housing in 2010, 11,685 (63.5 percent) were single family units, 6,664 (36.3
percent) were multi -family units, and 29 (0.2 percent) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared with
Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds has a lower percentage of single-family homes (63.6 percent
vs. 66.9 percent, respectively) and mobile homes (0.2 percent vs. 6.8 percent, respectively) and a
higher proportion of multi -family homes (36.3 percent vs. 26.4 percent, respectively).
Much of the existing housing stock was built between 1950 and 1969 (see Figure 22) as Edmonds
annexed lands east on Main Street, through Five Corners, and over to the western side of Lake
Ballinger. As part of the greater Seattle metropolitan area, Edmonds experienced growth earlier than
most in Snohomish County.
Housing
Units
Increase
Percent
Increase
Avg. Annual
Increase
Census: 1980
10,702
1990
12,245
1,543
21.0%
1.9%
2000
17,508
5,263
35.2%
3.1%
2010
18,378
870
5.0%
0.5%
Growth Target: 2035
21,168
2,790
15.2%
0.6%
Figure 21: City of Edmonds Housing Growth
Source: US Census; Snohomish County Tomorrow
Housing 79
Packet Pg. 250
7.1.c
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1949 or earlier 1950 to 1969 1970 to 1989 1990 to 1999 2000 or later
❑ Edmonds ❑ King County ■ Snohomish County
Figure 22: Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County
Source: American Community Survey
Household Characteristics
At the time of the 2010 Census, Edmonds Housing stock was approximately 94.6 percent occupied.
The average household size has declined since 1990, when it was 2.37 persons, to 2.26 persons in
2010. The average household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.2 persons
by 2035 (Snohomish County Tomorrow, 2013).
Understanding how the City's population is changing offers insight for planning housing types that
will be in demand. Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish
County, taken as a whole. In 2000, the median age of Edmonds residents was 42.0 years, compared
with 34.7 years countywide. By 2010, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 46.3 years,
compared to 37.1 years countywide. During the same period, the population of Edmonds residents, 14
years of age and younger, shrank in each age category (Figure 24). A natural increase in population is
likely to decline as the female population ages beyond childbearing age. These trends are consistent
with national trends.
Housing 80
Packet Pg. 251
7.1.c
90 +
85 - 89
80 - 84
75 - 79
70 - 74
65 - 69
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40 - 44
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15-19
10 - 14
5-9
0-4
2,C
a ie
00
s
I
ema le
I
1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
■ 2010 2000
Figure 23: Edmonds Population Pyramid
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
4 F 0%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-emu o
Age Groups 0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14
❑ Edmonds ■ Snohomish ■ Washington State
Figure 24: Population Growth of Children 14 years of Age and Younger, 2000 to 2010
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
Housing
81
Packet Pg. 252
7.1.c
Household Income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more income than residents of
Snohomish County as a whole. The Edmonds' median household income was $67,228 according to
the 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-year data, similar to the County median of $67,192.
This is in contrast to per capita income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to
Snohomish County ($40,892 vs. $31,049, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds' relatively
smaller household sizes.
Housing Ownership: According to the 2000 Census, 68.1 percent of the housing units within the city
were owner -occupied and 31.9 percent were renter -occupied. This represented an increase in owner -
occupancy from the 65.3 percent reported in the 1990 Census. The trend continued into 2010, with
69 percent of the City's housing being occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing
occupancy is similar for Snohomish County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were
slightly lower in 2010, at 67 percent.
Housing Values: According to the 2011-2013 ACS 3-year data, the median value of owner -occupied
units had increased to $371,700 in Edmonds and $276,800 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds
approximately 34.3 percent higher than the countywide median. Within Edmonds, median housing
values vary considerably between neighborhoods; the highest valued homes are found along the
waterfront, while the lowest values are found within interior neighborhoods and east of Highway 99.
Housing Affordability: For the purposes of calculating the housing affordability in Edmonds, this
document uses the median income for the Seattle -Bellevue HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA)
instead of the Snohomish County Area Median Income (AMI). The Seattle -Bellevue AMI is used as
Edmonds is considered a suburb of Seattle, not Everett. The 2013 HMFA AMI for Seattle -Bellevue is
$86,700, which is the same as Snohomish County's AMI at $86,700. The 2013 median household
income for Edmonds is $67,192.
AMI is an important calculation used by many agencies to measure housing affordability. Standard
income levels are as follows:
• Extremely low income: <30 percent AMI
• Very Low Income: between 30 and 50 percent AMI
• Low Income: between 50 and 80 percent AMI
• Moderate income: between 80 and 95 percent AMI
• Middle Income: between 95 and 120 percent AMI
Using rental data obtained from Dupre and Scott by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA),
Figure 25 provides a clearer view of what a household looking for a home in Edmonds would expect
to pay for rent and utilities. The data includes both single family and multifamily rental units.
Housing sizes and the corresponding minimum income required for a full time worker to afford the
home are listed. For example, a family of four searching for a 3 bedroom unit could expect to pay on
average $1,679 per month for rent and utilities. In order to afford housing, the family would need an
annual income of $67,160.
Housing 82
Packet Pg. 253
7.1.c
Average Rent (w/
Utilities)
Minimum Income Required
Lowest Rent
Highest
Rent
Per Hour
Annual
Studio
$
833
$
16.02
$
33,320
$
546
$
1,187
1 Bedroom
$
887
$
17.06
$
35,480
$
662
$
1,521
2 Bedroom
$
1,097
$
21.10
$
43,880
$
777
$
1,916
3 Bedroom
$
1,679
$
32.29
$
67,160
$
1,094
$
4,215
4 Bedroom
$
2,545
$
48.94
$
101,800
$
1,947
$
41347
5 Bedroom
$
2,844
$
54.69
$
113,760
$
2,276
$
3,771
Figure 25: Average Rent and Affordability (housing plus utilities) by Size
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Figure 26 shows the distribution of rent affordability at different income levels using the Seattle -
Bellevue AMI. "Yes" means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for size, "Limited" means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end
affordable units, and "No" means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As seen below, a four
bedroom home is not affordable for persons with a household income at 80 percent or below of the
HFMA AMI.
Income Level
Number of Bedrooms
Studio
1
2
3
4+
Extrememly Low
No
No
No
No
No
Very Low
Limited
limited
Limited
Limited
No
Low
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
No
Moderate
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
Middle
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Figure 26: Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
Between 2008 and 2012, 85 percent of home sales in Edmonds were three or four bedrooms in size
according to County records. According to tax assessor data, the 2012 median sales price for a single
family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20 percent down payment and using average
rates of interest, taxes, utilities, and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board,
the monthly payment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to not be cost burdened, they
would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is above the City's median income.
Figure 27 shows that the percentage of home sales affordable to each income level has changed
between 2008 and 2012.
Housing 83
Packet Pg. 254
7.1.c
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle
Low
Figure 27: Home Sales Affordability, 2008-2012
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Housing Needs: Edmonds is targeted to grow from a 2013 population of 40,381 to 45,550 by 2035.
This translates to an estimated need of 2,790 housing units in the city to accommodate the targeted
growth. The Buildable Lands Report for Snohomish County indicates that the majority of this
increase will be in redevelopment occurring on multifamily properties, including mixed use projects.
Because the City of Edmonds does not construct housing itself, the housing targets are helpful in
assessing needs and providing a sense of the policy challenges that exist. Future housing needs will be
met by a combination of the housing market, housing authorities, and governmental housing agencies.
However, the City of Edmonds can do things to assist in accommodating projected housing needs,
such as adjusting zoning and land use regulations. The City may also be able to assist in supporting
the quality of housing through progressive building codes and programs for healthy living.
Forecasting future housing needs for specific populations and income ranges is difficult. One method
to arrive at an initial estimate of housing needs is to take the Edmonds' housing target (2,790) and
apply the countywide breakdown for each income group. Data shown in Error! Reference source
not found.29 is based on household income from the 5-year American Community Survey in 2007-
2011. The City of Edmonds will take into account local population and housing characteristics when
determining housing targets.
Housing
Total Projected
Under 30%AMI
30-50%AMI
50-80%AMI
Jurisdiction
Housing Unit
Housing Need
Housing Need
Housing Need
Growth Need
(11% of Total)
(11% of Total)
(17% of Total)
Edmonds
2,790
307
307
474
Figure 28: Projected Housing Need
Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow, "Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County," 2014
84
Packet Pg. 255
7.1.c
As previously mentioned, the median age of Edmonds residents is the highest in Snohomish County
at 48.1 years compared to 37.5 years countywide (2011-2013 American Community Survey) and
second highest of Washington state cities with a population of 25,000 or more. In 2011, the first
persons of the Baby Boom generation turned 65 years of age and represent, what demographers
project, the fastest growing age group over the next 20 years. An older population will require
specific needs if they are to "age in place." In Edmonds, the effects may be particularly strong.
Developing healthy, walkable communities with nearby retail and transit options will help an aging
population retain their independence.
Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD -assisted developments providing a total
of 87 units for low-income, senior residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than doubled
by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted care
living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs.
Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units
within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002.
The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and
vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for
187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66
residents in 1995.
Growth Management goals and policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage
availability of resources to ensure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary
open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation of light (including direct sunlight),
privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise
and visual pollution; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use policies encourage
strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and coordinated
approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more active and
vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial activity and
visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of significant public
and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and preservation of
historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and reservation of sufficient
sites suited for a variety of commercial uses.
Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's
households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock;
maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing
for special needs populations, such as senior, disabled and low-income households. These goals are
supported by policies which include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and
affirmative measures to support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion
of the types of housing available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi -family
housing; flexible development standards; and review and revision of development regulations,
including assessing the feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting;
implementing administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication hearings.
Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is
available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy
plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or
information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong
monitoring program with mid -course correction features (see the discussion below).
Housing 85
Packet Pg. 256
7.1.c
Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing.
In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City
has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy
direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These
reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include:
Land Use Strategies
• Upzoning. The City upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+ square
foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling units per
acre. The City has also approved changes to its zoning codes to encourage more
multifamily development in mixed use areas, especially in corridors served by transit
(e.g. Highway 99 along the Swift high capacity transit corridor).
• Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income
senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type,
making the density obtainable at lower site development cost.
• Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In
Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its
use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same
approval process as that of a subdivision.
• Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the
applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of
environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also be used to encourage infill
development and flexible housing types.
• Infill Development. The City's principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill
development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall
plan direction has been termed "designed infill" and can be seen in the City's emphasis
and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible
standards, and improving its design guidelines. The City is also continuing the process of
developing new codes supporting mixed use development in key locations supported by
transit and linked to nearby neighborhoods.
Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established a historic preservation program
intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, especially
in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the plans and regulations for the
Downtown/Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that can help businesses
move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or mixed use spaces. An
example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places to get an
exception for parking for projects that retain the historic character of the site.
Housing 86
Packet Pg. 257
7.1.c
Administrative Procedures
Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or
staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting
timelines and providing an increased degree of certainty to the process. The City
continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and
handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established
standards for permit review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For
example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in 2011 was 36 days,
less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State's Regulatory Reform
act.
• Use -by -Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are
divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of
conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards,
allowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing Examiner hearing
process.
Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City's traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed
at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to
occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing "carrying costs" of
financing.
Development Standards
• Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City's zones have no front or
side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single
family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard
setbacks.
• Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City's PRD
process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision.
• Street design and construction. Edmonds has adopted a `complete streets' policy. Street
standards are reviewed and updated periodically, taking advantage of new technologies
whenever possible. A comprehensive review and update of the city's codes is underway
• Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use
of these in both mixed use and residential developments.
• Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking
standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multifamily development and in some
mixed use areas, thereby reducing housing costs and encouraging more housing in areas
that are walkable or served by transit.
• Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and
utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Housing 87
Packet Pg. 258
7.1.c
Low -Cost Housing Types
• Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations,
providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any
single family lot.
Mixed -use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use
development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap,
and this — combined other regulatory changes — has resulted in residential floor space
drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area.
Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use
development regulations have been updated and intensified in the Hospital/Highway 99
Activity Center as well as along Highway 99.
• Mobile/manufactured housing. The City's regulation of manufactured homes has been
revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones.
Housing Production & Preservation Programs
• Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes,
intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a
historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore
commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community.
• Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion
of housing units to Housing Authority ownership. Edmonds is also a participant in the
Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) in Snohomish County, which is a consortium
of cities pooling resources to collectively address housing needs in the county.
For -profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are
aimed at the for -profit building market. The City's budget restrictions limit its ability to
directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen
instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing
flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed
on to prospective owners or renters. However, as noted above, the City is also a
participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County, which is
intended to collaborate on housing strategies countywide.
Housing Financing Strategies
• State / Federal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to
promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County
Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important
inter jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs.
Housing 88
Packet Pg. 259
7.1.c
Jurisdictions face challenges in meeting affordability goals or significantly reducing the current
affordable housing deficit. Edmonds is a mature community with limited opportunities for new
development and has limited powers and resources to produce subsidized housing on its own.
However, it is hoped that Edmonds' participation in joint planning and coordination initiatives, such
as the Alliance for Affordable Housing will point the way to new housing initiatives in the future.
Housing Goals & Policies
Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, "D").
Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal
and a sequential number (for example, "D.2")
Housing Goal A. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in
the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances
A.1 Consider opportunities for short-term housing that can meet local needs in
case of an emergency or disaster.
Housing Goal B. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions
pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing.
Housing Goal C. Provide for special needs populations — such as low income, disabled, or senior
residents — to have a decent home in a healthy and suitable living environment, including through
the following policies:
C.1. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal
government to assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for special needs
populations, such as low income, disabled, or senior residents.
C.2. Work with the Alliance for Housing Affordability and other agencies to:
C.2.a. Provide current information on housing resources;
C.2.b. Determine the programs which will work best for the community.
C.2.c. Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special needs
populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all forms of
individual and group housing within the community.
Housing Goal D. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and
rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community through the following policies:
D.1. Support programs that offer assistance to households in need, such as units with
low income or senior householders.
Housing 89
Packet Pg. 260
7.1.c
D.2. Enforce building codes, as appropriate, to conserve healthy neighborhoods and
encourage rehabilitation of housing that shows signs of deterioration.
D.3. Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households
that are displaced as a result of any community action.
DA. Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation
of older buildings.
Housing Goal E. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if need be) for special
needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, low income, and senior residents through the
following policies:
E.1. Aggressively support efforts to fund the construction of housing for seniors, low
income, and other special needs populations, while recognizing that units should
blend into the neighborhood and/or be designed to be an asset to the area and create
pride for inhabitants.
E.2. Aim for city zoning regulations to expand, not limit, housing opportunities for all
special needs populations.
Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the
community.
F.I. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use
patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
F. La. Provide for mixed use, multifamily and single family housing that is targeted
and located according to the land use patterns established in the land use
element.
F.2. Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the character of
the surrounding neighborhood.
F.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by
considering innovative single family development patterns such as Planned
Residential Developments (PRDs).
F.2.b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods to address the
needs of extended families and encourages housing affordability.
F.2.c. Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as non-
conforming lots, when development in these situations will be consistent
with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to provide
affordable single family housing.
Housing Goal G. Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land
use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
G.I. Promote development within Activity Centers that supports the centers' economic
activities and transit service.
Housing 90
Packet Pg. 261
7.1.c
G.l.a. Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers.
G. Lb. Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic
activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities.
G.l.c. Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity Centers to
provide incentives for lower -cost housing when justified by available transit
service.
Housing Goal H. Review and monitor permitting processes and regulatory systems to assure
that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of
housing.
H.1. Provide the maximum amount of efficiency and predictability in government
permitting processes.
H.1.a. Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve predictability and efficiency,
including such ideas as:
... establishing time limits for permitting processes;
... developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes;
... implementing administrative permitting procedures;
...using pre -application processes to highlight problems early.
H.2. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes.
H.2.a. Monitoring programs should review the types and effectiveness of
government regulations and incentives, in order to assess whether they are
meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted to meet new
challenges.
Housing Goal I. Increase affordable housing opportunities with programs that seek to achieve
other community goals as well.
I.1. Research housing affordability and program options that address Comprehensive
Plan goals and objectives.
I.2. Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on
linkages between housing and other complementary Comprehensive Plan goals.
I.2.a. New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated with
programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic
preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers and
transit -friendly development, and that encourage economic development.
Housing Goal J. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an
important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with
its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the
policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing.
J.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while
ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
Housing 91
Packet Pg. 262
7.1.c
J.1.a. Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood
conservation should be researched and established to continue the character
of Edmonds' residential and mixed use neighborhoods.
J. Lb. Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure compatibility of
housing with adjacent land uses.
Implementation Actions and Performance Measures
Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address
high priority sustainability goals. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan contains a small number
performance measures (no more than one per element) that can be used to monitor and annually
report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan.
Performance measures, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, are specific, meaningful, and easily
obtainable items that relate to sustainability and can be reported on an annual basis. They are intended
to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy direction of each major Comprehensive
Plan element. {Note: The measure identified below is specifically called out as matching the above
criteria and being important to housing goals and will be reported annually, along with performance
measures for other Comprehensive Plan elements. It is not intended to be the only measure that the
City may use for housing purposes.
Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of
affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs.
Performance Measure: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a
goal of reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional dwelling
units annually from 2011 to 2035.
Housing 92
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: Exhibit 4: AHA Housing Profile for Edmonds 2014 (1487 : Joint Discussion with the Edmonds Planning Board)
7.1.d
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to all those who helped prepare this profile.
City Staff
Rob Chave, Planning Director
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Alliance for Housing Affordability
Kristina Gallant, Analyst
Will Hallett, Intern
Packet Pg. 265
7.1.d
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary........................................................ iv
Maps, Figures, & Tables ................................................. vi
Introduction............................................................................. 1
Population and Community............................................3
HouseholdProfiles.................................................................................................................. 8
Existing Housing Stock.................................................10
Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional.............................................12
MarketRate Rental Units....................................................................................................13
SharedRental Housing........................................................................................................19
Current Challenges and Opportunities ..........................20
Maps........................................................................................ 22
Appendices.................................................................... 40
Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds .......... A 1
Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds ........................................... B 1
Appendix C. Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012......................................................CI
Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary.................................................................... D 1
AppendixE. Methodology..................................................................................................... 1
Packet Pg. 266
7.1.d
Executive Summary
The City of Edmonds, currently home to 39,950 people, is projected to accommodate nearly
6,000 new residents by 2035, a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has
seen over the past 20 years. Housing in Edmonds is currently mostly comprised of single family
homes, though most growth will have to be accommodated in multifamily development.The
City's median income is relatively high compared to other cities in the region, and home values
are generally higher as well. Homes are diverse in age, with a significant concentration of units
built between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County overall.
Currently 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, meaning they
spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs. Cost burden
is most challenging for those with low incomes, who may have to sacrifice other essential
needs in order to afford housing. Other summary statistics are provided below.
A Summary of Edmonds by the Numbers
Population 39,9501
Total Households 17,3962
Family Households with Minor Children 4,054
Cost -Burdened Households 6,672
Households Earning Less than 50%AMI1 5,322
2012 Median Household Income $73,072
Minimum Income to Afford 2012 Median Home $75,796
Total Homes 17,396
Single Family Homes, Detached or Attached 12,047
Multifamily Homes 6,471
Manufactured Homes 126
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 195
Other Dedicated Subsidized Housing 125
Transitional Units 16
Workforce Housing 201
Total Renter -Occupied Housing Units 5,000
Total Owner -Occupied Housing Units 12,396
Total Vacant Housing Units 1,248
According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds'rental housing market is generally
affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI. Households earning between 50 and
80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable as well. A
limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI (Area
Median Income for the Seattle -Bellevue metropolitan area). Market rents are not affordable to
iv
Packet Pg. 267
7.1.d
extremely low income households, though this is expected in almost all communities, due to the costs
of construction and maintenance in today's market. Shared rental housing is a market rate option for
these households, though it will not work for all households, particularly families.
A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low income households is very
common, as, in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today's housing market,
some kind of financial assistance is typically required. Assistance can be ongoing, to make up the
difference between 30% of tenants' income and market rents (such units are considered'subsidized'
in this report), or be provided as capital funding, reducing overall project costs and making it possible
to keep rent levels down (con sidered'workforce' units). Edmonds currently has 320 units of subsidized
housing and 201 units of workforce housing. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing.
However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase this supply.
The City is pursuing a number of strategies to address this challenge.
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The estimated
monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service, insurance, taxes, and utilities.
For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual income
of at least $75,796, which is just above the City's median income.' Affordability for 2013 cannot be
calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising as the housing
market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating. Edmonds has the
third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County behind Woodway and Mukilteo
respectively, at $351,100, which represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.2
Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Snohomish County Assessor, "Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2014Taxes , 2014.
V
Packet Pg. 268
7.1.d
Maps, Figures, & Tables
Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013.................................................................................3
Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County....................4
Table I.I. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County .......
5
Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County....................5
Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing &Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds &
SnohomishCounty....................................................................................................................................................................6
Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds..........................................................................7
Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County......................10
Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds............................................................10
Figure 2.3. Net Newly -Permitted Units, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County.....................................11
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council................................................................................................
11
Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City of Edmonds........................................................................11
..............................................................................................................................................................................................11
Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income Level Served, City of Edmonds...........................................................12
Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds........................................12
Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds.................................................................13
Table 2.4. Renter -Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities) ..........
14
Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)....................14
Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds.......................................................15
Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, Single- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds...........................................15
Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012...............................................................16
Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds.................................................................17
Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds...............................................................17
Table 2.9.2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds
........................................................................................................................................................................................................18
Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds...................................................................19
Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing units, City of Edmonds ..................................
20
Map 1.1.Total Population (Block Groups).............................................................................................................
23
Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups)......................................................................................................
24
Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups)..............................................................................................
25
Map 1.4. Renter -Occupied Housing Units.............................................................................................................
26
Map 1.5.Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups)...................................................................................................27
Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages................................................................................................................
28
Map 1.7. Very Low -Income Households.................................................................................................................
29
Map1.8. Cost -Burdened Renters..............................................................................................................................
30
Map1.9. Cost -Burdened Owners..............................................................................................................................
31
Map 1.10. Housing &Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income...............................................................32
Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access....................................................................................................
33
Map2.2. Age of Housing Stock.................................................................................................................................
34
Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock.....................................................................................................................
35
Map2.4. Housing Density...........................................................................................................................................
36
Map 2.7. New Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011...........................................................................
37
Map 2.8. New Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011...............................................................................
38
Map 2.9. Average Renter Household Size..............................................................................................................
39
Table E.I. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle -Bellevue HMFA 2012...I
Vi
Packet Pg. 269
7.1.d
Introduction
In Snohomish County's Countywide Planning Policies, Housing Goal 5 states that"the cities
and the county shall collaborate to report housing characteristics and needs in a timely
manner for jurisdictions to conduct major comprehensive plan updates and to assess
progress toward achieving CPPs on housing" Building on the County's efforts in preparing
the countywide HO-5 Report, this profile furthers this goal by providing detailed, local
information on existing conditions for housing in Edmonds so the City can plan more
effectively to promote affordable housing and collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions. This
profile will present the full spectrum of its subsidized and market rate housing stock.
Permanent settlement in present day Edmonds dates back to 1890, making Edmonds the
oldest incorporated city in Snohomish County. Edmonds was born out of homesteading and
logging operations in the late 1800's and, through the years, built economic foundations on
a host of platforms including milling, shingle splitting, and manufacturing, among others.
Today, Edmonds has almost 40,000 residents and over 17,000 households. Edmonds' growth
has been modest in recent years (less than 1 % annually), and this trend is expected to
continue.The majority of the City's neighborhoods are composed of single family homes,
though future growth is likely to follow recent trends emphasizing more multifamily
development. Existing multifamily residential developments are focused on major arterials,
downtown, and near Highway 99.The Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 corridor areas
are considered the primary commercial centers of Edmonds, with one smaller but significant
center at Westgate (located at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue West).
Smaller neighborhood commercial centers are located in several neighborhoods, such as Five
Corners, Firdale, and Perrinville.
Several affordable housing -specific terms and concepts will be used throughout the profile.
Income levels will be defined by their share of"Area Median Income, or AMI. For this report,
median income for the Seattle -Bellevue HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) will be used
for AMI because it is the measure HUD uses to administer its programs. Housing agencies
typically define income levels as they relate to AMI. These are:
• Extremely Low Income - up to 30% AMI
• Very Low Income - up to 50% AMI
• Low Income - up to 80% AMI
• Moderate Income - up to 95% AMI
• Middle Income - up to 120% AMI
When a household spends more than 30% of their income on housing, it is considered to be
"cost burdened", and, if lower income, will likely have to sacrifice spending on other essentials
like food and medical care. "Costvburden" is used as a benchmark to evaluate housing
affordability.
Packet Pg. 270
N
Attachment: Exhibit 4: AHA Housing Profile for Edmonds 2014 (1487 : Joint Discussion with the Edmonds Planning Board)
V
Q
7.1.d
Population and Community
In 2013, Edmonds was home to an estimated 39,950 people, only slightly higher than its 2000
population of 39,544.3The City's population has been stable since the mid-1990s, when there
were several large jumps due to annexations in south and southwest Edmonds. The City is
projected to grow at a modest rate moving forward, accommodating an estimated 5,841
additional residents by 2035.This increase would require 2,790 additional housing units,
which is near its estimated capacity of 2,646 additional units. Of the current capacity, the vast
majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion through redevelopment 4
Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
O � N M t Ln �O � W a% O N M � Ln kO r` w m O � N c2
ON d\ M ON M ON ON M ON ON O O O O O O O O O O
ON d> O O O O O O O CD CD CDO O O O
c-- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013
The 20121 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3
people, compared to 2.6 for the County. Of these, 10,997, or 63%, are family' households.
Overall, 23.3% of households have children. In Snohomish County overall, 68% of households
are families, and 32.5% of households have children.The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8,
compared to 3.12 for the county. The average Edmonds renter household is smaller than the
average owner household - 2 people per renter household versus 2.4 per owner household.'
The share of foreign born residents in Edmonds is similar to the County overall - 13.9%
3 Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013
4 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee,"Housing Characteristics and Needs in
Snohomish County", 2014
5 2012 data is used as, at time of writing, it is the most recent ACS 5-year data available
6 Based on the US Census Bureau's definition of family, which "consists of two or more people (one of whom
is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit"
7 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
3
Packet Pg. 272
7.1.d
versus 14.1 % for the County. The population of foreign born residents who are not U.S. citizens
is lower in Edmonds than the County - 44% of foreign born residents versus 51 % of foreign born
County residents. Residents born in Asia constitute 47% of the foreign born Edmonds population
while European residents make up 20% of foreign born residents. 16% of Edmonds residents speak a
language other than English in the home and 6% of residents speak English "less than very well", both
proportions are lower than the County's numbers.'
The share of the population living in rented homes is similar to the share Countywide. 31 % of
Edmonds residents and 33% of Snohomish County residents currently live in rented homes. As shown
in Figure 1.2, the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010,
increasing slightly from 68% to about 69%.1 36% of Edmonds' population lives in multifamily homes,
compared to 31 % across the County (renters and owners combined). The City's vacancy rate is 6.7%
compared to 6.4% for the County as a whole.10
Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Edmonds Snohomish County
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2000 2010
2000 2010
■ Owners Renters Owners Renters
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000,• US Census Bureau, 2010
The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle -Bellevue, which is referenced in this report as a standard for AMI, is
$88,000, higher than the County's overall 2012 median income of $68,338. Edmonds 2012 median
income is higher than the County AMI at $73,072. However, some economic segments of the City's
population could be at risk of being housing burdened. Compared to HUD HMFA AMI and based on
2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates:
• 2,638 households, or 15%of Edmonds'total, are considered to be extremely low income, earning
less than 30% of area median income (AMI),
• 2,684, or 15%, are considered very low income, earning between 30 and 50% of AMI,
• 2,604, or 15%, are considered low income, earning between 50 and 80% of AMI, and
• 1,773, or 10%, are considered moderate income, earning between 80 and 90% of AMI
8 Ibid.
9 US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010
10 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
4
Packet Pg. 273
7.1.d
A comparison of income distribution in the City and County is presented graphically in Figure 1.3. As
shown, Edmonds has a higher percentage of very low income households and households earning
higher than middle income than the County as a whole, but lower percentages of every other
income group. The combined percentage of extremely low, very low, and low income households is
approximately 46%, compared to about 21 % moderate and middle income and 33% above middle
income. Note that these percentages are not adjusted for household size due to data constraints. Here,
a household consisting of two adults with an income level equal to another household consisting
of two adults and three children would
both be placed at the same percentage of
AMI, even though the larger family would
likely be more constrained financially.
HUD's AMI calculations include ranges for
households sized 1-8 people, and, in this
report, sensitivity for household size is used
wherever possible, as detailed in Appendix
E.
Maps 1.8 and 1.9 show the percentages
of renter and owner households in each
census tract that are cost burdened,
meaning that they spend more than 30%
of their income on housing. Overall, 38% of
households in Edmonds are cost burdened,
renters and owners combined.
Table 1.1 shows the percentage of each
income group that is cost burdened in
Edmonds and Snohomish County by
Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of
Edmonds and Snohomish County
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle Above
Low Middle
■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012
housing tenure. According to this data,
the City's renters are all less likely to be cost burdened compared to renters Countywide, except
low income renters. While owners earning less than 50% AMI in the City are more likely to be cost
burdened, this relationship reverses above that income level. For both renters and owners, there is
a significant drop in cost burden above 50% AMI. This table does not address differences in degrees
of cost burden — for example, a household that spends 31 % of its income on housing would be
considered cost burdened along with a household that spends 80% of its income on housing."
Table 1.1. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County
Renters
owners
All
Income
Snohomish
Snohomish
Snohomish
Level
Edmonds
Edmonds
Edmonds
County
County
County
Extremely
79%
80%
82%
73%
82%
78%
Low
Very Low
81%
85%
86%
80%
63%
64%
Low
29%
28%
46%
72%
47%
65%
Moderate
13%
18%
43%
48%
38%
40%
11 Ibid
�i
Packet Pg. 274
7.1.d
Middle 7% 1 5% 1 26% 1 32% 22% 25%
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012
HUD's Location Affordability Index uses a number of variables to estimate the affordability of a
location including both housing and transportation costs. According to the index, a "regional typical
household '2"could expect to spend 49% of its income on housing and transportation if renting or
owning in Edmonds. 45% is proposed as a targeted maximum percentage of income to be spent on
housing and transportation combined to be affordable according to HUD standards. A low income
household,13 however, could expend to spend 71 % of their income on housing and transportation.
A regional moderate family may have to devote up to 57% of their income on housing and
transportation.14
Housing and transportation affordability estimates for a number of different household types are
presented in Figure 1.4. In general, estimates for Edmonds residents are very close to those for the
Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing & Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds &
Snohomish County
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
All Households Renters Owners
Source: US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, • Location Affordability Portal, 2013
Median
Income HH
Moderate
Income HH
■ Very Low
Income HH
■ Median
Income
Individual
County overall. In either case, it is estimated that owners will generally spend more on housing and
transportation than renters, regardless of jurisdiction or household type.
The 2012 unemployment rate was 4.2% in Edmonds, compared to 5.9% for the County. For employed
Edmonds residents, the mean commute time is 27 minutes, compared with 29 for the County. 71 %
of City residents drive to work alone compared with 74% of all County workers. The most common
occupations for Edmonds residents are in management, business, science and arts occupations, at
12 Defined as a household with average household size, median income, and average number of commuters in
Seattle -Bellevue HUD HMFA
13 Defined as a household with 3 individuals, one commuter, and income equal to 50% AMI
14 US Department of Housing & Urban Development; Location Affordability Portal, 2013
M
Packet Pg. 275
7.1.d
49% of the employed population, followed by sales and office occupations, with 25% of the employed
population. The two most dominant industry groups employing City residents are educational
services, healthcare and assistance industries with 23% of workers, and the professional, scientific,
management, administrative and waste industries, with 13% of workers.15
According to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Edmonds is home to 12,449 jobs. The majority of
these jobs are in the services sector, with 8,540jobs. 4,918 of those jobs are in healthcare and social
assistance and 1,369 jobs are in the accommodation and food service fields.16
Edmonds has 0.7 jobs for every occupied home compared to 1.2 employed people per home. Even
assuming all of these people only have one job and only local people are employed locally, this means
that a significant portion of the population must commute to work. In actuality, 80% of employed
Edmonds residents work outside the City. More than half of these commuters work outside Snohomish
County, most likely in King County. Across Snohomish County, there are only .9jobs per occupied
home compared to 1.3 employed people per home."
The shape of the City's population pyramid, shown in Figure 1.5, offers additional insight into its
housing needs and how they may be changing. As shown, between 2000 and 2010 the population of
older residents grew and the population of younger residents shrank. As the baby boomer generation
continues to retire, every community will see an increase in the share of elderly people, but in
Edmonds the effects may be particularly strong - the City's 2012 median age was 46, compared to
Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds
90 +
85-89
80-84
75-79
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5-9
0-4
LI'IJ
2,000 1,500 1,000 500
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010
■ 2010
2000
15 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
16 Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment Estimates, 2012
17 US Census; American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment
Estimates, 2012
N
Packet Pg. 276
7.1.d
37 across the County. Out of all age groups, the greatest increases from 2000-2010 was in residents
between the ages of 55 and 65, while the greatest decrease was in residents between 35 and 40. The
number of young children is also decreasing.
Household Profiles
These are the stories of several actual Edmonds households who receive some kind of housing
assistance from the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. All names and many nonessential details
have been changed to respect their privacy.
Beth
Beth lives in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds with her two children. She works full time at a
grocery store and makes a total annual income of $21,079, or about $1,757 per month. This translates
to an hourly wage just under $11 per hour.
With Assistance
With her voucher administered through the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO), Beth
pays $462 in rent and $163 in utilities for her two bedroom apartment. After rent and utilities are paid,
Beth has $1,132 left over per month to support her family.
Without Assistance
Without a voucher, Beth's monthly rent obligation would be $1,088, including utilities, more than
60% of her total monthly income. The average rent for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,066, so
finding a significantly more affordable unit could be challenging. Beth could look for a shared living
arrangement as a cheaper alternative, however, it would be difficult to find a living situation that
would accommodate her and her children. Having two children, downsizing from a two bedroom unit
is not a feasible option either. In order to afford her current apartment, Beth would need to find a job
that pays more than double her current income —about $43,520 a year, or $21 per hour.
Jamie
Jamie is an elderly disabled woman living in a one bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Jamie's sole
source of income is Social Security payments that provide $8,672 a year, or about $723 a month.
With Assistance
Jamie receives a voucher through HASCO for $550 toward her monthly rent. The market rent for
her one bedroom apartment is $705 per month plus $62 in utilities. After her voucher is applied to
her rent, Jamie pays $155 plus $62 in utilities per month. This leaves Jamie with $506 per month to
support herself.
Without Assistance
The market rent for Jamie's home is $767 including utilities, more than her monthly income. If
Jamie had to look for an apartment she could afford without a voucher, the most affordable studio
apartment she could expect to find would rent for around $550, including utilities, which would still
be 76% of her income. Without the means to acquire a job or family or friends who could help, Jamie
would have few options without a housing voucher.
Dave
8
Packet Pg. 277
7.1.d
Dave and his wife live in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Dave works in a local warehouse
and his wife receives income from Social Security payments due to a disability. Together, they receive
employment and Social Security income totaling $18,044 per year, or $1,504 per month.
With Assistance
With his voucher, Dave and his wife pay $581 in rent plus $193 in utilities per month. This leaves Dave
and his wife with $730 left over for the month.
Without Assistance
If Dave did not receive a Section 8 Voucher, he would have to pay $1,068 per month for rent and
utiIities.This would leave the couple with only $436 per month to spend on food and other essentials.
At this rate, Dave would be spending about 70% of his family's income on rent alone. The average rent
for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,097, so finding a market rate apartment of the same size but
at a cheaper price than his current apartment could be challenging. At the time of this report, two
bedroom apartments for rent in the area range from $777 to $1,916 per month. If Dave were able to
rent the cheapest two bedroom apartment in Edmonds, without a voucher he and his wife would still
be paying 52% of their monthly income on rent, making them significantly cost burdened. As the most
they could afford with their current income would be $450, there are not even any studio units that
would be affordable.
n
Packet Pg. 278
7.1.d
Existing Housing Stock
The City of Edmonds is located in southwest Snohomish County, bounded to the west by the
Puget Sound, east by the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood, south by King County, and
north by Mukilteo. Edmonds' primary commercial centers are the Highway 99 corridor and the
Downtown/Waterfront area.The southern portion of the Waterfront area houses a concentration
of businesses as well as the Port of Edmonds, where the Washington State Ferry provides service
to the Kitsap Peninsula. The City's neighborhoods are mostly composed of single family homes,
which make up 66% of the total housing stock. Multifamily residential developments are
located just south and north of the downtown area. As shown in Figure 2.1, the City has a high
concentration of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County, and
fewer constructed after 1990.11 The number of units projected to accommodate population
growth over the next 20 years isjust overthe City's current capacity.The majority of this potential
will be in multifamily properties, and nearly half of all potential is in redevelopable parcels.19
Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of renters and owners among different types of housing,
with owners in the inner ring and renters in the outer ring. As shown, 85% of homeowners
live in single family homes. While 24% of renters also live in single family homes, the
next largest group of renters, 22% of the total, live in properties with 20 to 49 units 20
Figures 2.3 and 2.4 provide information on newly permitted units in the City in recent years.
Figure 2.3 shows the total number of net newly permitted residential units per year from 2001
to 2012 for both the City and County, with the City on the left axis and the County on the right.
Figure 2.4 shows the share of the City's new units composed of single- and multifamily units.
Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock, Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by
City of Edmonds & Snohomish County Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds
50%
40%
30%
20%
100/
0% • ,
Before 1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 or
Later
■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County
■ 1 ■ 2
■3or4 ■5to9
■ 10 to 19 ■ 20 to 49
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey Source: US Census Bureau, American
2008-2012 Community Survey 2008-2012
18 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
19 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee,"Housing Characteristics and Needs in
Snohomish County", 2014
20 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
10
Packet Pg. 279
7.1.d
Figure 2.3. Net Newly -Permitted Units, City of Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City
Edmonds & Snohomish County of Edmonds
250
200
150
100
50
Edmonds Snohomish County
7,000 250
6,000 200
5,000
150
4,000
3,000 100
2,000 50
1,000 0
0
-50
Single Family Multi -family
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2012
As shown, newly permitted units peaked in 2004
in the City, just before the County did, and crashed during the recession. While newly -permitted units
began to recover across the County in 2010, as of 2012 Edmonds had not yet begun to recover at
the same pace. As shown in Figure 2.4, newly permitted units in Edmonds since 2001 have primarily
consisted of multifamily units.21
For the purposes of this report, Edmonds'housing stock is divided into subsidized rental units, workforce
rental units, market rate rental units (both single- and multi -family), and home ownership.
Subsidized rental units are targeted toward households with the lowest incomes, typically less than
30% AMI. Populations targeted for subsidized rental units often include the disabled, elderly, and other
populations living on fixed incomes with special needs. A subsidized property is one that receives
funding, perhaps rental assistance or an operating subsidy, to insure that its residents pay rents that
are affordable for their income level. Some properties only apply their subsidy to select units. It is also
common for subsidized units to be restricted to certain groups like families, the elderly, or homeless.
A subsidized property may have also benefited from workforce -type housing subsidies, and it is also
common for just a portion of a property's units to receive an ongoing subsidy.
Workforce rental units are targeted to working households that still cannot afford market rents.
Workforce rental units and subsidized rental units are both considered "assisted', but differ in several
areas.The key difference between subsidized and workforce units is that workforce units have a subsidy
"built in"through the use of special financing methods and othertools, allowing (and typically requiring)
the landlord to charge less for rent. An example of this would be when a private investor benefits from
low income housing tax credits when building a new residential development. In exchange for the tax
credit savings, the property owner would have to restrict a certain number of units to a certain income
level for a certain period of time. When the owner is a for -profit entity, this often means that rents on
restricted units will become market rate units when the period of restriction has ended. While nonprofit
owners may also utilize workforce tools for capital funding, they are more likely to preserve restrictions
21 Puget Sound Regional Council, Residential Building Permit Summaries 2012
11
Packet Pg. 280
7.1.d
on units longer than required. The distribution of Edmonds'assisted units by income level served, both
subsidized and workforce, is presented in Table 2.1.
Market rate rental units are the stock of all housing units
available for rent in the open market. These are units that are
privately owned and whose rents are determined by market
supply and demand pressures. A market rate rental unit can
also be a subsidized rental unit, as is the case with the Federal
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Section 8
vouchers can be used to rent any unit, as detailed below.
Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income
Level Served, City of Edmonds
Extremely Low
233
Very Low
79
Low
194
Moderate
2
Total
508
Homeownership units include all single family homes for sale Sources: HASCO, 2014, EHA, 2014
- detached and attached single family homes, condominiums,
and manufactured homes.
Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional
Edmonds has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources including
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), HUD Supportive Housing Program, Section 8 Project -
Based Vouchers, and the Sound Families Initiative. As of July 2014, there were 195 HCVs in use in
Edmonds administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and the Everett
Housing Authority (EHA).22 All assisted units and buildings are listed in Appendix B.Table 2.2 shows the
distribution of permanent subsidized units by funding source.
Families making up to 50% of AMI are eligible for Section Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units
8 housing vouchers; however, 75% of these vouchers are by Funding Source, City of Edmonds
limited to those making no more than 30% of AMI. Public
Housing Authorities (PHAs) receive federal funds from
the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to administer the HCV program. HUD sets Fair Market
Rents (FMRs) annually and PHAs determine their individual
payment standards (a percentage of FMR) by unit bedroom
size. The tenant identifies a unit, then the PHA inspects the
unit to make sure it meets federal Housing Quality Standards
Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher
195
Section 8 Project -Based
98
Voucher
HUD Supportive Housing
10
Program
Sound Families Initiative
12
and determines if the asked rent is reasonable. If the unit Source: HASCO, 2014
is approved, the tenant pays rent equal to 30-40% of their
income, and the PHA pays the difference directly to the
landlord. While the voucher amount is set up so that a family does not need to spend more than 30%
of their income on housing, including an allowance for utilities, a family may choose to spend up to
40% of their income on housing. This happens most often when the family chooses a home that is
larger than the size approved for their voucher. The two PHAs that administer the HCV program in
Snohomish County are HASCO and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA). Vouchers issued by both
PHAs can be used in Edmonds.
Because the number of vouchers a PHA can distribute is limited by the amount of federal funding
they receive, the wait for a new applicant to receive an HCV can be extremely long and is usually
22
Housing Authority of Snohomish County, 2014; Everett Housing Authority, 2014
12
Packet Pg. 281
7.1.d
dependent on existing voucher holders leaving the program. Until recently, the wait to receive an HCV
from HASCO had been about 6 years. Federal funding for the HCV program was frozen during the 2013
budget sequester, at which time HASCO had to close its waitlist.
Workforce Housing
Edmonds is home to 201 units of workforce housing distributed across 3 properties, all listed in
Appendix B. Assisted workforce housing units are defined by the fact that they received some form of
one-time subsidy in exchange for rent restrictions. Workforce funding types do not involve ongoing
rental assistance, and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. These subsidies can
include:
Capital Financing - Low -interest -rate mortgages,
mortgage insurance, tax-exempt bond financing,
loan guarantees, and pre -development cost
reduction financing.
Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding
Source, City of Edmonds
Tax Credit
92
Bond
200
Housing Trust Fund
1
Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) —Tax credits tRate and Co
provided to developers that can be sold for the Source: HASCO, 2014
purposes of up front debt reduction.
Federal, State, and County Grant Programs — Grants provided to local governments from the
federal government for construction or renovation of below -market -rate units. Community
Development Block Grants and HOME grants are two popular examples
Workforce housing in Edmonds has been funded through a variety of sources, including low-income
housing tax credits (LIHTC), tax-exempt bonds, and State and County Housing Trust Fund dollars. While
the name may suggest otherwise, it is common for developers to use workforce funding sources to
funding housing for populations like seniors. Table 2.3 shows the number of workforce units funded
per major source in Edmonds, with full information provided in Appendix B. Table 2.3 only includes
units that do not have additional rental assistance (Considered'subsidized' in this report), which often
also use workforce subsidies as part of their financing. As most workforce properties use more than
one funding source, there are units counted multiple times in the different funding categories listed
in Table 2.3. Financing for any affordable housing project is often very complicated and can involve an
array of public, nonprofit, and private entities.
While not currently the case in Edmonds'workforce properties, many workforce housing properties
only dedicate a portion of their units for lower income tenants. This is typical of properties developed
or rehabilitated by private entities using tax credits or tax-exempt bond financing in exchange for
income restrictions on the properties. In those cases, affordable housing requirements are limited to a
certain period of time, typically 20 to 30 years, after which time the property owners can increase rents
to market rates. Some properties feature both subsidized and workforce units.
Market Rate Rental Units
There are an estimated 5,000 rental units in Edmonds of every type, from single family homes to large
13
Packet Pg. 282
7.1.d
apartment buildings. According to American Community Survey estimates, 3,739 out of 5,000 renter -
occupied housing units are in multifamily properties. This compares to 1,904 multifamily units out of
12,396 owner -occupied homeS.23
Table 2.4 summarizes ACS data on the number of units available at certain rent levels by bedroom
size in Edmonds. No evidence was found of any market rents below $500, despite ACS data to the
contrary.This could be because the ACS Sample may include subsidized units and less formal rent
arrangements, such as renting rooms or mother-in-law suites in single family homes or renting from
family members that could be more affordable. ACS rent data also does not include utility allowances.
Table 2.4. Renter -Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities)
No Bedrooms
i Bedroom
Units
2 Bedroom
Units
3+ Bedroom
Less than $zoo
0
18
0
$200 to $299
0
52
10
$300 to $499
0
104
0
27
$500 to $749
101
237
110
$750 to $999
103
786
652
$1,000 or more
o
186
1486
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
To provide a better idea of what a household looking for a home today could expect to pay in rent and
utilities in Edmonds, rent data was obtained from Dupre and Scott. This data, which includes both
multifamily and single family rental units, is summarized in Table 2.5 and presented in full in Appendix
A. Table 2.5 lists the minimum full time wage to afford each average rent in hourly and annual terms as
well as the number of hours one would have to work per week earning Washington State's minimum
wage to afford the unit.
Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)
Average Rent (w/
Utilities)
Minimum Income Required
Lowest
Rent
Highest
Rent
Per Hour
Annual
Studio
$
833
$
16.02
$33,320
$
546
$
1,187
1 Bedroom
$
887
$
17.06
$35,480
$
662
$
1,521
2 Bedroom
$
1,097
$
21.10
$43,880
$
777
$
1,916
3 Bedroom
$
1,679
$
32.29
$67,160
$
1,094
$
4,215
4 Bedroom
$
2,545
$
48.94
$101,800
$
1,947
$
4,347
5 Bedroom
$
2,844
$
54.69
$113,760
$
2,276
$
3,771
Source: Dupre & Scott 2013, National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Table 2.6, on the following page, shows the affordability distribution of average rents in Edmonds by
size. In this table, "Yes" means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for household size, "Limited" means that the average rent is not affordable but there are
lower end affordable units, and "No" means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As shown, the
City's rental housing is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI — the moderate
23 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
14
Packet Pg. 283
7.1.d
Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds
Number of Bedrooms
Income Level
Studio
i
3
4+
Extremely Low
No
No
No
No
No
Very Low
Limited
Limited
Limited
Limited
No
Low
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
No
Moderate
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
Middle
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013
income level and above. Average units two bedrooms or less in size are also affordable to low income
renters, with a limited supply affordable to very low income renters.There is also a limited supply of
three bedroom units affordable to this group.
The difference in minimum required income by size between single- and multifamily units is shown in
Table 2.7. As shown, multifamily units tend to be more affordable than single family homes. As
multifamily units also tend to be smaller than single family homes, there is a lack of larger affordable
units.
Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, SIngle- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds
Multifamily Ave.
Rent
0 Minimum
Income
Single Family
Ave. Rent
Minimum
Income
Studio
$833
Low
n/a
n/a
1 Bedroom
$887
Low
$1,521
Moderate
2 Bedroom
$1,070
Low
$1,548
Moderate
3 Bedroom
$1,336
Low
$1,992
Moderate
4 Bedroom
n/a
n/a
$2,545
Middle
5 Bedroom
n/a
n/a
$2,844
Middle
Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013
Even after accounting for the fact that utility allowances are not included in ACS data, the range of
rents available in the conventional market is generally higher than that reported in the ACS. Again, this
could be explained by the ACS sample including subsidized units and informal rent arrangements.
While ACS data is important as it shows what Edmonds renters are actually paying, it does not give an
accurate indication of what a typical renter searching for a market rate unit can expect to pay.
Home Ownership
Between 2008 and 2012,61 % of single family homes sold in Edmonds were three bedrooms in size.
24% of homes sold were four bedrooms in size, meaning that three and four bedroom homes together
represented 85% of sales. 9% were two bedrooms and 6% were five bedrooms or larger. This includes
freestanding single family homes, common wall single family homes (townhouses), manufactured
homes, and condominiums24.
24 Snohomish County property use codes 111, 112, 116, 117, 118, 119, 141, 142, 143
R
Packet Pg. 284
7.1.d
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20%
down payment and using average rates of interest, property taxes, utilities and insurance as
determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the monthly payment for this home would be
$1,895. For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual
income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City's median income.21
Appendix C provides statistics on sales of single family homes from 2008-2012, as well the minimum
income necessary to afford the median sale home by year. During that time period, median home
sales prices declined by 17%. In 2012 dollars this translates to a difference of more than $33,000 in
minimum income required to afford the median home 26The housing market across the region has
since begun to recover from the recession. While home sale affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated
at this time, Edmonds currently has the County's third highest average assessed residential value. The
2014 average assessed value of $351,100 represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.27
Table 2.8 lists the percentage of 2012 sales of homes of different sizes that are affordable to each
income level by home size."Not affordable" means that the minimum income required is higher than
the middle income upper cutoff. All of the percentages specify the portion of homes of that size that
someone in the particular income group could afford, adjusting for household size as detailed in
Appendix E. As shown, there is decreasing affordability as size increases, though moderate and middle
income households could theoretically afford the monthly cost of most of the homes sold in 2012.
Moderate income is recommended as the minimum ideal household income for home ownership to
be a reasonable option.
Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012
Low
ery ow
ow
oderate
iddle
Not
Affordable
Total
Sales
71-2
12%
17%
57%
73%
85%
15%
60
0%
7%
46%
74%
87%
13%
405
3
0%
4%
21%
54%
78%
22%
165
5+
0%
3%
23%
49%
69%
31%
35
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
The"affordability gap" describes situations where there are more households at a given income level
than there are housing options affordable to those households. Figure 2.5 displays the percentage
of households in Edmonds at each income level compared with the percentage of all home sales in
2012 that each income level could afford. As Figure 2.5 compares the overall income distribution of
the City with the affordability distribution of one year, this is a rough approximation, and other factors
should be considered in examining home ownership affordability. As shown, there were plenty of
sales theoretically affordable for households earning at least 80% AMI in 2012, which is the minimum
income required for home ownership. (Moderate income and above) This analysis does not consider
25 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
26 Ibid
27 Snohomish County Assessor, "Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2014Taxes , 2014
16
Packet Pg. 285
7.1.d
Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely Very Low Law Moderate Middle
Low
us
❑ Households
■ Sales
whether or not these income
groups are able to access
financing, including a down
payment, or other barriers
to home ownership. There is
also sufficient supply for the
City's low income households,
though home ownership
may only be a good choice
for certain households in this
group. Further, this does not
include competition from
households above middle
income, which comprise 33% of
the City's total.
Figure 2.6 shows how the
percentage of sales affordable
to each income level has changed from 2008 to 2012. As shown, affordability
improved dramatically
for moderate income households during this period, and all other income groups as well. As the
housing market continues
Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
to improve following the
recession, affordability for this
100%
group may retreat again. While
909%
there are affordable options
809%
for low income households,
70g°
and ownership may be a good
60%
■ 2008
option for certain low income
50%
02009
households (those earning
403%
■ 2010
between 50 and 80% AMI), these
30O°
❑ 2611
households are considered the
2�,
exception rather than the rule.
10go
❑ 2612
0% 4- Many of the most affordable
Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle
Low sales were likely only so
affordable because they were
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 foreclosed homes sold by banks.
517 Paradise Lane, for example,
is a three bedroom home that Wells Fargo Bank sold for $240,000 in 2012. At that price, a household
with a minimum income of $46,216 could afford the monthly debt service of around $1,155.This same
home sold for $378,000 in 2004, which is well out of reach to the household with the minimum income
necessary to afford it in 2012. While low priced foreclosed homes can put home ownership within
reach for more households, this is accomplished at the expense of previously displaced homeowners.
Additionally, these sales contribute to ongoing uncertainty about market home values. Low income
home buyers could also become cost burdened by higher property taxes on these"bargain" homes.
Figure 2.7, on the following page, shows how sales have been divided between single family homes,
condominiums, and manufactured homes between 2008 and 2012. In Edmonds, condominiums
17
Packet Pg. 286
7.1.d
Figure 2.7. Home Sales by Type, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
1000/0 MENEEMENEV-
9WO
96❑/❑
94%
9 2❑/❑
90❑/❑
88%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
■ Condo
■ Mfg. Home
■ Single Family
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
represent a larger portion of the market than in other cities in Snohomish County.
Table 2.9 shows how many sales of each of these three types were affordable to each income
level in 2012. Manufactured homes were most likely to be affordable to lower income
households, with a dramatically lower median sale price, though there was still a significant
number of single family and condominium sales affordable to very low and low income
households. The median home sale prices for single family homes and condominiums were also
very close to each other in 2012. Table 2.10 shows how many homes were sold in 2012 by type
and number of bedrooms.
Table 2.9. 2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds
Single
Manufactured
Condo
Family
Home
Extremely
Low
1
6
0
Very Low
37
0
2
Low
208
0
9
Moderate
171
0
17
Middle
104
0
3
Not
108
0
0
Affordable
Median Sale
$ 339,975 $8,150 $341,705
Price
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
18
Packet Pg. 287
7.1.d
Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds
Bedrooms
Single
Family
Mobile
Home
Condo
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Shared Rental Housing
A popular market rate affordable housing option is to split housing costs with other roommates. These
arrangements include renting a room, suite, or accessory dwelling unit (ADU) from a homeowner
living on site. For 8 shared rooms advertised on Craigslist in the City, the monthly cost ranged from
$500 to $650, including utilities. While they were more rooms advertised, they did not include an
address or cross streets, so it could not be verified that they were actually located within the City. Their
rents were generally not outside this range, however.
Rents in this range are easily within reach for very low income single individuals, and possibly even
extremely low income couples. Individuals seeking roommates are able to discriminate in who they
choose to share their housing, however, and often stipulate a preferred gender or bar couples from
sharing a room. It may be difficult for families with children and households with disabilities or other
special needs to find a suitable shared housing situation. In these cases, a household's ability to find
shared housing will likely depend on whether or not they have local connections to help them find
understanding roommates.
19
Packet Pg. 288
7.1.d
Current Challenges and Opportunities
The City of Edmonds is faced with the challenge of accommodating greater growth
over the next 20 years than it has seen in the past, requiring an additional 2,790
additional housing units, when the current capacity is only 2,646 additional units. Of
the current capacity, the vast majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion
to come through redevelopment.28 In general, the City will see a shift toward more
multifamily housing if growth continues as predicted.
Edmonds enjoys a higher median income compared to other areas in the County. All
the same, assuming that the City's income mix stays constant, it is estimated that 1,257
units, or 55% of the total projected increase, will serve households at or below 50%
AMI. The share of projected units by income level is shown in Figure 3.1.
According to 2013 Dupre and
Scott data, Edmonds'rental
housing market is generally
affordable to households
earning at least 80% AMI.
Households earning between
50 and 80% AMI will find the
majority of homes smaller than
five bedrooms affordable as
well.There is a limited supply
of small units affordable to
those earning between 30 and
50% AMI. Market rents are not
affordable to extremely low
income households, though
this is expected in almost all
communities, due to the costs of
construction and maintenance in
today's market. Cost burden data
Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing
units, City of Edmonds
1,535 or
2,000 55%
1,500
1,000 41 %
� rr
419 or 15%
Projected New Homes
Moderate +
Above AM I
■ Low AMI
■ Very Low AMI
■ Extremely Low
AMI
55%, or 1,257 u nits,
at or below 80%AMI
supports these conclusions, with
a significant reduction in cost burden for both renters and owners at income levels
above 50% AMI. Overall, 38% of Edmonds households are cost burdened. Renters
and owners earning less than middle income are all less likely to be cost burdened in
Edmonds when compared to the County, with the exception of homeowners below
50% AMI who are more likely to be cost burdened.29
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The
estimated monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service,
insurance, taxes, and utilities. For a family to afford this payment without being cost
burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just
28 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee,"Housing Characteristics and
Needs in Snohomish County, 2014
29 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
Packet Pg. 289
7.1.d
above the City's median income.30 Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average
assessed values suggest that home prices are rising and affordability is retreating. At $351,100,
Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County after
Woodway and Mukilteo, and it represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.31
The age of units in Edmonds is a possible contributing factor to affordability, as the City features a
significant stock of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969. As properties are redeveloped to
build the denser housing the City needs to accommodate growth, it is likely that a portion of these
naturally affordable older units will be replaced with higher priced new units. While preservation of
older housing is an effective strategy for affordability, preservation must be balanced with the need to
accommodate growth. In addition, the higher priced new units of today will be the quality affordable
older units of tomorrow.
Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among all Snohomish County cities.
According to the ACS estimates, almost 25% of households in Edmonds have individuals 65 years or
older.32 In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require different types of housing
and services if they desire to age in place. Additionally, as the "baby boomer" generation continues to
move into retirement, there will be an increase in the number of people with disabilities as well.
To respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has
undertaken a series of measures and strategies to promote affordable housing including:
• Land Use Strategies: upzoning from single family to multifamily zoning, offering density bonuses
for low income and senior housing provision, clustering subdivisions, planned residential
developments to protect the environment, encouraging infill developments, and promoting
conversion/adaptive reuse programs.
• Administrative Procedures: streamlined approval processes, updated use -by -right policies, and
updated impact mitigation payment deferral.
• Development Standards: installed front and side yard setback requirements, zero lot line
development, improved street design and construction, off-street parking requirements, and
innovative sanitary, sewer, water and storm water systems.
• Low -Cost Housing Types: encourage the use of accessory dwellings, cottage houses, mixed -use
developments and mobile/manufactured housing.
In addition to promoting, adjusting, and providing incentives for these policies where appropriate,
the City should continue to monitor their use and evaluate policies to make sure there are not
unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Additionally, the City could consider adopting a
multifamily tax abatement program for certain locations and, when opportunities arise, the City could
partner with nonprofit organizations developing housing for households earning below 30% AMI, the
income group generally not served by the traditional housing market.
30 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
31 Snohomish County Assessor, "Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2014Taxes , 2014
32 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
21
Packet Pg. 290
N
N
Attachment: Exhibit 4: AHA Housing Profile for Edmonds 2014 (1487 : Joint Discussion with the Edmonds Planning Board)
C!�
V
Q
7.1.d
Map 1.1. Total Population (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
/ % t'I
/• I
/ I
I
z l
v
/ < 196thStS 196th St SW
�' rn IN 196th St SW
i
i
Main Street j
>
41
Qmi
r--------------i
I � I
cj I
Population (Block Groups)
-
r MUGA
r, f� City Limits 10s,
I
0 - 464
465 - 958 j
959 - 1284 I \
1285-1553
-- -- — -- a— -- �— --- --
1554 - 2040
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 292
7.1.d
Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
'uget Drive
Street
Family Size
0.00
0.01 - 2.15
2.16 - 2.95
2.96 - 3.34
-
3.35 - 4.12
'
City Limits
MUGA
.I
I
I S§th St SW
i
i
i
i
i
i
Z�
I
I
r--j
Lry
I
I-_
i
196th St SW
NEENEEP-
all
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 293
7.1.d
Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
.r-
I
I
I I
I
% '----------7
% I
1 I
j 96thstSbv 19$th St SW 196th St SW
/ I
� I
i Main Street i
L------------
I i
I
I--- I
Household Size
0.00 - 1.70
I d I
1.71 - 2.30
I I-_
2.31 - 2.77 I
i
2.78 - 3.42
_ I
r City Limits
-_f --------L ---
--------------
r MUGA-------25
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 294
7.1.d
Map 1.4. Renter -Occupied Housing Units
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
C n
Renter -Occupied Homes
(By Block Group)
0% - 7%
8% - 17%
,5■M
bV JL MR SW 196th St SW
I
I
I
18% - 27%
28%-41% i
I '
_ 42% - 72%
r- City Limits
r= MUGA
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 295
7.1.d
Map 1.5. Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
I I
I I
I I
j I
� I
I"-
7
i"
i I
i " 1
Z •1
Ig i
sthStsW 19�th St SW 196th St SW
i
i
i" Main Street I
L"
CA "
�1
I
Vacant Homes j
(By Block Group)
Fq,
0% - 2% F i
3% - 7% I s
1
8% - 10% I j
11%- 19%
20% - 25% j 1
r ' City Limits I \
r MUGA - -------------------
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 296
7.1.d
Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2073
i F-
-----------7
i"
i"
i"
i�
i � Q Ig
� sth St 19¢th St SW 196th St SW
� I
� I
i" Main Street I
L�
i a' 3�i•
------------ �i
----1
I
I
Mortgaged Homes
0%
s
1%-64% I !
65% - 73% 7 i
74% -79%
1
80% - 95%
r_T City Limits __—_—_
r_t MUGA -------------------
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 297
7.1.d
Map 1.7. Very Low -Income Households
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Households
<50%AMI
0% - 12%
13% - 20%
21%-33%
34% - 46%
47% - 68%
City Limits
MUGA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rn
I j
I j
I j
/ I
�•, , F-
J.
i/
i
i
i
i•
i
i
�l
I
196th St SW 196th St SW
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 298
7.1.d
Map 1.8. Cost -Burdened Renters
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2073
P
Cost -Burdened
Renters
0%
1%- 35%
36% - 52%
53% - 78%
_
79% - 100%
r_r
City Limits
r
MUGA
Street
796t6
St S(V
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 299
7.1.d
Map 1.9. Cost -Burdened Owners
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
j
I I
I I
j I
•-------- /
�•
I
/•
I
i z
1
/ >
i
i
796th S
tsIV
I
IP-6th St SW 196th St SW
i
i
;•
Main Street
I
L•
�
¢
S
I
I
Cost -Burdened
Owners
- .I
I-Q
- -
'co
-
0% - 10%
11%-28%
29% - 36%
I
I
37% - 48%
j
1
49% - 65%
I
-
-r_1- City Limits
�.�-----------
-
=r MUGA
-
v ------
31
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 300
7.1.d
Map 1.10. Housing & Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income
Sources: US Housing & Urban Developme nt, 2013; Snohomish County Information Services, 2012
r
I
I
1
j I
-----
%
I
!�
I
i z
l
% >
<
Puget Drive
196th St SW 196th St SW
1
�
I
�
I
i'
Main
Street
j
L,
41
Percent of Income
51% - 58%
59% - 65%
I
� ---
j
66% - 73%
I
��
dM
74%-81%
�
1
82% - 100%
I
1 —
�_�
City Limits
—�
—
—,_!-
MUGA
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 301
7.1.d
Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access
Sources: HASCO 2014; Snohomish County Community Transit, 2014; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
•
• �GG r—i
•
•
so
• • •
the t � i • • 1 66th St SW •
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 302
7.1.d
Map 2.2. Age of Housing Stock
Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2012, Snohomish County Information Services, 2012
la
i
314
0 0.375 0.75
1.5 Miles
n
196th St SW
Year Built
1872 -
1904
1905 -
1918
1919-1934
1935 -
1948
1949 -
1957
1958 -
1964
1965 -
1972
1973 -
1983
1984 -
1997
1998 -
2013
s;r City Limits
MUGA
Packet Pg. 303
7.1.d
Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock
Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014, Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
V
196th St SW
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 304
7.1.d
Map 2.4. Housing Density
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2073
I j
I I
I I
� I
�r I-------
-� i
i�
% I
� I
196 h s I
r
tsIV 196th St SW 196th St SW
� I
I
i Main Street I
/ L_ r;
o�
Housing I I
Units/Acre (By I I
Block Group)
F
0.0-1.4I_7
1.5 - 3.0
d �
3.1 - 4.3 I j
4.4 - 6.6
I �
6.7 - 11.7
City Limits j
r: r� MUGA------�� --- ---- — ------------- ------
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 305
7.1.d
Map 2.5. Net Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011
Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011
I I
I I
J I
% I
t -----
i�
o�
.I96thsts �V
19�th St SW
r 196th St SW
I
�
I
Main Street
I
>
---------
si
I
--------------
m'
Net Newly-
I
Permitted Units by
_� I
-5-0
1-2
L'
�)
I
L 3-4
— 5-8
ra-1 �
—_IJ City Limits
�\
'r MUGA
_-----------
--------------------
y 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 137
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 306
7.1.d
Map 2.6. Net Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011
Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011
I j
I j
I I
� I
IN L---------- 7
i•
%
%
I
�
I
--i
i
�•
I
i
/•
l
%
s
Ig6 r
h StS
W
196th St SW 196th St SW
�
I
i
Main
Street
I
/
L_ r;
----------------,
o,
?i
I
m
I
Net Newly- j
I
Permitted Units by--�
j
Tract
F
�-
-4
q�
d
-3-0 I
i
I
�
2-8
J City Limits
MUGA
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 307
7.1.d
Map 2.7. Average Renter Household Size
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012, Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
I I
I I
I I
j I
� I
— •"
I--
' I-------
i�
i7� I
Z •1
Igs
r
hstsW 19�th St SW 196th St SW
� I
� I
i Main Street I
L"
a' 3A.%"
I Cn mac,
k
I
Average H H Size - I
Renters --
O
0.00 - 1.65 I r
I a j
1.66 - 2.18
f
2.19 - 2.68 I I
2.69 - 3.73
3.74 - 7.42 I 1
r City Limits I \
.�.�t-______-_-_ ___
r M_-__
UGA
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Packet Pg. 308
M
Attachment: Exhibit 4: AHA Housing Profile for Edmonds 2014 (1487 : Joint Discussion with the Edmonds Planning Board)
v
Q
7.1.d
Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds
Units in
4:20+
2010
$1,035
$ 152 $1,187
Low
420+
1975
$682
$ 152
$834
Low
4:20+
1975
$690
$ 152
$842
Low
4:20+
1975
$685
$ 152
$837
Low
420+
1965
5425
S 152
5577
Very Low
4:20+
1985
$793
$ 152
$945
Low
3:4-19
1975
5850
S 46
S896
Low
Ilm
1Bd-Rent
19fi5 $fi89 $
965 $850 $1
1965 $785 S
1945 $810 $
1965 1775 $
1945 :650 $
945 619 $
1965 $670 $
1985 5800 $
1985 5725 $
975 $760 $
2010 $1,207 $
1985 $710 $
985 $825 S
1975 5744 $
965 $695 $
975 $78fi $
975 $700 $
1975715 $
19755 $705 $
1975 5735 $
965 $710 $
1985 $860 S
1900 $1,350 $
1975 $755 $
945 $750 $
1965 $710 $
1945 $800 $
1945 $631 $
$860 Low
5912 Low
$956 Low
$981 Low
5837 Low
$712 VeryLow
$681 Very Low
$732 Very Low9
$971 Low
$787 Very Low
$931 Low
$1,378 Moderate
5881 Low
$887 Low
$915 Low
$757 VeryLow
5957 Low
$871 Low
$88fi Low
$876 Low
$797 Very Low
$881 Low
$1,031 Low
$1,521 Moderate
5817 VeryLow
5812 VeryLow
$772 Very Low
$862 Low
5693 VeryLow
4:20+ 196S $770
420+ 1965 $950
4:20+ 196 $1,050
4:20+ 1945 $795
420+ 1945 5725
4:20+ 1945 $845
3:4-19 1975 $810
4:20+ 1985 $955
3:419 1975 $925
4:20+ 1975 $820
420+ 2010 $1,325
4:20+ 1985 $770
420+ 1975 $932
4:20+ 1975 $891
4.20+ 1975 $750
420+ 1975 5795
4:20+ 1975 $885
420+ 1965 $795
4:20+ 1985 $957
1:SF 1945 $1,150
3:4-19 1945 $850
3:419 1965 $840
3:4-19 1945 $985
3:4-19 1945 $900
3:419 1945 $839
2:2-3 1945 5925
Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum
2/2-Rent Utilities Total _ Aqe 3/1-Rent Utilities Total _ _.. Aqe 3/2-Rent Utilities Total _ Aqe 4Bed-Rent Utilities Total _
191 $961
VeryLow
4:20+
196S
$870
$191
$1,061
Low
4:20+
196S
$985
77 $1,027
Low
420+
1965
5875
$77
$952
Very Low
420+
1965
51,050
191 $1,241
Low
3:4-19
1985
$1,015
$77
$1,092
Low
4:20+
1945
$1,000
191 $98fi
Very Low
4:20+
19fi5
$925
$77
$1,002
Low
4:20+
1975
$976
77 $802
VeryLow
4:20+
1965
$1,025
$191
$1,216
Low
420+
1965
$875
77 $922
Very Low
4:20+
2010
$1,431
$191
$1,622
Moderate
1:SF
1945
$1,400
77 $887
Very Low
3:4-19
196
$895
$77
$972
Very Low
1:SF
1945
$1,895
191 $1,146
Low
420+
1985
$1,050
$191
$1,241
Low
1:SF
1945
$1,595
77 $1,002
Low
420+
1985
5925
577
$1,002
Low
1:SF
1945
51,650
191 $1,011
Low
4:20+
1985
5875
577
$952
Very Low
1:SF
1965
$1,375
191 $1,516
Moderate
420+
1975
$950
$77
$1,027
Low
1:SF
1945
$1,250
191 $961
Very Low
420+
1965
$880
$77
$957
VeryLow
1:SF
1945
$1,395
191 $1,123
Low
4:20+
1975
5992
$191
$1,183
Low
1:SF
1945
$1,250
191 $1,082
Low
4:20+
1975
$975
$191
$1,166
Low
3:4-19
1945
$1,400
191 5941
Very Low
4:20+
1975
$840
$191
$1,031
Low
3:4-19
1945
$1,100
191 $986
Very Low
4:20+
1975
$850
$77
$927
VeryLow
77 $962
Very Low
4:20+
19.
$1,028
$191
51,219
Low
191 $986
Very Low
1:SF
1945
$1,725
$191
$1,916
Middle
191 $1,148
Low
3:419
1975
$700
$77
$777
VeryLow
191 $1,341
Low
1:SF
1900
$1,195
$191
$1,386
Low
77 5927
Very Low
3:419
1975
$850
577
5927
Very Low
77 $917
Very Low
2:2-3
1965
$1,475
$77
$1,552
Moderate
77 $1,062
Low
2:2-3
1945
$1,495
$191
$1,686
Moderate
77 5977
Very Low 1
2:2-3
1945
$1,200
5191
$1,391
Low
77 $916 Very ow
77 St.002 Low
220 $1,205 Low
94 $1,144 Low
94 51,094 Very Low
220 $1,196 Low
220 $1,095 VeryLow
220 $1,620 Low
220 52,115 Moderate
220 $1,815 Moderate
220 $1,870 Moderate
220 $1,595 Low
220 $1,470 Low
220 $1,615 Low
220 51A 0 Low
94 51,494 Low
94 51,194 Low
4:20+
19fi5
$1,06fi
$ 220 $1,286 Low
420+
1965
$1,050
$ 94 $1,144 Low
4:20+
1985
$1,200
$ 220 51,420 Low
3:4-19
1985
$1,100
$ 94 $1,194 Low
4:20+
1965
$910
5 220 $1,130 VeryLow
4:20+
1985
$1,293
$ 220 51,513 Low
1:SF
1945
$2,200
$ 220 $2,420 Middle
1:SF
1965
$1,695
5 220 51,915 Moderate
1:SF
1965
$1,800
5 220 52,020 Moderate
1:SF
1945
$3,995
$ 220 $4,215 Not Affordable
1:SF
1945
$1,495
$ 220 $1,715 Moderate
1:5F
1945
$1,395
$ 2' 51,fi15 Low
1:SF
1945
51,595
$ 220 51,815 Moderate
1:5F
1945
52,400
$ 220 $2,620 Middle
1:5F
1945
$1,395
$ 220 $1,615 Low
3:4-19
1975
51,000
$ 94 $1,094 VeryLow
3:4-19
1975
$2, 195
5 94 $2,289 Middle
3:419
1965
51,200
$ 94 51,294 Low
2.2-3
2000
$1,425
$ 220 $1,645 Low
2:2-3
2000
$1,425
$ 220 $1,645 Low
2:2-3
1945
$1,295
$ 94 $1,389 Low
1:SF
2000
$2,250
5 220 $2,470 Middle
1:SF
1975
$1,675
$ 220 51,895 Moderate
1:SF
1975
$1,975
$ 220 $2, 195 Middle
1:SF
1975
$1,995
$ 220 $2,215 Middle
1:SF
1985
$1,400
5 220 $1,620 Low
1:SF 1945
$2,200
$ 247 $2,447 Middle
1:SF 1965
$1,700
$ 247 $1,947 Moderate
1:SF 2000
$2,100
$ 247 $2,347 Moderate
1:SF 1975
$1,995
$ 247 $2,242 Moderate
1:SF 1975
$2,295
$ 247 $2,542 Middle
1:SF 1975
$2,000
$ 247 $2,247 Moderate
1:SF 1990
$1,895
5 247 $2,142 Moderate
1:SF 2000
$4,100
$ 247 $4,347 Not Affordable
5 Bedroom
�+
tits in
Minimum
ildinis
Age
56ed-Rent Utilities Total Income
+�
1:S1
1945
12,400
$ 276 $2,676 Middle
1:SF
1945
$2,000
$ 276 $2,276 Moderate
1:SF
2000
$3,495
$ 276 $3,771 Not Affordable
1:5F
1975
$2,395
$ 27fi $Z671 Middle
O
1:5F
2000
$2,550
$ 276 $2,826 Middle
'y
ci
2
O
i
ti
00
r
r
N
O
E
W
L
O
O
L
a
tM
c
.y
7
O
2
Q
2
Q
r.+
x
w
c
m
E
z
a
Packet Pg. 310
7.1.d
Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property,
City of Edmonds
PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS EutLeoWely Very Low Low
Moderate SUBSIDIZED UNITS WORKFORCE UNITS POPULATION 5ER RIDING SOURCFJ
=5TREET
Section 8 Housing Choice Various Various 122 33 21
2 178 Public (HASCO) Vaious HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Vouchers (HASCO)
Section 8 Housing Choice
Various
Various
14
2
1
17
Public (EHA)
Various
HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Vouchers (EHA)
Aurora House
20903 70th Ave W
27042000302700
16
16
Public (HASCO)
Mentally III
Bond
Ballinger Court Apts.
22707 76th Ave. W
27042900308400
28
64
92
Private Nonprofit (SHAG)
Seniors
Tax Credit, Bond
Edmonds Highlands
23326 Edmonds Way
00555300100300
108
12
108
Public (HASCO)
Family
Section 8 Project -Based Vouchers, Bond, Sound
Families
McKinney House
19515 73rd Ave W
27041700303300
5
5
Private Nonprofit (Compass
Mentally III
HUD Supportive Housing Program
Health)
Section 8 Project -Based Voucher, Tax Credit,
Olympic View Apartments
303 Howell Way
27032600100300
43
43
Public (HASCO)
Seniors
Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing
Trust Fund
Section 8 Project -Based Voucher, Tax Credit,
Sound View Apartments
417Third Ave S
27032600100500
43
43
Public (HASCO)
Seniors
Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing
Trust Fund
Tri-level House
8629196th St SW
27041800309900
5
5
Private Nonprofit (Compass
Mentally III
HUD Supportive Housing Program
Health)
Zeigen House
20208 73rd Ave W
00400600001400
1
1
Private Nonprofit (Compass
Mentally III
State Housing Trust Fund, County Housing Trust
Health)
Fund
a
B1 Packet Pg. 311
7.1.d
Appendix C: Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Number of Sales
416
517
577
586
666
Average Sale Price
$ 465,736 $
409,870 $
404,634 $
359,465 $
383,157
Median Sale Price
$ 411,000 $
355,000 $
346,500 $
315,000 $
339,975
Median Sale Price Home Affordability
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Mortgage Amount
$ 328,800 $
284,000 $
277,200 $
252,000 $
271,980
Interest Rate
6.09%
5.06%
4.83%
4.58%
3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest
$
1,990
$ 1,535
$ 1,459
$ 1,289
$
1,246
Property Taxes
$
343
$ 296
$ 289
$ 263
$
283
Insurance
$
130
$ 112
$ 110
$ 100
$
108
Utilities
$
269
$ 269
$ 276
$ 281
$
258
TOTAL
$
2,463
$ 1,943
$ 1,858
$ 1,651
$
1,637
Minimum Annual Income
$
98,522
$ 77,730
$ 74,315
$ 66,044
$
65,468
in 2012 Dollars
$
105,061
$ 83,186
$ 78,247
$ 67,411
First Quartile Sale Price Home Affordability
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Mortgage Amount
$
264,000
$ 240,000
$ 218,305
$ 192,000
$
200,000
Interest Rate
6.09%
5.06%
4.83%
4.58%
3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest
$
1,598
$
1,297
$
1,149
$
982
$
916
Property Taxes
$
275
$
250
$
227
$
200
$
208
Insurance
$
105
$
95
$
86
$
76
$
79
Utilities
$
269
$
269
$
276
$
281
$
258
TOTAL
$
2,247
$
1,911
$
1,739
$
1,539
$
1,462
Minimum Annual Income
$
89,867
$
76,444
$
69,566
$
61,557
$
58,470
in 2012 Dollars
$
95,832
$
81,810
$
73,247
$
62,831
C1
Packet Pg. 312
7.1.d
Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary
Affordable Housing: For housing to be considered affordable, a household should not pay
more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing.This includes all costs related to housing
- rent, mortgage payments, utilities, etc.
AMI: Area Median Income. The measure of median income used in this report is that of the
Seattle -Bellevue HMFA.This measure is used in administering the Section 8 voucher program in
Snohomish County.
Cost -Burdened: Households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing.
Extremely Low Income: Households that make up to 30 percent of AMI.
Fair Market Rent: HUD determines what a reasonable rent level should be for a geographic
area, and sets this as the area's fair market rent. Section 8 voucher holders are limited to selecting
units that do not rent for more than fair market rent.
HMFA: HUD Metro FMR Area
Low Income: Households that make up to 80 percent of AMI.
Median Income: The median income for a community is the annual income at which half the
households earn less and half earn more.
Middle Income: Households that make up to 120 percent of AMI.
Moderate Income: Households that make up to 95 percent of AMI.
PHA: Public Housing Agency
Section 8: HUD's Section 8 Housing Choice voucher program. Qualifying households can take
their voucher to any housing unit which meets HUD safety and market rent standards. HUD
funds are administered by PHAs.
Severely Cost -Burdened: Households that spend more than 50 percent of their income on
housing.
Subsidized Rental Unit: A unit which benefits from a direct, monthly rent subsidy.This subsidy
will vary to ensure that a household does not spend more than 30% of their income on housing.
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers are an example of a direct rent subsidy.
Very Low Income: Households that make up to 50 percent of AMI.
Workforce Rental Housing: Workforce rental units have rents which are set in order to be
affordable to households at certain income levels. While a household may need to have income
below a certain level to apply for a workforce rental unit, the rent level does not adjust to their
actual income. A property may feature units with rents affordable to households with 50% AMI,
D1
Packet Pg. 313
v
N
Attachment: Exhibit 4: AHA Housing Profile for Edmonds 2014 (1487 : Joint Discussion with the Edmonds Planning Board)
V
Q
7.1.d
Appendix E: Methodology
Affordability - Adjustment for Household Size
Where it is indicated that housing cost affordability is assessed adjusting for household size,
several factors are considered. First, using HUD standards, the appropriate size range that
could inhabit the housing unit in question is determined. For example, the appropriate range
for a 2 bedroom unit would be 2-4 people. Next, the cutoff income levels are averaged across
the household size range, and this average is used for comparison.
To assess whether or not a 2 bedroom unit is affordable to extremely low income households
using this method, one would first average the extremely low cutoff levels for 2-, 3-, and 4-person
households. For 2012, these levels were $21,150, $23,800, and $26,400.Their average is $23,783.
A household with this income can afford to spend no more than $595 per month on housing.
If the unit in question rents for less than this amount, then one can say that, on average, it is
affordable to extremely low income households, adjusting for household size.
Table E.1, below, shows the maximum a household at each income level can afford to
spend on housing per month by household size.
Table E.1. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle -Bellevue HMFA 2012
HMFA Overall
Extremely
Low
$455
$520
$585
s650
$703
$755
s8o6
$859
s650
Very Low
$759
s868
$976
si,o84
$1,171
$1,258
$1,345
$1,431
si,o84
Low
$1,128
$1,289
$1,450
s1,610
$1,740
s1,869
s1,998
$2,126
$1,734
Moderate
$1,442
s1,648
s1,855
$2,059
$2,225
$2,389
$2,556
$2,719
$2,059
Moddle
$i,821
$2,082
$2,343
$2,601
$2,811
$3,018
$3,228
$3,435
$2,601
Source: US Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2012
Home ownership affordability
Home ownership affordability was calculated using similar techniques to the California
Association of Realtor's Housing Affordability Index. First, property sale data was acquired from
the Snohomish County Assessor, and single family home sales in Everett were separated. Next,
the monthly payment for these homes was calculated using several assumptions:
• Assuming a 20% down payment, the loan amount is then 80% of the total sale price
• Mortgage term is 30 years
• Interest rate is the national average effective composite rate for previously occupied
homes as reported by the Federal Housing Finance Board
• Monthly property taxes are assumed to be 1 % of the sale price divided by 12
• Monthly insurance payments are assumed to be 0.38% of the sale price divided by 12
Packet Pg. 315
7.1.d
Using all oftheseassumptions,the month lypaymentisthesurn of principal and interest;taxes;and insurance.
Household Income Levels
Area Median Income, or AMI, is an important part of many housing affordability calculations. In
Snohomish County, HUD uses the Seattle -Bellevue HMFA median income as AMI. This is recalculated
every year, both as an overall average and by household size up to 8 individuals. Standard income
levels are as follows:
• Extremely low income: <30% AMI
• Very low income: between 30 and 50% AMI
• Low income: between 50 and 80% AMI
• Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI
• Middle income: between 95 and 120% AMI
Household Profiles
Information on households was gathered from Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher data from both the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority (EHA). All names
have been changed as well as many other nonessential details to protect privacy.
rel
Packet Pg. 316
7.1.e
Chair Lovell referred to the list of highlights (Page 7 of the Summary Memorandum) and noted that 56% of those earning
less than $49,999 rated the ease of travel by public transportation highly compared to only 24% of those earning $100,000 or
more. He commented that these responses track with people who have higher incomes, have lived in Edmonds longer and
are older. Mr. Doherty pointed that this group of people do not typically rely on public transportation as much. Perhaps they
may perceive it is not easy to use because they do not use.
Board Member Cheung commented that sometimes Edmonds is generalized as being an older community. He asked if this
perception was indicative to the primary demographics of the respondents. Mr. Doherty answered that there was a good
representation across all age cohorts. He pointed out that fewer people in the 55+ cohort responded that Edmonds was a good
place to retire than in the younger group.
Chair Lovell asked if all of the detailed statistics would be made available to the community when the study is rolled out at
the open house. Mr. Doherty replied that the information is already accessible via the City's website, and the City issued a
press release relative to the summary findings. The study was also covered on My Edmonds News.
PREPARING FOR JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Chair Lovell reviewed that, at their last meeting, the Board discussed the results of a preparatory meeting that he and Vice
Chair Rubenkonig had with Ms. Hope to discuss the agenda for the upcoming joint Planning Board/City Council meeting on
September 6th. He recalled that Ms. Hope encouraged the Board Members to review information that was prepared by
Snohomish County's Alliance for Housing Affordability, as well as the Housing Element contained in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. She suggested, and he concurred, that the goals and policies called out in the Housing Element should
be the focus of the joint discussion.
Chair Lovell specifically referred to the last section, which identifies an implementation action and performance measure for
evaluating the City's progress towards achieving its goals and policy direction. He asked if the City has been tracking the
number of residential units permitted each year. Mr. Chave replied that the Building Division reports on housing on a
monthly basis, and the Board can extract data from this report to contribute to the metric for the Housing Element. He
pointed out that housing information is also reported to the Washington State Office of Financial Management, and they
produce estimates on population changes on a yearly basis. Board Member Cloutier recalled that the last time the Board
talked about metrics for measuring the City's progress towards achieving its housing goals and policies was in 2010. Since
that time, he conducted a web search to learn how other jurisdictions make their metrics available.
Board Member Monroe asked if the Board has previously discussed how to get affordable housing on a regional basis and
improve transportation partnerships with the City's regional neighbors rather than doing it all on a local basis. Vice Chair
Rubenkonig said she and Chair Lovell discussed this concept with Ms. Hope, who indicated that Snohomish County's
approach is to make sure affordable housing is provided, and one way to address this need is to look at road network
improvements. However, more specifically, the Board is being asked to look at Edmonds. Although infrastructure is in place
to support affordable housing, it seems that the majority of affordable housing is located outside of Edmonds. She agreed
that one strategy could be for the City to work more closely with neighboring jurisdictions to address the need. Affordable
housing will not be possible in many areas of Edmond, so it will be important to take advantage of and improve upon the
affordable housing opportunities that are provided in neighboring communities by improving connections.
Chair Lovell recalled that, at their last meeting, the Board discussed Ms. Hope's recommendation that they look at housing
from two perspectives: What can be done to create more opportunities and an environment that encourages the development
of affordable housing and what can be done to force the development affordable housing. He voiced concern that simply
creating opportunities for affordable housing might not be enough without the ability to force it upon future redevelopment.
Board Member Cloutier clarified that affordable housing is only one subset of the housing issue. While affordability needs to
be addressed as part the mix of solutions, the discussion must also include other potential strategies such as retrofitting
existing buildings and encouraging opportunities for residents to age in place. He pointed out that the goals in the Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan read more like strategic goals, and each has a set of policies the City could use to
implement them. What is missing is prioritization on which strategies should be pushed harder than others. He suggested
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 317
that the joint meeting discussion should focus on the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically seeking
feedback from the City Council relative to prioritization. Once they identify the policies they want to focus on, they can
create metrics to measure the City's progress. As progress is measured, the City can create a follow up plan as necessary.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the joint meeting discussion could focus on the housing needs of a segment of the
City's vulnerable population such as housing that allows people to age in place. This group could be used as a focus for
addressing the housing strategies. She specifically suggested the discussion could focus on the following Housing Goals:
Housing Goal C. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal government to assist in
providing adequate housing opportunities for special needs populations, such as low income, disabled, or senior
residents.
Housing Goal E. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if need be) for special needs populations,
such as disadvantaged, disabled, low income, and senior residents.
Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that the Board could focus on potential regulatory changes and the City Council could
consider possible incentives that would encourage the type of development that meets the needs of the vulnerable
populations. She said she views strategies that allow people to age in place as one way to promote affordable housing.
Board Member Robles asked if Vice Chair Rubenkonig is suggesting that "aging in place" should be used as a proxy for
affordable housing. In other words, if they serve that need, they will, in fact, be serving the entire need. Vice Chair
Rubenkonig acknowledged that addressing the needs of the elderly would not necessarily address the more general need for
more affordable housing opportunities.
Board Member Cloutier emphasized that, in order to solve problems, the Board must first identify the problems and then
prioritize them. The Housing Element contains a number of goals, policies and strategies, and the ones they choose to focus
on should be data driven. He reminded the Board that the survey indicated that older people feel that housing is less
affordable, which indicates there is a concern that they will not be able to stay in the community. This survey information
could be considered a data point.
At the request of Board Member Monroe, Vice Chair Rubenkonig explained the concept of "aging in place." As people age,
their physical, economic and social circumstances change and they may find they no longer have the physical and/or
economic ability to remain in their current homes or even in their communities. The concept is to create strategies that result
in housing opportunities for this segment of the population, such as accessory dwelling units. She said studies show that
people live longer and are happier if they can remain in their communities. Board Member Robles added that one strategy
for "aging in place" is to split a fairly large house into two units, where the aging person lives on one floor and rents the other
space for additional income. He expressed his belief that the strategies should be aimed at economic incentives that allow the
citizens of Edmonds to act in their own best interest. While these types of strategies would not count towards meeting the
City's statistical requirements for housing, they would benefit the existing citizens rather than just turning the property over
to a developer. He suggested that incentives should be aimed towards what people can do in their community rather than
towards developers.
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the memorandum prepared by Ms. Hope, in which she recommended that the joint meeting
agenda include a 90-minute discussion about developing a Housing Strategy and the remaining time could be spent soliciting
direction from the City Council on other topics (Highway 99 redevelopment, 5 Corners redevelopment, Edmonds Marsh
progress, railroad crossing alternatives, and Civic Field master planning). He reviewed that because time will be limited, Ms.
Hope recommended the Board identify a few key questions they would like to discuss relative to housing and not get into too
many details. For example:
Should the Board be involved with the Housing Strategy that is promised in the Comprehensive Plan? If so, should the
Strategy start getting developed sooner than 2019?
Should the Housing Strategy provide a framework that includes both data and recommendations for addressing housing
issues?
While the Housing Strategy is to focus on increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing
needs, should it prioritize particular issues or population groups?
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 6
Packet Pg. 318
7.1.e
In addition to the questions outlined in the memorandum, Mr. Chave suggested it might be helpful to review the goals
contained in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan to determine if some should be prioritized over others.
Board Member Cheung reminded the Board that one of the overarching goals of the Housing Element is to accommodate the
anticipated growth by providing a variety of housing options. In addition, there are goals to address the housing needs for
diverse levels of income. Mr. Chave said affordability is only one component of addressing the City's diverse housing needs.
Aging in place is another component that addresses both demographics and affordability. He acknowledged that housing is a
complex subject, and he cautioned against diving too far into the details without a strategic overview of the issues and
implementation strategies, as well as direction on prioritization.
Board Member Cheung asked if an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) would count as an additional housing unit. He said he
would like to explore the possibility of allowing detached ADUs, particularly for people who want to age in place. Mr.
Chave answered that ADU's could help address the issue of affordability by allowing a homeowner to subsidize housing
costs, and they could also provide a different housing type. However, they would not change the density equation.
Currently, the code defines ADUs in such a way that makes them part of an extended family situation, which means that only
one family can live on the property. A "family" is defined in the code as up to five unrelated people. The fact that an ADU
is constructed on the property does not change the requirement. If the code is changed to allow two families to live on the
property (one in the house and another in the ADU), you are essentially allowing duplexes in the single-family zones.
Board Member Robles suggested that the City could revise the definition of "family." Mr. Chave acknowledged that is
possible, but cautioned that there would be implications that must be considered. Board Member Cheung said he would be
interested in gauging the public's general support for the concept of detached ADUs. Mr. Chave cautioned that attached
ADUs would be an easier argument to make than detached ADUs, and the public may be willing to support the concept as
long as the definition of "family" is maintained. Once you cross over to allow more than one family to live on a single-
family residential property, he suspects there will be significant neighborhood concerns. He explained that although ADU
permits are straightforward and there is no appeal process, there is still a lot of skepticism from surrounding neighbors. He
emphasized that it is important to have a clear definition of "family" in order to address enforcement issues that come up.
Mr. Chave pointed out that expanding the code to allow detached ADUs without changing the definition of "family" would
not really address the density issue, but it could address other aspects of the housing such as affordability, different housing
styles and/or living arrangements, aging in place, etc.) He suggested that the City needs to be strategic when addressing
density. He reminded the Board that the Westgate Plan was intended to include more residential density, and that is one of
the goals of the Highway 99 Study, as well. The City currently has enough density to accommodate anticipated growth, so it
is not necessary, at this time, to density the single-family neighborhoods. However, he acknowledged there may be other
reasons to consider ADUs to meet certain housing needs.
Mr. Chave suggested that the joint meeting discussion could focus on the goals called out in the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, which cover a broad spectrum of issues. The intent of the discussion would be to identify the goals
they want to actively pursue. This would allow the City to move forward with a Housing Strategy that sets out a plan for
accomplishing the goals. He noted that there is a lengthy list of housing strategies the Board and City Council could
consider. It may be valuable to gauge whether the City Council would be amenable to considering other options, in addition
to those the City has already implemented.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked who would moderate the joint meeting, and Mr. Chave answered that, typically, the Mayor
would moderate the meeting, but he will not be available on September 6th. Therefore, it is likely the Council President will
lead the meeting on behalf of the City Council. However, the Board Chair will likely have an opportunity to encapsulate the
Board's discussion by introducing a few thoughts to start off.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked staff to clarify the land -use strategies to promote affordable housing, as listed on Page 90 of
the Housing Element. She asked if staff could map where upzoning has occurred and if there is a size criterion to qualify for
a density bonus. She also asked how small of a parcel can be developed as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) and if
there are areas in Edmonds where infill development could occur. Mr. Chave pointed out that the density bonus would only
apply to multi -family development. He also said "infill development" is a generic term, and typically occurs on multi -family
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 7
Packet Pg. 319
7.1.e
zoned properties that are currently developed as single-family residential. He said it would be very difficult to map where
infill development has and can occur. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Conversion/Adaptive Reuse Strategy would apply
more to commercial properties than residential properties, and Mr. Chave said the strategy can have a broad application and
could include converting single-family homes into multiple units. He said it would also be difficult to map these changes.
Mr. Chave suggested that the joint meeting could include a review of the land -use strategies on Page 90 of the Housing
Element, as well as a discussion about how well each one is working. The list could then be tweaked as appropriate and
other strategies could be added. He acknowledged that it will not be possible to reach conclusions on the list of strategies at
the joint meeting. The purpose of the Housing Strategy is to evaluate the different strategies, match them with the
Comprehensive Plan goals, and identify other strategies the City hasn't yet tried. To create the Housing Strategy, it will be
necessary to review all of the data and information that has been assembled and identify the goals they want to achieve. This
approach will allow them to focus on the needs, adjust and/or expand the list of strategies, and identify the metrics that will
be used to gauge the success of the strategies.
Board Member Cloutier asked if the Housing Strategy would be done by City staff or if an outside consultant would be hired.
Mr. Chave answered that the project may require help from a consultant, which means it will have budget implications. He
reminded the Board that a Housing Strategy is high on the City Council's agenda, and it was also identified in the Strategic
Action Plan (SAP) as a high priority. Given the current status of projects such as Highway 99 and 5 Corners, it is not likely
that the Housing Strategy can be completed in 2017, but it could be started in 2017 and finished in 2018. This schedule
would still be well ahead of the 2019 date.
Board Member Cloutier suggested there are things the City could do in the meantime while waiting to hire a consultant to
work on the Housing Strategy. This could include amendments to the Development Code to address ADUs and PRDs. Mr.
Chave agreed and said the City could also update its Multi -Family Residential (RM) zoning provisions. Currently, the bulk
requirements are the same across all of the RM zones, and the only thing that is different is density. Because the bulk
standards are the same, the buildings also look the same. Independent of the Housing Strategy, the Board could ask the City
Council to evaluate the different RM zones to see if the regulations could be tweaked. Also, Mr. Chave reminded the Board
that staff is working with a consultant to introduce stronger design standards for the RM zones. If the design standards are
improved, perhaps density would become much less important. Board Member Cloutier expressed his belief that reviewing
the RM zone bulk standards at the same time as the design standards are being created would have an impact on affordability,
as well as meeting the Growth Management Act requirements for additional units to accommodate growth. Mr. Chave
agreed and noted that these changes would not impact single-family neighborhoods, either.
Board Member Cheung referred to upzoning, which is listed as a land use strategy to promote affordable housing. He asked
what the main objections would be to allowing development lots to be smaller. Mr. Chave explained that the number of units
allowed on a property is based on zoning. While one strategy is to change the zoning for a certain area to allow smaller lot
sizes, it is important to recognize that change would not happen all at once. He said Snohomish County used another
interesting approach where existing lots that were 1.5 times the minimum lot size required could be developed as a duplex.
Many of the areas that were annexed more recently into the City were developed with duplexes because they were slightly
larger lots. He summarized that there are different ways to address infill and density. However, there will likely be push
back because people typically do not like change.
Board Member Cheung said he has often heard the argument that changing zoning will decrease property values. Mr. Chave
said people tend to believe that allowing more units will decrease the value of the existing homes and change the character of
the neighborhood. Upzoning is not something the City has tried to do. Board Member Cheung asked if there is evidence to
support the claim that property values would decrease, and Mr. Chave answered that it depends upon the character of the
neighborhood. A change in zoning might be subtler in newer neighborhoods and more noticeable in older neighborhoods
with oversized lots. He summarized that, to date, the City has taken a very cautious view of zoning changes in the single-
family neighborhoods because it can have very unexpected results. They have tried to focus more on multi -family zones
where they can get more "bang for their buck."
Board Member Cloutier reviewed the handout he prepared for the Board's discussion, which outlines potential housing
metrics that could be used to evaluate each of the goals. He noted that a list of other resources was provided at the bottom of
the page for the Board Member's information. The overall community/region metrics dashboard example from southern
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 8
Packet Pg. 320
7.1.e
Arizona includes a website for showing the metrics to the public in a simple and graphic way. The Metrics for Affordable
and Sustainable Housing from the Federation of American Scientists provides a study paper about affordable housing across
the board, focusing on affordable and sustainable housing and what metrics can be used. He encouraged the Board Members
to review the links, which may help them pick the "low -hanging fruit" that can be addressed before the Housing Strategy has
been completed. He suggested they could ask the City Council the following questions:
• What are some opportunities to improve Edmonds' housing stock today?
• What is the goal for affordable housing?
• What is the goal for the coming year to accommodate the housing goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan?
• What type of units should the City focus on?
Chair Lovell agreed with Mr. Chave that the joint meeting should follow the approach outlined in Ms. Hope's memorandum.
In preparation for the meeting, he encouraged the Board Members to carefully review the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. While the City Council will likely take the lead in the discussion, the Board will have an opportunity
to seek direction as to what it should focus on over the coming year. The Board could seek feedback with respect to
amending the RM zoning standards to create greater opportunities and perhaps incentive for property owners to redevelop.
They could also discuss opportunities for public/private partnerships to redevelop properties along Highway 99.
Mr. Chave commented that a number of things can impact housing. For example, subdivision regulations can discourage the
retention of existing housing stock if there is not sufficient flexibility. As currently written, the code may not allow a
property owner to subdivide an oversized lot into two or three lots without tearing down the existing home, and existing
homes usually provide more affordable housing options. One housing strategy could be to tweak the existing subdivision
code to allow variation in lot size, while still achieving the same density overall, but with flexibility in how the lots are
arranged so the existing house can remain. The PRD concept could also be used as an effective housing strategy.
Mr. Chave advised that the packet that is prepared for the joint meeting will provide a link to the Housing Element of the
Comprehensive Plan as well as the Snohomish County Alliance for Housing Affordability Report that contains useful data.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell reviewed that the September 14th agenda will include continued discussion on the Civic Center Master Plan and
an update on the Land Division Code. The September 28th agenda will include a discussion on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan
and a presentation on the 2017 Capital Improvement Plan and Capital Facilities Plan. Based on feedback the Board receives
from the City Council at the joint meeting, they can begin working on housing issues in the near future. In addition, Council
President Johnson expressed interest in the Board starting its work on the 5 Corners Subarea Plan as early as October 26th
The initial discussions will include a review of the work performed by the University of Washington students.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell announced that the Mayor's Task Force studying railroad crossing alternatives will provide a report to the City
Council later this fall. There will be no report to the Planning Board.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
There were no Board Member comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
August 24, 2016 Page 9
Packet Pg. 321
7.1.e
move goals and policies forward. For example, the Planning Board will need to do follow-up work relative to the walkability
assessment and sea level rise.
I I 111 M WI [!'
Chair Lovell announced that the Planning Board and City Council would meet in a joint work session on September 6th at
7:00 p.m. to discuss issues relative to growth and housing. He recalled that at their March retreat, they talked about growth in
Edmonds and how housing is a significant part of the equation. There are number of components to the issue including
buildability, the status of housing in Edmonds, single-family residential versus multi -family residential, different types of
housing needs, affordable housing, homelessness, etc. He advised that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met with the Shane
Hope, Development Services Director, to discuss the large list of subject matter. Ms. Hope agreed to prepare an
introductory memorandum for the City Council and Planning Board to use as a catalyst to get the discussion going. The
intent is to tie the discussion back to the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. He encouraged the Board
Members to review the Housing Element contained in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the report that was prepared in
2014 by the Housing Affordability Alliance of Snohomish County. Both of the documents should be available to the Board
and City Council Members, as well as the public, on line.
Chair Lovell referred the Board to the memorandum that he prepared with the help of Vice Chair Rubenkonig. He
specifically referred to Item B of the memorandum, which provides a list of discussion items that have been identified in the
past as potential ideas for accommodating more housing in Edmonds. Some of the items on the list, if successful, would
contribute to the City's ability to meet its growth targets, as outlined in the Growth Management Act (GMA). As the Board
reviews the items on the list, he invited them to share their thoughts on if and how they would help the City implement the
goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. He also invited the Board members to identify other potential topics of
discussion.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies focus on the supply of affordable housing
and meeting diverse housing needs. The items in the memorandum were not sorted into categories, but it may be appropriate
to do so to help focus the discussion.
Board Member Robles suggested that the discussion should include all of the housing possibilities that exist (intentional
living, tech -enhanced housing, Airbnb, opportunities for the people to age in place, etc.) and not just those that address
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Vice Chair Rubenkonig acknowledged that most of the items on the list, if pursued,
would go towards providing the housing units needed to meet the GMA requirements. However, some of the items would
also address homelessness and other citizen needs for housing options, which is separate from meeting the GMA. She asked
the Board Members to provide direction as to whether the discussion should be dedicated to concepts that allow the City to
meet the GMA goals or also include concepts that are of interest to citizens.
Board Member Robles reminded the Board that its charter is to represent the citizens and what they need to fulfill their
lifestyles. Vice Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan was put together to represent the needs of the
citizenry. Therefore, the Board should look at the supply of affordable housing and address the diverse housing needs of the
community's citizens.
Board Member Crank suggested that the joint meeting discussion should focus on specific goals, and then the various
concepts associated with the goals could be divided into those that are intended to meet the GMA requirements and those that
address community needs. However, it is important to recognize that many of the concepts will overlap and serve both
purposes. She reminded the Board of her earlier suggestion that the housing discussion must also consider post -retirement
housing needs such as assisted living, senior housing, etc. Many aging citizens want to downsize from their single-family
homes, but they still want to stay in the Edmonds community. In addition, new residents from out of state and out of the
country are moving to Edmonds with their extended families, and the City must provide housing options to serve their needs,
as well.
Chair Lovell said that in the discussion with Ms. Hope, he noted that that there are things the City can do to enhance
opportunities to create a wide range of and more housing capacity. There are also things the City can do to force this to
happen. One approach is to make it happen and another is to create the conditions by which it is allowed to happen. He
Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 322
expressed his belief that issues related to housing type, housing diversity and housing affordability are distinctly different
than the housing requirements associated with meeting the GMA growth targets.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that when the Board last discussed the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, they
talked about the need to create metrics by which success could be measured. Coming up with a lot of great ideas will not
result in success. The City must clearly identify what they want to happen and create a mechanism for measuring success.
For example, if one of the goals is to provide opportunities for people to age in place, then there should be a way to measure
whether or the not the City's housing policies are having an impact. If they are looking to create new housing units, then the
occupancy rate could be used as a measure of success. Rather than throwing out answers, they should identify the right goals
first.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the last time the Board discussed housing, they were reminded that the GMA is looking
for 2,500 additional housing units in the City by a certain year. They were also told that the buildable land numbers are
promising for meeting that target number. Perhaps the discussion should focus on what the buildable land numbers does not
address: affordable and diverse housing needs. Board Member Cloutier agreed that the City currently has capacity to
provide for future housing needs. Rather than having policies and regulations in place that allow the growth to happen, the
City must have policies and regulations in place to make it happen. The City already has zoning regulations that allow the
housing to be built, but it is not being built. The question of why should be the focus of the discussion. The Board asked Mr.
Chave to frame a set of questions based on the current regulations and what the City wants to accomplish. Board Member
Cloutier agreed to compile a list of issues and possible metrics for measuring and monitoring to determine if the City's goals
are being met. The Board agreed to discuss the issue again at their August 24th meeting.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
In addition to a continued discussion on August 241h about the agenda for the joint City Council/Planning Board work
session, the Board will also have a discussion about the Land Division Code Update. The September 14th meeting agenda
will include an introduction to the Land Use Procedures and Code Update, as the City Council recently approved a resolution
providing some direction to the Planning Board.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Robles reported on his experience judging the sand castle contest at Marina Beach Park. He also announced
that he had a paper published with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners titled, "Launching Technology in
Insurance."
Board Member Crank reminded the Board of the Taste of Edmonds Festival that will take place on August 12th through 14th
She noted that a few Board Members will work as volunteers at the event.
Board Member Crank advised that the consultant provided a presentation on the Civic Center Master Plan at the last City
Council Meeting. Comments were made by City Council Members and members of the audience relative to the Taste of
Edmonds being at the Civic Center in future years. She cautioned that there may be another round of the Board engaging
with the business community and neighborhood regarding this particular issue.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig requested additional information about the City's Volunteer Picnic that is scheduled for September.
Mr. Chave agreed to forward information to the Board Members.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
August 10, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 323
7.1.f
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD RETREAT
Summary Minutes
March 9, 2016
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room, Yd Floor of City
Hall, 121 — 5 h 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
Samuel Kleven (Student Representative)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Kemen Lien, Senior Planner
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
Patricia Taraday, City Attorney
Rosa Fruehling-Watson, City Attorney
VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2016 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, provided copies of pages from Carmel, California's sign code and suggested the Planning
Board consider the information as they review and update the City's Sign Code. Chair Lovell announced that the Board's op
first public hearing on the Sign Code is scheduled for April 271h, which will be followed by more discussion and possibly a a
recommendation to the City Council on May 11'h. io
THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR DINNER AT 6:10 PM, AND THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 6:20 z
PM. w
TRAINING: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY(S) ON THE PUBLIC
RECORDS ACT E
M
Ms. Taraday and Ms. Fruehling-Watson led a discussion regarding the Public Records Act, which included the following: Q
Packet Pg. 324
7.1.f
A public record is defined as "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the
performance of any governmental or proprietary function that is prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local
agency, regardless of its physical form or characteristics." Personal notes written by Board Members that relate to the
conduct of government or the business at hand could be considered a public record. For example, if the note remains in
the Board Member's control and he/she is able to discard it at their pleasure, it would be considered more of a personal
record, but notes that are intended to be circulated amongst others would be considered a public record. Because
interpretation of the law is complicated, Board Members were encouraged to contact the City Attorney with specific
questions.
Public records can include written documentation, audio, sound, voice messages, presentations, etc. It is not limited to
what many people consider an actual record. When identifying whether a record is public or not, it is important to
consider whether the record was created while acting in the capacity of a Board Member or if it was created under a
different, personal context. Purely personal emails between Board Members that have no relation to the conduct of
government would not be considered public records. However, once you mix the record to contain both personal and
public information, it becomes entirely a public record and it would not be possible to redact the personal information.
• The courts have agreed that records created on personal devices or accounts can be public records. The courts look at the
content, rather than the origin or source of the record. For example, depending on the content, text messages can be
public records. They must be retained so they can be disclosed if asked. The City is in the process of adopting a text
messaging policy, which will limit the use of text because it is too hard to manage those types of records.
• The City has an obligation to assess when a public records request has been made. Public records request can come in a
variety of sources, including requests made by the public during a public meeting. If a public records request is received,
in any format, the City has an obligation to respond to the request within 5 days. If a Board Member receives a public
records request, it should be immediately forwarded to the City Clerk, who has been trained to coordinate responses.
This approach will allow each request and response to be accurately recorded. If the City receives a request pertaining to
Planning Board activity, Board Members will be notified.
• There is no charge for public records, and many local agencies are concerned that the staff time involved with large,
complicated requests is not being compensated for in any way. Currently, there is no reasonable standard and/or
limitation built into the Act. Therefore, the City is obligated to respond to every request, regardless of how large.
• There are very few situations in which a public records request can be denied. Many are simple and the documents can
be provided within five days. Other times is it necessary to request clarification from the requester, and having a
conversation with the requester can often result in a narrower scope. When a large request is received, the City must
assess how long it will take to fulfill the response. It's important to keep an open dialogue with the requester and keep
him/her updated on the City's progress and turn over documents on a regular basis.
• If a request is received pertaining to Planning Board business, a reasonable approach would be for Board Members to
search all devices that could have been used to create relevant documents. It would be a good idea to provide the City
Clerk with a summary documenting the places you looked and the information that was found. If a document meets the
defmition of a public record and there is no applicable exemption, it must be disclosed, no matter how embarrassing it
may be.
• While there are certain exemptions that address the issue of privacy, the standards are very high. The City Clerk will
review these issues on a case -by -case basis and consult with the City Attorney. It was cautioned that the exemption must
be applied very judicially. x
w
• Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 40.14.020 outlines the specific retention guidelines that govern the period of time c
that local agencies must retain particular records and is based on the content, function and purpose of the record. There E
was a lengthy discussion about the City of Edmonds' retention schedule for various documents, which follows the RCW
guidelines and can be found in the City Clerk's Office or online. It was suggested that Board Members clean out their M
in -boxes and delete documents that do not have a retention value. Otherwise, the search can be cumbersome when a Q
Planning Board Minutes
March 9, 2016 Page 2
Packet Pg. 325
7.1.f
request comes in. Although emails that go through the City's server are retained by the server, senders should keep the
records, as well.
• There are consequences (penalties) to the City for failing to respond in a timely manner, failing to produce all relevant
documents, or failing to do a proper search. There are also penalties associated with the failure to retain records for the
required amount of time.
Chair Lovell summarized that the important things for the Board to remember relative to the Public Records Act are to:
• Use the City's website for Planning Board communication.
• Avoid conducting "chain" meetings via email.
• Anytime more than three Board members are together would constitute a quorum and qualify as a public meeting.
• Once the minutes are approved in their final form, they become part of the public record. The Council relies heavily
on the Board's minutes for information.
DISCUSSION: GROWTH PATTERNS AND STRATEGIES FOR EDMONDS
Chair Lovell reviewed that the focus of this discussion is related to growth in Edmonds, and specifically the issue of housing.
He briefly reviewed the attachments in the Staff Report, which include a presentation on future growth, Comprehensive Plan
discussion of growth and capacity, adopted Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, Revised Code of Washington addressing
affordable housing programs, a presentation by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), and housing performance
measures from the City of Kirkland.
Chair Lovell briefly reviewed the statistics that were provided in the Development Services Director's presentation on future
growth pertaining to demographics, income levels, and housing types. He said it is also important to keep in mind that the
City is nearly built out, and there is very little land available to produce substantial new housing. He sees the City's options
to be fairly limited. They can rezone fringe areas that are currently single-family to multi -family, encourage infill
development, rezone large areas of land, or create zoning standards that allow for and encourage multi -family housing on
Highway 99.
Board Member Crank stressed the need to consider the specific housing needs of the people who will be moving to Edmonds
in the future. She reviewed how the City of Mountain View changed its zoning code over a period of time to allow the types
of development that was desired and needed to accommodate its growth. Vice Chair Rubenkonig agreed and recalled that the
Housing Element in the Comprehensive Plan also talks about the need to consider the housing needs of the special
populations in the City. Chair Lovell suggested that rather than trying to predict and determine where people can go and
what category, the Board's job is to make sure that the conditions exist to allow for an expansion of housing types and
opportunities.
Board Member Stewart suggested that the Board review the current zoning map and specifically identify the potential Cn
housing opportunities in areas such as Westgate, Firdale Village, Five Corners, Highway 99, etc. The Board raised some d
questions about whether or not housing types such as cottage housing, assisted living, and accessory dwelling units could be m
counted towards meeting the density requirement. Board Member Crank said it is possible the City will receive more W
rezone request as the population continues to increase. As the current aging population either passes away or moves away, a
developers could purchase and consolidate lots that could then be developed into greater densities.
co
The Board discussed whether or not the large lots (RS-20) in the northern portion of the City could be consolidated and
rezoned to RS-8 to accommodate additional density. Mr. Lien explained that the properties zoned RS-12 and RS-20 are
designated in the Comprehensive Plan Map as Single -Family Resource because there are steep slopes and critical areas w
present. Before a rezone could be approved, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended. Board Member Stewart
cautioned that when considering opportunities to increase density, they must also continue to protect the green spaces and
natural areas. t
Mr. Lien reminded the Board that Edmonds is supposed to have a population of 45,550 by 2035, which is a growth of about Q
245 people per year. A 2012 Buildable Lands Report found that there was capacity under the existing zoning for 2,646
Planning Board Minutes
March 9, 2016 Page 3
Packet Pg. 326
7.1.f
additional housing units by 2035. There have also been some changes to zoning on Highway 99 and at Westgate, which
crated an opportunity for an additional 267 housing units. He summarized that under the existing zoning, there is capacity for
3,339 housing units, which would meet the City's population projections.
Board Member Cheung pointed out that the cost of land in the downtown area is very high, and the same size lot on Highway
99 would likely be half the cost. He suggested that future development is more likely to occur along Highway 99. The
Board agreed that they would like to encourage mixed -use development in the Edmonds portion of Highway 99, particularly
because there is already rapid transit bus service available along the highway all the way to Seattle. They further agreed that
affordable homes and apartments in the areas with the highest mobility would be very desirable.
Chair Lovell shared that a number of multi -family residential complexes have been developed recently in Mountlake Terrace
and more are being planned. However, they are primarily apartment units rather than condominium units because the land is
less costly. However, with the exception of perhaps Highway 99, these conditions do not exist in Edmonds. Board Member
Crank pointed out that apartment units are often converted to condominium units over time. Board Member Robles added
that, typically, these units are built to a higher standard in anticipation of converting them to condominiums later on.
Board Member Crank asked if the City could require that a certain number of units in a new development must be affordable
or a developer must pay into an in -lieu -of program to construct affordable units elsewhere. Mr. Lien said some cities use this
approach, but Edmonds does not. However, some zones in the City, such as the Commercial Business -Edmonds Way (BL-
EW) zone, offer reduced setbacks and/or height as an incentive to encourage affordable housing.
The Board talked about the need for a diversity of units that are dispersed throughout the City, serving all types of people,
including the special populations. Housing types could include micro units, community living, and co-ops. Mr. Lien referred
the Board to Pages 82 and 83 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which talks about Area Medium Income
(AMI) for the Seattle/Bellevue area. He noted that medium income for Edmonds is about $67,000. The Housing Element
also talks about the average rents in Edmonds and the distribution of affordability. At this time, there is no extremely low-
income housing available in Edmonds, and only limited very low-income housing. While the capacity might be adequate, the
mix of housing types and affordability will be a bigger challenge to address.
The Board discussed the City's goal to create opportunities for people who live in Edmonds to work in Edmonds. they
agreed that creating employment in Edmonds of a nature and variety that can generate enough income for individuals and
families to live in Edmonds will be quite a challenge. Mr. Lien pointed out that the CG zone along Highway 99 allows
development up to 60 feet in height and the CG2 zone allows up to 75 feet in height. There are also two high-rise nodes that
allow unlimited height. It was discussed that redevelopment of Highway 99 will play a key role in the City's economic
future, and it is important to obtain input from and discuss opportunities with the property owners along the highway. Board
Member Cheung commented that if the City could attract several quality office buildings on Highway 99, they could attract
businesses that do not want to pay the higher Seattle rents. It was noted that the availability of transit service is also attractive
to businesses.
Chair Lovell pointed out that, with the exception of Highway 99, the height limits in Edmonds make it very difficult and less
attractive for developers to construct multi -family housing. Board Member Cheung said most people do not see Edmonds as
being an affordable place for apartments. Less costly apartments are available in Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace. People
do not choose Edmonds for the convenience factor, either, because Lynnwood is more convenient and closer to 99.
Board Member Monroe observed that the City has a high percentage of single-family homes and people own more of the is
community. He said he would hate to see this sacrificed in order to meet the demands of growth. Board Member Cheung
agreed and, once again, noted that it is hard to compete with some of the cheaper areas. Board Member Stewart and Vice z
Chair Rubenkonig stressed the need to provide housing opportunities that allow people to stay in their communities when i j
they need to downsize from their single-family homes as they age or their circumstances change.
c
m
The Board Members spent time reviewing the existing development Highway 99 and discussing potential opportunities for t
both commercial and residential development. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the City is currently in the process of
creating a subarea plan for Highway 99, which will include a Planned Action State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Q
Planning Board Minutes
March 9, 2016 Page 4
Packet Pg. 327
7.1.f
Review. This approach removes some of the hoops that developers have to jump through, and may encourage more
redevelopment along the highway.
Board Member Crank reminded the Board that "affordable housing" is different than "low-income housing." Mr. Lien
agreed and referred to the information provided in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Chair Rubenkonig
suggested that a more accurate term for "affordable housing" is "living -wage housing." Mr. Lien referred to the chart on
Page 84 of the Housing Element, which identifies the projected housing needs based on income.
It was noted that the Housing Element projects that 2,790 new units will be needed to accommodate the anticipated growth,
and the Board agreed that the City has an opportunity to steer the type of new development that occurs. While the capacity is
already available, attracting the appropriate type of development to meet the needs will be the challenge. They need to look
ahead and learn from other communities. Chair Lovell suggested that the Board invite a representative from the Puget Sound
Regional Council (PSRC) to attend a future meeting and provide information on what is going on in the rest of the county
and how other jurisdictions are addressing the issue of housing. The remainder of the Board agreed that would be helpful.
The Board agreed that mass density should be focused along the corridors where adequate public transportation and services
are already available. However, they also agreed it is important to provide housing options that allow people who already
live in Edmonds to remain as they age or their circumstances change. Potential options include Airbnb, cottage housing, and
accessory dwelling units.
Board Member Robles said the City of Twentynine Palms did an extensive research on the topic of vacation home rentals and
came up with a massive code that covers everything. He suggested that the Board consider this research as they continue
their code update discussion. This is one way the City can provide more overnight accommodations to visitors and help
property owners at the same time.
As the Board continues its discussion about housing, Vice Chair Rubenkonig suggested that options to consider include:
affordable housing requirements with off -setting density bonuses; multi -family residential tax exemptions; standards for
transit -oriented development; impact fee exemptions for affordable housing; cottage and/or carriage housing regulations;
small -lot, single-family allowances; broader accessory dwelling unit regulations; and allowing duplexes in single-family
zones.
Mr. Lien reminded the Board Members of the public workshop for Highway 99 planning and visioning on March 24th at 7:00
p.m. at City Hall.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Q
Planning Board Minutes
March 9, 2016 Page 5
Packet Pg. 328
7.1.g
have study and action items on all agendas so 2-3 touches on items. Have a process that allows
informal, frank discussion at dais
• Well run organizations allow time for small group discussion
• Consecutive committee meetings, allow Councilmembers to attend both if want. Affords opportunity for
Councilmember discussion between meetings
• Committees foster better communication rather than surprises
• Negatives can be overcome
• All models have been tried at different cities
• Regardless of process, articulate what "small" decisions are. Agree on typical things that do not need
much time and could go directly to Consent
• Every city has its own unique way to get business done. Kirkland has two Council meetings/month,
study session 6:00-7:00 p.m. on policy -related topics such as homelessness, pedestrian safety, CAO in
roundtable format with staff support. At 7:00 p.m. move to Council Chambers for business meeting.
Also have four committees with three Councilmembers on each, each Councilmember serves on two
committees. Committee meetings held throughout the month
• Form a subcommittee to develop a proposal to meet the needs of the Council — save time, frank
discussion, informal discussion, efficient way to move business through
• Most federal, state and local governments have committees, not everyone on committee, that is reality
of legislative process. It works, may need to build on trust issue
• Technical challenges related to transparency are not a big leap
• Is stilted communication at study sessions at dais the problem we're trying to solve? Mayor tends to run
study sessions and business meetings the same. Could excuse Mayor from study session and have
Council President run the meetings at a table
• As new Councilmember, would be tempted to attend committee meetings not assigned to so would not
save him time
• Committee meetings allow for more free flowing discussion and back and forth with staff
Council President Johnson declared a brief recess.
ORGANIZING GOALS, PRIORITIES AND 2016 TIMELINE
Council President Johnson advised the packet includes priorities from 2014 and 2015. The following list of
priorities was developed prior to the retreat, with the addition of a few at the retreat. Council and staff
participated in a dot exercise to identify what they wanted on the 2016 work plan (each person was provided 5
dots):
Council Issues
Council Dots
Staff Dots
Long Range Financial Plan
1
3
Homelessness
1
3
Affordable housing
4
1
Traffic safety
2
1
Sea level rise
2
Crumb rubber
3
Reassess work meetings
Walkway system safer and connected
1
Highway 99
5
Marijuana shop in Esperance
ADA accessibility
Five Corners redevelopment
3
Public comment process
1
Review boards and commissions
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
March 4-5, 2016
Page 15
Packet Pg. 329
7.1.g
Effective leadership training
Code updates with and without redlines
Strategic Action Plan
3
Follow-up
Annexation/Esperance
2
3
Staff Issues
Council Dots
Staff Dots
Affordable housing
Homelessness
1
Sea level rise
FD1/Budget
1
3
Livability
Quality of life: transit services, park system, beach access
to Waterfront
Community vision/branding/theme
Maintain charm
Attract younger generation
2
Public safety staffing needs: crime prevention, crime
analysis, narcotics, SRO
2
2
Port of Edmonds coordination
Economic development and planning
4
Height issue
2
Attract best candidates to fill key positions
Succession planning for senior staff
1
Build and maintain customer service culture
Improve communications including city's web pages and
social media
Financially sustainable funding of pipe replacement via
rate revenue
1
City's IT system
Maintenance of City owned buildings
1
Pavement preservation system — long time secure funding
1
4
Capital investments in parks
2
Workforce: hiring and retaining experienced staff
Long range financial plan
1
3
Highway 99
2
Code updates (other than land use)
1
2
The exercise revealed the following priorities:
Issue
Combined Council/Staff
Dots
Long range financial plan
8
Highway 99
7
Affordable housing
5
Pavement preservation system — long time secure funding
5
Annexation/Es erance
5
Public safety staffing needs: crime prevention, crime
analysis, narcotics, SRO
4
FD1/Budget
4
Economic development & planning
4
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
March 4-5, 2016
Page 16
Packet Pg. 330
7.1.g
Sea level rise 1 4
Council President Johnson advised she and Ms. Chase will summarize the above and provide the results to
Council. Next, Council President Johnson explained in addition to the extended agenda, she wanted to have a
planner for the year with upcoming issues for the Council. The planning calendar will be posted in the Council
office and she requested Councilmembers and staff add to it. Suggestions included putting the calendar on a
shared drive so everyone has access to it and developing a yearlong Extended Agenda.
CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES
1. What are our expectations for the City's advisory groups?
2. Should we provide training to the City's advisory groups?
3. Should we reestablish Transportation Committee, Parking Committee or Salary Commission?
Council President Johnson referred to a list of advisory groups and disbanded/inactive groups. It was agreed to:
• Bring to Council as an agenda item disbanding the Library Board. (There has been a recommendation
from the Library Board and Mayor to disband the Board, but no official action has been taken.)
• Add Mayor's Task Force on Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety
Discussion followed regarding the formation of a public advisory committee for Civic Field, the Civic Field
master planning process, boards/commissions versus Mayor's task forces and the functions of each, and
committees subject to OPMA only if created by ordinance.
Expectations
• Notes vs. Minutes
The following comments/suggestions were voiced by Council and staff.
o Planning Board/Parks and Architectural Design Board (ADB) need to be as detailed as possible
o Historic Preservation Commission could have focused notes
o Depends on impact of committee, want more detail for Planning Board and ADB
o Summary notes are good for most, less expensive, annual report to Council
o Prefer notes instead of minutes, written comments can make discussion sound worse
o Summary notes and audio is available if meeting is recorded or talk to person in attendance
o Three types of minutes: detailed, summary, action minutes — decide for each. In favor of summary
minutes for Council, have full audio/video record. Minutes are record of what happened, not what
was said
o Detailed minutes are not necessary and may be redundant when there is audio/video, but action
minutes may not be enough. Summary minutes identify issues, concerns
o Like the current fairly detailed minutes for City Council, Planning Board and ADB
o More detail is important for City Council, Planning Board and ADB. Detailed minutes can be
misunderstood. Summary/action sufficient for some boards/commissions
o Detailed minutes for ADB, Planning Board, City Council, notes for the rest.
o Minutes are approved by the body at next meeting, notes are not. Reason executive session notes are
called notes and not minutes is because they are never reviewed/approved by City Council. Notes
are unapproved notation of what took place
o Originally took notes at committee meetings, expanded to minutes
o Lodging Tax Advisory Committee is required by State law
o Take notes (not approved at next meeting) at meetings except Planning Board, ADB and City
Council
o Option: record meeting and create minutes after the meeting
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
March 4-5, 2016
Page 17
Packet Pg. 331
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Rejection of Bids for the Edmonds Veteran's Plaza Project (10 min.)
Staff Lead: Carrie Hite
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On January 20, 2015, Council approved the concept for the Veterans Plaza.
On August 2, 2016, council authorized the Mayor to sign the revised Goods & Materials Agreement for
the procurement of stone cladding, paving and site furnishings for the Edmonds Veterans Plaza from
Coldspring.
On August 23, 2016, council authorized the Mayor to sign a Change Authorization for the Goods &
Materials Agreement for the procurement of stone cladding, paving and site furnishings for the
Edmonds Veterans Plaza from Coldspring.
Staff Recommendation
Reject bids.
Narrative
On August 18, 2016, the City received two bids for the Edmonds Veterans Plaza. The bids ranged from a
low of $ 416,383.56 by R. L. Alia Company to a high of $734,962 by A-1 Landscape and Construction, Inc.
The architect's estimate was $248,683. The low bid along with a 10% Management Reserve has resulted
in a $227,393 budget shortfall in the project budget. Refer to the budget attachment (Exhibit A).
The Edmonds Veterans Plaza Committee has been briefed on the August 18th bids and the current
project budget. The committee has agreed to resume capital fundraising activities to provide additional
money for the project. The consultant, Site Workshop, is reviewing the architect's estimate and is
evaluating the current construction bidding climate. The City plans to call for bids by late 2016 with the
goal of completing the project in time for Memorial Day 2017.
The Edmonds Veterans Plaza is a community project to support, create and build memorials to
Edmonds military veterans. The project will provide site improvements and enhancements to
the existing City of Edmonds Municipal Court Plaza and immediate surroundings. It includes a
new stone -clad wall with two waterfall feature elements, related mechanical, plumbing and
electrical work, new paving, walls, stairs and handrails, new site furnishings and lighting,
modifications to existing planting and irrigation, minor modifications to the existing parking lot
and new utility connections.
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Veterans Plaza Budget
Packet Pg. 332
8.1.a
Exhibit A
Edmonds Veterans Plaza Project
Construction Budget
(with low bid from R.L. Alia)
Description
Amount
Contract Bid (R.L. Alia)
$416,384
Design & Construction Management (Site Workshop)
$55,550
Owner Furnished Stone Materials (Coldspring)
$145,156
Owner Furnished Benches & Plaques
$24,200
Owner Furnished Dog Statue
$8,500
Permit Fees
$8,175
Staff Time
$15,000
Utility Connections (Water & Sewer)
$9,467
Management Reserve (10%)
$41,638
Bid Advertising
$843
Total = $724,913
Construction Funding
runaing Amount
Edmonds Veterans Plaza Fund $482,520
Parks: 132 Fund $15,000
Total = $497,520
Packet Pg. 333
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Settlement Agreement for ROW Acquisition related to the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements Project
(10 min.)
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On June 23, 2015, City Council approved the Possession and Use Deposit for the County Farms property
as part of the 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements project.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the Settlement Agreement.
Narrative
The City concluded right of way negotiations earlier this month with the property owner at the
southwest corner of 228th St and Highway 99 for the 228th St. Corridor Improvement Project. The
negotiations to acquire 491 square feet of right of way and 1,556 square feet of temporary construction
easement began in February, 2013.
The City's initial offer was $14,600 and the proposed settlement is $65,000. During negotiations, staff
identified the need to increase the compensation for the loss of parking. The proposed settlement
amount is significantly less than the amount requested by the property owner.
The right of way acquisition cost will be funded by the federal transportation grant for the project.
Attachments:
Settlement Agreement
Memorandum of Understanding
Packet Pg. 334
I 8.2.a I
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY
CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal
corporation, No. 14-2-04564-4
Petitioner,
vs.
RJ WILLY, L.L.C., a Washington corporation;
and ALL UNKNOWN OWNERS and
ENCUMBRANCERS,
Respondents.
STIPULATED JUDGMENT, DECREE
OF APPROPRIATION AND ORDER
FOR DISBURSEMENT
Tax Parcel Nos. 005767-000-002-04
and 005767-000-002-02
I. STIPULATION
Petitioner, the City of Edmonds, filed a condemnation action against Respondent RJ Willy,
LLC, seeking to acquire certain property and property rights for the construction, operation and
maintenance of the 2281h Street SW Corridor Improvements Project in Edmonds, Washington.
The parties have reached an agreed settlement of this condemnation matter. Therefore, the
Petitioner and the Respondent, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby
stipulate and agree to the Court's entry of the following Judgment, Decree of Appropriation and
Order for Disbursement:
STIPULATED JUDGMENT, DECREE OF LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
1100 DEXTER AVENUE N., SUITE I00
APPROPRIATION & ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT - I SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 ♦ 206-273-7440
Cl
O
�L
O
U
t
00
N
N
a
N
.3
a'
a
0
M
c
as
E
a�
a�
L
a
r
a�
U)
c
a�
U
a
Packet Pg. 335 1
I 8.2.a I
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I. JUDGMENT SUMMARY
1. Judgment Creditor:
2. Judgment Debtor:
3. Total Judgment:
4. Amount of Previous Deposit:
5. Remaining Amount Due:
6. Attorney for Judgment Creditor:
7. Attorneys for Judgment Debtor:
8. Legal Description:
9. Snohomish County Tax Parcel Nos
RJ Willy, LLC
City of Edmonds
$65,000.00
$14,600.00
$50,400.00
William B. Foster, Attorney at Law
Sharon Cates and Jeffrey Taraday
Lighthouse Law Group PLLC
See Attached Exhibit 1
005767-000-002-04 & 005767-000-002-02
II. JUDGMENT, DECREE OF APPROPRIATION AND ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT
The Court, having reviewed the records, files, and pleadings herein, and the stipulation to
entry of the Judgment, Decree of Appropriation and Order for Disbursement, above, it is now,
therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:
1. On or about June 4, 2013, the City Council of the City of Edmonds enacted Ordinance
No. 3924, exercising its power of eminent domain and authorizing the acquisition of certain real
property and property rights for the purpose of constructing, locating, operating and maintaining
the 2281h Street SW Corridor Improvements Project in Edmonds ("Project"). In particular,
through Ordinance No. 3924, the City Council declared the existence of public use and necessity
for the acquisition of certain real property and property rights of fee owner RJ Willy, LLC located
in Edmonds, Washington, Snohomish County Tax Parcel Nos. 005767-000-002-04 and 005767-
000-002-02.
STIPULATED JUDGMENT, DECREE OF LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
00
APPROPRIATION & ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT - 2 iioo DEXHINGTOER ``t'EN., * 206-ITE 73-
SEArrLE, WASFTTNGTON 9$].09 � 20fr273-7440
L
0
�L
`0
U
00
N
N
a
0
.3
a'
a
0
M
c
as
E
a�
a�
L
a�
a
as
E
as
r
a�
U)
c
a�
a
Packet Pg. 336 1
I 8.2.a I
1
2
4
51
6
7
8:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2. The City of Edmonds commenced eminent domain proceedings in June 2014. In
September 2014, the Court entered the parties' Stipulation and Agreed Order on Public Use and
Necessity and Stipulated Order for Immediate Possession and Use for the real property and
property rights of Respondent legally described and depicted in Exhibit 1, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference ("Condemned Property").
3. The Respondent has agreed to accept as full and final just compensation for the
appropriation of the Condemned Property by eminent domain the total amount of Sixty -Five
Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents (S65,000.00), which includes all costs and fees associated with
this matter. The City previously deposited with the registry of the Court a Possession and Use
Deposit in the amount of Fourteen Thousand Six Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($14,600.00).
Therefore, the remaining just compensation to be paid by the City of Edmonds to Respondent for
the Condemned Property, together with all attorneys' fees, costs, expert/evaluation fees and
interest, if any, is the amount of Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents
(S50,400.00). Within five (5) business days of the entry of this Stipulated Judgment, Decree of
Appropriation and Order for Disbursement by the Court, the City of Edmonds shall pay the
remaining amount due into the registry of the Court for subsequent disbursement to Respondent
pursuant to the Order of Disbursement, incorporated herein.
4. All of the rights, title, and interests of Respondent to the Condemned Property are
conveyed to the City of Edmonds free from all claims of fee interest, leasehold interest, or any
other property interest. Such rights as they relate to the parcel acquisition are hereafter vested in
the City of Edmonds in fee simple absolute. The City's use of the temporary construction
easements is complete and those easements have been released.
STIPULATED JUDGMENT, DECREE OF LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLc
1100 DEXTER AvENUE N., SUITE 100
APPROPRIATION & ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT - 3 SE.ATTLE, WASAINGTON 98109 ♦ Z06-273.7440
0
�L
Lo
U
t
00
N
N
c
0
a'
a
0
c
as
as
L
a
a�
a�
U)
c
a�
U
a
Packet Pg. 337 1
I 8.2.a I
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
74
25
26
5. The total Just Compensation paid includes all claims for fees and costs of any kind
incurred in this matter, including expenses incurred in evaluating the City's offer pursuant to
RCW 8.25.020.
6. Any property taxes due and owing shall be disbursed to Snohomish County.
7. Respondent is entitled to the net judgment amount less the amount of property taxes
disbursed to Snohomish County, if any. Disbursement of the balance shall be made by issuing a
check, made payable to RJ Willy, LLC in the amount of Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Dollars
and Zero Cents ($50,400.00), less the amount disbursed to Snohomish County, if any, and the
Clerk's handling fee, if any, and mailed to RJ Willy, LLC at 1529 Broadway, Everett,
Washington, 98201.
8. Entry of this Decree of Appropriation resolves all claims in this matter with respect to
the Condemned Property, and the Clerk may remove it from the trial calendar. This matter is
dismissed.
9. The City of Edmonds shall record a certified copy of this Stipulated Judgment, Decree
of Appropriation and Order for Disbursement in the Office of the Snohomish County Auditor.
DONE IN OPEN COURT this day of
HONORABLE
Presented by:
LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
SHARON CATES, WSBA #2927-1
JEFFREY B. TARADAY, WSBA #28182
Attorneys for Petitioner City of Edmonds
STIPULATED JUDGMENT, DECREE OF
APPROPRIATION & ORDER FOR DISBURSEMENT - 4
2016.
Approved for entry; Presentation waived by;
WILLIAM B. FOSTER, TTORNEY AT LAW
1
WILL B. F T WSB #8270
Attorney forlttsp dent
RJ Willy, LLC
LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
1100 DExTEP AVENUE N., SUITE 100
SEATTLE, WAS11INGTON 98109 t Z06-273-7440
0
L
`o
U
t
00
N
N
c
0
.3
a
0
M
c
as
E
as
a
a�
E
a�
a�
U)
c
a�
E
a
Packet Pg. 338 1
8.2.b
Memorandum of Understanding
Amended to the
AGREEMENT
by and between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
and
RJ WILLY, LLC
Effective July 1, 2015
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is by and between the CITY OF
EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation (hereinafter "Edmonds") and RJ
WILLY, LLC, a Washington limited liability company (hereinafter "Willy"), currently
involved in Iitigation under Snohomish Co. Cause No. 14.2-04564-4.
Following a day of mediation, the parties agree as follows:
1. Edmonds agrees to pay Willy the sum of $65,000 in full and complete
settlement of this matter.
2. This offer will remain open until the close of business Dec. 31, 2415.
3. Prior to the date in para. 2 and after completion of the SR 991228d, St.
intersection project, the parties agree to meet in good faith to make effort
to finalize the settlement of this matter.
RJ WILLY, LLC
Rod Waters, Member
Date
r
CITY OF EDMONDS
S ates, Office o e City Attorney
i n
Date
1 of 1
Packet Pg. 339
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 09/6/2016
Stormwater Management Code Update, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30 (20
min.)
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On June 14, 2016, staff provided an update on the required stormwater code changes.
On August 2, 2016, a public hearing was held on the proposed update to the stormwater management
code.
On August 23, 2016, staff presented the proposed update to the stormwater management code.
Staff Recommendation
Prepare an Ordinance and place it on the consent agenda for a future City Council meeting.
Narrative
This item is on the agenda for further discussion. During the August 23rd City Council meeting, there
was a question regarding the wording in section 18.30.060(C)2 of the proposed code. Staff determined
that this section of the code, provided in the August 23rd City Council packet, was the correct version.
Also attached are the responses to Councilmember Buckshinis' questions that were submitted to staff
on August 25th.
Attachment 1 is the current version of the proposed code. Attachment 2 is the redlined version of the
proposed code which captures the changes since the public hearing on August 2, 2016.
The proposed stormwater code has been sent to the State for review and the SEPA process is
anticipated to be completed in September.
Staff recommends placing an ordinance on the consent agenda for a future City Council meeting in late
September or early October, to adopt the proposed stormwater management code changes and make it
effective on January 1, 2017.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Edmonds is a Department of Ecology Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater
Permittee. As a Phase II permit holder, the City is required to update our stormwater code by December
31, 2016 to meet the minimum requirements of the 2012 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual.
This includes reviewing and revising all development -related codes, rules, and standards to incorporate
and require Low Impact Development principles and best management practices to make Low Impact
Packet Pg. 340
9.1
Development the preferred and commonly used approach to site development. The goal is to infiltrate,
disperse, and retain stormwater runoff onsite to the extent feasible.
Attachments:
Attachmen 1 - ECDC 18.30-FINAL DRAFT-08.23.2016
Attachment 2 - ECDC 18.30-FINAL DRAFT-08.23.2016-redlines from 08.02.2016 version
Attachment 3 - Response to Buckshnis questions-09012016 PHW02
Attachment 4 - ECDC 18.30-Redline Version
Attachment 5 - SW Code Council Public Hearing-20160802
Packet Pg. 341
9.1.a
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Chapter 18.30
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Sections:
18.30.000 Purposes.
18.30.010 Definitions.
18.30.020 Authority and Regulation.
18.30.030 Applicability.
18.30.040 Exemptions.
18.30.050 Administration.
18.30.060 Requirements.
18.30.070 Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeal.
18.30.080 Access and Covenants.
18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities.
18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures.
18.30.000 Purposes.
Page 1/23
A. To set forth standards for managing stormwater runoff from construction and development sites to minimize:
1. Degradation of surface water quality by controlling the scouring and sedimentation of creeks, streams,
wetlands, ponds, lakes, other water bodies.
2. Degradation of groundwater quality.
3. Damage to adjacent and other downstream private properties from erosion or other impacts from stormwater
runoff.
4. Damage of City -owned parcels, City roads, rights -of -way and associated infrastructure.
B. To comply with requirements in the Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal
Stormwater Permit as issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).
C. To complement site planning activities that minimize:
1. Impervious surfaces area.
2. The loss of native or non-native site vegetation.
3. The generation of stormwater runoff.
D. To make low impact development (LID) the preferred and commonly used approach to site development; to require
LID be considered at the site planning stage; and to implement LID BMPs unless they are infeasible.
E. To require that all publicly -owned and privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control best management
practices (BMPs)/Facilities are operated, maintained and repaired in manner that conforms to this chapter.
F. To provide the authority for the City to inspect privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control
BMPs/Facilities.
G. To provide enforcement procedures for ensuring compliance with this chapter.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 342
9.1.a
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 2/23
18.30.010 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
Arterial. A road or street primarily for through traffic. The term generally includes roads or streets considered
collectors. It does not include local access roads which are generally limited to providing access to abutting property.
See also RCW 35.78.010, RCW 36.86.070, and RCW 47.05.021.
Adjustment. A variation in the application of a minimum requirement to a particular project. Adjustments provide
substantially equivalent environmental protection.
Applicant. The owning individual(s) or corporations or their representatives applying for the permits or approvals
described in this chapter.
Approval. The proposed work or completed work conforming to this chapter as approved by the public works Director
or their designee.
Best management practices (BMPs). The schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures,
and structural and/or managerial practices approved by the City that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or
reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State.
Bioretention. Engineered facilities that treat stormwater by passing it through a specified soil profile, and either retain
or detain the treated stormwater for flow attenuation. Refer to the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (SWMMWW), Chapter 7 of Volume V for bioretention BMP types and design specifications.
Category 1 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.1 through No.S. See ECDC 18.30.60.C.
Category 2 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.l through No.9. See ECDC 18.30.60.C.
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL). An individual who has current certification through an
approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by
Ecology (see BMP C160 in the SWMMWW). A CESCL is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion
and sediment control. The CESCL must have the skills to assess site conditions and construction activities that could
impact the quality of stormwater and, the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the
quality of stormwater discharges. Certification is obtained through an Ecology approved erosion and sediment control
course. Course listings are provided online at Ecology's website.
City's municipal separate storm sewer system or "MS4." A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads
with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains)
that are owned or operated by the City of Edmonds, designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater, and are
not a combined sewer nor part of a publicly owned treatment works as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 122.2, and which is defined as "large" or "medium" or "small" or otherwise designated by Ecology pursuant to
40 CFR 122.26.
Clearing. The destruction and removal of vegetation by manual, mechanical, or chemical methods.
Commercial Agriculture. Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) and activities involved in
the production of crops or livestock for commercial trade. An activity ceases to be considered commercial agriculture
when the area on which it is conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more
than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity
is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural
activity.
Common plan of development or sale. A site where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking
place at different times on different schedules and/or by different contractors, but still under a single plan. Examples
include: 1) phase projects and projects with multiple filings or lots, even if the separate phases or filings/lots will be
constructed under separate contract or by separate owners (e.g., a development where lots are sold to separate
builders); 2) a development plan that may be phased over multiple years, but is still under a consistent plan for
long-term development; 3) projects in a contiguous area that maybe unrelated but still under the same contract, such
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 343
9.1.a
Edmonds Page 3/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
as construction of a building extension and a new parking lot at the same facility; and 4) linear projects such as roads,
pipelines, or utilities. If the project is part of a common plan of development or sale, the disturbed area of the entire
plan must be used in determine permit requirements.
Converted vegetation (areas). The change in land cover changed from native vegetation, pasture scrub/shrub, or
unmaintained non-native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or where native vegetation is converted to pasture.
Creek. Is synonymous with "streams," which is defined in ECDC 23.40.320.
Detention facility. An above or below ground facility, such as a pond or tank, that temporarily stores stormwater
runoff and subsequently releases it at a slower rate than it is collected by the drainage facility system. There is little or
no infiltration of stored stormwater.
Development. Land -disturbing activities, including Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timber
land to other uses. Creation or addition of hard surfaces, or replacement of hard surface that is not part of a routine
maintenance activity. Structural development, including construction, installation, replacement, or expansion of a
building or other structure. Subdivision, short subdivision, and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter
58.17 RCW
Director. The City's Public Works and Utilities Director or a designee with an appropriate background in engineering
or another related discipline.
Discharge point. The location where a discharge leaves the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) through the
City's MS4 facilitiesBMPs designed to infiltrate.
Ecology. The Washington State Department of Ecology.
Effective impervious surface. Those impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete conveyance to a
drainage system. Impervious surfaces on residential development sites are considered ineffective if: 1) the runoff is
dispersed through at least 100 feet of native vegetation in accordance with BMP T5.30 —'Tull Dispersion," as
described in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW; 2) residential roof runoff is infiltrated in accordance with
downspout Full Infiltration Systems in BMP T5.10A in Volume III of the SWMMWW; or 3) approved continuous
runoff modeling methods indicate the entire runoff file is infiltrated.
Erodible or leachable materials. Wastes, chemicals, or other substances that measurably alter the physical or chemical
characteristics of runoff when exposed to rainfall. Examples include erodible soils that are stockpiled, uncovered
process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, and garbage dumpster leakage.
Erosion. The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents, including such
processes as gravitational creep. Also, detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or
gravity. See the SWMMWW Glossary for examples of types of water erosion.
Excavation. The mechanical removal of earth material.
Exception. Relief from the application of a minimum requirement to a project.
Fill. A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means.
Groundwater. Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the land surface or below a water body.
Hard surface. An impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof.
Highway. A main public road connecting towns and cities. In Edmonds, this includes State Route 99, State Route 524,
and portions of State Route 104, that are classified as principal arterials in the City's comprehensive transportation
plan.
Illicit discharge. Any direct or indirect non-stormwater discharge to the City's MS4, groundwaters, or a water body,
except as expressly allowed by ECDC Chapter 7.200.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 344
9.1.a
Edmonds Page 4/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Impervious surface. A non -vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle
as under natural conditions prior to development. A non -vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the
surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to
development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways,
parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam
or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention
facilities shall not be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for
application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be considered
impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling. Outdoor swimming pools shall be considered impervious
surfaces in all situations. In addition, lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, and other areas that have modified
runoff characteristics resulting from the addition of underdrains are to be considered impervious surfaces.
Lake. An inland body of fresh water surrounded by land.
Land disturbing activity. Any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and
non -vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land -disturbing activities include but are not limited to
demolition, clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is associated with stabilization of structures
and road construction shall also be considered a land -disturbing activity. Vegetation maintenance practices, including
landscape maintenance and gardening, are not considered land -disturbing activity. Stormwater facility maintenance is
not considered land disturbing activity if conducted according to established standards and procedures.
Low impact development (LID). A stormwater and land use strategy that strives to mimic pre -disturbance hydrologic
processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site
features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design.
LID Best Management Practices (BMPs). Distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project
design, that emphasize pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and
transpiration. LID BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof
downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water
re -use.
LID principles. Land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on -site natural features, and site
planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff.
Maintenance. Repair and maintenance activities conducted on currently serviceable structures, facilities, and
equipment that involves no expansion or use beyond that previously existing and results in no significant adverse
hydrologic impact. It includes those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation in the use of
structures and systems. Those usual activities may include replacement of dysfunctional facilities, including cases
where environmental permits require replacing an existing structure with a different type structure, as long as the
functioning characteristics of the original structure are not changed. One example is the replacement of a collapsed,
fish blocking, round culvert with a new box culvert under the same span, or width, of roadway. In regard to stormwater
facilities, maintenance includes assessment to ensure ongoing proper operation, removal of built up pollutants (i.e.,
sediments), replacement of failed or failing treatment media, and other actions taken to correct defects as identified in
the maintenance standards of Chapter 4, Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Maximum extent practicable (MEP). Refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act which reads
as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system,
design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate
for the control of such pollutants.
MS4. The City's municipal separate storm sewer system.
Native vegetation. Vegetation comprised of plant species, other than noxious weeds, indigenous to the coastal region
of the Pacific Northwest which could have been reasonably expected to occur naturally on the site. Examples include
trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big -leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as
willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 345
9.1.a
Edmonds Page 5/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Natural drainage systems and outfalls. The location of the channels, swales, and other non -manmade conveyance
systems as defined by the earliest documented topographic contours existing for the subject property, either from maps
or photographs, or such other means as appropriate.
Outfall. A point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a discharge leaves the City's MS4 and enters a
surface receiving waterbody or surface receiving waters. Outfall does not include pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances
which connect segments of the same stream or other surface waters and are used to convey primarily surface waters
(i.e., culverts).
On -site Stormwater Management BMPs. A synonym for Low Impact Development BMPs.
Permeable pavement. Pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers or other forms of pervious or porous
paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an aggregate base
that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir.
Pervious Surface. Any surface material that allows stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Examples include lawn,
landscape, pasture, native vegetation areas, and permeable pavements.
Person. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative, public or municipal
corporation, agency of the state, or City government unit, however designated.
Pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS). Those hard surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in
stormwater runoff. See the listing of surfaces under pollution -generating impervious surface.
Pollution -generating impervious surface (PGIS). Those impervious surfaces considered to be a significant source of
pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to: vehicular use; industrial activities
(as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or
chemicals, and which receive direct rainfall or the run-on or blow-in of rainfall; metal roofs unless they are coated with
an inert, non -leachable material (e.g., baked -on enamel coating); or roofs that are subject to venting significant
amounts of dusts, mists, or fumes from manufacturing, commercial, or other indoor activities.
Pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS). Any non -impervious surface subject to vehicular use, industrial
activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); or storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes,
or chemicals, and that receive direct rainfall or run-on or blow-in of rainfall, use of pesticides and fertilizers, or loss of
soil. Typical PGPS include permeable pavement subject to vehicular use, lawns, and landscaped areas including: golf
courses, parks, cemeteries, and sports fields (natural and artificial turf).
Pre -developed condition. The native vegetation and soils that existed at a site prior to the influence of Euro-American
settlement. The pre -developed condition shall be assumed to be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic
information is provided that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement.
Project site. That portion of a property, properties, and/or right-of-way subject to land -disturbing activities, new hard
surfaces, or replaced hard surfaces. For projects that involve land disturbing activity on one or more parcels and land
disturbing activity in the City right-of-way, the "Project site" includes all areas of land disturbance. If the project is
part of a common development plan or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan shall be used in determining permit
requirements.
Rain garden. A non -engineered shallow landscaped depression, with compost -amended native soils and adapted
plants. The depression is designed to pond and temporarily store stormwater runoff from adjacent areas, and to allow
stormwater to pass through the amended soil profile.
Receiving waterbody or Receiving waters. Naturally and/or reconstructed naturally occurring surface water bodies,
such as creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and marine waters, or groundwater, to which a MS4
discharges.
Replaced hard surface. For structures means the removal and replacement of hard surfaces down to the foundation. For
other hard surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 346
9.1.a
Edmonds Page 6/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Replaced impervious surface. For structures, the removal and replacement of any exterior impervious surfaces down
to the foundation. For other impervious surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and
replacement.
Roadway. Traveled hard surface portion of any public or private road or street.
Road -related project. A project that all of, or the majority of, the new or replaced hard surface consist of roadway,
shoulders, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or walkways, either publicly or privately funded.
Runoff. Water originating from rainfall and other precipitation that is found in drainage facilities, rivers, streams,
springs, seeps, ponds, lakes and wetlands, as well as shallow ground water. It also means the portion of rainfall or
other precipitation that becomes surface flow and interflow.
Site. The area defined by the legal boundaries of a parcel or parcels of land that is (are) subject to development. For
road projects, or utility projects in the right-of-way, the length of the project site and the right-of-way boundaries
define the site.
Slope. The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal; measured as a numerical ratio, percent, or in degrees.
Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal distance (run) and the second is the vertical distance (rise), as
2:1. A 2:1 slope is a 50 percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the horizontal plane, with a
90-degree slope being vertical (maximum) and 45 degrees being a 1:1 or 100 percent slope.
Soil. The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the intermediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural
medium for the growth of land plants.
Source control BMPs. A structure or operation that is intended to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with
storm water through physical separation of areas or careful management of activities that are sources of pollutants.
The SWMMWW separates source control BMPs into two types. Structural source control BMPs are physical,
structural, or mechanical devices, or facilities that are intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater.
Operational BMPs are non-structural practices that prevent or reduce pollutants from entering stormwater. See
Volume IV of the SWMMWW for details.
Stormwater facility. A constructed component of a stormwater drainage system, designed and constructed to perform
a particular function or multiple functions. Stormwater facilities include, but are not limited to, pipes, swales, ditches,
culverts, street gutters, detention ponds, retention ponds, constructed wetlands, infiltration devices, catch basins,
oil/water separators, and biofiltration swales.
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). The Washington State Department of
Ecology's 2012 (as amended in 2014) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Referred to as the
2014 SWMMWW.
Stormwater site plan. The comprehensive report containing all of the technical information and analysis necessary for
regulatory agencies to evaluate a proposed development project for compliance with stormwater requirements.
Contents of the Stormwater Site Plan will vary with the type and size of the project, and individual site characteristics.
It includes a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Construction SWPPP) and a Permanent Stormwater
Control Plan (PSC Plan). Guidance on preparing a Stormwater Site Plan is contained in Chapter 3 of Volume I of the
SWMMWW.
Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/Facilities. Detention facilities, treatment BMPs/facilities,
bioretention, vegetated roofs, and permeable pavements that help meet Minimum Requirements No.6 (Treatment),
Minimum Requirement No.7 (Flow Control), or both as described in ECDC 18.30.060.
Threshold discharge area. An on -site area that drains to either a single natural discharge location or multiple natural
discharge locations that combine within one -quarter mile downstream (as determined by the shortest flowpath). The
examples below and in Figure G.1 presented in Volume I of the SWMMWW illustrate this definition. The purpose of
this definition is to clarify how the thresholds of this code are applied to project sites with multiple discharge points.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 347
9.1.a
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 7/23
Example of a Site with a
Example of a Site with
Example of a Site with
Single Natural Discharge
Multiple Natural
Multiple Natural Discharges
and a Single Threshold
Discharges and a Single
and Multiple Threshold
Discharge Area
Threshold Discharge Area
Discharge Areas
Natural
NaWral Natural
NAvral Natural
dDischarge--...--
bischart -. Discharge-----• ...
bischarge_ Discharx3e------ -..
Area
Area 1 Area 2
.
Area 1 Area 2
THRESHOLD
DISCHARGE
f----.THRE HOLD
THRESHOLD THRESHOL
D15CFiAd -
NSC ARG�. -
DISCHARGE
AREIi--.,,
. •••••• f Shaded ti
:,.A
AREA T,,, AFfEA2
ed)
(Shade
Natural
Natural
Natural
Discharge
discharge
Discharge
i Location
Location
Location f
.ti
tJ
is
s
f
1 f
r
'!4 Mile Downstream.w------------------------
4___________�
{shortest flow path) by
V
Vehicular Use. Regular use of an impervious or pervious surface by motor vehicles. The following are subject to
regular vehicular use: roads, un-vegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways,
parking lots, unrestricted access fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways.
The following are not considered subject to regular vehicular use: paved bicycle pathways separated from and not
subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, restricted access fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance
access roads.
Waterbody. Surface waters including rivers, streams, lakes, marine waters, estuaries, and wetlands.
Waters of the state. Includes those waters defined as "waters of the United States" in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the
geographic boundaries of Washington State, and "waters of the state" as defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW which
includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and
water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.
Wetlands. As defined in ECDC 23.40.005. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016].
18.30.020 Authority and Regulation.
A. The Public Works and Utilities Director shall administer this chapter and shall be referred to as the Director.
B. The Director shall have the authority to develop, implement, and enforce policies and procedures to administer and
enforce this chapter per ECDC 18.30.110 and 18.30.120, such as the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum.
C. The requirements of this chapter are minimum requirements. They do not replace, repeal, abrogate, supersede, or
affect any other more stringent requirements, rules, regulations, covenants, standards, or restrictions. Where this
chapter imposes requirements that are more protective of human health or the environment than those set forth
elsewhere, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. When this chapter imposes requirements that are less protective
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 348
9.1.a
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 8/23
of human health or the environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of the more protective requirements
shall prevail.
D. The Director shall have the authority to impose additional requirements on a project or site to meet the purpose of
this chapter based on site -specific factors including, but not limited to, location, soil conditions, slope, and designated
use.
E. Approvals and permits granted under this chapter are not waivers of the requirements of any other laws, nor do they
indicate compliance with any other laws. Compliance is still required with all applicable federal, state and local laws
and regulations, including rules promulgated under authority of this chapter.
F. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not necessarily mitigate all impacts to the environment. Thus,
compliance with this chapter should not be construed as mitigating all drainage water or other environmental impacts,
and additional mitigation may be required to protect the environment pursuant to other applicable laws and
regulations. The primary obligation for compliance with this chapter and for preventing environmental harm on or
from property is placed upon the applicant. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010].
18.30.030 Applicability.
A. This chapter applies to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2017 and applications submitted prior to
January 1, 2017, which have not started construction by January 1, 2022.
B. This chapter applies to the following actions on sites that discharge to the City's MS4 or discharges to waters of
the state whether or not a City -issued permit is required:
1. Land -disturbing activity, or
2. Creation of new hard surfaces, or
3. Replacement of existing hard surfaces, or
4. Conversion of pervious surfaces, or
5. New connections to the City's MS4, or
6. Any other actions that can increase the volume or rate of stormwater runoff, or cause the generation of
pollutants, from the site.
18.30.040 Exemptions.
A. Full Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are exempt from the provisions of this
chapter:
1. Forest practices regulated under WAC Title 222, except for Class IV general forest practices that are
conversions from timberland to other uses, are exempt from the provisions of the minimum requirements
2. Commercial agriculture practices that involve working land for production are generally exempt. However,
land conversion from timberland to agriculture and the construction of impervious surfaces are not exempt.
3. Construction of drilling sites, waste management pits, and associated access roads, and construction of
transportation and treatment infrastructure such as pipelines, natural gas treatment plants, natural gas pipeline
compressor stations, and crude oil pumping stations are exempt. Operators are encouraged to implement and
maintain best management practices to minimize erosion and control sediment during and after construction
activities to help ensure protection of surface water quality during storm events.
4. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are exempt: pothole and square -cut patching,
overlaying existing asphalt or concrete pavement with asphalt or concrete without expanding the area of
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 349
9.1.a
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 9/23
coverage, shoulder grading, reshaping/regrading drainage systems, crack sealing, resurfacing with in -kind
material without expanding the road prism, pavement preservation activities that do not expand the road
prism, and vegetation maintenance.
B. Partial Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are partially exempt from the provisions
of this chapter:
1. Underground utility projects that replace the ground surface with in -kind material or materials with similar
runoff characteristics are only subject to Minimum Requirement No. 2, Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention.
2. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are considered development, and therefore are
not categorically exempt. The extent to which these requirements apply is explained for each circumstance.
a. Removing and replacing a paved surface to base course or a lower level, or repairing the pavement base:
If impervious surfaces are not expanded, Minimum Requirements No. 1 — No. 5 apply when the
thresholds identified for development projects in ECDC 18.30.060 are met. Where appropriate, project
proponents are encouraged to look for opportunities to use permeable and porous pavements.
b. Extending the pavement edge without increasing the size of the road prism or paving graveled shoulders:
these are considered new impervious surfaces and are subject to the minimum requirements that are
triggered when the thresholds identified for development projects in ECDC 18.30.060 are met.
c. Resurfacing by upgrading from dirt to gravel, asphalt, or concrete; or upgrading from gravel to asphalt or
concrete; or upgrading from a bituminous surface treatment ("chip seal") to asphalt or concrete: these are
considered new impervious surfaces and are subject to the minimum requirements that are triggered
when the thresholds identified for development projects in ECDC 18.30.060 are met.
18.30.050 Administration.
A. Application, Submittals, and Review.
1. The Director shall review all plans and all other submittals required by ECDC 18.30.050.A.3 for compliance
with this chapter when:
a. An application for a City permit is required under all other chapters of ECDC Title 18 or 19, or
b. A subdivision application is submitted per ECDC 20.75.040.
2. In all other situations when actions under ECDC 18.30.030 apply to a project site, review shall be under a
Stormwater permit.
3. All stormwater review submittals shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other
applicable City code, a Stormwater Site Plan as described in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (see
ECDC 18.30.060) and any other information required by the Director.
B. Inspections.
1. The Director shall inspect projects at various stages of the work to determine if they comply with the
requirements of this chapter, and enforcement actions shall be taken as necessary. These inspections will
include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Prior to site clearing and construction to assess site erosion potential, and
b. During construction to verify proper installation and maintenance of required erosion and sediment
controls and other approved plan components, and
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 350
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 10/23
c. All permanent stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities and catch basins in new
residential developments every six months until 90 percent of the lots are constructed (or when
construction is stopped and the site is fully stabilized) to identify maintenance needs and enforce
compliance with maintenance standards as needed, and
d. Upon completion of construction and prior to final approval to ensure proper installation of permanent
stormwater control facilities and verify that a maintenance plan is completed and responsibility for
maintenance is assigned for stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities, and
e. Post -Construction inspections per ECDC 18.30.090.
2. When reasonably required by the Director to accomplish the purpose of this chapter or to comply with local,
state or federal law or regulation on stormwater, special inspection or testing shall be performed by the
applicant.
C. Fees. Application, review and inspection fees as set in ECDC Chapter 15.00 shall be paid.
18.30.060 Requirements.
A. Documents. The sources of the stormwater management requirements for the City are from the following
documents:
1. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, Appendix 1, modification date January 16,
2015
2. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW)
3. The Edmonds Stormwater Addendum
In the event of conflicts between the various provisions, the more stringent provision shall apply.
B. Illicit Discharges and Connections. Non-stormwater illicit discharges, including spills, into the MS4,
groundwaters, or a water body from any developed or undeveloped lands are prohibited per ECDC Chapter 7.200.
C. Thresholds and Applicability
The thresholds outlined in this section are only applicable to ECDC 18.30.060.C. See also the Edmonds
Stormwater Addendum for supplemental information on thresholds.
a. All development shall be required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 2.
b. Category 1 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5. Category 1
includes projects that:
i. Result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or
ii. Have land disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater.
c. Category 2 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. Category 2
includes projects that:
i. Result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or
ii. Convert 0.75 acres, or more, of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or
iii. Convert 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture.
2. Additional Requirements for road -related projects. For road -related projects, runoff from the new hard
surfaces (including pavement, shoulders, curbs, and sidewalks) and the converted vegetation areas shall meet
all the minimum requirements if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more. In addition, if the new
hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50 percent or more of the existing hard surfaces within
the project limits, runoff from the new and replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas shall
meet all the minimum requirements. The project limits shall be defined by the length of the project and the
width of the right-of-way.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 351
9.1.a
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 11/23
New Connections to the City's MS4 when the proposed connection does not involve activity that meets the
definition of development. Sites that are not currently connected to the City's MS4 but that wish to connect
directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 may be allowed on a case -by -case basis, subject to City approval. For
sites that propose to drain greater than or equal to 2,000 square feet of hard surface area to the City's MS4,
minimum requirements and BMPs associated with stormwater flow control and/or water quality treatment
(such as those outlined in ECDC 18.30.060.D [1] through [9]) may be required if the connection poses any
risk to downstream systems such as erosion, flooding, property damage, habitat damage, water quality
degradation, or other related impacts.
D. Minimum Technical Requirements. This section describes the minimum technical requirements for stormwater
management at development sites.
1. Minimum Requirement No. 1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans
The City shall require a Stormwater Site Plan from all projects meeting the thresholds in ECDC 18.30.060.C.
Stormwater Site Plans shall use site -appropriate development principles to retain native vegetation and
minimize impervious surfaces to the extent feasible. Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance
with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater
Addendum.
2. Minimum Requirement No. 2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
a. Thresholds:
i. All development projects are responsible for preventing erosion and discharge of sediment and
other pollutants into receiving waters. Compliance with this minimum requirement can be
achieved for an individual site if the site is covered under Ecology's General NPDES Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities and fully implementing the
requirements of that permit.
ii. A Construction SWPPP is required for all projects which a) result in 2,000 square feet or more
of new plus replaced hard surface area, b) where a structure with an exterior hard surface area of
at least 2,000 square feet is being demolished, c) which disturb 7,000 square feet or more of
land, or d) when the site falls within the Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, Landslide
Hazard Area or steep slope critical area. Projects that do not meet any of the above criteria are
not required to prepare a Construction SWPPP, but must consider all of the elements listed
below for Construction SWPPPs and develop controls for all Construction SWPPP elements
that pertain to the project site.
b. General Requirements:
The SWPPP shall include a narrative and drawings. All BMPs shall be clearly referenced in the
narrative and marked on the drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation to
explain and justify the pollution prevention decisions made for the project. Each of the thirteen
elements referenced below must be considered and included in the SWPPP unless site
conditions render the element unnecessary and the exemption from that element is clearly
justified in the narrative of the SWPPP.
ii. Clearing and grading activities for developments shall be permitted only if conducted pursuant
to an approved site development plan (e.g., building permit, subdivision approval) that
establishes permitted areas of clearing, grading, cutting, and filling. These permitted clearing
and grading areas and any other areas required to preserve critical or sensitive areas, buffers,
native growth protection easements, or tree retention areas as required by the City, shall be
delineated on the site plans and the development site.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 352
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 12/23
iii. The SWPPP shall be implemented beginning with initial land disturbance and until final
stabilization. Sediment and Erosion control BMPs shall be consistent with the BMPs contained
in Chapter 4 of Volume II of the SWMMWW.
c. Seasonal Work Limitations:
From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities may only be
authorized by the City if it can be demonstrated that silt -laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the
site through a combination of the following:
Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to
receiving waters; and
ii. Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and
iii. Proposed erosion and sediment control measures, in accordance with ECDC 18.30.060.D.2.d
below.
Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the City may expand or restrict the
seasonal limitation on site disturbance. The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing
and grading limitations, except for sites lying in whole or in part within an earth subsidence and landslide
hazard area as defined by ECDC 19.10.020.F:
Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs,
ii. Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil
or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil, and
iii. Activities where there is one hundred percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site
in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities.
d. Construction SWPPP Elements
Construction SWPPP elements are required in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 of
Volume I of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum
3. Minimum Requirement No. 3 — Source Control of Pollution
All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs must be required for all projects approved by the
City. Source control BMPs must be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume IV of the
SWMMWW. All single family residential projects shall, at a minimum, incorporate required BMPs from
SWMMWW Volume IV, S411 — BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/Vegetation Management.
4. Minimum Requirement No. 4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls
Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the project site shall occur at the natural
location, to the maximum extent practicable. The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site
must not cause a significant adverse impact to downstream receiving waters and down gradient properties.
The discharge must have an identified overflow route that is safe and certain, and leads to the ultimate outfall
location (such as a receiving water or municipal drainage system). All outfalls require energy dissipation.
To demonstrate compliance with this core requirement, all projects shall submit an off -site qualitative
analysis. If an existing problem (or potential future problem after development) is identified, mitigation will
be required to prevent worsening of that problem. A quantitative analysis may be required for any project
deemed to need additional information or where the project proponent or the City determines that a
quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system.
See the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on complying with this requirement.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 353
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
5. Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management
a. Applicability:
Page 13/23
On -site Stormwater Management BMPs are required in accordance with the following project
thresholds, standards, and lists to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on -site to the extent
feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater
Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility.
b. Project Thresholds:
There are five project scenarios outlined below that determine the applicability of Minimum
Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management. The first four scenarios apply to projects that
discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4. The fifth scenario applies to project discharges that do
not enter the City's MS4. Note that more than one of the five scenarios may apply to a given project:
Retrofit. Projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and that contain
existing hard surfaces on the parcel or common plan of development that do not drain to an
approved Stormwater management facility are required to provide On -site Stormwater
Management BMPs to manage a portion of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after
project completion. BMPs from List No.I (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d) shall be applied to a
minimum of 25 percent of those existing unmanaged surfaces, but to no more than the area
equal to the proposed new plus replaced hard surfaces.
Only for those existing unmanaged hard surfaces that remain after project completion,
applicants are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility for
these existing surfaces (as is required under ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b [ii] and [iii] below).
However, if it is determined that the minimum 25 percent requirement cannot be met due to
BMP infeasibility, documentation of BMP infeasibility is required. In addition, when runoff
from exiting unmanaged hard surfaces is mixed with runoff from new plus replaced hard
surfaces, those BMPs must be selected and designed in accordance with the requirements for
management of new plus replaced hard surfaces (per sections [ii] and [iii] below). See the
SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site
Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility.
ii. Category 1. Category 1 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and
are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5 (per ECDC
18.30.060.C) shall either:
a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.l for all new plus replaced hard
surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d); or
b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC
18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose
to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW.
iii. Category2. Category 2 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and
are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9 (per ECDC
18.30.060.C) shall either:
a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.2 for all new plus replaced
hard surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.e); or
b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC
18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose
to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 354
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 14/23
iv. Direct Discharge Requirement. Projects that discharge directly to Puget Sound through the
City's MS4 (in accordance with the restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound
presented in Section 2.5.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW) do not have to achieve the LID
Performance Standard, nor consider bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavement, or full
dispersion, but must meet the following:
a. Projects must implement BMP T5.13 (Post -Construction Soil Quality & Depth); BMPs
T5.I OA Downspout Full Infiltration Systems, T5.1 OB Downspout Dispersion Systems, or
T5.1 OB Perforated Stub -out Connections; and BMP T5.11 Concentrated Flow Dispersion
or T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion; if feasible for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and
land disturbed. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for
additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility.
b. Edmonds Way specific requirements. After applying the requirements in item (a) above,
for all remaining project site runoff (e.g., from unmanaged surfaces, or from overflow
from on -site BMPs), the post -development 10-, and 100-year recurrence interval peak
flows shall not exceed, 0.25 and 0.45 cubic feet per second per acre of impervious surface
area, respectively. See the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details.
V. Projects that do not drain directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 are required to implement one
of the following:
a. Project sites may discharge to the downstream private property (e.g., projects located
above BNSF property) with approval from the downstream property owner(s).
b. Project sites may discharge runoff to an on -site system.
For sites located within earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their
buffers, a geotechnical design, analysis, and report by a geotechnical
engineer is required for the on -site system. On -site Stormwater Management
BMPs from List No.I in ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d shall be evaluated for all
new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed. Projects are not required
to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility. The project
applicant may be subject to an extra permit processing fee for City review of
the geotechnical analysis. Projects are required to comply with all other
applicable City requirements, such as ECDC 19.10 (earth subsidence and
landslide hazard areas).
ii. For sites located outside earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their
buffers, ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.ii and ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.iii shall be
followed to evaluate site appropriate BMP's.
Subject to prior approval by the City, project sites may pump on -site runoff to the City's
MS4. A quantitative downstream analysis in accordance with Minimum Requirement No.
4 and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum will be required. If the City's MS4 does not
have adequate capacity to receive the applicant's pumped flows, the applicant is required
to install an on -site detention system to store runoff and pump it to the MS4 at an
approved rate.
c. LID Performance Standard
For projects that elect to meet the LID Performance Standard to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii)
and (iii), Stormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations
for the range of pre -developed discharge rates from 8 percent of the 2-year peak flow to 50 percent of the
2-year peak flow from the project site. Refer to the Standard Flow Control Requirement section in
Minimum Requirement No. 7 for information about the assignment of the pre -developed condition.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 355
9.1.a
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 15/23
Project sites that must also meet Minimum Requirement No. 7 shall match flow durations between 8
percent of the 2-year flow through the full 50-year flow.
d. List No.I for Category 1 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering
Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5.
For projects that elect to use List No. 1 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii), for each surface,
consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered
feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall
be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for
each BMP in the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum; and Competing Needs Criteria
listed in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Lawn and landscaped areas:
Roofs:
Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of
Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW,
or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5. I OA in Section 3.1.1 of
Volume III of the SWMMWW.
ii. Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14A in Chapter 5 of Volume V, or Bioretention in
accordance with Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention
facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at
least 5 percent of the area draining to it.
iii. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP T5.1 OB in Section 3.1.2 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
iv. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.1 OC in Section 3.1.3 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. The City
may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum
Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
Other Hard Surfaces:
Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW
ii. Permeable Pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the
SWMMWW, or Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14A in Chapter 5 of Volume V, or
Bioretention in accordance with Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or
bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the
overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area draining to it.
iii. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in
accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
iv. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. The City
may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum
Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
e. List No.2 for Category 2 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering
Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 356
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 16/23
For projects that elect to use List No. 2 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (iii), for each surface,
consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered
feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall
be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for
each BMP in the SWMMWW; and Competing Needs Criteria listed in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the
SWMMWW.
Lawn and landscaped areas:
Roofs:
Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of
Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW,
or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5. I OA in Section 3.1.1 of
Volume III of the SWMMWW.
ii. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum
horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total
surface area draining to it.
iii. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP T5.1OB in Section 3.1.2 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
iv. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.1 OC in Section 3.1.3 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Note that if
the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum
Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed
to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, the City may waive the requirement to
install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available
City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
Other Hard Surfaces:
Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW
ii. Permeable pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the
SWMMWW.
iii. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum
horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total
surface area draining to it.
iv. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in
accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Note that if
the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum
Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed
to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, the City may waive the requirement to
install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available
City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 357
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
6. Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment
Page 17/23
a. Project Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider
those hard and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.C.2.
For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and the converted
vegetation areas. The following require construction of stormwater treatment facilities:
Projects in which the total of pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS) is 5,000 square feet or
more in a threshold discharge area of the project, or
ii. Projects in which the total of pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS) — not including
permeable pavements — is 0.75 acres or more in a threshold discharge area, and from which
there will be a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site.
b. Treatment -Type Thresholds and Facility Sizing:
Treatment -Type Thresholds in accordance with Step 2 (Oil Control), Step 4 (Phosphorus
Treatment), Step 5 (Enhanced Treatment), and Step 6 (Basic Treatment) of Chapter 2, Section
2.1, Volume V of the SWMMWW. Phosphorus treatment shall be required for projects draining
to Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger.
ii. Treatment Facility Sizing, including Water Quality Design Storm Volume, Water Quality
Design Flow Rate, and Downstream Facilities, of Chapter 2, Section 2.5.6, Volume I of the
SWMMWW.
c. Treatment Facility Selection, Design, and Maintenance
Stormwater treatment facilities shall be:
i. Selected in accordance with the process identified in Chapter 4 of Volume I, and Chapter 2 of
Volume V of the SWMMWW,
ii. Designed in accordance with the design criteria in Volume V of the SWMMWW, and
iii. Maintained in accordance with the maintenance schedule in Volume V of the SWMMWW.
d. Additional Requirements
The discharge of untreated stormwater from pollution -generating surfaces to ground water will not
be authorized by the City. All associated runoff must be treated using On -site Stormwater
Management BMPs designed to provide the required level of treatment in accordance with Chapter
5, Volume V and Chapter 7, Volume V of the SWMMWW; or by infiltration through soils meeting
the soil suitability criteria in Chapter 3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW.
Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control
a. Applicability: Flow control is required on projects meeting the thresholds summarized below to reduce
the impacts of stormwater runoff from hard surfaces and land cover conversions. Flow control in
accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 7 is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or
indirectly through the City's MS4 to Puget Sound (other minimum requirements may still apply). See
ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv and Section 2.5.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW for additional restrictions
applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound.
If the discharge drains to a stream that leads to a wetland, or to a wetland that has an outflow to a stream,
both this minimum requirement (Minimum Requirement No. 7) and Minimum Requirement No. 8
apply.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 358
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 18/23
b. Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider only
those impervious, hard, and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC
18.30.060.C.2. For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and
the converted vegetation areas. The following circumstances require achievement of the standard flow
control requirement for western Washington:
Projects in which the total of effective impervious surfaces is 10,000 square feet or more in a
threshold discharge area, or
ii. Projects that convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscape, or convert 2.5 acres
or more of native vegetation to pasture in a threshold discharge area, and from which there is a
surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site, or
iii. Projects that through a combination of hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas cause a
0.10 cubic feet per second (cfs) increase or greater in the 100-year flow frequency from a
threshold discharge area as estimated using the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other
approved model and one -hour time steps (or a 0.15 cfs increase or greater using 15-minute time
steps).
Standard Flow Control Requirement (applies to discharges directly or indirectly to the City's MS4,
except for projects that meet the direct discharge requirements outlined in "a" above): Stormwater
discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations for the range of
pre -developed discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow.
The pre -developed condition to be matched shall be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic
information is available that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement (modeled as "pasture" in the
Western Washington Hydrology Model). This standard requirement is waived for sites that will reliably
infiltrate all the runoff from hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas.
d. Additional Requirement: Flow Control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance
with Volume III of the SWMMWW or an approved equivalent.
8. Minimum Requirement No. 8 — Wetlands Protection
a. Applicability: The requirements below apply only to projects whose stormwater discharges into a
wetland, either directly or indirectly through a conveyance system.
b. Thresholds: The thresholds identified in Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment, and
Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control shall also be applied to determine the applicability of this
requirement to discharges to wetlands.
c. Standard Requirement: Projects shall comply with Guide Sheets No. 1 through No. 3 in Appendix I-D of
the SWMMWW. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition to determine the
existing hydrologic conditions unless directed otherwise by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction.
d. Additional Requirements: Stormwater treatment and flow control facilities shall not be built within a
natural vegetated buffer, except for:
i. Necessary conveyance systems as approved by the City; or
ii. As allowed in wetlands approved for hydrologic modification or treatment in accordance with
Guide Sheet 2 in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW.
An adopted and implemented basin plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of
Appendix 1 of the Phase II NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 359
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
9. Minimum Requirement No. 9 — Operation and Maintenance
Page 19/23
An operation and maintenance manual that is consistent with the provisions in Volume I and Volume V of the
SWMMWW is required for proposed Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/facilities. The party (or
parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified in the operation and maintenance
manual. For private facilities approved by the City, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be
retained on -site or within reasonable access to the site, and shall be transferred with the property to the new
owner. For public facilities, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained in the
appropriate department. A log of maintenance activity that indicates what actions were taken shall be kept
and be available for inspection.
18.30.070 Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeals.
A. Exceptions.
1. The Director may approve a request for an exception to the minimum requirements of this chapter following
legal public notice of an application for an exception and of the Director's decision on the application. All
legal public notice related to this request for an exception shall be in the manner prescribed in ECDC
20.03.002 and the applicant shall pay all costs to publish the legal public notices required by this provision.
The Director shall provide and keep written findings of fact of the decision.
2. The approval of the exception shall only be granted when the applicant demonstrates that the requirement
would cause a severe and unexpected economic hardship. To determine whether the requirement imposes a
severe and unexpected economic hardship on the project applicant, the applicant must document for City
review and approval, all of the following, at a minimum:
a. The current, pre -project use of the site; and
b. How application of the requirement(s) for which an exception is being requested restricts the proposed
use of the site compared to the restrictions that existed prior to adoption of this chapter; and
c. The possible remaining uses of the site if the exception were not granted; and
d. The possible uses of the site that would have been allowed prior to the adoption of this chapter; and
e. A comparison of the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of the requirements versus
the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of requirements that existed prior to
adoption of the requirements of this chapter; and
f. The feasibility of the applicant to alter the project to apply the requirements of this chapter.
3. Any exception must meet the following criteria:
a. The exception will not increase risk to the public health and welfare, nor be injurious to other properties
in the vicinity and/or downstream, and to the quality of waters of the state; and
b. The exception is the least possible exception that could be granted to comply with the intent of the
minimum requirements.
4. An exception to the requirements shall only be granted to the extent necessary to provide relief from the
economic hardship as determined by the Director, to alleviate the harm or threat of harm to the degree that
compliance with the requirement becomes technically feasible, or to perform the emergency work that the
Director determines is warranted.
5. The Director may require an applicant to provide additional information at the applicant's expense, including
(but not limited to) an engineer's report or analysis.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 360
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 20/23
6. When an exception is granted, the Director may impose new or additional requirements to offset or mitigate
harm or the threat of harm that may be caused by granting the exception, or that would have been prevented
if the exception had not been granted.
B. Adjustments.
1. The Director may approve a request for adjustments to the requirements of this chapter when the Director
finds that:
a. The adjustment provides substantially equivalent environmental protection; and
b. The objectives of safety, function, environmental protection, and facility maintenance are met, based on
sound engineering practices.
During construction, the Director may require, or the applicant may request, that the construction of drainage
control facilities and associated project designs be adjusted if physical conditions are discovered on the site
that are inconsistent with the assumptions on which the approval was based, including (but not limited to)
unexpected soil or water conditions, weather -generated problems, or changes in the design of the improved
areas; and
A request by the applicant for an adjustment shall be submitted to the Director for review and approval prior
to implementation. The request shall be in writing and shall provide facts substantiating the requirements of
subsection (C)(1) of this section, and if made during construction, the factors in subsection (C)(2) of this
section. Any such modifications made during the construction of drainage control facilities shall be included
with the final approved drainage control plan.
C. Appeal.
1. The Director's decision on an application for an exception or adjustment may appeal to the hearing examiner
in accordance with a Type II appeal process in ECDC Chapter 20.06.
2. The applicant shall carry the burden of proof.
3. The decision of the hearing examiner is appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C
RCW. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010].
18.30.080 Access and Covenants.
A. Access. Proper ingress and egress shall be provided to the City to inspect or perform any duty imposed upon the
City by this Title. The City shall notify the responsible party in writing of a failure to provide access. If the responsible
parry fails to respond within seven days from the receipt of notification, the City may order the work required
completed or otherwise address the cause of improper access. The obligation for the payment of all cost that may be
incurred or expended by the City in causing such work to be done shall be imposed on the person holding title to the
subject property
B. Covenants. Maintenance covenants shall be required for each site/lot that will be maintained by a private entity
such as an individual, corporation, or homeowner's association. The maintenance covenant shall address or append
requirements and responsibilities for long-term management and maintenance the applicable BMP(s). Maintenance
covenants shall be as specified in City Engineering Division documents or approved by the Director, and recorded
with Snohomish County and on all proper deeds [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010].
18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities.
Proper construction inspection and maintenance of stormwater facilities is essential for the protection of the City's
MS4 and the environment.
A. Stormwater Maintenance and Inspection Standards. Stormwater facilities shall be inspected and maintained per the
requirements of Volume I and Volume V of the SWMMWW. For systems which do not have a maintenance standard,
the owner shall develop a standard based on guidelines from the manufacturer, designer, or a registered professional
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 361
9.1.a
Edmonds Page 21/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
engineer and submit the standards to the Director for approval. The purpose of the maintenance standard is to
determine if maintenance is required. The maintenance standard is not a measure of the facility's required condition at
all times between inspections. Exceeding the maintenance standard between inspections is not a violation of this
chapter.
B. Ownership. Stormwater facilities are either privately or publicly owned and maintained. All stormwater facilities
that serve private property are private, unless an agreement between the property owner and the City states otherwise.
Stormwater facilities that are privately owned by a homeowner's association or similar organization also are private.
The City may offer an incentive program to owners to support the proper maintenance of private storm drainage
facilities.
C. Public Stormwater Facilities. The City shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing
public stormwater facilities as funded through the Stormwater Utility.
D. Maintenance and Inspection of Permanent Facilities. All privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls shall
be maintained by the owner, or the homeowner or owner association ("owner") if one is established as part of a
residential or commercial development. All private storm drainage facilities shall be regularly inspected to ensure
proper operation and shall monitor the facility or control as required or as set forth in the SWMMWW. The Owner
shall maintain records of inspection and maintenance, disposal receipts, and monitoring results. The records shall
catalog the action taken, the person who took it, the date said action was taken, how it was done, and any problems
encountered or follow-up actions required. The records shall be made available to the City upon request. The Owner
shall maintain a copy of the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Manual (if required) on site, and shall make
reference to such document in real property records filed with Snohomish County, so others who acquire real property
served by the privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls are notified of their obligation to maintain such
facilities or controls.
E. City Inspection of private stormwater facilities. The City shall have the authority to periodically inspect private
stormwater facilities, including low impact development stormwater facilities, for compliance with this chapter.
F. Right of Entry. An authorized representative of the City may enter private property at all reasonable times to
conduct inspections, tests or to carry out other duties imposed by the a state or Federal program provided that the City
makes a good faith effort to notify the property owner or person responsible for the premises prior to entering and
presents proper credentials to that person. If entry is refused or cannot be obtained, the Director shall have recourse to
every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including but not limited to, obtaining an administrative warrant for
entry.
G. Right of Entry for Illicit Discharge. In the event of an illicit discharge from a privately -owned stormwater facility
caused by improper maintenance or operation or other circumstance, the provisions of ECC 7.200 shall apply.
H. Maintenance Responsibilities. Upon written notice by the City, a private stormwater facility shall be promptly
repaired and/or brought up to applicable standards by the property owner or the person responsible for said facility. If
a private stormwater facility serves multiple lots and the responsibility for maintenance has not been specified on a
recorded subdivision plat, short plat, or other legal document, maintenance, operation and repair responsibility shall
rest with the homeowners' association, if one exists, or otherwise with the properties served by the facility, or finally,
with the owners of the property on which the facilities are located.
I. Disposal of Waste from Maintenance Activities. Disposal of waste from maintenance activities shall be conducted
in accordance with the minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, Chapter 173-304 WAC, guidelines
for disposal of waste materials from storm water maintenance activities, and where appropriate, the Dangerous Waste
Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC.
18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures.
A. General enforcement action shall be in accordance with this chapter whenever a person has violated any provision
of this chapter. The choice of enforcement action is at the discretion of the City.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 362
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 22/23
B. Civil Penalties Adopted. ECDC Chapter 20.110 enforcement procedures are herein adopted in full, as modified in
this chapter, with the proviso that repeat offenders or violations deemed an immediate public hazard shall be subject to
compliance and appeal timelines as deemed appropriate by the Director based on the specific nature of the violation.
C. Maintenance Orders. The Director shall have the authority to issue to an owner or person an order to maintain or
repair a component of a stormwater facility or BMP to bring it into compliance with this chapter, the SWMMWW, the
Edmonds Stormwater Addendum, and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The order shall include:
1. A description of the specific nature, extent and time of the violation and the damage or potential damage that
reasonably might occur;
2. A notice that the violation or the potential violation cease and desist and, in appropriate cases, the specific
corrective actions to be taken; and
3. A reasonable time to comply, depending on the circumstances.
D. Civil Penalty. A person who fails to comply with the requirements of this chapter, who fails to conform to an
approval or order issued, who undertakes development without first obtaining approval, or who fails to comply with a
stop work order issued under these regulations shall be subject to a civil penalty levied in accordance with the
provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.110; provided, however, that the appeal process shall commence with a notice of
violation as provided in ECDC 20.110.040.13.
1. Civil penalties for code violations shall be imposed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC Chapter
20.110; provided, however, that in addition to the penalties set forth in that chapter, the hearing examiner is
authorized to levy a penalty of up to twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per occurrence based upon an
assessment of the following factors. Where such factors are present, the hearing examiner is authorized to
levy such penalty after taking into consideration the full impact of the violation and any mitigating
circumstances (see subsection (2) below):
a. The violation created a risk to public health and the significance of the risk.
b. The violation damaged the environment and the significance of the damage.
c. The violation caused damage to public and private property and the significance of such damage.
d. A history of similar violations, if any.
e. The economic benefit of the violations, if any, to the person or entity responsible for the violations.
2. Mitigating circumstances which may be used to offset or reduce the time resulting from the application of the
preceding factors are limited to:
a. Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and no history of similar violations.
b. Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and a history of one or two similar violations
(lesser reduction).
c. A "voluntary compliance agreement" is defined as a legally binding agreement entered into between the
City and the alleged violators, by which the violator(s) acknowledge the existence of the violation, waive
all appeal rights, and agree to and do pay a fine in an amount stipulated to between the violator and the
City.
3. If the violation(s) are not corrected as ordered, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into within
that time period and no appeal is filed, the penalty for the next 15-day period shall be 150 percent of the
initial penalties, and the penalties for the next 15-day period shall be 200 percent of the initial penalties. The
intent of this subsection is to increase penalties beyond the maximum penalties stated as an additional means
to achieve timely compliance.
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 363
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 23/23
Unless otherwise provided in a voluntary compliance agreement, civil penalties shall be paid within 30 days
of service of the notice and order or stop work order if not appealed. Payment of the civil penalties assessed
under this chapter does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to
correct the violation or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to this
chapter.
The City may suspend immediate payment of civil penalties if the person responsible for a code violation has
entered into a voluntary compliance agreement. Penalties shall begin to accrue again pursuant to the terms of
the voluntary compliance agreement if any necessary permits applied for are denied, canceled or not
pursued, if corrective action identified in the voluntary compliance agreement is not completed as specified,
or if the property is allowed to return to a condition similar to that condition which gave rise to the voluntary
compliance agreement; provided, however, that additional penalties shall not be imposed until additional
notice and opportunity for hearing have been provided in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110.
Civil penalties assessed create joint and several personal obligations in all persons responsible for a code
violation.
E. The determination of the hearing examiner issued in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110 shall be appealable to
the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW.
F. The remedies provided for in this section shall not be exclusive. The City may also use other civil and
administrative remedies available to it, including but not limited to the remedies provided in ECDC Title 19 and the
state building and dangerous buildings codes
I
Version: August 23, 2016
Packet Pg. 364
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Chapter 18.30
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Sections:
18.30.000 Purposes.
18.30.010 Definitions.
18.30.020 Authority and Regulation.
18.30.030 Applicability.
18.30.040 Exemptions.
18.30.050 Administration.
18.30.060 Requirements.
18.30.070 Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeal.
18.30.080 Access and Covenants.
18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities.
18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures.
18.30.000 Purposes.
Page 1/23
A. To set forth standards for managing stormwater runoff from construction and development sites to minimize:
1. Degradation of surface water quality by controlling the scouring and sedimentation of creeks, streams,
wetlands, ponds, lakes, other water bodies.
2. Degradation of groundwater quality.
3. Damage to adjacent and other downstream private properties from erosion or other impacts from stormwater
runoff.
4. Damage of City -owned parcels, City roads, rights -of -way and associated infrastructure.
B. To comply with requirements in the Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal
Stormwater Permit as issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology).
C. To complement site planning activities that minimize:
1. Impervious surfaces area.
2. The loss of native or non-native site vegetation.
3. The generation of stormwater runoff.
D. To make low impact development (LID) the preferred and commonly used approach to site development; to require
LID be considered at the site planning stage; and to implement LID BMPs unless they are infeasible.
E. To require that all publicly -owned and privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control best management
practices (BMPs)/Facilities are operated, maintained and repaired in manner that conforms to this chapter.
F. To provide the authority for the City to inspect privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control
BMPs/Facilities.
G. To provide enforcement procedures for ensuring compliance with this chapter.
18.30.010 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
Version: August 22, 201-56
Packet Pg. 365
9.1.b
Edmonds Page 2/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Arterial. A road or street primarily for through traffic. The term generally includes roads or streets considered
collectors. It does not include local access roads which are generally limited to providing access to abutting property.
See also RCW 35.78.010, RCW 36.86.070, and RCW 47.05.021.
Adjustment. A variation in the application of a minimum requirement to a particular project. Adjustments provide
substantially equivalent environmental protection.
Applicant. The owning individual(s) or corporations or their representatives applying for the permits or approvals
described in this chapter.
Approval. The proposed work or completed work conforming to this chapter as approved by the public works Director
or their designee.
Best management practices (BMPs). The schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures,
and structural and/or managerial practices approved by the City that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or
reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse impacts to waters of Washington State.
Bioretention. Engineered facilities that treat stormwater by passing it through a specified soil profile, and either retain
or detain the treated stormwater for flow attenuation. Refer to the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (SWMMWW), Chapter 7 of Volume V for bioretention BMP types and design specifications.
Category 1 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.l through No.S. See ECDC 18.30.60.0
Category 2 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.l through No.9. See ECDC 18.30.60.0
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL). An individual who has current certification through an
approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by
Ecology (see BMP C160 in the SWMMWW). A CESCL is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion
and sediment control. The CESCL must have the skills to assess site conditions and construction activities that could
impact the quality of stormwater and, the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the
quality of stormwater discharges. Certification is obtained through an Ecology approved erosion and sediment control
course. Course listings are provided online at Ecology's website.
City's municipal separate storm sewer system or "MS4." A conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads
with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains)
that are owned or operated by the City of Edmonds, designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater, and are
not a combined sewer nor part of a publicly owned treatment works as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 122.2, and which is defined as "large" or "medium" or "small" or otherwise designated by Ecology pursuant to
40 CFR 122.26.
Clearing. The destruction and removal of vegetation by manual, mechanical, or chemical methods.
Commercial Agriculture. Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) and activities involved in
the production of crops or livestock for commercial trade. An activity ceases to be considered commercial agriculture
when the area on which it is conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more
than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity
is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural
activity.
Common plan of development or sale. A site where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking
place at different times on different schedules and/or by different contractors, but still under a single plan. Examples
include: 1) phase projects and projects with multiple filings or lots, even if the separate phases or filings/lots will be
constructed under separate contract or by separate owners (e.g., a development where lots are sold to separate
builders); 2) a development plan that may be phased over multiple years, but is still under a consistent plan for
long-term development; 3) projects in a contiguous area that may be unrelated but still under the same contract, such
as construction of a building extension and a new parking lot at the same facility; and 4) linear projects such as roads,
Version: August 22, 201-56
a�
0
U
c
d
E
d
t0
C
O
L
d
M
3
E
L
0
N
0
O
C
O
.y
L
d
to
O
N
N
0
O
E
0
w
J
a
z
LL
0
M
eo
U
0
U
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 366
9.1.b
Edmonds Page 3/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
pipelines, or utilities. If the project is part of a common plan of development or sale, the disturbed area of the entire
plan must be used in determine permit requirements.
Converted vegetation (areas). The change in land cover changed from native vegetation, pasture scrub/shrub, or
unmaintained non-native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or where native vegetation is converted to pasture
Creek. Is synonymous with "streams," which is defined in ECDC 23.40.320
Detention facility. An above or below ground facility, such as a pond or tank, that temporarily stores stormwater
runoff and subsequently releases it at a slower rate than it is collected by the drainage facility system. There is little or
no infiltration of stored stormwater.
Development. Land -disturbing activities, including Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timber
land to other uses. Creation or addition of hard surfaces, or replacement of hard surface that is not part of a routine
maintenance activity. Structural development, including construction, installation, replacement, or expansion of a
building or other structure. Subdivision, short subdivision, and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter
58.17 RCW
Director. The City's Public Works and Utilities Director or a designee with an appropriate background in engineering
or another related discipline.
Discharge point. The location where a discharge leaves the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) through the
City's MS4 facilities/BMPs designed to infiltrate.
Ecology. The Washington State Department of Ecology.
Effective impervious surface. Those impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete conveyance to a
drainage system. Impervious surfaces on residential development sites are considered ineffective if: 1) the runoff is
dispersed through at least 100 feet of native vegetation in accordance with BMP T5.30 — "Full Dispersion," as
described in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW; 2) residential roof runoff is infiltrated in accordance with
downspout Full Infiltration Systems in BMP T5.10A in Volume III of the SWMMWW; or 3) approved continuous
runoff modeling methods indicate the entire runoff file is infiltrated.
Erodible or leachable materials. Wastes, chemicals, or other substances that measurably alter the physical or chemical
characteristics of runoff when exposed to rainfall. Examples include erodible soils that are stockpiled, uncovered
process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, and garbage dumpster leakage.
Erosion. The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents, including such
processes as gravitational creep. Also, detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or
gravity. See the SWMMWW Glossary for examples of types of water erosion.
Excavation. The mechanical removal of earth material.
Exception. Relief from the application of a minimum requirement to a project.
Fill. A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means.
Groundwater. Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the land surface or below a water body.
Hard surface. An impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof.
Highway. A main public road connecting towns and cities. In Edmonds, this includes State Route 99, State Route 524,
and portions of State Route 104, that are classified as principal arterials in the City's comprehensive transportation
plan.
Illicit discharge. Any direct or indirect non-stormwater discharge to the City's MS4, groundwaters, or a water body,
except as expressly allowed by ECDC Chapter 7.200.
Version: August 22, 201-56
O
O
C
O
.y
N
to
O
N
N
O
00
O
E
O
L
J
a
Z
LL
0
M
00
U
0
U
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 367
9.1.b
Edmonds Page 4/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Impervious surface. A non -vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mantle
as under natural conditions prior to development. A non -vegetated surface area which causes water to run off the
surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to
development. Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways,
parking lots or storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam
or other surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention
facilities shall not be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for
application of minimum requirements are exceeded. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be considered
impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling. Outdoor swimming pools shall be considered impervious
surfaces in all situations. In addition, lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, and other areas that have modified
runoff characteristics resulting from the addition of underdrains and :.-...,......,.. ble ,._ le _,......eabil:t.,1:..,,.. are to be
considered impervious surfaces. ,
Lake. An inland body of fresh water surrounded by land.
Land disturbing activity. Any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and
non -vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land -disturbing activities include but are not limited to
demolition, clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is associated with stabilization of structures
and road construction shall also be considered a land -disturbing activity. Vegetation maintenance practices, including
landscape maintenance and gardening, are not considered land -disturbing activity. Stormwater facility maintenance is
not considered land disturbing activity if conducted according to established standards and procedures.
Low impact development (LID). A stormwater and land use strategy that strives to mimic pre -disturbance hydrologic
processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation, use of on -site
features, site planning, and distributed stormwater management practices that are integrated into a project design.
LID Best Management Practices (BMPs). Distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project
design, that emphasize pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and
transpiration. LID BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavements, roof
downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water
re -use.
LID principles. Land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on -site natural features, and site
planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff.
Maintenance. Repair and maintenance activities conducted on currently serviceable structures, facilities, and
equipment that involves no expansion or use beyond that previously existing and results in no significant adverse
hydrologic impact. It includes those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation in the use of
structures and systems. Those usual activities may include replacement of dysfunctional facilities, including cases
where environmental permits require replacing an existing structure with a different type structure, as long as the
functioning characteristics of the original structure are not changed. One example is the replacement of a collapsed,
fish blocking, round culvert with a new box culvert under the same span, or width, of roadway. In regard to stormwater
facilities, maintenance includes assessment to ensure ongoing proper operation, removal of built up pollutants (i.e.,
sediments), replacement of failed or failing treatment media, and other actions taken to correct defects as identified in
the maintenance standards of Chapter 4, Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Maximum extent practicable (MEP). Refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act which reads
as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system,
design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate
for the control of such pollutants.
MS4. The City's municipal separate storm sewer system.
Version: August 22, 201-56
0
O
O
.y
L
d
to
O
N
N
0
O
E
O
J
a
Z
LL
O
M
00
U
0
U
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 368
9.1.b
Edmonds Page 5/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Native vegetation. Vegetation comprised of plant species, other than noxious weeds, indigenous to the coastal region
of the Pacific Northwest which could have been reasonably expected to occur naturally on the site. Examples include
trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big -leaf maple, and vine maple; shrubs such as
willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam flower, and fireweed.
Natural drainage systems and outfalls. The location of the channels, swales, and other non -manmade conveyance
systems as defined by the earliest documented topographic contours existing for the subject property, either from maps
or photographs, or such other means as appropriate.
Outfall. A point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a discharge leaves the City's MS4 and enters a
surface receiving waterbody or surface receiving waters. Outfall does not include pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances
which connect segments of the same stream or other surface waters and are used to convey primarily surface waters
(i.e., culverts).
On -site Stormwater Management BMPs. A synonym for Low Impact Development BMPs
Permeable pavement. Pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers or other forms of pervious or porous
paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an aggregate base
that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir.
Pervious Surface. Any surface material that allows stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Examples include lawn,
landscape, pasture, native vegetation areas, and permeable pavements.
Person. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative, public or municipal
corporation, agency of the state, or City government unit, however designated.
Pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS). Those hard surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in
stormwater runoff. See the listing of surfaces under pollution -generating impervious surface.
Pollution -generating impervious surface (PGIS). Those impervious surfaces considered to be a significant source of
pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to: vehicular use; industrial activities
(as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or
chemicals, and which receive direct rainfall or the run-on or blow-in of rainfall; metal roofs unless they are coated with
an inert, non -leachable material (e.g., baked -on enamel coating); or roofs that are subject to venting significant
amounts of dusts, mists, or fumes from manufacturing, commercial, or other indoor activities.
Pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS). Any non -impervious surface subject to vehicular use, industrial
activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); or storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes,
or chemicals, and that receive direct rainfall or run-on or blow-in of rainfall, use of pesticides and fertilizers, or loss of
soil. Typical PGPS include permeable pavement subject to vehicular use, lawns, and landscaped areas including: golf
courses, parks, cemeteries, and sports fields (natural and artificial turf).
Pre -developed condition. The native vegetation and soils that existed at a site prior to the influence of Euro-American
settlement. The pre -developed condition shall be assumed to be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic
information is provided that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement.
Project site. That portion of a property, properties, and/or right-of-way subject to land -disturbing activities, new
impe-rvieus-hard surfaces, or replaced imp€-rvieus-hard surfaces. For projects that involve land disturbing activity on
one or more parcels and land disturbing activity in the City right-of-way, the "Project site" includes all areas of land
disturbance. If the project is part of a common development plan or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan shall be
used in determining permit requirements.
Rain garden. A non -engineered shallow landscaped depression, with compost -amended native soils and adapted
plants. The depression is designed to pond and temporarily store stormwater runoff from adjacent areas, and to allow
stormwater to pass through the amended soil profile.
Version: August 22, 201-56
r
Q
Packet Pg. 369
9.1.b
Edmonds Page 6/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Receiving waterbody or Receiving waters. Naturally and/or reconstructed naturally occurring surface water bodies,
such as creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and marine waters, or groundwater, to which a MS4
discharges.
Replaced hard surface. For structures means the removal and replacement of hard surfaces down to the foundation. For
other hard surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement.
Replaced impervious surface. For structures, the removal and replacement of any exterior impervious surfaces down
to the foundation. For other impervious surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and
replacement.
Roadway. Traveled irnpepAeu-s-hard surface portion of any public or private road or street.
Road -related project. A project that all of, or the majority of, the new or replaced hard surface consist of roadway,
shoulders, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or walkways, either publicly or privately funded.
Runoff. Water originating from rainfall and other precipitation that is found in drainage facilities, rivers, streams,
springs, seeps, ponds, lakes and wetlands, as well as shallow ground water. It also means the portion of rainfall or
other precipitation that becomes surface flow and interflow.
Site. The area defined by the legal boundaries of a parcel or parcels of land that is (are) subject to development. For
road projects, or utility projects in the right-of-way, the length of the project site and the right-of-way boundaries
define the site.
Slope. The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal; measured as a numerical ratio, percent, or in degrees.
Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal distance (run) and the second is the vertical distance (rise), as
2:1. A 2:1 slope is a 50 percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the horizontal plane, with a
90-degree slope being vertical (maximum) and 45 degrees being a 1:1 or 100 percent slope.
Soil. The unconsolidated mineral and organic material on the intermediate surface of the earth that serves as a natural
medium for the growth of land plants.
Source control BMPs. A structure or operation that is intended to prevent pollutants from coming into contact with
storm water through physical separation of areas or careful management of activities that are sources of pollutants.
The SWMMWW separates source control BMPs into two types. Structural source control BMPs are physical,
structural, or mechanical devices, or facilities that are intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater.
Operational BMPs are non-structural practices that prevent or reduce pollutants from entering stormwater. See
Volume IV of the SWMMWW for details.
Stormwater facility. A constructed component of a stormwater drainage system, designed and constructed to perform
a particular function or multiple functions. Stormwater facilities include, but are not limited to, pipes, swales, ditches,
culverts, street gutters, detention ponds, retention ponds, constructed wetlands, infiltration devices, catch basins,
oil/water separators, and biofiltration swales.
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). The Washington State Department of
Ecology's 2012 (as amended in 2014) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Referred to as the
2014 SWMMWW.
Stormwater site plan. The comprehensive report containing all of the technical information and analysis necessary for
regulatory agencies to evaluate a proposed development project for compliance with stormwater requirements.
Contents of the Stormwater Site Plan will vary with the type and size of the project, and individual site characteristics.
It includes a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Construction SWPPP) and a Permanent Stormwater
Control Plan (PSC Plan). Guidance on preparing a Stormwater Site Plan is contained in Chapter 3 of Volume I of the
SWMMWW.
Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/Facilities. Detention facilities, treatment BMPs/facilities,
bioretention, vegetated roofs, and permeable pavements that help meet Minimum Requirements No.6 (Treatment),
Minimum Requirement No.7 (Flow Control), or both as described in ECDC 18.30.060.
Version: August 22, 201-56
a�
0
U
c
d
E
d
t0
C
O
L
d
M
3
E
L
0
N
O
O
C
O
.y
N
to
O
N
N
O
0
E
0
w
J
a
Z
LL
O
M
eo
U
0
U
W
N
r
C
0
E
t
U
R
a
N
E
t
t�
tv
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 370
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 7/23
Threshold discharge area. An on -site area that drains to either a single natural discharge location or multiple natural
discharge locations that combine within one -quarter mile downstream (as determined by the shortest flowpath). The
examples below and in Figure G.1 presented in Volume I of the SWMMWW illustrate this definition. The purpose of
this definition is to clarify how the thresholds of this code are applied to project sites with multiple discharge points.
Example of a Site with a
Example of a Site with
Example of a Site with
Single Natural Discharge
Multiple Natural
Multiple Natural Discharges
and a Single Threshold
Discharges and a Single
and Multiple Threshold
Discharge Area
Threshold Discharge Area
discharge Areas
Natural
fs t h�rgE�._
Natural Natural
bischiMe...-- ---Discharge • ...
Natural Natural
bischaige...--—Dischpcge-----• ..
—.ats Area
Area 1 Area 2
Area 1 Area 2
THRESHOLD
ptSGHARGE
....THRE HDLD
'
,HI3EStJOLD THRESHDL
DISCHAf2GE-
AlRb-.
dISC ARGE,r""'
ISCHARGE
[Shaded} ti4
1;A
edj
AREA t%_ , AREA2
[ hade ]'...
Natural —�
Natural
i Discharge
Discharge
Natural
Discharge
i Location
11 Location 1
Location
i
s
i
/
r
s i
I
%Mile Downstream .w----------------- -------� ----�- f----
(shortest Clow path)
Vehicular Use. Regular use of an impervious or pervious surface by motor vehicles. The following are subject to
regular vehicular use: roads, un-vegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways,
parking lots, unrestricted access fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways.
The following are not considered subject to regular vehicular use: paved bicycle pathways separated from and not
subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, restricted access fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance
access roads.
Waterbody. Surface waters including rivers, streams, lakes, marine waters, estuaries, and wetlands.
Waters of the state. Includes those waters defined as "waters of the United States" in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the
geographic boundaries of Washington State, and "waters of the state" as defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW which
includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and
water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.
Wetlands. As defined in ECDC 23.40.005. [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016]
Version: August 22, 201-56
Packet Pg. 371
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
18.30.020 Authority and Regulation.
Page 8/23
A. The Public Works and Utilities Director shall administer this chapter and shall be referred to as the Director.
B. The Director shall have the authority to develop, implement, and enforce policies and procedures to administer and
enforce this chapter per ECDC 18.30.110 and 18.30.120, such as the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum.
C. The requirements of this chapter are minimum requirements. They do not replace, repeal, abrogate, supersede, or
affect any other more stringent requirements, rules, regulations, covenants, standards, or restrictions. Where this
chapter imposes requirements that are more protective of human health or the environment than those set forth
elsewhere, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. When this chapter imposes requirements that are less protective
of human health or the environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of the more protective requirements
shall prevail.
D. The Director shall have the authority to impose additional requirements on a project or site to meet the purpose of
this chapter based on site -specific factors including, but not limited to, location, soil conditions, slope, and designated
use.
E. Approvals and permits granted under this chapter are not waivers of the requirements of any other laws, nor do they
indicate compliance with any other laws. Compliance is still required with all applicable federal, state and local laws
and regulations, including rules promulgated under authority of this chapter.
F. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not necessarily mitigate all impacts to the environment. Thus,
compliance with this chapter should not be construed as mitigating all drainage water or other environmental impacts,
and additional mitigation may be required to protect the environment pursuant to other applicable laws and
regulations. The primary obligation for compliance with this chapter and for preventing environmental harm on or
from property is placed upon the applicant. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010].
18.30.030 Applicability.
A. This chapter applies to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2017 and applications submitted prior to
January 1, 2017, which have not started construction by January 1, 2022.
B. This chapter applies to the following actions on sites that discharge to the City's MS4 or discharges to waters of
the state whether or not a City -issued permit is required:
1. Land -disturbing activity, or
2. Creation of new hard surfaces, or
3. Replacement of existing hard surfaces, or
4. Conversion of pervious surfaces, or
5. New connections to the City's MS4, or
6. Any other actions that can increase the volume or rate of stormwater runoff, or cause the generation of
pollutants, from the site.
18.30.040 Exemptions.
A. Full Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are exempt from the provisions of this
chapter:
1. Forest practices regulated under WAC Title 222, except for Class IV general forest practices that are
conversions from timberland to other uses, are exempt from the provisions of the minimum requirements.
Version: August 22, 201-56
Packet Pg. 372
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 9/23
2. Commercial agriculture practices that involve working land for production are generally exempt. However,
land conversion from timberland to agriculture and the construction of impervious surfaces are not exempt.
3. Construction of drilling sites, waste management pits, and associated access roads, and construction of
transportation and treatment infrastructure such as pipelines, natural gas treatment plants, natural gas pipeline
compressor stations, and crude oil pumping stations are exempt. Operators are encouraged to implement and
maintain best management practices to minimize erosion and control sediment during and after construction
activities to help ensure protection of surface water quality during storm events.
4. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are exempt: pothole and square -cut patching,
overlaying existing asphalt or concrete pavement with asphalt or concrete without expanding the area of
coverage, shoulder grading, reshaping/regrading drainage systems, crack sealing, resurfacing with in -kind
material without expanding the road prism, pavement preservation activities that do not expand the road
prism, and vegetation maintenance.
B. Partial Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are partially exempt from the provisions
of this chapter:
1. Underground utility projects that replace the ground surface with in -kind material or materials with similar
runoff characteristics are only subject to Minimum Requirement No. 2, Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention.
2. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are considered development, and therefore are
not categorically exempt. The extent to which these requirements apply is explained for each circumstance.
a. Removing and replacing a paved surface to base course or a lower level, or repairing the pavement base:
If impervious surfaces are not expanded, Minimum Requirements No. 1 — No. 5 apply when the
thresholds identified for development projects in ECDC 18.30.060 are met. Where appropriate, project
proponents are encouraged to look for opportunities to use permeable and porous pavements.
b. Extending the pavement edge without increasing the size of the road prism or paving graveled shoulders:
these are considered new impervious surfaces and are subject to the minimum requirements that are
triggered when the thresholds identified for development projects in ECDC 18.30.060 are met.
c. Resurfacing by upgrading from dirt to gravel, asphalt, or concrete; or upgrading from gravel to asphalt or
concrete; or upgrading from a bituminous surface treatment ("chip seal") to asphalt or concrete: these are
considered new impervious surfaces and are subject to the minimum requirements that are triggered
when the thresholds identified for development projects in ECDC 18.30.060 are met.
18.30.050 Administration.
A. Application, Submittals, and Review.
1. The Director shall review all plans and all other submittals required by ECDC 18.30.050.A.3 for compliance
with this chapter when:
a. An application for a City permit is required under all other chapters of ECDC Title 18 or 19, or
b. A subdivision application is submitted per ECDC 20.75.040.
2. In all other situations when actions under ECDC 18.30.030 apply to a project site, review shall be under a
Stormwater permit.
3. All stormwater review submittals shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other
applicable City code, a Stormwater Site Plan as described in the Edmonds StormwaterAddendum (see
ECDC 18.30.060) and any other information required by the Director.
Version: August 22, 201-56
Packet Pg. 373
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
B. Inspections.
Page 10/23
1. The Director shall inspect projects at various stages of the work to determine if they comply with the
requirements of this chapter, and enforcement actions shall be taken as necessary. These inspections will
include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Prior to site clearing and construction to assess site erosion potential, and
b. During construction to verify proper installation and maintenance of required erosion and sediment
controls and other approved plan components, and
c. All permanent stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities and catch basins in new
residential developments every six months until 90 percent of the lots are constructed (or when
construction is stopped and the site is fully stabilized) to identify maintenance needs and enforce
compliance with maintenance standards as needed, and
d. Upon completion of construction and prior to final approval to ensure proper installation of permanent
stormwater control facilities and verify that a maintenance plan is completed and responsibility for
maintenance is assigned for stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities, and
e. Post -Construction inspections per ECDC 18.30.090.
2. When reasonably required by the Director to accomplish the purpose of this chapter or to comply with local,
state or federal law or regulation on stormwater, special inspection or testing shall be performed by the
applicant.
C. Fees. Application, review and inspection fees as set in ECDC Chapter 15.00 shall be paid.
18.30.060 Requirements.
A. Documents. The sources of the stormwater management requirements for the City are from the following
documents:
1. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, Appendix 1, modification date January 16,
2015
2. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW)
3. The Edmonds Stormwater Addendum
In the event of conflicts between the various provisions, the more stringent provision shall apply.
QB. Illicit Discharges and Connections. Non-stormwater illicit discharges, including spills, into the MS4, Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 i
groundwaters, or a water body from any developed or undeveloped lands are prohibited per ECDC Chapter 7.200. Numbering Style: A, B, C, ... + Start
C. Thresholds and Applicability Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" +
at: 0.25"
1. The thresholds outlined in this section are only applicable to ECDC 18.30.060.C. See also the Edmonds
Stormwater Addendum for supplemental information on thresholds.
a. All development shall be required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 2.
b. Category 1 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5. Category 1
includes projects that:
i. Result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or
ii. Have land disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater.
c. Category 2 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. Category 2
includes projects that:
Version: August 22, 201-56
Packet Pg. 374
9.1.b
a�
0
U
Edmonds Page 11/23
d
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
E
d
i. Result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or
t0�
ii. Convert 0.75 acres, or more, of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or
iii. Convert 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture.
2. Additional Requirements for For from the
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Spacehard
L
d
�
road related projects. road related projects, runoff new and replaced
swfaees (ineittding pa-vement, shettliders, etffbs, and sidewalks) and the eeavei4ed vegetation areas shall mee
10 pt, Line spacing: single, Don't aall
3
t�he m-4;im-iim reEfdirements only ifthe now hard stiffaees total 5,000 squar-e feet or more and total 50 pereent a
space between Latin and Asian text
E 't
more ofthe existing hard surfaees within the projeet limits. Otherwise, the minimum requirements only apply4o-
adjust space between Asian text an
0
4�
the-, now 4;ard q--r-4issq and the emwet4ed vegetation areas. The projeet limits shall he. dy-Anuef by the length e
project and the width o fthe Fight of-w,,, ,Additional Requirements for road -related projects. For road -related
runoff from the new hard surfaces (including shoulders, curbs, and sidewalks) and the
numbers, Tab stops: 0.5", Left
�
Formatted: F.M. Times New Rome
projects, pavement,
0
converted vegetation areas shall meet all the minimum requirements if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square
feet or more. In addition, if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50 percent or more of
the existing hard surfaces within the project limits, runoff from the new and replaced hard surfaces and the
O
converted vegetation areas shall meet all the minimum requirements. The project limits shall be defined by the
O
length of the project and the width of the right-of-way.
i
• .. __
N
'
to
_.
"Formatted:
Normal, Indent: Left: (
No bullets or numbering
G
3. New Connections to the City's MS4 when the proposed connection does not involve activity that meets the
N
definition of development. Sites that are not currently connected to the City's MS4 but that wish to connect
cm
directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 may be allowed on a case -by -case basis, subject to City approval. For
G
sites that propose to drain greater than or equal to 2,000 square feet of inffwF ous-hard surface area to the
p
City's MS4, minimum requirements and BMPs associated with stormwater flow control and/or water quality
E
treatment (such as those outlined in ECDC 18.30.060.D [1] through [9]) may be required if the connection
0
poses any risk to downstream systems such as erosion, flooding, property damage, habitat damage, water
quality degradation, or other related impacts.
to
d
C
D. Minimum Technical Requirements. This section describes the minimum technical requirements for stormwater
:a
management at development sites.
1. Minimum Requirement No. 1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans
O
N�
The City shall require a Stormwater Site Plan from all projects meeting the thresholds in ECDC 18.30.060.C.
�
Stormwater Site Plans shall use site -appropriate development principles to retain native vegetation and
N
minimize impervious surfaces to the extent feasible. Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance
W
O
with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater
Addendum.
L~L
a
2. Minimum Requirement No. 2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) W
eN
a. Thresholds: J
a
z
i. All development projects are responsible for preventing erosion and discharge of sediment and LL
other pollutants into receiving waters. Compliance with this minimum requirement can be p
achieved for an individual site if the site is covered under Ecology's General NPDES Permit for C'?
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities and fully implementing the 00
requirements of that permit. U
0
ii. A Construction SWPPP is required for all projects which a) result in 2,000 square feet or more U
of new plus replaced hard surface area, b) where a structure with an exterior hard surface area of LL
at least 2,000 square feet is being demolished, c) which disturb 7,000 square feet or more of N
land, or d) when the site falls within the Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, Landslide
Hazard Area or steep slope critical area. Projects that do not meet any of the above criteria are y
not required to prepare a Construction SWPPP, but must consider all of the elements listed E
below for Construction SWPPPs and develop controls for all Construction SWPPP elements
that pertain to the project site.
a
Version: August 22, 201-56
E
t
t�
cC
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 375
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
b. General Requirements:
Page 12/23
i. The SWPPP shall include a narrative and drawings. All BMPs shall be clearly referenced in the
narrative and marked on the drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation to
explain and justify the pollution prevention decisions made for the project. Each of the thirteen
elements referenced below must be considered and included in the SWPPP unless site
conditions render the element unnecessary and the exemption from that element is clearly
justified in the narrative of the SWPPP.
ii. Clearing and grading activities for developments shall be permitted only if conducted pursuant
to an approved site development plan (e.g., building permit, subdivision approval) that
establishes permitted areas of clearing, grading, cutting, and filling. These permitted clearing
and grading areas and any other areas required to preserve critical or sensitive areas, buffers,
native growth protection easements, or tree retention areas as required by the City, shall be
delineated on the site plans and the development site.
iii. The SWPPP shall be implemented beginning with initial land disturbance and until final
stabilization. Sediment and Erosion control BMPs shall be consistent with the BMPs contained
in Chapter 4 of Volume II of the SWMMWW.
c. Seasonal Work Limitations:
From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities may only be
authorized by the City if it can be demonstrated that silt -laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the
site through a combination of the following:
i. Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to
receiving waters; and 4
ii. Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and
iii. Proposed erosion and sediment control measures, in accordance with ECDC 18.30.060.D.2.d
below.
Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the City may expand or restrict the
seasonal limitation on site disturbance. The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing
and grading limitations, except for sites lying in whole or in part within an earth subsidence and landslide
hazard area as defined by ECDC 19.10.020.F:
i. Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs,
ii. Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil
or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil, and
iii. Activities where there is one hundred percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site
in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities.
d. Construction SWPPP Elements
i. Construction SWPPP elements are required in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 of
Volume I of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum.
3. Minimum Requirement No. 3 — Source Control of Pollution
All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs must be required for all projects approved by the
City. Source control BMPs must be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume IV of the
SWMMWW. All single family residential projects shall, at a minimum, incorporate required BMPs from
SWMMWW Volume IV, S411 — BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/Vegetation Management.
Version: August 22, 201-56
Packet Pg. 376
9.1.b
Edmonds Page 13/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
4. Minimum Requirement No. 4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls
Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the project site shall occur at the natural
location, to the maximum extent practicable. The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site
must not cause a significant adverse impact to downstream receiving waters and down gradient properties.
The discharge must have an identified overflow route that is safe and certain, and leads to the ultimate outfall
location (such as a receiving water or municipal drainage system). All outfalls require energy dissipation.
To demonstrate compliance with this core requirement, all projects shall submit an off -site qualitative
analysis ,,, v ffi.....eam 4em the site to the reeeiving wa4e If an existing problem (or potential future problem
after development) is identified, mitigation will be required to prevent worsening of that problem. A
quantitative analysis may be required for any project deemed to need additional devmstfeam information or
where the project proponent or the City determines that a quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate the
off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system. See the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for
additional details on complying with this requirement.
5. Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management
a. Applicability:
On -site Stormwater Management BMPs are required in accordance with the following project
thresholds, standards, and lists to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on -site to the extent
feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater
Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility.
b. Project Thresholds:
There are five project scenarios outlined below that determine the applicability of Minimum
Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stonnwater Management. The first four scenarios apply to projects that
discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4. The fifth scenario applies to project discharges that do
not enter the City's MS4. Note that more than one of the five scenarios may apply to a given project:
Retrofit. Projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and that contain
existing hard surfaces on the parcel or common plan of development that do not drain to an
approved stormwater management facility are required to provide On -site Stormwater
Management BMPs to manage a portion of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after
project completion. BMPs from List No.I (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d) shall be applied to a
minimum of 25 percent of those existing unmanaged surfaces, but to no more than the area
equal to the proposed new plus replaced hard surfaces.
Only for those existing unmanaged hard surfaces that remain after project completion,
applicants are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility for
these existing surfaces (as is required under ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b [ii] and [iii] below).
However, if it is determined that the minimum 25 percent requirement cannot be met due to
BMP infeasibility, documentation of BMP infeasibility is required. In addition, when runoff
from exiting unmanaged hard surfaces is mixed with runoff from new plus replaced hard
surfaces, those BMPs must be selected and designed in accordance with the requirements for
management of new plus replaced hard surfaces (per sections [ii] and [iii] below). See the
SWMMW W and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site
Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility.
Category1. Category 1 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and
are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5 (per ECDC
18.30.060.C) shall either:
Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.1 for all new plus replaced hard
surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d); or
Version: August 22, 201-56
J
a
Z
LL
0
M
CO
U
0
U
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 377
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 14/23
Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC
18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose
to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW.
iii. Category2. Category 2 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and
are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9 (per ECDC
18.30.060.C) shall either:
a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.2 for all new plus replaced
hard surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.e); or
b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC
18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose
to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW.
Direct Discharge Requirement. Projects that discharge directly to Puget Sound through the
City's MS4 (in accordance with the restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound
presented in Section 2.5.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW) do not have to achieve the LID
Performance Standard, nor consider bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavement, or full
dispersion, but must meet the following:
a. Projects must implement BMP T5.13 (Post -Construction Soil Quality & Depth); BMPs
T5.10A Downspout Full Infiltration Systems, T5.10B Downspout Dispersion Systems, or
T5.1 OB Perforated Stub -out Connections; and BMP T5.11 Concentrated Flow Dispersion
or T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion; if feasible for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and
land disturbed. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for
additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility.
Edmonds Way specific requirements. After applying the requirements in item (a) above,
for all remaining project site runoff (e.g., from unmanaged surfaces, or from overflow
from on -site BMPs), the post -development 10-, and 100-year recurrence interval peak
flows shall not exceed, 0.25 and 0.45 cubic feet per second per acre of impervious surface
area, respectively. See the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details.
Projects that do not drain directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 are required to implement one
of the following:
a. Project sites may discharge to the downstream private property (e.g., projects located
above BNSF property) with approval from the downstream property owner(s).
b. Project sites may discharge runoff to an on -site system.
For sites located within earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their
buffers, a geotechnical design, analysis, and report by a geotechnical
engineer is required for the on -site system. On -site Stormwater Management
BMPs from List No.1 in ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d shall be evaluated for all
new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed. Projects are not required
to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility. The project
applicant may be subject to an extra permit processing fee for City review of
the geotechnical analysis. Projects are required to comply with all other
applicable City requirements, such as ECDC 19.10 (earth subsidence and
landslide hazard areas).
For sites located outside earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their
buffers, ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.ii and ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.iii shall be
followed to evaluate site appropriate BMP's.
Version: August 22, 201-56
O
C
O
y
N
to
O
N
N
O
O
E
O
J
a
Z
LL
O
M
O
U
0
U
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 378
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 15/23
c. Subject to prior approval by the City, project sites may pump on -site runoff to the City's
MS4. A quantitative downstream analysis in accordance with Minimum Requirement No.
4 and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum will be required. If the City's MS4 does not
have adequate capacity to receive the applicant's pumped flows, the applicant is required
to install an on -site detention system to store runoff and pump it to the MS4 at an
approved rate.
c. LID Performance Standard
For projects that elect to meet the LID Performance Standard to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii)
and (iii), sormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations
for the range of pre -developed discharge rates from 8 percent of the 2-year peak flow to 50 percent of the
2-year peak flow from the project site. Refer to the Standard Flow Control Requirement section in
Minimum Requirement No. 7 for information about the assignment of the pre -developed condition.
Project sites that must also meet Minimum Requirement No. 7 shall match flow durations between 8
percent of the 2-year flow through the fall 50-year flow.
d. List No.1 for Category 1 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering
Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5.
For projects that elect to use List No. 1 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii), for each surface,
consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered
feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall
be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for
each BMP in the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum; and Competing Needs Criteria
listed in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Lawn and landscaped areas:
i. Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of
Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Roofs:
i. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW,
or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.I OA in Section 3.1.1 of
Volume III of the SWMMWW.
ii. Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14A in Chapter 5 of Volume V, or Bioretention in
accordance with Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention
facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at
least 5 percent of the area draining to it.
iii. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP TS.IOB in Section 3.1.2 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
iv. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP TS.IOC in Section 3.1.3 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. The City
may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum
Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
Other Hard Surfaces:
i. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Version: August 22, 201-56
Packet Pg. 379
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 16/23
ii. Permeable Pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the
SWMMWW, or Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14A in Chapter 5 of Volume V, or
Bioretention in accordance with Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or
bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the
overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area draining to it.
iii. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in
accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
iv. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. The City
may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum
Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
e. List No.2 for Category 2 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering
Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9.
For projects that elect to use List No. 2 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (iii), for each surface,
consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered
feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall
be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for
each BMP in the SWMMWW; and Competing Needs Criteria listed in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the
SWMMWW.
Lawn and landscaped areas:
Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of
Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Roofs:
i. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW,
or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.I OA in Section 3.1.1 of
Volume III of the SWMMWW.
ii. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum
horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total
surface area draining to it.
iii. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP TS.IOB in Section 3.1.2 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
iv. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP TS.IOC in Section 3.1.3 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Note that if
the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum
Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed
to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. hi addition, the City may waive the requirement to
install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available
City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
Other Hard Surfaces:
i. Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
ii. Permeable pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the
SWMMWW.
Version: August 22, 201-56
Packet Pg. 380
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 17/23
iii. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum
horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total
surface area draining to it.
iv. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in
accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Note that if
the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum
Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed
to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, the City may waive the requirement to
install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available
City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
6. Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment
a. Project Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider
those hard and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.C.2.
For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and the converted
vegetation areas. The following require construction of stormwater treatment facilities:
i. Projects in which the total of pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS) is 5,000 square feet or
more in a threshold discharge area of the project, or
ii. Projects in which the total of pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS) — not including
permeable pavements — is 0.75 acres or more in a threshold discharge area, and from which
there will be a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site.
b. Treatment -Type Thresholds and Facility Sizing:
i. Treatment -Type Thresholds in accordance with Step 2 (Oil Control), Step 4 (Phosphorus
Treatment), Step 5 (Enhanced Treatment), and Step 6 (Basic Treatment) of Chapter 2, Section
2.1, Volume V of the SWMMWW. Phosphorus treatment shall be required for projects draining
to Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger.
ii. Treatment Facility Sizing, including Water Quality Design Storm Volume, Water Quality
Design Flow Rate, and Downstream Facilities, of Chapter 2, Section 2.5.6, Volume I of the
SWMMWW.
c. Treatment Facility Selection, Design, and Maintenance
Stormwater treatment facilities shall be:
i. Selected in accordance with the process identified in Chapter 4 of Volume I, and Chapter 2 of
Volume V of the SWMMWW,
ii. Designed in accordance with the design criteria in Volume V of the SWMMWW, and
iii. Maintained in accordance with the maintenance schedule in Volume V of the SWMMWW.
d. Additional Requirements
The discharge of untreated stormwater from pollution -generating surfaces to ground water will not
be authorized by the City. All associated runoff must be treated using On -site Stormwater
Management BMPs designed to provide the required level of treatment in accordance with Chapter
5, Volume V and Chapter 7, Volume V of the SWMMWW; or by infiltration through soils meeting
the soil suitability criteria in Chapter 3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW.
Version: August 22, 201-56
Packet Pg. 381
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
7. Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control
Page 18/23
Applicability: Flow control is required on projects meeting the thresholds summarized below to reduce
the impacts of stormwater runoff from hard surfaces and land cover conversions. Flow control in
accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 7 is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or
indirectly through the City's MS4 to Puget Sound (other minimum requirements may still apply). See
ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv and Section 2.5.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW for additional restrictions
applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound.
If the discharge drains to a stream that leads to a wetland, or to a wetland that has an outflow to a stream,
both this minimum requirement (Minimum Requirement No. 7) and Minimum Requirement No. 8
apply.
Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider only
those impervious, hard, and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC
18.30.060.C.2. For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and
the converted vegetation areas. The following circumstances require achievement of the standard flow
control requirement for western Washington:
Projects in which the total of effective impervious surfaces is 10,000 square feet or more in a
threshold discharge area, or
Projects that convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscape, or convert 2.5 acres
or more of native vegetation to pasture in a threshold discharge area, and from which there is a
surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site, or
iii. Projects that through a combination of hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas cause a
0.10 cubic feet per second (cfs) increase or greater in the 100-year flow frequency from a
threshold discharge area as estimated using the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other
approved model and one -hour time steps (or a 0.15 cfs increase or greater using 15-minute time
steps).
Standard Flow Control Requirement (applies to discharges directly or indirectly to the City's MS4,
except for projects that meet the direct discharge requirements outlined in "a" above): Stormwater
discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations for the range of
pre -developed discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow.
The pre -developed condition to be matched shall be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic
information is available that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement (modeled as "pasture" in the
Western Washington Hydrology Model). This standard requirement is waived for sites that will reliably
infiltrate all the runoff from hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas.
d. Additional Requirement: Flow Control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance
with Volume III of the SWMMWW or an approved equivalent.
8. Minimum Requirement No. 8 — Wetlands Protection
a. Applicability: The requirements below apply only to projects whose stormwater discharges into a
wetland, either directly or indirectly through a conveyance system.
b. Thresholds: The thresholds identified in Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment, and
Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control shall also be applied to determine the applicability of this
requirement to discharges to wetlands.
c. Standard Requirement: Projects shall comply with Guide Sheets No. 1 through No. 3 in Appendix I-D of
the SWMMWW. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition to determine the
existing hydrologic conditions unless directed otherwise by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction.
Version: August 22, 201-56
J
a
Z
LL
0
M
00
U
0
U
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 382
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 19/23
d. Additional Requirements: Stormwater treatment and flow control facilities shall not be built within a
natural vegetated buffer, except for:
Necessary conveyance systems as approved by the City; or
As allowed in wetlands approved for hydrologic modification or treatment in accordance with
Guide Sheet 2 in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW.
An adopted and implemented basin plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of
Appendix 1 of the Phase II NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit.
9. Minimum Requirement No. 9 — Operation and Maintenance
An operation and maintenance manual that is consistent with the provisions in Volume I and Volume V of the
SWMMW W is required for proposed Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/facilities. The parry (or
parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified in the operation and maintenance
manual. For private facilities approved by the City, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be
retained on -site or within reasonable access to the site, and shall be transferred with the property to the new
owner. For public facilities, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained in the
appropriate department. A log of maintenance activity that indicates what actions were taken shall be kept
and be available for inspection.
18.30.070 Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeals.
A. Exceptions.
1. The Director may approve a request for an exception to the minimum requirements of this chapter following
legal public notice of an application for an exception and of the Director's decision on the application. All
legal public notice related to this request for an exception shall be in the manner prescribed in ECDC
20.03.002 and the applicant shall pay all costs to publish the legal public notices required by this provision.
The Director shall provide and keep written findings of fact of the decision.
2. The approval of the exception shall only be granted when the applicant demonstrates that the requirement
would cause a severe and unexpected economic hardship. To determine whether the requirement imposes a
severe and unexpected economic hardship on the project applicant, the applicant must document for City
review and approval, all of the following, at a minimum:
a. The current, pre -project use of the site; and
b. How application of the requirement(s) for which an exception is being requested restricts the proposed
use of the site compared to the restrictions that existed prior to adoption of this chapter; and
c. The possible remaining uses of the site if the exception were not granted; and
d. The possible uses of the site that would have been allowed prior to the adoption of this chapter; and
e. A comparison of the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of the requirements versus
the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of requirements that existed prior to
adoption of the requirements of this chapter; and
f. The feasibility of the applicant to alter the project to apply the requirements of this chapter.
3. Any exception must meet the following criteria:
a. The exception will not increase risk to the public health and welfare, nor be injurious to other properties
in the vicinity and/or downstream, and to the quality of waters of the state; and
b. The exception is the least possible exception that could be granted to comply with the intent of the
minimum requirements.
Version: August 22, 20136
O
O
C
O
.y
N
to
O
N
N
O
00
O
E
O
L
w
J
a
z
U_
O
M
00
U
0
U
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 383
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 20/23
An exception to the requirements shall only be granted to the extent necessary to provide relief from the
economic hardship as determined by the Director, to alleviate the harm or threat of harm to the degree that
compliance with the requirement becomes technically feasible, or to perform the emergency work that the
Director determines is warranted.
5. The Director may require an applicant to provide additional information at the applicant's expense, including
(but not limited to) an engineer's report or analysis.
6. When an exception is granted, the Director may impose new or additional requirements to offset or mitigate
harm or the threat of harm that may be caused by granting the exception, or that would have been prevented
if the exception had not been granted.
B. Adjustments.
The Director may approve a request for adjustments to the requirements of this chapter when the Director
finds that:
a. The adjustment provides substantially equivalent environmental protection; and
b. The objectives of safety, function, environmental protection, and facility maintenance are met, based on
sound engineering practices.
During construction, the Director may require, or the applicant may request, that the construction of drainage
control facilities and associated project designs be adjusted if physical conditions are discovered on the site
that are inconsistent with the assumptions on which the approval was based, including (but not limited to)
unexpected soil or water conditions, weather -generated problems, or changes in the design of the improved
areas; and
A request by the applicant for an adjustment shall be submitted to the Director for review and approval prior
to implementation. The request shall be in writing and shall provide facts substantiating the requirements of
subsection (C)(1) of this section, and if made during construction, the factors in subsection (C)(2) of this
section. Any such modifications made during the construction of drainage control facilities shall be included
with the final approved drainage control plan.
C. Appeal.
1. The Director's decision on an application for an exception or adjustment may appeal to the hearing examiner
in accordance with a Type II appeal process in ECDC Chapter 20.06.
2. The applicant shall carry the burden of proof.
3. The decision of the hearing examiner is appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C
RCW. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 20101.
18.30.080 Access and Covenants.
A. Access. Proper ingress and egress shall be provided to the City to inspect or perform any duty imposed upon the
City by this Title. The City shall notify the responsible parry in writing of a failure to provide access. If the responsible
party fails to respond within seven days from the receipt of notification, the City may order the work required
completed or otherwise address the cause of improper access. The obligation for the payment of all cost that may be
incurred or expended by the City in causing such work to be done shall be imposed on the person holding title to the
subject property
B. Covenants. Maintenance covenants shall be required for each site/lot that will be maintained by a private entity
such as an individual, corporation, or homeowner's association. The maintenance covenant shall address or append
requirements and responsibilities for long -tern management and maintenance the applicable BMP(s). Maintenance
covenants shall be as specified in City Engineering Division documents or approved by the Director, and recorded
with Snohomish County and on all proper deeds [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010].
Version: August 22, 201-56
a�
0
U
c
d
E
d
t0
C
O
d
to
3
E
L
0
N
O
O
C
O
.y
L
d
to
O
N
N
O
00
O
E
0
w
J
a
z
0
M
00
U
0
U
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 384
9.1.b
Edmonds Page 21/23
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and Maintenance Roles and Responsibilities.
Proper construction inspection and maintenance of stormwater facilities is essential for the protection of the City's
MS4 and the environment.
A. Stormwater Maintenance and Inspection Standards. Stormwater facilities shall be inspected and maintained per the
requirements of Volume I and Volume V of the SWMMWW. For systems which do not have a maintenance standard,
the owner shall develop a standard based on guidelines from the manufacturer, designer, or a registered professional
engineer and submit the standards to the Director for approval. The purpose of the maintenance standard is to
determine if maintenance is required. The maintenance standard is not a measure of the facility's required condition at
all times between inspections. Exceeding the maintenance standard between inspections is not a violation of this
chapter.
B. Ownership. Stormwater facilities are either privately or publicly owned and maintained. All stormwater facilities
that serve private property are private, unless an agreement between the property owner and the City states otherwise.
Stormwater facilities that are privately owned by a homeowner's association or similar organization also are private.
The City may offer an incentive program to owners to support the proper maintenance of private storm drainage
facilities.
C. Public Stormwater Facilities. The City shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing
public stormwater facilities as funded through the Stormwater Utility.
D. Maintenance and Inspection of Permanent Facilities. All privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls shall
be maintained by the owner, or the homeowner or owner association ("owner") if one is established as part of a
residential or commercial development. All private storm drainage facilities shall be regularly inspected to ensure
proper operation and shall monitor the facility or control as required or as set forth in the SWMMWW. The Owner
shall maintain records of inspection and maintenance, disposal receipts, and monitoring results. The records shall
catalog the action taken, the person who took it, the date said action was taken, how it was done, and any problems
encountered or follow-up actions required. The records shall be made available to the City upon request. The Owner
shall maintain a copy of the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Manual (if required) on site, and shall make
reference to such document in real property records filed with Snohomish County, so others who acquire real property
served by the privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls are notified of their obligation to maintain such
facilities or controls.
E. City Inspection of private stormwater facilities. The City shall have the authority to periodically inspect private
stormwater facilities, including low impact development stormwater facilities, for compliance with this chapter.
F. Right of Entry. An authorized representative of the City may enter private property at all reasonable times to
conduct inspections, tests or to carry out other duties imposed by the a state or Federal program provided that the City
makes a good faith effort to notify the property owner or person responsible for the premises prior to entering and
presents proper credentials to that person. If entry is refused or cannot be obtained, the Director shall have recourse to
every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including but not limited to, obtaining an administrative warrant for
entry.
G. Right of Entry for Illicit Discharge. In the event of an illicit discharge from a privately -owned stormwater facility
caused by improper maintenance or operation or other circumstance, the provisions of ECC 7.200 shall apply.
H. Maintenance Responsibilities. Upon written notice by the City, a private stormwater facility shall be promptly
repaired and/or brought up to applicable standards by the property owner or the person responsible for said facility. If
a private stormwater facility serves multiple lots and the responsibility for maintenance has not been specified on a
recorded subdivision plat, short plat, or other legal document, maintenance, operation and repair responsibility shall
rest with the homeowners' association, if one exists, or otherwise with the properties served by the facility, or finally,
with the owners of the property on which the facilities are located.
I. Disposal of Waste from Maintenance Activities. Disposal of waste from maintenance activities shall be conducted
in accordance with the minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, Chapter 173-304 WAC, guidelines
Version: August 22, 20136
J
a
Z
LL
0
M
00
U
0
U
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 385
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 22/23
for disposal of waste materials from storm water maintenance activities, and where appropriate, the Dangerous Waste
Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC.
18.30.100 Enforcement Procedures.
A. General enforcement action shall be in accordance with this chapter whenever a person has violated any provision
of this chapter. The choice of enforcement action is at the discretion of the City.
B. Civil Penalties Adopted. ECDC Chapter 20.110 enforcement procedures are herein adopted in full, as modified in
this chapter, with the proviso that repeat offenders or violations deemed an immediate public hazard shall be subject to
compliance and appeal timelines as deemed appropriate by the Director based on the specific nature of the violation.
C. Maintenance Orders. The Director shall have the authority to issue to an owner or person an order to maintain or
repair a component of a stormwater facility or BMP to bring it into compliance with this chapter, the SWMMW W, the
Edmonds StormwaterAddendum, and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The order shall include:
1. A description of the specific nature, extent and time of the violation and the damage or potential damage that
reasonably might occur;
2. A notice that the violation or the potential violation cease and desist and, in appropriate cases, the specific
corrective actions to be taken; and
3. A reasonable time to comply, depending on the circumstances.
D. Civil Penalty. A person who fails to comply with the requirements of this chapter, who fails to conform to an
approval or order issued, who undertakes development without first obtaining approval, or who fails to comply with a
stop work order issued under these regulations shall be subject to a civil penalty levied in accordance with the
provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.110; provided, however, that the appeal process shall commence with a notice of
violation as provided in ECDC 20.110.040.B.
Civil penalties for code violations shall be imposed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC Chapter
20.110; provided, however, that in addition to the penalties set forth in that chapter, the hearing examiner is
authorized to levy a penalty of up to twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per occurrence based upon an
assessment of the following factors. Where such factors are present, the hearing examiner is authorized to
levy such penalty after taking into consideration the full impact of the violation and any mitigating
circumstances (see subsection (2) below):
a. The violation created a risk to public health and the significance of the risk.
b. The violation damaged the environment and the significance of the damage.
c. The violation caused damage to public and private property and the significance of such damage.
d. A history of similar violations, if any.
e. The economic benefit of the violations, if any, to the person or entity responsible for the violations.
Mitigating circumstances which may be used to offset or reduce the time resulting from the application of the
preceding factors are limited to:
a. Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and no history of similar violations.
b. Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and a history of one or two similar violations
(lesser reduction).
c. A "voluntary compliance agreement' is defined as a legally binding agreement entered into between the
City and the alleged violators, by which the violator(s) acknowledge the existence of the violation, waive
Version: August 22, 20136
a�
0
U
c
d
E
d
t0
C
O
d
to
3
E
L
0
N
O
O
C
O
.y
N
to
O
N
N
O
00
O
E
0
w
J
a
z
U-
O
M
00
U
0
U
W
N
r
c
0
E
t
U
fC
.r
a
N
E
t
t)
cC
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 386
9.1.b
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 23/23
all appeal rights, and agree to and do pay a fine in an amount stipulated to between the violator and the
City.
3. If the violation(s) are not corrected as ordered, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into within
that time period and no appeal is filed, the penalty for the next 15-day period shall be 150 percent of the
initial penalties, and the penalties for the next 15-day period shall be 200 percent of the initial penalties. The
intent of this subsection is to increase penalties beyond the maximum penalties stated as an additional means
to achieve timely compliance.
4. Unless otherwise provided in a voluntary compliance agreement, civil penalties shall be paid within 30 days
of service of the notice and order or stop work order if not appealed. Payment of the civil penalties assessed
under this chapter does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to
correct the violation or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to this
chapter.
5. The City may suspend immediate payment of civil penalties if the person responsible for a code violation has
entered into a voluntary compliance agreement. Penalties shall begin to accrue again pursuant to the terms of
the voluntary compliance agreement if any necessary permits applied for are denied, canceled or not
pursued, if corrective action identified in the voluntary compliance agreement is not completed as specified,
or if the property is allowed to return to a condition similar to that condition which gave rise to the voluntary
compliance agreement; provided, however, that additional penalties shall not be imposed until additional
notice and opportunity for hearing have been provided in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110.
6. Civil penalties assessed create joint and several personal obligations in all persons responsible for a code
violation.
E. The determination of the hearing examiner issued in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110 shall be appealable to
the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW.
The remedies provided for in this section shall not be exclusive. The City may also use other civil and
administrative remedies available to it, including but not limited to the remedies provided in ECDC Title 19 and the
state building and dangerous buildings codes
Version: August 22, 201-56
O
O
C
O
.y
L
N
to
O
N
N
O
00
O
E
O
L
w
J
a
z
0
M
00
U
0
U
W
r
Q
Packet Pg. 387
9.1.c
Following are responses to the stormwater code questions received via email from
Councilmember Buckshnis on August 25, 2016. The entirety of the e-mail is presented to
provide context. Specific responses to each question are interlaced in the text. Additional
responses are included at the end. These come from a separate e-mail sent to Councilmember
Buckshnis on August 31 st
Good Morning Phil,
I did not bring forth many questions as it appeared that the Mayor wanted to move this item
along as well. As I have stated in the last meeting, this has 'flown "past Council with only one
presentations in June and August (without PowerPoint prevention prior) and one in public
hearing when it is such a huge and detailed document.
I am also concerned from a global perspective that everything points to you
(Director) being in charge of every decision (pre and post construction).
And on Tuesday, you now you are saying we are hiring a Stormwater Specialists which I agree
should have occurred when Jerry left. Yet you want this approved by Council now even though
you have already sent it off to the State for review? As such, it seems Council is merely a rubber
stamp at this point? Or am I totally off base on this authority of things?
1) In the definition you have now removed Critical Areas - I could not see how the critical areas
were treated in the Stoomwater code and it is so confusing, it is not easy for me to ascertain
what process or trigger occurs when there is a critical area ? (P179)
Response: The Critical Area requirements of the ECDC (Title 23) still apply citywide,
alongside the Stormwater code. Nothing in the existing or proposed new Stormwater code
changes City Critical Area requirements. Rather, we are avoiding redundancy by eliminating
content that is not specifically discussed in this code section. The definition of "critical
areas" was removed from the Stormwater code since the term is not used in this section and
does not have a unique definition for the purposes of this section.
2) The Director definition indicates that it is the Director or designee with an appropriate
background in engineering or another related discipline?
What other related discipline would we be expecting other than an engineer specializing in
Stormwater management? (P180)
Response: Designation of some tasks can be made to specific staff members on a day-to-day
basis but the Director retains responsibility for the proper implementation of this code
section. Certainly one key staff member would be the City's Stormwater Engineer as you
point out. Other key staff would include the City Engineer, the Senior Utilities Engineer, the
Engineering Program Manager, and potentially other staff. There may be times when a
decision requires expertise in a discipline not available on our staff. This might include
Packet Pg. 388
9.1.c
wetland sciences, water quality, or land use for example. The main point is that no change is
being proposed to this definition as it has worked well for the City in the past.
3) There is a tremendous amount of low impact development language in this document and yet
the City has yet to have any LID code in its current code.
How are we to determine if this is correct or not in terms of best management practices?
Many of us do not want zero lot lines in an LID and so we how will we be interfacing this
with our upcoming code? (Page 181)
Response: The LID -related requirements that are reflected in the proposed Stormwater code
are explicitly required as part of the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. The
stormwater requirements in the NPDES Permit are quite technical and very prescriptive, but
also have been determined by the Department of Ecology to be best practices. The City
would be out of compliance with the NPDES Permit if the LID requirements in the proposed
Stormwater code were not all included. These requirements are being implemented by all
NPDES permitted municipalities across western Washington.
Related to the Stormwater code updates, but on a separate Council approval track, are the
broader LID integration code updates. These are being proposed across all sections of the
Edmonds Code. These proposed changes are also in compliance with the NPDES Permit, but
are intended to 1) make the rest of the City's code work well with the new stormwater code,
and 2) address barriers that may exist throughout the current code that do not allow for or
could prevent the use of LID during development. The LID integration code updates are
currently being drafted and will be discussed with Council separately from the Stormwater
code section.
4) We have removed the definition of Redevelopment? I see a lot of language about
redevelopment, especially in our CAO, so why is this being removed (p183)
Response: The Stormwater code does not differentiate between "new" development and "re"
development. The term "redevelopment" is not used in the proposed Stormwater code;
therefore, we are proposing to remove it from the definitions section. Moreover, note that the
definitions provided in the proposed new stormwater code are specific to Chapter 18.30, and
do not apply to other portions of City code.
5) We have removed the definition of watershed. Are we not concerned about our watersheds
and how or where they drain, especially in Stormwater management (p 185)
Response: The term "watershed" is not used in the proposed Stormwater code; therefore, we
removed it from the definitions section. The stormwater requirements have and will continue
to be tailored to and sensitive to City -specific and watershed -specific issues. Moreover, the
majority of the proposed changes, including the NPDES Permit -required changes, are
intended to improve protection of City watersheds and water resources. Nothing has changed
with regards to the City's ability to tailor the stormwater requirements to watershed -specific
issues as needed and as they evolve in the future.
Packet Pg. 389
9.1.c
6) The entire "subdivision" section now has been removed? Are we totally removing
subdivisions from our existing code (page 186)
Response: No, stormwater regulations will, of course, apply to subdivisions. Those
requirements have mostly been moved to the Administration section (18.30.050).
7) 18.30.30 (new) (p187) and applicability regarding submissions or applications is very
confusing to me as suddenly we bring in the City's MS4 guidelines (which only show up on
page 194 or maybe I missed it somewhere before now) and the issuance of a permit with
inspections completely being removed? Can you just explain what the meaning of this
section is now?
Response: The existing Applicability section is not comprehensive enough to meet the
NPDES Permit requirements. In short, it implies that the Stormwater code was only
"applicable" when a permit was issued. This is not correct, as portions of the Stormwater
code apply regardless of whether a City permit is required or not. Therefore, the proposed
Applicability section has been revised to meet the NPDES Permit requirements and to clarify
that stormwater requirements apply to a much wider range of situations that may impact
stormwater runoff and downstream water resources.
8) On thresholds -you have removed Underground utility projects (p 182).
Does this mean the City is not subject to any requirement?
Response: We assume you are referring to page 192, as opposed to page 182, to the text that
reads "Underground utility projects that replace the ground surface with in -kind material or
materials with similar runoff characteristics are only subject to Minimum Requirement No.
2." If so, this portion of the Stormwater code has simply been moved to the Exemptions
section (18.30.040), since it made more sense for it to reside in that location. Regardless,
utilities are still subject to certain stormwater requirements, except per the exemption
language. Note that this proposed language is straight out of the NPDES Permit requirements
(exemptions section) and is essentially unchanged relative to the existing Stormwater code.
9) Seasonal work limitation (p193) - I think this makes sense, but it seems as the weather
changes - this might be too limiting?
Response: This language is excerpted from (and required by) the City's NPDES Permit.
However, please note that Minimum Requirement No. 2 (Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention) still applies year-round, and thus will help protect receiving waters from
construction site runoff regardless of the season. In addition, the proposed Stormwater code
also includes some flexibility with the seasonal requirement where it states "Based on the
information provided and/or local weather conditions, the City may expand or restrict the
seasonal limitation on site disturbance."
10) Back to the LID performance standards - a lot of new guidance, WOW is all I wrote. How is
this going to interface with our zoning code on LID?
Packet Pg. 390
9.1.c
Response: As noted under question #3, the proposed Stormwater code elements are required
in order to update long-standing stormwater requirements related to development activity,
whereas the broader LID code updates are aimed at changes throughout City code to
eliminate barriers to LID and make LID the preferred approach to development. These code
changes will be complimentary, with the Stormwater code focusing on stormwater issues,
and the LID integration code updates focusing on broader City policies on land use, zoning,
and other important issues.
11) Post construction Inspection and Maintenance - I see the city only brin scup MS4 but what
about MSS? How will the city sign off? (P203)
Response: Apologies, but we are uncertain what you mean by "MS5." You may have
confused the acronym MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) with MR5 (Minimum
Requirement 5). That could easily happen.
Regarding sign off, projects with private stormwater facilities have been (and will continue to
be) required to submit a maintenance plan for City approval. In addition, projects are
required to comply with that maintenance plan after project completion (i.e., for long-term
maintenance of their stormwater facilities). The City is also required (by the NPDES permit)
to inspect and enforce these maintenance requirements. The associated inspections occur
during construction, upon project completion, and roughly annually after that (there is some
flexibility to the ongoing inspection processes and requirements).
12) Enforcement (p 204) How can we make sure Council is being made aware of any significant
issues as it says the choice of enforcement is at the discretion of the City. I can think of
issues with the CAO where we put in at least some mechanism that when a large "issue"
comes forward, the city is aware of it. Same issue with Penalties that follow (p205).
Response: The enforcement portion of this code section relates to construction activities and
maintenance of stormwater systems post -construction. City staff administers this portion of
the code now and would do so going forward.
If a major event took place such as a significant spill into the City's MS4 system or a major
slide associated with failure of a stormwater detention or treatment facility, or a similar
significant event the administration has, in the past, and would continue to be open in sharing
that information with the Council and the public. But these types of events are not what the
proposed code changes are addressing.
Email sent on 8/31/2016
Ms. Buckshnis,
We have been working since last week to get you good answers to the questions you have asked. Those
should be coming out to you and other Council members tomorrow and they will be included in the
agenda packet as well for the 9/13 Council meeting.
The notification to the Department of Commerce was a requirement we were not aware of until
recently. It wasn't even obvious these proposed code revisions triggered that requirement. In an
abundance of caution we decided to submit the draft stormwater code to them for review and approval
Packet Pg. 391
9.1.c
I have been told that many of the cities working to meet the same state mandate have not taken this
step at all. It is my understanding that the Commerce review is done at a very high level and mostly
related to any requirements that might be contrary to state law or regulation. Since this draft
stormwater code only contains a blend of our existing code and state -mandated changes it does seem
unlikely they would find fault with it. Worst case would be that Council approves a version of the code
that Commerce finds fault with for some reason and we have to make an amendment. At that point we
would make the change and ask Council to review and approve that change. Again, this seems unlikely.
As far as the Department of Ecology is concerned I misspoke when I told council we would also send it to
Ecology for their review and approval. I thought that was required. It is not a requirement. You can
apparently send your draft code to them for a courtesy review but that is not a required part of the
adoption process.
The SEPA review is a requirement. There are specific timelines on that process. We will not put this item
back on your agenda for approval until that is complete.
I want to respond to your comments about the Stormwater Engineering position. We have made an
offer to a highly qualified applicant to fill this vacancy. Robert Edwards starts work for the City
tomorrow. Your comment seemed to suggest that we had somehow waited to do that until recently.
That is definitely not the case. We did lose some time initially when we decided to change the job
description for the position and re -organize the utility engineering staff. All of that had to be taken
through Council for approval and that took a couple months to complete. We then recruited for this
position for many months and were unable to find the right person. After going through a complete
recruitment and hiring process twice we finally found what we believe to be a great fit for the City.
Believe me, we have worked hard to fill this position and it is important to me that you understand that.
Council is not being asked to rubber stamp anything. This code is being presented to you for review,
comment, and approve like any other code change would be. I agree these are important and impactful
changes. The only caveat is that most of the changes are required by state law. We have tried very hard
to highlight the areas in the draft code where some latitude exists and how staff and our consultant
team are proposing to handle those areas. We are not in a huge hurry as you have apparently perceived
The only true deadline is that this code and the LID integration code changes in the rest of the EDC must
be done by the end of the year.
If you have other questions please don't hesitate to ask them.
The following was added Today 9/1/2016
In the above e-mail I indicated that we are not in a complete rush to get this done. That is true but
I would like to point out that adopting this section of the code is not the end of the process. We
need to be fully compliant by January 1 st, 2017. Once this code is adopted we then need to turn
our attention to the "LID Integration codes" update mentioned above in several of our responses.
Next, we will produce the Stormwater Addendum which will provide additional specifics and
procedures related to the revised codes. After that we need to train staff on implementation
procedures and policies. Finally, we need to prepare a number of handouts and checklists to
explain the new code to many different audiences. None of these additional tasks can be
Packet Pg. 392
9.1.c
undertaken until we know exactly what the new stormwater code section will contain. That is
what is driving us to get this section of the code re -write adopted sooner rather than later.
Packet Pg. 393
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Chapter 18.30
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Sections:
18.30.000Purpose Purposes.
18.30.010 Definitions.
18.30.020 Authority and Regulation.
18.30.030 Applicability.
18.30.040 Exemptions.
18.30.050 Administration.
18.30.050 Pr-eje,.t elassifieatien.
18.30.060 S*afm water management requirements Requirements.
18.30.070 Exemptions, exeeptions, adjustments and appeal Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeal.
18.30.080 E^^^m^p'^, deeds, Access and eaveaan4sCovenants.
18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and „ aipAenanee r-e Maintenance Roles and
respensibilitiesR
18.30.100 Enforcement pfocedufesProcedures.
18.30.000 Pu-rposePurposes.
Page 1/30
existing storm water systems that directly or indireetly discharge to the eivy storm water A. To set forth
standards for managing stormwater runoff from construction and development sites to minimize:
1. Degradation of surface water quality by controlling the scouring and sedimentation of creeks, streams,
wetlands, ponds, lakes, other water bodies.
2. Degradation of groundwater quality.
3. Damage to adjacent and other downstream private properties from erosion or other impacts from stormwater
runoff.
4. Damage of City -owned parcels, City roads, rights -of -way and associated infrastructure.
B. To comply with requirements in ^ manner that oomplies with the Wester Washington -the Phase II National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit as issued by the Washington State
Department of Ecology.- (Ecology).
C. To complement site planning activities that minimize:
1. Impervious surfaces area.
The--, Ed-m-offlids City Code and Gonmutmity Development Gode, ffe, eurreat Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 394
9.1.d
Edmonds
Chapter 19.30 STORM AL TER NIAN GENILINT
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
2. The loss of native or non-native site vegetation.
3. The generation of stormwater runoff.
Page 2/30
D. To make low impact development (LID) the preferred and commonly used approach to site development; to require
LID be considered at the site planning stage; and to implement LID BMPs unless they are infeasible.
E. To i3r-avide for- insi3eetion aad maifAeaa-nee ef ster-m,�A,ater facilities in the e4v te easttr-e that these f4eilities Derfor
F: To require that all p. lie and pr-iv. e s*e: w er ��publicly-owned and privately -owned Stormwater
Treatment and Flow Control best management practices (BMPs)/Facilities are operated, maintained, and repaired in a
manner that conforms to this chapter.
G. To establish the mininium standards that must be met for oomplianee,
14F. To provide ^^ the authority for all—Mhethe City to inspect privately -owned Stormwater Treatment and
maintain sta f... wa4er- f eili Flow Control BMPs/Facilities.
G. To provide enforcement procedures for ensuring compliance with this chapter.
18.30.010 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
L`Arterial. A road or street primarily for through traffic. The term generally includes roads or streets considered
collectors. It does not include local access roads which are generally limited to providing access to abutting property
See also RCW 35.78.010, RCW 36.86.070, and RCW 47.05.021.
Adjustment. A variation in the application of a minimum requirement to a particular project. Adjustments
provide substantially equivalent environmental protection.
L`Applicant" means the. The owning individual(s) or corporations or their representatives applying for the permits or
approvals described in this chapter.
L'Approval. The proposed work or completed work conforming to this chapter as approved by the public
works direetefDirector or their designee.
"Best management practice (BN4P)" means the sehe ulepractices (BMPs). The schedules of activities,
prohibitienprohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and structural and/or managerial practices approved by
the 64yCity that, when used singly or in combination, prevent or reduce the release of pollutants and other adverse
impacts to waters of Washington State.
LBioretention. Engineered facilities that treat stormwater by passing it through a specified soil profile, and either retain
or detain the treated stormwater for flow attenuation. Refer to the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington (SWMMWW), Chapter 7 of Volume V for bioretention BMP types and design specifications.
Category 1 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.l through No.S. See ECDC 18.30.60.C.
Category 2 Project Site. A project site subject to Minimum Requirements No.I through No.9. See ECDC 18.30.60.C.
Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL). An individual who has current certification through an
approved erosion and sediment control training program that meets the minimum training standards established by
Ecology (see BMP C160 in the SWMMWW). A CESCL is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion
and sediment control. The CESCL must have the skills to assess site conditions and construction activities that could
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, are--, e_-,urremt ffi-r-ough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 395
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 3/30
impact the quality of stormwater and, the effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures used to control the
quality of stormwater discharges. Certification is obtained through an Ecology approved erosion and sediment control
course. Course listings are provided online at Ecology's website.
City's municipal separate storm sewer system'—' or "MS4 ."A conveyance or system of conveyances
(including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or
storm drains) that are owned or operated by the eityCity of Edmonds, designed or used for collecting or conveying
ovate stormwater, and are not a combined sewer nor part of a publicly owned treatment works as defined in 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 122.2, and which is defined as "large" or "medium" or "small" or otherwise
designated by Ecology pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26.
"Clearing" means the act. The destruction and removal of vegetation, including grubbing. by
manual, mechanical, or chemical methods.
L'Commercial Agriculture. Those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2) and activities involved
in the production of crops or livestock for commercial trade. An activity ceases to be considered commercial
agriculture when the area on which it is conducted is proposed for conversion to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle
for more than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the
activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing
agricultural activity.
Common plan of development or sale" means a. A site where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may
takebe taking place at different times on different schedules and/or by different contractors, but still under a single
plan. For example! „hale Examples include: 1) phase projects and projects with multiple filings or lots, even if the
separate phases or filings/lots will be constructed under separate contract or by separate owners (e.g., a development
where lots are sold to separate builders); 2) a development plan that may be phased over multiple years, but is still
under a consistent plan for long-term development; ef3) projects in a contiguous area that may be unrelated but still
under the same contract, such as construction of a building extension and a new parking lot at the same facility; and 4)
linear projects such as roads, pipelines, or utilities. If the project is part of a common plan of development or sale, the
disturbed area of the entire plan must be used in determine permit requirements.
,>
means land disturbing operations including elearing, grading, or excavation that disturbs
"Converted pervious sur?aee" means-t evegetation (areas). The change in land cover changed from native vegetation,
pasture scrub/shrub, or unmaintained non-native vegetation to lawn, lands ape, or landscaped areas, or where native
vegetation is converted to pasture -areas.
L'Creeks. Is synonymous with "stfeastreams," which is defined in ECDC 23.40.005320.
"Critical areas" is defined in I CDC 23.40.005.
"Design stora' means a rainfall event or pattern of events for use in analyzing and designing drainage faeilities.
"Deten4ion" means a f4eility fer eapArelling sterm wmer ruflog for a preseribed design sterm and releasing the Storm
water at a preseribed rate
LDetention facility. An above or below ground facility, such as a pond or tank, that temporarily stores stormwater
runoff and subsequently releases it at a slower rate than it is collected by the drainage facility system. There is little or
no infiltration of stored stormwater.
Development. Land -disturbing activities, including Class IV general forest practices that are conversions from timber
land to other uses. Creation or addition of hard surfaces, or replacement of hard surface that is not part of a routine
maintenance activity. Structural development, including construction, installation, replacement, or expansion of a
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmutmity Development Gode -are eurrent Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 396
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 4/30
building or other structure. Subdivision, short subdivision, and binding site plans, as defined and applied in Chapter
58.17 RCW
Director" means the public works aireete . The City's Public Works and Utilities Director or a designee with an
appropriate background in engineering or another related discipline.
"Discharge point. The location where a discharge leaves the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) through
the City's MS4 facilities/BMPs designed to infiltrate.
Ecology. The Washington State Department of Ecology.
"Effective impervious surface. Those impervious surfaces that are connected via sheet flow or discrete
conveyance to a drainage system including the ciy's N4S4.. Impervious surfaces on residential development sites are
considered ineffective if: 1) the runoff is dispersed through at least 100 feet of native vegetation in accordance with
BMP T5.30 — "Full Dispersion," as described in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the Star -.water Management N4an....1 f r
Westo..., Washington (2005) SWMMWW; 2) residential roof runoff is infiltrated in accordance with downspout Full
Infiltration Systems in BMP T5.10A in Volume III of the SWMMWW; or 3) approved continuous runoff modeling
methods indicate the entire runoff file is infiltrated.
"Erosion" means the displaeement of any earffi material or existing vegetation by rainfall, storm water runoff-, or
seepage.
"Erodible or leachable materials. Wastes, chemicals, or other substances that measurably alter the physical or
chemical characteristics of runoff when exposed to rainfall. Examples include erodible soils that are stockpiled,
uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, and garbage dumpster leakage.
Erosion. The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geological agents, including such
processes as gravitational creep. Also, detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, or
gravity. See the SWMMWW Glossary for examples of types of water erosion.
Excavation'=. The mechanical removal of dearth material.
°`Exceptions Relief from the application of a minimum requirement to a project.
L'Fi11!Lmeans-a. A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means.
L'Groundwater. Water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the land surface or below a water body.
"Hard surface. An impervious surface, a permeable pavement, or a vegetated roof.
Highway. A main public road connecting towns and cities. In Edmonds, this includes State HighwayRoute
99, State Route 524, and portions of State Highwa 104, beththat are classified as principal arterials in the
citylsCity's comprehensive transportation plan.
L'Illicit discharge" ea y. Any direct or indirect ,meta.- . , ate non-stormwater discharge to the eitylsCity's
MS4, groundwaters, or a water body, except as expressly allowed by ECDC Chapter 7.200EGG.
"Impervious surface. A non -vegetated surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into
the soil mantle as' sunder natural conditions prior to development, res'a ing it ste . A non -vegetated surface
area which causes water Ito run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow eempare
to s*a-n Water- ....ne ff,.>,.,..aete -isti s from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development. Common
impervious surfaces include4, but are not limited to) rooftops, roof tops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots or
storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam or other surfaces
that similarly impede the natural infiltration of stafm wate stormwater. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities
. Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 397
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 5/30
shall not be considered impervious surfaces for purposes of determining whether the thresholds for application of
minimum requirements are exceeded. However-, epeeOpen, uncovered retention/detention facilities shall be
considered impervious surfaces for purposes of runoff modeling. Outdoor swimming pools shall be considered
impervious surfaces in all situations. In addition, lawns, landscaping, sports fields, golf courses, and other areas that
have modified runoff characteristics resulting from the addition of underdrains and impermeable or low permeability
liners are to be considered impervious surfaces. If no liner is installed, these areas (lawns, landscaping, sports fields,
golf courses, etc.) served by underdrains may be considered pervious if the underdrain is set a minimum of 8 inches
above the in -situ soils in a manner to allow infiltration over the facility bottom.
"Lake" means an. An inland body of fresh water surrounded by land.
"Land -disturbing activity. Any activity that results in movement of earth, or a change in the existing soil
cover (both vegetative and nonvegetat ve) non -vegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land -disturbing
activities include but are not limited to demolition, clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. Compaction that is
associated with stabilization of structures and road construction shall also be considered a land -disturbing activity.
Vegetation maintenance practices, including landscape maintenance and gardening, are not considered
land -disturbing activity. Stormwater facility maintenance is not considered land disturbing activity if conducted
according to established standards and procedures.
L'Low impact development" means deve opm^ff* ean"eted in a ...a (LID). A stormwater and land use strategy that
seeksto ^' Aely prevent alterations to the Natural ydrologystrives to mimic pre -disturbance
hydrologic processes of the infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and transpiration by emphasizing conservation,
use of on -site. Low impaot deve opmen4 includes features, site planning and design to redue^ alterations of natural soil
and vegetati nme imperviouss surkwes,, and specifiedistributed stormwater management practices that
help to replieme aa�ur l hydrology stiek asare integrated into a project design.
LID Best Management Practices (BMPs). Distributed stormwater management practices, integrated into a project
design, that emphasize pre -disturbance hydrologic processes of infiltration, filtration, storage, evaporation and
transpiration. LID BMPs include, but are not limited to, bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavements, s,
ail amend en4s bioretenti^n systems, ^^a roof downspout controls, dispersion, soil quality and depth, minimal
excavation foundations, vegetated roofs, and water re -use.
LID principles. Land use management strategies that emphasize conservation, use of on -site natural features, and site
planning to minimize impervious surfaces, native vegetation loss, and stormwater runoff.
"Maintenance. Repair and maintenance activities conducted on currently serviceable structures,
facilities, and equipment that involves no expansion or use beyond that previously existing; and results in no
significant adverse hydrologic impact. It includes those usual activities taken to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation
in the use of structures and systems. Those usual activities may include replacement of dysfunctional facilities,
including cases where environmental permits require replacing an existing structure with a different type structure, as
long as the functioning characteristics of the original structure are not changed. One example is the replacement of a
collapsed, fish blocking, round culvert with a new box culvert under the same span, or width, of roadway. In regard to
stormwater facilities, maintenance includes assessment to ensure ongoing proper operation, removal of built up
pollutants (i.e., sediments), replacement of failed or failing treatment media, and other actions taken to correct defects
as identified in the maintenance standards of Chapter 4, Volume V of the SWMMWW.
"Maximum ex4ent feasible" means the requirement is to be fully implemented, constrained only by the physical
limitations of the site, practical eonsiderations of engineering design, and reasonable considerations of financial eosts
and environmental ^tom
"Maximum extent practicable (MEP). Refers to paragraph 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) of the federal Clean Water Act which
reads as follows: Permits for discharges from municipal storm sewers shall require controls to reduce the discharge of
pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques, and system,
design, and engineering methods, and other such provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate
for the control of such pollutants.
The--, Edmonds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 398
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
MS4" means the eity s. The City's municipal separate storm sewer system.
Page 6/30
`Native vegetation" fneans vegeta . Vegetation comprised of plant species4, other than noxious weeds), indigenous
to the coastal region of the Pacific Northwest which could have been reasonably expected to occur naturally on the
site. Examples include trees such as Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, alder, big -leaf maple, and vine
maple; shrubs such as willow, elderberry, salmonberry, and salal; and herbaceous plants such as sword fern, foam
flower, and fireweed.
L'Natural drainage systems and outfalls=mean the. The location of the channels, swales, and other
neffmanmadenon-manmade conveyance systems as defined by the earliest documented topographic contours existing
for the subject property, either from maps or photographs, or such other means as appropriate.
plans,'!New development" means land disturbing aetivities, ineluding Class 13.1 general forest praetiees that are eonver-sio
from timber land to other uses per RCW 76 09.050; stvdetural development, ineluding eonstruetion or installation of
building er- at -her struetufe; er-eation of impetwiiaus swir-A-estes; and s4division, sheft s4division, and binding site
as defined and applied in Chapter- 58.17 R-CW. Pr-ojeets meeting the deAnition of redevelopment shali not be
nsiderea new devel pme . Outfall. A point source as defined by 40 CFR 122.2 at the point where a discharge leaves
the City's MS4 and enters a surface receiving waterbody or surface receiving waters. Outfall does not include pipes,
tunnels, or other conveyances which connect segments of the same stream or other surface waters and are used to
convey primarily surface waters (i.e., culverts).
On -site Stormwater Management BMPs. A synonym for Low Impact Development BMPs.
Permeable pavement. Pervious concrete, porous asphalt, permeable pavers or other forms of pervious or porous
paving material intended to allow passage of water through the pavement section. It often includes an aggregate base
that provides structural support and acts as a stormwater reservoir.
Pervious Surface. Any surface material that allows stormwater to infiltrate into the ground. Examples include lawn,
landscape, pasture, native vegetation areas, and permeable pavements.
Person. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association, organization, cooperative, public or municipal
corporation, agency of the state, or City government unit, however designated.
Pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS). Those hard surfaces considered to be a significant source of pollutants in
stormwater runoff. See the listing of surfaces under pollution -generating impervious surface.
Pollution -generating impervious surface (PGIS). Those impervious surfaces considered to be a significant source of
pollutants in stormwater runoff. Such surfaces include those which are subject to: vehicular use; industrial activities
(as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes, or
chemicals, and which receive direct rainfall or the run-on or blow-in of rainfall; metal roofs unless they are coated with
an inert, non -leachable material (e.g., baked -on enamel coating); or roofs that are subject to venting significant
amounts of dusts, mists, or fumes from manufacturing, commercial, or other indoor activities.
Pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS). Any non -impervious surface subject to vehicular use, industrial
activities (as further defined in the glossary of the SWMMWW); or storage of erodible or leachable materials, wastes,
or chemicals, and that receive direct rainfall or run-on or blow-in of rainfall, use of pesticides and fertilizers, or loss of
soil. Typical PGPS include permeable pavement subject to vehicular use, lawns, and landscaped areas including: golf
courses, parks, cemeteries, and sports fields (natural and artificial turf).
Pre -developed condition. The native vegetation and soils that existed at a site prior to the influence of Euro-American
settlement. The pre -developed condition shall be assumed to be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic
information is provided that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement.
Project site. That portion of a property, properties, and/or right-of-way subject to land -disturbing activities, new hard
surfaces, or replaced hard surfaces. For projects that involve land disturbing activity on one or more parcels and land
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, -are, eurremit 0hrough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 399
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 7/30
disturbing activity in the City right-of-way, the "Project site" includes all areas of land disturbance. If the project is
part of a common development plan or sale, the disturbed area of the entire plan shall be used in determining permit
requirements.
_ ---- __1 r-
- r t __._ __, ------------, -a
_ __, t __ ... , r-�
� _- ---r-
corporation, ageneystate, of the or
cc
local unit,overnment however designated.
impeFvieus
0prepeAies, er righ4 ef way subjeet
if the is
te land disturbinge
development
new
th-e
or replaeed
disihar-h-ed the
surfaees. projeet part of
be in deter
a eommon
is disehafged
plan or sale,
wrea of entire plan shall
"Reeeiving
used -mining permit requiremen4s.
to
waters" means water-bedies
setffee of st,.rm water „ via sheet
or- stwfaee wa4er- systems whiek suffaee
flew.
Funeff
via a point
L'Rain garden. A non -engineered shallow landscaped depression, with compost -amended native soils and adapted
plants. The depression is designed to pond and temporarily store stormwater runoff from adjacent areas, and to allow
stormwater to pass through the amended soil profile.
Receiving waterbody or Receiving waters. Naturally and/or reconstructed naturally occurring surface water bodies,
such as creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, and marine waters, or groundwater, to which a MS4
discharges.
Replaced hard surface. For structures means the removal and replacement of hard surfaces down to the foundation. For
other hard surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base course and replacement.
Replaced impervious surface" means, fo. For structures, the removal and replacement of any exterior impervious
surfaces erdown to the foundation. For other impervious surfaces, it means the removal down to bare soil or base
course and replacement. For- sites with existifig single family dwelling units (as defined in ECDC 2 i.90.080), a pr-64ec4
shall not be eensidered replaeed impei=Aeus sur-faee fer- the purposes of this ehapter-, unless the pr-ejeet site has one aer-e
in this seetien-.)
"`Roadway" means the traveled imper-..;,.. Traveled hard surface portion of any public or private road or street.
L'Road-related project. A project that all of, or the majority of, the new or replaced hard surface consist of roadway,
shoulders, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or walkways, either publicly or privately funded.
Runoff. Water originating from rainfall and other precipitation that is found in drainage facilities, rivers, streams,
springs, seeps, ponds, lakes and wetlands, as well as shallow ground water. It also means the portion of rainfall or
other precipitation that becomes surface flow and interflow.
Site. The area defined by the legal boundaries of a parcel or parcels of land that is (are) subject to
development er redo elepment. For road projects, or utility projects in the right-of-way, the length of the project site
and the right-of-way boundaries define the site.
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmutmity Development Gode, ffe, eurreat Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 400
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 8/30
L'Slope''—means the. The degree of slaetdeviation of a surface from the horizontal; measured as a numerical ratio,
percent, or in degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal distance (run) and the second is the
vertical distance (rise), as 2:1. A 2:1 slope is a 50 percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the
horizontal plane, with a 90-degree slope being vertical (maximum) and 45 degrees being a 1:1 or 100 percent slope.
"Soil1Lmeanie. The unconsolidated mantlemineral and organic material on the intermediate surface of the earth that
serves as a natural medium for the growth of land plants.
L'Source control" eans BMPs. A structure or operation that is intended to prevent pollutants from coming into
contact with storm water through physical separation of areas or careful management of activities that are sources of
pollutants. The SWMMWW separates source control BMPs into two types. Structural source control BMPs are
physical, structural, or mechanical devices, or facilities that are intended to prevent pollutants from entering
stormwater. Operational BMPs are non-structural practices that prevent or reduce pollutants from entering
stormwater. See Volume IV of the SWMMWW for details.
Stormwater facility. A constructed component of a storm wate stormwater drainage system,
designed and constructed to perform a particular function or multiple functions. Storm wme facilities
include, but are not limited to, pipes, pwnpiag systeffis-,swales, ditches, culverts, street gutters, ^a'e'�detention
basins -,ponds, retention ponds, constructed wetlands, infiltration devices, catch basins, oil/water separators, and
^lluta * removal devices.biofiltration swales.
"Storm waterStormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). The Washington State
Department of Ecology's 2012 (as amended in 2014) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
Referred to as the 2014 SWMMWW.
Stormwater site plan. The comprehensive report and rise iatea pop containing all of the technical
information and analysis necessary for * regulatory agencies to evaluate a proposed new development er-
redevelopmen* project for compliance with staffn wa4e stormwater requirements. Contents of the storm ,, a4ef site
planStormwater Site Plan will vary with the type and size of the project, and individual site characteristics. It
may-
includeincludes a constmetion storm water pollution prevention plan (contra ^^Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (Construction SWPPP) and a permanent storm water ^^^*rol I' Permanent Stormwater Control Plan
(PSC plarr}Plan). Guidance on preparing a Stormwater Site Plan is contained in Chapter 3 of Volume I of the
SWMMWW.
L'Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/Facilities. Detention facilities, treatment BMPs/facilities,
bioretention, vegetated roofs, and permeable pavements that help meet Minimum Requirements No.6 (Treatment),
Minimum Requirement No.7 (Flow Control), or both as described in ECDC 18.30.060.
Threshold discharge area�n. An on -site area that drains to either a single natural discharge location or multiple
natural discharge locations that combine within one -quarter mile downstream (as determined by the shortest
flowpath). The examples below and in Figure 2-G.1 presented in Volume I of the S*^.....water Ma-aagefnei . Mai+u.' f r
Weston. Washington (2005)SWMMWW illustrate this definition. The purpose of this definition is to clarify how the
thresholds of this code are applied to project sites with multiple discharge points.
. Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 401
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 9/30
Example of a Site with a
Example of a Site with
Example of a Site with
Single Natural Discharge
Multiple Natural
Multiple Natural Discharges
and a SingleThreshold
Discharges and a Single
and Multiple Threshold
Discharge Area
Threshold Discharge Area
Discharge Areas
Natural
•'•
-Natural Natural
N44al Natural
bischarge-
;Discharger•_
Discharge-..-- discharge-----• -.-
�ischgge Y.
-- Area
Area 1 Area 2
Area 1 Area 2
THRESHOLD
DFSOHARGE
— ---THRE HOLD
HRES11OLD THRESHGL
DISCWR
r', AREA.,
CSC ARG�.--
15CHAFZGE
r
(Shaded)ti4
A FA-
AREA i,, AAEA 2
I add
Natural
i Natural —
Natural
f Discharge
Discharge
Discharge
Location
Location
•i =
Location F
i
1
'ti
4 f
� �
r
Y. Mile Downstream - ------------------------+-----------------
fshorlest flow pathl
jy
Vehicular Use. Regular use of an impervious or pervious surface by motor vehicles. The following are subject to
regular vehicular use: roads, un-vegetated road shoulders, bike lanes within the traveled lane of a roadway, driveways,
parking lots, unrestricted access fire lanes, vehicular equipment storage yards, and airport runways.
The following are not considered subject to regular vehicular use: paved bicycle pathways separated from and not
subject to drainage from roads for motor vehicles, restricted access fire lanes, and infrequently used maintenance
access roads.
Waterbody. Surface waters including rivers, streams, lakes, marine waters, estuaries, and wetlands.
Waters of the state. Includes those waters defined as "waters of the United States" in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2
within the geographic boundaries of Washington State, and "waters of the state" as defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW
which includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters and all other surface
waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.
"Wetlands —are as. As defined in ECDC 23.40.005. [Ord. 37924026 § 1—,204-0 (Att. A), 2016].
18.30.020 Authority and Regulation.
A. The public works aireeter or ^ desig e-ePublic Works and Utilities Director shall administer this chapter and shall
be referred to as the direeterDirector.
B. The direeterDirector shall have the authority to develop -and, implement, and enforce policies and procedures to
administer and enforce this chapter.- per ECDC 18.30.110 and 18.30.120, such as the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum
The--, Edmonds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode -are eurrent Glar-ough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 402
9.1.d
Edmonds Page 14,114
Edmonds Page 10/30
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
O
E
M
O
th this tef. r�3-792 1, 2010].
>
-e1 §
C
�E
This chapter applies if .,,y of the following pertains to a site:
0
E
1. issuance of a city permit is required under all other chapters of ECDC
Title 18 or . E
O
a 2.C. A iS SUbMitted p D 2 75
U
sea
3•
C
proposed project:
p
O
E
a. involves 500 square feet or more of land distff-bing aetivity,
new impervious surfaee, or replaeed 'a
Title 23) farming be
++
there is the for
and ongoing or gardening aetivities shall
exeluded unless potenfial sueh
Q
b. is 500
lineal feet treneh d
a utility or other eonstmetion projeet consisting of
or more of excavation.
O
area buffer.
C
d
E
This ehaptef applies to aetions whenever the difeeteF deteffflines there
is a potential d
R
of C
'
' IC
2. Aviolation federal laws,
to
of applieable city, state, or regulations,
or permits related water quality. L
if has been issued
R
for in (A)
a city permit or a subdivision appheation submitted
a site, as provided subsection of -
is the this be
those if the triggered i E
seetion, requirements of ehapter shall administered under
permits. site aetivities
bseetion this do issued
the this be O
(A)(3) or (B) of section not neeessitate a eity
permit, requirements of ehapter shall
The requirements of this chapter are minimum requirements. They do not replace, repeal, abrogate, supersede, or
O
affect any other more stringent requirements, rules, regulations, covenants, standards, or restrictions. Where this
77
chapter imposes requirements that are more protective of human health or the environment than those set forth
elsewhere, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. When this chapter imposes requirements that are less protective
o
•N
of human health or the environment than those set forth elsewhere, the provisions of the more protective requirements
shall prevail.
m
c
ED. The director shall have the authority to impose additional requirements that apply te on a project or site
�
will diffe o meet the purpose of this chapter based on {site -specific factors including, but are -not limited to}—
�
following: p eet scope and , fig r.,tio physical site ,a,,,racteristies site location and conditions.-
o
M
18.30.050. stelz ...,tor ffl o eI4 ro 0 e is ., e ,less fibed i ECDC; 1 0 3n 06-0 slope, and designated use.
r
U
EE. Approvals and permits granted under this chapter are not waivers of the requirements of any other laws, nor do
W
they indicate compliance with any other laws. Compliance is still required with all applicable federal, state and local
,
laws and regulations, including rules promulgated under authority of this chapter.
GF. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter does not necessarily mitigate all impacts to the environment. Thus,
c
a�
E
compliance with this chapter should not be construed as mitigating all drainage water or other environmental impacts,
and additional mitigation may be required to protect the environment pursuant to other applicable laws and
f°
regulations. The primary obligation for compliance with this chapter and for preventing environmental harm on or
Q
from property is placed upon the applicant. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010].
m
E
Q
. Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 403
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 11/30
1 ,30,030 Applicability,
i�30.0 4 0-Y7cd MiHxStf-atieir.
A. This chapter applies to applications submitted on or after January 1, 2017 and applications submitted prior to
January 1, 2017, which have not started construction by January 1, 2022.
This chapter applies
A. Appliemians. All storm water- review submit4als shall eantain, in addition to the infer-mation r-equired under- a -ay
other applieable city code, a storm water site plan as deseribed in the storm water- supplemen4 (see ECDC 18.30.060)
and other infer-mation as the director- shall . .
B. to the following actions on sites that discharge to the City's MS4 or discharges to waters of the state whether or
not a City -issued permit is required:
1. The d reefer shall review all plansfor o „1:.,nee with this ,.L.apter
projeets for approval at various stages of the work to determine that they are being constFueted per the
approved storm water site plans. Stages of work requiring inspeetion include (but are not limited to)
preeonstmetion, installation fBN4n land Land -disturbing aetivities installation ofti lities landseapingT-
and
ehapter or to eomply with loeal, state or fedeFal law or regulation on storm water-, a speeial inspeetion or
testing shall be performed. The drainage system shall be installed eoneurrently with site development a
shall be eempleted as shwA% on the approved plan befer-e eity appFeval of an eeetipaney per-mit of final
inspeetion.activity, or
D2. Creation of new hard surfaces, or
3. Replacement of existing hard surfaces, or
4. Conversion of pervious surfaces, or
5. New connections to the City's MS4, or
6. Any other actions that can increase the volu or rate of stormwater runoff, or cause the generation of
pollutants, from the site.
I I I----�------- --------
----------eeerae're:�eer+�si��!erssriiTifri�s���!* �f�r�teyc.Ts�
18.30.050 Projeet elassil0eat-ion.
For puiposes of this ehapter, projeets are eiassified as large site, small site, or minor site as deseribed below, primarily
based on the extent of land disturbing aetivities.
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmutmity Development Gode, -are, eurremit Ular-ough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 404
Attachment: Attachment 4 - ECDC 18.30-Redline Version (1490 : Stormwater Management Code Update, Edmonds Community Development
9.1.d
Edmonds Page 14,114
Edmonds Page 13/30
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
4)
E
la.
O
N,.SSN4RNe.5 On Site StefmwateFNUnagemefit;
2
d
vi. SSN4R No. 7 Flow Centrol. This SSN4R may be waived
by the director- based on the extent
of C
appheation of SSN4R No. 5 to infiltrate, disperse, and retain
storm water nmoff on site without
causing-
flooding or erosion impaet, per the criteria in the storm
water s"pleme
E
vii. SSN4R No 8 Wetland Preteetion;
E
O
v}i}. �Slbll?c lye.
U
C
.
E
W
++
landseaped
,of,
!Z
d
O
i. SSN4R Ne 1 Prep..,•.,tie e f St...-.n...4er Site Plan;
C
7 f'onstruetio Plan;
ct.,,-,v.w.,ter D..!Mio„
ii. SSN4R No n Prevent:.,...
,
E
d
SSN4R No. 3 SoureeControl Pollution-,
n}. of
C
�
iv. cc>\aD Ne A D.•osv.•ymie« „fN t..,•.,1 rlFaif age Systems ..,,.,1 Ott f 11s.
,
N,.SSN4RNe.5 Oa Site Stei4nwa4efManagement;
v}. SSN4 TATo. 6 Tez—me-nt•
�
E
L
O
vil. ccTaD No '7 Ti ow'-Contre-lr,
v/
ix. cc>\aD No. 9 Opera m and 1\ ai teaaa,.o.
,
C
S SN4R No. 1 n Off Site n,,.,lysis Mitigation;
O
x. and
�fA
L
xi. SSN4R No. 11 Finaneial iability.
>
Aay the SSN4Rs be by the dir-eetef
to the
C
e. or all of may required an a+ty small site pr-ejeet
this based factors ineluding, but limited to, loeation,
meet pufPose-af
ehapter off site speeifie not soil
designated ,
eonditions, slope,
O
M
3. Minef Site Pfejeets. The fellewing mini fi4s apply te fnifief site prejee
O
r
U
W
puTese ef this ehapter based en site speeifie faeters ineluding, W4 net lifnited to, laea4ioa, soil eeaditiefl&,-
slepe, anddesi-pmed use. r�3792 § 1, 2". 0
E
t
* FIRR441U
70 Exemptions, e3keeptions, adjustments and appeal.Q
c
A. Full Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are exempt from the provisions of this
chapter:
Q
' "� '' Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 406
9.1.d
Edmonds Page 14,114
Edmonds Page 14/30
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
1. Forest practices regulated under WAC Title 222, except for Class IV general forest practices that are
conversions from *��timberland to other uses, are exempt from the provisions of the minimum
requirements.
2. Commercial agriculture practices that involve working land for production are generally exempt. However,
land conversion from timberland to agriculture and the construction of impervious surfaces are not exempt.
3. Construction of drilling sites, waste management pits, and associated access roads, and construction of
transportation and treatment infrastructure such as pipelines, natural gas treatment plants, natural gas pipeline
compressor stations, and crude oil pumping stations are exempt. Operators are encouraged to implement and
maintain best management practices to minimize erosion and control sediment during and after construction
activities to help ensure protection of surface water quality during storm events.
4. Roadway Pr-oj The following readwaypavement maintenance practices or activities are exempt: pothole
and square -cut patching, overlaying existing asphalt or concrete pavement with asphalt or concrete without
expanding the area of coverage, shoulder grading, reshaping/regrading drainage systems, crack sealing,
resurfacing with in -kind material without expanding the road prism, ^pavement preservation
activities that do not expand the road prism, and vegetation maintenance.
a. For large site projects o ly *1t B. Partial Exemptions. The following land uses and land -disturbing activities are
partially exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
Underground utility projects that replace the ground surface with in -kind material or materials with similar
runoff characteristics are only subject to Minimum Requirement No. fead2, Construction Stormwater
Pollution Prevention. "I \
4-.2. The following pavement maintenance practices or activities are considered redevelopmen4development, and
therefore are not categorically exempt. The extent to which this exemption apphesthese requirements apply is
explained for each circumstance.
a. Removing and replacing a paved surface to base course or a lower level, or repairing the
feadwaypavement base: iflf impervious surfaces are not expanded, lafge site pr-ejeet mini
requirements No 1 throughMinimum Requirements No. 1 — No. 5 apply. However, i
- mob- ., _ t.-.I--------.---»----...1 - .... -, ____ - - _......_y .,��»��
required when the thresholds identified for development projects in ECDC 18.30.060 are met. Where
appropriate, project proponents are encouraged to look for opportunities to use permeable and porous
pavements.
b. i4—.Extending the pavement edge without increasing the size of the road prism or paving graveled
shoulders: these are considered new impervious surfaces and are subject to the minimum requirements
that are triggered when the thresholds identified for rr^a^velopme development projects in ECDC
18.30.060 are met.
c. ii4—.Resurfacing by upgrading from dirt to gravel, asphalt, or concrete; or upgrading from gravel to
asphalt or concrete; or upgrading from a bituminous surface treatment ("chip seal') to asphalt or
concrete: these are considered new impervious surfaces and are subject to the minimum requirements
that are triggered when the thresholds identified for r-edev�development projects in ECDC
18.30.060 are met.
18.30.050 Administration.
A. Application, Submittals, and Review.
1. The Director shall review all plans and all other submittals required by ECDC 18.30.050.A.3 for compliance
with this chapter when:
The--, Edim-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 407
9.1.d
Edmonds Page 14,114
Edmonds Page 15/30
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
a. An application for a City permit is required under all other chapters of ECDC Title 18 or 19, or
b. A subdivision application is submitted per ECDC 20.75.040.
2. In all other situations when actions under ECDC 18.30.030 apply to a project site, review shall be under a
Stormwater permit.
3. All stormwater review submittals shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other
applicable City code, a Stormwater Site Plan as described in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum (see
ECDC 18.30.060) and any other information required by the Director.
B. Inspections.
1. The Director shall inspect projects at various stages of the work to determine if they comply with the
requirements of this chapter, and enforcement actions shall be taken as necessary. These inspections will
include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Prior to site clearing and construction to assess site erosion potential, and
b. During construction to verify proper installation and maintenance of required erosion and sediment
controls and other approved plan components, and
c. All permanent stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities and catch basins in new
residential developments every six months until 90 percent of the lots are constructed (or when
construction is stopped and the site is fully stabilized) to identify maintenance needs and enforce
compliance with maintenance standards as needed, and
d. Upon completion of construction and prior to final approval to ensure proper installation of permanent
stormwater control facilities and verify that a maintenance plan is completed and responsibility for
maintenance is assigned for stormwater treatment and flow control BMPs/facilities, and
e. Post -Construction inspections per ECDC 18.30.090.
2. When reasonably required by the Director to accomplish the purpose of this chapter or to comply with local,
state or federal law or regulation on stormwater, special inspection or testing shall be performed by the
applicant.
C. Fees. Application, review and inspection fees as set in ECDC Chapter 15.00 shall be paid.
18.30.060 Requirements.
A. Documents. The sources of the stormwater management requirements for the City are from the following
documents:
1. Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, Appendix 1, modification date January 16,
2015
2. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW)
3. The Edmonds Stormwater Addendum
In the event of conflicts between the various provisions, the more stringent provision shall apply.
B. Illicit Discharges and Connections. Non-stormwater illicit discharges, including spills, into the MS4,
groundwaters, or a water body from any developed or undeveloped lands are prohibited per ECDC Chapter 7.200.
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmutmity Development Gode, ffe, eurreat Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 408
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
C. Thresholds and Applicability
Page 16/30
The thresholds outlined in this section are only applicable to ECDC 18.30.060.C. See also the Edmonds
Stormwater Addendum for supplemental information on thresholds.
a. All development shall be required to comply with Minimum Requirement No. 2.
b. Category 1 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5.
Category 1 includes projects that:
i. Result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or
ii. Have land disturbing activity of 7,000 square feet or greater.
c. Category 2 project sites shall comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9. Category 2
includes projects that:
i. Result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area, or
ii. Convert 0.75 acres, or more, of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or
iii. Convert 2.5 acres, or more, of native vegetation to pasture.
4-.2. Additional Requirements for road -related projects. For road -related projects, runoff from the new hard
surfaces (including pavement, shoulders, curbs, and sidewalks) and the converted vegetation areas shall meet
all the minimum requirements if the new hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more. In addition, if the new
hard surfaces total 5,000 square feet or more and total 50 percent or more of the existing hard surfaces within
the project limits, runoff from the new and replaced hard surfaces and the converted vegetation areas shall
meet all the minimum requirements. The project limits shall be defined by the length of the project and the
width of the right-of-way.
D. Minimum Technical Requirements. This section describes the minimum technical requirements for stormwater
management at development sites.
1. Minimum Requirement No. 1 — Preparation of Stormwater Site Plans
The City shall require a Stormwater Site Plan from all projects meeting the thresholds in ECDC 18.30.060.C.
Stormwater Site Plans shall use site -appropriate development principles to retain native vegetation and
minimize impervious surfaces to the extent feasible. Stormwater Site Plans shall be prepared in accordance
with Chapter 3 of Volume 1 of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater
Addendum.
4-.2. Minimum Requirement No. 2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention.. Plan (SWPPP)
a. Thresholds:
All development projects are responsible for preventing erosion and discharge of sediment and
other pollutants into receiving waters. Compliance with this minimum requirement can be
achieved for an individual site if the site is covered under Ecology's General NPDES Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities and fully implementing the
requirements of that permit.
ii. A Construction SWPPP is required for all projects which a) result in 2,000 square feet or more
of new plus replaced hard surface area, b) where a structure with an exterior hard surface area of
at least 2,000 square feet is being demolished, c) which disturb 7,000 square feet or more of
land, or d) when the site falls within the Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area, Landslide
Hazard Area or steep slope critical area. Projects that do not meet any of the above criteria are
not required to prepare a Construction SWPPP, but must consider all of the elements listed
The--, Edim-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, -are, eurremit 0hrough Ordinanee 4037, passed haly . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 409
9.1.d
Edmonds Page 14,114
Edmonds Page 17/30
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
below for Construction SWPPPs and develop controls for all Construction SWPPP elements
that pertain to the project site.
b. General Requirements:
The SWPPP shall include a narrative and drawings. All BMPs shall be clearly referenced in the
narrative and marked on the drawings. The SWPPP narrative shall include documentation to
explain and justify the pollution prevention decisions made for the project. Each of the thirteen
elements referenced below must be considered and included in the SWPPP unless site
conditions render the element unnecessary and the exemption from that element is clearly
justified in the narrative of the SWPPP.
ii. Clearing and grading activities for developments shall be permitted only if conducted pursuant
to an approved site development plan (e.g., building permit, subdivision approval) that
establishes permitted areas of clearing, grading, cutting, and filling. These permitted clearing
and grading areas and any other areas required to preserve critical or sensitive areas, buffers,
native growth protection easements, or tree retention areas as required by the City, shall be
delineated on the site plans and the development site.
iii. The SWPPP shall be implemented beginning with initial land disturbance and until final
stabilization. Sediment and Erosion control BMPs shall be consistent with the BMPs contained
in Chapter 4 of Volume II of the SWMMWW.
c. Seasonal Work Limitations:
From October 1 through April 30, clearing, grading, and other soil disturbing activities may only be
authorized by the City if it can be demonstrated that silt -laden runoff will be prevented from leaving the
site through a combination of the following:
Site conditions including existing vegetative coverage, slope, soil type, and proximity to
receiving waters; and
ii. Limitations on activities and the extent of disturbed areas; and
iii. Proposed erosion and sediment control measures, in accordance with ECDC 18.30.060.D.2.d
below.
Based on the information provided and/or local weather conditions, the City may expand or restrict the
seasonal limitation on site disturbance. The following activities are exempt from the seasonal clearing
and grading limitations, except for sites lying in whole or in part within an earth subsidence and landslide
hazard area as defined by ECDC 19.10.020.F:
Routine maintenance and necessary repair of erosion and sediment control BMPs,
ii. Routine maintenance of public facilities or existing utility structures that do not expose the soil
or result in the removal of the vegetative cover to soil, and
iii. Activities where there is one hundred percent infiltration of surface water runoff within the site
in approved and installed erosion and sediment control facilities.
d. Construction SWPPP Elements
Construction SWPPP elements are required in accordance with Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2 of
Volume I of the SWMMWW and the requirements in the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum
3. Minimum Requirement No. 3 — Source Control of Pollution
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmutmity Development Gode, are--, e_-,urremt Glar-ough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 410
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 18/30
All known, available and reasonable source control BMPs must be required for all projects approved by the
City. Source control BMPs must be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance with Volume IV of the
SWMMWW. All single family residential projects shall, at a minimum, incorporate required BMPs from
SWMMWW Volume IV, S411 — BMPs for Landscaping and Lawn/Vegetation Management.
4. Minimum Requirement No. 4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls
Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from the project site shall occur at the natural
location, to the maximum extent practicable. The manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site
must not cause a significant adverse impact to downstream receiving waters and down gradient properties.
The discharge must have an identified overflow route that is safe and certain, and leads to the ultimate outfall
location (such as a receiving water or municipal drainage system). All outfalls require energy dissipation.
To demonstrate compliance with this core requirement, all projects shall submit an off -site qualitative
analysis. If an existing problem (or potential future problem after development) is identified, mitigation will
be required to prevent worsening of that problem. A quantitative analysis may be required for any project
deemed to need additional information or where the project proponent or the City determines that a
quantitative analysis is necessary to evaluate the off -site impacts or the capacity of the conveyance system.
See the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on complying with this requirement.
5. Minimum Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management
a. Applicability:
On -site Stormwater Management BMPs are required in accordance with the following project
thresholds, standards, and lists to infiltrate, disperse, and retain stormwater runoff on -site to the extent
feasible without causing flooding or erosion impacts. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater
Addendum for additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility.
b. Project Thresholds:
There are five project scenarios outlined below that determine the applicability of Minimum
Requirement No. 5 — On -site Stormwater Management. The first four scenarios apply to projects that
discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4. The fifth scenario applies to project discharges that do
not enter the City's MS4. Note that more than one of the five scenarios may apply to a given project:
Retrofit. Projects that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and that contain
existing hard surfaces on the parcel or common plan of development that do not drain to an
approved stormwater management facility are required to provide On -site Stormwater
Management BMPs to manage a portion of those existing hard surfaces that will remain after
project completion. BMPs from List No.I (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d) shall be applied to a
minimum of 25 percent of those existing unmanaged surfaces, but to no more than the area
equal to the proposed new plus replaced hard surfaces.
Only for those existing unmanaged hard surfaces that remain after project completion,
applicants are not required to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility for
these existing surfaces (as is required under ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b [ii] and [iii] below).
However, if it is determined that the minimum 25 percent requirement cannot be met due to
BMP infeasibility, documentation of BMP infeasibility is required. In addition, when runoff
from exiting unmanaged hard surfaces is mixed with runoff from new plus replaced hard
surfaces, those BMPs must be selected and designed in accordance with the requirements for
management of new plus replaced hard surfaces (per sections [ii] and [iii] below). See the
SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details on On -site
Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility.
The--, Edmonds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 411
9.1.d
Edmonds
Chapter 19.30 STORM ALATER MANAGEMENT
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 19/30
ii. Category 1. Category 1 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and
are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5 (per ECDC
18.30.060.C) shall either:
a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.1 for all new plus replaced hard
surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d); or
b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC
18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose
to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW.
iii. Category 2. Category 2 project sites that discharge directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 and
are required to comply with Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9 (per ECDC
18.30.060.C) shall either:
a. Use On -site Stormwater Management BMPs from List No.2 for all new plus replaced
hard surfaces and land disturbed (See ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.e); or
b. Demonstrate compliance with the LID Performance Standard (See ECDC
18.30.060.D.5.c). Projects selecting this option cannot use rain gardens. They may choose
to use bioretention BMPs as described in the SWMMWW.
iv. Direct Discharge Requirement. Projects that discharge directly to Puget Sound through the
City's MS4 (in accordance with the restrictions applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound
presented in Section 2.5.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW) do not have to achieve the LID
Performance Standard, nor consider bioretention, rain gardens, permeable pavement, or full
dispersion, but must meet the following:
a. Projects must implement BMP T5.13 (Post -Construction Soil Quality & Depth); BMPs
T5.I OA Downspout Full Infiltration Systems, T5.1 OB Downspout Dispersion Systems, or
T5.1 OB Perforated Stub -out Connections; and BMP T5.11 Concentrated Flow Dispersion
or T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion; if feasible for all new plus replaced hard surfaces and
land disturbed. See the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for
additional details on On -site Stormwater Management BMP infeasibility.
b. Edmonds Way specific requirements. After applying the requirements in item (a) above,
for all remaining project site runoff (e.g., from unmanaged surfaces, or from overflow
from on -site BMPs), the post -development 10-, and 100-year recurrence interval peak
flows shall not exceed, 0.25 and 0.45 cubic feet per second per acre of impervious surface
area, respectively. See the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum for additional details.
V. Projects that do not drain directly or indirectly to the City's MS4 are required to implement one
of the following:
a. Project sites may discharge to the downstream private property (e.g., projects located
above BNSF property) with approval from the downstream property owner(s).
b. Project sites may discharge runoff to an on -site system.
For sites located within earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their
buffers, a geotechnical design, analysis, and report by a geotechnical
engineer is required for the on -site system. On -site Stormwater Management
BMPs from List No.I in ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.d shall be evaluated for all
new plus replaced hard surfaces and land disturbed. Projects are not required
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmutmity Development Gode, ffe, eurreat t-la-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 412
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 20/30
to evaluate BMPs in priority order or document infeasibility. The project
applicant may be subject to an extra permit processing fee for City review of
the geotechnical analysis. Projects are required to comply with all other
applicable City requirements, such as ECDC 19.10 (earth subsidence and
landslide hazard areas).
ii. For sites located outside earth subsidence and landslide hazard areas or their
buffers, ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.ii and ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.iii shall be
followed to evaluate site appropriate BMP's.
Subject to prior approval by the City, project sites may pump on -site runoff to the City's
MS4. A quantitative downstream analysis in accordance with Minimum Requirement No.
4 and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum will be required. If the City's MS4 does not
have adequate capacity to receive the applicant's pumped flows, the applicant is required
to install an on -site detention system to store runoff and pump it to the MS4 at an
approved rate.
c. LID Performance Standard
For projects that elect to meet the LID Performance Standard to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii)
and (iii), stormwater discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations
for the range of pre -developed discharge rates from 8 percent of the 2-year peak flow to 50 percent of the
2-year peak flow from the project site. Refer to the Standard Flow Control Requirement section in
Minimum Requirement No. 7 for information about the assignment of the pre -developed condition.
Project sites that must also meet Minimum Requirement No. 7 shall match flow durations between 8
percent of the 2-year flow through the full 50-year flow.
d. List No.I for Category 1 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering
Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 5.
For projects that elect to use List No. 1 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (ii), for each surface,
consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered
feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall
be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for
each BMP in the SWMMWW and the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum; and Competing Needs Criteria
listed in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Lawn and landscaped areas:
Roofs:
Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of
Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW,
or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.1 OA in Section 3.1.1 of
Volume III of the SWMMWW.
ii. Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14A in Chapter 5 of Volume V, or Bioretention in
accordance with Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or bioretention
facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the overflow which is at
least 5 percent of the area draining to it.
iii. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP TS.IOB in Section 3.1.2 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
The--, Edim-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit t-la-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 413
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 21/30
iv. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.1 OC in Section 3.1.3 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. The City
may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum
Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
Other Hard Surfaces:
Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW
ii. Permeable Pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the
SWMMWW, or Rain Gardens in accordance with BMP T5.14A in Chapter 5 of Volume V, or
Bioretention in accordance with Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW. The rain garden or
bioretention facility must have a minimum horizontal projected surface area below the
overflow which is at least 5 percent of the area draining to it.
iii. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in
accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
iv. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. The City
may waive the requirement to install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum
Requirement #4, or available City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
e. List No.2 for Category 2 project sites: On -site Stormwater Management BMPs for Projects Triggering
Minimum Requirements No. 1 through No. 9.
For projects that elect to use List No. 2 to comply with ECDC 18.30.060.D.b (iii), for each surface,
consider the BMPs in the order listed for that type of surface. Use the first BMP that is considered
feasible. No other On -site Stormwater Management BMP is necessary for that surface. Feasibility shall
be determined by evaluation against design criteria, limitations, and infeasibility criteria identified for
each BMP in the SWMMWW; and Competing Needs Criteria listed in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the
SWMMWW.
Lawn and landscaped areas:
Roofs:
Post -Construction Soil Quality and Depth in accordance with BMP T5.13 in Chapter 5 of
Volume V of the SWMMWW.
Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW,
or Downspout Full Infiltration Systems in accordance with BMP T5.10A in Section 3.1.1 of
Volume III of the SWMMWW.
ii. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum
horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total
surface area draining to it.
iii. Downspout Dispersion Systems in accordance with BMP TS.IOB in Section 3.1.2 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
iv. Perforated Stub -out Connections in accordance with BMP T5.1 OC in Section 3.1.3 of Volume
III of the SWMMWW.
The--, Edim-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit t-la-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 414
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 22/30
V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Note that if
the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum
Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed
to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, the City may waive the requirement to
install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available
City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
Other Hard Surfaces:
Full Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.30 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW
ii. Permeable pavement in accordance with BMP T5.15 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the
SWMMWW.
iii. Bioretention (See Chapter 7 of Volume V of the SWMMWW) facilities that have a minimum
horizontally projected surface area below the overflow which is at least 5 percent of the total
surface area draining to it.
iv. Sheet Flow Dispersion in accordance with BMP T5.12, or Concentrated Flow Dispersion in
accordance with BMP T5.11 in Chapter 5 of Volume V of the SWMMWW.
V. Detention vaults or pipes in accordance with the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. Note that if
the project is required to construct a flow control facility to comply with Minimum
Requirement No. 7 (per ECDC 18.30.060.D.7), a detention vault is not required to be installed
to meet Minimum Requirement No. 5. In addition, the City may waive the requirement to
install a detention vault if the downstream analysis in Minimum Requirement #4, or available
City data, indicate that peak flow control is not beneficial.
6. Minimum Requirement No. 6 — Runoff Treatment
a. Project Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider
those hard and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC 18.30.060.C.2.
For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and the converted
vegetation areas. The following require construction of stormwater treatment facilities:
Projects in which the total of pollution -generating hard surface (PGHS) is 5,000 square feet or
more in a threshold discharge area of the project, or
ii. Projects in which the total of pollution -generating pervious surfaces (PGPS) — not including
permeable pavements — is 0.75 acres or more in a threshold discharge area, and from which
there will be a surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site.
b. Treatment -Type Thresholds and Facility Sizing:
Treatment -Type Thresholds in accordance with Step 2 (Oil Control), Step 4 (Phosphorus
Treatment), Step 5 (Enhanced Treatment), and Step 6 (Basic Treatment) of Chapter 2, Section
2.1, Volume V of the SWMMWW. Phosphorus treatment shall be required for projects draining
to Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger.
ii. Treatment Facility Sizing, including Water Quality Design Storm Volume, Water Quality
Design Flow Rate, and Downstream Facilities, of Chapter 2, Section 2.5.6, Volume I of the
SWMMWW.
c. Treatment Facility Selection, Design, and Maintenance
The--, Edim-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 415
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Stormwater treatment facilities shall be:
Page 23/30
Selected in accordance with the process identified in Chapter 4 of Volume I, and Chapter 2 of
Volume V of the SWMMWW,
ii. Designed in accordance with the design criteria in Volume V of the SWMMWW, and
iii. Maintained in accordance with the maintenance schedule in Volume V of the SWMMWW
d. Additional Requirements
The discharge of untreated stormwater from pollution -generating surfaces to ground water will not
be authorized by the City. All associated runoff must be treated using On -site Stormwater
Management BMPs designed to provide the required level of treatment in accordance with Chapter
5, Volume V and Chapter 7, Volume V of the SWMMWW; or by infiltration through soils meeting
the soil suitability criteria in Chapter 3 of Volume III of the SWMMWW.
Minimum Requirement No. 7 — Flow Control
a. Applicability: Flow control is required on projects meeting the thresholds summarized below to reduce
the impacts of stormwater runoff from hard surfaces and land cover conversions. Flow control in
accordance with Minimum Requirement No. 7 is not required for projects that discharge directly to, or
indirectly through the City's MS4 to Puget Sound (other minimum requirements may still apply). See
ECDC 18.30.060.D.5.b.iv and Section 2.5.7 of Volume I of the SWMMWW for additional restrictions
applicable to direct discharges to Puget Sound.
If the discharge drains to a stream that leads to a wetland, or to a wetland that has an outflow to a stream,
both this minimum requirement (Minimum Requirement No. 7) and Minimum Requirement No. 8
apply-
b. Thresholds: When assessing road -related projects against the following thresholds, only consider only
those impervious, hard, and pervious surfaces that are subject to this minimum requirement per ECDC
18.30.060.C.2. For all other projects, the requirements apply to the new plus replaced hard surfaces and
the converted vegetation areas. The following circumstances require achievement of the standard flow
control requirement for western Washington:
Projects in which the total of effective impervious surfaces is 10,000 square feet or more in a
threshold discharge area, or
ii. Projects that convert 0.75 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscape, or convert 2.5 acres
or more of native vegetation to pasture in a threshold discharge area, and from which there is a
surface discharge in a natural or man-made conveyance system from the site, or
iii. Projects that through a combination of hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas cause a
0.10 cubic feet per second (cfs) increase or greater in the 100-year flow frequency from a
threshold discharge area as estimated using the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other
approved model and one -hour time steps (or a 0.15 cfs increase or greater using 15-minute time
steps).
c. Standard Flow Control Requirement (applies to discharges directly or indirectly to the City's MS4,
except for projects that meet the direct discharge requirements outlined in "a" above): Stormwater
discharges shall match developed discharge durations to pre -developed durations for the range of
pre -developed discharge rates from 50 percent of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow.
The pre -developed condition to be matched shall be a forested land cover unless reasonable, historic
information is available that indicates the site was prairie prior to settlement (modeled as "pasture" in the
The--, Edim-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, -are, eurremit 0hrough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 416
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 24/30
Western Washington Hydrology Model). This standard requirement is waived for sites that will reliably
infiltrate all the runoff from hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas.
d. Additional Requirement: Flow Control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained in accordance
with Volume III of the SWMMWW or an approved equivalent.
8. Minimum Requirement No. 8 - Wetlands Protection
a. Applicability: The requirements below apply only to projects whose stormwater discharges into a
wetland, either directly or indirectly through a conveyance system.
b. Thresholds: The thresholds identified in Minimum Requirement No. 6 - Runoff Treatment, and
Minimum Requirement No. 7 - Flow Control shall also be applied to determine the applicability of this
requirement to discharges to wetlands.
c. Standard Requirement: Projects shall comply with Guide Sheets No. 1 through No. 3 in Appendix I-D of
the SWMMWW. The hydrologic analysis shall use the existing land cover condition to determine the
existing hydrologic conditions unless directed otherwise by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction.
d. Additional Requirements: Stormwater treatment and flow control facilities shall not be built within a
natural vegetated buffer, except for:
Necessary conveyance systems as approved by the City; or
ii. As allowed in wetlands approved for hydrologic modification or treatment in accordance with
Guide Sheet 2 in Appendix I-D of the SWMMWW.
An adopted and implemented basin plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 of
Appendix 1 of the Phase II NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit.
Minimum Requirement No. 9 - Operation and Maintenance6. With r-espeet to ~eplaeea e ff ees
SSN4R 8 (wetlands pr-eteetiea) (er- the asseeia4ed applieabl �_ir-emefAs for- lafge sites) should the
eity adopt a plan and sehedule that fialfills th ' . ts thr-aidg� - . I . nage eat+tr-el plan .,
via
An operation and maintenance manual that is consistent with the provisions in Volume I and Volume V of the
SWMMWW is required for proposed Stormwater Treatment and Flow Control BMPs/facilities. The party (or
parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified in the operation and maintenance
manual. For private facilities approved by the City, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be
retained on -site or within reasonable access to the site, and shall be transferred with the property to the new
owner. For public facilities, a copy of the operation and maintenance manual shall be retained in the
appropriate department. A log of maintenance activity that indicates what actions were taken shall be kept
and be available for inspection.
18.30.070
13==Exceptions, Adjustments, and Appeals.
4—
A. Exceptions.
1. The dir-eete Director may approve a request for an exception to the minimum requirements of this chapter
following legal public notice of an application for an exception and of the Director's decision on
The--, Edim-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 417
9.1.d
Edmonds Page 14,114
Edmonds Page 25/30
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
the application. All legal public notice related to this request for an exception shall be in the manner
prescribed in ECDC 20.03.002 and the applicant shall pay all costs to publish the legal public notices
required by this provision. The director Director shall provide and keep written findings of fact of the
decision.
The approval of the exception shall only be granted when the applicant demonstrates that the exception will ^*
increase risks to publie health, safety, and welfare, or to water quality, or to publie and private property in the
vioinity or downstream of the property, and the exeeption shall be the least possible exeeption that eoul
granted and still provide eomplianee with the intent of th i i itirements. in addition, the exeeption
shall enly be gran4ed when it has been deter -mined by the direetor- thm one or mere ef the follewing applies:
ache -requirement would cause a severe and unexpected €inaneialeconomic hardship that outweighs the
requirement's benefits, and the er;teri for ., adjustment e „t be et; or
ham. To determine whether the requirement would eause harm or a significant threat of harm to publie
health, safety, and welfare, the environment, or publie and pFivate property, and the oriteria for an
adjustment cannot be met; o
e. The requirement is not technically feasible, and the oriteria for an adjustment cannot be met; 0
,l An emerge.,;r..., r; o sts th..t « s;t..tes approval of the v rtion
2. imposes a severe and
unexpected economic hardship shall aos^r;hv, at a rr.;..;rr.0 on the project applicant, the applicant must
document for City review and approval, all of the following:, at a minimum:
a. a -.-The current, pre -project use of the site; and
b. b-How application of the requirement(s) for which an exception is being requested restricts the proposed
use of the site compared to the restrictions that existed prior to adoption of this chapter; and
c. e-The possible remaining uses of the site if the exception were not granted; and
d. d-The possible uses of the site that would have been allowed prior to the adoption of this chapter; and
e. e-A comparison of the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of the requirements
versus the estimated amount and percentage of value loss as a result of requirements that existed prior to
adoption of the requirements of this chapter; and
f. The feasibility of the applicant to alter the project to apply the requirements of this chapter.
3. Any exception must meet the following criteria:
a. The exception will not increase risk to the public health and welfare, nor be injurious to other properties
in the vicinity and/or downstream, and to the quality of waters of the state; and
b. The exception is the least possible exception that could be granted to comply with the intent of the
minimum requirements.
3-A. An exception to the requirements shall only be granted to the extent necessary to provide relief from the
economic hardship as determined by the dir-e6tefDirector, to alleviate the harm or threat of harm to the
degree that compliance with the requirement becomes technically feasible, or to perform the emergency
work that the direeto Director determines is warranted.
4.5.5-The direeterDirector may require an applicant to provide additional information at the applicant's expense,
including (but not limited to) an engineer's report or analysis.
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmutmity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 418
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 26/30
-5-.6.6-When an exception is granted, the dir-eeteeDirector may impose new or additional requirements to offset or
mitigate harm or the threat of harm that may be caused by granting the exception, or that would have been
prevented if the exception had not been granted.
CB. Adjustments.
1. The di-ect Director may approve a request for adjustments to the requirements of this chapter when the
derDirector finds that:
a. a -.-The adjustment provides substantially equivalent environmental protection; and
b. b-The objectives of safety, function, environmental protection, and facility maintenance are met, based
on sound engineering practices.
2—During construction, the directorDirector may require, or the applicant may request, that the construction
of drainage control facilities and associated project designs be adjusted if physical conditions are discovered
on the site that are inconsistent with the assumptions on which the approval was based, including (but not
limited to) unexpected soil or water conditions, weather -generated problems, or changes in the design of the
improved areas; and
3—A request by the applicant for an adjustment shall be submitted to the di-ree4orDirector for review and
approval prior to implementation. The request shall be in writing and shall provide facts substantiating the
requirements of subsection (C)(1) of this section, and if made during construction, the factors in subsection
(C)(2) of this section. Any such modifications made during the construction of drainage control facilities
shall be included with the final approved drainage control plan.
13C. Appeal.
1. The Director's decision on an application for an exception or adjustment may appeal to the
hearing examiner in accordance with a Type II appeal process in ECDC Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
2. The applicant shall carry the burden of proof.
3. The decision of the hearing examiner is appealable to superior court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C
RCW. [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010].
1 18.30.080 Easements, deeds -,Access and covenants.Covenants.
A. Easements. A publie sterm drainage inspeetion easement shall be required v4wre-.-Access. Proper ingress and egress
shall be provided to the City to inspect or perform any duty imposed upon the City by this Title. The City shall notify
the responsible party in writing of a failure to provide access. If the responsible party fails to respond within seven
days from the receipt of notification, the City may order the work required completed or otherwise address the cause of
improper access. The obligation for the payment of all cost that may be incurred or expended by the City in causing
such work to be done shall be imposed on the person holding title to the subject property
these storm water best management pracfces confines to fimetion& Covenants. Maintenance covenants shall be
required for each site/lot that will be maintained by a private entity such as designed.
Rase a ffts shall be an individual, corporation, or homeowner's association. The maintenance covenant shall address
or append requirements and responsibilities for long-term management and maintenance the applicable BMP(s).
Maintenance covenants shall be as specified in o.,gi ffee -inn div sio City Engineering Division documents or approved
by the directorDirector, and recorded with Snohomish County and on all proper deeds.
The--, Edim-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 419
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 27/30
B. Deeds and Covenants fer- Lew impaet Development. Deed restr4etiens and eeveaaa4s shall be r-eqttif-ed 99F all sit
ftmetion as designed. The deed restrietiens of eevefia-fits shall address er append fequiremeffts a -ad responsibilities
long term management and inaintenanee of these best management prae [Ord. 3792 § 1, 2010].
18.30.090 Post Construction Inspection and maintenanee rolesMaintenance Roles and
responAesResponsibilities.
Proper construction inspection and maintenance of storm wate stormwater facilities (including ing eonst etion BNWs' is
essential for the protection of the eiPfIsCity's MS4 and the environment. laspeetion and m .mien., e of all steizm
water facilities shall be required in aceor-dance with the storm water supplement.
A. Storm Wate Stormwater Maintenance and Inspection Standards. Storm wate Stormwater facilities shall be
inspected and maintained per the requirements of the storm water � .o *Volume I and Volume V of the
SWMMWW. For systems which do not have a maintenance standard, the owner shall develop a standard based on
guidelines from the manufacturer, designer, or a registered professional engineer and submit the standards to the
director- for apprev-a Director for approval. The purpose of the maintenance standard is to determine if maintenance is
required. The maintenance standard is not a measure of the facility's required condition at all times between
inspections. Exceeding the maintenance standard between inspections is not a violation of this chapter.
B. Ownership. Storm wate Stormwater facilities are either privately or publicly owned and maintained. All storm
waterstormwater facilities that serve commercial and industrial site private property are private. Storm drama
facilities, unless an agreement between the property owner and the City states otherwise. Stormwater facilities or -
controls -that are privately owned by a homeowner's association or similar organization also are private. The City may
offer an incentive program to owners to support the proper maintenance of private storm drainage facilities.
C. Public Stormwater Facilities. The City shall be responsible for operating, maintaining, repairing, and replacing
public stormwater facilities as funded through the Stormwater Utility.
D. Maintenance and Inspection of Permanent Facilities. All privately owned storm drainage facilities or controls shall
be maintained by the owner, or the homeowner or owner association ("owner") if one is established as part of a
residential or commercial development. All private storm drainage facilities shall be regularly inspected to ensure
proper operation and shall monitor the facility or control as required or as set forth in theme
„�SWMMWW. The eOwner shall maintain records of inspection and maintenance, disposal receipts,
and monitoring results. The records shall catalog the action taken, the person who took it, the date said action was
taken, how it was done, rests is of any r mitering off +t, and any problems encountered or follow-up actions required.
The records shall be made available to the eityCity upon request. The a Owner shall maintain a copy of the
Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Manual (if required) on site, and shall make reference to such document in
real property records filed with Snohomish County, so others who acquire real property served by the privately owned
storm drainage facilities or controls are notified of their obligation to maintain such facilities or controls.
1. Within one year for wet pool f4eilities and retention'detention faeilities;
z. Within six months for typieal maintenanee-,
3. Within omenthsvrev'Ing,
4. Within two yeafs for maintenance that requir-es eapital eanstr+Ietion of less than
.
EE. City Inspection of private stormwater facilities. The City shall have the authority to periodically inspect private
stormwater facilities, including low impact development stormwater facilities, for compliance with this chapter.
F. Right of Entry. An authorized representative of the City may enter private property at all reasonable times to
conduct inspections, tests or to carry out other duties imposed by the a state or Federal program provided that the City
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, -are, e_-,urremt Glar-ough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 420
9.1.d
Edmonds Page 14/44
Edmonds Page 28/30
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
E
makes a good faith effort to notify the property owner or person responsible for the premises prior to entering and
Q.
m
presents proper credentials to that person. If entry is refused or cannot be obtained, the Director shall have recourse to
m
every remedy provided by law to secure entry, including but not limited to, obtaining an administrative warrant for
entry.
c
0
G. Right of Entry for Illicit Discharge. In the event of an illicit discharge from a privately -owned stormwater facility
E
caused by improper maintenance or operation or other circumstance, the provisions of ECC 7.200 shall apply.
E
0
U
H. Maintenance Responsibilities. Upon written notice by the City, a private stormwater facility shall be promptly
repaired and/or brought up to applicable standards by the property owner or the person responsible for said facility. If
c
a private stormwater facility serves multiple lots and the responsibility for maintenance has not been specified on a
E
recorded subdivision plat, short plat, or other legal document, maintenance, operation and repair responsibility shall
w
rest with the homeowners' association, if one exists, or otherwise with the properties served by the facility, or finally,
with the owners of the property on which the facilities are located.
c
a
I. Disposal of Waste from Maintenance Activities. Disposal of waste from maintenance activities shall be conducted
in accordance with the h4nimumminimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, Chapter 173-304 WAC,
guidelines for disposal of waste materials from storm water maintenance activities, and where appropriate, the
0
V
Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC.
F. City inspection. The inspection drainage f4eilities is to
E
regular- of privately owned storm or eontrels essential ena
the city to evaluate the operation of the eity's MS4 and the en-vironment. The eity shall have aeoess to
m
proper private
storm water facilities for inspeetion to enstire they are operated and main4ained in aeeor-danee vflith EGG
0
c
properly
drainage f4eilities.
'
r
18.30.100 Enforcement pfoc esProcedures.
R
E
L
A. General enforcement action shall be in accordance with this chapter whenever a person has violated any provision
0
of this chapter. The choice of enforcement action is at the discretion of the eit The seve Pity of any penlty shall be
based the the the dafflage, to the to the degree bad faith
77
en natwe of vialatien, er risk publie er publie r-esetifees, or- of
of the person „l jeet to the en f r,.om ent .,etio,...City.
c
B. Notiee of Violation and Order- to Correet. The direetoF shall have the authority to serve a person a notice of violat 0
and or -der to eorreet O�OVQTC) if an aetion is being undertaken in violation of this ehapter. issuanee of any other
warning, notiee, or or -der is not a eondition pFeeedent for the direetor to issue an
L
a�
• >
m
and time of vielation and the
e e oF etefftial e
O
L A __, * _,_.1—aL,. L-.-.,4, :..1 _.. ,_l..a: ,_— _---- ---3 A--:-. --A .— ------- .--- __---
O
r
U
U
W
2. Notiee. An N0V/0TC may be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with r-etufn rveeipt
C
E
owner- of the site, noted as the applioant on any application for development approval or obseFved doing regulated— t
v
aetivity on the site.
r�
by the person to whom the order is direeted.
E
t
0
r�
The--, Ed-m-onds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode. ffe eurrent t-h-rough Ordinanee 4037, passed July
r�
Q
. Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 421
9.1.d
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 29/30
B. Civil Penalties Adopted. ECDC Chapter 20.110 enforcement procedures are herein adopted in full, as modified in
this chapter, with the proviso that repeat offenders or violations deemed an immediate public hazard shall be subject to
compliance and appeal timelines as deemed appropriate by the Director based on the specific nature of the violation.
C. Maintenance Orders. The dir-eetefDirector shall have the authority to issue to an owner or person an order to
maintain or repair a component of astorm wate stormwater facility or BMP to bring it into compliance with this
chapter, the storm water s,.ppleme SWMMWW, the Edmonds Stormwater Addendum, and the Edmonds Community
Development Code. The order shall include: _
1. 4-.A description of the specific nature, extent and time of the violation and the damage or potential damage
that reasonably might occur;
2. 2-.A notice that the violation or the potential violation cease and desist and, in appropriate cases, the specific
corrective actions to be taken; and
3. 3-A reasonable time to comply, depending on the circumstances.
D. Civil Penalty. A person who fails to comply with the requirements of this chapter, who fails to conform to an
approval or order issued, who undertakes new development without first obtaining approval, or who fails to comply
with a stop work order issued under these regulations shall be subject to a civil penalty levied in accordance with the
provisions of ECDC Chapter 20.110ECDE; provided, however, that the appeal process shall commence with a notice
of violation as provided in ECDC 20.110.040(.B)-..
Civil penalties for code violations shall be imposed in accordance with the provisions of ECDC Chapter
20.110; provided, however, that in addition to the penalties set forth in that chapter, the hearing
examiner is authorized to levy a penalty of up to $twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) per occurrence based
upon an assessment of the following factors. Where such factors are present, the hearing examiner is
authorized to levy such penalty after taking into consideration the full impact of the violation and any
mitigating circumstances (see subsection (D)(2) ^ below):
a. a. The violation created a risk to public health and the significance of the risk.
b. b-The violation damaged the environment and the significance of the damage.
c. e-The violation caused damage to public and private property and the significance of such damage.
d. d A history of similar violations, if any.
e. e-The economic benefit of the violations, if any, to the person or entity responsible for the violations.
2. Mitigating circumstances which may be used to offset or reduce the time resulting from the application of
the preceding factors are limited to:
a. a -.-Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and no history of similar violations.
b. b-Full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and a history of one or two similar violations
(lesser reduction).
c. c-.-A "voluntary compliance agreement" is defined as a legally binding agreement entered into between
the cityCity and the alleged violators, by which the violator(s) acknowledge the existence of the
violation, waive all appeal rights, and agree to and do pay a fine in an amount stipulated to between the
violator and the eiyCity.
The--, Edmonds City Code and Gonmnunity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed July . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 422
Edmonds
Edmonds
Chapter 18.30 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Page 30/30
3—If the violation(s) are not corrected as ordered, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into
within that time period and no appeal is filed, the penalty for the next 15-day period shall be 150 percent of
the initial penalties, and the penalties for the next 15-day period shall be 200 percent of the initial penalties.
The intent of this subsection is to increase penalties beyond the maximum penalties stated as an additional
means to achieve timely compliance.
Unless otherwise provided in a voluntary compliance agreement, civil penalties shall be paid within 30
days of service of the notice and order or stop work order if not appealed. Payment of the civil penalties
assessed under this chapter does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her
duty to correct the violation or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to
this chapter.
The eityCity may suspend immediate payment of civil penalties if the person responsible for a code
violation has entered into a voluntary compliance agreement. Penalties shall begin to accrue again pursuant
to the terms of the voluntary compliance agreement if any necessary permits applied for are denied, canceled
or not pursued, if corrective action identified in the voluntary compliance agreement is not completed as
specified, or if the property is allowed to return to a condition similar to that condition which gave rise to the
voluntary compliance agreement; provided, however, that additional penalties shall not be imposed until
additional notice and opportunity for hearing have been provided in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110
ECDC.
6-Civil penalties assessed create joint and several personal obligations in all persons responsible for a code
violation.
E. The determination of the hearing examiner issued in accordance with ECDC Chapter 20.110ECDC shall be
appealable to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.70C RCW
F. The remedies provided for in this section shall not be exclusive. The eityCity may also use other civil and
administrative remedies available to it, including but not limited to the remedies provided in ECDC Title 19 and the
state building and dangerous buildings codes. [Ord �792 § 1 20101.
The--, Edmonds City Code and Gonmutmity Development Gode, ffe, eurremit Ula-Fough Ordinanee 4037, passed . Version:
September 8, 2015
Packet Pg. 423
VW
c
0
a
VQ
N
r+
N
N
O
N
n
iV 4
Attachment: Attachment 5 - SW Code Council Public Hearing-20160802 (1490 : Stormwater Management
i
c
0
O
h
n
r-+
n
0
rD
Attachment: Attachment 5 - SW Code Council Public Hearing-20160802 (1490 : Stormwater Management
Why is the Code being updated?
Mandated by Department of Ecology
Compliance with 2013-2018 Western Washington Phase II
Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES Permit) required
Compliance with 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for
Western Washington (Ecology's Manual) required
(Edmonds is essentially implementing identical requirements
as 87 "NPDES Phase II" municipalities across western
Washington)
c
aD
E
L
E
L
0
U)
CD
IV
N
O
00
O
0
N
al
C
0
U
a�
0
U
a
r
E
w
r
a
(H arMar) A
LVA I Packet Pg. 426
What changes can be expected?
Most substantial change has to do with new Low
Impact Development requirements ("Minimum
Requirement (MR) #5" in the Permit)
Affects small projects (>2,000 sq. ft. of impervious)
More complex site assessment requirements
Additional City review requirements
VAI Packet Pg. 427
What changes can be expected? m
Stormwater Management (SWM)
L
- MR #5: Implementation
Category 1
Project Sites
(Trigger MR #1-#5)
Category 2
Project Sites
(Trigger MR #1-#9)
5
N
O
00
List #1 orto
0
N
Modeling
Cu
(LID Performance Standard]
O
U
a�
O
List #2 or
LO
Modeling y
(LID Performance Standard)
a
w
r
a
VAI Packet Pg. 428
"List 1" and "List 2" _
L
List 1 and List 2 provide options, established by Department of
0
Ecology, for managing stormwater runoff on a project site.
Roofs
N
O
O
53
0
N
al
C
CU
O
-
2
V
d
C
7
O
U
d
O
U
LO
0
E
t
v
R
Separate lists must be followed for each type of surface.
LWA I H
Packet Pg. 429
"i ist 1" and "List 2"
L
In design, all SWM options must be considered in the order listed. 0
0
The first option that is considered feasible is to be used.
1. Soil Quality and Depth
Roofs W7
1. Full Dispersion or Downspout
Full Infiltration
2. Rain Gardens [or Bioretention]
3. Downspout Dispersion Systems
4. Perforated Stub -out
Connections
5. Detention pipes or vaults
(City -specific standard)
N
O
O
O
r Other Hard Surfaces
0
N
tM
C
�L
R
_j
d
a
0
RV MMMV U
1. Full Dispersion
2. Permeable Pavement [or
Rain Gardens or Bioretentic
E
3. Sheet Flow Dispersion, or
2
Concentrated Flow Dispersi
4. Detention pipes or vaults
'
(City -specific standard)
w
a
(H a E) E) a D A
L&A I Packet Pg. 430
What changes can be expected?
City will not require historical tracking of
impervious surface area on individual properties.
Stormwater management of at least 25% of existing
unmanaged impervious surfaces, but no more than
area equal to proposed
(retrofitting).
new plus replaced area
c
aD
E
(D
L
E
L
O
r
U)
0
M
IV
N
O
00
O
0
N
al
C
�L
2
V
0
U
a�
0
U
E
a
r
E
w
r
a
(H aDDar) A
LVA I Packet Pg. 431
The project includes an existing
"unmanaged" parking lot, and
an existing structure. The
project will tear down and
rebuild the structure, but will
not alter the parking area. The
project discharges to the City's
storm system.
Triggers Minimum
Requirements No. 1-5
Plus Retrofit Requirement
Project site contains
existing hard surfaces that
do not drain to an approved
stormwater management
facility, and will not be
modified as part of the
proposed project.
M
c
a
E
m
c
List No. 1
L
Existing hard surfaces: Use o
any BMPs from List No. 1 to
manage at least 25% of
existing unmanaged surface o
00
area. BMPs are not required
0
to be evaluated in priority
order or document
infeasibility. _
1 0
0
U
Minimum Req. 5 Applies 00
for Replaced Structure
New/Replaced surfaces: Sei
details on requirements in
Project Scenarios 2-5. a
0
E
0
w
r
Q
9 Packet Pg. 432
IN -
�.
eaaeaI
The project results in 3,000
square feet of new plus
replaced hard surface area
and discharges to the City's
storm system.
10
Triggers Minimum
Requirements No. 1-5
• Result in 2,000 square feet or
greater of new plus replaced
hard surface area, or
• Has land disturbing activity of
7,000 square feet or greater
List No. 1 or
Modeling
(LID Performance
Standard)
11�
� �II II
�
The project removes and
replaces structures and
pavement totaling 12,000
square feet of area and
discharges to the City's
storm system.
11
Triggers Minimum
Requirements No. 1-9
• Result in 5,000 square feet or
greater of new plus replaced
hard surface area, or
• Convert 0.75 acres, or more, of
vegetation to lawn or
landscaped areas, or
• Convert 2.5 acres, or more, of
native vegetation to pasture
List No. 2 or
Modeling
(LID Performance
Standard)
9.1.e
The project is located in a
direct discharge basin and
includes specific requirements
for the Edmonds Way basin.
The project results in 3,000
square feet of new plus
replaced hard surface area.
13
Triggers MRs No. 1-5
(Category 1 Project)
Direct Discharge to Puget Sound
CATEGORY 1 OR 2
PROJECTS
Only a subset of
List No. 1 applies
If project is also located in the Provide peak flow
Edmonds Way basin control for all
remaining project
site runoff
The project removes and
replaces structures and
pavement totaling 6,000
square feet and does NOT
discharge to the City's storm
system.
Triggers Min. Req. No. 1-9
(Category 2 Project)
M
c
CATEGORY 1 OR 2 '
PROJECTS
L
r
3
E
L
O
Approval from U)
CD
Discharge to Downstream Downstream
Property Owner(s) co
0
Discharge On -site to List No.
BMP (not required to be
evaluated in priority order or
document infeasibility)
Pump On -Site Runoff to City's
storm system
0
N
01
CU
d
Geotech Required
Peer Review Fee
L
O
U
a�
O
Quantitative
Downstream Analysis
E
a
14 1 Packet Pg. 436
Schedule / Status
June 14, 2016 — City Council Study Session
July 20, 2016 — Public Meetings
• August 2, 2016 — City Council Public Hearing
August 16, 2016 — City Council Action Item (Seeking
approval of code with an effective date of Jan 1, 2017)
Fall 2016 — Completion of Stormwater
Development of implementation tools
checklists)
Addendum.
(e.g., review
WAI Packet Pg. 437