The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-10-18 City Council - Full Agenda-17651. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 OCTOBER 18, 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 October 11, 2016 2. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Odell Hobbs ($500,000.00). 3. Approval of claim checks. 4. 2016 3rd Quarter Budget Amendment 5. Supplemental Agreement with Berger ABAM for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project 6. Final Acceptance of the 2015 Waterline Replacement Project. 7. Final Acceptance of the ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades Project on 3rd Ave 8. Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water & Sewer District to fund minor utility relocations for the Madrona Elementary Walkway Project 9. Ordinance amending ECC 8.64.68 -Parking time limit modifications on Main St. between 3rd Ave and 2nd Ave & 2nd Ave between Main St. And Bell St. 10. Ordinance establishing a Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. Presentation by Diversity Commission (15 min.) 2. Hearing Examiner Report (15 min.) AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. ACTION ITEMS 8 9. 10. 1. Shoreline Master Program Update (40 min.) STUDY ITEMS 1. Amendment to Washington State Recreation and Conservative Office Salmon Project (5 min.) 2. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the Willow Creek Daylighting Project (5 min.) 3. Park Impact Fees Report (5 min.) 4. Discussion regarding the 2017 Proposed City Budget (60 min.) MAYOR'S COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Agenda October 18, 2016 Page 1 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda October 18, 2016 Page 2 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of October 11, 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: 10-11-2016 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES October 11, 2016 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Kristiana Johnson, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief J. Burrell, Police Officer Phil Williams, Public Works Director Scott James, Finance Director Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Mesaros. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 2016 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 2016 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT DIRECT DEPOSIT, CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 4.1.a 5. PRESENTATIONS/BEPORTS NATIONAL ARTS & HUMANITIES MONTH PROCLAMATION Mayor Earling read a proclamation proclaiming October as National Arts and Humanities Month in Edmonds and calling upon citizens to celebrate and promote arts and culture by participating in many cultural activities in the community. Beverly Starkovich, Edmonds Arts Commission, accepted the proclamation. Ms. Starkovich said the proclamation addresses nearly all the things the Arts Commission discusses at their meetings. She thanked her fellow Arts Commissioners and said the Edmonds community has continued to expand its interest in the arts. She reported the sold -out, three-day Write on the Sound earlier this month brought people from all over the country to Edmonds. She urged the community to participate in arts and culture during October including events at the Edmonds Center for the Arts, Artwalk, visiting galleries and public art, etc. 2. SISTER CITY COMMISSION 2016 STUDENT EXCHANGE PRESENTATION Mayor Earling introduced Anita Kotik who accompanied the student delegation to Japan. Ms. Kotik displayed photographs from the student's trip to Hekinan, Japan. She thanked the Edmonds Sister City Commission and everyone involved in planning, organizing and funding the student exchange this summer. She found it not only an incredible experience, one she likely would not have had the opportunity to do without this program, but a rewarding experience to watch the bonds formed between Edmonds delegates and their host families. She and the students returned to Edmonds with incredible memories including sights and attractions, but the memories she cherished most were the experiences with her host family including family dinners, watching fireworks, walking to her host daughter's school and experiencing everyday life with them and feeling like a member of their family. She was grateful to have this experience and to lead the group of students along with Robert Allen, her fellow chaperone. She and Mr. Allen were proud of how well the students represented the city, state and country while in Hekinan. Members of the 2016 student exchange program spoke regarding the trip to Hekinan: • Jose said it was one of the best experiences of his life, being able to travel to another country, experience the different world they live in and getting accustomed to new things like the sink and shower. The trip far exceeded his expectations. He thanked the City for this program and hoped it would continue in future. • Sam Harris said he was grateful for the experience of traveling across the world and making a new family connection. He hoped to experience Japan again in the future and to see his host family again. It was an amazing experience and he was glad to have had the opportunity. • Tracy Bartolome, a big believer in the power of travel, said travel and seeing a different perspective is incredibly humbling which is super important for any age but especially children in a malleable state. She joined this trip for cultural immersion, something she wants to continue as an adult. Prior to the trip, she was studying Japanese as a hobby; after experiencing their culture, she is certain she wants to study Japanese culture and language in college. As Jose and Sam said, the bonds they made were incredible. She formed a close knit group with three girls from Hekinan and they plan to meet in Tokyo for the 2020 Olympics. She thanked the City for the program and hoped it would continue. Having gone to Japan with the adult delegation a few years ago, Mayor Earling agreed it was truly a rich and rewarding experience. He will always remember his trip as he was sure the students would and looked forward returning to Hekinan with the adult delegation in the future. 3. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2017 CITY BUDGET Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 4.1.a Mayor Earling presented the 2017 budget message: Members of the City Council, Staff and Citizens of Edmonds: I am pleased to present to you the City of Edmonds 2017 Budget. The budget process begins in June of every year. Each year presents new circumstances, opportunities, and challenges depending on various shifts in the economy and needs of the city. My first budget was not much fun to assemble. The staff and I had to make dramatic reductions as we faced the then, still tough economy coming out of the recession, and the "red ink" in our near future. With those hard decisions, a slow but improving economy, and several strategic decisions, we have made steady upward financial progress with the help of staff, Council, and the business community. As you may recall in my previous budget messages, I reported we had genuinely improved revenues in 2014 over 2013, and further improved revenues in 2015 which exceeded 2014. Once again, due to a continued strong economy, I can report our 2016 revenues continue to improve; however, not to the extent of this past year. Our 2016 operating revenues are projected to be 1.4 % higher than our 2015 actual revenues and the 2017 revenues are projected to be 0. 9% higher than projected 2016 revenue. One example of that continued strong economy —as of the end of September, we are $139,000 ahead of our record sales tax revenue of 2015, with much of the sales tax coming from automobile sales and construction. Another example of continued strength —over the past three years we have added over $90. 7 million in assessed value in new home and commercial construction, with another $39+ million projected for 2017. So, while we do have further good revenue news to report and a current strong local economy, I remind us all we are in the eighth year of what often is a ten year recovery cycle. Signals of a slowdown are coming from a variety of levels. Most recently I have heard presentations from the state Office of Financial Management, as well as county and city governments, indicating many of those entities are currently challenged financially. Another consideration is our contract negotiations with Fire District 1. Progress is being made but final agreement has not yet been reached. The agreement will have financial implications for our budget. Moving forward, I believe we need to be cautious this next year with how we prioritize spending, focusing on pressing needs. With that in mind, more attention will need to be paid to important one-time expenditures and work that was deferred as a result of the recession. Chief among the catch-up issues is the need to address serious deferred maintenance on our city -owned buildings. We have valuable assets throughout the city which need attention. This budget sets aside $400,000 to begin that catch-up. We will continue our commitment to the street overlay program with an additional $1. 1 M. In addition, we will continue efforts to catch-up on needed important infrastructure deferrals for our water, sewer and stormwater programs; keeping in mind that the state -mandated stormwater regulations will provide challenges as of the first of the year. We will continue to aggressively seek grants to stretch our local dollars. We will also be making important one-time expenditure improvements to our IT infrastructure. Other examples of critical one-time expenditures include: a housing study in Development Services to identify our community housing needs; moving to a Paperless Court; a local match for further work with the at - grade -crossing issue; and additional dollars for sidewalks. With the strong 2015 income we added seven new staff positions to address the depleted staff reductions from the recession. However, with the theme of addressing one-time needs as a priority, this year's budget includes the equivalent of four and a quarter full-time new positions; one in Parks for park Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 4.1.a maintenance, 2 halftime positions in Development Services to handle the ever expanding number of planning and construction projects in the city, a quarter position in Human Resources, and two positions in the Police Department —one which is in Police Services. The second police position, I am pleased to announce, is in co-operation with the Edmonds School District and is the reinstatement of the School Resource Officer program for Edmonds Woodway High School. We live in volatile times and having our schools safe is an important priority for this community. Council, as we have done a few times in the past, I recognize you often have special projects you see as important and of great value to the community which have not been included in the budget so, to that end, I have set aside $100,000 in the 2017 budget for Council's consideration, priorities and allocation. We have made great financial strides these past four years in recovering from the impact of the devastating 2008 recession. Hard decisions in 2012, thoughtful planning and priorities, a recovering economy, and strategic decisions, have led us to a new, revitalized, bustling, and energized community. Because of the work done and the improvements made over time, Edmonds has become a recognized daytime destination. It has also become an appealing place for families considering relocating, as witnessed by the number of baby carriages and strollers in the community. Over the past few years we have thoughtfully balanced the need to fill open staff positions with the need to catch up on long ignored one time expenditures. We must maintain that balance. In addition, we must continue our success in winning grants for our larger projects. And finally: 1) We should approach next year's budget and economy cautiously; 2) The staff and I look forward to working with council and the community to bring the 2017 budget decision to conclusion; and 3) I would be remiss if I did not mention the fine work our Finance Director, his staff and our Director's had in formulating the budget put before you this evening. There has been compromise, hard work, and innovation on all their parts. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS James Spangler, Edmonds, said he has not spoken to the Council for some time due to his confidence in the Mayor and Council. He relayed the sign code is negatively impacting small businesses, especially those outside of 5t' & Main Street as well as businesses slightly away from those streets. He emphasized people who visit Edmonds appreciate the signs and tell him daily that they would not have been able to find his business without his sign. The reason many businesses did not participate early in the process was because they trusted the Council and expected the Council to understand their needs, they now realize they should have communicated their needs better as well as how important signage is to them. The business community is mobilizing and are hopeful the Council will see the community's support for their signs as a way to find their businesses. Without signage, businesses suffer; he estimated the impact to his business was $30-$50/day, a significant percentage of his business' profit. He referred to the Architectural Design Board review, explaining that process creates a barrier for small businesses who are unable to pay $100 to determine the location of their sign; that requirement is akin to saying you cannot have a sign. Tracy Felix, Edmonds, co-owner of ARTspot at 408 Main Street, described someone visiting Edmonds, a person with time to spend with family/friends who decides small town shopping and a sidewalk caf6 sound great. As the person walks past the art store, it occurs to them to stop in and pick up a gadget and the staff refers them to the hardware store tucked behind Main Street but easily located with the sign on the corner. A person who loves used books also discovers the bookstore and tells the owner if it wasn't for the sign on the corner they would not have discovered their store. Downtown Edmonds has trees, flowers and quirky colorful signs, classic village architecture, Main Street USA which is becoming increasingly rare. The Council has heard from Natalie Shippen who says the sign boards cry economic distress, even panic. Ms. Shippen's goal is clearly stated in her own words, to maintain Edmonds as a prosperous, attractive residential community. In her view, the local, family -owned businesses are Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 4.1.a marginal business that claim to need cheap advertising signs in the public right-of-way to survive. Ms. Shippen's Edmonds is the picture of a fine home but the shopping district is like a seedy front yard. Ms. Felix said Ms. Shippen comes into the stores to chastise the owners in front of their customers. Downtown businesses are trying to survive Walmart and to compete with online shopping, to offer something more community oriented than the mall. The question is whether businesses can survive a local activist like Ms. Shippen who has a great influence on Edmonds. The current ban is causing anxiety for many local businesses. Knowing the new code does not allow businesses to place a sign where they need it most, businesses debate whether to put out their sign board and risk a $100/day fine or watch customers walk by and not come in. Because signs are put out some days and not on other days makes it difficult to collect financial data. Denise Cole, Edmonds, owner of Cole Gallery and Cole Art Studio and co-owner of ARTspot, said two of her businesses are on 5th & Main and their great window displays attract customers. However, Cole Art Studio, offering classes and workshops, is located in the basement; she gets 50% of her business from her hand -painted chalkboard artist easel sign. She did not attend the Council meetings regarding the sign code this summer because she was busy coordinating the wine walk. Business owners have ideas about ways to help other businesses that are not located on 5th or Main and are not easily visible. She encouraged the Council to begin a discussion with businesses who depend on their signs. Without her sign, the Art Studio would lose thousands each month. She has great ideas and has been talking with Clayton Moss about artful signs on the corners to help direct people. She requested the Council schedule suspending the sign ordinance on an upcoming agenda. She obtained a permit for her sign but found it a daunting process. She was providing input for her fellow business owners who are not located on 5th & Main in the heart of downtown. Laura Zeck, Edmonds, owner of ZINC at the corner of 3rd & Main, said people are often aware of the drycleaner at 3rd & Main but not her business. That area has not necessarily been a retail hub; her store opened approximately three years ago and people are slowing learning they are there. She forwarded the Council an email exchange she had with Councilmember Buckshnis that included her numbers. She referred to Mr. Springer's comment that he is losing $50/day, she said there are times they do not ring $50/day. Her business is still in a growth mode and the sign helps bring people in every day. The community is very supportive of her store and often say how glad they are that her shop is there. She remarked many people who came in this summer said they moved from Los Angeles, San Francisco and Brooklyn to Edmonds because they felt they were represented. Edmonds needs to play to all of the community which is becoming more diverse. She urged the Council to support all businesses by looking at the sign code again, putting something in place that provides directional signage before taking something away. Barbara Mercer Edmonds Frame Design & Atelier, explained she moved to Edmonds from California in November 1990 after falling in love with Edmonds because it reminded her of the small, picturesque town in Germany where she grew up. She originally opened her business in an upstairs space on 4th & Dayton that was difficult to see but she made it work with a nice A -board sign on the corner of 4th & Dayton. People found her business and she stayed in that location 12 years. After losing her lease, she was fortunate to find a space on 5th Avenue South, but it is away from the downtown core near IGA and when cars are parked in in front, her business is not visible from the street. The people who come in have seen her sign; she is very dependent on her sign. A nicely designed sign helps bring people to Edmonds and to the businesses. She requested a suspension of the sign code and reconsideration of the regulations in businesses' favor. Dori Glass, Edmonds, an Edmonds business owner, said when she moved to Edmonds from Hollywood, California eight years ago, she told her husband she would not live in the suburbs. However, Edmonds, a growing, artistic town, spoke to her as a place she would be proud to raise her children, have her business Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 4.1.a and be part of the community. Over the past couple years, as things have grown, Edmonds has become less romantic, artistic and idyllic. She spoke in favor of sidewalk signs and the quaint, quirky artistic nature that Edmonds used to have. Kimberly Koenig, Edmonds, owner of Rogue on Main Street, and representing the downtown businesses as the President of the Merchant's Association, said although the newly executed sign ordinance is not on tonight's agenda, it is important that Councilmember understand its impact on small business owners. She recommended the Council undertake a suspension of the newly implemented code. Feedback from businesses include the application process is cumbersome for some and cost prohibitive for others, communication from the City about the execution has been confusion and more importantly, businesses are already experiencing sales losses. Businesses are going into one of the most important retails seasons of the year and she did not feel the Council, in good conscience, could allow members of the business community to struggle and potentially fail because the ordinance needs to be revised. She requested the Council consider suspending the current sign code to allow exploration and implementation of alternate options and that it be done as soon as possible. Pam Stuller, Edmonds, owner of Walnut Street Coffee, thanked the Council for including A -board signs in the sign code but unfortunately, the execution has been very difficult for businesses. Many businesses that have A -boards in front of their business are not opposed to obtaining a permit but the fee is $125, a site plan is required which can be cumbersome for a small business, and if a variance is required, the fee for ADB review is $825 with no guarantee it will be approved. Although her business does not have an A -board, she recognized her business is not island and it thrives when downtown continues to be vibrant and grows. To the myth that social media is the answer to the signage problems, that may be true for some businesses like a coffee shop or restaurant who tend to have great representation on Yelp. However, a thriving, successful business like Housewares that has been in downtown Edmonds for 18 years, has 2 reviews on Yelp, her business has 166. Clearly social media is not how people find out about businesses and the City needs to providing the ability for small businesses to communicate with potential customers. She recommended the Council pursue a short term suspension of the sign code; there are great ideas related to pedestrian type wayfinding signage and she looked forward to working productive on sign solutions. Dave Page, Edmonds, relayed a conversation he had with a tenant in his building on Olympic View Drive & Puget Drive. He rented the space to tenant at a loss because he wanted a good tenant that would last awhile. When their rent increase came due this month, the tenant, an early learning center, said they couldn't pay it. Their business is growing slowly and steadily and over half of their business comes from the A -board sign in front of the building which they change daily. He recalled when a lot of downtown spaces were boarded up, remarking downtown has made a magnificent recovery, due to the Mayor and City Council as well as the tenacity of of businesses owners hanging on. He agreed something needed to be done about the sign code, some kind of compromise. Debbie Rosenfelt, Edmonds, one of the owners of Snap Fitness, expressed support for her fellow business owners and themselves. Snap Fitness has been in Edmonds nine years and although they are on the corner of 5"' & Main, they count on their sign at the corner. They ask prospective customers how they heard about the gym and most say their sign or driving by. The sign is not large but states what the gym offers such as classes and personal training. As a community neighborhood gym of about 5,000 square feet, every dollar makes a difference. Taking the sign away impacts their bottom line so it is important that they be allowed to display a sign on the corner. She noted the corner would be a good place for sign directing people to other small businesses. She began the process of obtaining a sign permit and found applying for an exception cost $832. As a small business they continually reinvest in their business which requires they keep expenses down. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 4.1.a Christa Lamothe, Edmonds, owner and physician at Naturopathic Dermatology, said her business is located on a second level on Main Street above Interiors of Edmonds so has limited visibility other than her entry door and her sign. She also tracks how people hear about her business and finds that 50% of her customers discover her business via the signage, particularly the A -frame sign. She has been practicing in Edmonds since early 2008 and plans to stay in Edmonds. Edmonds has been great for businesses and has grown since 2008 due in part to the individuality of businesses and their ability to advertise and market themselves. She requested the Council reconsider the new sign code, commenting it has had a tremendous effect on her and other small businesses. Small businesses need exposure and require a variety of advertising and cannot rely on just social media or a newspaper advertisement. Small businesses need to avail themselves of whatever exposure is available; signage and A -frames are a great way. 7. STUDY ITEMS PRESENTATION OF THE UTILITY RATE ANALYSIS Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Senior Utilities Engineer Mike DeLilla and Chris Gonzales, the FCS Group (the consultant that prepared the combined utility rate study), who were present to answer questions. He recalled the study report presented three years ago recommended adjusting utility rates for six years; the Council approved a package of adjustments for the first three years and staff promised to return at the end of the three years to discuss further adjustments to reach the goal of getting the utilities independent of the use of debt for the replacement of buried infrastructure. He explained the long-term replacement/rehabilitation of buried pipes is essentially a large maintenance project and the Council agreed three years ago when the increase in utility rates was approved to fund it via rate capital rather than borrowing. He reviewed information related to the sewer utility: • Sewer Rates o Assume a monthly rate o Assume 1,000 cubic feet of water usage per month ■ Edmonds single family customers average in 2015 was about 760 cubic water/month so rates provided would be proportionately lower o Includes all applicable taxes • Current Sewer Rates Seattle $ 122.70 Kirkland $ 95.95 City of Arlington $ 70.15 Woodinville WD $ 69.18 Mukilteo W & S District Westside $ 64.12 City of Lake Forest Park $ 59.12 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 57.75 Redmond $ 56.18 Shoreline (via Ronald WWD) $ 53.50 Mountlake Terrace $ 48.00 Lynnwood $ 44.38 Everett $ 42.43 Edmonds $ 36.57 Olympic View W & S District $ 28.21 Average $ 60.59 • 2013 rate study assumed 9.5% rate adjustments each year until 2019 • 2016 rate recommendation consistent with 2013 staff presentation. Mr. William displayed and reviewed a table illustrating rate revenues under existing rates, non -rate revenues, expenses, annual rate adjustment (9.5% in 2017, 2018 and 2019 and 4% in 2020, 2021 and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 4.1.a 2022), rate revenue after rate increase and net cash flow after rate increase 2017-2022. He provided the following comparison: • Edmonds Sewer Rate - 2019 (compared to current rates for other cities) Seattle $ 122.70 Kirkland $ 95.95 City of Arlington $ 70.15 Woodinville WD $ 69.18 Mukilteo W & S District Westside $ 64.12 City of Lake Forest Park $ 59.12 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 57.75 Redmond $ 56.18 Shoreline (via Ronald WWD) $ 53.50 Edmonds $ 48.01 Mountlake Terrace $ 48.00 Lynnwood $ 44.38 Everett $ 42.43 Olympic View W & S District $ 28.21 Edmonds sewer rates - 2019 (using 3%/year escalator for others) Seattle $ 134.08 Kirkland $ 104.84 Arlington $ 76.65 Woodinville WD $ 75.59 Mukilteo W & S District Westside $ 70.07 Lake Forest Park $ 64.60 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 63.10 Redmond $ 61.39 Shoreline (via Ronald WWD) $ 58.46 Mountlake Terrace $ 52.45 Lynnwood $ 48.50 Edmonds $ 48.01 Everett $ 46.36 Olympic View W & S District $ 30.83 Mr. Williams reviewed information related to the stormwater utility: • Stormwater Rates o Monthly rate vs. bi-monthly (billing rate) o Assumes 1 ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit) o Includes all applicable taxes • Current Stormwater Rates Seattle $ 32.50 Kirkland $ 18.14 Everett $ 17.44 Redmond $ 16.56 Lake Forest Park $ 16.00 Mukilteo $ 15.73 Edmonds $ 14.20 Shoreline $ 13.40 Lynnwood $ 11.56 Mountlake Terrace $ 11.45 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 4.1.a Woodinville $ 7.26 Arlington $ 6.89 Average $15.09 • 2013 rate study assumed 4.5% rate adjustments each year o Stormwater Capital Program did not include pipe replacement at that time • 2016 rate study assumes 10% rate adjustments each year (2017 to 2019) He displayed and reviewed a table illustrating rate revenues under existing rates, non -rate revenues, expenses, annual rate adjustment 10% in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020, 7% in 2021 and 3% in 2022), rate revenue after rate increase and net cash flow after rate increases 2017-2022. He provided: • Stormwater Rates - 2019 (using current rates for others) Seattle $ 32.50 Edmonds $ 18.89 Kirkland $ 18.14 Everett $ 17.44 Redmond $ 16.56 Lake Forest Park $ 16.00 Mukilteo $ 15.73 Shoreline $ 13.40 Lynnwood $ 11.56 Mountlake Terrace $ 11.45 Woodinville $ 7.26 Arlington $ 6.89 Stormwater Rates - 2019 (using 3% escalator for others) Seattle $35.52 Kirkland $19.82 Everett $19.06 Edmonds $18.89 Redmond $18.10 Lake Forest Park $17.48 Mukilteo $17.19 Shoreline $14.64 Lynnwood $12.64 Mountlake Terrace $12.51 Woodinville $7.94 Arlington $7.53 Mr. William reviewed information related to the water utility: • Water Rates o Monthly cost o Assume 1,000 cubic feet of usage per month o Includes all applicable taxes • Current Water Rates Shoreline $ 87.70 City of Lake Forest Park $ 87.70 Woodinville WD $ 73.69 Seattle $ 72.30 Kirkland $ 65.13 Arlington $ 52.73 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 4.1.a Edmonds $ 52.51 Everett $ 42.49 Redmond $ 42.25 Olympic View W&S District $ 38.82 Mountlake Terrace $ 38.40 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 37.96 Mukilteo W & S District Westside $ 37.75 Lynnwood $ 34.75 Average $54.58 Graph of Edmonds Water Consumption CCF 1988-2014, illustrating a 15% reduction in consumption which affects revenue 2013 Rate study assumed 9.0% rate adjustments each year until 2019 2016 Rate recommendation consistent with 2013 staff presentation. He displayed and reviewed a table illustrating rate revenues under existing rates, non -rate revenues, expenses, annual rate adjustment 9% in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 4% in 2020, 2021 and 2022), rate revenues after rate increase and net cash flow after rate increases 2017-2022. He provided: 0 Water Rates - 2019 (using current rates for others) Shoreline $ 87.70 City of Lake Forest Park $ 87.70 Woodinville WD $ 73.69 Seattle $ 72.30 Edmonds $ 65.34 Kirkland $ 65.13 Arlington $ 52.73 Everett $ 42.49 Redmond $ 42.25 Olympic View W&S District $ 38.82 Mountlake Terrace $ 38.40 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 37.96 Mukilteo W & S District Westside $ 37.75 Lynnwood $ 34.75 Water Rates - 2019 (using 3%/year escalator for others) Shoreline $ 95.83 Lake Forest Park $ 95.83 Woodinville WD $ 80.52 Seattle $ 79.00 Kirkland $ 71.16 Edmonds $ 65.34 Arlington $ 57.62 Everett $ 46.43 Redmond $ 46.17 Olympic View W&S District $ 42.41 Mountlake Terrace $ 41.96 Alderwood Water & Wastewater $ 41.47 Mukilteo W & S District Westside $ 41.25 Lynnwood $ 37.97 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 4.1.a Mr. Williams explained a lawsuit in Seattle related to the water utility charging customers on their water bill for maintenance of street lights ultimately resulted in a Washington State Supreme Court finding that streetlights are a general government expense and should not be collected from utility customers. That was subsequently expanded to include fire hydrants maintenance. This occurred in 2009 during the economic downturn and most cities raised the water utility tax to generate revenue for hydrant maintenance. Edmonds did that as well, raising the water utility tax from 10% to 18.7%. Two or three years ago the law was changed to authorize utilities to provide hydrant maintenance and he recommended reducing the water utility taxes over 5 years to where they were in 2009 so the effect on the General Fund was revenue neutral. He described the proposed reduction: • Recommend Reducing Water Utility Tax Rate Water Utilit Tax Rate Year Tax Rate Current (2016) 18.70% 2017 17.07% 2018 15.50% 2019 14.05% 2020 12.68% 2021 10% • Lowers the utility tax on Water Utility customers by $5.72 per month by 2022 • Maintains a constant utility tax revenue source for the General Fund Mr. Williams provided a Total Utility Bill Comparison: City Current 2109 projected at 3% for all cities except Edmonds. Edmonds project at recommended rates Seattle $227.50 $ 248.60 Kirkland $159.63 $ 195.83 Lake Forest Park $162.82 $ 177.92 Shoreline $154.60 $ 168.93 Woodinville $150.13 $ 164.05 Arlington $129.77 $ 141.80 Edmonds $132.25 Mukilteo $117.60 $ 128.50 Redmond $114.99 $ 125.65 Edmonds $103.28 Everett $102.36 $ 111.85 Mountlake Terrace $ 97.85 $ 106.92 Lynnwood $ 90.69 $ 99.10 He summarized the recommendation: • 9.5%/year increases (3 years) for Sewer • 10%/year increases (3 years) for Storm • 9.0%/year increase (3 years) for Water • For the period of 2017 to 2019 • Capital Projects Covered o Annual Replacements for Water o Annual Replacements for Sewer o Begin Annual Replacement for Storm • Low income discount Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 o Household income between 40,0000 and 35,000 — 30% discount on water base rate, sewer rate and drainage rate o Household income less than 30,000 — 50% reduction Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether sewer and water were included in one bill. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested reducing the 10% increase in stormwater to 9.5% so it was consistent. Mr. Williams agreed that could be done; the proposal was 10% the first four years, 7% for two years or it could be 9.5% in the first few years and less in the subsequent years. The dollars collected in the early years are worth more than at the end due to 4% inflation which makes a striking difference in the purchasing power the rate dollars provide and result in approximately a $5 million impact over 6 years. He offered to run the numbers and email them to Council. Councilmember Buckshnis recommended holding a public hearing, recalling there was a lot of controversy three years ago about not borrowing for maintenance. Mr. Williams said funding pipe replacement via annually generated rates instead of debt will save the water and sewer utilities $50 million through 2033. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Mr. Williams for answering his questions via email. He applauded Edmonds residents for the great job they are doing on conservation, finding the 15% reduction in water consumption over 26 years remarkable, even though the population has increased over that time. Councilmember Teitzel referred to a list of projects not covered which includes Lift Station #1 Rehab/Replacement, the lift station on Sunset. He recalled plans for rehabbing the lift station and stormwater system, repaving, and restriping at the same time. He was concerned funding to rehab the lift station would delay reconfiguration of the parking, restriping, etc. on Sunset. He asked how long it will take to fund that project. Mr. Williams responded he was unsure how long the entire capital restructuring of utilities on Sunset and Caspers will take because a great deal of work needs to be done but that does not preclude interim improvements. There currently is no funding in the budget for interim improvements on Sunset such as changing the geometry at 2nd & Caspers and the angle parking; it would be preferable to do that in a manner that was fairly inexpensive and temporary in nature because much of it will be torn up. Features that will not be torn up by utility improvements could be more permanent. He summarized staff is aware of the issue and is doing their best to address it. Councilmember Teitzel said he was generally supportive of the proposed utility rate increases. He recognized it was not fun to invest in infrastructure but similar to a house, if regular maintenance is not done, deferred maintenance can cause bigger problems in the future. He summarized it was important to invest in the infrastructure replacement and bite the bullet on the increases. Councilmember Tibbott concurred with Councilmembers with regard to funding maintenance from utility rates. With regard to stormwater, he understood the 10% increase would help pay for maintenance on the aging system but recognized there were also capital improvement needs. He asked whether the 10% increase was enough to fund a bond issue for larger improvements, noting requirements for improving the City's stormwater system are also increasing. Mr. Williams answered if the Council adopted the recommended rates, it would generate an additional $1 million/year. If the Council chose, the City could borrow for a larger project and use some of the $1 million for debt service and the remainder for annual projects. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there would be enough for the current and future CIP projects. Mr. Williams answered CIP projects are primarily flooding, habitat restoration, etc. For the last several years, the CIP has assumed 75% grants could be obtained for those projects although that was not guaranteed. For example, he envisioned the Edmonds Marsh would be very successful at attracting capital partners. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 4.1.a Other projects will need to be fully funded by the City such as the $1.5 million Dayton Street pump station which includes $500,000 from rate capital, a loan from from Snohomish County for $565,000 and staff has applied for a FEMA grant. Staff does everything possible to identify other funding sources but usually utility projects have a difficult time getting grant funds unless combined with something else like the marsh project. Councilmember Nelson asked why Seattle was used as a comparable in view of the size and population of Seattle. Mr. Williams defended including Seattle, explaining it may not be appropriate to include Seattle on a salary survey, but with regard to water/sewer/stormwater, Seattle is the 800 lb. gorilla in the region and it is interesting to know their rates. Although Seattle is a big city, individual home owners pay that amount each month, no different than a homeowner in Edmonds, the size of the city does not really matter although he acknowledged Seattle residents' incomes are higher. He felt it worthwhile to have the biggest city in Washington as a comparison; other cities used in the comparison such as Arlington and Mukilteo are about half Edmonds' size. The comparison is just a sample of cities that responded to the City's request for their rate information. Councilmember Nelson referred to the recommended 9.5% annual increase in sewer rates and asked if a residents' sewer bill would be 28.5% higher in 3 years. Mr. Williams answered it would increase from $36.57 to $48.01, approximately a $12 increase over 3 years. Councilmember Nelson observed a residents' stormwater bill would increase 30% and the water would increase 27% in 3 years, significant increases percentage wise. He commented the significant increases are necessary to pay for annual upkeep of the system. Mr. Williams clarified the rate increase funds replacement. Councilmember Nelson asked how these percentages were developed. Mr. Williams described how the study considers the cost of basic maintenance, staff, equipment, growth assumptions, and capital projects as well as the revenue current rates generate to develop a percentage increase necessary to complete the CIP and keep up with operations and maintenance. Councilmember Councilmember Nelson said if the City was going to ask taxpayers to pay more, it needed to be very clear why and what it is used for. Mr. Williams said the increase is primarily to reach the goal of being debt independent for pipe replacement and rehab. The utility needs to generate an additional $3 million/year to avoid borrowing which saves the City $50 million by 2033. Council President Johnson agreed with the goal of being debt free and reaching a pay-as-you-go system as well as doing 1 % replacement/year, remarking if the pipes last 100 years, the City will be on target. Mr. Williams commented some of the existing pipes are already 50-60 years old and may not be replaced for 50-60 years. He agreed it was similar to repainting the Golden Gate Bridge; workers start at one end and by the time they reach the other end, it is time to repaint again. The ductal iron pipe being installed is a great product and was likely to last 80+ years but cast iron was thought to be a great choice at the time and wood stave pipe with wire around it was thought to be a good choice prior to that. Technology changes and he was hopeful the pipes being installed would last longer than the pipes that were being replaced. Council President Johnson recalled a wooden pipe was found under Main Street. Mr. Williams agreed wooden pipes are often discovered. Council President Johnson observed the new camera system can identify where replacements need to be made. She asked staff to explain how a citizens could obtain the low income rate discount. Mr. Williams answered they can call the Finance Department and ask for the form. Applying is not complicated but the citizens must meet the criteria. Council President Johnson referred to the request for public hearing, relaying the earliest that could be scheduled is November 1 and asked if that would be enough time for staff to prepare. Mr. Williams said another public hearing may be required to lower the utility tax rate. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 4.1.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas questioned why the City did not bond if the pipes were in such disarray and and replacement was such a slow process. Mr. Williams answered the City has bonded in the past, there were 3 major bond issues in the $10-15 million range in recent years for utilities. If the City continued borrowing every 2 years with 20 year bonds, there would be 10 bond issues that the City was paying interest on by the time the first one was paid off. That pyramids into an incredible debt load on the utility, much of which is interest; the City is paying interest instead of using the money to invest in the system. The goal was to get away from that method. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the alternative is citizens are paying for pipes that have been in place a long time. The recommendation is roughly a 28% increase each year over 3 years between sewer, water and stormwater. Mr. Williams said the recommendation would increase utility rates for a single family home from $103.28 to $132.25, an average of 9.2 - 9.3%/year for 3 years for the 3 utilities. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed interest in a public hearing and having more time to review the matter. She was aware of many people who live very frugally and although there is a low income discount, this is an increase for ratepayers. Some people have a difficult time making end meet and now the City is proposing an increase to pay for pipes installed 100 years ago. Mr. Williams understood this is a big increase; the Council made a courageous decision three years ago and the proposal is to make that decision again. Even if the Council chose to abandon the debt -free concept, increases of 12-15% would be necessary over that same period to keep up with inflation; it is not a choice between 28% and 0%, it is the difference between 28% and 12-15%. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented that is a lot for someone on a fixed income. Mr. Williams encouraged anyone on a fixed income that met the criteria to contact him and he will assist them with the process. Councilmember Tibbott asked how maintenance was funded prior to the decision three years ago to become independent of debt. Mr. Williams responded the City was borrowing every two years to begin a pipe replacement program. Councilmember Tibbott observed three years ago the Council made a philosophical decision to go away from bonds to fund maintenance and transition to a rate system. At that time the Council could have adjusted rates 30-40% to accommodate that philosophical shift but instead chose to phase it in over 6 years. Mr. Williams agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested the presentation at the public hearing emphasize the reduction in ratepayers' financial burden by reducing the water utility tax. Mayor Earling summarized staff will provide information to Councilmembers in response to their questions and a public hearing with a presentation will be scheduled in early November. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 2. 2016 3RD QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT Finance Director Scott James reviewed the P quarter budget amendment: • 17 decision package • $773,395 in revenues • $539,152 in expenditures • $234,243 increase in fund balance He reviewed the decision packages: • $38,637 — Downtown restroom installation, plus expenditure of additional $5,000 from grant awarded by the Hubbard Family Foundation • $46,400 - Additional funding to complete second phase of the Stormwater Code update Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 • $5,000 — Construction of two office spaces within Finance Department using salary savings from not hiring the Assistant Finance Director as planned • $8,930 — Fund purchase of five additional licenses for LaserFiche web portal • $46,960 — Additional attorney services from Snohomish County Public Defender Association due to projected increase in caseload • Move salaries from Non -Departmental to Police Department to reimburse retirement payout (self - funded) • Increase budget to reflect reimbursement by Town of Woodway for investigation of Woodway case (self -funded) • Increase budget to reflect higher than anticipated reimbursable overtime from special events (self - funded) • Authorization to expend up to $5000 in contributions to help underwrite a business attraction event (self -funded) • Additional outside consultant plan review of building permits due to increased permitting activity. Funded via increased permit revenues (self -funded) • $500 — budget transfer for 1 % for Arts for construction of Green Room • Replace supplies lost in the City Park arson • $582,300 — Transfer from General Fund to Contingency Reserve as FD1 is in negotiations and have not adjusted their invoices to the City since 2014 • Multimodal Transportation Fund has long been inactive, recommend transfer funds to the General Fund • City has no outstanding Local Improvement District (LID) bond debt so this fund is no longer needed. Recommend closing the fund and transferring the balance and all residual LID assessments to the Contingency Reserve Fund • On -call professional stormwater engineering services during recruitment of new stormwater engineer. Offset by salary savings. • Additional funds for the Lift Station #1 Metering and Flow Study Mr. James summarized the 3rd quarter budget amendment: • Revenues increased $773,395 • Expenditures increased $539,152 • Ending Fund Balance Increased $234,243 • Council action: move to Consent Agenda on October 18, 2016 for approval Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Multimodal Transportation Fund was not the City's money but was grant funds or funds that needed to be paid back. Mr. James said staff researched whether there were any restrictions and found none. The City is not reporting to any outside agencies and the City's financial statements (CAFR) do not identify these as restricted funds. Therefore, the funds are unrestricted and the fund can be closed and the money moved to the General Fund. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked where the money came from. Mr. James said when he first was hired in 1998 there were grant dollars, City funds and other funds over the course of many years. He was unsure whether the source of all the funds could be identified. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged him to be cautious, recalling multiple finance directors prior to Mr. James all said the money could not be moved because of the source. Mr. James said he asked staff who have been here a number of years and none suggested this was researched by a former finance director. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Mr. James to double-check. Mr. James reiterated staff researched and did not find any strings attached. He explained the Multimodal Fund has been in place for decades; it likely would cost more in staff time than the amount in the fund to identify the source of all the funds. No granting agencies have contacted the City and a lot of the requirements for those grants Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 4.1.a have long been met. In conferring with Councilmember Buckshnis, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was Stephen Clifton who indicated this was not transferable. Mr. James agreed to check with Mr. Clifton. He recommended the Council authorize the transfer and if an issue arises, he will return to Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred he confer with Mr. Clifton before this item is approved. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the retirement of a person in the Police Department and the 2016 baseline budget and asked if that amount was for one person. Mr. James answered that was for ordinance enforcement division. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if that represented two FTEs. Mr. James said it was at least three and included animal control and parking enforcement. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed $24,599 in wages was the amount spent in 2016 through the 3rd quarter. Mr. James explained labor agreements require the City pay out unused vacation and sick leave; this represents those required payouts to a retiring employee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the $24,599 in wages in 2016 was for one employee or more. Mr. James answered it represents the payout to this employee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what the total salary payout of $32,662 represented. Mr. James advised that was the total transfer from Non -Departmental to Police Department to reimburse the Police Department for the payout. When the Police Department develops their budget, salaries do not include retirement payouts. The $32,662 retirement payout includes wages, comp time and benefits. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she will call Mr. James tomorrow to further clarify. Mr. James assured these types of transfers are done every year. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Contingency Reserve Fund was fully funded. Mr. James answered the Contingency Reserve is mandated to be 8-16%; the balance is above 8% but below 16%. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how much the additional $582,000 for FD1 increased the percentage. Mr. James explained with a $40 million General Fund budget, 10% would be $4 million; he recalled the Contingency Reserve was not quite 10%. An $800,000 payment to FD1 is scheduled from the Contingency Reserve; since the General Fund is doing so well, those funds will not be transferred. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with setting aside $582,000 for the future FD1 bill. She asked about the current payment. Mr. James explained the bill for 2016 is $7.4 million. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the $582,000 was determined. Mr. James explained $161,500 comes from unused 2015 FD1 budget, the estimate provided by FD1 and $420,800 comes from the anticipated unused 2016 FDl budget. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. English for his response to her questions regarding the funds for additional stormwater engineering services after Jerry Shuster left and the additional funds for the stormwater code update. She offered to forward his response to Councilmembers. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the payout for Officer Dawson, relaying his understanding that she returned part-time. He asked whether her salary and overhead was expressed in the 2016 budget and whether her employment would end in 2016 or extend into 2017. Mr. James said he did not know the term of her employment; he was aware she was working part-time but did not know if her salary was funded via salary savings. Councilmember Teitzel asked if hiring her part-time was addressed as a budget amendment. Mr. James answered no. Mayor Earling explained it was an administrative decision because no one was doing parking enforcement. She is now doing parking enforcement and has been actively engaged in the community. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on a future Consent Agenda. 3. PRESENTATION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH BERGER ABAM FOR THE FISHING PIER REHAB PROJECT Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 4.1.a City Engineer Rob English explained the $13,600 supplemental covers, 1) the center pier concrete patch work that the contractor did that had issues passing the strength test to test the bond between the concrete patch and the existing pier. The contractor is in the process of determining a fix and staff recommends retaining Berger ABAM to provide their input once the contractor submits their proposal, and 2) to create record drawings to have on file for reference in the future. There is adequate management reserve to pay for this. There may be negotiations with the contractor about him paying for these additional services since it is in regard to work that probably wasn't done properly the first time. A second supplemental to a separate contract will be required in early November for additional strength testing once the contractor completes the rework. Council President Johnson asked whether this postponed sealing of the cement and the reopening of the pier. Mr. English responded the pier is open. Sealing of the top surface occurred yesterday; the center repairs are on the underside of the deck. Councilmember Tibbott asked if the part that was not done properly was the original construction 40 years ago or the recent work. Mr. English answered he was referring to the work the contactor did recently which included packing concrete in areas where rebar had been exposed and sealing it to prevent intrusion of air and water. When the quality control testing, a pull test, was done on those repairs, the bond between the contractor's repairs and the existing bridge deck were not adequate. The contractor has been made aware of the issues and staff is awaiting their proposal to fix it. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether that would be a cost to the City or paid from their contingency. Mr. English said staff s position is it should not be a cost to the City, but the contractor will provide a proposal. Councilmember Tibbott asked who does the testing. Mr. English answered it requires special equipment and is done by a consultant. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on a future Consent Agenda. 4. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THE 2015 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Rob English reported the project awarded to D&G Construction in the amount of $2,195,457 D&G Construction replaced 9,400 lineal feet of watermain. Three change orders resulted in an increase of $60,917, well below the management reserve approved by Council of $220,000. The project has been completed and staff recommends acceptance. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on a future Consent Agenda. 5. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST FOR THE ADA CURB RAMP UPGRADES ALONG 3RD AVE City Engineer Rob English reported this project replaced ten pedestrian curb ramps, bringing them up to ADA. This project, funded by a Snohomish County Community Development Block Grant, was completed in 2015 but approval was delayed due to issues with the contractor providing certified payrolls. The final contract amount paid was $67,756 which was was under budget. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on a future Consent Agenda. 6. PRESENTATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ECC 8.64.68 - PARKING TIME LIMIT MODIFICATIONS ON MAIN ST. BETWEEN 3RD AVE AND 2ND AVE & 2ND AVE BETWEEN MAIN ST. AND BELL ST. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 4.1.a City Engineer Rob English explained when the post office was located on Main Street, there was short- term 5-minute parking on Main and on 2"d. Now that the post office is located on 2"d, the recommendation is to convert those short-term parking spaces to 3-hour parking and create 2 short-term 5-minute parking stalls in front of the new post office. Councilmember Teitzel said it felt like the number of parking stalls available for short term parking around post office had been reduced. He acknowledged there were parking spaces under the new building and there would be now be two on the street and asked if there had been a loss of parking. Mr. English answered the parking was difficult to replace in -kind due to the layout of curbs and several driveways along the frontage. Two good locations were identified for short-term parking but beyond that there is residential to the north and numerous driveways to the south. Councilmember Teitzel said the entry to the parking under the building is not well marked and suggested talking with the building owner about that. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on a future Consent Agenda. 7. PRESENTATION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH OLYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT TO FUND MINOR UTILITY RELOCATIONS FOR THE MADRONA ELEMENTARY WALKWAY PROJECT City Engineer Rob English advised this interlocal agreement is related to funding Olympic View Sewer & Water District (OVSWD) will provide for the City to relocate their sewer and water facilities when work is done on 236d' Street later this month. That section of 236d' Street is in OVSWD's district boundaries; their water and sewer facilities conflict with the installation of the new stormwater lines and may need to be relocated. This interlocal agreement is the mechanism for the City to be paid for that work. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule approval on a future Consent Agenda. 7. COUNCIL BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilmember Nelson reported he attended the Snohomish County Tomorrow annual meeting with Councilmember Tibbott that included a presentation from the COOS of Community Transit and Sound Transit regarding the massive growth in traffic, congestion in the region particularly on I-5 and the phenomenal population growth particularly in last 3 years, faster than any time since the `60s. Their presentation addressed the challenges from a planning, growth management and infrastructure point of view. He was unable to attend the SERS meeting due to his child's illness. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Health District is considering reorganization of the District and in compliance with the District's policies, have formed an Executive Committee, for which she is the vice chair, to flush out issues. She reported the Diversity Commission is hosting an Immigrant and Refugee Forum tomorrow at 6 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room. Councilmember Buckshnis reported on the WRIA 8 meeting; there are millions available for salmon recovery in the state and federal budgets. The City's lobbyist has been provided with those amounts. She reported on a workshop she attended put on by a consulting firm from Denmark hired by the Washington State Senate that addressed the scale of timing and investment in flood reduction, stormwater, water quality and water supply. Their goal is to understand the economic consequences of investing and not investing in these water infrastructures and fish habitats across the state. Keely O'Connell, Mayor Earling, Mr. Williams and she prepared and submitted a project snapshot for the Edmonds Marsh Restoration Fish Passage and Flood Reduction Project. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 4.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Tree Board is hosting an Arbor Day Celebration on October 15 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at 85d' & Main. Parks Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay developed a great planting plan and water and pizza will be provided. Council President Johnson reported she has been participating in the Long Range Financial Planning led by Mr. James. She also attended the Friends of the Edmonds Library meeting; the Friends were in jeopardy of disbanding but people stepped up to fill the board seats. She also attended the Edmonds Center for the Arts Gala, the demonstration garden open house along with many other meetings. Councilmember Teitzel reported the Port of Edmonds is doing well from a revenue standpoint but experienced approximately a 50% reductions in boat launch and fuel revenues in August and September due to the salmon fishing closure. The Port Commission has major concerns that the Waterfront Festival is becoming a miniature Taste of Edmonds with a beer garden, loud music and merchant booths and are working with the Noon Rotary to return the Waterfront Festival to a waterfront theme. The Port is working with the City to obtain a shoreline permit to redevelop a vacant gravel parking lot south of the boatyard. The Port recently completed their audit and had excellent results. Councilmember Teitzel reported the Historic Preservation Commission was assessing the recently remodeled Campbell home at 3rd & Caspers for potential inclusion on the City's Historic Registry. He is participating in the long range financial planning, including meeting with several directors to discuss how they prioritize capital needs and how to prioritize across departments with the City not individual departments in mind. Councilmember Teitzel encouraged the public to attend the final Civic Field open house on October 19 in the Library Plaza Room where the hybrid design will be presented. He recently accompanied the Stream Team doing water sampling. Councilmember Tibbott reported the Economic Development Commission (EDC) provided a 14-point recommendation for Civic Park. The EDC looks for ways to attract economic activity; he encouraged Councilmembers to review their 14 recommendations. Councilmember Tibbott reported he met the new director for the Affordable Housing Alliance and looked forward to the skill set he brings to the organization. He also met with the Edmonds Housing Task Force where he provided a summary report that Councilmember Teitzel and he received at a housing summit. The economy in the Puget Sound region is flourishing, adding 50,000 jobs annually, yet the University of Washington Runstad School reports the number of single family residences has not yet returned to 1990- 2007 levels. There has actually been a 50% reduction in the production of new single family housing since that time; previously about 12,000 houses per year were constructed, now only 6,000/year are constructed which contributes to the cost of housing. From a mortgage/banking perspective, one of the greatest challenges potential homeowners face is the down payment which continues to accelerate. Currently in Seattle about $82,000 is required for a down payment on a medium priced home and that is expected to increase to as much as $270,000. Dramatic increases in the cost of housing are occurring at the same time the number of homes produced is not increasing. There are a variety of challenges facing Edmonds with regard to the housing crisis and some are related to policies and decisions the Council makes. He encouraged anyone interested in joining the Task Force to contact him or Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported the crane in front of City Hall today delivered the new public restroom to the site. It was fascinating to watch the workers match up the pipes in the ground to the building. It will be another week or so before everything is hooked up and the fixtures are in place. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 4.1.a With regard to public comment last week about replacement of streetlights, Mayor Earling reported he had a very successful meeting with PUD today; another meeting is scheduled next Tuesday and he was hopeful the community's concerns could be assuaged. He referred to an email from Farrell Fleming that in excess of $2 million for the senior/community center is included in the capital budget proposed by the Governor. That is an important first step but it must now go through the legislature. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Teitzel reported he has had several meetings with downtown business owners about the sign code and was convinced there is an issue that needs to addressed in the short term and businesses will suffer unless something is done with the sign code. The long term answer is some type of wayfinding signage, but because there are no immediate plans for that, he urged the Council to seriously consider the business owners' comments. He wanted downtown Edmonds to be known as a business friendly area and recommended working with the businesses. He looked forward to hearing Councilmembers thoughts. Councilmember Teitzel reported he met with the President and Vice President of the Museum Board who reminded of the annual Heritage Days Benefit on November 5 at 6 p.m. at the Holy Rosary Pastoral Center. Tickets are available at www.historicedmonds.or . He thanked the Huskies for softening up the Stanford Cardinals for WSU last weekend. Council President Johnson said tickets for the Heritage Days Benefit can also be purchased at the Edmonds Historic Museum. She reminded the Civic Field open house previously scheduled for October 12 has been rescheduled to October 19. She reported the Edmonds Downtown Alliance's presentation of their annual work plan is scheduled on November 7 which may be a great time to have a further discussion regarding signage. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the citizens and business owners who have contacted the Council. She corrected misinformation; there is no ban on any type of signs. Everyone wants to support businesses but she reminded there has been a three-year process that included public testimony, public hearings, and consideration by the Planning Board, Staff and Council. Many people were involved in that process and there are plans to address the issue but it will not be a knee jerk reaction. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she attended the demo garden at the fish hatchery on Saturday that included the backyard habitat group, the marsh groups, the frog lady, etc. She found it a fun, educational opportunity to see behind the scenes. Councilmember Nelson referred to the testimony from downtown business owners regarding the challenges they face as a result of the sign code. At the time the update was passed, the Council indicated it would be reviewed within a year but it is clear that review needs to happen sooner rather than later particularly when businesses' finances are at stake. He plans to submit a resolution suspending the sign code update for up to 90 days while the Council works with citizens and businesses to find ways to better implement the sign code update. He requested the resolution be scheduled on a future agenda, either November 7th or sooner. Mayor Earling invited Councilmembers to pick up a budget book as they leave the meeting. 10. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 4.1.a 11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 11, 2016 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Odell Hobbs ($500,000.00). 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 Claim for Damages by minute entry. Narrative Odell Hobbs 15129 279th NE Duvall, WA 98019 ($500,000.00) Attachments: Hobbs Claim for Damages Packet Pg. 25 RECEIVED OCT 1 12016 ; DMONNS CITY CLERK CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM AJIJ SaNOW 9 1 a z 11100 Date Claim Form Rec ived by City Please take note that Ode]t Hobbs —,who currently resides at 15120 2791h Pl. NF. Duvs,ij WA 98019 , mailing address Some home phone # 206-6024499 , work phone # and who resided at 22514 93rd Pl. W., Edmonds, WA 98020 at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is 11/27/53 , is claiming damages against the Cltx of F,dM0nd& ` in the sum of $ 500DM.00 arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 6/15/2016 TIME: Varo LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: _ City of Edmonds DESCRIPTION: 1, Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. 17e cit Lotld& by and 11goughis e l led r. i3 i rc d 's home whit was a cd h fire. T_ (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. Qofll h,zInsurance /' • others to be identified. _ 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 X No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: and the policy #: License Plate # Type Auto: (year) DRIVER: Address: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Address: * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (make) (model) OWNER: Address: Phone#: Name: Address: Dorm Revised 05ro6n4 Page I of 2 a� a� E ca L E M U N 0 m Packet Pg. 26 4.2.a * * NOTE: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND NOTARIZED * * I,NA00 -' _ _ , being first duly sworn, depose and that I am the claimant for the above described; that I have read the above claim, know the contents thereof and believe the met be true. urther acknowledge that any information 1 provide as part of this claim may be considered a public record and may bje to diIscl ure pursuant to RCW 42.56. x x Signature of Claimant(s) State of Washilgton County of 6j r I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ©OW I AklbbS 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 ,©111 r 2-0 �rgnatufe �44-1!z-1 Title —� My appointment expires: Please present the completed claim form to: Form Revised ON06114 ALEAWMA-1 � NOTARY PU"KC STATE OF WASHIfGTON 20 ci l t** tW*ft 1&30 City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5"h Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a-m. to 4:30 p.m. Page 2of2 ar a� E ca 0 E U N O m Packet Pg. 27 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Approval of claim checks. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #222268 through #222378 dated October 13, 2016 for $361,135.32 (reissued check #222289 $610.00). Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks. Fiscal Impact Claims $361,135.32 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 10-13-16 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 10-13-16 Packet Pg. 28 4.3.a vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222268 10/13/2016 073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 232175 222269 10/13/2016 072189 ACCESS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 1631367 222270 10/13/2016 075197 AGREEMENT DYNAMICS INC 222271 10/13/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 4843 1988815046 1988825893 1988825894 PO # Description/Account EMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTING 1 PRE -EMPLOYMENT DT [NON-DOl 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 Total STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 10/01/1 STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 10/01/2 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Total COACHING SESSIONS 2 COACHING SESSIONS WITH HR 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 Total FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 WWTP: 10/5/16 UNIFORMS, TOWEL 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 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 Page: 1 Amoun N 52.0( 52.0( E 85.0( o 85.0( 0 a Q. Q 500.0( 500.0( r co m 24.9( M r o_ 2.4z N E 5.1( 115.9E m E 0.5( a r 11.31 Q 55.4( 24.9( Page: 1 Packet Pg. 29 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222271 10/13/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 2 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.4z w 1988829961 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE t 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: M 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1' 6 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE o 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1' 5 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE o L 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1' 0- PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE Q 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: to 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0£ Z, 9.8% Sales Tax co 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1( M 9.8% Sales Tax r 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6( 9.8% Sales Tax Y 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6( 9.8% Sales Tax E 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6( 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 c 0.6( 9.8% Sales Tax E E 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.5£ um 1988829962 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT Q FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 5.6£ FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 18.4( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 0.5( Page: 2 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 3 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222271 10/13/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.8( Total: 304.8' 222272 10/13/2016 075523 ART WALK EDMONDS TPROMO AWE TPROMO AWE TPROMO AW E 123.000.64.573.20.41.00 750.0( Total: 750.0( 222273 10/13/2016 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE0916 BACKGROUND CHECKS 9 WA BACKGROUND CHECKS- 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 90.0( Total: 90.0( 222274 10/13/2016 075818 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 7-04400 #160218477 UTILITY REFUND DUE #160218477 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 237.5( Total: 237.5( 222275 10/13/2016 073041 BECK & ASSOCIATES PLLC 2016-EDM-09 CONSULTING CONSULTING 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 489.8� Total: 489.8$ 222276 10/13/2016 075465 BLACK, SHANNON WOTS PHOTOS WOTS PHOTOS WOTS PHOTOS 123.000.64.573.20.49.00 375.0( Total: 375.0( 222277 10/13/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 0920404-IN UNITS 26 PRK, 96 PRK, 71 STR - PF Units 26 Prk, 96 Prk, 71 Str - Propane 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 16,800.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,646.4( 6761 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 684.5 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 684.5 Gal Page: 3 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 4 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222277 10/13/2016 074307 BLUE STAR GAS (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 709.4< 6800 FLEET AUTO PROPANE 560 GAL Fleet Auto Propane 560 Gal 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 579.7( Total: 19,735.5: 222278 10/13/2016 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 562510 UNIT 106 RETURNS Unit 106 Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -162.4, 9.6% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -15.5� 565734 UNIT 24 - SUPPLIES 9.6% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 115.41 Unit 24 - Supplies 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 161.1( 569106 UNIT 6 - PAD SET Unit 6 - Pad Set 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 82.1 z 9.6% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.8� 569167 UNIT 6 - HDW KIT Unit 6 - HDW Kit 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 14.5z 9.6% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.4( Total: 104.5$ 222279 10/13/2016 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 5171 YOGA 5171 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5171 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 396.3( 5177 YOGA 5177 YOGA INSTRUCTION 5177 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 446.4( 5180 YOGA 5180 YOGA INSTRUCTION Page: 4 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222279 10/13/2016 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY (Continued) 5180 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Total: 222280 10/13/2016 069295 BROWN, CANDY 5004 OWLS AND RAPTOR 5004 OWLS AND RAPTORS INSTRI 5004 OWLS AND RAPTORS INSTRI 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total: 222281 10/13/2016 074294 BROWN, TODD 5005 MASON BEES 5005 RAISE YOUR OWN MASON BE 5005 RAISE YOUR OWN MASON BE 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total: 222282 10/13/2016 074776 BUCKSHNIS, DIANE 92016 TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT Round trip mileage to Bellevue WRIA 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 Tota I : 222283 10/13/2016 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 5031 DRAWING 5031 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING It 5031 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING It 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 5045 DRAWING 5045 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING It 5045 ADVENTURES IN DRAWING It 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total: 222284 10/13/2016 075778 CAVANAUGH, CHRISTOPHER 075778 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 Total: 222285 10/13/2016 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC FLM2121 HARD DRIVES FOR WWTP DOMAIt HP 300GB 12GB SAS 10K 2.51N SC 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 4.3.a Page: 5 Page: 5 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 6 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222285 10/13/2016 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC (Continued) 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 42.Z FMF2235 WWTP DOMAIN CONTROLLER REF HP DL160 GEN9 E5-2609V3 SFF SR 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,568.0E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 153.E , FMT7423 EXTENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT HPE 5Y NBD DL 160 GEN9 FC SVC 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 883.7z 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 86.6' Total: 3,165.2' 222286 10/13/2016 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN09161027 CYLINDER RENTAL CYLINDER RENTAL 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 23.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.28.45.00 2.2: Total: 25.2! 222287 10/13/2016 075779 CHONG, MARISA 075779 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 12.7( Total: 12.7( 222288 10/13/2016 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E6FA.ENG20160424 E6FA.ENG20160424 ROW PERMIT E6FA,ENG20160424 ROW Permit 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 115.0( Total: 115.0( 222289 10/13/2016 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS E5FB.STF20160018 E5FB.STF20160018 LAND USE FEE E5FB.STF20160018 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 610.0( Total: 610.0( 222290 10/13/2016 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC 0285941-IN UNIT 66 - PARTS Page: 6 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 7 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222290 10/13/2016 075648 COVICH-WILLIAMS CO INC (Continued) Unit 66 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 45.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 4.4, Total : 222291 10/13/2016 075546 CUBIC SIMULATION SYSTEMS 0840S17_00lZ INV#0840517 001Z - EDMONDS PC L440 LASER INSERT (DRY FIRE) BL 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 L440 LASER INSERT (DRY FIRE) BL 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 BATTERY PACKS 1-440/1-540 SERIE: 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 Total: 222292 10/13/2016 069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS INC IN00015044 INV#INV00015044 - EDMONDS PC BATTERY GUN AC -DC CHARGER 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.71.35.00 Tota I : 222293 10/13/2016 075820 DELL MARKETING LP XJX273J45 PD SURVEILLANCE STORAGE SYS Dell Storage system for Police 001.000.31.594.18.64.10 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.31.594.18.64.10 Total: 222294 10/13/2016 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 90112016090047 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098 Scan Services for September 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 Page: 7 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 8 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222294 10/13/2016 047450 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES (Continued) Total: 1,231.4( 222295 10/13/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 16-3698 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 9/2/2016 09/27/2016 CITY COUNCIL MEETIN( 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 369.6( 16-3701 INV#16-3701 - EDMONDS PD TRANSCRIPTION CASE #IA16-002 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 178.2( TRANSCRIPTION CASE #16-15938 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 39.6( TRANSCRIPTION CASE #16-20049 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 151.8( Total: 739.2( 222296 10/13/2016 075153 DOPPS, MARIA 14226 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 100.8' 14240 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 100.8' Total: 201.6, 222297 10/13/2016 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 5138642454 ADVERTISEMENT IN PREFERRED I ADVERTISEMENT IN PREFERRED 1 001.000.64.571.22.41.40 345.0( Total: 345.0( 222298 10/13/2016 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER 2016-10-01 10/16 RECREATION SERVICES COP 10/16 Recreation Services Contract F 001.000.39.569.10.41.00 5,000.0( Total: 5,000.0( 222299 10/13/2016 075780 EISELE, JEAN 075780 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 12.1( Total: 12.1E Page: 8 Packet Pg. 36 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 9 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222300 10/13/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH723696 CITY ORDINANCES 4040, 4041, 404 CITY ORDINANCE NO. 4040, 4041, , 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 53.3, EDH723737 CITY NOTICE ASSUMPTION/RIGHT; CITY NOTICES- 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 37.8z Total: 91.1E 222301 10/13/2016 063953 EVERGREEN STATE HEAT & A/C 32067 FS 20 - TROUBLESHOOT AND REP/ FS 20 - Troubleshoot and Repairs 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,472.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 144.2( Total: 1,616.2E 222302 10/13/2016 075807 FORREST GARDENS LLC #2 CITY DOWNTOWN RESTROOM - PI City Downtown Restroom - Pre 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 39,438.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 3,866.0( Total: 43.304.0( 222303 10/13/2016 075536 FREGON ESE ASSOCIATES 222304 10/13/2016 011900 FRONTIER 10/11/61 206-188-0247 253-011-1177 CONSULTING CONSULTING 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 Total TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY A, 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE Page: 9 Packet Pg. 37 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 10 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222304 10/13/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 24.Z _ PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' vi 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 24.Z PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' t 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 24.Z PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' M 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 24.Z 6 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' o 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 24.3( 5 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M o CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSIOI` L a Q. 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 131.3( Q 425-774-1031 LIFT STATION #8 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #8 TWO VOICE GRAI r to 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 47.2E 425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI' M 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 66.4( r 425-776-1281 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( r SNO-ISLE LIBRARY ELEVATOR PH( Y 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 53.8� 425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACCI E LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIAL ACC c° 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.2� ; 425-776-5316 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII m 425-776-5316 PARKS MAINT FAX LII E 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 98.1 z U Total: 1,072.9' r Q 222305 10/13/2016 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR 13720 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 105.3, 14660 INTERPRETERR FEE INTERPRETERR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 105.3, Page: 10 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 11 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222305 10/13/2016 075163 075163 GARCIA-GARCIA, CESAR (Continued) Total: 210.61 222306 10/13/2016 074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES 34792 ESJA.SERVICES THRU SEPTEMBEI ESJA.Services thru September 2016 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 2,040.1 £ Total: 2,040.1 E 222307 10/13/2016 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 133622 FLEET TIRE INVENTORY (4) Fleet Tire Inventory (4) 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 606.7E State Tire Fees 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 4.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 59.4E Total: 670.2, 222308 10/13/2016 073827 GRABSTEIN, TERESA WOTS CONTEST WOTS CONTEST WOTS CONTEST 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 75.0( Total: 75.0( 222309 10/13/2016 075781 HARBERT, WILLIAM 075781 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 18.1( Total: 18.1( 222310 10/13/2016 074814 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC 32589 E3FH.SERVICES THRU 8/31/16 E3FH.Services thru 8/31/16 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 32,477.5< Total: 32,477.5: 222311 10/13/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 6011038 WWTP: BEHR PPUE SG UPW & PP BEHR PPUE SG UPW & PP I/E LT PI 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 264.9£ 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 25.1 , 7086052 WWTP: GE SILICONE Page: 11 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 12 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222311 10/13/2016 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued) GE Silicone 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 15.9, 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.5' 9010572 WWTP: POLY SHEETS/LIQ LAUNDF POLY SHEETS/LIQ LAUNDRY 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 352.7, 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 33.5' 9087226 WWTP: AA BATTERIES/WASP & HC AA BATTERIES/WASP & HORNET T' 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 19.8, 9.5% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.81 Total: 715.5( 222312 10/13/2016 075119 HOPE, SHANE 09302016 MILEAGE MILEAGE 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 170.7: Total: 170.7! 222313 10/13/2016 075782 HOVICK, KATHRYN 075782 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 15.1 £ Total: 15.11 222314 10/13/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2854789 CITY CLERKS SUPPLIES - REPORT ACCO PRESSTEX REPORT COVER 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 74.5( 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 7.3( 2856465 CITY CLERKS OFFICE SUPPLIES RUBBERMAID SINGLE POCKET WA 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 35.0' 9.8% Sales Tax Page: 12 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 13 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222314 10/13/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 3.4< 2861675 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 403.1 2861754 OFFICE SUPPIES-PAPER OFFICE SUPPLIES -PAPER 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 131.7< 2861816 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 001.000.23.512.50.31.00 44.4: 2862032 OFFICE SUPPLIES -STAMP OFFICE SUPPLIES -STAMP 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 22.8, 2862114 OFFICE SUPPLIES -FOLDERS OFFICE SUPPLIES -FOLDERS 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 176.8� Total: 899.2 , 222315 10/13/2016 075783 INGWERSEN, REBECCA 075783 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 11.3( Total: 11.3( 222316 10/13/2016 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 567996 UNIT 130 - BATTERY Unit 130 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 91.6, 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.9£ Total: 100.6( 222317 10/13/2016 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN 201080566 09-16 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE SE Sept-2016 Off site data storage servi( 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 164.8 , Tota I : 164.8 , Page: 13 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222318 10/13/2016 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 4154 FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC Sept-16 Fiber Optics Internet Connec 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.31.518.87.42.00 Total 222319 10/13/2016 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 300082863 INV#300082863 ACCT#100828 - EDI 10 CASES MULTI USE COPY PAPEF 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 HANDLING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 Total: 222320 10/13/2016 067568 KPG INC 62916 E3DD.SERVICES THRU 6/30/16 E3DD.Services thru 6/30/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 92916 E3DD.SERVICES THRU 9/25/16 E3DD.Services thru 9/25/16 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Total: 222321 10/13/2016 075784 KRAM, LORRAINE 075784 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 Total: 222322 10/13/2016 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 10042016-01 INV#10042016-01 - EDMONDS PD - 20 CAR WASHES @$5.04 (INC TX) 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 Total: 222323 10/13/2016 075785 LANDWEHR, SHEILA 075785 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 4.3.a Page: 14 Page: 14 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 15 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222323 10/13/2016 075785 LANDWEHR, SHEILA (Continued) 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 18.3, Total: 18.3; 222324 10/13/2016 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4494574 INV#4494574 ACCT#2185-952778-T INVOICE #4494574 SHREDDING SE 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 2.3< INVOICE #4494574 SHREDDING SE 001.000.31.514.23.41.00 2.3, 4494782 INV#4494782 ACCT#2185-952778-8 SHRED 2 TOTES @ $4.65 9/28/16 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 9.3( Total: 13.9E 222325 10/13/2016 075786 LONG, DAVID 075786 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 14.4< Total: 14.4; 222326 10/13/2016 075787 LOTZ, MARTHA 075787 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 10.3, Total: 10.3, 222327 10/13/2016 075788 LYSHOL, SHIRLEY 075788 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 10.1' Total: 10.1' 222328 10/13/2016 075789 MARTINSON, KRISTIN 075789 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 19.8< Total: 19.& 222329 10/13/2016 075790 MATTINGLEY, FAYE 075790 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 10.3, Page: 15 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 16 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222329 10/13/2016 075790 075790 MATTINGLEY, FAYE (Continued) Total: 10.3, 222330 10/13/2016 075143 MEDVEDEV, ANDREI 14427 INTERPRETERR FEE INTERPRETERR FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 105.2( Total: 105.2( 222331 10/13/2016 075590 MOBILEGUARD INC 09901 09-16 NETGUARD MONTHLY SERVI NetGuard Monthly Service Building 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 36.0( NetGuard Monthly Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Communit 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Developm, 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Engineerir 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 84.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 48.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Human Re 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Informatioi 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 36.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Mayor's 0- 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Parks 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 12.0( NetGuard Monthly Service Police 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 240.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 30.0( Page: 16 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222331 10/13/2016 075590 MOBILEGUARD INC 222332 10/13/2016 075822 NEOPOST NORTHWEST Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 17 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 3.0( Y NetGuard Monthly Service PW Water 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 3.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Sewei E 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 30.0( '@ NetGuard Monthly Service PW Storm U 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.0( o NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 18.0( 0- NetGuard Monthly Service PW Fleet a 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 Q. 6.0( Q NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admir 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 2.1( to NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admir 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 0.6( co NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admir M 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 2.1( r NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admir 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 0.6( Y NetGuard Monthly Service PW Admir 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 0.6( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 6.0( NetGuard Monthly Service PW Street 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 6.0( t NetGuard Monthly Service WWTP U 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 30.0( Q Total : 642.0( NWDAR186405 SURE SEAL & ADHESIVE TAPE SURE SEAL SOLUTION AND ADHE: 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 66.9z Freight Page: 17 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 18 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222332 10/13/2016 075822 NEOPOST NORTHWEST (Continued) 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 14.9� 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 8.0: Total: 89.9E 222333 10/13/2016 075520 NOBLE, LINDA 14573 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 106.6E Total: 106.6E 222334 10/13/2016 068117 NPELRA HARDIE33679 2017 WAPELRA& NPELRA JOINT IV 2017 WAPELRA & NPELRA JOINT IV 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 200.0( Total: 200.0( 222335 10/13/2016 075791 O HARE, SUSAN 075791 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 17.3z Total: 17.31 222336 10/13/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 116109 P&RADMIN: LAMINATING POUCHE P&RADMIN: LAMINATING POUCHE 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 51.6: 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 5.0( 151155 P&RADMIN: ENVELOPES, TABS P&RADMIN: ENVELOPES, TABS 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 28.01 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 2.7z Total: 87.5, 222337 10/13/2016 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER September, 2016 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI• Emergency Medical Services & Traun 001.000.237.120 1.254.9 1 Page: 18 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222337 10/13/2016 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER (Continued) 222338 10/13/2016 074545 OLDS-OLYMPIC INC 222339 10/13/2016 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY 000511-162401 PO # Description/Account PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account 001.000.237.130 Building Code Fee Account 001.000.237.150 State Patrol Death Investigation 001.000.237.330 Judicial Information Systems Account 001.000.237.180 School Zone Safety Account 001.000.237.200 Washington Auto Theft Prevention 001.000.237.250 Traumatic Brain Injury 001.000.237.260 Accessible Communities Acct 001.000.237.290 Multi -Model Transportation 001.000.237.300 Hwy Safety Acct 001.000.237.320 Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis 001.000.237.170 WSP Hwy Acct 001.000.237.340 Total UNIT 107 - FUEL Unit 107 - Fuel 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 2-366989 UNIT 6 - BRAKE ROTOR Unit 6 - Brake Rotor 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax Total 4.3.a Page: 19 Amoun 26,789.7: Y a� 135.0( E 71.4E 5,795.1: o c� 289.9' o a a 2,492.2, Q r 486.0Eto 177.7E w M 177.70 r 0 r 113.4( Y 40.6( 405.7( 38,229.9' E t U a r r 219.2' Q 219.2' 242.8� Page: 19 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222339 10/13/2016 073896 OLYMPIC BRAKE SUPPLY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2-366996 2-367104 2-367291 222340 10/13/2016 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 16-013 222341 10/13/2016 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS PO # Description/Account 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 6 - OIL SEALS Unit 6 - Oil Seals 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 6 - RETURNS Unit 6 - Returns 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 125 - BRAKE PADS Unit 125 - Brake Pads 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total : E6CA.50% FULL WIDTH GRIND & O E6CA.50% Full Width Grind & Overla 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Total 3685-231797 UNIT G01 - PARTS Unit G01 - Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3685-233221 UNIT E128PO - MUD FLAPS Unit E128PO - Mud Flaps 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 3685-233391 UNIT 6 - BRAKE ROTOR Unit 6 - Brake Rotor 4.3.a Page: 20 Page: 20 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222341 10/13/2016 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 222342 10/13/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota I : 136526 PM: TOPSOIL DELIVERY PM: TOPSOIL DELIVERY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 229249 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 229258 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 229279 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 229414 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 229867 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 229902 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 229953 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 229969 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 229982 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 4.3.a Page: 21 Page: 21 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 22 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222342 10/13/2016 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS (Continued) PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 120.0( 230007 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.0( 230256 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.0( 230278 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 84.0( 230294 PM YARD WASTE DUMP CUST # 51 PM YARD WASTE DUMP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.0( Total: 1,672.31 222343 10/13/2016 075819 PANGELINAN, FRED 10616WKCLO WWTP: REIMBURSEMENT FOR WH $83.32 is the pro -rated allowance for 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 83.3, Total: 83.3, 222344 10/13/2016 075792 PARK, MARGERY 075792 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 12.1( Total: 12.1E 222345 10/13/2016 069633 PET PROS 0014317-IN INV#0014317-IN - EDMONDS PD - H NUTRI CHKN/RICE 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 45.5� 9.9% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 4.5' Total: 50.1( 222346 10/13/2016 074793 PETDATA INC 5346 INV#5346 - EDMONDS PD - SEPT 2( 5 1-YR PET LICENSES @ $3.90 Page: 22 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222346 10/13/2016 074793 PETDATA INC 222347 10/13/2016 075183 PETERSON FRUIT CO 222348 10/13/2016 008350 PETTY CASH Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1 LATE FEE @ $2.50 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 Tota I : 358886 SEP2016 WELLNESS COMMITTE FI 56-64 JONAGOLD 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 8/1# STRAWBERRIES 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 19# XL SCARLETT ROYAL 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 24# PLUOTS 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 Total: 10/12 PARKS PETTY CA 10/12 PARKS PETTY CASH STEELE-SMITH: JOANN: GYMNAST 001.000.64.571.28.31.00 COLLEY: FRED MEYER: DISCOVER 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 COLLEY: WALGREENS: DISCOVER 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 PARKER: IKEA: REPLACEMENT KN 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 CHAPIN: COSTCO: WOTS SUPPLIE 117.100.64.573.20.31.00 LEACH: EDMONDS HARDWARE: GI 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 LEACH: HOME DEPOT: BATTERIES 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 LEACH: JOANN: PINS FOR BIRD FE 001.000.61.558.70.31.00 COLLEY: HOME DEPOT: DISCOVEF 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 4.3.a Page: 23 Page: 23 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222348 10/13/2016 008350 008350 PETTY CASH (Continued) Total: 123.8i 222349 10/13/2016 075793 POPE, TRAVIS 075793 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 10.7 , Total: 10.7, 222350 10/13/2016 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR, PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR 422.000.72.531.90.51.00 2,770.7� Total: 2,770.7� 222351 10/13/2016 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 1� 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 53.6 1 Total: 53.6 , 222352 10/13/2016 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 15-3289 222353 10/13/2016 031500 REID MIDDLETON & ASSOC INC 1609064 222354 10/13/2016 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 3-0197-0800478 COURT SECURITY COURT SECURITY 001.000.23.512.50.41.00 Total E3FE/E6FA.SERVICES THRU 9/23/1 E3FE.Services thru 9/23/16 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 E6FA.Services thru 9/23/16 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Total FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 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 Page: 24 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222354 10/13/2016 061540 REPUBLIC SERVICES #197 (Continued) 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 3-0197-0801132 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3-0197-0829729 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 Tota I : 222355 10/13/2016 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY SEPT 2016 INVOICE DATED 9/30/2016 ACCT#7 #190758 - 3 NPC - 9/15/2016 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 #189421 - 2 NPC - 9/29/2016 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 Tota I : 222356 10/13/2016 075794 SCHACHLE, EVELYN 075794 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 Total: 222357 10/13/2016 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S3-1206403 UNIT P8 - BRAKE SHOES Unit P8 - Brake Shoes 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 S3-1206422 FLEET BRAKE PARTS INVENTORY Fleet Brake Parts Inventory 4.3.a Page: 25 Page: 25 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222357 10/13/2016 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC 222358 10/13/2016 074997 SEITEL SYSTEMS, LLC 222359 10/13/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 S3-1216604 UNIT 796 - SPARK PLUGS, COIL PAI Unit 796 - Spark Plugs, Coil Parts 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 S3-1250279 UNIT 448 - TRANS FLUID Unit 448 - Trans Fluid 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 S3-1265555 UNIT 132 - STARTER Unit 132 - Starter 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 S3-1302514 UNIT 6 - BATTERY Unit 6 - Battery 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total: 38271 ONSITE COMPUTER SUPPORT Onsite computer support - 9/13/16 001.000.31.518.88.41.00 Total: 0206448-IN UNIT E108PO - LIGHTING Unit E108PO - Lighting 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 4.3.a Page: 26 Page: 26 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 27 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222359 10/13/2016 068489 SIRENNET.COM (Continued) 206075-IN UNIT E108PO - LIGHTING _ Unit E108PO - Lighting vi 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 799.0( 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 78.3( E 206347-IN UNIT E124POWC DUO DIAMOND O Unit E124poWC Duo Diamond Optx 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 2,925.0( o 9.8% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 286.6: o L Total: 5,295.6', a Q 222360 10/13/2016 036955 SKY NURSERY T-0811229 CEMETERY: ACCENTS, ANNUALS CEMETERY: ACCENTS, ANNUALS r 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 63.4( 9.5% Sales Tax m 130.000.64.536.50.31.00 6.0, T-0811232 FLOWER PROGRAM: LIBRARY COP M r FLOWER PROGRAM: LIBRARY COP c 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 94.8z r N 9.5% Sales Tax cYi 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 9.0, E T-0811237 FLOWER PROGRAM: LIBRARY COP FLOWER PROGRAM: LIBRARY COP 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 219.9 1 9.5% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 20.9( U Total: 414.1� r Q 222361 10/13/2016 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 20899 SKYHAWKS 20899 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 20899 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 19.3 1 20903 SKYHAWKS 20903 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 20903 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 275.6, Page: 27 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 28 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222361 10/13/2016 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY (Continued) 20908 SKYHAWKS 20908 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 20908 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 1,201.2z 20909 SKYHAWKS 20909 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 20909 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 2,363.7E 20910 SKYHAWKS 20910 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 20910 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 489.3 1 20912 SKYHAWKS 20912 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 20912 SKYHAWKS INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 337.4 , Total: 4,686.8, 222362 10/13/2016 075795 SMITH, ANN 075795 JUROR FEE 9/16/16 JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 13.6 1 Total: 13.6, 222363 10/13/2016 075796 SMITH, DOLORES 075796 JUROR FEE JUROR FEE 001.000.23.512.50.49.20 10.2, Total: 10.2, 222364 10/13/2016 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST# 1 5060 FIRSTAID/CPR 5060 FIRSTAID/CPR INSTRUCTION 5060 FIRSTAID/CPR INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 100.0( Total: 100.0( 222365 10/13/2016 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDERASSOC 1536 EXPERT WITNESS EXPERT WITNESS 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 629.7( 1607 SEPT 2016 PUBLIC DEFENSE SER\ SEPT 2016 PUBLIC DEFENSE SER\ 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 28,236.91 Page: 28 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222365 10/13/2016 075543 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSO( (Continued) 222366 10/13/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2005-9488-5 2006-5085-1 2006-5164-4 2013-8327-0 2017-1178-5 2017-9000-3 2021-1448-4 2025-2918-6 2025-2920-2 2025-7615-3 2025-7948-8 2047-1489-3 4.3.a Page: 29 PO # Description/Account Amoun Total : 28,866.E , TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W vi TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W Y 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 15.9( CITY PARK RESTROOMS U CITY PARK RESTROOMS E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.9( u PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP o PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 700.6: o CITY PARK GAZEBO a CITY PARK GAZEBO Q- Q 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.4, STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ r STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @ to 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 734.9' ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH r 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 18.9' o CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL N CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL Y 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 43.7( E STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @ 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 3,036.3� c STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 E E STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 120.4, STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C Q STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS C 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15,087.3z STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 360.9� STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' Page: 29 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 30 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222366 10/13/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) STREET LIGHTING (1 LIGHT @ 150' 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 4.8z 2047-1492-7 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (18 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 107.6' 2047-1493-5 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 STREET LIGHTING (5 LIGHTS @ 40 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 56.7' 2047-1494-3 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 STREET LIGHTING (2 LIGHTS @ 10 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 14.4, 2047-1495-0 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 STREET LIGHTING (26 LIGHTS @ 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 195.6£ 2051-8438-5 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / N LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / N 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 22.8� Total: 20,557.7, 222367 10/13/2016 072776 SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DIST 2455 E6FC.SERVICES THRU 6/30/16 E6FC.Services thru 6/30/16 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 16,577.3. Total: 16,577.3, 222368 10/13/2016 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER September 2016 Crime Victims Court Remittance Crime Victims Court Remittance 001.000.237.140 662.2( Total: 662.2E 222369 10/13/2016 075823 SOUDERS INDEPENDENT MEDICAL 6Z0031032 EXPERT WITNESS EXPERT WITNESS 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 1,225.0( Total: 1,225.0( 222370 10/13/2016 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 22741/4 FAC MAINT WORK JEANS (4) J PL/ Page: 30 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 31 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222370 10/13/2016 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS (Continued) Fac Maint Work Jeans (4) J Platt 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 163.0 1 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 15.9£ Total: 179.0E 222371 10/13/2016 040572 SUPER SEER CORP 61393 INV#61393 CUST #AE052 - EDMONI FULL COVERAGE 3/4 HELMET 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 395.0( CUSTOM EMBLEM 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 12.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.71.24.00 21.0( Total: 428.0( 222372 10/13/2016 075649 TEITZEL, DAVE 27516 TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT AWC event in Levenworth - 244 mileE 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 120.9( Total: 120.9E 222373 10/13/2016 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 93536 INK FOR LARGE PRINTER Ink for Large printer 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 865.7 1 94049 PAPER FOR LARGE PRINTER PAPER FOR LARGE PRINTER 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 357.4( 94049 RETURN OF PAPER FOR LARGE PI RETURN PAPER FOR LARGE PRIN' 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 -216.1 E Total: 1,007.01 222374 10/13/2016 075691 TIBBOTT, NEIL 93016 TRAVEL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMEI Travel Expenses for Council Member 001.000.11.511.60.43.00 85.4z Total: 85.41 Page: 31 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222375 10/13/2016 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 32 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 5179 MICROSOFT SURFACE, QUANTUM Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 21.5" l _ 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 384.8E vi Newegg.com - ORICO M31-14 High Sr 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 59.9E Newegg.com - Logitech MK550 2AG1 E 001.000.23.523.30.35.00 58.0( Amazon - Anker Bluetooth Folio Keyl 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 39.5. o Amazon - Anker Bluetooth Folio Keyl; 001.000.11.511.60.35.00 39.5, 0- Newegg.com - Intel NUC Mini Barebc a Q. 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 675.5E Q Newegg.com - Samsung 850 EVO 25 r 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 219.9( to Newegg.com - Kopul Y-Cable with 1/E 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 15.3E w Provantage - LTO 6 Media cartridges M 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 168.8E r CDW-G - Microsoft Surface Book 13.! o r 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 1,818.8 1 Y CDW-G - SarTech Model PAC101 12' 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 4.41 E Quantum Corporation - Support Servi 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 1,612.0, CDW-G - Microsoft Complete for busi m 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 520.5' t Newegg.com - Coboc AD-MDP2HD4M U 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 10.9� Q Amazon - Black+Decker LI2000 3.6 v 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 20.3� Newegg.com - Microsoft Surface Ethe 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 32.7 , Bulkregister - SSL Certificate Comod( 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 267.0( Page: 32 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222375 10/13/2016 062693 US BANK 222376 10/13/2016 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 222377 10/13/2016 075155 WALKER MACY LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 33 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) Newegg.com - DocuHolder 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 12.7: w Bulkregister - Domain name registrati U 001.000.31.518.88.49.00 30.1' Newegg.com - APC AP9630 UPS Nei E 00 1. 000. 31.518.88.35. 00 391.9E Newegg.com - APC SU1400RMXLB3 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 101.7z o Newegg.com - Kopul Y-Cable with 1/E 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 20.5, o CDW-G - Microsoft Surface Pro 4 12. a Q. 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 1,662.9( Q Newegg.com - APC Smart UPS 2200 r 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 1,085.9< to CDW-G - Microsoft Complete Accider 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 416.2( m Newegg.com - Seagate Desktop HDE M 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 159.9E r IBM - Mobile Threat Management Ser 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 527.0z Y 8842 GFOATRAINING FOR D SHARP GFOA Governmental GAAP Update L E 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 135.0( 9573 GFOATRAINING FOR D TURLEY GFOA Governmental GAAP Update L 001.000.31.514.23.49.00 135.0( E Total: 10,627.71 um 201127122 PROBATION TRAINING FOR GAME, r r Q PROBATION TRAINING FOR GAME 001.000.23.523.30.49.00 502.0( Total : 502.0( P3282.01-5 CIVIC FIELD MASTER PLAN CIVIC FIELD MASTER PLAN Page: 33 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 10/13/2016 9:16:56AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 4.3.a Page: 34 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 222377 10/13/2016 075155 WALKER MACY LLC (Continued) 125.000.64.576.80.41.00 8,922.4z Total: 8,922.41 Y 222378 10/13/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7178 INV#7178 - EDMONDS PD w t PRINTING 3 SETS OF CARDS U 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 48.9< .E 1,000 GENERIC BUSINESS CARDS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 32.6, o SET UP 3 NEW NAMES @ 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 24.0( p 9.8% Sales Tax a 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 10.3z Q Total: 115.8� 111 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : r 361,745.3, 111 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 361,745.3, M r O r N Y V E V a+ C d E L V R r r Q Page: 34 Packet Pg. 62 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA a) v WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC E STM 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA o STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA > 0 SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC Q. a SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA Q STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB m WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB v WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA rn SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC y WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC E WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB ? 0 WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA d SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA m rn WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 >, STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD y 0 STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB L WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 LL STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC r a� STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD E v STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB Q STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC AN Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E5LA STR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA PRK City Spray Park c417 E4MA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB Revised 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 63 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) 4.3.b 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 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 64 4.3.b 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 E5KA 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 ui U m t v E 2 U 0 0 L a a m Revised 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 65 4.3.b 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 y STR E2AD SElWy 99 Enhancements (Phase y z STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements v E STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW t an Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study v 'Nor C SWR 0 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation M STR E3AB c427 SR104 Corridor Transportation Study p L STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) =- STR E3DC c424 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) Q 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 to STM E3FE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th to STM E3FH c430 SW Edmonds-1 05th/1 06th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Pr ' E WTR E3J13 c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) Z_ FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Proje a` STR E4CA c438 2014 Overlay Program m N STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals T WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays as STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept u_ STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements E STM c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin v M STM E4FC c435 2014 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Q I&T 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 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 66 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title WWTP EnErSewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring WTR E4J13 c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR 60 2016 Water Comp Plan Update FAC E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK lffi7ty Spray FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR ackside Warning System STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STR 2015 Overlay Program WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR §Wl5 Sewerline Overla STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project General dmonds Waterfront Access Analysi STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD V 79 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Protect SWR E5G13 s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA �c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects WJLR E5J13 c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating EMILE5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates STR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STR E6DI3 s016 ADA Transition Plan Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements d Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WWR E6GB Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update E6J13 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) Dayton Street Plaza Revised 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 67 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Proiect Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 68 4.3.b 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 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 69 4.3.b 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 y STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project y t STR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program v E STM E51FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects O WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects p L STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System Q STR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming Q STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E51KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating 77 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 y STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility E PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza Z O WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications d WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) m N 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 3 a SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II L u_ STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays E STR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program v ca WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays Q 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 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 70 4.3.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Proiect Accounting Funding Number Number Proiect Title STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan Revised 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 71 4.3.b 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 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 72 4.3.b 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 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 73 4.3.b 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 10/12/2016 Packet Pg. 74 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 2016 3rd Quarter Budget Amendment Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Debra Sharp Background/History Budget Ordinances 4014, 4019, 4024 and 4038 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council forward the 3rd Quarter Budget Amendment to Consent for Approval of Ordinance No. XXXX amending the 2016 Budget. Narrative There are a total of 17 budget amendments. There are two items that have previously been discussed by Council. They include the Downtown Restrooms and the Stormwater Code Update Phase 2. There are 15 new budget amendments. There are only two budget amendments that effect the General Fund ending fund balance. The first is a transfer from the General Fund to the Municipal Arts Fund in the amount of $500 for 1% for the Arts related to the Green Room. The second is an interfund transfer from the General Fund to the Contingency Reserve Fund related to the Fire District 1 contract. The remaining General Fund expenditures do not effect ending fund balance. They are either a re -allocation of expenditures or have offsetting new revenues. The City is proposing closing two funds. The City proposes closing the Multimodal Fund and moving the money to the General Fund. The City also proposes closing a debt service fund regarding an LID that was paid off and moving the remaining funds to the Contingency Reserve Fund. The City paid of the related LID bonds so the Fund is no longer required. There are still payments being made on past due accounts for one of the debt service funds so the Fund will remain open. There are two budget amendments related to the Utility Funds. The on -call Stormwater Engineering Services budget amendment does not effect ending fund balance. It is a reallocation of expenditures. The LS#1 Metering and Flow Study reduces fund balance by $51,000. Attachments: 3rd Quarter Budget Amendment Ordinance Packet Pg. 75 4.4.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4038 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2016 Budget; and THEREFORE, WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 4038 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2016 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take I Packet Pg. 76 4.4.a effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED: MAYOR, DAVE EARLING 2 Packet Pg. 77 4.4.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4038 AS A RESULT EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of ,2016. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Pg. 78 EXHIBIT "A": Budget Amendment Summary (October 2016) 4.4.a FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 2016 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES 2016 ENDING FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 9,359,440 39,352,810 41,244,806 7,467,444 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 519,410 278,770 279,480 518,700 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 961,510 6,660 - 968,170 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 4,677,030 723,146 800,000 4,600,176 013 MULTI MODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 56,490 370 56,860 - 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 2,590 5,000 5,400 2,190 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 118,080 2,505,000 2,395,000 228,080 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 68,730 153,000 76,030 145,700 111 STREET FUND 514,450 1,760,500 1,716,120 558,830 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/I M PROVE 9,340 8,160,017 8,173,112 (3,755) 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 468,470 106,508 181,380 393,598 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,920 110 - 18,030 120 HOTEL/MOTELTAXREVENUE FUND 153,880 82,150 149,650 86,380 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 64,480 21,390 26,880 58,990 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 15,470 5,550 3,000 18,020 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 84,570 27,530 31,500 80,600 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,629,530 1,108,000 2,100,565 636,965 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 2,239,010 1,102,000 2,783,637 557,373 127 G I FTS CATALOG FU N D 265,920 46,900 44,950 267,870 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 38,390 280 - 38,670 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 137,260 177,260 210,370 104,150 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 897,420 1,357,240 1,580,770 673,890 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 152,250 630 - 152,880 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUSTFD 883,730 19,880 - 903,610 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 3,780 12,010 12,500 3,290 139 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 682,500 682,500 - 211 LID FUND CONTROL 9,650 14,400 22,000 2,050 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 105,140 14,400 105,136 14,404 231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND - 677,380 677,380 - 232 2014 DEBT SERVICE FUND - 949,540 949,540 - 421 WATER 16,489,530 8,443,460 12,717,507 12,215,483 422 STORM 9,589,910 4,131,780 8,103,448 5,618,242 423 SEWER/TREATMENT PLANT 42,657,770 12,645,240 17,972,050 37,330,960 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 843,960 1,989,900 1,990,920 842,940 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 7,650,500 1,579,570 1,971,820 7,258,250 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 203,102 64,840 59,610 208,332 Totals 100,888,712 88,205,721 107,123,921 81,970,512 C d E C N E Q d a� 3 m L M 3 CY L M t0 O N a Packet Pg. 79 4.4.a EXHIBIT "B": Budget Amendments by Revenue (October 2016) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 4014 12/18/2015 ORD. NO. 4019 2/19/2016 ORD. NO. 4024 May2016 ORD. NO. 4038 7/22/2016 ORD. NO. October 2016 2016 Amended Budget 001 General Fund $ 39,266,670 $ $ 10,000 $ 3,651 $ 72,489 $ 39,352,810 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 278,770 - - - 278,770 011 Risk Management Reserve Fund 6,660 - 6,660 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 28,110 695,036 723,146 013 Multimoda I Transportation Fd. - 370 370 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,000 - 5,000 016 Building Maintenance 1,680,000 325,000 500,000 2,505,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 153,000 - - 153,000 111 Street Fund 1,760,500 - 1,760,500 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 5,290,850 2,735,647 288,200 (154,680) 8,160,017 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 102,410 - - 3,598 500 106,508 118 Memorial Street Tree 110 - - 110 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 82,150 82,150 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 21,390 21,390 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 5,550 5,550 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 27,530 27,530 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,108,000 1,108,000 126 Special Capital Fund 1,102,000 1,102,000 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 46,900 46,900 129 Special Projects Fund 280 280 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 177,260 177,260 132 Parks Construction 2,037,240 500,000 15,000 (1,200,000) 5,000 1,357,240 136 Parks Trust Fund 630 - - - 630 137 Cemetery Maintenance TrustFd 19,880 19,880 138 Sister City Commission 12,010 12,010 139 Transportation Benefit District 682,500 682,500 211 Lid Fund Control 14,400 14,400 213 Lid Guaranty Fund 14,400 14,400 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 677,380 677,380 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 949,540 - 949,540 421 Water 8,429,970 13,490 8,443,460 422 Storm 4,131,780 - 4,131,780 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 12,414,120 231,120 12,645,240 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,989,900 - 1,989,900 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,579,570 1,579,570 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 64,840 - 64,840 Totals $84,161,300 $ 3,805,257 $ 313,200 $ (847,431) $ 773,395 $ 88,205,721 a Packet Pg. 80 4.4.a EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendments by Expenditure (October 2016) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION ORD. NO. 4014 12/18/2015 ORD. NO. 4019 2/19/2016 ORD. NO. 4024 May 2016 ORD. NO. 4038 7/22/2016 ORD. NO. 0 October2016 2016 Amended Budget 001 General Fund $ 39,733,780 $ 957,500 $ 237,827 $ 82,180 $ 233,519 $ 41,244,806 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 279,480 - - - - 279,480 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 800,000 - 800,000 013 Multimodal Transportation I'd. - 56,860 56,860 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,400 - 5,400 016 Building Maintenance 1,754,000 421,000 220,000 2,395,000 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 76,030 - - 76,030 111 Street Fund 1,712,370 - 3,750 1,716,120 112 Combined StreetConst/Improve 5,311,460 2,728,132 288,200 (154,680) 8,173,112 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 181,380 - - 181,380 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 149,650 149,650 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,880 26,880 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 3,000 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 31,500 - - 31,500 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,523,650 484,982 91,933 - 2,100,565 126 Special Capital Fund 1,934,390 545,930 115,000 154,680 33,637 2,783,637 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 44,950 - - - - 44,950 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 210,370 - - - 210,370 132 Parks Construction 2,100,000 660,770 15,000 (1,200,000) 5,000 1,580,770 138 Sister City Commission 12,500 - - - 12,500 139 Transportation Benefit District 682,500 - 682,500 211 Lid Fund Control 14,400 7,600 22,000 213 Lid Guaranty Fund - 105,136 105,136 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 677,380 - 677,380 232 2014 Debt Service Fund 949,540 949,540 421 Water 12,323,960 389,797 3,750 - - 12,717,507 422 Storm 6,612,170 997,530 3,750 443,598 46,400 8,103,448 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 17,172,110 569,190 179,750 - 51,000 17,972,050 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,990,920 - - - 1,990,920 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,955,820 16,000 1,971,820 617 1 Firemen's Pension Fund 59,610 59,610 Totals $98,329,200 $ 7,754,831 $ 954,960 1 $ (454,222) $ 539,152 1 $ 107,123,921 C d E C N E Q d a� 3 m N r- M 3 CY L M t0 O N a Packet Pg. 81 EXHIBIT "D": Budget Amendments (October 2016) 4.4.a Fund Number Change in Beginning Fund Balance Revenue Expense Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 72,489 233,519 (161,030) 012 695,036 - 695,036 013 370 56,860 (56,490) 117 500 - 500 126 - 33,637 (33,637) 132 5,000 5,000 211 - 7,600 (7,600) 213 105,136 (105,136) 422 46,400 (46,400) 423 - 51,000 (51,000) Total Change 773,395 539,152 234,243 r O t0 N V C fC C L O E CD E Q tM m L CD V L M r C d E M V a Packet Pg. 82 4.4.a EXHIBIT "E": Budget Amendment Summary (October 2016) Fund BARS Category Debit Credit Pg# Description Previously Discussed by Council Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 65 00 lConstruction 38,637 Downtown Restroom Parks Construction 132 000 64 594 76 65 91 Construction from Fund 33,637 Parks Construction 1321 000 367 00 00 00 Donations 5,000 REET 1 126 000 68 595 33 65 90 Construction to Fund 33,637 REET1 126 000 68 508 30 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 33,637 Stormwater Fund 422 000 72 531 90 41 00 Professional Services 46,400 Stormwater Code Stormwater Fund 422 000 72 508 FOO 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 46,400 Update Phase 2 New Items for Council General Fund 001 000 31 514 23 11 00 Salaries 5,000 Two Office Spaces General Fund 001 000 31 514 23 48 00 Re air and Maintenance 5,000 General Fund 001 000 31 518 88 31 00 Sup lies 7,680 Increaseweb portaI user count General Fund 001 000 31 518 88 48 00 Repair and Maintenance 1,250 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 8,930 General Fund 001 000 39 512 52 41 00 Public Defender Pr Sery 46,960 Public Defense General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 46,960 General Fund 001 000 41 521 70 11 00 Salaries 24,599 D. Dawson Retirement General Fund 001 000 41 521 70 12 00 Overtime 2,081 Payout General Fund 001 000 41 521 70 23 00 Benefits 5,982 General Fund 001 000 39 518 10 11 10 Salary Payouts 32,662 General Fund 001 000 41 521 21 12 10 ReimburseableOvertime 2,067 Reimbursable Overtime-Woodway General Fund 001 000 41 521 21 23 00 Benefits 309 General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 12 10 Rei mbursea bl e Overti mel1,279 General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 23 00 Benefits 195 General Fund 001 000 342 10 300 00 Woodway Law Protection 3,850 General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 12 10 Rei mbursea bl e Overti me 5,089 Reimbursable Overtimefor Special General Fund 001 000 41 521 22 23 00 Benefits 763 General Fund 001 000 342 10 00 00 Special Event Revenue 5,852 Events General Fund 001 000 61 558 70 41 40 Advertising 5,000 Business -Attraction Event General Fund 001 000 367 00 000 00 Donations 5,000 General Fund 001 000 62 524 20 41 00 Professional Services 15,000 Professional Services General Fund 001 000 345 83 000 00 Plan Checking Fees 15,000 General Fund 001 000 39 597 73 55 17 Interfund Transfer 500 Green Room 1%for General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 500 the Arts Transfer Municipal Arts Fund 117 200 397 73 001 00 Interfund Transfer 500 Municipal Arts Fund 117 200 64 508 40 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 500 General Fund 001 000 64 576 80 31 00 Supplies 10,927 City Park Fire Loss General Fund 001 000 395 20 000 00 Insurance Recoveries 10,927 General Fund 001 000 39 522 20 51 00 Fire District Contract 420,800 Transfer to Reserves General Fund 001 000 39 597 19 55 12 InterfundTransfer 582,300 General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 161,500 Contingency Reserve 012 000 397 00 001 00 InterfundTransfer 582,300 Contingency Reserve 012 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 582,300 General Fund 001 000 397 00 000 00 InterfundTransfer 56,860 Close Multimodal Transportation fund General Fund 001 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 56,860 Multimodal Fund 013 000 361 10 00 00 Interest Revenue 370 Multimodal Fund 013 000 61 597 19 55 01 InterfundTransfer 56,860 Multimodal Fund 013 000 61 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 56,490 LID Fund Control 211 000 31 597 19 55 13 Interfund Transfer 14,400 Close LID Fund LID Fund Control 211 000 31 597 19 55 12 Interfund Transfer 22,000 Control and LID LID Fund Control 211 000 31 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 7,600 Guaranty Fund LID Guaranty Fund 213 000 31 597 19 55 01 Interfund Transfer 105,136 LID Guaranty Fund 2131 000 31 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 105,136 Contingency Reserve 0121 000 397 19 200 00 InterfundTransfer 112,736 Contingency Reserve 0121 000 39 508 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 112,736 Stormwater UtiIi ty 4221 000 72 531 90 41 00 Professional Services 25,000 On -call Stormwater Engi neeri ng Services Sto r mwa ter Uti I i ty 4221 000 72 531 70 41 11 InterfundServices 25,000 General Fund 001 000 67 518 21 11 00 Salaries 25,000 General Fund 001 000 349 18 000 00 Interfund Services 25,000 Sewer Utility Fund 423 200 75 594 35 41 00 Professional Services 46,000 LS#1Metering and Sewer Utility Fund 423 2001 75 1 5941 35 41 13 InterfundServices 5,000 Flow Study Sewer Utility Fund 423 2001 75 1 5081 00 00 00 Ending Fund Balance 1 51,000 O O CD t� C M C L 0 E C CD E C d E a Iv IM 7 m L d M 7 M C E t t) M Q Packet Pg. 83 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: Supplemental appropriation for Downtown Restroom - up to $38,637 from 2015 ending balance of REET 1 (Fund 126) plus expenditure of additional $5,000 from grant awarded by the Hubbard Family Foundation. Council approved $390,000 for this project as of First Quarter 2016 budget amendments. With this supplemental appropriation, the total project budget will be $428,637. Department: Economic Development/Community Services Fund GENERAL Division: Economic Development Title: Downtown Restroom Name: Preparer: Patrick Doherty Department Account Number: 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 3a.2 Budget Amendment Type? I Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Aug 23 2016 What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill InItem Description [sI Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 390,000 38,637 0 0 0 0 132.000.64.594.76.65.91 Contribution from REET 0 33,637 0 0 0 0 126.000.68.595.33.65.90 REET contribution 0 33,637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $390,000 $38,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $428,637 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 126.000.39.508.30.00.00 33,637 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Car onward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 132.000.367.00.000.00 5,000 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $38,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 E7 Packet Pg. 84 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: This budget amendment will provide additional funding to complete the second phase of the stormwater code update. The second phase will focus on the development of LID standard details, checklists and educational handouts and additional training for staff and the public. Department: Public Works Fund Name: STORM Division: Fngineering Title: Stormwater Code Update Phase 2 Preparer: Rob "glish Department Account Number: F5FB/c467 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 2a.7 (Stormwater and Habitat) Budget Amendment Type? I Previously Discussed By Council If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: Sep27 2016 What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill InItem Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 91,000 46,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $91,000 $46,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $137,400 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue andEnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 422.000.72.508.00.00.00 46,400 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $46,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 10 Packet Pg. 85 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: This request is for the construction of two office spaces within the Finance Department, which will provide staff increased privacy. The cost of constructing the two offices is estimated at $5,000. Staff is requesting that we use salary savings that came from not hiring the Assistant Finance Director as planned. Department: Finance Fund Name: GENERAL Di -vision: Finance Title: Two Office Spaces Preparer: Scott James Department Account Number: 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 & 001.000.31.514.23.11.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill InItem Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 001.000.31.514.23.11.00 0 (5,000) 0 0 0 0 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 0 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses I $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue andEnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and En(in Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11 Packet Pg. 86 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: Increases the number of concurrent users on the LaserFiche web portal from 5 to 10. Existing licensing provides only for 5 staff or citizens to use portal. As City increases dependence on web facing systems, additional users will be attracted to web portals. Contention is already being experienced and users are unable at times to access documents. Department: Information Technology Fund GENERAL Division: Administrative Services Title: Increase Web portal user count. Name: Preparer: Brian Tuley Department Account Number: See Below Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 15a.2 Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I BOTH Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill In Item Des cription [s I Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 001.000.31.518.88.31.00 Supplies (License) 0 7,680 0 0 0 0 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 Maintenance/Repair 0 1,250 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $8,930 $3,300 $3,300 $3,300 $3,300 Total Expenses 1 $8,930 1 $3,300 1 $3,300 1 $3,300 1 $3,300 Revenue and Fnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 001.000.39.508. 8,930 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $8,930 $3,300 $3,300 $3,300 $3,300 Packet Pg. 87 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: This budget amendment is for the Public Defense Professional Services contract with the Snohomish County Public Defense Association. Additional attorney services were required due to a change in case load requirements. Per the contract, if the caseload exceeds 150 cases in any previous quarter, there is a formula to calculate compensation for additional attorney services. Although we projected 600 cases this year, the Snohomish Public Defender Association is projecting 900 cases this year. Most of these additional cases are continuances and previous cases transferred from Feldman and Lee. The City is currenity working with the PDA, Prosecutor, and Police Department to determine if there are any court efficiencies that we can achieve in this next year. Department: Human Resources Fund GENERAL Division: Human Resources Title: Public Defense Name: Preparer: Carrie Hite Department Account Number: 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: c m E c M E Q m a� 00 L M r_ M CY L M t0 0 N r O t0 Budget Amendment Type? New Item For Council To Consider a� If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: c c� What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill InItem Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Public Defense legal services 41 312,580 46,960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $312,580 $46,960 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $359,540 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue and Fndin Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001.000.39.508 46,960 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash 13 $46,960 $0 $0 $0 $0 Packet Pg. 88 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: A request to move budget from the non -departmental line item Salaries to the Police Ordinance Enforcement cost center for the reimbursement of Debbie Dawson's retirement pay -out. Department: Police Fund Name: GENERAL Division: Field Services - Ordinance Enforcement Title: Debbie Dawson Retirement Payout Preparer: Caroline Thompson, Exec. Asst., Police Dept. Department Account Number: 001.000.41.521.70 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description [s Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Wages - Ordinance Enforcement (11 135,170 24,599 0 0 0 0 Overtime - Ordinance Enforcement 12 3,000 2,081 0 0 0 0 Benefits - Ordinance Enforcement (23) 64,610 5,982 0 0 0 0 Salarypayouts 001.000.39.518.10.11.10 100,000 (32,662) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $302,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $302,780 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue andEnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 14 Packet Pg. 89 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: A request to increase the budget lines for Police - Investigations and Police - Patro cost centers to reflect reimbursable overtime connected with a Town of Woodway case. The increased budget is offset by higher than budgeted revenues for Woodway-Law Protection. Department: Police Fund Name: GENERAL Division: Support Services -Investigations, Field Services -Patrol Title: Reimbursable Overtime - Woodway Preparer: Caroline Thompson, Exec. Asst., Police Dept. Department Account Number: 001.000.41.521.21 and 001.000.41.521.22 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Investigations -Reimbursable Overtime 12.10) 0 2,067 0 0 0 1 Investigations -Benefits (23) 286,690 309 0 0 0 1 Patrol -Reimbursable Overtime 12.10 28,500 1,279 0 0 0 1 Patrol - Benefits 23 1,232,530 195 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 i Sub -Total $1,547,720 $3,850 $0 $0 $0 $1 Total Expe nses 1 $1,551,570 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $1 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 I Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 I Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 I General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 New Revenue Woodway 342.10.300.00 3,850 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $3,850 $0 $0 $0 $1 15 Packet Pg. 90 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: A request to increase the budget lines for Police - Patrol cost center to reflect high than anticipated reimbursable overtime from special events (Arts Festival, Taste o Edmonds). Expenditures are offset by higher than budgeted Police Services Specia Events revenue. Department: Police Fund Name: GENERAL Division: Field Services -Patrol Title: Patrol - Reimbursable Overtime - Special Events Preparer: Caroline Thompson, Exec. As Police Dept. Department Account Number: 001.000.41.521.22 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Patrol -Reimbursable Overtime 12.10) 28,500 5,089 0 0 0 Patrol -Benefits (23) 1,232,530 763 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $1,261,030 $5,852 $0 $0 $0 S Total Expe nses 1 $1,266,882 1 $0 I $0 I $0 IS Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 New Revenue Special Events 342.10.000.00 5,852 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Endi ng Cash $5,852 $0 $0 $0 1 16 Packet Pg. 91 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: Authorization to expend up to $5,000 in private -sector contributions to help underwrite advertising costs associated with business -attraction event, proposed this Fall. Department: Economic Development/Community Services Fund Name: GENERAL Division: Economic Development Title: Business -Attraction Event Pass -Through Expenditures Preparer: Patrick Doherty Department Account Number: 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 Strategic Plan Task Action item: 1a.1 Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Descri 'on[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 50,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $50,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $55,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 I $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Carr orward 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 001.000.367.00.000.00 5,000 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 17 Packet Pg. 92 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: The need for outside consultant plan review of building permits has exceeded the anticipated budget of $20,000 due to increases in permitting activity. This need is a combination of a) several complex projects requiring additional expertise in structural review and b) inability of staff to keep up with the overall workload. The requested increase in funding will be more than offset by increased permit revenues. Department: Development Services Fund GENERAL Division: Building Title: Professional Services Name: Preparers Shane Hope Department Account Number: 62 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: N/A Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One-Ti Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 From General Fund 001.000.62.524.20.41.00 20,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $20,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $35,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue andEnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 001.000.345.83.000.00 15,000 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Packet Pg. 93 4.4.a EXHIBIT "P: Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: Budget transfer from Development Services budget to Arts Fund to pay "1% for Arts" charge to 2017 Green Room project. This money is available in the current 2016 Development Services budget but needs to be formally transferred to complete the transaction. Department: Development Services Fund Name: GENERAL Division: Administration Title: Green Room 1% for Arts Transfer Preparers Shane Hope Department Account Number: 62 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: I N/A Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description [s Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Inter nd Transfer 001.000.39.597.73.55.17 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses I $500 I $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue andEnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 001.000.39.508 500 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 117.200.64.508.40 (500) 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other Arts 117.200.397.73.001.00 500 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 19 Packet Pg. 94 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: City Park fire loss supplies from June 8th 2016 arson Department: Parks & Recreation Fund Name: GENERAL Division: Parks Title: City Park Fire Loss Preparer: Rich Lindsay Department Account Number: 00 1.000.64.576.80.3 1.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: NA Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill InItem Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 80,680 10,927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $80,680 $10,927 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $91,607 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue andEnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other Fire Insurance Proceeds 10,927 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $10,927 $0 $0 $0 $0 20 Packet Pg. 95 4.4.a EXHIBIT "P: Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: The City's Fire and EMS services provider, Fire District 1 (FDI), has been conducting labor negotiations for over 1 year. Since FD1 has not been able to finalize their labor costs, they also have not adjusted their invoices to the City since 2014. Staff is recommending that we transfer $582,300 from the General Fund to the Contingency Reserve Fund. Of this amount, $161,500 comes from unused 2015 FD1 budget and $420,800 comes from the anticipated unsed 2016 FD1 Department: Finance Fund GF.I\TIItAL Division: Finance Title: Transfer to Reserves Name: Preparers Scott James Department Account Number: 001.000.39.597.19.55.12; 001.000.39.522.20.51.00; 012.000.397.19.001.00 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 001.000.39.522.20.51.00 (420,800) 0 0 0 I 001.000.39.597.19.55.12 0 582,300 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 I Sub -Total $0 $161,500 $0 $0 $0 $I Total Expenses 1 $161,500 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $I Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 012.000.39.508 582,300) 0 0 0 1 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 001.000.39.508 161,500 0 0 0 1 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 1 Contingency Reserve Fund Interfund 012.000.397.001.00 582,300 0 0 0 I New Revenue 0 0 0 0 I Other 0 0 0 0 I Total Revenue and Fnding Cash $161,500 $0 $0 $0 $1 21 c m E c M E Q m a� m L M r_ M CY L M co O N r O t0 Packet Pg. 96 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: The Multimodal Transportation Fund has long been inactive and currently has $56,800 in cash that should be put to use that will benefit the City and citizens. Staff is recommending that we transfer these funds to the General Fund and close this fund. Department: Finance Ind Name: MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION Division: Finance Title: Close the Multimodal Transportation Fund Preparer: Scott James Department Account Number: 013.000.61.597.19.55.01 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Description [s Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Inter nd Transfer 013.000.61.597.19.55.01 0 56,860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $56,860 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $56,860 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue andEnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 001.000.39.508 (56,860) 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 013.000.61.508 56,490 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Interf nd Transfer 001.000.397.00.000.00 56,860 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 013.000.361.10.000.00 370 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and En(in Cash $56,860 $0 $0 $0 $0 22 Packet Pg. 97 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: The City has no outstanding Local Improvement District (L.I.D.) bond debt. Since there is no L.I.D. debt outstanding, the L.I.D. Guaranty Fund is no longer needed. The fund currently has $105,135 in cash that should be put to use that will benefit the City and citizens. Staff is recommending that we transfer these funds to the Contigency Reserve Fund and close this fund. Additionally, staff is recommending that all residual L.I.D. assessment collections be transferred to the Contingency Reserve Fund. Department: Finance Fund Name: LID GUARANTY LID CONTROL Division: Finance Title: Close the L.I.D. Guaranty Fund Preparer: Scott James Department Account Number: 213.000.31.597.19.55.01; 211.000.31.597.19.55.12 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Des crI tion[sI Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Interfund Transfer 211.000.31.597.19.55.13 0 14,400 0 0 0 0 Interfund Transfer 211.000.31.597.19.55.12 0 22,000 0 0 0 0 Inter nd Transfer 213.000.31.597.19.55.01 0 105,136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $0 $112,736 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $112,736 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 211.000.31.508.00.00.00 7,600 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 213.000.31.508.00.00.00 105,136 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 012.000.39.508.00.00.00 112,736 0 0 0 0 Contingency Reserve Fund Interfund 012.000.397.19.200.00 112,736 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $112,736 $o $0 $0 $0 23 Packet Pg. 98 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: This budget amendment covers on -call professional stormwater engineering services during the recruitment of the new stormwater engineer. The services include a transition period to work through existing and new stormwater submittals through the end of this year. This cost will be off -set by salary savings from not having a stormwater engineer for the full year. Department: Public Works Fund STORM Division: Fngineering Title: On -call Stormwater Engineering Services Name: Preparer: Rob English Department Account Number: Strategic Plan Task Action Item: 2a.7 (Stormwater and Habitat) Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Operating Fill In Item Des cri ion[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Professional Services 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 Interfund Services 422.000.72.531.70.41.11 0 25,000 0 0 0 0 Salaries 001.000.67.518.21.11.00 0 25,000) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SulrTotal $0 ($25,000) $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Fxpenses I (S25,000)1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue and Ending Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Other Interfiind Services 349.18 25,000 0 1 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash ($25,000) $0 1 $0 $0 $0 24 Packet Pg. 99 4.4.a EXHIBIT "F": Budget Amendments (October 2016) Budget Amendment for: Third Quarter Item Description: LS#1 Metering and Flow Study: Additional Funds to cover supplemental survey work and to cover additional data gathering and alternative reviews due to the new data acquired. Department: Public Works Fund Name: SEWER/ TREATMENT PLANT Division: Engineering Title: LS#1 Metering and Flow Study Preparer: Michele (Mike) De Lilla Department Account Number: E4GC/c461 Strategic Plan Task Action Item: I N/A Budget Amendment Type? I New Item For Council To Consider If previously discussed, date(s) of discussion: What is the nature of the expenditure? I One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? I Capital Fill InItem Description[s] Baseline Budget 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Professional Services 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 124,000 46,000 0 0 0 0 Inter and Services 423.200.75.594.35.41.13 10,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total $134,000 $51,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Expenses 1 $185,000 1 $0 I $0 I $0 1 $0 Revenue andEnding Cash Comments 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Ending Cash: Decrease (Increase) 423.200.75. 51,000 0 0 0 0 Ending Cash: Decrease Increase 0 0 0 0 0 Grants/Contributions 0 0 0 0 0 General Fund Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 New Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenue and Ending Cash $51,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 25 Packet Pg. 100 4.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Supplemental Agreement with Berger ABAM for the Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On July 19, 2016, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement No. 3 with Berger ABAM for the Fishing Pier Rehab project. On October 11, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the October 18th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Supplemental Agreement. Narrative The City proposes entering into Supplemental Agreement No. 3 with Berger ABAM for $13,600 to extend construction support services. The construction support services are necessary because material testing on the concrete center joint repairs indicate a lack of proper bonding to the existing pier. The center joint repairs are a small percentage of the overall repairs that have been completed. The City is waiting on a proposal from the Contractor to address this problem. The additional professional services are needed to review the Contractor's proposal and make site visits when the repairs are made. The supplement also includes a task to prepare as -built drawings to document the improvements that have been completed. The additional cost will be funded from the available management reserve. Attachments: Berger ABAM Supplemental Agreement Packet Pg. 101 Supplemental Agreement 2 No. 1 0 [ CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING MAYOR 121 5TM AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-672-5750 Website: www.edmondswa.gov r890 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and BergerABAM, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project, dated October 30, 2014; and WHEREAS; extended construction support services have been identified; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of October 30, 2014 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $128,600 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, and which was increased by $99,900 by the Supplemental Agreement No. 1, and which was increased by $40,500 by the Supplemental Agreement No. 2, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $13,600 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $282,600 ($128,600, plus $99,900, plus $40,500, plus $13,600). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit B to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. Packet Pg. 102 4.5.a 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. DONE this day of , 20 CITY OF EDMONDS BERGER ABAM Bv: Mayor David O. Earling ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney By: Title: Packet Pg. 103 4.5.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Pg. 104 4.5.a Exhibit A - Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Construction Support BergerABAM Amendment No. 3 Page 1 of 1 27 September 2016 SCOPE OF WORK BergerABAM will continue construction period support past the assumed completion of late September to an assumed completion by 23 December 2016. This support was described in the BergerABAM proposal to the City dated 24 September 2015 and in the 6 July 2016 Construction Support Supplement No. 2 proposal. Efforts estimated herein are also based on the assumption that the contractor will take a proactive approach to executing the work. The following additional assumptions were used to determine the fee. • One kickoff meeting to discuss methods for completing the rework • Six site visits • One submittal package that will be complete with plans for accomplishing the rework, all material technical information and equipment to be used; review of up to one resubmittal has been included 0 Office support (such as requests for information) over the 12-week period • Project record drawings SCHEDULE BergerABAM will continue our work as currently performed, which includes site visits, additional field inspection support, and additional office support. FEE BergerABAM proposes to perform this additional work on a time -and -materials basis using the rates defined in Attachment B. Based on the assumptions stated above, our total additional fee proposal is $13,600 (Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred Dollars). BergerABAM assumes this work will be authorized as an amendment to BergerABAM's City of Edmonds Professional Services Agreement dated 30 October 2014 that was executed for the 2014 final design work. Packet Pg. 105 4.5.a Labor Sr Project Manager Project Manager Senior Engineer Const Technician Landscape Arch Mgr Landscape Designer CAD Operator Administrative Assistant Project Coordinator Subtotals BA Labor (by task), O/H = Overhead = 168.30% Profit = 10% of (DSC + O/H) Branlund Nielsen Sheesley Perry Sacamano Christian Mendenhall Bretana Gramling DSC = Direct Salary cost 83.37 63.75 38.65 35.77 63.37 35.82 37.40 33.70 31.20 Subconsultants, Rate = DSC+O/H+Profit"(DCS+O/H) $253.43 $193.79 $117.49 $108.74 $192.63 $108.89 1 $113.69 $102.44 $94.84 and Expenses Task 7 - Construction Support 7.1 Additional Site Visits 6 24 24 $6,950 7.5 Additional Review/Respond to RFls 2 12 4 $2,352 7.6 Additional Review/Respond to Submittals 2 12 2 $2,134 7.9 Contract administration 1 2 2 $678 8 Record Drawings 2 8 Subtotal: 11 52 30 2 Total Hours - BergerABAM: 11 52 30 8 2 Subtotal - BA Labor: $2,788 $6,109 1 $3,262 $910 $190 $13,258 Subconsultants Subtotal Subconsultants: $ - BA Expenses Site Visits and Meetings 6 trip(s) @ 90 mles per round trip @ $ 0.540 per mile = $ 292 Subtotal BA Expenses: $ 292 EXHIBIT B - BERGERABAM FEE ESTIMATE FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT NO. 3 City of Edmonds A 7� Fishing Pier Rehabilitation - Construction Support Services Supplement No. 3 BergerABAM► BergerABAM Date: 27 September 2016 Q Subtota in BA Lab Q d Tasks 0) d In R t a� aD a. C t N LL $12, 34 0 co c d E m m L $13,6 a Date: 9/27/2016 Packet Pg. 106 4.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Final Acceptance of the 2015 Waterline Replacement Project. Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On May 26, 2015, Council awarded a contract to D&G Backhoe, Inc in the amount of $2,195,456.67 for the 2015 Waterline Replacement Program. On October 11, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the October 18th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Accept project. Narrative This project is part of the City's program to replace and upgrade existing waterlines at various locations around the City that are reaching the end of their useful service life, are undersized and unable to meet current requirements, or has some other existing system deficiency. The project replaced approximately 9,400 linear feet of waterline piping with associated meters, fire hydrants, and two pressure reducing stations. The contract award amount was $2,195,457 and Council approved a management reserve of $220,000. During the course of the contract, two change orders were written against the project totaling $81,369. A reconciliation change order for-$20,452 was written for project closeout. The final construction cost paid to D&G Backhoe, Inc was $2,256,374. Packet Pg. 107 4.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Final Acceptance of the ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades Project on 3rd Ave Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On April 4, 2014, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Snohomish County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Contract for ADA upgrades for the 3rd Ave Curb Ramp Replacement Project. On October 11, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the October 18th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Accept project. Narrative On November 24, 2014, Kelaye Concrete, LLC was given the Notice to Proceed with construction, stipulating 20 working days for completion. This project replaced 10 pedestrian curb ramps with new ADA compliant ramps at various intersections on 3rd Ave, south of Main St. The construction costs were funded by a Snohomish County Community Development Block Grant. During the course of the contract, no added -cost change orders were written against the project. Substantial completion of the work was granted January 29, 2015, and physical completion on March 6, 2015. There was a delay in reaching the final acceptance milestone, because of documentation issues with the Contractor. These issues were recently resolved and the project can now be accepted. The work was completed under budget, coming in at $11,125 under the original contract amount of $78,881. The final construction cost paid to Kelaye Concrete, LLC was $67,756. Packet Pg. 108 4.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water & Sewer District to fund minor utility relocations for the Madrona Elementary Walkway Project Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On October 11, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the October 18th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the October 18th City Council meeting. Narrative The City of Edmonds will be installing stormwater facilities during the construction of the Madrona Elementary Walkway project. Some water and wastewater facilities are in conflict and preventing installation of the stormwater lines. Olympic View Water & Sewer District (OVWSD) is responsible for resolving these conflicts and they requested the City to include this work in the City's construction contract. The proposed Interlocal Agreement will establish a cooperative relationship between OVWSD and the City of Edmonds that will enable the City of Edmonds' contractor to eliminate these conflicts with all costs reimbursed by OVWSD. This cooperative relationship will enable the City of Edmonds to construct the Madrona Elementary Walkway project without delays caused by water and wastewater conflicts. Attachments: ILA with OVWSD Packet Pg. 109 4.8.a INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CITY OF EDMONDS MADRONA ELEMENTARY WALKWAY PROJECT THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Edmonds, Washington (the "City") and Olympic View Water and Sewer District (the "District") (collectively, the "Parties") as of the date entered below. WHEREAS, Chapter 39.34 RCW authorizes two or more political subdivisions or units of local government of the State of Washington to cooperate on a basis of mutual advantage to provide for services and facilities; WHEREAS, the City is undertaking a capital improvement project known as the Madrona Elementary Walkway Project (the "Project"); WHEREAS, the City plans to supplement by parallel construction (hereafter "replacement") certain storm sewer utilities within the project limits of the Project; WHEREAS, the District owns and operates water and sewer utilities located within the project limits of the Project that may be in need of relocation; WHEREAS, the District currently lacks the staffing required to relocate its facilities; WHEREAS, the Parties mutually desire to establish a formal arrangement under which the District will pay the City in exchange for the City incorporating the District's utilities work into the Project; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of defining their respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities regarding this undertaking; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds has taken appropriate action to approve the City's entry into this Agreement; WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the District has taken appropriate action to approve the District's entry into this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein, the City and the District agree as follows: Interlocal Agreement for Madrona Elementary Walkway Project Page 1 of 6 October 4, 2016 Packet Pg. 110 4.8.a TERMS Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a formal arrangement under which the District will pay the City to incorporate the utilities relocation work into the Project contract documents and to construct said relocation work in conjunction with the City's construction of the Project. The terms, conditions and covenants of this Agreement shall accordingly be interpreted to advance this purpose. This Agreement further seeks to allocate and define the Parties' respective rights, obligations, costs and liabilities concerning the establishment, operation and maintenance of this undertaking. Section 2. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon its execution by the Parties hereto. Unless terminated in accordance with Section 3, this Agreement shall remain effective until the sooner of the following events: (a) the District's written acceptance of and payment for all City utilities work provided to the District pursuant to this Agreement, or (b) December 31, 2017, when it shall expire automatically. The Parties may at their option renew this Agreement for a mutually agreed upon term by a writing signed by both Parties. Section 3. Termination. Either Party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by providing the other Party with thirty (30) days' written notice of its intent to terminate. Termination or expiration shall not alter the District's payment obligations under Section 6 for services already rendered, as well as for the normal and reasonable costs incurred by the contractor in terminating and closing out the District's portion of the work, and shall not alter the Parties' respective obligations under Section 10 of this Agreement. Section 4. Obligations of the District. The District agrees to: A. Provide periodic payments to the City to reimburse the City for its outside costs of constructing the utilities relocation work pursuant to Section 6 of this Agreement, and as follows: 1. Construction. The District shall reimburse the City for 100% of the City's actual outside costs for construction of the utilities work based upon the contractor's bid, the actual quantities of materials installed, and the final actual costs of construction as follows: a. The District utilities portion of the Project will relocate existing water and sewer services as necessary to eliminate conflicts that would prevent installation of the City's storm drainage system. 2. Construction Engineering _ and Management. The District shall reimburse the City for the District's prorated share of the City's actual costs for construction engineering and management of the Project. The District's prorated share of the construction engineering and management costs shall be computed by multiplying the City's actual costs for construction engineering and management times the percentage of the construction contract costs that the District's utilities work is of the total construction contract costs for the Interlocal Agreement for Madrona Elementary Walkway Project Page 2 of 6 October 4, 2016 Packet Pg. 111 4.8.a Project. The District share shall not exceed $2,250.00 without prior approval by adopted change order, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The estimated cost to the District for construction engineering and management is approximately $1,000. B. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by the City or its agents regarding the utilities relocation work. C. Upon satisfactory completion of the utilities relocation work, provide written acceptance of the work to the City. Section 5. Obligations of the City. The City agrees to: A. Assume responsibility for constructing the utilities relocation work in accordance with District standard details and specifications. B. Procure all construction contracts through a formal competitive bidding process consistent with applicable State law. C. Submit to the District written invoices for payment in accordance with Section 6. Include copies of invoices or other documentation from consultants and/or contractors clearly indicating the District's portion of the invoices. D. Assume lead agency status and responsibility for applying for and obtaining any and all regulatory permits necessary to complete the Project, including but not limited to right-of-way, SEPA and NEPA permits. E. Provide District personnel reasonable access to the Project's construction area for purposes of inspecting and monitoring the progress of the work performed on the utilities relocation work. F. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by the District or its agents regarding the Project. Interlocal Agreement for Madrona Elementary Walkway Project Page 3 of 6 October 4, 2016 Packet Pg. 112 Section 6. Payment Schedule. The Parties agree to the following billing and payment schedule: A. For construction contract costs and for construction engineering and management costs incurred by the City for the utilities relocation work on the Project, the City shall within sixty (60) days submit an invoice to the District for the District's share of said expenses for the District's utilities work. Said invoice shall contain a reasonably detailed explanation of the methodology utilized by the City in determining the District's share of each expense. To the extent reasonably possible, the City shall document and tabulate separately the actual quantities of work installed to clearly identify the District's portion of the Project construction costs for the District's utilities work. B. Within thirty (30) days of receiving any invoice pursuant to subsection 6.13, the District shall tender payment to the City in the form of a check, money order or other certified funds for the invoiced amount for work approved by the District, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. C. In the event that the Parties disagree regarding the District's share of any expense incurred by the City regarding the Project, the Parties may agree to submit the question for resolution by a mediator or arbitrator acceptable to both Parties. Section 7. District Reserves Right to Accomplish Work. If the contractor's bid for construction for the utilities relocation work is unacceptable to the District for any reason, the District reserves the right to perform its utilities relocation work through means separate from the City's construction contract, PROVIDED that by so doing, the District's work does not in any way delay, disrupt or otherwise negatively impact the City's contract work for the Project or increase the costs to the City therefore. If the District's accomplishment of its utilities work separately does delay, disrupt or otherwise negatively impact the City's contract work for the Project or increase the cost to the City therefore, the District shall reimburse the City for all such increased costs incurred by the City. Section 8. Ownership and Disposition of Property. The utilities relocation work done pursuant to this Agreement shall become and remain the exclusive property of the District upon completion. All other work constructed under the Project shall become and remain the exclusive property of the City upon completion. Section 9. Administration; No Separate Entity Created. The Director of Public Works for the City shall serve as the administrator of this Agreement. No separate legal entity is formed by this Agreement. Interlocal Agreement for Madrona Elementary Walkway Project Page 4 of 6 October 4, 2016 Packet Pg. 113 4.8.a Section 10. Release, Indemnification and Hold Harmless Agreement. Each Party to this Agreement shall be responsible for its own negligent and/or wrongful acts or omissions, and those of its own agents, employees, representatives, contractors or subcontractors, to the fullest extent required by the laws of the State of Washington. Each Party agrees to protect, indemnify and save the other Party harmless from and against any and all such liability for injury or damage to the other Party or the other Party's property, and also from and against all claims, demands and causes of action of every kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or arising out of work performed under the terms hereof, caused by its own fault or that of its agents, employees, representatives, contractors or subcontractors. The City specifically promises to indemnify the District against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its own employees, contractors or subcontractors, and waives any immunity that the City may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the limited extent necessary to indemnify the District. Section 11. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington. Any action arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in Snohomish County Superior Court. Section 12. No Employment Relationship Created. The Parties agree that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create an employment relationship between the City and any employee, agent, representative or contractor of the District, or between the District and any employee, agent, representative or contractor of the City. Section 13. No Third Party Rights. This Agreement is intended for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Parties hereto and no third party rights are created by this Agreement. Section 14. Notices. Notices to the District shall be sent to the following address: Olympic View Water and Sewer District General Manager 23725 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98026 Notices to the City shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds City Engineer 121 Fifth Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Interlocal Agreement for Madrona Elementary Walkway Project Page 5 of 6 October 4, 2016 Packet Pg. 114 4.8.a Section 15. Duty to File Agreement with County Auditor. The City shall, after this Agreement is executed by both Parties, file this Agreement with the Snohomish County Auditor. Section 16. Inte ram. This document constitutes the entire embodiment of the Agreement between the Parties and, unless modified in writing by an amendment to this Interlocal Agreement signed by the Parties hereto, shall be implemented as described above. Section 17. Non -Waiver. Waiver by any Party of any of the provisions contained within this Agreement, including but not limited to any performance deadline, shall not be construed as a waiver of any other provision. CITY OF EDMONDS DAVID O. EARLING Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk Approved as to form only: OYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT By: Date [Name] [Title] City of Edmonds, Office of the City Attorney Date Interlocal Agreement for Madrona Elementary Walkway Project Page 6 of 6 October 4, 2016 Packet Pg. 115 4.9 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Ordinance amending ECC 8.64.68 - Parking time limit modifications on Main St. between 3rd Ave and 2nd Ave & 2nd Ave between Main St. And Bell St. Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On October 11, 2016, staff presented this item to Council and it was forwarded to the October 18th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign the Ordinance. Narrative The Post Office recently relocated from the northeast corner of Main St. and 2nd Ave, to midblock on the east side of 2nd Ave between Main St. and Bell St. The previous site had 5-minute parking stalls on the north side of Main St. and along a 20-foot section on the east side of 2nd Ave. This short-term parking is not necessary anymore and should be converted to 3-hour parking. Two 5-minute parking stalls are being added on 2nd Ave in front of the new Post Office. The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved the ordinance. The red -lined ordinance is attached. Attachments: Ordinance Packet Pg. 116 4.9.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PARKING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8.64 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Post Office recently relocated from the NE corner of Main St. @ 2nd Ave. to mid -block on the east side of 2nd Ave. N between Main St. and Bell St.; WHEREAS, the parking limitations for the 120 feet of parking on the north side of Main St. (east of 2nd Ave. N) and 20 feet of parking on the east side of 2nd Ave. N (north of Main St) needs to be converted from 5 minutes to 3 hours; WHEREAS, 40 feet of 5 minute parking stalls has been added in front of the new Post Office location on the east side of 2nd Ave., mid -block between Main St. and Bell St.: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 8.64 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "PARKING," is hereby amended to read as follows (text added is shown as underlined; deleted text is shown as co T d V 8.64.068 Schedule VI-C — Parking time limited for short-term parking for specific on -street L arkin stalls a� A. In accordance with ECC 8.48.161 and when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall park a E t vehicle for a period of time longer than five minutes between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 6:00 p.m. of any M .r day except Sundays and public holidays, within the district or upon any of the streets as follows: Q 1. The east side of Fifth Avenue, 50 feet south of Bell Street; -1- Packet Pg. 117 4.9.a 2. The east side of 2"d Ave. N, beginning 200' north of Main St., extending 40'; 3. The south side of Main Street, beginning at Seventh Avenue, extending east 185 feet to the Frances Anderson Center access drive; and 4. The north side of Dayton Street, beginning at entrance to preschool, extending west 200 feet. Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect thirty (30) days after final passage of this ordinance. APPROVED: c MAYOR DAVID O. EARLING c L O ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: E CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: a -2- Packet Pg. 118 c!> IttzC'nt7' n � d zcx�� oy �x tTI r W rt (Q tD Attachment: Ordinance (1605 : Parking Ordinance - Main St. (between 3rd & 2nd) 2nd (between Main & Bell)) 4.9.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PARKING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8.64 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 2016. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Q W Packet Pg. 120 4.10 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Ordinance establishing a Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Economic Development Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History In an effort to spur investment and redevelopment in slow -to -develop urban centers statewide and in fulfillment of Growth Management Act objectives, in 1995 the State Legislature inaugurated the Multifamily Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) Program by passing enabling legislation contained in RCW 84.14. This enabling legislation provides the authority and process for individual jurisdictions to implement the MFTE program in their communities. In short, the MFTE provides an incentive to developers to invest in "residential targeted areas" - areas designated by cities through their GMA-compliant comprehensive planning and subarea planning processes to receive greater density of multifamily and commercial development. Often called "urban centers" or "urban villages," these areas are intended to become walkable, amenity -rich, transit - supportive, mixed -use communities where future growth in housing and employment can be readily accommodated. Unfortunately, in many cities the transformation from current conditions to the intended "urban village" is often slow and fraught with challenges. Be they competition with higher - rent locales that attract developers, or the inherent complications of urban redevelopment (unwilling property sellers, need to accumulate multiple parcels, existing long-term leases, etc.), in many cities these factors can stall for years or decades the transformation to such planned -for "urban villages." The MFTE incentive is one small tool that can help provide incentives in these areas to help counteract some of these challenges for developers and investors, thereby encouraging them to develop multifamily and mixed -use projects in these areas. Per State law, the MFTE is applicable to projects containing at least four dwelling units and provides for an exemption from property tax valuation of the improvement value of the residential portion of the development. Property taxes continue to be assessed and collected on the improvement value of the nonresidential (e.g. commercial) component of the project and the increased land value. State law allows for the exemption pursuant to two options: The standard exemption period is for 8 years. A longer exemption period of up to 12 years is provided for projects that include at least 20% of the dwelling units as affordable to rent or buy for low- and moderate -income households. (Low- income households have incomes no greater than 80% of the area median income, while moderate -income households have incomes no greater than 115% of the area median income.) Packet Pg. 121 4.10 As the required first step in considering implementation of the Multi -Family Tax Exemption program, the City Council passed Resolution 1368 on August 16, 2016 designating the Westgate Mixed Use Zone as a Residential Targeted Area where this tax exemption program could be implemented. (Resolution attached.) On 10/4/16 the City Council reviewed and considered the proposed new Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.38 that would implement the MFTE and directed staff to draft the corresponding Ordinance and place it on the 10/18/16 Consent Agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Approve on Consent Agenda. Narrative The attached Ordinance creates a new Chapter 3.38 that sets out the provisions necessary to implement the Multi -Family Tax Exemption program in Edmonds, initially in the Westgate Mixed Use Zone. The code provisions contained in this Ordinance mirror the State statute found at RCW 84.14, as well as several cities' code provisions where local implementation provisions are necessary to augment the State statute. A brief description of the Ordinance's code provisions follows: 3.38.010 - Purpose. The purpose essentially is to stimulate construction of new multifamily housing, including affordable housing opportunities, in urban centers designated by the City Council as having been planned for growth in housing. 3.38.020 - Definitions. Only a few definitions clarified in addition to those provided for in the State statute. 3.38.030 - Tax Exemption - Duration - Valuation - Exceptions. Two key provisions stipulated here: 1) while the State statute provides for two tax exemption options - one for 8 years with no affordable housing requirement, and one for 12 years with a 20% affordable housing requirement - the Edmonds proposal is to provide only the 12-year exemption option that requires 20% of the proposed multifamily units to be affordable, as defined in the RCW. 2) The property tax exemption applies only to the value of the multifamily component of a project. The land value is not exempt, and any commercial component is not exempt. 3.38.040 - Residential targeted areas - Designation. This sets out the Westgate Mixed Use Area as the applicable area for this tax exemption program, while also referencing the procedures in the RCW for designating potential future areas within the city. 3.38.050 - Project eligibility. This section lays out the basic eligibility requirements. Key among these provisions are the following: 1) While the State statute applies the program to as little as four multifamily units, in order to encourage development of more housing stock to meet growing demand, the Edmonds proposal is to make this tax Packet Pg. 122 4.10 exemption program available to projects containing at least 20 units. 2) Projects must comply with all applicable codes and regulations and have no violations during the exemption period. 3) The multifamily or mixed -use projects must be completed within 3 years of approval of the application, or by an extended deadline approved by the director. 4) The project owner must enter into a contract approved by the mayor once the application has been approved. 3.38.060 - Application Procedure. Sets out application process, required materials and fees. 3.38.070 - Application review - Approval - Required Findings - Issuance of conditional certificate - Denial - Appeal. This section sets out the application review criteria and process; cause for denial of an application; contract requirements; and appeal procedures to the hearing examiner in case of denial. 3.38.080 - Amendment of contract. This sections sets out the procedures for amendment of the mayor - approved contract. 3.38.090 - Extension of conditional certificate - Required findings - Denial - Appeal. If a project has been stalled by the economy or other factors beyond the control of the applicant, and the conditions of the original contract are still satisfied, the director may issue an extension of up to 24 months for completion of the project construction. Conditions for denial and process for appeal of a denial are set out. 3.38.100 - Final certificate - Application - Issuance - Denial - Appeal. Once the project is constructed, certain information is required of the applicant about the project's value, certification that the affordable units have been provided, etc. In exchange a final certificate of tax exemption may be issued by the director and recorded with the county. If the conditions are not met, the director may withhold the final certificate. This decision is appealable to the hearing examiner. 3.38.110 - Annual certification. This section requires annual certification of the occupancy and vacancy of the multifamily units, whether the project has continued to meet the affordability requirements, and whether any additional improvements have been made to the property. 3.38.120 - Cancellation of tax exemption - Appeal. If the project fails to meet the requirements of the contract, including no longer complying with the affordability requirements, the director may cancel the tax exemption. This decision may be appealed to the hearing examiner. Attachments: Resolution 1368 2016-10-13 MFTE Ordinance clean Packet Pg. 123 4.10.a RESOLUTION NO. 1368 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, TO DESIGNATE THE WESTGATE MIXED -USE ZONE DISTRICT AS A RESIDENTIAL TARGETED AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A MULTIFAMILY TAX EXEMPTION PROGRAM WHEREAS Chapter 84.14 of the Revised Code of Washington provides for temporary special valuations for eligible improvements associated with multifamily housing, especially within urban centers deficient in planned residential development; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2015 the Edmonds City Council adopted the Westgate Mixed - Use (WMU) Zone District as an urban center whose purpose is to: A. Encourage mixed -use development, including offices and retail spaces in conjunction with residential uses, in a walkable community center with a variety of amenity and open spaces. The intent is to establish a connection between neighborhoods; create a desirable center for local residents, while being inviting to visitors; and unify the larger Westgate district with a distinctive character. B. Create mixed -use walkable, compact development that is economically viable, attractive and community -friendly. C. Improve connectedness for pedestrian and bicycle users. D. Prioritize amenity spaces for informal and organized gatherings. E. Emphasize green building construction, stormwater infiltration, and a variety of green features. r F. Establish a flexible regulating system that creates quality public spaces by regulating building placement 2 and form. 00 G. Ensure civic and private investments contribute to increased infrastructure capacity and benefit the `O surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large. H. Encourage the development of a variety of housing choices available to residents of all economic and age segments. and WHEREAS, multifamily residential development is lagging in the WMU Zone District while commercial development there and residential development elsewhere in the City is occurring; and WHEREAS, implementation of the Multi -Family Tax Exemption program, authorized by 84.14 RCW, may provide sufficient incentive to encourage residential development in the WMU Zone District; and WHEREAS, in order to establish a Multifamily Tax Exemption Program, the City must designate one or more residential targeted areas within which the temporary special valuation may be granted to qualifying residential improvements; and WHEREAS, in accordance with requirement stipulated at RCW 84.14.040(2), the Edmonds City Council passed a Resolution of Intent on July 26, 2016 to designate the WMU Zone District a residential targeted area; and Packet Pg. 124 4.10.a WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 84.14.040(2), the Resolution of Intent gave notice of the time and place of a hearing to be held by the governing authority to consider the designation of the residential targeted area(s) as 7:00 pm, August 16, 2016 in Edmonds City Council Chambers; and WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 84.14.040(2), publication of the notice of the August 16, 2016 public hearing was provided in a newspaper of general circulation for at least two consecutive weeks, no less than 7 and no more than 30 days prior to the hearing, on July 29, 2016 and August 5, 2016; and WHEREAS, the hearing on the proposed residential targeted area was held as scheduled on August 16, 2016; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Edmonds finds as follows: (a) The WMU Zone District is within an urban center; (b) The WMU Zone District lacks sufficient available, desirable, and convenient residential housing, including affordable housing, to meet the needs of the public who would be likely to live in the WMU Zone District, if the affordable, desirable, attractive, and livable places to live were available; and (c) The designation of the WMU Zone District as a residential targeted area will stimulate the construction of new multifamily housing. Section 2. In light of the above findings, the City Council of the City of Edmonds designates the Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District, as defined by Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.110 and the city's official zoning map, as a residential targeted area for the purposes of establishing a Multifamily Tax Exemption Program. RESOLVED this 16th day of August, 2016. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, S ASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. August 12, 2016 August 16, 2016 1368 00 Packet Pg. 125 4.10.b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 3.38 ENTITLED "MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING TAX EXEMPTION"; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chapter 84.14 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) provides for temporary special valuations for eligible improvements associated with multifamily housing, especially within urban centers deficient in planned residential development; and WHEREAS, in order to establish a Multi -family Housing Tax Exemption program, the City must designate one or more residential targeted areas within which the temporary special valuation may be granted to qualifying residential improvements; and WHEREAS, in accordance with RCW 84.14.040(2), the Edmonds City Council passed a Resolution of Intent on July 26, 2016 to designate the Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District a residential targeted area; and WHEREAS, after complying with all the corresponding requirements set out in RCW 84.14.040, on August 16, 2016 the Edmonds City Council designated the Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District, as defined by Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.110 and the city's official zoning map, as a residential targeted area for the purposes of establishing a Multi- family Housing Tax Exemption program; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council find it to be in the public interest to promote redevelopment in the Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District, especially including market -rate and affordable housing; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new Chapter 3.38, entitled "Multi -Family Housing Tax Exemption," is added to the Edmonds City Code, as follows: Packet Pg. 126 4.10.b CHAPTER 3.38 MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING TAX EXEMPTION 3.38.010 Purpose. 3.38.020 Definitions. 3.38.030 Tax exemption — Duration — Valuation — Exceptions. 3.38.040 Residential targeted areas — Designation. 3.38.050 Project eligibility. 3.38.060 Application Procedure. 3.38.070 Application review — Approval — Required findings — Issuance of conditional certificate — Denial — Appeal. 3.38.080 Amendment of contract. 3.38.090 Extension of conditional certificate — Required findings — Denial — Appeal. 3.38.100 Final certificate — Application — Issuance — Denial — Appeal. 3.38.110 Annual certification. 3.38.120 Cancellation of tax exemption — Appeal. 3.38.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter, pursuant to Chapter 84.14 RCW, is to stimulate the construction of new multifamily housing and the rehabilitation of existing vacant and underutilized buildings for multifamily housing, which may include affordable housing opportunities, in keeping with the goals and mandates of the Growth Management Act (particularly Chapter 36.70A RCW), within urban centers designated as Residential Targeted Areas where the City has found insufficient housing opportunities, including affordable housing opportunities. To achieve these purposes, this chapter provides for special valuations in residentially deficient urban centers for eligible improvements associated with multiunit housing, which may include affordable housing. 3.38.020 Definitions. Unless expressly provided for below, in construing the provisions of this chapter, definitions of key terms in this chapter shall follow the definitions as set out in RCW 84.14.010. A. "City" means the city of Edmonds, Washington. oo Ln Packet Pg. 127 4.10.b B. "Director" means the director of the city's department of development services or authorized designee. C. "Residential targeted area" means any urban center so designated by the Edmonds city council in accordance with this chapter and Chapter 84.14 RCW, and which has been found by the city council to be lacking sufficient available, convenient, attractive, livable, and desirable residential housing to meet the needs of the public. D. "Urban center" means any district or subarea of the City of Edmonds designated as a mixed - use center through a subarea or comprehensive planning process, where urban residents may obtain a variety of products and services including several business establishments, such as shops, offices, banks, restaurants, medical facilities, governmental agencies and a mixture of uses and activities that may include housing, recreation, and cultural activities in association with either commercial or office uses, or both uses. 3.38.030 Tax exemption — Duration — Valuation — Exceptions. T_ Ln A. The value of new housing construction, conversion, and rehabilitation improvements qualifying under this chapter is exempt from ad valorem property taxation for 12 successive U a) years beginning January 1 st of the year immediately following the calendar year of issuance of c the final certificate of tax exemption if the property otherwise qualifies for the exemption under 0 this chapter and the applicants commits to renting or selling at least 20 percent of the multifamily W housing units as affordable housing units to low- and moderate -income households, and the M property must satisfy that commitment. o B. The exemption does not apply to the value of land or to the value of nonhousing improvements not qualifying under ECC 3.38.050, nor does the exemption apply to increases in assessed valuation of land and nonqualifying improvements. This article also does not apply to increases in assessed valuation made by the assessor on nonqualifying portions of building and value of land, nor to increases made by lawful order of a county board of equalization, the Department of Revenue, or a county, to a class of property throughout the county or specific area of the county to achieve the uniformity of assessment or appraisal required by law. Packet Pg. 128 4.10.b 3.38.040 Residential targeted areas — Designation. A. The following area is designated by the City Council as a residential targeted area, consistent with the requirements of RCW 84.14.040: 1. Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) Zoning District. B. If part of any legal lot is within a residential targeted area, the entire lot shall be deemed to lie within the residential targeted area. C. The area(s) designated in subsection A of this section may be amended and other areas may be added by action of the City Council consistent with requirements of RCW 84.14.040. Any amendment to the residential targeted areas shall not affect the status of a project for which the City has received a complete application for property tax exemption under this chapter. 3.38.050 Project eligibility. To qualify for temporary exemption from property taxation under this chapter, the property shall r oo Ln satisfy all of the following requirements. c A. The property must be located in a designated residential targeted area. U a) U B. The project must consist of at least twenty dwelling units of multifamily housing, located within a residential structure or a mixed -use development, in which at least 50 percent of the space within such residential structure or mixed -use development is intended for permanent residential occupancy. C. The project must comply with all zoning requirements, land use regulations, and building code requirements contained in the Edmonds City Code and applicable upon land use permit approval or submittal of a complete building permit application, whichever occurs sooner. D. For the duration of the exemption granted under this chapter, the property shall have no violations of applicable zoning requirements, land use regulations, or building code requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code for which the development services department shall have issued an order to correct ("OTC") or notice of violation ("NOV") that are not resolved by a voluntary correction agreement, vacation by the hearing examiner, or action of the property owner in compliance with the applicable code requirements as determined by the Packet Pg. 129 4.10.b director, within the time period for compliance provided in such OTC or NOV and any extension of the time period for compliance granted by the director. E. New construction multifamily housing must be completed within three years from the date of approval of the application or by any extended deadline granted by the director pursuant to ECC 3.38.090. F. The owner must enter into a contract with the city, approved by the mayor, under which the owner has agreed to the implementation of the development on terms and conditions satisfactory to the city and in compliance with this chapter. 3.38.060 Application Procedure. The owner of property applying for exemption under this chapter shall submit an application to the director on a form established by the director. The owner shall verify the correctness of the information contained in the application by his/her signature and affirmation made under penalty T of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. The application shall contain such oo information as the director may deem necessary or useful, which at a minimum shall include: A. A completed City of Edmonds application form, including information setting forth the grounds for tax exemption; B. A brief written description of the project, and schematic site and floor plans of the multifamily units and the structure(s) in which they are proposed to be located; C. Floor and site plans of the proposed project, which plans may be revised by the owner provided such revisions are made prior to the city's final action on the exemption application; D. A statement from the owner acknowledging the potential tax liability when the property ceases to be eligible for exemption under this chapter; E. At the time of initial application under this section, the owner shall pay to the city an initial application fee of $1,000.00, plus an amount necessary to cover recording fees as set out in the City's Development Fee Table; F. Except as otherwise provided for in subsection G, the application shall be submitted any time before a complete application for a building or other construction permit is submitted; Packet Pg. 130 4.10.b G. If, on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the owner has applied for a permit identified in subsection F of this section, then application for exemption under this section may be submitted any time prior to issuance of a building permit. 3.38.070 Application review — Approval — Required findings — Issuance of conditional certificate — Denial — Appeal. A. The director may approve an application if he or she finds that: 1. A minimum of twenty new units are being constructed; 2. The proposed project is or will be, at the time of completion, in conformance with all approved plans, and all applicable requirements of the Edmonds City Code or other applicable requirements or regulations in effect at the time the application is approved; 3. The owner has complied with all of the requirements of this chapter, including but not limited to project eligibility requirements contained in ECC 3.38.050 and application T- oo requirements contained in ECC 3.38.060; Ln 4. The project site is located within a designated residential targeted area; and 5. If applicable, the proposed multiunit housing project meets the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030. B. The director shall deny an application if the foregoing criteria are not met. C. If the application is approved, the owner shall enter into a contract with the city, approved by the mayor, who is hereby authorized to approve such contracts, regarding the terms and conditions of the project under this chapter. D. Following mayor approval of the contract, the director shall issue a conditional certificate of acceptance of tax exemption. The conditional certificate shall expire three years from the date of approval unless an extension is granted as provided in ECC 3.38.090. E. If the application is denied, the director shall state in writing the reasons for the denial and send notice of denial to the owner's last known address within 10 days of the denial. Packet Pg. 131 4.10.b F. An owner may appeal a denial of a tax exemption application to the hearing examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within 30 calendar days of receipt of notice of the denial. The appeal before the hearing examiner shall follow the procedures for appeal of Type II decisions, shall be based upon the record before the director, and the director's decision will be upheld unless the owner can show that there is no substantial evidence on the record to support the director's decision. The hearing examiner's decision on appeal shall constitute the final action of the city. 3.38.080 Amendment of contract. A. Any owner seeking amendment(s) to the contract approved by the mayor may do so by submitting a request in writing to the director at any time within three years of the date of the mayor's approval of the contract. B. Any owner seeking amendments to the approved form of contract shall pay to the city an amendment application fee of $200.00 for administrative costs, plus any amount necessary to T- Ln cover recording fees as set out in the City's Development Fee Table. C. The director may approve amendments to the contract that comport with the intent of the original contract approved by the mayor. 3.38.090 Extension of conditional certificate — Required findings — Denial — Appeal. A. The conditional certificate may be extended by the director for a period not to exceed 24 consecutive months. The owner shall submit a written request stating the grounds for the extension together with a fee of $300.00 for the city's administrative cost to process the request. The director may grant an extension if the director finds that: 1. The anticipated failure to complete construction within the required time period is due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner; and 2. The owner has been acting, and could reasonably be expected to continue to act, in good faith and with due diligence; and Packet Pg. 132 3. All the conditions of the original contract between the owner and the city will be satisfied upon completion of the project. B. If an extension is denied, the director shall state in writing the reason for denial and shall send notice to the owner's last known address within 10 calendar days of the denial. An owner may appeal the denial of an extension to the hearing examiner, using the process for appeals of Type II decisions. 3.38.100 Final certificate — Application — Issuance — Denial — Appeal. A. Upon completion of the construction as provided in the contract between the owner and the city, and upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the owner may request a final certificate of tax exemption. The owner shall file with the director such information as the director may deem necessary or useful to evaluate eligibility for the final certificate, which shall at a minimum include: T 1. A statement of expenditures made with respect to each multifamily housing unit and the oo total expenditures made with respect to the entire property; C 2. A description of the completed work and a statement of qualification for the exemption; 3. If applicable, a statement that the project meets the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030; 4. A statement that the work was completed within the required three-year period or any approved extension. B. At the time of application for final certificate under this section, the owner shall pay to the city a fee of $300.00 to cover the city's administrative costs, in addition to recording costs. C. Within 30 days of receipt of all materials required for a final certificate, the director shall determine whether the completed work, and the affordability of the units if applicable, is consistent with the contract between the city and owner, whether all or a portion of the completed work qualifies for exemption under this chapter and, if so, which specific improvements satisfy the requirements of this chapter. Packet Pg. 133 4.10.b D. If the director determines that the project has been completed in accordance with the contract between the owner and the city and the requirements of this chapter, the city shall file a final certificate of tax exemption with the assessor within 10 days of the expiration of the 30-day period provided under subsection C of this section. E. The director is authorized to cause to be recorded, or to require the owner to record, in the real property records of the Snohomish County Auditor's Department, Recording Division, the contract with the city required under ECC 3.38.070.C, or such other document(s) as will identify such terms and conditions of eligibility for exemption under this article as the director deems appropriate for recording. F. The director shall notify the owner in writing that the city will not file a final certificate if the director determines that the project was not completed within the required three-year period or any approved extension, or was not completed in accordance with the contract between the owner and the city and the requirements of this chapter, or, if applicable, the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030 were not met, or the owner's property is otherwise not qualified for the limited exemption under this chapter. G. The owner may appeal the director's decision to the hearing examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within 14 calendar days after issuance of the notice of the denial. The appeal before the hearing examiner shall follow the provisions for appeals of Type II decisions. The owner may appeal the hearing examiner's decision to the Snohomish County superior court according to the procedures contained in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.090(6), within 30 days of notification by the city to the owner of the decision. 3.38.110 Annual certification. A. Within 30 days after the first anniversary of the date the city filed the final certificate of tax exemption and each year thereafter during the tax exemption period, the property owner shall file a certification with the director, verified upon signed affirmation under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington. The certification shall contain such information as the director may deem necessary or useful, and shall at a minimum include the following information: T oo Ln Packet Pg. 134 4.10.b 1. A statement of occupancy and vacancy of the multifamily units during the previous year; 2. A certification that the property has not changed use and, if applicable, that the property has been in compliance with the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030 since the date of filing of the final certificate of tax exemption, and continues to be in compliance with the contract with the city and the requirements of this article; 3. A description of any improvements or changes to the property made after the filing of the final certificate or most recent certification, as applicable. B. Failure to submit the annual certification may result in cancellation of the tax exemption. 3.38.120 Cancellation of tax exemption — Appeal. A. If at any time the director determines that the property no longer complies with the terms of the contract or with the requirements of this chapter, or the use of the property is changed or will be changed to a use that is other than residential, or if the owner intends to discontinue T oo compliance with the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030, or the Ln property for any reason no longer qualifies for the tax exemption, the tax exemption shall be as canceled and additional taxes, interest and penalties imposed pursuant to state law. a B. If the owner intends to convert the multifamily housing to another use or intends to discontinue compliance with the affordable housing requirements as described in ECC 3.38.030, the owner must notify the director and the Snohomish County assessor within 60 days of the change in use. Upon such change in use, the tax exemption shall be canceled and additional taxes, interest and penalties imposed pursuant to state law. C. Upon determining that a tax exemption shall be canceled, the director shall notify the property owner by certified mail, return receipt requested. The property owner may appeal the determination by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk, within 30 days after issuance of the decision by the director, specifying the factual and legal basis for the appeal. The appeal before the hearing examiner shall follow the procedures set forth for appeals of Type II decisions. At the appeal hearing, all affected parties may be heard and all competent evidence received. The hearing examiner shall affirm, modify, or repeal the decision to cancel the exemption based on Packet Pg. 135 4.10.b the evidence received. The hearing examiner shall give substantial weight to the director's decision to cancel the exemption, and the burden of proof and the burden of overcoming the weight accorded to the director's decision shall be upon the appellant. An aggrieved party may appeal the hearing examiner's decision to the Snohomish County superior court in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.110(2), within 30 days after issuance of the decision of the hearing examiner Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY APPROVED: MAYOR DAVE EARLING Packet Pg. 136 P- O rr Attachment: 2016-10-13 MFTE Ordinance clean (1581 : Multi -Family Tax Exemption Program) 4.10.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2016, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 3.38 ENTITLED "MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING TAX EXEMPTION"; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of , 2016. 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 13 CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 138 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Presentation by Diversity Commission (15 min.) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: Community Services Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background Appointed last October, the Diversity Commission is just completing its first year and wishes to provide an update on its programs and activities to the City Council, as well as a look forward to next year. The last time the Diversity Commission addressed City Council was in January 2016, when its 2016 Work Plan was presented. A brief presentation will be made at the 10/18/16 Council meeting. Staff Recommendation No action required. Narrative <Type or insert text here> Packet Pg. 139 5.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Hearing Examiner Report (15 min.) Staff Lead: Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Department: Planning Division Preparer: Diane Cunningham Background/History Phil Olbrechts, Edmonds Hearing Examiner has held this position since 2011. Staff Recommendation Review the attached information. Narrative Phil Olbrects report is attached. Attachments: 2016 Annual Report Packet Pg. 140 5.2.a MEMORANDUM DATE: October 12, 2016 TO: Edmonds City Council FROM: Phil A. Olbrechts — Hearing Examiner RE: Annual Report SUMMARY: The Hearing Examiner issued five decisions since his last report to the City Council dated December 2, 2016. Each decision is addressed in reverse chronological order below: Blomenkamp Judicial Remand (8/30/16): Decision revised upon judicial remand to require that required replacement trees have a minimum caliper of three inches in addition to a condition already requiring the trees be at least ten feet in height. In 2015, Mr. Blomenkamp requested redress via ECDC 20.40.100 for damage to several large trees on his property caused by a development on adjoining property that damaged his tree roots on that adjoining property. The examiner determined that Mr. Blomenkamp was entitled to relief under ECDC 20.40.100. Unfortunately, ECDC 20.40.100 did not provide any standards on how damage to Mr. Blomenkamp's trees should be remedied. Recognizing that it wasn't feasible and likely not even possible to replace 100+ foot trees with trees of similar height, the examiner looked to other parts of the code for guidance on what could be feasibly required of a developer to remedy tree damage. The only code standards that suggested what type of tree heights may be available at a nursery was the City's landscaping standards, which included maximum tree heights of ten feet. The examiner also looked to ECDC 18.45.075 for an objective standard on tree replacement ratios, which requires three replacement trees for every tree damaged by a developer in violation of the City's clearing and grading standards. Based upon these code standards, the examiner required the developer to replace each damaged tree with three trees of the same species at least ten feet in height. Mr. Blomenkamp appealed the decision to Snohomish County Superior Court based upon a wide range of issues. The superior court sustained the examiner's 12-page decision on all points with the proviso that the replacement trees should have a minimum caliper of three inches as also required by ECDC 18.45.075. The examiner's 8/30/16 remand decision added the three-inch caliper requirement to the examiner's final Blomenkamp decision as required by the superior court. City of Edmonds Downtown Public Restroom (7/20/16): Approved. Variance and conditional use permit to install a prefabricated 520 square foot 11-foot high public restroom building in the north parking lot of City Hall. The variance was for waiver of eight development standards, including minimum height, allowed uses, access and landscaping as well as four design standards (one of which required transparent windows). Dietz Critical Areas Reasonable Use (4/7/16): Approved. The applicant requested a reasonable use waiver to a 100-foot critical areas buffer of Shell Creek in order to build a home with a 336 square foot footprint at 742 Daily Street. To assure that functions and values of the Packet Pg. 141 Examiner Annual Report - 2 creek would not be compromised, the proposal involved 1,617 square feet of stream buffer enhancement with native trees and shrubs, a five-year monitoring plan, a fence to prevent further encroachment into the stream buffer and notice on title. A prior reasonable use request by Jordan Schenk for the same property had been denied in 2014 for a proposed home with a building footprint of 626 square feet. One primary reason for the Schenk denial was the inclusion of a large second story overhang that threatened to block sunlight to surrounding stream vegetation. The Dietz proposal contains no overhang and is significantly smaller than the Schenk home proposed in 2014. Staff recommended approval of the Dietz application and denial of the Schenk application. Minimum reasonable use was premised on the minimum building footprint necessary to accommodate a two -car garage. The recent trend in "tiny houses" with livable space of 120 square feet or less may be grounds for further limiting building area in reasonable use applications. Bridle Animal Referral Center (3/4/16): Approved. Conditional use permit to operate a 24- hour veterinary clinic that specializes in cancer specialty care in an existing building located at 8401 Main Street. The surrounding area is primarily single-family residential with some BN zone property to the north, including a veterinary clinic. Neighbors expressed concern over noise caused by barking dogs and late night parking. The applicant was very conscientious about addressing neighborhood concerns and proposed numerous design measures for the interior of the building that reduced noise impacts. Edmonds Public Works Noise Variance (2/11/16): Noise variance approved. The City's Public Works department requested a variance to nighttime noise limits for five nonconsecutive nights for sewer maintenance project on SR 99 between 216th and 2201h Streets SW. Packet Pg. 142 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Shoreline Master Program Update (40 min.) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The City of Edmonds spent several years (2006 - 2014) revising its SMP consistent with updated state guidelines. The City's review of the SMP update included ten meetings before the Planning Board from October 2011 - November 2012 and eleven meetings before the City Council from December 2012 through November 2014, culminating in the adoption of Resolution 1326 expressing intent to adopt an update to the Shoreline Master Program (Exhibit 2). The Department of Ecology is responsible for ensuring statewide policies are upheld and implemented when local SMPs are adopted and must approve local SMPs before they become effective. Following the adoption of Resolution 1326, the City's updated SMP and supporting documentation was sent to Ecology for review in December 2014. Ecology issued a conditional approval of the City's SMP on June 27, 2016 (Exhibit 4). Staff Recommendation Review and vote on the draft response to Ecology contained in Exhibits 1 - 3. The draft response in Exhibits 1- 3 reflects Council's preliminary votes on each of Ecology's required changes; however, the administration has reservations regarding the proposed setback/buffer for the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. While a large setback/buffer in an undeveloped area will provide enhanced protections to a wetland, in an already developed urban environment, a large setback/buffer may perpetuate the status quo by discouraging redevelopment that could result in some enhancements around the marsh. NARRATIVE The Department of Ecology has granted Conditional Approval of the City's Shoreline Master Program. Ecology's June 27, 2016 conditional approval letter is provided as Exhibit 4 along with 6 attachments, which are: A) Ecology's Findings and Conclusions regarding Edmonds' SMP, B) Required Changes, C) Recommended Changes, D) A comment summary and responses, E) Water Quality Financial Assistance Guidance Document Appendix L, and F) Department of Ecology Water Quality Program August 19, 2015 letter. The Conditional Approval includes eight required changes to the City's SMP and one recommended change. Five of the required changes relate to incorporating the recently adopted critical area ordinance into the SMP. The three remaining required changes and the one recommended change are in regards to the Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Environment around the Edmonds Marsh. The one Packet Pg. 143 7.1 recommended change was to allow residential development within the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment. The Council has reviewed each of the required changes proposed by Ecology and taken preliminary votes on each of the changes to provide direction to staff in preparing a response to Ecology. Regarding incorporating the updated critical area regulations into the SMP, the City Council largely agrees with the changes proposed by Ecology with one exception. After the City of Edmonds adopted the updated critical area regulations in May 2016 with Ordinance No. 4026, Ecology released Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001) in June 2016. The wetland regulations in Ordinance No. 4026 and the SMP conditionally approved by Ecology were based on Ecology's Wetland & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002). The City Council has determined to follow the most recent guidance with regards to Best Available Science and the City's development regulations. As a result, the City Council voted to incorporate Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP. The Urban Mixed Use IV changes apply to the areas on the north and south side of the Edmonds Marsh, which is an important feature (ecologically and socially) of the Edmonds waterfront area. While the City Council voted to accept the change related to dropping the interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment, the City Council had concerns about Ecology's proposed setback/buffer in the UMU IV environment. The City Council voted to propose an alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV environment consistent with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001) and establishing an alternative threshold for buffer establishment. Finally, the City acknowledges Ecology's recommended change to allow residential development with the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. However, the Council does not feel this is the appropriate time to consider residential development. Given Council direction on Ecology's required changes, staff has prepared a draft response to Ecology in accordance with RCW 90.58.090(2)(e) . Exhibit 1 is the draft cover letter to Ecology summarizing the City Councils decisions. Exhibit 2 contains a table with the City Council's responses and proposed alternatives to Ecology's required changes. Rationale for the changes is also included in the table. Exhibit 3 contains the rationale for the City Council alternative setback/buffer for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment. Attachments: Exhibit 1- Draft City of Edmonds Condtional Approval Response Cover Letter Exhibit 2 - Edmonds Response/Alternative Table Exhibit 3 - Attorney Memo responding to Ecology Exhibit 4 - Ecology Condtional Approval Letter Packet Pg. 144 7.1.a October 28, 2016 Maia D. Bellon, Director WA State Department of Ecology Attention: Director's Office PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-6700 Re City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive U City Response to Department of Ecology's Conditional Approy Dear Ms. Bellon, The City of Edmonds appreciates the additional time gra response to the Department of Ecology's conditional aA Since receiving Ecology's conditional approval with eight change, the City has spent a significant amount e e discussing the proposed changes over the cours comments on Ecology's proposed changes. / The required changes from Ecolog, incorporating the recently update4 related to the Urban Mixed Use IV We logy to 1W evaluate and prepare a City's Shoreline Master Program. d changes and one recommended mEcology's required changes including eetings and receiving many public categories, 1) Requires changes 1— 5 related to ns into the SMP and 2) required changes 6 - 8 Regarding incorporatin a critica a rWtions into the SMP, the City Council largely agrees with the changes proposed cology wit ne exception. After the City of Edmonds adopted the updated critical area regulations i\ad 6 h Ordinance No. 4026, Ecology released Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication 01) in June 2016. The wetland regulations in Ordinance No. 4026 and the SMP conditionally by Ecology were based on Ecology's Wetland & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002). The City Council has determined to follow the most recent guidance with regards to Best Available Science and the City's development regulations. As a result, Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001) is being incorporated into the SMP. Please see Attachment A for the specific alternatives and the rationale for the proposed changes. The Urban Mixed Use IV changes apply to the area surrounding the Edmonds Marsh, which is an important feature (ecologically and socially) of the Edmonds waterfront area. While the City Council accepts the change related to dropping the interim designation for the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment, the City Council does not believe Ecology's proposed setback/buffer in the UMU IV environment are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, Shoreline Master Program guidelines, or the best available science and wetland guidance in Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001). The City Council is proposing an alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV environment and establishing an alternative threshold for buffer establishment. The City's proposed Packet Pg. 145 7.1.a alternatives are included in Attachment A with an expanded rationale for the City's proposed alternative included to required changes 7 and 8 in Attachment B. Finally, the City acknowledges Ecology's recommended change to allow residential development with the Urban Mixed Use IV environment. However, the Council does not feel this is the appropriate time to consider residential development, particularly since the current zoning at the Harbor Square site does not permit residential development. Please accept this letter along with Attachment A and B as the City of Edmonds' response as required by RCW 90.58.090(2)(e). The City of Edmonds appreciates the efforts of David Pater, Paul Anderson and Joe Burcar in this update and their attendance at Council meetings as the City has worked through the SMP update process. Sincerely, Kristiana Johnson City of Edmonds Coun Cc: Dave Earling, 1 David Pater, E Joe Burcar, Ec Paul Andersor Packet Pg. 146 Attachment A: City of Edmonds Responses/Alternative Proposals to the Department of Ecology's Required Changes from the June 27, 2016 Conditional Approval 7.1.b ITEM SIVIP PROVISION Topic Ecology Required change from June 27,2016 Conditional Approval City of Edmonds Response/Alternative Proposal City of Edmonds - Discussion/Rationale Format Changes [underline -additions; strikethrough-deletions] 11. 24.40.020 Critical Critical Areas B. The City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, as codified in The City of Edmonds accepts this required change. Areas Ordinance Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (dated Neyember 2-3 Referencing 2004 Ord ) (May 3, 2016, Ord 4026). are herein adopted as a part of this Program, except for the specific subsections list below in ECDC 24.40.020.D. All references to the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance in this Program are for this specific version. As a result of this incorporation of the Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance, the provisions of Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020.D, shall apply to any use, alteration or development within shoreline jurisdiction whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required. In addition to the critical area regulations in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (Appendix B) of this Master Program), the regulations identified in this section also apply to critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Where there are conflicts between the City of Edmonds Critical Area Ordinance and this Shoreline Master Program, provisions of the Shoreline Master Program shall prevail. 2. Appendix B SMP Critical Replace Appendix B containing the critical area regulations The City of Edmonds accepts this required change with As a result of incorporating the Department of Area dated November 23, 2014, Ordinance 3527 with critical area the modified exceptions list in item 4 below. Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Regulations regulations (minus exceptions noted in item 4 below) dated (Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, the CAO May 3, 2016, Ordinance 4026. exceptions in 24.40.020 were reviewed. The critical area regulations in Appendix B will not include the provisions identified in item 4 below. 3. 24.40.020 Critical CAO 4 Wetlands: a. ECDC 23.50 n��.3. ARY shoreline The City of Edmonds accepts this required change with The City accepts this change in that no critical area project Areas provisions neiRg heYGRd 25 buffer red In+inn through that minor modifications and indicated below: provisions will require a shoreline variance. proposes a triggered by the mfo!R GGr'n'r 24.40.02O.E.3 would deSGn1h Ghenisms ed a shoreline require 'a variaRGe. Noyai ia. for of the Gri+iGa;Area OrdinanGe G. The Ecology's required change did not include the shherelino - is . equired SpeGifiG PrOVOSOORS variance wetland buffer redUGtieR GORsisterlt with ECDC 24.40.020.E.3. listed below may only be imnlomon+o`J within chnrolino introductory sentence noting these provisions urisdiGtion through the shoreline „arianGe required a shoreline variance. That sentence is PrGGe&SL, h ECDC 23 80 n7n n h Q_ n 2: Buffer redUGtton 'I Wetlands shown as being deleted. and aI+eurcer"+� aZm Geologically Hazardous provisions were not shown 3 Fish Ernr Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas EGDG 23 50 non F 3 /any shoreline nroien++h �+ in Ecology's required change. However, allowed and a a �rr��z 23 90 non n ` : Re di lGed buffer widths onion beyOR J 25% buffer red ire+inn through activities in geologically hazardous areas (ECDC Prnnncoc a the rneGhallis„,s deSGribed!R ECDC-24.^�020.E.3 ^tea b. ECDC 23.90.040D.4: Additions to 23.80.040.B.1 & 2 were moved to the exceptions lir, for Tonic re No variall e r red list in item 4 below. The double -line strike -through szrFGtUesrex+st'R-g within hi asn� a�� . s+roam iffors wetlaR d h, ,ffer red In+iens nerisis+on+ with C('n(' 24. ^�020�3: �rnr Qn non Q -I Q �• A11Q1A,1„1 e,.+i„i+i„r ir, indicates the move. ie�d h EGDG 23 Qn n7n 'I h A. 7: Buffer red UG l+ oora inns crvna Page 1 of 13 Packet Pg. 147 7.1.b ITEM SMP -• • •• • •• Required •- • 1 •Conditional' •• • .Edmonds•. Proposal .Edmonds• Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] Q Fish aR d Wildlife Habitat Gonoen ation Areas �� 90 nnn.n.2: QedUGed1 bufferwidths b. EGDG 23 90.04n n 4: ^dditienstO S#U^+�''res�;?+gig within stream buffers 4. 24.40.020 Critical CAO D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical Area The City of Edmonds offers the exceptions list below as an As a result of incorporating the Department of Areas Exceptions Ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within alternative: Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates shoreline jurisdiction. (Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, the CAO D. Exceptions. The specific provisions of the Critical exceptions in 24.40.020 were reviewed. 1. General Provisions: � Drn�iicinnc of nh�pfor �z nn Crnr relating +n�r�en�c Area Ordinance listed below shall not apply to development within shoreline jurisdiction. General Provisions: Two of the items in the general provisions exemption list were left out of 1. General Provisions: Ecology's required change item 4 (ECDC eGenern M G use of do not apply to with a Provisions Of ^hapt��,� ECDC 23.40.130.D Monitoring Program and ECDC property property i„risdiG�n• specifically C 23.40.220.C.8). `shherolino 23.40.210(2). N TT�`pp" i�� n; ECDC ECDC 23.40.130.D requires a monitoring program property with shoreline j speGifiGally �n non and ECDC 232.. of not less than five years. SMP contains a c. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance a. ECDC 23.40.130.D: Monitoring Program monitoring provision that requires monitoring for a period of not less than ten years. Given the SMP e. ECDC 23.4&230 €xis b. ECDC 23.40.210: Variance contains a separate monitoring program, ECDC G. ECDC; 23 , 27n� Tinnr Site In„e^+igati„ 23.40.130.D will be excepted from the CAO in �rnr ��.4o�S: 2. Geologically Hazardous Areas: Appendix B of the SMP. a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in geologically e €�ce�, 2. Wetlands: a. ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 (which is ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 in the updated CAO) contains provisions very similar to WAC 173-27-040(m). hazardous areas `n� 2. Wetlands: ECDC 23.50.010.B: Wetland Ratings b. ECDC 23.50.040.F.1: Standard Buffer Widths WAC 173-27-040(m) exempts minor site investigative work from shoreline substantial a. h ECDC 23.5 non C 9 : Standard Buffer Widths c. ECDC 23.50.040.F.2: Required Measures to Minimize development permit requirements. ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 allows minor site investigative work Impacts to Wetlands ^^�rnr�� 50non n: �n�onBuffer Width d. ECDC 23.50.040.K: Small, Hydrologically Isolated without the requirement for a critical area report. Given the intent of the two provisions to allow minor site investigation in preparation for a land use or g p p "^y"' ,� �r,nr, ��z Fn non � Q h� ��^ci.,e [?�r� Wetlands G. ECDC 23 5n non n: WetlaR per Widthder shoreline permit, and the similar language in each gillg �rC23�g;04n e + rla r�� n nn n � Q h: o�^��TeC�eati�,� provision, the City of Edmonds is proposing to remove ECDC 23.40.220.C.9 from the exception f ECDC 23 50 050 F: Mitigation Ra �� ,-�at+es, e.€f'�1f' 2� �0-04n.I:�Tpt�;ens � �za� list. ECDC 3 50 050 G: �ni��E�Eeep+ f ECDC 23 50 050 F: Mi+�+i �� With the incorporation of the Department of g ga o ECDC 23 50 050 ram: Wetlands Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates Mitigation "��` as (Publication No. 16-06-001) into the SMP, certain provisions of the wetlands section in the CAO 3. Geologically Hazardous Areas: needed to be excepted from the SMP where there a. ECDC 23.80.040.B.1 & 2: Allowed activities in was conflicts with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. geologically hazardous areas Geologically Hazard Areas shown as a double underline to indicate the move from item 3 above. 5. 24.40.020 Critical Wetlands Delete 24.40.020.F(1) — (4). The City of Edmonds offers the wetland section attached After the City of Edmonds adopted the updated Areas Deletions are not shown in strike -through here to save space. to the end of this table as an alternative to Ecology's critical area regulations in May 2016 with required change number 5. Ordinance No. 4026, Ecology released Wetland d R sa. M a� 0 a L to a� c 0 N X W c m E U �a r Page 2 of 13 Packet Pg. 148 7.1.b ITEM SMP -• • •• • •• Required •- • 1 •Conditional' •• • .Edmonds•. Proposal .Edmonds• Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06- 001) in June 2016. The wetland regulations in Ordinance No. 4026 and the SMP conditionally approved by Ecology were based on Ecology's Wetland & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Publication No. 10-06-002). The City of Edmonds desires to follow the most recent guidance with regards to Best Available Science and the City's development regulations. As a result, the City is choosing to incorporate Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06- 001) into the SMP. Incorporating the updated wetland guidance into the SMP primarily involves replacing the wetland categorizations and buffer requirements in the SMP. Apart from incorporating the wetland categorizations and buffer requirements into the SMP, the City of Edmonds accepts the deletions of the remaining sections as proposed in Ecology's required change. Ecology's required changed was to delete 24.40.020.F.1 — F.4; however, there is no 24.40.020.F.3 — FA in the SMP. The wetland section in the SMP is contained within 24.40.020.F.1 — F.2. 6. Part III Shoreline B. Urban Mixed -Use IV: The Urban Mixed -Use IV designation is The City of Edmonds accepts this required change. Environments Designation being established on interim shoreline rdesignotien, is as 24.30.070 Criteria appropriate for those areas bordering T the Edmonds Marsh. Urban Mixed Use 5. Urban bei-ag The marsh was identified as a shoreline of the state is Mixed Use IV new to this SHAD of identified „�� o .,-ter— �� as a shoreline update and was the state late in the planning process.. , W-with properties within 200-feet of the salt influenced portions of the marsh now under shoreline jurisdiction (where they had not previously been so designated). SneGifig review of the effents of establishing shoreline environment on evicting d a aR nr� aroi R d the marsh must he oposed uses studied. The south side of the marsh has been identified as the future site of the Edmonds Crossing Ferry Terminal which underwent significant environment review with a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in 2004. On the north side of the Marsh is the Harbor Square commercial development owned by the Port of Edmonds. The Sono update nror�ess was delayed to the Pert of E dmonlds tome to a long allow submit Harbor Square Master Plall fE)r review by plaRRed GGRGUFFellt CU a M a� 0 L a W Wc L 0 r Q Page 3 of 13 Packet Pg. 149 7.1.b ITEM SMP -• • •• • •• Required •- • 1 •Conditional' •• • Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] Oho City of EidMOR do The Port's proposer) Harbor Square the .Edmonds•. Proposal .Edmonds• net by the Gity. Master Plan was ultimately adopted The Edmonds Marsh is also being studied for potential restoration projects including the daylighting of the Willow Creek outlet as well as the marshes role in the flooding problem at the Dayton Street/State Route 104 intersection and the role the marsh and play in a solution to the flooding problem. Establishing the I Irban Mixed Use IV designation as an interim designation will allow the City, in gooperation With f 1 pprTep WRerC EGGIE)g\/ SG!e Rt!StG !Rterested me f the to p11hIig' ageRGies/�. fo gqRzatiORS,, and Illy review effeGts of a new shoreline Garefl establishing it irisdintion for the area around the marsh on existing and development as well as the eneleginal role the planned Edmonds Marsh plays in the City/ of Edmonds The City crn--IvrrcrsTviurs��ru�.rl �a-rrrvr-rcl�� c-vrcp intends to Inding the Edmonds Marsh the study issues surrounding and related I Irhan Mixed _I Ice IV designation for two years frroTmTr��e6tn/e date of this QUAD At the of the sfi Irh/ , the City will sheF I��InceRVir� ran perieD adept appropriate Tm8Rt sl Irrol Inding the Edmonds Marsh designation(c) for the area ingll lyding evaluating whether a ne e/ designation is needed and I.A.xhethei: the have the designation. eRtire area should same 7. Part IV General Policies and Regulations 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Development Standards Table Urban Mixed Use IV Shore Setback Shoreline Area Designation The City of Edmonds offers the following as an alternative for the setback/buffer requirement in the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment: See Attachment B for the rationale behinds the City's alternative setback/buffer for the UMU IV shoreline environment. For every instance in Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards table contained in 24.90.090 where the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline indicates a shore setback of 100/50, that will be changed to 125/110. This means there will be a requirement for a 110 foot vegetative buffer with an additional 15 foot structural setback for a total of a 125-foot shore setback measured from the edge of the marsh. Urban Mixed Use IV Shoreline Area Designation Commercial and Light Industrial Development Urban Mixed Use IV Shore Setback 100/50 65/50 Shore Setback 100/50 125/110 8. Part IV General Policies and Regulations 24.40.090 Shoreline Bulk and Dimensional Standards Development Standards Table Footnotes 18. Setback for new buildings and expansion of buildings Re w deyelepmen+ within the Urban Mixed -Use IV environment is a-S0 65 feet. Redevelopment of greater than 50% for the Harbor Square property within shoreline jurisdiction and The City of Edmonds offers the following as an alternative footnote 18: 18. Setback for new development within the Urban Mixed- Use IV environment is 4-00 125 feet. A 110-foot vegetative buffer is required to be established when an approved The Harbor Square site on the north side of the marsh has been developed in accordance with a contract rezone. The existing development cannot be expanded as the limitations of the contract rezone have been met. The Harbor Square site has a comprehensive plan designation of Downtown Master Plan. In order for the Harbor Square site to be redeveloped, the redevelopment will have to be approved through a master planning process. When an approved master plan is implemented, the 110-buffer will be required to be established. development of the site on the south border of the marsh within shoreline jurisdiction require the establishment of a 50- foot vegetation buffer adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh where the vegetative buffer is absent, in combination with a 15 foot structural setback . master planned development is implemented on the north or south side of the marsh. The 110-buffer may be established in the absence of a master planned redevelopment through a standalone restoration project. New development agtiVities within the I Irban Mi„e,d_I Use IV en\/Irenment require the establishment of a 50 feet vegetation buffer adiagent to the Edmonds Marsh -e/here N r x w c a� E U �a r Page 4 of 13 Packet Pg. 150 �1_ ITEM SIVIP PROVISION Topic• •• Required change from1 • Conditional Approval • Format Changes [underline -additions; strokethreugh-deletions] of Edmonds•. Proposal the vegetative buffer is abseRt of EdmondsDiscussion/Rationale Likewise, the property on the south side of the marsh has a comprehensive plan designation of Master Plan Development and a zoning designation of Master Plan 2. Development on the south side of the marsh will also occur through a master plan process. When an approved master plan implemented on the south side of the marsh, the 110-foot buffer will be required to be established. While buffer establishment is required with an implemented master plan, the 110-foot may be established prior to the implementation of master planned development through a voluntary buffer restoration effort. Q Page 5 of 13 Packet Pg. 151 7.1.b City of Edmonds Proposed Alternative to Required Change No. 5 for Wetland Regulations within the SMP. 24.40.020 Critical Areas F. Wetlands. Wetlands are those areas, designated in accordance with WAC 173-22-035 that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Wetlands shall be rated aeeefding to the Washington State wedand rating system for- eo tains the definitions and methods for- detefmining the er-iter-ia and parameters defining the following wedand rating aleg , Wetlands shall be rated accordingto o the Washington Department of Ecology wetland rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met.: a. Category L Category €*hand r-elatively undis€destuarine wetlands lafger- than 1 aer-e; 2) wetlands that afe identified by seientists ef the Washingto Natural Her-itage Pr-ogr-am�DNR as high "ality wetlands; 3) begs; 4) mattir-e and old gf!ovvth forested wetlands larger- than 1 acre; 5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; or 6) wetlands that per-f many ftmetions well (see,.;n 70 p r sor- re) Category I wetlands are: (1) relatively undisturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR; (3) bogs, (4) mature and old- rg owth forested wetlands larger than 1 acre; (5) wetlands in coastal lagoons; _ (6) interdunal wetlands that score 8 or 9 habitat points and are larger than 1 acre; and (7) wetlands that perform many functions well (scoring 23 points or more). These wetlands: (1) represent unique or rare wetland types; (2) are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; (3) are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or (4) provide a high level of functions. b. Category II. distff-bed estuarine wetlands larger- than I aer-e; 2) inter-dunal wetlands 1 aeFes; 3) disturbed coastal lagoons or 4) wetlands with a moderately high Lve-I A Page 6 of 13 Packet Pg. 152 Category II wetlands are: Clestuarine wetlands smaller than 1 acre, or disturbed estuarine wetlands larger than 1 acre; (2) interdunal wetlands larger than 1 acre or those found in a mosaic of wetlands; or (3) wetlands with a moderately high level of functions (scoring between 20 and 22 points). Category III. Category M wetland wetlands with a moderate evel of fianetions (scoring between 30 and 50 points); or- 2) inter-dunal wetlands between 0. 1 and 1 aero i size Category III wetlands are: (1) wetlands with a moderate level of functions (scoring between 16 and 19 points); (2) can often be adequately placed with a well -planned mitigation project; and 3) interdunal wetlands between 0.1 and 1 acre. Wetlands scoring between 16 and 19 points generally have been disturbed in some ways and are often less diverse or more isolated from other natural resources in the landscape than Category II wetlands. d_Category IV. Category W wetlands have the le vest levels of fitetiors (s,.., i — fewer- than 30 points) and are often heavily disturbed Category IV wetlands have the lowest levels of functions (scoring fewer than 16 points) and are often heavily disturbed. These are wetlands that we should be able to replace, or in some cases to improve. However, experience has shown that replacement cannot be guaranteed in anv specific case. These wetlands may provide some important functions. and should be protected to some degree. d-.e.Illegal modifications. Wetland rating categories shall not change due to illegal modifications made by the applicant or with the applicant's knowledge. 2. Development in designated wetlands within shoreline jurisdiction shall be regulated in accordance with the following: a. Buffer Requirements. The following buffer widths have been established in accordance with the best available science. Thev are based on the cateizory of wetland and the habitat score as determined byqualified wetland professional using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update (Ecology Publication #14-06-029, or as revised and approved bogy). The adjacent land use intensity is assumed to be high. i. For wetlands that score 5 points or more for habitat function, the buffers in 24.40.020.F.2.b can be used if both of the following criteria are met: • A relatively undisturbed, vegetated corridor at least 100 feet wide is protected between the wetland and any other Priority Habitats as defined by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The corridor must be protected for the entire distance between the wetland and the Priority Habitat by some type of legal protection such as a conservation easement. Page 7 of 13 N x w c as E M U 0 a Packet Pg. 153 Presence or absence of a nearby habitat must be confirmed by a qualified biologist. If no option for providing a corridor is available, 24.40.020.F.2.b may be used with the required measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c alone.2 • The measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are implemented, where applicable, to minimize the impacts of the adjacent land uses. ii. For wetlands that score 3-4 habitat points, only the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are required for the use of 24.40.020.F.2.b iii. If an applicant chooses not to apply the mitigation measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c, or is unable to provide a protected corridor where available, then 24.40.020.F.2.d must be used. iv. The buffer widths in 24.40.020.F.2.b and 24.40.020.F.2.d assume that the buffer is vegetated with a native plant community ppropriate for the ecoregion. If the existing buffer is unvegetated, sparsely vegetated, or vegetated with invasive species that do not perform needed functions, the buffer should either be planted to create the appropriate plant community or the buffer should be widened to ensure that adequate functions of the buffer are provided. b. Wetland Buffer Requirements if the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are Implemented and Corridor Provided. Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score Wetland CateEory 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category 1: 75 105 165 225 Based on total score Category Bogs and wetlands of 190 225 High Conservation Value Category 1: Coastal Lagoons 150 165 225 Category 1: Interdunal 225 Category 1: 75 105 165 225 Forested Category 1: 150 Estuarine (buffer width not based on habitat score) Category II: Based on score 75 105 165 225 Page 8 of 13 N x w c as E u 0 a Packet Pg. 154 7.1.b Category II. Interdunal wetlands 110 165 225 Category II: Estuarine 110 buffer width not based on habitat score) Category III (all) 60 105 165 225 Category IV (all) 40 will "llp-Ift will "llp-Ift ..fKsrear!se��ssss�rr��rs�fr�as��szs�ee�:�!se�r��ssss�r:r�. _ Page 9 of 13 Packet Pg. 155 c. Required measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Measures are required, ,=cif applicable to a specific proposal. Disturbance Required measures to Minimize Impacts Lights • Direct lights away from wetland Noise • Locate activity that generates noise away from wetland • If warranted, enhance existing buffer with native vegetation plantings adjacent to noise source • For activities that generate relatively continuous, potentially disruptive noise, such as certain heavy industry or mining, establish an additional 10' heavily vegetated buffer strip immediately adjacent to the out wetland buffer Toxic runoff • Route all new, untreated runoff away from wetland while ensuring wetland is not dewatered • Establish covenants limiting use of pesticides within 150 feet of wetland • Apply integrated pest management Stormwater runoff • Retrofit stormwater detention and treatment for roads and existing adjacent development • Prevent channelized flow from lawns that directly enters the buffer • Use Low Impact Development techniques (per PSAT publication on LID techniques) Change in water regime • Infiltrate or treat, detain, and disperse into buffer new runoff from impervious surfaces and new lawns Pets and human disturbance • Use privacy fencing OR plant dense vegetation to delineate buffer edge and to discourage disturbance using vegetation appropriate for the ecoregion • Place wetland and its buffer in a separate tract or protect with a conservation easement Dust • Use best management practices to control dust Disruption of eoffidor-s e 0 Maintain to that eonneetions ofAite areas are- undistur-bed rem Page 10 of 13 Packet Pg. 156 7.1.b d. Wetland Buffer Requirements if the measures in 24.40.020.F.2.c are NOT Implemented or Corridor NOT Provided. Buffer width (in feet) based on habitat score Wetland CateEory 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Category 1: Based on total score 100 140 220 300 Catelgory Bois and wetlands of 250 300 Hiizh Conservation Value Category 1: Coastal Lam 200 220 300 Category 1: Interdunal 300 Category 1: Forested 100 140 F 20 300 Category 1: Estuarine 200 (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category II. Based on score 100 140 220 300 Category II: Interdunal wetlands 150 220 300 Category II: Estuarine 150 (buffer width not based on habitat scores) Category III (all) 80 140 220 300 Category IV (all) 50 Page 11 of 13 Packet Pg. 157 v m N N O F+ W Attachment: Exhibit 2 - Edmonds Response/Alternative Table (1610 : Shoreline Master Program Update) I 1 ii. W3l amaze stfueRfes; and iii.Fishing aeeess areas down to the watef's edge that shall be no larger- than six i,e. Additions to structures existing within wetlands and/or wetland buffers may be permitted pursuant to ECDC 23.50.040.I4I. Additions to structures within wetlands will also require state and federal approval. Page 13 of 13 N t K w r C d E t U 2 r� a Packet Pg. 159 7.1.c Date: October 14, 2016 To: Washington State Department of Ecology Copy: Edmonds City Council Dave Earling, Mayor Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Senior Planner From: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Re: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Analysis regarding City of Edmonds' proposed alternatives to Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8 and consistency of those alternatives with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidelines I. Purpose of this memo This memo demonstrates how the City of Edmonds' proposed alternatives to Required Changes 7 and 8 are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidance for Shoreline Master Programs. The City's proposed alternatives are necessary because the Department of Ecology's Required Changes 7 and 8 would not satisfy the SMA's no net loss standard or the City's restoration goals for the Edmonds marsh. If the rationale set forth below is adopted by the Edmonds City Council, this memo should be included as Attachment B to Council President Johnson's letter to Department of Ecology, Director, Maia Bellon. As an alternative to Required Change 7, the City of Edmonds is proposing a 110-foot buffer and a 125-foot setback for the Urban Mixed Use IV (UMU4) environment. This will be referred to as Alternative Change 7. As an alternative to Required Change 8, the City of Edmonds is proposing that the 110-foot buffer be planted and established in conjunction with a master planned development or redevelopment of the two properties within N1100 Dexter Ave N Suite 100 Seattle WA 98109 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Pg. 160 7.1.c the UMU4 environment. This will be referred to as Alternative Change 8. Because the two properties in the UMU4 are separately owned, it is possible that they would plant or otherwise establish their respective buffers at different times. Until that occurs, any existing uses within the adopted buffer would be allowed to continue as nonconforming uses. While most of the analysis below relates to Alternative Change 7, it should be kept in mind that Alternative Change 8 is the timing mechanism for Alternative Change 7. II. Findings of Fact demonstrating the consistency of Alternative Changes 7 and 8 with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidance The following findings of fact support the adoption of Alternative Changes 7 and 8. Packet Pg. 161 7.1.c A. The Edmonds marsh is a shoreline of the state. B. The Edmonds marsh is a Category II estuarine wetland and salt marsh. C. The UMU4 environment consists of two properties that abut the Edmonds marsh. The property to the south of the marsh is largely undeveloped. The property to the north of the marsh is developed as a business park known as Harbor Square. D. Harbor Square is owned by the Port of Edmonds. The Port had expressed interest in eventually redeveloping Harbor Square into a more intense development. The Port had sought a comprehensive plan amendment to approve the Port's master plan for Harbor Square, but later withdrew that request. There is currently no known timeline for the redevelopment of Harbor Square. E. Neither the City or the Department of Ecology have conducted detailed wildlife habitat assessments or wildlife surveys that would provide additional site -specific information about which species are present in the Edmonds marsh and what the buffer those species would need to be protected from redevelopment. F. In the absence of such detailed site -specific studies, it is appropriate to rely upon Ecology's guidance documents to establish buffer widths at the planning stage. G. The Department of Ecology has published various scientific and technical guidance documents that are intended to be used by cities in the development of critical area regulations and shoreline master programs. The city council reviewed relevant excerpts from these documents before voting to propose Alternative Change 7. Various relevant excerpts from these Department of Ecology publications are excerpted below. Packet Pg. 162 7.1.c 1. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology This document distinguishes Category II estuarine wetlands from Category II interdunal wetlands and other Category II wetlands, where buffer width is based on habitat score. Unlike the other kinds, the buffer for Category II estuarine wetlands does not depend on habitat score. Assuming that certain impact minimization measures are required, the buffer would be 110 feet. The measures include things like ensuring that light, noise, and toxic runoff are directed away from the wetland. If these measures are not implemented, then the buffer would be 150 feet. 2. Wetlands & CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities, Western Washington Version, January 2010, (1st Revision July 2011), (2nd Revision October 2012), Publication No. 10-06-002, Department of Ecology This document recommended standard buffer widths of 75 feet for Category II wetlands, with the possibility of additional buffer width being added based on a habitat score. The buffer table in this document does not have a line for Category II estuarine wetlands. The 75-foot buffer figure is for all Category II wetlands, except for interdunal wetlands. The buffers in the city's adopted CAO were based on the guidance from this document. After the CAO was adopted, this document was replaced in June 2016 by the Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version. 3. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 1, A Synthesis of the Science, March 2005, Publication No. 05-06-006, Department of Ecology This document contains the following passage discussing the importance of estuarine wetlands: Estuaries, the areas where freshwater and salt water mix, are among the most highly productive and complex Packet Pg. 163 7.1.c ecosystems. Here, tremendous quantities of sediments, nutrients, and organic matter are exchanged between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine communities. A large number of plants and animals benefit from estuarine wetlands. Fish, shellfish, birds, and plants are the most visible organisms that live in estuarine wetlands. However, a huge variety of other life forms also live in an estuarine wetland, including many kinds of diatoms, algae and invertebrates. Estuaries, of which estuarine wetlands are a part, are a "priority habitat" as defined by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. Estuaries have a high fish and wildlife density and species richness, important breeding habitat, important fish and wildlife seasonal ranges and movement corridors, limited availability, and high vulnerability to alteration of their habitat .... 4. Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2, Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands, April 2005, Publication No. 05-06-008, Department of Ecology This document contains the following sections: A frequent concern about buffers is their applicability to urban and urbanizing areas. The concerns generally fall into two categories: 1) the science on buffers comes largely from agricultural and forestry settings and is perceived to be irrelevant to urban areas; and 2) the need to maximize density of development in urban areas is in direct conflict with the protection of large upland areas around wetlands (and streams). The concern over the relevancy of the literature on buffers to urban areas is largely unfounded. While most of the studies of buffer effectiveness occur in non -urban settings, the principles are the same. Buffers do not function any differently in urban settings than in rural settings. The same processes of sediment, nutrient, and toxics removal operate similarly in urban areas as they do in rural settings. However, a good stormwater Packet Pg. 164 7.1.c management program can reduce the need for buffers to perform filtration functions, with the exception of lawns and landscaped areas which drain into wetlands rather than into stormwater collection areas. The role of buffers in providing needed upland habitat for wetland species and in screening adjacent noise and light is also performed similarly. In fact, a case can be made that buffers in urban areas are even more important from a habitat standpoint because there is little other upland habitat available. The factors that may be different in urban areas are that urban wetlands may perform some functions at a lower level because of degradation, and the range of wildlife species utilizing urban wetlands may be smaller. However, remaining wetlands (and adjacent upland areas) in urban areas may, in fact, function as habitat islands and be critical to many species. Generally, the protection of wildlife habitat functions of wetlands requires larger buffers than protection of water quality functions, particularly when state-of-the-art stormwater management is employed. However, the best way to address the issue of buffers in urban areas is to conduct a landscape analysis and develop a subarea plan that identifies, prioritizes, and protects the most important wetland, riparian, and upland habitats (see Chapters 5 through 7 of this volume for additional discussion). Maintaining and restoring connections between wetland, riparian, and upland habitats is key to protecting wildlife. A landscape analysis can help identify existing connections that should be protected as well as areas where connectivity can be restored. Combined with standards for low impact development and state-of-the- art stormwater management, this kind of approach could result in smaller buffers around the other critical areas that are not providing vital habitat. The studies Packet Pg. 165 7.1.c should always be confirmed on the ground during project review. The issue of balancing wetland protection with competing mandates in the GMA is a legitimate one that can be addressed in a number of ways. A buildable lands survey with a good wetlands inventory can provide important information on the actual conflicts that may exist (rather than a perceived conflict). Provisions to allow density trading from buffers to adjacent or nearby developable lands can help. Chapter 8, Section 8.3.8.8. Where a legally established, non -conforming use of the buffer exists (e.g., a road or structure that lies within the width of buffer recommended for that wetland), proposed actions in the buffer may be permitted as long as they do not increase the degree of non -conformity. This means no increase in the impacts to the wetland from activities in the buffer. For example, if a land use with high impacts (e.g., building an urban road) is being proposed next to a Category II wetland with a moderate level of function for habitat, a 150-foot buffer would be needed to protect functions (see Table 8C-6). If, however, an existing urban road is already present and only 50 feet from the edge of the Category II wetland, the additional 100 feet of buffer may not be needed if the road is being widened. A vegetated buffer on the other side of the road would not help buffer the existing impacts to the wetland from the road. If the existing road is resurfaced or widened (e.g., to add a sidewalk) along the upland edge, without any further roadside development that would increase the degree of non -conformity, the additional buffer is not necessary. The associated increase in impervious surface from widening a road, however, may necessitate mitigation for impacts from stormwater. Packet Pg. 166 7.1.c If, however, the proposal is to build a new development (e.g., shopping center) along the upland side of the road, the impacts to the wetland and its functions may increase. This would increase the degree of non- conformity. The project proponent would need to provide the additional 100 feet of buffer extending beyond the road or apply buffer averaging (see Section 8C.2.6). Appendix 8-C, Section 8C.2.4.2. 5. SMP Handbook, Chapter 11, Vegetation Conservation, Buffers, and Setbacks, Publication Number 11-06-010, Department of Ecology The following excerpts from this document should also be helpful: Some local governments with intensely developed shorelines have established only setbacks from the OHWM. Vegetation conservation is required, and planting new vegetation, replacing noxious weeds and invasive plants with native plants, and other habitat improvements are required for new or expanded development. These measures meet the requirements of the SMP Guidelines to protect ecological functions, as buffers do. SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 3-4. New scientific studies conducted after the CAO was adopted may establish the need for different -sized buffers than included in the CAO. The SMP Guidelines require "the most current, accurate and complete scientific and technical information available" to be used for development of SMPs [WAC 173-26- 201(2)(a)]. SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 4. When SMPs were first adopted in the 1970s, setbacks were established largely to protect structures from Packet Pg. 167 7.1.c erosion and effects of wind and water and to prevent new houses from blocking views. Some consideration was given to habitat, as in Conservancy environments with bigger setbacks than in Urban environments. We now know more about the value of buffers in regard to ecological functions. Recent scientific studies show that 25-foot setbacks do not protect most ecological functions and will not meet the no net loss standard of the SMP Guidelines. SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 7. How do you apply these buffer widths from the scientific literature to your local shorelines? Much of Washington's shorelines are developed, unlike the undeveloped shorelines discussed in much of the scientific literature. Those land uses include industry, commercial uses, houses, multi -family dwellings, parks, trails, marinas, bulkheads, parking lots, and fishing piers, among others. Some upland areas are intensely developed, and others are more sparsely developed. Some of our waters are heavily used for ports, industry, marinas and recreational piers. Many Washington lakes are intensely developed with houses on the upland and piers and docks in the water, while others remain undeveloped. Tailor buffers to local conditions Determining buffers and setbacks is a challenge. The buffers and setbacks for marine and freshwater shorelines should be tailored to local conditions including existing shoreline functions and existing and planned land use and public access. Buffers and setbacks likely will vary within a local government's boundaries to reflect different shoreline conditions and functions. The inventory and characterization report should provide a complete analysis of shoreline functions. Packet Pg. 168 7.1.c SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 19. With this general guidance in mind, considerations for determining buffer and setback width include: What shoreline ecological functions continue to exist and need protection or restoration? What species of wildlife live along the shoreline, and what buffer width will protect them? Would smaller buffers increase nitrogen and phosphorous levels in local waters? How would removal of riparian vegetation affect slope stability and hydrology? Will future growth include new or expanded water - oriented uses? For developed shorelines, is redevelopment likely? Is development projected on vacant parcels? SMP Handbook, 11-11, p. 20. 6. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, Legally Existing Uses and Development, Publication No. 11-06-010, Department of Ecology The following excerpts from this chapter should be helpful: Existing legally established structures and uses are typically allowed to continue with the approval of updated SMPs. That means they can continue to exist, be used, maintained and repaired. That's the case even if the updated SMPs include regulations that would not allow new uses or development to be configured or built exactly as existing ones. For example, under updated SMPs, new buildings may need to be further away from the water, new development projects may need to retain some vegetation onsite, or new aquaculture projects may need to be a specific distance from aquatic vegetation. However, existing legal development and uses can remain in place. Packet Pg. 169 7.1.c Ecology and local governments do not expect most existing development and uses to be eliminated from the shoreline after new SMP regulations are adopted. In some cases, existing buildings may be expanded, although there may be limits to the size of the addition, the total square footage, or new impervious surfaces.... SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, pp. 1-2. Cities with densely developed shorelines may have fewer opportunities for achieving no net loss than cities or counties with less developed shorelines. With a densely developed shoreline, large buffers or setbacks may not be appropriate or feasible for various reasons - - small lots cannot accommodate them; large buffers would include many structures and impervious surfaces that interfere with buffer functions; regulations regarding structures within buffers could be complicated. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 3. Traditionally, uses and structures that are not consistent with the new regulations have been categorized as "nonconforming" development. Nonconforming uses and development were lawfully constructed or established, but do not conform to current land use regulations or standards. The regulation of nonconforming uses and development is an established concept, beginning early in the 20th century, when municipalities started enacting zoning regulations. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 4. WAC 173-27-080 applies at the local level only if the local SMP does not address nonconforming development. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 4. Some local governments are using different approaches as they update their SMPs. They would allow existing Packet Pg. 170 7.1.c structures, particularly single family residences, to continue as conforming structures even though new shoreline setbacks, buffers, and other regulations in their Shoreline Master Programs would typically create nonconforming structures. SMP Handbook, Chapter 14, p. 5. Packet Pg. 171 7.1.c H. The City has taken significant steps toward restoration of the Edmonds marsh. I. Ecology's Required Change 7 is a change to the 100/50 setback/buffer that the City had previously adopted for the UMU4 environment. The dimensions of this earlier adopted setback/buffer were heavily influenced by the city's desire to restore the Edmonds marsh and daylight Willow Creek and obtain funding for such restoration. While it is true that Appendix L alone may not support a 100-foot setback for the UMU4 shoreline environment, the weight placed on Appendix L by the city council demonstrates its commitment to restoration of the Edmonds marsh. It is relevant to determining buffers for the UMU4 that the city has a significant goal of restoring the Edmonds marsh and has been actively pursuing that goal through grant applications and studies. J. As the City evaluates the existing conditions of the Edmonds marsh and the surrounding area within the UMU4 environment, it finds the Edmonds marsh to be a valuable environmental asset worthy of the City's ongoing restoration efforts. This value must be taken into account when evaluating the local conditions to which the buffers and setbacks for the UMU4 environment should be tailored. K. It should be noted for the record that the city council on August 2, 2016 adopted Resolution 1366, which authorized the submission of another grant application to RCO related to the daylighting of Willow Creek. The December 18, 2015 final feasibility study for the daylighting of Willow Creek was the result of a successful grant application from 2013. Packet Pg. 172 7.1.c III. Conclusions of Law demonstrating the consistency of Alternative Changes 7 and 8 with the Shoreline Management Act and the Department of Ecology's adopted guidance The Department of Ecology has adopted guidelines for Shoreline Master Programs. These guidelines are found in chapter 173-26 WAC, Part III (WAC 173-26-171 through WAC 173-26-251). Alternative Change 7 and 8 are consistent with these guidelines, particularly the following excerpts. A. WAC 173-26-186(8)(b): Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of [shoreline] ecological functions. The UMU4 buffer must be designed to achieve no net loss of ecological function, not only within the buffer, but more importantly, within the Edmonds marsh itself. While Harbor Square is already developed and the UMU4 buffer will render that development nonconforming, redevelopment of Harbor Square will presumably be more intense than the existing development. In the absence of additional wildlife habitat assessments and surveys demonstrating that no species in the Edmonds marsh requires more than a 50-foot buffer, the presumption should be that the habitat value of the marsh is consistent with other Category II estuarine wetlands. Because Ecology's guidance documents recommend a 110-foot buffer for a Category II estuarine wetland, that is the buffer that is required to achieve no net loss in the absence of additional wildlife habitat assessments and surveys. B. WAC 173-26-186(8)(c): For counties and cities containing any shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. The city is engaged in an ongoing effort to daylight Willow Creek, which will have a significant restorative benefit to the Edmonds marsh. Packet Pg. 173 7.1.c C. WAC 173-26-186(9): To the extent consistent with the policy and use preference of RCW 90.58.020, this chapter (chapter 173-26 WAC), and these principles, local governments have reasonable discretion to balance the various policy goals of this chapter, in light of other relevant local, state, and federal regulatory and nonregulatory programs, and to modify master programs to reflect changing circumstances. The guidelines give the city reasonable discretion to balance various factors in the development of its SMP. The city, in adopting Alternative Change 7, has acted reasonably in basing the buffer for the UMU4 on Ecology's own guidance. The 110-foot buffer is consistent with the most recent guidance from Ecology related to buffers for Category II estuarine wetlands. Even if the Department of Ecology or the Port of Edmonds might have weighted the various policy goals differently, the guidelines give this discretion to the city. D. WAC 173-26-201(2)(a): To satisfy the requirements for the use of scientific and technical information in RCW 90.58.100(1), local governments shall incorporate the following two steps into their master program development and amendment process. 1. First, identify and assemble the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available that is applicable to the issues of concern.... The city has identified Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology, as the most current, accurate, and complete scientific information available. It has also identified other resources which are set forth in the findings of fact, above. 2. Second, base master program provisions on an analysis incorporating the most current, accurate, and complete scientific or technical information available.... Ecology agrees that the Edmonds marsh is a Category II estuarine wetland. The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 comes directly from and is consistent with Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The 50-foot buffer in Required Change 7 is not consistent with this recent guidance. Packet Pg. 174 7.1.c E. WAC 173-26-201(2)(d):... local governments shall ... apply the following preferences and priorities in the order listed below 1. Reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public health.... Local governments should ensure that these areas are reserved consistent with constitutional limits. Note that there is no higher -ranking priority here than to reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions. The UMU4 buffer can be seen as such a restoration. The fact that the existing development is allowed to continue indefinitely as a nonconforming use keeps this reservation firmly within constitutional limits. WAC 173-26-221(2)(b)(i): When addressing critical areas, shoreline master programs shall adhere to the standards established in the following sections, unless it is demonstrated through scientific and technical information as provided in RCW 90.58.100(1) and as described in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(a) that an alternative approach provides better resource protection. As a Category II estuarine wetland, the city must protect the Edmonds marsh by adhering to the standards for critical areas unless it is demonstrated through scientific information that an alternative approach provides better resource protection. The applicable standards here include Ecology's wetland guidance, which in turn calls for a 110-foot buffer for this class of wetland. In other words, the default UMU4 buffer should be 110 feet unless it is demonstrated through scientific and technical information that an alternative approach provides better resource protection. Ecology has not demonstrated through scientific and technical information that the 50-foot buffer from Ecology's Required Change 7 provides better protection for the Edmonds marsh than a 110-foot buffer. Ecology makes the point that untreated stormwater discharge is a significant threat to the marsh and that this threat could be corrected upon redevelopment of Harbor Square. Ecology's logic is that a 50-foot buffer will better incentivize redevelopment and redevelopment will fix the stormwater discharge. But this logic fails to address whether the habitat values of the Edmonds marsh would be adequately protected in the face of more intense redevelopment. It also fails to address the possibility that the stormwater problem could be corrected as a standalone stormwater improvement project that could be sponsored by Packet Pg. 175 7.1.c the city's stormwater utility and/or through a WRIA-8 or other grant sponsored project. Significant additional work would need to be done to determine whether a 50-foot buffer in the UMU4 could find scientific justification given the presumably high habitat value of the Edmonds marsh. G. WAC 173-26-221(2)(b)(iv): The planning objectives of shoreline management provisions for critical areas shall be the protection of existing ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes and restoration of degraded ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. Shorelines with critical areas get special treatment under the SMA. With critical areas, the objectives are not merely protection (no net loss) but also restoration of degraded ecological functions. The city's goal is to restore both the Edmonds marsh and its degraded buffers. The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 could become restored either through a standalone restoration project that would likely require city and port cooperation, through mitigation requirements to offset the impacts of more intense redevelopment, or potentially through a combination of the two. H. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(A): Local governments should consult the department's technical guidance documents on wetlands. The 110-foot buffer for the UMU4 comes directly from and is consistent with Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The 50-foot buffer in Ecology's Required Change 7 is not consistent with this recent guidance. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(i)(D): Master programs shall contain requirements for buffer zones around wetlands. Buffer requirements shall be adequate to ensure that wetland functions are protected and maintained in the long term. Requirements for buffer zone widths and management shall take into account the ecological functions of the wetland, the characteristics and setting of the buffer, the potential impacts associated with the adjacent land use, and other relevant factors. Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology, addresses many of these factors. It provides different buffer widths for Category I estuarine wetlands Packet Pg. 176 7.1.c (150 feet) and Category II estuarine wetlands (110 feet), recognizing that Category I wetlands have greater ecological function. There is no lower category of estuarine wetland than Category II. This suggests that even when the wetland and buffer may have some suffered some degradation, an estuarine wetland should still be afforded protection consistent with a Category II wetland. Ecology suggests that, because the Harbor Square portion of the UMU4 has already been developed, a narrow buffer of 50 feet is justified. We could not find support for this proposition in Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. If anything, that publication appears to state the opposite: "Ecology's buffer recommendations are also based on the assumption that the buffer is well vegetated with native species appropriate to the ecoregion. If the buffer does not consist of vegetation adequate to provide the necessary protection, then either the buffer area should be planted or the buffer width should be increased." Id., at 13. J. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(A): Critical saltwater habitats require a higher level of protection due to the important ecological functions they provide. Ecological functions of marine shorelands can affect the viability of critical saltwater habitats. Therefore, effective protection and restoration of critical saltwater habitats should integrate management of shorelands as well as submerged areas. Critical saltwater habitats like the Edmonds marsh require greater protection than other critical areas. It is necessary to establish an appropriate buffer upon the shorelands of the UMU4 in order to be able to protect and restore these areas. K. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(B): The management planning should address the following, where applicable:... Protecting existing and restoring degraded riparian and estuarine ecosystems, especially salt marsh habitats; Establishing adequate buffer zones around these areas to separate incompatible uses from the habitat areas; Here again, the guidance emphasizes that salt marsh habitats like the Edmonds marsh warrant special protection, even when they are somewhat Packet Pg. 177 7.1.c degraded and that a significant component of that special protection is the establishment of an adequate buffer to protect the special habitat provided by such ecosystems. It should be noted here that existing development within the UMU4 buffer does not make the habitat in the marsh unworthy of protection. It should also be noted that even if existing development already has some negative impact upon that habitat, redevelopment to a more intense use could have greater impact upon that habitat if the buffer were not increased adequately to protect the habitat from the more intense development. L. WAC 173-27-080 Nonconforming use and development standards. When nonconforming use and development standards do not exist in the applicable master program,' the following definitions and standards shall apply: 1. 'Nonconforming use or development' means a shoreline use or development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the act or the applicable master program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the program. 2. Structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use but which are nonconforming with regard to setbacks, buffers or yards; area; bulk; height or density may be maintained and repaired and may be enlarged or expanded provided that said enlargement does not increase the extent of nonconformity by further encroaching upon or extending into areas where construction or use would not be allowed for new development or uses.... Portions of the Harbor Square development already exist within as little as 25 feet of the Edmonds marsh. Ecology has argued that this existing condition warrants a much smaller buffer than the 110-foot buffer called for by the guidance. Ecology argues, essentially, that the buffers should be sized to avoid any already developed property so that the existing development can retain its conforming status indefinitely. If the SMA intended this result, 1 Note: the city's SNIP does contain provisions for nonconforming use. The WAC is cited here to demonstrate what regulation Ecology would impose as a default if the city did not have its own nonconforming use regulation. Packet Pg. 178 7.1.c Ecology would not have needed to adopt the above shoreline nonconforming use rule. The fact that Ecology did adopt a nonconforming use rule renders this argument suspect. Similarly, Ecology appears to argue that the SMA's no net loss standard provides not only the minimum amount of regulatory protection allowed, but also the maximum amount of regulatory protection allowed. This argument is not supported by the plain language of the guidance for shoreline master programs. In fact, the opposite is true, "these guidelines are designed to assure, at minimum, no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources and to plan for restoration of ecological functions where they have been impaired." WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) (emphasis added). The guidelines contain similar phrasing where they address wetland regulations. "Regulations shall address the following uses to achieve, at a minimum, no net loss of wetland area and functions, including lost time when the wetland does not perform the function..." WAC 173-26- 221(2)(c)(i)(A) (emphasis added). In short, the plain language of the SMP guidance indicates that no net loss is the minimum standard that an SMP must achieve. Nowhere does the guidance suggest that Ecology should deny an SMP for going beyond this minimum standard. IV. Consistency with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 WAC 173-26-120(7)(b) outlines this stage of Ecology's review procedure: If, in the opinion of the department, the alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes originally proposed by the department in this subsection (7) and with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, it shall approve the alternative changes and provide written notice to all parties of record. In such cases, the effective date of the approved master program or amendments is the date of the department's letter to local government approving the alternative proposal. If the department determines the alternative proposal is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the changes proposed by the department, the department may either deny the alternative proposal or at the request of local government start anew with the review and approval process beginning at WAC 173-26-120. Packet Pg. 179 7.1.c WAC 173-26-120(7)(b). We have demonstrated in Section III, above, how Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the applicable guidelines for SMPs. This section addresses consistency with the purposes and intent of Required Change 7. Certainly, the proposed buffers between Alternative Change 7 (110 feet) and Required Change 7 (50 feet) are significantly different, but that does not mean there is inconsistency between their purposes and intents. We look to the discussion in Ecology's June 27, 2016 Findings and Conclusions to discern the purpose and intent behind Required Change 7. We acknowledge, however, that, because Ecology does not succinctly state the purpose and intent behind Required Change 7, this exercise requires some paraphrasing and extrapolation on the part of the city. We believe the following four statements fairly summary Ecology's purpose and intent behind Required Change 7. 1. The city's originally adopted buffer of 50 feet was consistent with Ecology's Required Change 7 buffer of 50 feet. The real difference was in the amount of the setback, where the city originally adopted a 100-foot setback (or 50 feet from the edge of the buffer) and Required Change 7 proposed a 65 foot setback (or 15 feet from the edge of the buffer). Ecology notes that the city did not adequately support the additional 50-foot setback with scientific documentation and replaced it with the extra 15-foot setback, which is consistent with the city's critical areas ordinance. Ecology states: "A minimum 15-foot building setback would help preserve the integrity of a restored buffer. A larger setback may encourage intensive uses such as parking, which is incompatible within a buffer setback." Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 because both reflect the same setback (15 feet from edge of the buffer) that is contained in the city's critical areas ordinance. As Ecology notes, intensive uses such as parking, would no longer be encouraged by the larger 50-foot setback. Packet Pg. 180 7.1.c 2. Ecology expressed concern about the city's reliance upon Appendix L to support the originally adopted buffer/setback of 50/100. In the table, Ecology states: "Ecology acknowledges the City Council amendments to the Planning Commission draft were based on a concern that buffers would be need to be 100 feet to be eligible for Ecology water quality grants. As noted in a letter from Ecology's Water program, a restoration project would be eligible based on the science -based planning commission setback of 50 feet (see letter from Ben Rau to Shane Hope, August 19, 2015)." The city acknowledges that Appendix L is not the most relevant guidance for establishing a buffer width for a Category II estuarine wetland. In Alternative Change 7, the city has corrected its reliance upon Appendix L and now bases the buffer for the UMU4 environment on Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version, June 2016, Publication No. 16-06-001, Department of Ecology. The city believes this guidance to be the "most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available," as required by WAC 173-26-201(2) (a). By basing Alternative Change 7 on this recent guidance instead of Appendix L, the city's alternative is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7. 3. Ecology's table regarding Required Change 7 cites to WAC 173-26-201(2)(c). That section of the guidelines contains the following language: "Nearly all shoreline areas, even substantially developed or degraded areas, retain important ecological functions. For example, an intensely developed harbor area may also serve as a fish migration corridor and feeding area critical to species survival. Also, ecosystems are interconnected. For example, the life cycle of anadromous fish depends upon the viability of freshwater, marine, and terrestrial shoreline ecosystems, and many wildlife species associated with the shoreline depend on the health of both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Therefore, the policies for protecting and restoring ecological functions generally apply to all shoreline areas. not iust those that remain relatively unaltered." WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) (emphasis added). Alternative Change 7 is consistent with the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 by recognizing the important applicability of the language above to Packet Pg. 181 7.1.c establishing the buffer for the UMU4 environment. While much of the UMU4 buffer area has been developed and degraded, this language, and Alternative Change 7, acknowledge that the Edmonds marsh retains important ecological functions that are worthy of being protected with a buffer that is consistent with Ecology's buffer guidance for a Category II estuarine wetland. 4. Required Change 7 may have been crafted to address the Port's concern about excess mitigation. The table cites WAC 173- 26-201(2)(e), which contains the following language: "master programs shall also provide direction with regard to mitigation for the impact of the development so that: (A) Application of the mitigation sequence achieves no net loss of ecological functions for each new development and does not result in required mitigation in excess of that necessary to assure that development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions." Mitigation is imposed at the project stage, not with the adoption of an SMP. Alternative Change 7 should not be construed as a mitigation requirement. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the Edmonds marsh provides high value habitat that warrants the 110-foot buffer called for in Ecology's guidance documents. When the Port is ready to pursue a master planned redevelopment of Harbor Square, a more detailed analysis of the presence of wildlife and associated habitat will need to be performed to determine the extent to which the Edmonds marsh needs to be protected from the impacts of the master planned redevelopment. And that analysis will no doubt be informed by details about the project itself that are not currently known. At the project stage, it is possible that additional information about the species in the marsh and the nature of the project itself will lead to the conclusion that requiring a 110-foot buffer would be disproportionate to the actual impact of the project, in which case, the city might opt to incur part of the cost associated with establishing a 110-foot buffer as a city -sponsored restoration project. But at this planning stage, and without that critical additional information, it would be imprudent to establish a 50-foot buffer in the UMU4 environment. Furthermore, we doubt that a 50-foot buffer would be upheld under a no net loss challenge without this additional information. Therefore, to the extent that the purpose and intent of Required Change 7 was to address a concern about excess mitigation, Alternative Change 7 is not inconsistent with that concern in light of the discussion above. Packet Pg. 182 (e;epdn uaea6oJd Aa;SBW au118aoyS : U90 J8118-1 IeAoaddd jeuoi;puo3 ABoloog - -P;igiyx3 :;ueWLj3e;4d 00 x a 1 59 V STATE OF WASHINGTON a DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons ivith a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 June 27, 2016 The Honorable Dave Earling City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Comprehensive Update — Conditional Approval Dear Mayor Earling: Thank you for submitting to Ecology the City of Edmonds (City) Shoreline Master Program comprehensive update. We have completed our review of the proposal for consistency with the Shoreline Management Act and implementing guidelines. As we have already discussed with your staff, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) identified specific changes necessary to make the proposal approvable. These changes are detailed in Attachment B. Recommended changes are detailed are proposed in Attachment C. Findings and conclusions related to the City's proposed SMP amendment are contained in Attachment A. Pursuant to RCW 90,58.090 (2)(e), at this point, the City may: • Agree to the proposed changes, or * Submit an alterative proposal. Ecology will then review the alternative(s) submitted for consistency with the purpose and intent of the changes originally submitted by Ecology and with the Shoreline Management Act. Final Ecology approval will occur when the City and Ecology agree on language that meets statutory and Guidelines requirements. (e;epdn uaea6oJd Aa;SBW au118aoyS : U90 J8118-1 lenoaddd jeuoi;puo3 ABoloog - -P;iq!gxg :;uauayoe;;d 00 The Honorable Dave Earling a June 27, 2016 Page 2 M a Please provide your written response within 30 days to the Director's Office at the following address: WA State Department of Ecology Attention: Director's Office PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-6700 Ecology appreciates the dedicated work that you, the City Council, City Development Services staff (Kernen Lien, Shane Hope, and Rob Chave), the Planning Commission and engaged interested parties have put into this SMP update. Thank you again for your efforts. We look forward to concluding the SMP update review process in the near future. ff you have any questions or would like to discuss the changes identified by Ecology, please contact our Regional Planner, David Pater at David.Pater@ecy.wa.gov/(425) 649-4253, Sincerely, Maia D. Bellon Director Enclosures By Certified Mail [7012 1010 0003 3028 4383] cc: Shane Hope, City of Edmonds Kernen Lien, City of Edmonds David Pater, Ecology Erik Stockdale, Ecology 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Amendment to Washington State Recreation and Conservative Office Salmon Project (5 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On March 3, 2015, Council authorized the Mayor to sign Salmon Project Agreement (Project Number 14- 1299P) for the Willow Creek Daylighting Project. Staff Recommendation Forward this item to the October 25th consent agenda for approval. Narrative This grant was awarded and secured by the City of Edmonds from the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) in December 2014.Originally, the grant's scope of work was for 30% design of the Willow Creek daylighting project. RCO Technical Review Panel requested the City consider using this grant to develop an alternative tidal channel alignment across the Unocal property that would enhance habitat for fish and other wildlife. SRFB Technical Review panel also requested the City study water quality and soil quality in the marsh as it pertains to a fish access and exposure. City of Edmonds staff and consultant, Keeley O'Connell, agreed that it would be beneficial and timely to utilize the grant funding to explore better habitat options for daylighting Willow Creek, and studying water quality and soil quality specifically as it pertains to fish habitat in the marsh. The revised project description is on the "Amendment Agreement Description" page of the amendment. Staff recommends approval of the amendment to allow staff and the consultant to proceed with the revised scope of work. Attachments: RCO Amendment Packet Pg. 185 Natural Resources Building 1111 Washington St SE Olympia WA 98501 PO Box 40917 Olympia WA 98504-0917 September 16, 2016 Dave Earling City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 �•`� 5W,4. o� e l Ix � x n STATE OF WASHINGTON RECREATION AND CONSERVATION OFFICE RE: Willow Creek Daylighting Preliminary Design, RCO #14-1299P Amendment # 1 Dear Mr. Earling: 8.1.a (360) 90 TTY (360) 902-1996 Fax: (360) 902-3026 E-mail: info@rco.wa.gov Web site: www.rco.wa.gov In response to your request to amend the above -referenced Project Agreement, we have reviewed the circumstances and pertinent RCWs, WACs, and program policies relating to your request. As a result, I am approving an amendment to the Willow Creek Daylighting Preliminary Design project. Enclosed are two original amendments to the Project Agreement. Please sign both amendments, retain one for your records, and return one original. If you have any questions, please call Josh Lambert at (360) 725-3935, or send an e-mail to Josh.Lambert@rco.wa.gov. Sincerely, 4p Kaleen Cottingh Director Enclosures cc: Keeley O'Connell Recreation and Conservation Funding Board • Salmon Recovery Funding Board Washington Invasive Species Council • Governor's Salmon Recovery Office AMENDCVR.RPT Habitat and Recreation Lands Coordinating Group Packet Pg. 186 8.1.a Amendment Special Conditions Project Sponsor: City of Edmonds Project Title: Willow Creek Daylighting Preliminary Design Special Conditions Project Number: 14-1299 P Amendment Number: 1 a) Design and Restoration Project Deliverables: The project will meet the standards for Design and Restoration Project Deliverables described in Manual 18 (2016) Appendix D-1 "Conceptual Design Deliverables". Submit the following deliverables to your SRFB grants manager along with any assessment, -data collection summaries and report's, and feasibility deliverables funded in the scope of work. a) Description of the project site and the problems within the context of salmon recovery. b) Identification of specific goals and objectives for addressing the problems. c) Identification and conceptual design of alternative(s) for achieving the project objectives. Each conceptual design alternative must include a description of the design and a plan view drawing of existing site conditions and the proposed project on accurately scaled site plans. The plan view drawing must include an area/location map, property boundaries (either surveyed or approximated based on assessor's data), landownership, roads or other infrastructure as appropriate, scale, north arrow, water bodies and direction of flow, bank -full width or mean high water line for marine waters, and approximate dimensions of proposed elements. d) Evaluation and discussion of stakeholder comments and the pros and cons of each alternative. e) Selection of the preferred alternative(s). f) Rough construction cost estimate of the preferred alternative(s). (optional) b) Condition: SRFB Review of Draft Conceptual Design: Project sponsor will submit a draft version of conceptual design deliverables for SRFB review panel design for review and comment. Review may take 30-60 day upon current work load of review panel members. c) Condition: Control and Tenure established, and MOU provided to SRFB: Project sponsor will provide a signed Landowner Acknowledgement Form from WDDOT-Ferries and a written report of negotiations between the City and WDDOT-Ferries that includes an MOU between these two parties clearly stating the agreed upon preferred alternative channel alignment across the Unocal property (future WDSOT property) including any communicated intention and/or commitment from WDDOT-Ferries to adopt or incorporate the concept into their future development of the project permanent. d) Cultural Resources The cultural resources assessment was completed for a portion of the site (the marina beach property) under a prior phase of the project and is attached in PRISM. The future restoration project will be subject to the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106, but preliminary designs may require additional ground disturbing activities for geotechnical and other investigations. In order to be exempt from Governor's Executive Order 05-05 Archaeological and Cultural Resources (EO 05-05) as described in Section 9 of this project agreement, sponsor must have an archaeologist monitor any ground disturbing activities necessary for design development, and incorporate observations and resuats into the Cultural Resources Assessment that will be prepared for the Section 106 consultation. Please note, in order for a future RCO funded restoration project to be exempt from EO 05-05, the Section 106 Area of Potential Effect (APE) must include all ground -disturbing activities (e.g., restoration staging area, riparian planting areas). The sponsor is encouraged to work with the federal permitting agency to,align the Section 106 APE with the scope of work subject to a future RCO funded restoration project proposal. If the APE does not include all ground -disturbing activities proposed for RCO funding, RCO will need to initiate cultural resources consultation following EO 05-05 for those activities not included in the federal APE. ASPECCOND.RPT September 16, 2016 1 Packet Pg. 187 8.1.a Amendment Agreement Description Project Sponsor: City of Edmonds Project Number: 14-1299 P Project Title: Willow Creek Daylighting Preliminary Design Amendment Number: 1 Agreement Description City of Edmonds will use this funding to develop a conceptual design of an alternative channel alignment across the Unocal property portion of the project. An alternative channel will consider a wider, meandering channel setback from the railroad tracks that would allow for increased channel complexity, reduced velocities and enhanced habitat value. This phase of the project will also assess sediment quality in key locations where interior channels for water conveyance and juvenile salmon habitat enhancement will be located within the marsh, (based on final feasibility findings in planning project 13-1107) and water quality data of freshwater and stormwater inputs to the marsh. Hydraulic modeling needed prior to moving into design will be completed during this project phase. This includes modeling habitat conditions of the daylight channel configuration for channel depth and temperature, modeling operational criteria and layout of the floodgate, and flows in the daylight channel along Marina Beach Park to assess for potential safety hazards. Lastly, key communications with stakeholders will continue in this project phase, primarily with Washington Department of Transportation- Ferries Division who is slated to be the future owner of the Unocal Property. Deliverables for this project will meet all requirements of Manual 18: Appendix D-1 Conceptual Design Deliverables. In addition, project deliverables will include a Landowner Acknowledgement Form from WSDOT-Ferries and a report of negotiations between the City and WSDOT-Ferries that includes an MOU between these two parties clearly stating the preferred alternative channel alignment across the Unocal property. The overall goal is restoration of Edmonds Marsh, a remnant barrier estuary located in the nearshore within the City of Edmonds (WRIA 8). This future restoration action is being designed to benefit juvenile Chinook salmon. This project builds upon previous planning grants (11-1553 and 13-1107) focused on feasibility and conceptual design alternatives for the marsh restoration project. AAGREEDSC.RPT September 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 188 8.1.a Amendment Eligible Scope Activities Project Sponsor: City of Edmonds Project Number:14-1299 Project Title: Willow Creek Daylighting Preliminary Design Project Type: Planning Program: Salmon Federal Projects Amendment #: 1 Planning Metrics Worksite #1, Edmonds Marsh Targeted salmonid ESU/DPS (A.23) Targeted species (non-ESU species): Area Encompassed (acres) (B.O.b.1): Miles of Stream Affected (B.O.b.2): Chinook Salmon -Puget Sound ESU, Chum Salmon -Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU, Coho Salmon -Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU Cutthroat 28.0 0.10 Restoration Planning And Coordination Project Conducting habitat restoration scoping and feasibility studies (B.1.b.8) Project Identified in a Plan or Watershed Assessment (B.1.b.8.a): Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan, Several Authors, June 30, 2005 - revised December 2005, http://www.psp.wa.gov/SR_map.php Shannon&Wilson. 2013. Willow Creek Daylighting Final- Early Feasibility Study, Edmonds, WA. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 400 N 34th St, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98103. 21-1-12393-206. AELIGREIM.RPT September 16, 2016 Packet Pg. 189 Amendment Eligible Scope Activities 8.1.a Description of the Plan (B.1.b.8.b)-. Lake Washington/Cedar/Sammamish watershed contains two major river systems, three large lakes, and 80 miles of shoreline. Species in the WRIA 8 watershed include Chinook, sockeye, coho, kokanee, steelhead, bull trout, anc rainbow and coastal cutthroat. Listed Chinook species include the Sammamish and Cedar River populations. Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment will determine the quantitative goals for in stream and landscape habitats, and Chinook goals would increase productivity to twice the current juvenile survival. Limiting factors for Chinook include altered hydrology, loss of floodplain connectivity, lack of riparian vegetation, disrupted sediment processes, loss of channel and shorelinE complexity, fish passage barriers, and degraded waiver/sedii- lent quality. Conservation Strategy objectives will maintain, restore, or enhance watershed processes that create favorable habitat characteristics, enhance habitat and connecting corridors, maintain a well -dispersed network of high -quality refuge habitats and connect high quality and recovered habitats for population expansion centers. Strategies include protect and manage upper watershed's intact habitat, encourage direction of growth into existing urban areas, manage rural development to avoid/reduce impact, restore productivity and rearing habitat in Cedar and Sammamish Rivers, and Lake Washington and tributaries, improve habitat in Lake Washington and Ship Canal, and restore the nearshore where possible. lie a� a� U 3 0 c m E c am E a O U r co c a� E c m E a O U r c m E M U R r r Q AELIGREURPT September 16, 2016 Pa Packet Pg. 190 ti WASHINGTON STATE Recreation and Conservation Office Amendment to Project Agreement Project Sponsor: City of Edmonds Project Number: 14-1299P Project Title: Willow Creek Daylighting Preliminary Design Amendment Number: 1 Amendment Type: Project Type Change Amendment Description: Sponsor has provided a revised budget and scope to amend project type from currently preliminary design, to a feasibility analysis, bio-geo sampling and analysis, with conceptual design (Appendix D-1) deliverables in response to SRFB review panel comments. Project will be conditioned, for review of project deliverables and to secure control and tenure, prior to approving the project to move forward with a preliminary design phase. This project type change and scope was recommended by and approved by RCO Director in person, on 8/18/2016. Agreement Terms In all other respects the Agreement, to which this is an Amendment, and attachments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. In witness whereof the parties hereto have executed this Amendment. State Of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office BY: &A Kaleen Cottinq TITLE: Director DATE:�� Pre -approved as to form. BY /S/ Assistant Attorney General City of Edmonds AGENCY: BY: TITLE: DATE: SAL Project Project Type Change Amendment General Fund - Federal AMENAGR1.RPT RCW Packet Pg. 191 ��- WASHI'J,•1 ON STATE Recreation and Conservation Office Amendment to Project Agreement Project Sponsor: City of Edmonds Project Number: 14-1299P Project Title: Willow Creek Daylighting Preliminary Design Amendment Number: 1 Amendment Type: Project Type Change Amendment Description: Sponsor has provided a revised budget and scope to amend project type from currently preliminary design, to a feasibility analysis, bio-geo sampling and analysis, with conceptual design (Appendix D-1) deliverables in response to SRFB review panel comments. Project will be conditioned, for review of project deliverables and to secure control and tenure, prior to approving the project to move forward with a preliminary design phase. This project type change and scope was recommended by and approved by RCO Director in person, on 8/18/2016. Agreement Terms In all other respects the Agreement, to which this is an Amendment, and attachments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. In witness whereof the parties hereto have executed this Amendment. State Of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office BY: Kaieen Cottin❑ ( W/ TITLE: Direc or DATE: 7i Pre -approved as to form: BY: /S/ Assistant Attorney General City of Edmonds AGENCY: BY: TITLE: DATE: SAL Project Project Type Change Amendment General Fund - Federal AMENAGRIRPT RC Packet Pg. 192 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the Willow Creek Daylighting Project (5 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On March 18, 2014, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with Shannon & Wilson to complete the final feasibility study for the Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh restoration project. On February 3, 2015, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Supplemental Agreement with Shannon & Wilson for the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylight Project to for perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh restoration project. Staff Recommendation Forward this item to the October 25th consent agenda for Council approval. Narrative The City has an existing grant agreement with RCO (#14-1299) to move the Willow Creek daylighting project toward design that went into effect in December 2014. The City was able to use remaining grant funding from previous RCO grants through 2015 and is now ready to begin work on the 14-1299 grant agreement. Staff recommends approval of the supplement to allow Shannon & Wilson to proceed with the next phase of design work. Proposed Scope of Work for Shannon & Wilson contract: Task 1: Project Administration Project Administration includes time for Consultant to manage this project to meet all deliverables in a timely and affective manner. Activities includes invoicing, preparation and submittal of progress and final reports, contract compliance, coordination of sub -contractors, and general project communications. Deliverables: Progress and Final Reports Task 2: Expanded Marsh Restoration Alternative conceptual design The Expanded Marsh Restoration Alternative will provide a conceptual design of an alternative channel across the Unocal property. This task includes a conceptual drawing, description, grading plan, cost estimates, and calculations of habitat area increases compared to the base alternatives. This task also Packet Pg. 193 8.2 includes hydraulic modeling of the Expanded Marsh Restoration Alternative and the entire daylight channel through BNSF ROW and across Marina Beach Park. This modeling will provide depth, velocity, and inundation information, a fish habitat summary of the alternative using the hydraulic modeling results, and up to three alternative grading plans and model geometric plans to evaluate complex, composite channel with riparian and marsh vegetation, large woody debris and internal channel sinuosity along the daylight channel reach between the BNSF railroad bridge and Edmonds Marsh. Deliverables: Conceptual Design Report Task 3: Sediment and Stormwater sampling and reporting Sediment quality will be tested at up to seven locations: Willow Creek tributary upstream from the Edmonds Marsh near the hatchery; Shellabarger Creek tributary upstream from the SR-104 crossing and Edmonds Marsh; Three tidal channel excavation areas in Edmonds Marsh along the Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek and Harbor Square Outfall future tidal channel locations; Lower Willow Creek existing daylight channel between the BNSF and Unocal property; Marina Beach Park shoreline. Laboratory analysis will be performed for the following constituents: Grain size, Chlorophyll a, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton, Ammonia, Nitrate -Nitrite, Total Sulfides, Volatile Organic Compounds, Semi -volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs including Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons),Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Herbicide/Pesticides, Tetrabutyltin, Metals (Priority Pollutant Metals), Total Phosphorous, Total Organic Carbon, PCBs and Organochlorine Pesticides. Stormwater sampling will include four quarterly sampling events for water quality at the tributary, lower daylight channel and marine beach areas. The fall event will be a first flush sampling event following a rainstorm. Sampling will be at the tributary, lower daylight channel and marine beach areas. Sampling will test for temperature, D.O., pH, Turbidity, Conductivity, Total Suspended Solids, Total Phosphorus, Total Persulphate Nitrogen, Chloride, Hardness, Metals (Priority Pollutant Metals), Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Herbicide/Pesticides, Fecal Coliform. Deliverables: Draft and Final Stormwater and Sediment Quality Monitoring Reports and Recommendations Task 4: Outreach meetings The Consultant will attend the following outreach and coordination meetings with the City with adjacent property owners. Meetings will include City internal coordination meetings, BNSF Outreach Meeting, WSDOT Ferries Outreach Meeting, Ecology and Chevron/Unocal Outreach Meeting Task 5: Hydraulic Modeling and Analysis Upon completion of the feasibility study (Prof # 13-1107), several hydraulic modeling tasks remained for the project. These hydraulic modeling tasks will be performed to inform the preliminary design, including the following: Daylight Channel Habitat Complexity - Develop up to three alternative grading plans and model geometric plans to evaluate complex, composite channel with riparian and marsh vegetation, large woody debris and internal channel sinuosity along the daylight channel reach between the BNSF railroad bridge and Edmonds Marsh (see conceptual design map included in this grant packet for reference locations). Floodgate Operations - The project will install a floodgate near the existing stormwater pipe connection beneath the BNSF railroad and Admiral Way. The hydraulic modeling analysis will include rough grading plans for a protective berm tying to the BNSF railroad ROW, and the Packet Pg. 194 8.2 Unocal property. The floodgate operations conditions will be evaluated for fish habitat conditions. Marina Beach Park - Public safety at Marina Beach Park is of concern. The hydraulics analysis will evaluate up to three geometric alternatives that vary the tidal channel profile elevations and channel cross section geometry. The Marina Beach Park conditions will be evaluated for depth and velocity and human safety conditions. Deliverables: Schematic plans of floodgate, berm rough grading plans, Admiral Way stormwater pipe modifications, and daylight channel reconfiguration preliminary grading plans and details. Draft and Final Hydraulics Report. Attachments: Shannon & Wilson Supplemental Agreement Packet Pg. 195 Original Contract No. Supplemental Agreement 2 No. CITY OF EDMONDS DAVE EARLING 1215T"AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX425-672-5750 MAYOR Website: www.edmondswa.gov 0 igg° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT 2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Shannon & Wilson, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant", entered into an underlying agreement for design, engineering and consulting services with respect to a project known as Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration project, dated March 26, 2014; and WHEREAS, additional work has been identified for the final feasibility study of the Willow Creek Daylight project, to perform additional work for the Edmonds Marsh project, and to reduce flooding at Dayton Street & SRI04; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of mutual benefits occurring, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The underlying Agreement of March 26, 2014 between the parties, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth, is amended in, but only in, the following respects: 1.1 Scope of Work. The Scope of Work set forth in the underlying agreement shall be amended to include the additional services and material necessary to accomplish the stated objectives as outlined in the attached Exhibit A incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 1.2 The $314,459 amount set forth in paragraph 2A of the underlying Agreement and stated as an amount which shall not be exceeded, and which was increased by $38,160 by the Supplemental Agreement No. 1, is hereby amended to include an additional not to exceed amount of $181,706 for the additional scope of work identified in Exhibit A to this supplemental agreement. As a result of this supplemental agreement, the total contract amount is increased to a new total not -to -exceed amount of $534,325 ($314,459, plus $38,160, plus $181,706). 1.3 Exhibit B to the underlying agreement consisting of the rate and cost reimbursement schedule is hereby amended to include the form set forth on the attached Exhibit A to this addendum, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. 2. In all other respects, the underlying agreement between the parties shall remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as set forth herein. Packet Pg. 196 8.2.a DONE this CITY OF EDMONDS Bv: Mayor David O. Earling day of , 20 ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) SHANNON & WILSON, INC. By: _ Title: On this day of , 20 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the of the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Pg. 197 8.2.a SCOPE OF SERVICES (Revised Oct. 4, 2016) TABLE OF CONTENTS SHANNON MLSQN, INC. Page BACKGROUND INFORMATION................................................................................................ I SCOPEOF SERVICES...................................................................................................................1 Task1 Project Administration........................................................................................................I Task 2 Expanded Marsh Alternative Conceptual Design and Modeling........................................2 Task 3 Sediment and Stormwater Sampling and Reporting...........................................................3 Task 3.1 Sediment Quality Field Sampling and Laboratory Testing..............................................3 Task 3.2 Water Quality Field Sampling and Laboratory Testing...................................................4 Task 3.3 Water and Sediment Quality Reporting...........................................................................5 Task4.0: Outreach Meetings..........................................................................................................5 Task 5.0 Hydraulic Modeling - Daylight Channel, Floodgate and Marina Beach Park.................6 Packet Pg. 198 8.2.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. SCOPE OF SERVICES BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Willow Creek Daylight Project has completed a feasibility study for the daylight of Willow Creek from Edmonds Marsh through Marina Beach Park both owned by the City of Edmonds (City). Upon completion of the feasibility study, the project established a preferred daylight alignment through the Marina Beach Park, along the Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) Property, adjacent to the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) right-of-way (ROW). The alignment of the daylight channel and key project components, such as BNSF railroad bridge crossing, floodgates, and upstream tidal channel connections have been accepted and are moving forward into preliminary design associated with this scope of services. The preliminary design will include typical channel cross sections of bioengineered channel design with protective geotextile liner, as well as tidal channel connections to the marsh and upstream culverts and tributaries. Civil and structure designs will include preliminary design of the flood gate structure, BNSF railroad bridge abutments and identification of temporary shoring systems, and the retaining wall near the BNSF bridge and steep hillslope near Marina Beach Park. SCOPE OF SERVICES The preliminary design scope of services is described below. Task 1 Project Administration The Consultant will provide project management including organization and management of the services described in this scope, including the following tasks: ■ Schedule ■ Invoicing ■ Progress Reports ■ General Communications ■ Contract Compliance ■ Coordination of sub -consultants and team members Deliverables Project schedule. Monthly progress reports and invoices. 21-2-62139-001-L1-Scope of Services_REV5.docx 21-2-62139-001 Packet Pg. 199 8.2.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. Assumptions ■ The contract period of performance is twelve months: October 2016 through October 2017. Task 2 Expanded Marsh Alternative Conceptual Design and Modeling The current hydraulic modeling alternatives analysis recognizes lateral constraints of the BNSF Railway, and the proposed WSDOT Ferries Edmonds Crossing project to be implemented at some unknown time in the future. There is interest by the City and salmon granting agencies to evaluate a larger habitat restoration alternative that expands the daylight channel, tidal marsh, floodplain and riparian areas beyond the daylight channel limits, into the proposed WSDOT Edmonds Crossing parking areas. The following tasks will be performed in support of the Expanded Marsh Restoration Habitat and Hydraulic Modeling for the Willow Creek Daylight project alternative. ■ Develop a conceptual restoration plan with input from the City Public Works and Parks Department, and the project team hydraulic engineer, wetland scientist and fish biologist. ■ Develop an alternative description, grading plan, cost estimates, and calculations of habitat area increases compared to the base alternatives described in the Feasibility Study. ■ Perform hydraulic modeling of the Expanded Marsh Restoration Alternative and provide depth, velocity, inundation information. ■ Provide a fish habitat summary of the Expanded Marsh Restoration Alternatives using the hydraulic modeling results. Using the concept design plans and hydraulic modeling data described above with data from the original Feasibility Study Report, develop in a Conceptual Design Report comparing the two alternatives. The report will be submitted to the City of Edmonds, and shared with project stakeholders and property owners such as WSDOT and discussed as part of Task 4.0 Outreach Meetings. Deliverables ■ Draft Expanded Conceptual Restoration Design and Modeling Report (To be updated as part of Draft and Final Hydraulic Modeling Report). Assumptions ■ Hydraulic modeling will utilize existing models and hydrology from previous studies. 21-2-62139-001-LI-Scope of Services_REV5.docx 21-2-62139-001 2 Packet Pg. 200 8.2.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. Task 3 Sediment and Stormwater Sampling and Reporting The City is currently under an Ecology Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, and is executing a series of programs to improve stormwater quality in its drainage basins. Within the Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit, there are a range of requirements for stormwater monitoring, with implementation of monitoring programs designated as the responsibility of the City (permittee). To date an integrated stormwater and sediment quality sampling program has not been developed for the Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek and Marina Beach Park drainage basin. The following scope of services attempts to meet the requirements of the Phase II Stormwater and Sediment Quality Monitoring guidelines. The sampling frequencies in this scope of services reflect those outlined in the stormwater and sediment monitoring guidelines and QAPPs. Neither the Upper Willow nor Shellabarger Creek drainage basin contains significant industrial development, with the exception of the Unocal property at the downstream end of the marsh. Stormwater pollutants that may enter upstream from the Marsh are likely the typical ones found in urban and roadway runoff and residential development (e.g., petroleum products, heavy metals, bacteria and fecal coliform, nutrients, waste, and suspended sediments). Pollutants that may enter the marsh from adjacent BNSF Railway and Unocal property petroleum operations are similar, but more likely petroleum based products. Recently, questions have been posed by granting agencies regarding the water and sediment quality within the proposed Willow Creek Daylight project. The following tasks include the scope of services outlines sediment and "storm" water quality sampling to be performed in support of the Willow Creek Daylight, and indirectly the Marina Beach Park Master Plan and Renovation project. The CONSULTANT will perform environmental sampling of stormwater and sediment within the Edmonds Marsh and the associated reporting. Task 3.1 Sediment Quality Field Sampling and Laboratory Testing Perform sampling at up to seven sampling locations will be in the following general locations ■ Willow Creek tributary upstream from the Edmonds Marsh near the hatchery. ■ Shellabarger Creek tributary upstream from the SR-104 crossing and Edmonds Marsh. ■ Three tidal channel excavation areas in Edmonds Marsh along the Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek and Harbor Square Outfall future tidal channel locations. ■ Lower Willow Creek existing daylight channel between the BNSF and Unocal property. ■ Marina Beach Park shoreline. 21-2-62139-001-L1-Scope of Services_REV5.docx 21-2-62139-001 Packet Pg. 201 8.2.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. The project will utilize existing water and sediment quality monitoring — Quality Assurance Project Plans and procedures including: WDOE, 2011 (DRAFT) Status and Trends Stormwater Monitoring and Assessment Strategy for Small Streams, An Addendum to Quality Assurance Monitoring Plan. WDOE, 2010 Quality Assurance Monitoring Plan Ambient Biological Monitoring in Rivers and Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton. Sediment quality sampling and laboratory analysis will include: ■ One sampling event for sediment quality. Seven locations for sediment quality. At four of the sampling locations, samples will be collected at 0.5 feet below the ground surface. At the three tidal channel excavation sampling locations, samples collected at 2 feet, and a composite sample from 4 feet and 6 feet below ground surface (bgs). Ten sediment samples total. Perform laboratory analysis for the following constituents: ■ Grain size, ■ Chlorophyll a, ■ Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Periphyton, ■ Ammonia, ■ Nitrate -Nitrite, ■ Total Sulfides, ■ Volatile Organic Compounds, ■ Semi -volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs including Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons), ■ Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, ■ Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons ■ Herbicide/Pesticides ■ Tetrabutyltin, ■ Metals (Priority Pollutant Metals), ■ Total Phosphorous, ■ Total Organic Carbon, ■ PCBs and Organochlorine Pesticides. Task 3.2 Water Quality Field Sampling and Laboratory Testing Perform sampling at up to seven sampling locations will be in the following general locations: ■ Sampling will be at the tributary, lower daylight channel and marine beach areas, and not in the proposed tidal channel excavation areas. Water quality sampling and laboratory analysis will include: ■ Four quarterly sampling events for water quality. The fall event will be a first flush sampling event following a rainstorm. Perform laboratory analysis or document field measurements of the following constituents: ■ Temperature 21-2-62139-001-LI-Scope of Services_REV5.docx 21-2-62139-001 4 Packet Pg. 202 8.2.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. ■ D.O. ■ pH ■ Turbidity ■ Conductivity ■ Total Suspended Solids ■ Total Phosphorus ■ Total Persulphate Nitrogen ■ Chloride ■ Hardness ■ Metals (Priority Pollutant Metals) ■ Fecal Coliform Task 3.3 Water and Sediment Quality Reporting The CONSULTANT will provide Stormwater and Sediment Quality Monitoring Report to the City of Edmonds. Deliverables: ■ Draft and Final Stormwater and Sediment Quality Monitoring Report to the City of Edmonds Assumptions: ■ No Sampling and Analysis Plan will be developed. ■ No duplicate sampling will be performed. ■ No Investigation -derived waste (IDW) will be generated. ■ PBDEs or Hormone Disrupting Chemicals laboratory analyses are not included. Task 4: Outreach Meetings The Consultant will attend the following outreach and coordination meetings with the City with adjacent property owners. ■ City internal coordination meetings (three meetings) ■ BNSF Outreach Meeting ■ WSDOT Ferries Outreach Meeting ■ Ecology and Chevron/Unocal Outreach Meeting Deliverables ■ Power point presentations, graphics, agenda and meeting notes for each of the meetings. Assumptions ■ City will schedule and coordinate each of the meetings. ■ Meetings will be held at the City facilities. 21-2-62139-001-L1-Scope of Services_REV5.docx 5 21-2-62139-001 Packet Pg. 203 8.2.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. Task 5.0 Hydraulic Modeling - Daylight Channel, Floodgate and Marina Beach Park Upon completion of the feasibility study, several hydraulic modeling tasks remained for the project. These hydraulic modeling tasks will be performed to inform the study preliminary design, including the following: Daylight Channel Habitat Complexity — Develop up to three alternative grading plans and model geometric plans to evaluate complex, composite channel with riparian and marsh vegetation, large woody debris and internal channel sinuosity along the daylight channel reach between the BNSF railroad bridge and Edmonds Marsh. The modeling will focus on daily tidal exchanges with spring inflows to replicate late spring and early summer juvenile chinook migration periods. The daylight channel fish habitat conditions (depth, velocity, and cover) will be reviewed for each of alternatives. Floodgate Operations — The project will install a floodgate near the existing stormwater pipe connection beneath the BNSF railroad and Admiral Way. The hydraulic modeling analysis will include rough grading plans for a protective berm tying to the BNSF railroad ROW, and the Unocal property. The floodgate operations conditions will be evaluated for fish habitat conditions. The hydraulics analysis will: — Identify the target design elevation for the protective berm and include the berm in the hydraulic model. — Evaluate up to three tailwater conditions each, for the 10-, 50-, and 100-year flood runoff conditions (nine total). — Evaluate floodgate operating closure conditions. — Evaluate the effects of the Dayton Street Pump Station on the daylight project using a station flow rating curve discharging into the Shellabarger Creek storage pond. ■ Marina Beach Park — Public safety at Marina Beach Park is of concern. The hydraulics analysis will evaluate up to three geometric alternatives that vary the tidal channel profile elevations and channel cross section geometry. The Marina Beach Park conditions will be evaluated for depth and velocity and human safety conditions. Revised conceptual plans, hydraulic modeling analyses, combined with water and sediment quality information, and information regarding fish habitat and buffer improvements will be used to inform the City of potential benefits, as well as communicate with adjacent property owners and granting agencies regarding the benefits and outcomes of both the current feasibility preferred alternative and the potentially expanded alternative described above. The expanded hydraulic modeling effort will use HEC-RAS21) to graphically visualize tidal channel habitat functions and flood conditions and processes, and the modified conceptual plan layout will provide information on riparian buffer and railroad offset conditions. 21-2-62139-001-L1-Scope of Services_REV5.docx IN 21-2-62139-001 Packet Pg. 204 8.2.a SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. Deliverables ■ Draft and Final Willow Creek Daylight Hydraulics Report. Assumptions ■ Prior to starting Task 5.0 the City will provide a MOU with WSDOT identifying the preferred daylight alternative. ■ Hydraulic modeling will utilize existing models and hydrology from previous studies. ■ The Dayton Street Pump Station modeling project will provide updated flood flow information for the floodgate operating scenarios described above. ■ Climate change modeling scenarios are not included in the analysis. 21-2-62139-001-L1-Scope of Services_REV5.docx 7 21-2-62139-001 Packet Pg. 205 TABLE 1 8.2.a COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY FY-2016-2017, CONTRACT (RCO 14-1299) Design Phase Total Tasks Description 1.0 Project Management $13,121 2.0 Hydraulic Modeling of Expanded Restoration Alternative $521520 3.0 Sediment and Water Quality Sampling 3.1 Sediment Quality Sampling $37,105 3.2 Water Quality Sampling $181490 3.3 Reporting $131800 4.0 Outreach Meetings $13,050 5.0 Hydraulic Modeling - Daylight Channel, Floodgate, Marina Beach Park $331620 Subtotal $181,706 21-2-62139-001-L1 T1-T3 REVS — — Packet Pg. 206 TABLE 2 DETAILED COST ESTIMATE 8.2.a Design Phase Labor Ex enses Total VP $225.00 Sr. Prof. III $150.00 Sr. Prof. I $120.00 Prof. Ill Sr. Tech $100.00 Sr. Adman $100.00 Hour Total S&W Labor S&W Expenses Confluence Tasks Description 1.0 Project Management 52 14 66 $13,100 $21 $13,121 2.0 Hydraulic Modeling of Expanded Restoration Alternative 32 48 2201 48 14 362 1 $47,000 $520 $5,000 $52,520 3.0 Sediment and Water Quality Sampling 3.1 ISediment Quality Sampling 4 8 50 16 2 80 $9,900 $27,205 $37,105 3.2 Water Quality Sampling 4 8 50 16 1 79 $9,800 $8,690 $18,490 3.3 Reporting 4 8 48 4 64 $8,260 $540 $5,000 $13,800 4.0 Outreach Meetings 40 8 20 2 70 $12,800 $250 $13,050 5.0 Hydraulic Modeling - Daylight Channel, Floodgate, Marina Beach Park 32 48 120 16 2 218 $30,600 S520 $2,500 $33,620 Subtotal 168 128 508 91, 39 721 $131,460 $37,746 $12,500 $181,706 21-2-62139-001-L1 T1-T3 REV5 Packet Pg. 207 TABLE3 EXPENSES 1 NameW Admin Descri Hon I Reproduction - B&W and Color reports, maps, etc. Unit LS Amount 1 Unit Price $21.00 Total $21 2 Hydraulic Modeling of Expanded Restoration Alt. Reproduction - B&W and Color reports, maps, etc. LS 2 $260.00 $520 3.1 Travel - Sediment Seattle to Edmonds MI 40 $0.54 $22 3.1 Field Equipment Miscellaneous Field Equipment EA 1 $204.00 $204 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Sediment Grain Size (ASTM D6913) EA 10 $135.00 $1,350 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Ammonia (SM 4500 NH3 D,F) EA 10 $20.00 $200 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Nitrate -Nitrite (EPA 300.0) EA 10 $35.00 $350 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Total Sulfides (SM 4500 S2, F) EA 10 $30.00 $300 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples VOCs (EPA 8260C/624) EA 10 $145.00 $1,450 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples SVOCs and PAHs (EPA 8270D/625) EA 10 $325.00 $3,250 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples TPH (VPH + EPH, NWVPH & EPA 8021B, NWEPH) EA 10 $400.00 $4,000 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples SVOCs and PAHs (EPA 8270D/625) EA 10 $325.00 $3,250 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples PCBs and Organochlorine Pesticides (EPA 8081/8082) EA 10 $150.00 $1,500 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Tetrabutlytin EA 10 $300.00 $3,000 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Metals (Priority Pollutants EPA 6020/200.8/CVAA) EA 10 $155.00 $1,550 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Total Phosphorus (EPA 365.3) EA 10 $35.00 $350 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples TOC (SM 5310B,C / EPA 9060A) EA 10 $40.00 $400 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples PCBs and Organochlorine Pesticides (EPA 8081/8082) EA 10 $150.00 $1,500 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Benthic Macroinvertebrates Shipping EA 1 $250.00 $250 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Macroinvertebrates and Chlorophyll a EA 7 $300.00 $2,100 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Periphyton EA 7 $300.00 $2,100 3.1 Sediment Quality Samples Reproduction - B&W and Color reports, maps, etc. LS 1 $79.00 $79 3.2 Travel -WQ Seattle to Edmonds MI 120 $0.54 $65 3.2 Multiprobe (Temp, pH, DO, Cond.) Weekly WK 4 $500.00 $2,000 3.2 Water Quality Samples Total Suspended Solids EA 20 $20.00 $400 3.2 Water Quality Samples Total Phosphorus (EPA 365.3) EA 20 $35.00 $700 3.2 Water Quality Samples Total Persulphate Nitrogen EA 1 20 $20.00 $400 3.2 Water Quality Samples Chloride EA 20 $25.00 $500 3.2 Water Quality Samples Hardness EA 20 $35.00 $700 3.2 Water Quality Samples Metals (Priority Pollutants EPA 6020/200.8/CVAA)) EA 20 $155.00 $3,100 3.2 Water Quality Samples Fecal Coliform EA 20 $40.00 $800 3.1 Water Quality Samples Reproduction - B&W and Color reports, maps, etc. LS 1 $74.00 $25 3.3 Water & Sediment Sampling Reports Reproduction - B&W and Color reports, maps, etc. LS 2 $270.00 $540 4.0 Outreach Meetings Mileage MI 210 $0.54 $113 4.0 Outreach Meetings Reproduction - Maps, Figures, Posters, Handouts LS 1 $137.00 $137 5.0 Hydraulic Modeling - Daylight Channel, Floodgate, Marina Beach Park 1 Reproduction - B&W and Color reports, maps, etc. LS 2 $260.00 $520 Total 1$37,746 Notes: B&W = black and white LS = lump sum MI = mile 8.2.a C 21-2-62139-001-1-1_T1-T3_REV5 Packet Pg. 208 TABLE 4 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE 8.2.a Tasks 2.0 Descri tion NTP Hydraulic Modeling of Expanded Restoration Alternative Calendar Days 0 60 Est. Date 10/15/16 12/14/16 3.1 Sediment Quality Sampling 60 12/14/16 3.2 Water Quality Sampling 60 12/14/16 3.3 Water Quality and Sediment Reporting Q4-16 60 12/14/16 4.0 Outreach Meetings 150 3/14/17 5.0 Hydraulic Modeling - Daylight Channel, Floodgate, Marina Beach Park Draft Report 210 5/13/17 3.3 Water Quality and Sediment Reporting Q3-17 330 9/10/17 5.0 Hydraulic Modeling - Daylight Channel, Floodgate, Marina Beach Park Final Report 330 9/10/17 0 c m aEi a a 3 c 0 3r 06 c 0 c c Cn LO T.- to r c m E 0 0 L Q cu r- 0 E m Q Q v/ 0 N 06 C O C C R t r C O E t v R Q 21-2-62139-001-L1 T1-T3 REV5 Packet Pg. 209 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Park Impact Fees Report (5 min.) Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Dave Turley Background/History Annual report on collection of Park Impact Fees Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Presenting the annual Park Impact Fees report to Council Attachments: 2016 Park Impact Fee Report Packet Pg. 210 Park Impact Fee Report October 18, 2016 rnc. t $y" ➢ In late 2013 the City began collecting Park Impact Fees. ➢ RCW and City Code Section 3.36 states that the Impact Fees must be used for capital improvements to parks facilities that will benefit the new growth and development. ➢ Once collected, the City has 10 years to spend the funds. 8.3.a 1 Packet Pg. 211 8.3.a Park Impact Fees, continued rnC. 1$y" ➢ Park Impact Fees are to be used for public 0 U- improvements that will increase overall capacity N and benefit new development. For example: ✓ Publicly owned parks and open space. LL open space, or parking Y ✓ Capital equipment in parks and such as playgrounds, restrooms, facilities. ✓ Increasing waterfront access. 'W/ a. to 0 N r Increasing connectivity, such as adding bike lanes and trails. -- 9 Packet Pg. 212 8.3.a Park Impact Fees, continued 'Ile. 1 009V O M N LL r ➢ Park Impact Fees are not to be used for projects E lie I. - that are for maintenance or ongoing operations, or N that do not increase capacity. For example: ✓ Correcting deficiencies in existing public U. facilities. 0. ✓ Daylighting of Willow Creek. 6 ✓ Purchase of maintenance equipment such as N lawn mowers, tractors, or other vehicles. E a Packet Pg. 213 "Ile. 1 009V 8.3.a Park Impact Fees, continued Farb Impact Fees Collected: 2014 203,503 201.E 129,340 2015 (to date) 3 35r 223 Total Fees Collected 571pDDD Less Amount Expended (to date) - Total Available to Spend G71pDDD Nr- k1w O d LL E a N tO O U. E Y L a 0 N E a Packet Pg. 214 8.3.a Park Impact Fees, rnc. 1$y" ➢ We have collected $246,649 related to single - multi -family dwellings and $424,351 from commercial projects. continued 0 U_ U and E a. N r ➢ The Parks Department has programmed $500,000 U. of this money to be spent in 2017 out of the a Capital Fund to support the Waterfront a Redevelopment project. N ➢ This project will open up more access to the waterfront in front of the Senior Center, and will complete the Waterfront Walkway. Packet Pg. 215 m Fool ra) Attachment: 2016 Park Impact Fee Report (1612 : Park Impact Fees Report) 8.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/18/2016 Discussion regarding the 2017 Proposed City Budget (60 min.) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History Mayor presented his recommended 2017 Budget to Council on October 11, 2016. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative During tonight's Council Meeting, staff will provide Council presentations of their 2017 budget requests. Tentative Department Budget Presentations are scheduled as follows: October 18th: Public Works Utilities, Street, Public Works Administration, Facilities Maintenance, Equipment Rental and Engineering. October 25th: 1. Economic Development; 2. Development Services; 3. Parks; 4. Human Resources; 4. City Attorney and 5. Municipal Court. November 1st: 1. Police Dept.; 2. City Clerk; 3. Mayor's Office, Council; 4. Finance & Information Services and 5. Non - departmental. November 7th: Revenue Sources and Public Comment. November 15th: Public Hearing and Potential Adoption of the 2017 Budget and Public Comment. November 22nd: Public Hearing and Potential Adoption of the 2017 Budget (if necessary) December 6th: 2017 Budget Review Adoption of the 2017 Budget (if necessary) Packet Pg. 217