The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-11-07 City Council - Full Agenda-17831. 2. 3. 4. 5 6 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. o Agenda Edmonds City Council snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 7, 2016, 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2016 2. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. 3. Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program 4. Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. Public Defender Annual Report to Council (15 min.) AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS STUDY ITEMS 1. Report and Recommendations From the Mayor's Task Force on the Alternatives Analysis for At - Grade Rail Crossing Conflicts (60 min.) 2. A resolution temporarily suspending certain provisions of the Sign Code. (15 Minutes) 3. 2017 Revenue Discussion and Public Comment on the 2017 Budget (40 min.) 4. Assumption of duties of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District 5. Presentation of a revised Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water & Sewer District to fund minor utility relocations for the Madrona Elementary Walkway Project (10 minutes) 6. Presentation of a Right -of -Way Dedication for the Select Homes Short Plat (10 minutes) MAYOR'S COMMENTS COUNCIL COMMENTS CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda November 7, 2016 Page 1 4.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2016 Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Linda Hynd Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda Narrative N/A Attachments: Cmd110116 Packet Pg. 2 4.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES November 1, 2016 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Kristiana Johnson, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief D. Lim, Police Officer Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Scott James, Finance Director Brian Tuley, IT Supervisor Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jaime Hawkins, Capital Projects Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5t1i Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present. 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 requested Item 4.1 be removed from the Consent Agenda so that she could abstain from the vote. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 1 Packet Pg. 3 4.1.a 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM CAROLE E. NOWAK ($3,963.04), FROM MAGIC TOYOTA ($3,404.43), FROM TERRY OLMSRED (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND FROM SCOTT AND MELISSA HANSON ($682.13) ITEM 1: APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 2016 COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO APPROVE ITEM 1. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINED. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS 1. WSDOT 2016 AWARD OF EXCELLENCE - FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced WSDOT Director of Local Programs Kathleen Davis. Ms. Davis introduced FHA Division Administrator Dan Mathis. She explained there are four recipients of the Award of Excellence, an award that formally recognizes local agencies that implement federal aid projects that include innovative design, environmental sustainability, good contracting and administration procedures and public acceptance. She presented the Director's Award to the City of Edmonds for the Five Corners Roundabout Intersection project. She commented on the artwork and the inscription in the sidewalk, "drawn to water, connected by the community" which she felt represents the community's vision. A fan of roundabouts, she recognized the safety benefits they provide. She expressed appreciation for the City's team for working with the community, businesses, contractor and to gain public acceptance of the roundabout. She recognized the members of her team Mehrdad Moini and Renae Larsen, NW Local Program Engineers, and the City's team. Mr. Mathis congratulated the City on a fantastic project, commenting it was rare to see a project with this type of impact on a community with regard to safety and reducing congestion. The reduction in wait times at the intersection from over 2 minutes to 10 seconds was phenomenal. He recognized not everyone loves a roundabout the first time they use it but over time they come to love it, especially the amount of time it saves. He commended the City for this fantastic project and City staff, WSDOT staff, and the contractor for getting it delivered Ms. Davis presented the award poster and plaque to Public Works and Engineering staff. Mr. Williams expressed thanks to the Council, recognizing this and prior Councils for their efforts in getting the project approved. He recognized City Engineer Rob English for his work as well and specifically two staff members, Capital Projects Manager Jaime Hawkins, and Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss. Mr. Hauss was responsible for the project in the early stages, planning and getting it on the City and State Transportation Improvement Plan, and submitting the first application for funding in 2011. The City received funding for the design and right-of-way phases. Mr. Hauss also managed the design contract with David Evans and Associates and preparing the bid package. Once the bid was awarded, Mr. Hawkins managed the project during construction which included a stormwater vault; rerouting all the utilities including water, sewer, storm, gas, cable and communications; keeping traffic moving through the intersection during the project, etc. He also recognized Marshbank Construction, the contractor who built the roundabout. Council President Johnson recognized another individual involved in the project, Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin, who led the design of the artistic element of the project. Council President Johnson said she represented the Council in that process. She recalled Council approval of the roundabout was a 4-3 decision and there was a great deal of skepticism by citizens. Once citizens experienced the final project, many agreed it was a good idea. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 4.1.a 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Terry Latin, Edmonds, described an ongoing problem with parking in his neighborhood from residents at 17929 75`h Place West, a problem that continues to get worse. He requested Councilmembers contact him and offered to take Councilmembers to his neighborhood to see the problem. He submitted photographs of parking on 75t' Place West, relaying tonight there were 7-8 cars in the driveway and 3 cars parked across the street partially on/off road, as well as a trailer being used as campsite. Today there were cords across road to provide power to cars across the street. Mayor Earling requested Police Chief Al Compaan contact Mr. Latin. Marlin Phelps, Edmonds, said yesterday he had a hearing. Prior to last week's Council meeting, he spoke with the Mayor where he requested a level playing field, court observers and that the "thug cops that broke his arm not be there." He got one of his three requests. His court -appointed attorney apologized to the judge for having caught her in a lie. He referred to indiscretions and how home values in the City are either stagnated or going down because nobody wants to live in a town where a citizen can have everything taken away. He said Judge Fair did a fantastic job, having one not guilty in his nine-year tenure in Edmonds court; every other person was found guilty. According to U.S. Constitution, if everyone is guilty, no one is truly guilty. He said the court is a money -making machine and referred to a letter to the Justice Department on which he copied Mr. Taraday who forward it to the prosecutor's office and the prosecutor used it out of context to have him remanded. He said the Council, Mayor and Mr. Taraday are making poor decisions and it is time to get it right, time to separate good citizens from criminals. He asserted anyone with a badge or who works in the Clerk's office or the City Attorney's office, and does not live in Edmonds, have been fleecing the City. He referred to the Zachor's luxury homes in Mountlake Terrace as an example. Chris Keuss, Edmonds, thanked the City and businesses for the trick -or -treating downtown yesterday, noting it required a lot of police officers to staff it as well as a great deal of effort for business to participate. Next, he expressed disappointment in the City Council's majority decision to recommended to the State Department of Ecology a 125-foot setback for the Edmonds Marsh. The current setback is 25 feet. The most recent review and analysis by Ecology puts the recommended setback at 65 feet. He agreed the marsh habitat needs to be protected. Adoption of the Council's recommendation by Ecology would likely prohibit any new development at Harbor Square which is on Port property adjoining the marsh. The existing concrete box buildings, grandfathered by existing regulations, will remain long into the future. Although this may be considered a win for the City Council and some residents, it is actually a loss for the City, the waterfront and the economic vitality of the area. With 125-foot setbacks, it is unlikely Harbor Square will be redeveloped and possibly that is the Council majority's goal. His disappointment was not with the decision, the Council has the right to make that decision based on public, staff and expert input. What the Council majority accomplished is a potential rift between the Port and the City. The Port may have been willing to work with the City and agree to a compromise position; unfortunately, this did not happen and is the type of legislation that tears the country apart. He summarized the Council missed an opportunity to work with the Port to develop a plan for the future. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, thanked the five property owners at Five Corners who contributed land to the roundabout project. He submitted a formal request for the City Council to be open and transparent and make full disclosure to the citizens explaining why the City Council's October 2, 2012 vote was not acted on. The approved minutes of that meeting indicate Motion 3, directing the City Attorney to modify Resolution 853 to specify that a record will be kept in the form of notes on executive session regarding litigation only, passed 4-3. However, the City Attorney and City Council did not act. He requested full public disclosure of what occurred after the Council's October 2, 2012 vote and to state publicly the Council's rules when an approved motion is not acted on. Earlier this year an incomplete agenda packet was provided to Council that abdicated for complete repeal of Resolution 853, a great resolution passed in 1996 because it was in the public interest. The 2016 agenda packet was missing an explanation of what Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 4.1.a happened to the October 2, 2012 vote. Also missing from the agenda packet was Resolution 1150 that requires prior to adjournment of executive session, the Council shall by consensus determine what, if any, information may be released regarding the executive session. The flawed new Resolution 1360 claims, Whereas, if the City continues the practice of note taking, the possibility of release of the non -privileged notes could discouraged Councilmembers from speaking candidly on important matters that properly could be discussed in executive session. He said that was not possible as all know while speaking that per Resolution 1150, Council may reach consensus to release executive session information prior to adjournment of the executive session. He requested the Council repeal Resolution 1360 and return to what is in the public interest, Resolution 853 or an improved Resolution 853. Relying on people's memories of what was said in executive session is foolish; he recommended video recording of all executive session. Marti Jones, Edmonds, quoted a character played by Maggie Smith in a PBS drama, "speculation is the enemy of calm." From those opposed to Ecology's recommendations for a 110-foot buffer buffer, she has heard a lot of speculation and negative assumptions that Harbor Square cannot be redeveloped with a 110- foot buffer. However, she has not heard the Port say they cannot develop with a 110-foot buffer. She questioned making that assumption without further study or plans. She recalled PCC redeveloped the store in Westgate with a positive assumption that they could include rain gardens, a rain barrel, energy efficient lighting, etc. to have an environmentally sound business that makes Edmonds better ecologically. She suggested stepping back and not assuming the 110-foot buffer will be a negative thing; it may be a positive thing. She assured there were many developers who would like to construct LEED certified buildings and have the opportunity for a marquee development. She concluded this was how development could occur next to a sensitive ecologic wetland in a wise way that did not damage the natural surroundings. Phillip Butler, Edmonds, said he has spent most of life overseas, a great deal in Europe. While traveling in Europe, he has seen the synthesis of old and new, rapid change and timeless traditional. The issue of the Edmonds Marsh and the Willow Creek daylighting is a classic illustration of an opportunity to come to grips with the reality that Edmonds is becoming a designation, yet also becoming a city known for recalcitrant City Council unwilling to accept the realities of modernization. There is nothing to suggest that the significant setback proposed by the City Council, in contrast to the 65-foot setback proposed by Ecology and recommended by Mayor Earling and other Councilmember, would impede synthesis of the best of old and new. He and his wife have been actively involved in the daylighting of Willow Creek and the Edmonds Marsh. His wife has participated in a variety of activities including the front page of the Edmonds Beacon, bringing attention to the Edmonds Marsh and been a consistent advocate for the salvation of the Edmonds Marsh. He feared what was at heart was a disingenuous ruse to push back against development of the Harbor Square site and building heights and not a concern about the Marsh. He urged the Council to look at the facts and step away from this old position that divided the Council and City departments and find a compromise and depend on Ecology. Suzy Schaefer, Edmonds, spoke regarding the Edmonds Marsh and the concern about the buffer. She appreciated Ms. Jones' comments, remarking that type of development would be cool. She thanked the Council for approving the 110-foot buffer, commenting if she was on the Council, she would have approved a 300-foot buffer due to her background in the environment and her knowledge that many birds are disappearing because there is not enough space. She commented buffers are not arbitrary but are needed for the creatures who use them. Edmonds is built out; this is a last-ditch effort to have a special place, other than parks which are that are not connected. Having seen the Edmonds Marsh go from 100 acres to 22 acres, she questioned how much smaller it can get. She supported keeping Edmonds Marsh a viable environmental place in the community where birds and other creatures live. The Save Our Marsh group's only agenda is to support the marsh. Compromise is not appropriate for the Edmonds Marsh; the buffer the City Council approved is the minimum. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 4.1.a Alex Witenberg, Edmonds, was glad to see the additional of a School Resource Officer (SRO) as a decision package in the Police Department's budget. When he was at Edmonds-Woodway High School, the SRO was fantastic resource for students. The position was lost during the economic downturn and it was time bring it back as resource for the City's younger residents. Next, regarding Council and Mayor salaries, he recommended forming an independent salary commission. He did not support a system where the City Council could choose to alter their own salaries and have it activated at different times, resulting in Councilmembers being compensated differently; forming an independent body avoids that. Bea Wilson, Edmonds, relayed she attended last night's Port Commission meeting where she learned marina revenues were substantially decreased to reduced salmon runs and less fishing activity which affects moorage revenues. After the meeting she discussed the potential of marine education opportunities with Port Commission Chair Faires and Executive Director McChesney as a way of stimulating activity and revenue. She shared with them how the salmon journey on the Cedar River brought 3,000 visitors; an annual marine program using citizen educators to provide community education and activities. Mr. McChesney asked for another meeting to investigate how to collaborate on expanding the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek as a year-round learning center. Both Mr. Faires and Mr. McChesney stated they supported collaboration to engage Edmonds residents to learn about the Port Commission and contribute ideas for activities that would mutually beneficial for the Edmonds Marsh and the Port. Current research indicates an urgent need for outdoor schools which provides an enhanced appreciation for all life, making way for civility. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING FOR 92ND AVENUE WEST STREET VACATION Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained: • ECDC 20.70.050.B — Petition of owners of more than two-thirds of property abutting the portion of street or alley to be vacated o Two property owners abut the property: Westgate Chapel and the Walters. • Resolution No. 1371 set public hearing for tonight Mr. Lien displayed and reviewed a map of the area, identifying the area of 92nd Avenue West requested to be vacated. He reviewed: • ECDC 20.70.020 Criteria for Vacation o The vacation is in the public interest ■ Primarily the removal of maintenance responsibilities and cost for the City o No property will be denied direct access as a result of the vacation ■ All parcels have access to 228th ECDC 20.70.140 Final Decision o Following the public hearing, the city council shall: 1. Adopt an ordinance granted the vacation; or 2. Adopt a motion denying the vacation; or 3. Adopt a resolution of intent where specific conditions must be met within 90 days (staff s recommendation) a. Either i. Monetary compensation up to one-half fair market value ii. Grant of substitute public right-of-way iii. Any combination of a.i or a.ii Or b. Grant of an easement to the City in exchange for easement vacated Utilities and easements o Stormwater facilities Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 4.1.a ■ Snohomish County Comments ■ Transfer ownership to Westgate Chapel ■ May require easements o Olympic View Water and Sewer ■ Requested easements o Other utilities ■ PUD, cable, gas? Property borders Edmonds and Esperance (unincorporated Snohomish County) o Property on east side of 92nd Avenue West in Esperance o Property on west side of 92nd Avenue West and all right-of-way in Edmonds Monetary compensation o City may receive up to 1/2 of the value of the vacated area o Appraisal based on multi -family as a highest and best use o Pre -vacation ■ 171,191 square feet ■ 114 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone) ■ Appraised value of $2,166,000 o Post Vacation ■ 191,514 square feet ■ 127 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone) ■ Appraised Value $2,355,000 o Difference in appraised value of $189,000 228th Street alignment o Transportation plan identifies street improvements along 228th St SW between SR 99 and 95th PI W 0 228th Street right-of-way does not align at 92nd Avenue W o Public Works recommends not vacating the 10' by 30' to ensure smooth transition for 228th St SW street improvements Adjusted monetary compensation o Post vacation ■ 191,214 square feet ■ 127 multi -family units (RM-1.5 zone) ■ Appraised Value $2,355,000 ■ Adjust for removing 300 square feet from vacation ■ $12.60 per square foot X 300 sq. ft. _ $3,780 ■ Adjusted appraised value $2,351,000 o Difference in appraised value of $185,220 o One-half of appraised value = $92,610 Mr. Lien relayed staff s recommendation: • Direct staff to prepare Resolution of Intent to Vacate • Proposed conditions in staff report Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the appraised value of the property. Mr. Lien explained the difference in the pre -vacation and post -vacation of the Westgate Chapel property is $185,220; the City can ask for up to one-half of the appraised value, $92,610. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the map that illustrates the jog in 228th. He asked what was gained by not granting vacation of that small area into 228th. Mr. Williams answered the CIP and the transportation impact fee project list include improvement of 228th to SR104. There is currently 60 feet of right-of-way east and west of 92"d Avenue West but they do not line up, resulting in the jog. The City could either Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 8 4.1.a retain that area now or buy it later. Councilmember Teitzel inquired about the lots to the west of the jog that extend into 228`h. Mr. Williams said the roadway would be transitioned to that alignment. Mr. Lien introduced Jim Egge, land use consultant representing Westgate Chapel. Mr. Egge introduced Westgate Chapel Executive Pastor Brent McAtee and Westgate Chapel Board Chair John Murphy. Mr. Egge commented the City has no plans to extend 92nd Avenue West to the south and the 1919 dedication of 92nd Avenue West it was partially vacated north of the area proposed to be vacated somewhere between 1965 and 1969 prior to when the apartments (now Sequoyah Condominiums) were constructed, essentially eliminating the ability to extend 92nd Avenue West to the south. All properties directly affected by the vacation have signed the petition, the Walters and Westgate Chapel. If the vacation is approved, Westgate Chapel will obtain easements with each utility purveyor to allow them to maintain their facilities and the church is amicable to taking over maintenance of the City's stormwater system and granting the City any privileges. There have been no written objections to the vacation. Mr. Egge recognized the City has the authority to require up to one-half of the appraised value for compensation. The right-of-way in this area was dedicated in 2 parts while in Snohomish County in 1919 and in 1955 at no cost to the City. He was unsure who constructed the road although it is quite poor condition now. Some reduction in compensation is justified as the City acquired the property at no cost and the appraiser stated the roadway had only three years of life remaining. Mr. Lien stated in addition to the adjustment in the appraisal for the 30 square feet, the appraisal also included a value of the existing asphalt on 92nd Avenue West of $14,000. Staff did not include that in the valuation and recommendation as the property was annexed in 1995 and the City has not put any money into the street. Councilmember Teitzel asked for confirmation that no residents living near the vacation had expressed any concern. Mr. Lien agreed, advising the only comment received was an email from Ken Reidy that all Councilmembers received. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, relayed the City's code states that an applicant may apply for a street vacation. Included in the list of required submittals is Item G, two copies of an appraisal. Requiring an appraisal with an application seemed premature; per the Supreme Court, the authority to require compensation is permissive which means allowed but it is not the Council's obligation to require compensation for street vacation. He questioned why an applicant had to acquire and pay for an appraisal with the application prior to City Council's discussion whether to grant the petition and/or require compensation and suggested the applicant be reimbursed for this expense. He referred Item 2 on page 98of the Council packet which states the City may require either/both/neither monetary compensation or require a grant of an easement to the City. History has shown the City has required both monetary compensation and a grant of an easement at times. He referred to the last sentence of Item 2, the City of Edmonds is not requiring an easement thus the City should be monetarily compensated for the vacation. The fact that the City is not requiring an easement does not mean that the City should be monetarily compensated for the vacation. He supported not charging the applicant $92,610 for the street vacation when the property owner dedicated the easement and the City was not charged for the easement rights. He cited past instances when City has not required compensation including over 4,000 square feet in his neighborhood that was subject to a vacation and no compensation was required. This vacation is already in the public interest which is plenty without the need for $92,610 in compensation. He referred to Items 3 and 4 on page 100 of the packet, conditions that include the provision of easements to OVWSD as well as other vague unidentified entities. He preferred to follow State law whereby the City retained the easement or right to grant easements in the vacated land for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and surfaces. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 9 4.1.a Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas inquired about staffs recommendation. Mr. Lien referred to the recommendation on page 100 of the packet, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of intent to vacate with several conditions: 1. City will retain the northern 10 feet of the western 30 feet of 92nd Avenue West 2. City releases all ownership of the stormwater facility to Westgate Chapel 3. OVWSD easements be provided for their utilities in that area 4. Easements be provided to the other dry utilities in that area 5. The petitioners pay the City $92,610, one-half of the appraised value 6. If the area of vacation or the three vacant lots to the east side of 92nd Avenue West are to be developed in the future, a fire access road easement will be required 7. If the current road surface becomes unusable, blocked or removed, thereby denying emergency access, the existing fire hydrant located on the west side of 92nd Avenue W, mid -block between 228th Street SW and the terminus of the existing road shall be rotated 180 degrees so the largest outlet (nozzle cap) faces west COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THE STREET VACATION OF 92ND AVENUE WEST. Although she appreciated the Council's desire to move forward, Council President Johnson observed the Council had three public hearings tonight and it has been the Council's practice this year not to take action the same night as the public hearing. She felt that was a good practice that gives Council time to listen and weigh the information and comments. She requested the Council continue that practice. Councilmember Buckshnis said this year the Council has been wishy-washy about making motions following public hearings, recalling she and Council President Johnson voted against a motion made following a public hearing due to past practice. Since the practice had been so wish -washy, she was satisfied with moving forward. She agreed with requiring compensation because it enhances the property and could eventually lead to development. She asked whether that was a reason for requiring compensation. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the City has the authority under State law and City code to require payment in exchange for a street vacation. In his experience, that was a common practice but it is permissive; the City is not required to require compensation but may require compensation. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the example Mr. Reidy provided that occurred 15 years ago. Mr. Taraday said he was not familiar with that example, but agreed with Mr. Reidy that monetary compensation was permissive, the City is not required to require compensation but may require compensation. From his perspective, one of the primary public interests in vacating the public street is the compensation. Mayor Earling clarified this is not a final decision, it is to direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval by the Council. Mr. Taraday explained under State law, because the property has been dedicated to the public for 25 years or more, the City can require full compensation. He was not suggesting that because City code suggests one-half the appraised value, but that is already more lenient toward the property owner than State law. Councilmember Teitzel said the vacation is in the interest of the private property owner for the purpose of development of the property; therefore, the City should be compensated for the benefit to the property owner. He asked if there was a precedent in Edmonds for requiring/not requiring compensation for a street vacation. Mr. Taraday answered he was not certain. Mr. Lien said he believed so, if the Council approves the motion, he will provide that information along with the resolution. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 10 4.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis supported staff s recommendation to require compensation of $92,610. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALL FOR THE QEUSTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO. Council President Johnson recalled during the SR104 study there was discussion about realigning the intersection on the other side of the church to align with 92nd Avenue West because it is a major north - south road to Bowdoin Way and provides an east -west connection to 228th. Public Works Director Phil Williams said there is an opportunity to realign the way that 228th comes into SR104, straightening the 90-degree jog and treating the other cross streets differently. No concept has been developed or designed. He doubted that would occur along the 92nd Avenue West alignment but likely would occur on the 95th Avenue West alignment to match the other side of the intersection. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON VOTING NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Rob English provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in the CFP and components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CIP contains 6-year maintenance projects with funding sources, the CFP contains long range (20-year) capital project needs, and both contain 6- year capital projects with funding sources. Mr. English provided a summary of CIP fund numbers and the department managing each fund: Fund Description Department 016 Building Maintenance Public Works 112 Transportation Public Works 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/Public Works 126 Special Capital/Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/Public Works 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 132 Parks -Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 421 Water Projects Public Works 422 Storm Projects Public Works 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 423 Wastewater Treatment Plant Public Works Mr. English highlighted projects in the 2016 CFP/CIP: • 228th Corridor project— completed • 238th walkway from 100th to 104"' Avenues — will complete in 2016 • Pavement preservation program • 236th Street Walkway — began last week • 76th Avenue & 212th Street Intersection Improvement Project — rebid in 2017 He displayed a graph of the City's Capital Program 2008-2017, highlighting 2017 totals: • Fund 423 Sewer: $ 5,135,070 • Fund 422 Storm: $ 4,058,099 • Fund 421 Water: $ 5,517,640 • Fund 112 Streets: $ 7,062,022 • Parks: $ 3,595,000 • General Fund Total: $25,637,830 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 11 4.1.a Mr. English highlighted key 2017 projects: • 112 Street Fund 0 76th/212th intersection improvements o Citywide bicycle improvements 0 238th St Walkway from SR104 to SR99 0 80 Ave overlay from 220th St to 212th St • Transportation— 126/125 REET Funds o Pavement preservation program o Traffic calming program o Curb ramp upgrades program o Minor sidewalk replacement o Audible pedestrian signals o SR99 Access management pre -design (216th to 2241) o ADA Transition Plan Update (underway) o Trackside warning system Main/Dayton (2016-17) 0 220th Signal coordination (grant?) o Local match for Waterfront At -Grade Alternatives Utility Fund 0 7,300 ft of watermain replacement o Overlay 8,200 feet of street affected by waterline replacements o Seaview infiltration project o Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh: design o Stormwater Comprehensive Plan update o Dayton St pump station (2017 or 2018) 0 2,900 ft sewermain replacement 0 3,000 ft CIPP sewermain rehabilitation o Pavement overlay on 8,600 ft of street affected by sewermain replacements o Complete water system Comprehensive Plan update Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite reviewed: 2016 Accomplishments o Acquisition and planning of Civic Field o Opening of the spray park o Completed Dayton Street Plaza o Luminous Forest (4th Avenue) o Wayfinding signs o Approved Marina Beach Master Plan o Fishing Pier Rehabilitation o Downtown Public Restroom o REET 125 ■ Yost spa rebuild, in progress ■ Frances Anderson Center stage replacement, in process ■ Veteran's Plaza, in progress ■ Marina Beach Playground replacement ■ Meadowdale preschool playground replacement, in process 2017 Parks CIP/CFP projects: o Edmond Marsh, daylighting of Willow Creek o Parklet development o Outdoor fitness zones o City gateway replacement o Meadowdale playfields Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 12 4.1.a o City storage building o Civic grandstand removal o Community Garden o Veteran's Plaza o Waterfront Redevelopment/Walkway completion o Land acquisition opportunities Ms. Hite requested the Council consider deleting the following from the Parks CFP: • Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study; can be completed as operational item, and if determines a facility is needed, then would be added to CFP • Downtown Public restroom: completed Mr. English reviewed the CFP/CIP Schedule: • July: o City staff begins development of capital budgets • August/September o Submit proposed capital budget to finance o Prepare draft CFP and CIP o Planning Board presentation • October o Planning Board; public hearing (10/12/16) o City Council; public hearing (11/1/16) • November/December o City Council approval o Adopt CFP with budget into the Comprehensive Plan Council President Johnson asked about the deadline for adopting the CIP. Mr. English answered it tied to the budget so if changes were made to the budget, it could impact 2017 CIP projects. Ideally the Council would approve the CIP before or in conjunction with the 2017 budget. Councilmember Teitzel asked the position of outdoor fitness zones on the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) priority list. Ms. Hite answered there are several park items on the SAP list. The 2014 PROS Plan update considered those items and further defined them. The SAP includes more broad goals such as increasing quality of life, maintaining parks, and creating amenities. Outdoor fitness zones are specifically identified in the PROS Plan. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether the outdoor fitness zones would be completely grant funded. Ms. Hite answered no, an application for a $100,000 grant has been submitted and $75,000 is included in the CIP. Councilmember Teitzel asked if construction of the storage shed in City Park will be complete before the grandstands at Civic Field are demolished, due to a timing issue for storage. Ms. Hite answered that is the goal. The Facilities Manager and the Parks Maintenance Manager are working on the storage shed; it may be constructed in-house. Staff will alert the tenants of the stadium storage and provide them time to vacate. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with some items in the CIP such as the aquatic facility and suggested Council have a serious discussion about needs and wants and what has happened in the area such as Lynnwood and Shoreline's aquatic facilities. She understood the concept of a placeholder but recommended during the summer next year the Council consider which placeholder items should remain in the CIP. She observed the CIP includes $1 million for pavement preservation which is also a decision package. She asked if approving the CIP automatically approved that decision package. Mr. Williams said the 2017 draft budget includes $1.1 million for pavement preservation in the first year of the CIP. There are also amounts for pavement preservation in the out years. Approving the CIP would be strongly Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 13 4.1.a suggestive of approval of the decision package although the Council could change their mind. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized some items in the CIP are decision packages that require Council decision. Council President Johnson relayed her interest in the acquisition of open space, expressing concern that including $200,000 in each year's budget but not letting it accumulate did not allow an amount that could be used for purchases. She suggested the Council discuss having an acquisition of open space account that could build up to $1 million in 3-5 years. She did not like the idea of budgeting such a small amount and relying on bonding for the remainder. She relayed a desire for some funding for critical areas, recalling some past opportunities have been lost. She suggested there could be 1-3 funds with one including funds for the Edmonds Marsh. Ms. Hite relayed a few Planning Board members have expressed interest in that too. In 2015 the $200,000 carried over in 2016 was added to the $200,000 in the 2016 budget and used to purchased Civic Field along with grant funds. She suggested at the end of 2017 Council could discuss moving the $200,000 into a fund that would begin to accumulate until an opportunity arises. She supported having an opportunity fund, noting when property becomes available, it is often necessary to act fast and without available funds, it is difficult to be nimble and competitive in acquiring land. It is a goal in the PROS Plan to continue to acquire open space and to be aggressive about acquiring beachfront in particular. Mayor Earling commented the $400,000 in the budget closed the purchase of Civic Field. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified this is a policy issue, not CFP/CIP issue. She agreed if the $200,000 is not used, it should be allowed to accumulate. She recalled in the past the Council Contingency fund was allowed to accumulate. She envisioned if a fund were established, it could be used to purchase property such as the tiny house property. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Hearing no comments, he closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. He relayed staff s recommendation to forward this item for approval on the Consent Agenda. Council President Johnson commented presentations were made to Council last week and this week and a public hearing held this week. The Council has time to discuss this further and she was not in a rush to schedule it on next week's Consent Agenda or to take action tonight. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this may be putting the cart before the horse. She reiterated the $1 million pavement preservation is a decision package but it is already included in the CIP. She did not object to scheduling the CFP/CIP on the Consent Agenda but if that were done, the funds for pavement preservation should not be a decision package. Mr. Williams commented one or the other needs be approved first. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled last year the Council approved the CFP/CIP and budget at same time. Mayor Earling requested a show of hands of Councilmembers who supported forwarding the 2017-2022 CFP/CIP to the Consent Agenda; Councilmembers Tibbott, Teitzel, Nelson and Mesaros indicated their support. Mayor Earling advised a Councilmember could pull it from the Consent Agenda if they wished. Council President Johnson commented the remainder of department presentations will be made tonight; next week the Council will begin discussing decision packages which she felt was the appropriate time to deal with the CIP. It remained the consensus of the Council majority to forward this item to the Consent Agenda. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: UPDATE TO THE 2016 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES AND NEW SECTION 3.36 OF ECC Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 12 Packet Pg. 14 4.1.a Public Works Director Phil Williams commented this is the fourth discussion with Council: • Previous discussions occurred on: o October 13, 2015 (presentation by consultant Randy Young) o November 2, 2015 o September 20, 2016 • Previous meetings addressed: 1. Definition of impact fees 2. Reasons to charge impact fees 3. Rules for impact fees 4. How impact fees can be used 5. Calculations and comparisons He reviewed changes from the 2009 Plan to the 2015 Plan. • Added 6 new projects • Removed projects o 3 projects completed/to be completed in 2017 • Increased cost of 7 carry-over projects • Adjusted deficiency exclusion • Reduced cost estimates by adjusting for external trips He presented the growth -related project list from the adopted Transportation Plan (projects in italics are new in the 2015 Transportation Plan, others are carryover from 2009 Plan): Project Total Cost Existing Deficiency Edmonds Growth Eligible Cost 1 Olympic View & 174h St. SW $ 610,000 0% 47% $ 286,700 2 Olympic View Drive & 76th Ave. W 1,183,000 0% 47% 556,010 4 196` St. SW (SR 524) & 88 Ave 903,000 0% 63% 568,890 8 21P St. & SR 99 2,806,000 0% 63% 1,767,780 14 220'h St. & SR 99 3,215,000 0% 33% 1,060,950 30 SR 99 & 216` St SW 2,335,000 0% 33% 770,550 11 Main St. & 9th Ave. 911,000 0% 63% 573,930 15 220` St. & 76` Ave 4,314,000 0% 33% 1,423,620 20 SR 104 & 238' St. 1,339,000 40% 49% 393,666 21 SR 104 & 76` Ave W 1,508,500 0% 49% 739,165 A 847Ave. W, between 212'h St. S & 238h St. SW 7,720,500 0% 65% 5,018,325 B 238t St. SW, between Edmonds Way & 84:h 3,045,000 0% 65% 1,979,250 C Add 228` St. SW from SR 99 to 95` Pl. 10,146, 000 0% 65% 6,594,900 Total $40,036,000 1% 53% $21,733,736 Mr. Williams reviewed the calculation of impact fees • Step 1: Cost per trip = eligible costs divided by growth trips Example: $21,733,736 eligible costs divided by 3,930 growth trips = $5,530 cost per trip • Step 2: Impact fee per unit of development (cost per trip x trip rate = impact fee rate) o Apartment Example: $5,530 cost per trip x 0.74/trip rate = $4,092/ impact fee rate/apartment o Office Example: $5,530 cost per trip x 0.00197/square foot trip rate = $10.89/square foot impact fee rate He summarized the cost per trip is key: Eligible costs $21,733,735 divided by growth trips 3,930 = cost per trip $5,530. Mr. Williams provided a comparison of the Edmonds' fee: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 13 Packet Pg. 15 4.1.a Jurisdiction Cost per trip Kenmore $8,350 Lynnwood 7,944 Bothell 6,941 Shoreline 6,804 Edmonds (update) 5,530 Average of 8 others 5,100 Mill Creek 3,000 Snohomish County 2,453 Mukilteo 1,875 Edmonds (current) 1,050 Mr. Williams described a potential reduction for low income housing: • Partial exemption of not more than 80% of impact fee, in which case no explicit requirement to pay the exempted portion of the fee from public funds • Exemption identify in RCW 82.02.060 • Cities of Everett, Kenmore, Bellingham and Monroe are using this same exemption Mr. Williams relayed staff s recommendation: 1. Raise impact fee to $5,530 per PM peak hour trips 2. Phased over 3 equal annual steps through 2019 • $2,543 in 2017 • $4,037 in 2018 • $5,530 in 2019 3. Implement a low income housing discount program up to 80% for qualified projects Councilmember Tibbott observed several projects have been on the list for a long time and asked to what extent those must remain on the list. Mr. Williams explained these projects are identified in the Transportation Plan to address a deficiency and are used to calculate the traffic impact fee. These projects will not be completed with traffic impact fees alone or with City funds alone; staff seeks opportunities for grants, making it difficult to predict the order that projects will be funded. Councilmember Tibbott observed the Main & 9th signal had been on the list for years. He asked if that was being more seriously considered in the next 3 years. Mr. Williams recalled discussions about signals at Main & 9`h and at Caspers; the signal at Caspers was removed but the Main & 9`h signal was retained as an option. There could be a signal at that location but a mini roundabout was more likely when the intersection was projected in the near future when the level of service fails. That project has not been designed but projections indicate the intersection level of service will fail in the future. Councilmember Tibbott asked if was projected to fail within this budget cycle. Mr. Williams answered sometime within the planning horizon of the Transportation Plan. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Hearing no comments, he closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO FORWARD TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 8. STUDY ITEMS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 14 Packet Pg. 16 1. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMPENSATION REVIEW Council/Legislative Assistant Andrew Pierce recalled during a presentation in September, the Council raised several questions regarding the criteria and how the comparative cities were selected. He provided the following information: • Salaries should be based on realistic standards in order to pay elected officials according to the duties of their office. Washington Citizens' Comm. Of Salaries for Elected Officials o Regional /Market Comparisons o Evaluation of Official Duties — includes evaluation of expertise and knowledge and skill required to perform the duties of the office. • Criteria for comparison o Mayor/Council Government Structure (strong mayor) o Cities in the Puget Sound Region o With Populations between 20K — 60K o Without City Administrators in Addition to Mayor • Four comparative cities identified o Marysville Pop. 60,020 o Redmond Pop. 54,144 o EDMONDS Pop. 40,000 o Bremerton Pop. 37,729 o Lynnwood Pop. 35,836 • City Councilmembers' duties o Nothing in City code outlining Councilmembers' duties o General job description includes ■ Develop policy ■ Study ■ Research Time to attend meetings and preparation Etc. • Comparison of Council President and Councilmembers' salaries and benefits: City Council President Salary Council Member Salary Benefits Total CP Total CM Redmond $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,124.10 $2,124.10 $2,124.10 AVERAGE 1,050.00 970.00 374.70 2,404.38 2,271.05 Edmonds 1,200.00 1,000 707.51 1,907.51 1,707.51 Bremerton 1,00.00 1,000.00 0/no data 1,000.00 1,000.00 Marysville 950.00 950.00 0/no data 950.00 950.00 Lynnwood 1,100.00 900.00 2,081.53 3,181.53 2,981.53 Mayor duties o The mayor shall be the chief executive and administrative officer of the city, in charge of all departments and employees, with authority to designate assistants and department heads. The mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the city, and shall have general supervision of the administration of city government and all city interest. [Ord. 2349 § 2, 1983]. o The mayor shall devote full time to execution of the duties of the office of mayor and shall not engage in any occupation or professional inconsistent with the full-time performance of the duties of mayor. [Ord. 2349 § 4, 19831. Comparison of Mayor monthly salary and benefits City Mavor Salary Benefits* Total Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 15 Packet Pg. 17 4.1.a Redmond $11,416.66 $2,452.45 $13,869.08 Marysville 10,659.93 2,449.48 13,109.41 AVERAGE 9,838.69 2,412.21 12,250.89 Edmonds 9,622.84 2,006.04 11,628.88 Bremerton 8,917.00 2,571.00 11,488.00 Lynnwood 8,577.00 2,582.10 11,159.10 *Does not include benefits such as car allowance o Edmonds mayor's current salary sits 2.2% below the average salary of mayors in comparable cities. However, the Edmonds mayor's current salary sits 15% below the highest comparable city's mayor. o Edmonds Mayor's benefits package sits 16% below the average of comparable mayor benefits packages, and 22.3% below the highest comparable city's mayor's benefits package. ■ Benefit differences may depend on plans the cities are involved in City Administrator duties/qualifications o Duties: Serves as administrative, assistant executive, personnel and liaison officer and building official for the City. Recommends appointments and removals of all department heads and staff. Recommends policy and implements policy as established by the Mayor and City Council. o Typically Supervises: Treasurer, City Clerk, Police Chief, Public Works Supervisor, Fire, Administrative Officer and Building Inspector. o Typically Requires: Advanced Education in Public Administration, Business, or related field, and multiple years of senior management experience preferably in municipal government or related public sector. o Mayor in Council/Mayor form government is similar to weak, in weak Mayor selected from Councilmember. Most of those cities have a city administrator. City administrator duties/qualifications: Cities with City Administrator/Weak Mayor City Pop CoS/CAO Salary Sammamish 45,789 $16,13 Bothell 33,505 15,501 Mercer Island 22,699 14,677 Lakewood 58,163 14,158 Shoreline 53,007 13,911 SeaTac 26,909 13,469 Kenmore 20,460 13,268 Bainbridge Island 23,025 12,941 Burien 33,313 12,917 Maple Valley 22,684 12,654 University Place 31,144 12,612 Puyallup 37,022 12,500 Mountlake Terrace 19,909 11,813 Edmonds 38,709 9,623 Average 13,581 Mr. Pierce commented it was difficult to compare mayor and city administrator salaries as the duties may vary; a better survey would need to be conducted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Redmond and Marysville's mayor's salary and benefits were higher than Edmonds. She asked the population of those cities and number of staff the Mayor supervises. Mr. Pierce answered Marysville's population is estimated at 60,000 and there are 258 FTE; Redmond's estimated population is 54,000 with 609 FTE and Edmonds estimated population is 40,000 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 16 Packet Pg. 18 with 220 employees. He commented one of the difficulties in surveying elected officials' salaries is matching the criteria with comparator cities; it was very difficult to do with regard to population and FTE and Mayors' salaries do not appear to correlate to the number of employees. He referred to a master listed in the Council packet used in the analysis, pointing out for example Bremerton's Mayor earns substantial less than Edmonds' Mayor but has more employees and conversely Marysville's Mayor earns substantially more and has slightly fewer employees. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Lynnwood's population is 35,000 and 332 FTE. Mr. Pierce agreed, noting the number of FTE can differ depending on whether the City has its own fire department, etc. He was not certain why Redmond had so many FTE. Councilmember Teitzel when the Edmonds Mayor had a salary adjustment. Mr. Pierce answered from his research, it was in 2012. Mayor Earling advised there was a cost of living increase in 2012. Councilmember Teitzel asked whether a CEO in private industry would go six years without a salary increase. Mr. Pierce answered likely not, CEOs typically set the pace for raises. It is difficult to compare private and public because the markets are different although they do influence each other. For example City Administrators often are offered a higher salary than a strong Mayor because they compete with private industry. Councilmember Teitzel asked if there had been base salary increases for the other strong Mayors in the past six years. Mr. Pierce did not have that information; it would need to be collected via survey. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the previous agenda memo that provides the history of disbanding the salary commission and the Mayor's COLA increase. She favored an ordinance establishing a salary commission with members appointed by Councilmembers. hi the interim, she felt the Mayor deserved a 5% raise. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she spent her life working for government, and pointed out the Governor of Washington State earns $175,000 and has many more employees than any city. The County Executive earns about the same as Marysville's Mayor. She agreed there was a difference between public and private employees. Elected officials acting to set compensation of other elected officials creates political and legal pitfalls. The legalities are simple to ensure compliance with; however, the potential for political consideration to play a factor in such an action is the reason the state legislature codifies the use of the salary commission to remove political considerations from the process. In Edmonds, the City Council has a close working relationship with the Mayor. Councilmembers individually and as a body work closely with the Mayor. Asking Councilmembers to take such action to affect the compensation of the Mayor with whom they work, puts Councilmembers in a potentially difficult position, making a decision influenced by politics rather than economic considerations. The real problem is the Council's decision could be completely impartial but the perception to the public may be different. When considering the compensation of other strong Mayors, Edmonds' Mayor is compensated fairly with the exception of benefits. She recommended reconvening the salary commission with members appointed by the Council which will remove the electeds from the process. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with forming a salary commission to consider Councilmember compensation. The Council could move ahead with increasing the Mayor's base salary which has not had a COLA for several years. He agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis' suggestion for a 5% increase for the Mayor and to form a salary commission in 2017. Councilmember Nelson relayed as previously stated, he is not supportive of an increase in the Council salary regardless of what body makes that decision. He questioned how the Council decides to increase/not increase the Mayor's salary without it being a reflection of the current Mayor. When Councilmembers say the Mayor deserves an increase, he questioned whether they meant the current Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 17 Packet Pg. 19 4.1.a Mayor Dave Earling or the position he holds, which he felt could not be separated. He did not support putting the Council in that position and supported forming a salary commission or other independent body to make that decision. Council President Johnson supported the idea of a salary commission because it takes the matter out of the hands of elected officials. She did not like the idea of two -tiered salary for Councilmembers. She referred to the decision tree Mr. Pierce prepared on page 374 of the Council packet, which may be a good tool to review the information. Mr. Pierce reviewed the decision tree: Increases by ordinance o Mayor: increase can take effect before the Mayor's next term in office o Council: increase may not take effect before the Councilmember's next term in office Salary Commission o Mayor or Council: salary commission is authorized to review and submit salary increases without further action from the City Council. Increases take effect when the new salaries go into effect, and any decreases will not take effect until the official's next term of office. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON, TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE CREATING A SALARY COMMISSION WITH CITY COUNCILMEMBERS APPOINTING THE COMMISSIONERS. City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed the RCW requires the members of the salary commission be appointed by the Mayor with approval of the City Council. Councilmember Buckshnis restated her motion: TO INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE CREATING A SALARY COMMISSION. Mr. Taraday read the language from the RCW: the members of such commission shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of a City charter (Edmonds does not have) or as specified in this subsection which states shall be appointed by the Mayor with approval of the City Council. Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the concept of creating a salary commission to consider City Council salaries. He was less clear how to address an adjustment in the Mayor's base salary. He questioned whether this motion was to create a salary commission to consider both Council and Mayor's salaries. Mayor Earling relayed his understanding it was for both the Mayor and Council. Mr. Taraday said if it is the Council's intent to form a salary commission to consider salaries of all elected officials, it was unlikely to happen for 2017. Taking the step to form a salary commission defers any increases to 2018. Councilmember Teitzel expressed concern with delaying action in view of the justification for adjusting the Mayor's salary. He preferred not to wait to adjust the Mayor's salary but supported having an external body review Council salaries. He was not in favor of an adjustment in Council salaries but could change his opinion based on the commission's work. Councilmember Buckshnis observed an ordinance would not be effective for 30-60 days and asked if the Council could establish a salary for the Mayor as part of the budget process. Finance Director Scott James answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis supported forming a salary commission to review all elected officials' salaries and to address the Mayor's salary during the budget process. Mr. Taraday observed the commission would set the salary beginning in 2018 and the Council would set the salary for the Mayor in 2017. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to make it simple and easy; the Council controls the budget and can address the Mayor's salary via the budget process. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 18 Packet Pg. 20 4.1.a Mayor Earling relayed his understanding that the intent was to form a salary commission to consider all elected officials' salaries but some Councilmembers are interested in a pay increase for the Mayor's position for 2017. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Mayor would get a COLA as he did two years ago. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite answered the Mayor has not received a COLA since 2012. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with providing the Mayor a COLA similar to other staff. She objected to arbitrarily pulling a number out of the air when all the questions have not been answered. She was aware a number of Councilmembers have discussed this issue with the Mayor and felt the only way to do it in a fair and impartial manner was to engage an external body to determine the position's salary. Discussions between Councilmembers and the Mayor was not a fair and equitable process for either the Mayor or the City. She did not support an immediate increase for the Mayor but did support the formation of a salary commission. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order; the motion is regarding the formation of a salary commission and does not address raising the Mayor's salary. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday clarified unless directed otherwise, he will not bring back an ordinance until after the budget is adopted. He feared acting on the ordinance prior to adopting the budget could cause confusion. 2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2017 PROPOSED CITY BUDGET Council President Johnson recommended the department heads be allowed to make their presentations and Councilmember ask questions via email or other methods. Due to the late hour, she fear if there were too many interruptions staff would not get through their presentations. Police Department Police Chief Al Compaan reviewed: • Recent highlights: o 2015 Activities ■ Part 1 Crimes Solved - 38.7% ■ Felony Filings - 346 ■ Traffic Citations and Infractions - 4,533 ■ DUI Arrests - 98 ■ Total Misdemeanor Arrests - 883 ■ Animal Control Incidents - 1,113 ■ Parking Citations - 1,002 ■ Firearms Related Requests (CPL, Transfers) - 874 ■ Public Disclosure Requests - 1,842 ■ Traffic Collisions Investigated - 776 ■ Total Dispatched Calls for Service - 23,874 • Decision Packages/Changes o DP # 9: Radio Enhancement ■ Adds a police radio antenna/repeater in the Public Safety Building to resolve "dead zones" in the building to improve transmit and receive capability. $23,607. o DP # 10: Police Staff Assistant ■ Adds PSA to our front office/records area. Needed due to volume and increased complexity of work, data entry, report processing, quality control, archiving, records destruction, front counter, phones, general customer service. $78,018. o DP # 11: School Resource Officer Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 19 Packet Pg. 21 4.1.a ■ Adds a police officer position for assignment at Edmonds Woodway High School. Partnership with Edmonds School District, 50150 cost share salary and benefits, plus contribution to vehicle. $134,644. o DP # 12: Replace SWAT transport vehicle ■ Replaces 1989 bus purchased from CT in 2007. Will utilize currently accrued B-Fund. Purchase price includes outfitting of vehicle. Planned 20 year service life. $41,500. Expenditures Expenditures 2016 Modified 2016 YE 2017 Recom- Discussion Budget Estimate mended Salaries, benefits $8,217,060 $8,110,010 $8,734,720 Incl DP 10 Staff Asst & DP 11 SRO Overtime 396,240 433,550 454,780 Supplies/Equip. 111,630 103,060 111,900 Prof. Services 117,170 99,380 117,670 Other 185,300 174,370 203,020 Incl DP 9 Radio Enhancement Rental/Lease 595,100 594,100 842,630 Large share of increase due to IT Intergovernmental 10,550 10,550 10,550 Total Budget $9,633,050 $9,525,020 $10,475,270 • Revenue Revenue 2016 Modified 2016 YE 2017 Recom- Discussion Budget Estimate mended Intergovernmental $49,500 $61,120 $106,740 DP 11 SRO Special Events 38,300 44,980 43,000 Animal License & 44,800 35,250 35,090 Adoptions Grants 22,470 23,635 19,030 Other 13,000 23,161 14,000 Total $168,070 $188,146 $217,860 City Clerk Finance Director Scott James reviewed: Programs: o City Hall Front Desk/Reception o Business Licensing o Records Management o Public Record Requests o City Council Agenda & Meeting Management 2016 Accomplishments o City Hall Front Desk/Reception ■ Responded to thousands of walk-in customers, requests, inquiries, and phone calls o Business Licensing (3,500+) ■ Business License revenues: $116,000 ■ Non -Resident BL revenues: $67,500 ■ BL Penalty - late fees $12,500 ■ Parking Permit revenues: $25,100 o Records Management ■ Filed, recorded, tracked 1,000's of pages of records Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 20 Packet Pg. 22 4.1.a o Public Record Requests (200+) ■ Provided 10,000+ pages/files in response to public records requests o City Council Agenda & Meeting Management ■ Coordinated agendas, minutes and meeting packets for 50+ Council meetings Expenditures 2016 2016 YE 2017 Recom- Expenditures Modified Discussion Estimate mended Budget Total $72,963 $91,210 $639,880 2017 estimate includes DP#2 & 3 The 2017 Clerk's Office Budget totals approximately $640,000, which represents an 8% increase over the estimated 2016 budget. This is primarily due to increase in salaries and benefits, and two Decision Packages totaling $11,000). Decision Packages o DP #2: Adds $1,000 to 2017 costs for potential overtime needs related to unanticipated work products and special/one-time projects. o DP #3: Adds $9,500 to ongoing costs for a web -based public records software module ■ Currently the Clerk's Office manages records requests manually — software would automate and facilitate the process ■ Records software is used by many other jurisdictions, including the City of Kirkland, which won a state award for its record request process ■ Provides automation, routing, tracking, reporting, and reminders. Also facilitates notification and response and streamlines the process for all users, including staff and the general public ■ Public submits requests on the online portal, where they are automatically numbered, logged and routed ■ System reminds internal users of response deadlines, sends automated notifications to requestor ■ Requestors download records through the web portal; records are stored in the cloud for a given retention period ■ Log of past requests is made available online for transparency Mayor's Office Mr. James reviewed: 2016 Accomplishments o Continued street resurfacing program ■ In 2016, we resurfaced 8.6 lane miles ■ This is on -top of the 8.7 lanes miles resurfaced in 2015 and 5.8 miles in 2014 ■ 2014 — 2016 — 23.1 lane miles resurfaced ■ City has over 287 lane miles of streets o Continued success in achieving major grants in Parks, Engineering and Public Works ■ 2012: $2,345,067 ■ 2013: $2,085,121 ■ 2014: $3,920,991 ■ 2015: $7,163,929 ■ 2016: $3,551,898 o Expanded public communication program with continuation of Town Halls, twice monthly media columns a continued presence on Facebook o Success in Olympia: assembled funding for Alternatives Analysis, $1 OM for Highway 99, ECA roof, and rehab of Fishing Pier o Maintained strong financial position o Significant progress made in economic development Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 21 Packet Pg. 23 4.1.a Challenges o Continued vigilance of Edmonds long-term financial health o Access to and from Waterfront o Resolution of Fire District 1 contract o Creating new revenue streams o Strategy to maintain long-term street repaving needs o Maintain and advance infrastructure needs o Continued success in gaining grants Expenditures Expenditures 2016 2016 YE 2017 Discussion Budget Estimate Recomm. Total $260,250 $260,480 $273,590 COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, to EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. City Council Mr. James reviewed: • Expenditures Expenditures 2016 2016 YE 2017 Discussion Budget Estimate Recomm. Total $295,500 $303,730 $365,120 Finance & Information Services Mr. James reviewed: • 2016 Accomplishments Finance o Completed 2015 Audit o Investment earnings ■ 2012: $57,344 ■ 2013: $74,830 ■ 2014: $163,214 ■ 2015: $336,926 0 9/30/2016: $326,075 o Debt Savings: ■ Last February we paid off the 1996 Public Safety Bond early, saving the City $13,000 ■ Last month, we completed the Refunding of the City's 2007 LTGO Bond, saving the City $367,541 ■ Combining the Additional Investment earnings and bond interest savings, we will have increased the City's cash flows over $982,000 since I came to the City 2 1/2 years ago o Hired new Assistant Finance Director, Dave Turley Challenges o Develop Long-range Financial Plans o Review Financial Polices • Expenditures Expenditures 2016 2016 YE 2017 Discussion Budget Estimate Recomm. Total $939,820 $890,960 $1,029,560 New staff member • Decision Packages o DP#5: $3,500 for GASB 73 Implementation Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 22 Packet Pg. 24 4.1.a IT Supervisor Brian Tuley reviewed: Information Services o Goal of Information Surfaces: ■ Stability ■ Redundancy ■ Security o Future: ■ Proactive ■ Communication • Expenditures Expenditures 2016 2016 YE 2017 Discussion Budget Estimate Recomm. Fiber budget $59,200 $59,200 -- Consolidated Information services 840,910 804,830 890,430 Consolidated ex enses Total $900,100 $864,030 $890,430 • Decision Packages o DP #73: ($15,000) Reduction of expense for equipment replacement o DP #74: $6,500 Redundant internet connection o DP #75: ($23,200) Reduction of expense in supplies budget o DP #76: $700 Increase for conference related travel expenses Mr. Tuley described the creation of a new internal service fund for IT with A & B Funds: • Provides even and steady funding for IT equipment • Helps the City meet the auditor's recommendation • Stabilizes the IT budget He described the purpose of each fund: • A Fund o Ongoing operations ■ Communications ■ Licensing ■ Maintenance ■ Professional Services ■ Salaries ■ Software o Formula charged back to Departments based on: ■ % of support time (using help desk ticket system) ■ Devices Counts - Computers - Smart Phones - Desktop Phones o Licensed Applications o Network Accounts o Staff Count B Fund o Hardware Replacement ■ Desktops ■ Infrastructure - Networking / Servers / Storage ■ Printers o Assigns life cycle period to hardware (4-7 years) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 23 Packet Pg. 25 4.1.a o Model builds replacement costs over 7 years o Develops annual average to keep fund positive o Fund seed money of $40,000 from 2016 capital fund o $95,000 annually toward hardware replacement ■ Charged back to Departments based on device counts o Graph of B Fund Balance 2016-2023 ■ 2016: $45,000 ■ 2017: $60,430 ■ 2018: $108,730 ■ 2019: $80,000 ■ 2020: $21,530 ■ 2021: $5,640 ■ 2022: $6,450 ■ 2023: $23,690 Non -Departmental Mr. James reviewed: Purpose o Non -Departmental is used to segregate all costs not directly identifiable to departments and those expenditures and services that are required by law or contract that are beneficial to all citizens o The Finance Department provides oversight to the Non -Departmental budget Key Non -Departmental Expenditures: Expenditures 2016 2016 YE 2017 Discussion Budget Estimate Recomm. Liability & Property $534,440 $538,750 $600,850 Rate increase Ins Fire District Contract 8,327,000 8,327,000 7,713,000 Approx 2.5% inc Prisoner Care 612,390 612,000 620,000 SNOCOM 986,770 986,770 1,028,700 Approx 4% inc Debt Service 214,450 205,550 204,870 Stabilized for 2017 Interfund Transfers 2,904,320 3,364,120 1,063,200 Review later Other ND 1,376,630 1,291,130 1,452,210 Contact Mr. James Expenditures with questions Total $14,956,000 $15,325,320 1 $12,682,830 Liability & Property Insurance o When we built the 2016 Proposed Budget, we estimated that we would pay WCIA a total of $884,141 in 2016 o The Proposed 2017 Budget includes $977,424 for WCIA, an increase of $93,283 or 10.6% increase Fire District 2017 Contract o For 2016, we estimated that the City will pay Fire District 1 $8,327,000 for services o The 2016 Estimate included a "Retro" payment of $802,000 o The 2017 Proposed Budget includes a base payment of $7,713,000 o The 2017 FD1 Budget includes a 2.5% increase for services Transfers within General Fund Expenditures 2016 Budget 2016 YE Estimate 2017 Recomm. Discussion LEOFF Medical (009) $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 Target Balance Risk Mgmt (011) -- -- -- Contingency (012) -- 582,300 -- 2016 Trsf for FD1 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 24 Packet Pg. 26 4.1.a Hist Presery (014) 5,000 5,000 5,000 Building Maintenance 415,000 415,000 100,000 Stabilize ongoing transfer Total $695,000 $1,277,300 $380,000 COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE MEEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • Transfer to other funds: Expenditures 2016 Budget 2016 YE Estimate 2017 Recomm. Discussion Firemen's Pension (617) $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Continue funding LTGO Debt Sery (231) 166,950 166,950 168,200 Scheduled payment 2014 Debt Sery 232) 949,540 949,550 -- Scheduled payment Technology Rental (512) -- -- 45,000 New fund startup $ Cemetery (130) 40,000 40,000 40,000 Operating transfer Street Maint. (111) 400,000 400,000 400,000 Operating transfer Street Constr.(112) 512,830 390,320 -- Sister City (138) 5,000 5,000 5,000 Operating transfer Municipal Arts (117) 15,000 15,000 15,000 Per City policy Park Constr. (132) 110,000 110,000 -- Total $2,214,320 $2,091,820 $688,200 Bonds paid off in 2016 Decision Packages o DP #6: $100,000: Council Contingency to fund Council priorities o DP #7: $5,000 - Cover increase of Public Defender Consultant o DP #8: $45,000 - New IT Fund Start-up funds o New Increase: $50,000 - Prosecutor Contract ■ Mr. James will draft and email Councilmembers a decision package Other Finance Managed Funds o Finance is responsible for the budgets of several other small funds: o LEOFF Medical o Risk Management o Contingency Reserve o Employee Parking o LID and Debt Service Funds o Fireman's Pension Recommend closing Fund 213 Recommend retiringl996 Public Safety Bond Fund 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling commented on the wonderful Halloween celebration last night, the largest crowd he has seen since being involved in 1980. He recognized the Chamber for putting on this event, made possible with funds the Chamber raises at the Taste of Edmonds. Mayor Earling reminded next week's Council meeting will be on Monday, November 7 and Tuesday, November 8 is election day. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 25 Packet Pg. 27 4.1.a Councilmember Nelson echoed Mayor Earling's comments regarding Halloween downtown and expressed appreciation to the Chamber for organizing the event and getting the businesses participate. He was thankful the weather cooperated until his family went trick -or -treating in the neighborhoods. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged the public to turn in their ballots. Councilmember Buckshnis said she will not be at the Council meeting Monday as she will be returning from Green Bay, Wisconsin. She thanked everyone who has reached out to the Council regarding the Edmonds Marsh. She encouraged the public to vote. Council President Johnson said she has been troubled this week about the letters to Ecology contradicting the original letter sent by the City Council. In discussing with City Attorney Jeff Taraday how to heal the chasm that has hit the City Council, one of his suggestions was to hold a special meeting to talk about it. She offered to organize a special meeting if Councilmembers were willing. Mr. Taraday said a special meeting requires a majority vote of City Council, noting if a majority did not want to have a meeting it likely would not be a very effective special meeting anyway. He suggested determining whether Councilmembers were interested in a special meeting before selecting a date. Council President Johnson commented the Council needed to move swiftly and whether the Council was interested in having an off - camera, consolatory discussion or should the Council just move on. Councilmember Mesaros suggested due the late hour, scheduling this discussion at the beginning of Monday night's agenda. Council President Johnson said that did not suit her purposes. COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED TO PLAN A SPECIAL MEETING WITHIN THE NEXT 1-2 WEEKS TO DISCUSS HOW TO WORK TOGETHER AS A COUNCIL. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Teitzel compliment the crews who did a great job of installing the downtown restroom in time for last night's festivities. The restroom and landscaping look great although there is more work to be done. Councilmember Teitzel explained he lives on the northern border of Civic Field; after the hybrid plan was introduced, several of the neighbors along Civic Field (not him) were concerned with the proposal to move the skate park from its current location to a site near the northern fence. That was not shown in Plan A or B option, and came as a surprise to the neighbors. Ms. Hite has assured them the skate park will not be located there and will be moved to either the current location of the baseball field or behind the Boys & Girls Club building. Councilmember Mesaros agreed Halloween downtown was very fun. Councilmember Tibbott praised the Tree Board for their work on Saturday revegetating an area. He also praised the City's stormwater system which has been tremendously tested during the past month. The City has invested a great deal in its stormwater system; citizens should appreciate that the City takes the handling of stormwater seriously. 11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 12. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 26 Packet Pg. 28 4.1.a This item was not needed. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 1, 2016 Page 27 Packet Pg. 29 4.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #222602 through #222707 dated November 3, 2016 for $1,148,111.69 (re- issued check #222686 $28,236.97). Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #62374 through #62381 for $520,802.51, benefit checks #62382 through #62390 and wire payments of $481,668.26 for the pay period October 16, 2016 through October 31, 2016. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments. Fiscal Impact Claims $1,148,111.69 Re -issued check $28,236.97 #222686 Payroll Employee checks and direct deposit $520,802.51 Payroll Benefit checks and wire payments $481,668.26 Total Payroll $1,002,470.77 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 11-03-16 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 11-03-16 Payroll summary 11-05-16 payroll benefits 11-05-16 Packet Pg. 30 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222602 10/31/2016 061773 CHAVE, ROBERT 4253429 HOTEL FOR CONFERENCE- ROB Hotel for APA Conference- R Chave 001.000.62.558.60.43.00 Tota 222603 11/3/2016 072627 911 ETC INC 39651 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT Monthly 911 database maint 001.000.31.518.88.48.00 Tota 222604 11/3/2016 069156 ADVISARTS INC 10/31 BACH 10/31 BACH CULTURAL PLAN IMP 10/31 BACH CULTURAL PLAN IMP 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 Tota 222605 11/3/2016 065568 ALLWATER INC 101816051 WWTP: 10/26/16 DRINKING WATE 10/26/16 Water services (plus 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Tota 222606 11/3/2016 075831 ALTHOFF, ANNETTE 10/28 REFUND 10/28 REFUND 10/28 REFUND 001.000.239.200 Tota 222607 11/3/2016 074695 AMERICAN MESSAGING W4101046QK WATER WATCH PAGER FEES Water Watch Pager Fees 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 Tota 222608 11/3/2016 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH 7009035563 WWTP: ROW BALL BRGS/FLEX T ROW BALL BRGS/FLEX TORQUE 4.2.a Page: 1 c ca lid U a� Amoun N 0 0- S r a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 31 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222608 11/3/2016 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 7009065062 WWTP: BALL BEARINGS: SKF6219- BALL BEARINGS: SKF6219-2RS1/C: 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total: 222609 11/3/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1988836731 WWTP: 10/12/16 UNIFORMS, TOWE 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 1988847335 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 1988847336 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1988851306 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MAT: 4.2.a Page: 2 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 39.0z -0a a� L 906.6' 4- 18.51 c m 90.6 1 73 1,453.3( cr.a 0 c� a 5.3 , 115.9E U 4- 0 0.5< 0 L 11.3( a Q 0 49.7( cwo 4.81 r r� 0 24.9( N Y 2.4z E 1.6' c m 6.1' E t R .r r Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 32 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222609 11/3/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MA 4.2.a Page: 3 c ca T: T: T: lid U a� Amoun }; N 0 a 6.1' -0) }, 6.1' L 6.1' c 6.0E 0.1( c�a AT 0 0.6( L>% c� a 0.6( 0.6( U 0 0.6( 0 L 0.5E a Q LO 0 5.6E to m 18.4( r A c 0.5( r 1.8( WE E W 5.1( 6 c 115.9E t R .r r Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 33 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222609 11/3/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1988857966 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 1988857967 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 1988861988 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MA 4.2.a Page: 4 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 0.5( -0) 11.31 m L 4 4.81 c m 49.7( c� 0 24.9( c� a T: 2.4z E T� U 1.6' o T� 6.1' o T� 0- 0. 6.1' Q � c 6.1' c � T: 6.1' w r ' M 6.0£ 9 r 0.1E Y 0.6( •� 0.6( m 0.6( R .r r Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 34 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222609 11/3/2016 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 222610 222611 222612 11/3/2016 071653 ARNOLD, MEREDITH 11/3/2016 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1988861989 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & M FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 Tota 5052 5052 PRECOUS METAL CLAY CLA 5052 PRECOUS METAL CLAY CLA 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 4.2.a Page: 5 c ca lid U W Amoun }; 0 a am 0.6( a� L 0.5� =a AT 4- W c 5.6£ A 73 18.4( m 0 0.5( ca a 1.8( 0 553.4E S '~ 0 S @ 242.0( o L Total: 242.0( 0- Q. 0988489-IN WWTP: 10/20/16 DIESEL FUEL Q 10/20/16 DIESEL FUEL - ULSD #2 D' to 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 2,739.8 0 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 268.5' r 11/3/2016 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON 5063 TAEKWON-DO 5077 TAEKWON-DO 5085 TAEKWON-DO 5063 KIDS TAEKWON-DO 5063 KIDS TAEKWON-DO 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 5077 KIDS TAEKWON-DO 5077 KIDS TAEKWON-DO 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 5085 KIDS TAEKWON-DO 5085 KIDS TAEKWON-DO Tota 1 : 3,008.31 o N 412.5( E 132.0( m E t R .r r Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 35 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222612 11/3/2016 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON (Continued) 222613 11/3/2016 075832 BARNHART, JANNA 222614 11/3/2016 071348 BERGERABAM 222615 11/3/2016 067391 BRAT WEAR 222616 11/3/2016 075278 BURNS, HOUSTON 222617 11/3/2016 075815 CALHOUN, PAYTON 10/28 REFUND 316525 20157 10/6-10/28 FIELD ATN 10/11-10/25 GYM ATND PO # Description/Account 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Tota 10/28 REFUND 10/28 REFUND 001.000.239.200 Tota E4MB.SERVICES THRU 10/14/16 E4MB.Serviecs thru 10/14/16 016.000.66.518.30.41.00 Tota INV#20157 - EDMONDS PD - POL RIPSTOP PANTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 PERMA PRESS DRESS SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 STITCH CREASES IN SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 BASKETWEAVE LEATHER BELT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 3" CLIP ON NECK TIE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Tota 10/6-10/28 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTE 10/6-10/28 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTE 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Tota 10/11-10/25 VOLLEYBALL GYM AT 10/11-10/25 VOLLEYBALL GYM AT 4.2.a Page: 6 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 81.0( 0- a) 1 : 625.5( a� L =a 39.0( 4 I : 39.0( c c ca 5,452.2' I: 5,452.2' M a A� E n: 47.2E ,- 0 41.0( > 0 a 30.0( Q 18.9E LO to 8.9E m r 14.3, c 1 : 160.41 N Y N 305.0( I : 305.0( r TI m TI E t R .r r a Page: 6 Packet Pg. 36 4.2.a vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222617 11/3/2016 075815 CALHOUN, PAYTON 222618 11/3/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 10/6-10/27 GYM ATND PO # Description/Account Page: 7 c ca lid U w U _ Amoun }; 0 0- 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 90.0( 10/6-10/27 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTE }, 10/6-10/27 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTE L 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 120.0( Total: 210.0( 16606135 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 16606136 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier for 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 PW Office Copier for 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 PW Office Copier for 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 PW Office Copier for 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 PW Office Copier for 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 PW Office Copier for 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 a� c m 33.0, 3.2z 0 a 68.5E •� U 38.8E 0 38.8E 0 L a 27.4, Q 0 27.4, 27.4' r 6.7, c r 3.8' Y U 3.8' E U 2.6E m 2.6� E t U R .r r Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 37 4.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 8 11/03/2016 8:03:30AM City of Edmonds ca lid Bank code : usbank U a� Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun }; 222618 11/3/2016 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) a 9.8% Sales Tax m 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.6 1 16606137 WATER SEWER COPIER 5D L Water Sewer Copier ia 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 70.6E E. Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 70.6E 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 6.9z c�a 9.8% Sales Tax o 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 6.9, 16606140 CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE a CITY CLERKS COPIER LEASE 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 w 33.3( G 16606150 RECEPTIONIST DESK CITY CLERK; RECEPTIONIST DESK COPIER LEA o 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 13.3, 0- 9.8% Sales Tax Q 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 1.3' c Total: 830.7!to 222619 11/3/2016 075627 CAPITOL STRATEGIES 876 FEDERAL LOBBYIST OCTOBER 201 to Federal lobbyist for October 2016. r 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 M 5,000.0( c Total: 5,000.0( 222620 11/3/2016 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC FMZ8628 HP 900W AC 240VDC REDUNDANT N Y HP 900W AC 240VDC Redundant Pc E 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 393.4 1 12 9.8% Sales Tax r 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 38.5( m Total: 432.0: E t R .r r Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 38 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor 222621 11/3/2016 068484 CEMEX LLC 222622 11/3/2016 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS 222623 11/3/2016 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 9434265571 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 9434265573 STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 9434310657 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9434318414 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9434318415 STREET - CONCRETE Street - Concrete 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 Env Fees 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.61.31.00 943450903 ROADWAY - ASPHALT Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 4.2.a Page: 9 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 201.6, 199.7E a� c m 359.8( c� 34.1E o L 0 a 399.2( E 37.9, u 4- 0 N' -1 0 22.4 1 Lo m r 360.6( M 0 34.2( Total : 1,886.X Y 0 STF20160021 P-SEPA REVIEW [BRACKETT'S LAN E P-SEPA REVIEW [BRACKETT'S LAN f° 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 610.0( Total: 610.0( E 12564 INV#12564 CUST#47 - EDMONDS P R .r r Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 39 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222623 11/3/2016 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 222624 11/3/2016 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC 23K-132341 222625 11/3/2016 061529 COMPTON, DOUGLAS BB13448 222626 11/3/2016 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING OCT 2016 222627 11/3/2016 075042 COVERALL OF WASHINGTON 7100167466 7100168273 222628 11/3/2016 075357 CXT INC 7505 PO # Description/Account PRISONER R&B FOR SEPT 2016 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 Tota CITY PARK BLDG - LOCK SETS City Park Bldg - Lock Sets 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota SICK LEAVE BUYBACK REFUND REFUND FOR OT 9/22-9/30 001.000.41.521.22.11.00 Tota DRY CLEANING SEPT/OCT - EDM CLEANING/LAUNDRY SEPT/OCT " 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Tota WWTP: 10/1-10/31/16 JANITORIA 10/1-10/31/16 Janitorial Service 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 WWTP: WAXING FLOORS (SPECI WAXING FLOORS (SPECIAL TASK 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Tota CITY HALL OUTDOOR 2 PC REST City Hall Outdoor 2 PC Restroom BI 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 WA Mgmt Fee 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Freight 4.2.a Page: 10 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 0- am 60.0( 1 : 60.0( L =a aD c 592.3, 58.0: cm I : 650.3 , o 0 c� a 17.31 . I : 17.3, w O 0 1 i f° 420.3E a 1 : 420.3E Q L ; c LO to 514.0( A r ) M 200.0( c 1 : 714.0( N Y R, di E 162,044.0( r 1,199.0( E t R .r r Q Page: 10 Packet Pg. 40 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222628 11/3/2016 075357 CXT INC (Continued) 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 9.8% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Tota 222629 11/3/2016 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3318496 E6FD.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT E6FD.RFQ Advertisement 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 Tota 222630 11/3/2016 070864 DEX MEDIA 610029763625 C/A730211600 10/2016 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 610029763644 C/A 730211599 Basic e-commerce hosting 10/02/1 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 Tota 222631 11/3/2016 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 16-3707 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10/18/20 10/18/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINTU 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 16-3708 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 10/25/20 10/25/2016 CITY COUNCIL MINUT 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Tota 222632 11/3/2016 075153 DOPPS, MARIA 15479 INTERPRETER FEE INTERPRETER FEE 001.000.23.523.30.41.01 Tota 222633 11/3/2016 007253 DUNN LUMBER 4339172 FAC MAINT - WORK JACKET Fac Maint - Work Jacket 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 4.2.a Page: 11 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 8,205.0( a -0a 16,801.9( i 188,249.9( 4- aD c m 409.5( 409.5( 0 39.9E Q' E 6 U 39.9E o I : 79.9( — 1i EE Q 283.8(LO Q 11 0 EE to 346.5( " 1 : 630.3( M 0 100.81 Y I : 100.81 U 2 U r 68.6( E t 6.7, R 2 r Q Page: 11 Packet Pg. 41 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222633 11/3/2016 007253 007253 DUNN LUMBER (Continued) 222634 11/3/2016 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E1555641 222635 11/3/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 001881 222636 11/3/2016 074302 EDMONDS HARDWARE & PAINT LLC 1882 222637 11/3/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION PO # Description/Account 4.2.a Page: 12 lid ca U aD U _ Amoun }; Total: 75.3, 0 m PRE -EMPLOYMENT TESTING (PD) PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL EXA a� 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 301.0( Total: 301.0( PM: YOST BRIDGE BOND 6X BULK FASTENERS- 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota TRAFFIC - HEAVY DUTY STAPLES Traffic - Heavy Duty Staples 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 Tota 2-25150 WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 WEST PLANTER IRRIGATION 870 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2-25175 EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 EAST PLANTER IRRIGATION 875 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTR LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTR 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2-28275 PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH PLANTER IRRIGATION 1400 9TH 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2-29118 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 a c m 81.8z c c� 8.0. o 89.8E ca a E 17.91 ,- 0 E/ EE AV AV 1.7( > I : 19.7< o a Q. C Q CLO c 73.1' C� r 97.9E M C 83.8( Y � E 101.5( / r / a0i 41.1- E R .r r Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 42 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222637 11/3/2016 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2-37180 7-05276 PO # Description/Account 4.2.a Page: 13 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 0- SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER £ SAM STAMM OVERLOOK / METER £ +. 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 55.6E 4) L CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 CEMETERY SEWER & STORM 820 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 150.1E Total : 603.X 222638 11/3/2016 068803 EJ USA INC 110160089761 STORM - STORM DRAINS (6) Storm - Storm Drains (6) 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 222639 11/3/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR53214 COPIER MAINT COPIER MAINT 001.000.23.512.50.48.00 AR53371 FLEET COPY USE Fleet Copy Use 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 AR53372 PW COPY USE PW Copy Use 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 PW Copy Use 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 PW Copy Use 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 PW Copy Use 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 PW Copy Use 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 PW Copy Use Tota c c� 1,929.0E ca a 189.0E 2,118.11 4- 0 6.0E to c a Q. Q 17.8z 0 LO 1.7E m r 28.9: c 16.3� w 16.3� E 11.50 r c 11.5, m E t R .r r a Page: 13 Packet Pg. 43 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222639 11/3/2016 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) 222640 11/3/2016 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES 5231 WEST COAST SWIN 5232 BALLROOM 222641 11/3/2016 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH726757 EDH726996 EDH727996 EDH728313 PO # Description/Account 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 5231 FRIDAY NIGHT WEST COAST 5231 WEST COAST SWING 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 5232 FRIDAY NIGHT BALLROOM 5232 FRIDAY NIGHT BALLROOM 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 Total CITY NOTICE FILING OF PRELIMIN) CITY NOTICES FILING OF PRELIMII 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 CITY NOTICES UPDATED TRAFFIC CITY NOTICES - PUBLIC HEARING 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 CITY ORDINANACE 4045-4047 CITY ORDINANACE NO. 4045-4047 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 LEGAL NOTICE COMP PLAN 2016 F LEGAL NOTICE COMP PLAN 2016 F 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 4.2.a Page: 14 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 11.5E -a) 2.8z aa) L =a 1.6' a� c 1.6' 1.1< c�a Q 450.0( c 780.0( LO m r 165.1, c N 34.4( E 48.1( r c m E 56.7( u R .r r Q Page: 14 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222641 11/3/2016 009350 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD (Continued) 222642 11/3/2016 065427 FCS GROUP 2509-21610006 222643 11/3/2016 075807 FORREST GARDENS LLC #3 222644 11/3/2016 075208 FRALEY-MONILLAS, ADRIENNE 106117 222645 11/3/2016 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 PO # Description/Account Tota E6JA.SERVICES THRU 10/21/16 E6JA.Services thru 10/21/16 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 E6JA.Services thru 10/21/16 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 E6JA.Services thru 10/21/16 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 Tota CITY DOWNTOWN RESTROOM- City Downtown Restroom- Construc 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 9.8% Sales Tax 132.000.64.594.76.65.00 Tota EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT - VO Costco Wholesale - Items for Volun 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 QFC - Items for Volunteer Appreciat 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Cash & Carry - Items for Volunteer 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Costco Wholesale - Items for Volun 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 QFC - Items for Volunteer Appreciat 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Fee for Catering Wait Staff for 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Tota LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIAL AC( LIFT STATION #6 VG SPECIALAC( 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 4.2.a Page: 15 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 1 : 304.41 a m m 453.3: 453.3< c m 453.3z I: 1,360.0( CC o L tl( (� 39,766.8� E 3,897.1E I: 43,664.01 c L f° to a 26.8 , Q io 12.0E LO co to 85.6' c io ' r 8.9E w 100.0( E 344.51 'M a c m 41.9, t Page: 15 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222645 11/3/2016 011900 FRONTIER (Continued) 253-012-9189 425-745-5055 425-771-0158 425-771-5553 425-776-6829 509-022-0049 222646 11/3/2016 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 006255475 222647 11/3/2016 075538 GAMEZ, OMAR 102116 PO # Description/Account WWTP: 10/25-11/24/16 AUTO DIALE 10/25-11/24/16 AUTO DIALER - 1 VC 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHOI` MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PHO� 001.000.64.571.29.42.00 FAC MAINT IP LINE (10 + TAX) 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 WWTP: 10/25-11/24/16 AUTO DIALE 10/25-11/24/16 AUTO DIALER - 1 BU 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH P CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION AI 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 Total INV#006255475 ACCT#1 00 1074529 GRAVITY GRIPP EXERCISE BALL 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 ACADIA GORETEX BOOTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.6% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Total REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL TC REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL TC 001.000.23.523.30.43.00 4.2.a Page: 16 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a a) 41.3z aa) L =a 91.3E m 10.9E c� 0 131.3E j, ca a E 114.4, 4- 0 131.3( 0 a Q. 26.2� Q 589.W c LO co m 8.9� r A 0 264.9E N Y 26.3( 300.2, E v Page: 16 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222647 11/3/2016 075538 075538 GAMEZ, OMAR 222648 11/3/2016 075508 GOODWAY GROUP INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) BID-INV11405 222649 11/3/2016 012199 GRAINGER 9249595290 9255453947 9256764318 9259008572 9259071208 222650 11/3/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY 10154227 PO # Description/Account Tota ED! DIGITAL ADVERTISING CAMP) Ed! Digital advertising campaign Ju 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 Tota PW - EMERGENCY BATTERY PAC PW - Emergency Battery Packs 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 FAC MAINT - BATTERY SUPPLIES Fac Maint - Battery Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 WWTP: BILLED TO PW; CREDIT Blower invoiced to PW instead of W 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 WWTP: CREDITAGAINST INV. 92 CREDITAGAINST INV. 925676431 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 WWTP: BLOWER: 220 RPM 115V, Blower, 220 rpm 115V, 152 CFM 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Tota WWTP: FILTER HOLDER 47MM M FILTER HOLDER 47MM MAG BAS 4.2.a Page: 17 I c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 1 : 16.2( a m � ne U a� 3,000.0( I: 3,000.0( 4- aD K a m 241.9, c c� 23.7' a LO- 156.3' , U 15.3, o ME o 115.8( a Q. 11.3E Q 5( LO 8 to to r -11.3E c 1 r N 115.8( E 11.3E m 1 : 564.4 , U r c A( � E t R .r r Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222650 11/3/2016 012560 HACH COMPANY 222651 11/3/2016 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 222652 11/3/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10164661 WWTP: DIGITAL ORP SENSOR, P DIGITAL ORP SENSOR, PEEK, CO 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Tota 27066 WWTP: 100-1300 GEOTECHNICA 4.2.a Page: 18 L 6 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 1,168.0( -0) 114.4( 4) L E1 N "r 2,063.4( c m 209.6( c� 76.2 1 o j 1 : 3,631.8: , M a I � N 365.0( U I : 365.0( c S c a 8.2: Q 0.8' to R w 15.0z r M 0 15.4z w U 1.5' E ' •� 55.2( c m E 5.4' R .r r Q Page: 18 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222652 11/3/2016 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 2870817 222653 11/3/2016 075487 INTEGRITY SAFETY SERVICES INC 154-6386 222654 222655 222656 11/3/2016 075646 K-A GENERAL CONST CONTRACTOR 10157 11/3/2016 067330 KAR-VEL CONSTRUCTION INC ESGA/ESFE.Pmt 3 11/3/2016 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 300093753 PO # Description/Account WWTP: GENUINE JOE LIQUID HA GENUINE JOE LIQUID HAND SOA 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Tota COE SAFETY PLAN DEVELOPME VARIOUS MEETINGS AND SAFET 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 Tota SEAVIEW PARK - MISC PAVING SEAVIEW PARK - MISC PAVING 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.576.80.48.00 Tota ESGA/ESFE.PMT 3 THRU 10/31/16 ESGA.Pmt 3 thru 10/31/16 423.200.75.594.35.65.00 ESGA.Ret 3 423.200.223.400 ESFE.Pmt 3 thru 10/31/16 422.200.72.594.31.65.00 ESFE.Ret 3 422.200.223.400 Tota INV#300093753 ACCT#100828 - E HON HIGH BACK CHAIR (CPL DES 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 4.2.a Page: 19 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 a N -0a P }, 9.6� =a 0.9E }' 1 : 112.2( m Y � c� 3,610.0( — 1 : 3,610.0( c� a E 7,598.1' TU 4- 0 744.6' @ 8,342.7, c L Q 0. Q 671,932.9' Q to -30,598.0z " m r 62,146.8( c r -2,830.0( w I: 700,651.61, DI E w 14 6 Page: 19 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222656 11/3/2016 072650 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE (Continued) 222657 11/3/2016 075830 KLISE, JESSICA 10/6 REFUND 222658 11/3/2016 075259 KOENIG, KIMBERLY BID-10252016 222659 11/3/2016 016600 KROESENS INC 40212 222660 11/3/2016 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 024111 222661 11/3/2016 072320 MACK, LINDA AQ33567 222662 11/3/2016 075769 MAILFINANCE INC N6201319 PO # Description/Account Tota 10/6 REFUND 10/6 REFUND 001.000.239.200 Tota ED! GRANT REIMBURSEMENT F Ed! grant program reimbursement t 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 Tota INV#40212 - EDMONDS PD - POF 40 CAL RT TRL HOLSTER 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 Tota BOX OF SPIKES (RIVERA) Box of Spikes Ordered by Chris Riv 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 Tota SICK LEAVE BUYBACK REFUND REFUND FOR OT 9/28-10/11 001.000.41.521.71.11.00 Tota POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE 08/23 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 4.2.a Page: 20 o F c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 1 : 367.91 0 am a� 20.0( 1 : 20.0( 4- W OF as � 400.0( c 1 : 400.0( c� 0 L � a 111.0( E c� 0 L er Q- 0. 19.0( Q 0 LO 1.8( to 20.8E m r A 0 20.1( 1 : 20.1( Y /1 E w 1,542.6( r c m 151.1£ E t R .r r Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222662 11/3/2016 075769 075769 MAILFINANCE INC 222663 11/3/2016 075664 MAJOR, JENNA 222664 11/3/2016 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 222665 11/3/2016 075833 MC DONALD, MEAGAN 222666 11/3/2016 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 222667 11/3/2016 072223 MILLER, DOUG 222668 11/3/2016 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 4.2.a Page: 21 lid ca U aD U _ Amoun }; (Continued) Total: 1,693.7E a m 10/4-10/25 GYM ATND 10/4-10/25 PICKLE -BALL GYM ATTE 10/4-10/25 PICKLE -BALL GYM ATTE a� 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 40.0( Total: 40.0( 750663-00 CITY HALL - CAULK City Hall - Caulk 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota 10/27 PRESCHOOL SUB 10/27 PREASCHOOL SUB MEADO 10/27 PREASCHOOL SUB MEADO 001.000.64.571.29.41.00 Tota 85497634 WWTP: FEMALE ON/OFF VALVE - FEMALE ON/OFF VALVE - BRASS 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Tota 10/5-10/26 GYM MONIT 10/5-10/26 BASKETBALL GYM MO 10/5-10/26 BASKETBALL GYM MO 001.000.64.571.25.41.00 Tota 15-1662-18 E4JC.SERVICES THRU 9/30/16 E4JC.Services thru 9/30/16 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 16-1852-3 E6JB.SERVICES THRU 9/30/16 E6JB.Services thru 9/30/16 421.200.74.594.34.41.00 a c m 40.5( c c� 3.91 o 44.41 a V� E 42.0( ,- 1 : 42.0( c c� B o A Q- Q. 388.7E Q N r M N c 100.0( 100.0( Y V E 5,448.5( r c m E 8,541.0( R .r r Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 222668 11/3/2016 072746 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES (Continued) 222669 11/3/2016 075539 NATURE INSIGHT CONSULTING 19 222670 11/3/2016 070855 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 10063175 222671 11/3/2016 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 93969 222672 11/3/2016 075816 NORTHWEST LOGO PRODUCTS 16210 222673 11/3/2016 074866 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMEN 40102 4.2.a Page: 22 PO # Description/Account Total: 13,989.5( a m WILLOW CREEK DAYLIGHTING PR, Tasks 1 & 2: Parks Project Mgmt and m 125.000.64.575.50.41.00 187.5( Task 5: Engineering WWU Sustainab = 4 422.200.72.594.31.41.00 937.5( Total : 1,125.0( NAVIA BENEFITS OCT16 c Sec 125 (13x participant fee @ $5.00 f° 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 71.0( 6- Total 71.0( ca a WWTP: 10/21/16 SODIUM BISULFIT 10/21/16 SODIUM BISULFITE 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 2,102.1( 4- 9.8% Sales Tax C 423.000.76.535.80.31.54 206.0' > Tota COUNCIL VOLUNTEER APPRECI 14 Oz. Alumni White Mug w/ Navy 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Set up Charge 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Shipping and Handling Fees 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Tota PLAYGROUND EQUPMENT (FEN SECURITY FENCE 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 9.8% Sales Tax I: 2,308.1' a AT Q LoLO c 171.7, 50.0( r M c 113.0( r 32.8( 1 : 367.5, CE 350.0( E t R .r r Q Page: 22 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher 222673 222674 222675 Voucher List City of Edmonds Date Vendor Invoice 11/3/2016 074866 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMEN (Continued) 11/3/2016 025690 NOYES, KARIN 11/3/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 40311 000 00 691 PO # Description/Account 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 PLAYGROUND MAINTENANCE REMOVE & DISPOSE 17 POST WO( 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 CRUST ROCK SUB BASE 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 9.8% Sales Tax 125.000.64.594.75.65.00 Total PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10/26) Planning Board Minutes 10/26/16 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 Total 242250 FAC MAINT - FILE FOLDERS Fac Maint - File Folders 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 267155 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 271849 INV#271849 ACCT#520437 250POL- STANDARD STAPLES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 STANDARD STAPLER 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 SHARPIE MARKERS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 RETRACTABLE BLACK PENS 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 4.2.a Page: 23 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 34.3( -0a U a� L 4,400.0( 4. 4,055.0( c m 828.5E 9,667.8$ ca 0 0 a 315.0( 315.0( 4- 0 to 27.2: c a 2.60 Q 0 LO 90.1 , 10 w 8.8< r M 0 8.4z w 16.4( E 12.9E r c m 70.9- E t R .r r Q Page: 23 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222675 11/3/2016 063511 OFFICE MAX INC (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 275772 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES PW Office Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 277085 PW SUPPLIES PW Supplies 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 222676 11/3/2016 074422 PARTSMASTER, DIV OF NCH CORP 23075720 23076815 222677 11/3/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC K540425 K597545 Tota WWTP: 2 CRYONITRIDE STEP BI 1 CRYONITRIDE STEP BIT 3/8 SH 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 WWTP: 1 CYRONITRIDE STEP BI CYRONITRIDE STEP BIT 3/8 SHA 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Tota BRACKETTS LANDINGS - REPLA Bracketts Landings - Replacement 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 BRACKET LANDINGS - SUPPLIES 4.2.a Page: 24 c ca lid U W Amoun }; 0 a 10.6( -0a U a� L 47.3( 4.6, c m 26.0 1 T 0 2.5: 1 : 328.& a : E V U 257.7( 0 19.7( 0 a L 27.1( Q T N LO to 79.5( m 11.91 r M 0 8.9 i r 1 : 405.09 Y U CE E Pc �� 1,782.0( U r c m 174.6z E t U R .r r Q Page: 24 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222677 11/3/2016 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 222678 11/3/2016 075432 POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Bracket Landings - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 K601016 BRACKETTS LANDINGS - SUPPL Bracketts Landings - Supplies 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota IF-1263662 INV#IF-1263662 - EDMONDS PD - Freight 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 IF-1265316 INV#IF-1265316 - HONNEN - EDM AXIIIA BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 IF-1265333 INV#IF-1265333 -DREYER - EDMO AXIIIA BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 IF-1265399 INV#IF-1265399 - BARKER - EDM 4.2.a Page: 25 O� c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 77.0E a� L 7.5E =a E: }' 4- W c 79.5' M 7.7E cCa I : 2,128.5i o 0 H 33.0E OI � w 0 896.0( 0 7.6, m N Q' Q 0 896.0( o co 7.1: r M 0 896.0( N Y 7.1< X E 896.0( c m 7.6, E t U R .r r Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher 222678 222679 222680 Voucher List City of Edmonds Date Vendor Invoice 11/3/2016 075432 075432 POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES (Continued) 11/3/2016 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 219394 11/3/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY PARZI : 200000704821 200002411383 200007876143 200009595790 200011439656 200016558856 200016815843 200017676343 200019375639 PO # Description/Account Tota SEWER - CUES RETURN POSTA Sewer - Cues Return Postage 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 WWTP: SAFETY/HEALTH VIDEO VIDEO RETURNED TO SAFETY/H 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 Tota FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOW DOI YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOW DOI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTO OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTO 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH S FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH S 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AV FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AV 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / M CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / M 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 680 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 680 4.2.a Page: 26 N N T T c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; I: 3,646.5� a am GE m 37.41 RE = E/ a c 31.Z m 1 : 68.7, -0 c 0( f° 0( o 830.0z ca N Q' N E 152.7' c 110.6: c ; 0 a ; Q- 155.7£ Q E LO E to 76.4 1 E t° r E Cl) 0 84.5. t= 1 / Y 380.E 1 E 7 7 151.7E 11 t R .r r a Page: 26 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222680 11/3/2016 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 222681 11/3/2016 030695 PUMPTECH INC 222682 11/3/2016 075834 RANDY & PHYLLIS BURDICK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 200021829581 WWTP: 9/21-10/20/16 200 2ND AV 9/21-10/20/16 200 2ND AVE S / M 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AV CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AV 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 Tota 0110706-IN WWTP: BODY CHECK VALVE 4 Body Check Valve 4 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 3-05985 Tota #16-62186 UTILITY REFUND #16-62186 Utility refund - received 411.000.233.000 4.2.a Page: 27 c Un lid a� Amoun }; 0 0- 79.1 1 -0a � a0i L 80.1( a� 0 12.3< 46.8z 0 j 46.8z , a 46.8z E 46.8z u 4- 0 46.8. E 0 ET Q- Q. 440.2< Q E c E 'n co 118.2 1 1 : 2,906.81 to r O 3,576.0( Y 350.4E E 1: 3,926.4E r c m E 146.2, R .r r Q Page: 27 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 222682 11/3/2016 075834 075834 RANDY & PHYLLIS BURDICK (Continued) 222683 11/3/2016 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 0000050071 222684 222685 222686 222687 11/3/2016 075835 ROSE ENVIRONMENTAL LLC 11/3/2016 037303 SNO CO FIRE DIST# 1 1971 16-116 11/3/2016 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDERASSOC 1607 11/3/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2001-2487-3 2002-7495-9 2003-8645-6 2004-2241-8 2004-9315-3 Description/Account STORM DUMP FEES Storm Dump Fees 422.000.72.531.10.49.00 Tota Tota AIR QUALITY STUDY - PHASE 1 Air Quality Study - Phase 1 (PD) 001.000.22.518.10.41.00 Air Quality Study - Phase 1 (PD) 001.000.41.521.11.41.00 Tota Q3-16 EMS BILLING & POSTAGE Q3-16 Ambulance billings & postag( 001.000.39.522.70.41.00 Tota SEPT 2016 PUBLIC DEFENSE SE SEPT 2016 PUBLIC DEFENSE SE 001.000.39.512.52.41.00 Tota TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE TRAFFIC LIGHT 9933 100TH AVE 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE 4.2.a Page: 28 c ca lid U W _ Amoun }; 1 : 146.2, a m a� 1,956.6( I: 1,956.6( 4- W PE m 1,123.1: c c� 1,123.1. o I: 2,246.2! ca a c� R\ o R\ Q- Q. 28,236.9, Q I: 28,236.91, c LO co W W m 37.7: W o W 18.5z Y E 56.8£ 12 0( 0( m 1,381.0: E W R .r r Q Page: 28 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222687 11/3/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2007-4860-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2009-1385-3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND X 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2009-4334-8 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V TRAFFIC LIGHT 23202 EDMONDS V 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2011-9222-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2012-6598-0 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2013-7496-4 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2015-3292-6 LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON S- 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2015-5730-3 CEMETERY BUILDING CEMETERY BUILDING 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 2015-6343-4 TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA TRAFFIC LIGHT 660 EDMONDS WA 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2015-8215-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 2015-9448-8 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 4.2.a Page: 29 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 28.1 £ a� L 18.5z W c m 25.3, c� 0 48.7' c� a E 18.7: 4- 0 193.6� 0 L a Q. 21.9' Q 0 LO to 185.E 1 m r r� 158.8� c N Y 28.8� E 26.5: c m E 20.1, R .r r Q Page: 29 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222687 11/3/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 2016-1027-6 OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT i OVERHEAD STREET LIGHTING AT 1 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 2017-0375-8 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 23190 10( 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2017-6210-1 415 5TH AVE S 415 5TH AVE S 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2019-2991-6 WWTP: 9/22-10/22/16 FLOW METEF 9/22-10/22/16 FLOW METER 23219 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 2020-7719-4 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2020-8787-0 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2021-6153-5 CEMETERY WELL PUMP CEMETERY WELL PUMP 130.000.64.536.50.47.00 2022-8909-6 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2024-9953-9 LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 2042-9221-3 CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST CHARGE STATION #1 552 MAIN ST 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 2044-6743-5 HAZEL MILLER PLAZA HAZEL MILLER PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 2205-4758-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 95TH AVE 4.2.a Page: 30 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 8.5£ L 30.0( c m 25.9£ 0 17.4, a E 547.1( 4- 0 183.2( o L a Q. Q 95.4( c LO to 68.6. m r A 0 504.7, N Y 78.1' ,E ca Page: 30 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 222687 11/3/2016 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 Tota 222688 11/3/2016 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 100010275-60 DISS AND RE-CONN FOR 700 MAI DISS and Re -Conn for 700 Main St 016.000.66.518.30.48.00 Tota 222689 11/3/2016 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2016-3408 INV#2016-3408 SNO CO JAIL-SEP 419.75 HOUSING DAYS @ $89.38 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 49.67 BOOKINGS @ $116.14 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 124 MED/SPEC HOUSING @ $52. 001.000.39.523.60.51.00 40.67 MENTAL HEALTH @ $124.7 4.2.a Page: 31 2 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 0- 53.9( a) I : 3,927.5: m N B = 4 1,789.0( c 1 : 1,789.0( a) T c ca 37,517.2( o CU 5,768.61 a 01 E 6,449.2, TU w 0 5,072.3( 0 1,559.2E a Q. Q 300.0( N; to -80.0( m C. r -136.0( c 1 : 56,450.71 N K E 4,628.4( 'W 453.5( L m E rr t R .r r a Page: 31 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222690 11/3/2016 075495 SOFTWARE ONE 222691 11/3/2016 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 222692 11/3/2016 075649 TEITZEL, DAVE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 Tota 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 103584 WWTP: 10/31/16 RECYCLING 10/31/16 Recycling + taxes 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 103585 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 7 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 103586 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 103587 PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RE PARKS MAINT GARBAGE AND RE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 Tota 94305 CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT F Costco - Vinyl Banner for Volunteer 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. - items for 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 The Party Store - Raffle Tickets for 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. - items for 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Office Depot Store - items for 4.2.a Page: 32 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 295.9, -a) 29.0( aa) L 5,406.9 i -0 4- aD c m 550.6E c c� 29.9E 0( 0 a 0( 674.41 •E w 0 555.Z< ra C 0 C a 938.3E Q 0 LO to 459.8� 1 : 3,208.5, r OR c r 70.1( w 14.2, E 10.9; r c 34.9, E t R .r r Q Page: 32 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222692 11/3/2016 075649 TEITZEL, DAVE 222693 11/3/2016 071666 TETRATECH INC 222694 11/3/2016 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 222695 11/3/2016 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 222696 11/3/2016 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 222697 11/3/2016 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Costco Wholesale - items for volunt 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 OFC - item for volunteer appreicaito 001.000.11.511.60.49.00 Tota 51104264 E4GC.SERVICES THRU 9/30/16 E4GC.Services thru 9/30/16 423.200.75.594.35.41.00 Tota 10015985 1 YR SUBSCRIPTION PW ADMIN 1 1 Yr Subscription PW Admin 11/09/ 001.000.65.518.20.49.00 Tota INV03805 FAC - CONVERSION KIT FAC - Conversion Kit 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 4.2.a Page: 33 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 21.4< e( +. 98.4E L m 17.5' 1 : 267.6E (CD m c c� 3941.7z o 1 : 3:941.7� c� 1 0' 1E E 208.5 1 I : 208.5i c 0 L Q 114.7E om Q 11.2E LO Total : 126.0( co 94766 PAPER FOR WIDE PRINTER PAPER FOR WIDE PRINTER r M 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 189.2: c r Total : 189Z — N Y US53294 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISI ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SNO-ISI E 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 1,247.1E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 122.2, US53301 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE F. ANDE E R .r r Q Page: 33 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222697 11/3/2016 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 222698 222699 11/3/2016 070744 TIGER OAK MEDIA Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) US53869 US54073 2016-159043 11/3/2016 073255 TOTAL FILTRATION SERVICES, INC PSV155059 PSV1553297 222700 11/3/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9774120400 PO # Description/Account ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE FRAN 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE CIVIC 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIO ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENT 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Tota BUSINESS RECRUITMENT AD IN Business recruitment ad in Seattle 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 Tota FAC MAINT - FILTER SUPPLY Fac Maint - Filter Supply 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 FAC MAINT - FILTER SUPPLY Fac Maint - Filter Supply 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota C/A 571242650-0001 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bld Dept 4.2.a Page: 34 c ca lid U a� _ Amoun }; 0 a C f -0a 1,134.0' a� L 111.1: =a C +' 4- C w c 1,148.5z 112.5( c�a O R o R �, 274.71 a E 26.9: 1 : 4,177.3' 0 N( 0 L 1,200.0( a I : 1,200.0( Q 0 LO to 718.0E r 70.3 1 c N 555.8z E 54.41 ca I: 1,398.7E r c m E t R .r r Q Page: 34 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222700 11/3/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Econ 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 iPad Cell Service Council 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Developmei 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor's Offi 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Dept 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 Air cards Police Dept 001.000.41.521.22.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning De 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 4.2.a Page: 35 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 475.1 < -0) 75.8E aUi L =a 75.7( a� c 300.1( 75.8E c�a 0 95.7: L>% ca a 872.4z E 231.9z 4- 0 149.0� > 0 L 95.7E a Q 287.3E c LO to 65.0� m r 80.0, A 0 r 1,323.9z N 1,080.2E .181111E Page: 35 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222700 11/3/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Street C 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/, 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Water/, 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer Dept 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 iPad Cell Service Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 iPad Cell Service Street/Storm 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 iPad Cell Service Street/Storm 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 9774120400 INCENTIVE CREDIT FOR EQUIPME Incentive credit for equipment 423.000.75.535.80.35.00 Incentive credit for equipment 001.000.31.518.88.35.00 9774247220 C/A 772540262-00001 Lift Station access 4.2.a Page: 36 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a 7.5£ -) 26.5E aUi L =a 7.5£ W c 7.5£ 203.6< c�a 0 55.71 L>% ca a 102.9( 102.8� U 0 225.9: 0 L 281.61 a Q 115.8� o LO to 20.0' m r 20.0( M 0 197.5' N U -200.0( •@ U -200.0( m E t U R .r r a Page: 36 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222700 11/3/2016 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 222701 11/3/2016 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 222702 11/3/2016 075283 WAVE BROADBAND Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.31.518.88.42.00 Tota 116-633 STREET - 830 EDMONDS ST RE Street - 830 Edmonds St Remove 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 9.8% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.71.48.00 116-637 TREE MAINTENANCE & CLEANU 4.2.a Page: 37 P P c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 0- 74.7z -0) 1 : 6,441.2E m MC M� = 740.0( m 72.5, � c� AF — 600.0( P ca a 58.8( E •� PY 600.0( 0 58.8( 0 a F � Q 1,400.0( c LO 137.2( P 3 r 2,400.0( o r 400.0( Y 274.4( E 1 : 6,741.7, c 6 E E 816.0( R .r r Q Page: 37 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222702 11/3/2016 075283 075283 WAVE BROADBAND 222703 11/3/2016 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 222704 11/3/2016 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 222705 11/3/2016 072834 WESTERN OFFICE INTERIORS 222706 11/3/2016 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Tota 9808361 FAC MAINT - DUST MOPS, MOP B Fac Maint - Dust Mops, Mop Bucket 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9810287 FAC MAINT - MOPS Fac Maint - Mops 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 9810288 FAC MAINT - GLOVES, CLEANER 4.2.a Page: 38 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 1 : 816.0( a m U s, m 428.2( 41.9( c m 58.2( S 5.7( a 1,147.0' •� 112.4' p Total: 1,793.41 ru 7193 COPY PAPER FOR CITY CLERKS O a 4-CASES OF X-9000 COPY PAPER Q- 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 137.3( Q 9.8% Sales Tax Q 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 13.4( Tota 28118 INV#28118 - EDMONDS PD KNOLL ARM RESTS (SET OF 2) 001.000.41.521.10.35.00 KNOLL PROCESS CHARGE 001.000.41.521.10.35.00 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.35.00 0000031448 SIGNAL SUPPLIES Tota I : 150.8, r M O r 410.4( w 18.7E E 42.0( 1 : 471.2' m E t R .r r Q Page: 38 Packet Pg. 68 vchlist 11 /03/2016 8:03:30AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 222706 11/3/2016 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 222707 11/3/2016 064662 WICHERS, RICK 106 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 106 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Signal Supplies 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 Freight 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 9.8% Sales Tax 112.000.68.595.33.41.10 0000031481 SIGNAL SUPPLIES Signal Supplies 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 9.8% Sales Tax 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 Tota BB13444 SICK LEAVE BUYBACK REFUND REFUND FOR HOLIDAY 9/5/16 423.000.75.535.80.11.00 4.2.a Page: 39 c ca lid U a� Amoun }; 0 a am 1,670.4( 4) 97.0' =a 173.2, c m 964.8( c�a 0 94.5: I: 3,000.0' a E U 106.7 p Total: 106.7, 0 Bank total : 1,176,348.6E a Q. Total vouchers : 1,176,348.6E Q 0 co m r O N Y V E V r C d E t V R r Q Page: 39 Packet Pg. 69 4.2.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 STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E61FE SWR 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA STR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E41FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E51FA STR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA SWR 2015 Sewerline Overlays i007 E5CC SWR 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project c441 E4GA STR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4J13 STR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades i016 E6DC STR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA SWR 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects c469 E5GA SWR 2016 Sewerline Overlays i010 E6CC WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects i014 E6J13 SWR 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC STR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens i012 E6FC STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB FAC A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers c476 E51-A 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 E41VIA SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB Revised 11/2i2016 Packet Pg. 70 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5J13 STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1 FM PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA STM Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) c472 E5FC STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC General Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis c478 E5DB FAC ESCO III Project c419 E3LB PRK FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) c342 E1AA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STR Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) c405 E2AD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5G13 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 E61FA 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 STR SR104 Corridor Transportation Study c427 E3AB STR SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing c454 E4DB STR SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) s014 E6AA UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA STM Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th c429 E3FG STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA 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 STR Trackside Warning System c470 E5AA STR Train Trench - Concept c453 E4DA STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA STM Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects c467 E5FB UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines c459 E4FF STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 11/2i2016 Packet Pg. 71 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title 1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STR ElCA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements - E1DA W Sunset Walkway Improveme STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives moor- errinville Creek Culvert Replacemen STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update 9th Avenue Improvement Projectis STR E2AD c405 Hwy 99 Enhancements (Phase III) North Talbot Road Drainage Improvement STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Studl c380 SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c427 Corridor Transportation Stud STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STR R" c424 IF 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Av STR E3DD 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 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Driv STM E3FG c429 Storm Drainage Improvements - 88th & 194th ElrS W Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR location (2013 FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STR E4CA c43 2014 Overlay Program i STR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC 2014 Waterline Overlays STR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STR Train Trench - Concept STR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM 014 Drainage Improvements W STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM c435 ek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines SWR E4GA c441 2015 Sewerline Replacement Project SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c440 2015 Waterline Replacement Program WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update F Public Safety Controls System Upgrades PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park F dmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System Revised 11/2i2016 Packet Pg. 72 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Protect Protect Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title E5AB 2015 Traffic Calming STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program E5CB Epw 2015 Waterline Overlays SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays c474 Bikelink Project General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis 015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects rSTM E5FC 1W Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility STM E5FE c48 2th Ave & Sierra StormwatdWstem Improvements SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects SWR E5GB 0 ke Ballinger Trunk Sewer Stu WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects WTR E5J13 c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating FAC E5LA c476 A/V Upgrades - Council Chambers UTILITIES E5NA tandard Details Updates STIR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STIR llff'i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR i009 7r 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STIR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive WTA c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens KTM s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM E6FE c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs WR i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II SWR c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project UTILITIES E6JA s013 Utility Rate Update WTR E6,113 i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects ilk WTR E6JC c493 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement 0 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) ayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor Revised 11/2i2016 Packet Pg. 73 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Protect Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W) STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR ElCA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STM E1 FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives STM E1 FIN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study SWR E2GB c390 2013 Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation 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 EYE c410 Northstream Pipe Abandonment on Puget Drive PRK E4MA c417 City Spray Park WTR E3JB c418 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) FAC E3LB c419 ESCO III Project STIR 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-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements STM E4FA c433 2014 Drainage Improvements STM E4FB c434 LID Retrofits Perrinville Creek Basin STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 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 E4LA c444 Public Safety Controls System Upgrades WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STIR E4CB c451 2014 Chip Seals WTR E4CC c452 2014 Waterline Overlays STIR E4DA c453 Train Trench - Concept STIR E4DB c454 SR104/City Park Mid -Block Crossing STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GB c456 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I STM E4FF c459 Video Assessment of Stormwater Lines WTR E4JC c460 2016 Water Comp Plan Update SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study Revised 11/2i2016 Packet Pg. 74 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title STIR E4CD c462 220th Street Overlay Project STIR E5CA c463 2015 Overlay Program STM E5FA c466 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects STM E5FB c467 Update Stormwater Management Code & Associated Projects WTR E5JA c468 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects SWR E5GA c469 2016 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Projects STIR E5AA c470 Trackside Warning System STIR E5AB c471 2015 Traffic Calming STM E5FC c472 Dayton Street Storm Improvements (6th Ave - 8th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project WTR E5CB c475 2015 Waterline Overlays FAC E5LA c476 AN Upgrades - Council Chambers PRK E6MB c477 FAC Band Shell Replacement General E5DB c478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Analysis STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility PRK E6MA c480 Veteran's Plaza WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5J13 c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM E5FE c484 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STM E6FB c486 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E6FE c491 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs SWR E6GC c492 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E6JC c493 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements SWR E5CC i007 2015 Sewerline Overlays STIR E6CA i008 2016 Overlay Program WTR E6CB i009 2016 Waterline Overlays SWR E6CC i010 2016 Sewerline Overlays STM E6FA i011 Northstream Culvert Repair Under Puget Drive STM E6FC i012 3rd Ave Rain Gardens SWR E6GA i013 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project WTR E6JB i014 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DC i016 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades 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 STIR E6AA s014 SR99 Safety Improvements (224th to 216th) STIR E6DB s016 ADA Transition Plan STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update Revised 11/2/2016 Packet Pg. 75 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project 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 FAC Band Shell Replacement c477 E6MB PRK Veteran's Plaza c480 E6MA STM 12th Ave & Sierra Stormwater System Improvements c484 E5FE STM 183rd PI SW Storm Repairs c491 E6FE STM 2014 Drainage Improvements c433 E4FA STM 2014 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM 2015 Citywide Drainage Improvements/Rehab Projects c466 E5FA STM 224th & 98th Drainage Improvements c486 E6FB STM 3rd Ave Rain Gardens 012 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 011 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 Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD 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 STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STIR 15th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to 8th Ave) c424 E3DC STIR 2014 Chip Seals c451 E4CB STIR 2014 Overlay Program c438 E4CA STIR 2015 Overlay Program c463 E5CA STIR 2015 Traffic Calming c471 E5AB STIR 2016 Curb Ramp Upgrades 016 E6DC STIR 2016 Overlay Program i008 E6CA STIR 220th Street Overlay Project c462 E4CD STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STIR 236th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Madrona School) c425 E3DD Revised 11/2/2016 Packet Pg. 76 4.2.b PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Protect Title Number Number STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB STIR ADA Curb Ramp Upgrades along 3rd Ave S c426 E3DE STR ADA Transition Plan s016 E6DB STR Bikelink Project c474 E5DA STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB 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 Rehabilitation 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 i010 E6CC SWR 2017 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project i013 E6GA SWR 2018/19 Sewerline Replacement Project c492 E6GC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c456 E4GB SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s011 E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA UTILITIES Utility Rate Update s013 E6JA WTR 2014 Waterline Overlays c452 E4CC WTR 2015 Waterline Overlays c475 E5CB WTR 2015 Waterline Replacement Program c440 E4JB WTR 2016 Water Comp Plan Update c460 E4JC WTR 2016 Waterline Overlays i009 E6CB WTR 2016 Waterline Replacement Projects c468 E5JA WTR 2017 Waterline Replacement Projects 014 E6JB WTR 2018/19 Waterline Replacement Project c493 E6JC WTR 224th Waterline Relocation (2013) c418 E3J13 WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 E5JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E5KA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA Revised 11/2/2016 Packet Pg. 77 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 786 (10/16/2016 to 10/31/2016) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount -ed2 REGULAR HOURS Educational Pav Correction 0.00 -156.28 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 40.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 650.40 21,418.68 122 VACATION VACATION 1,239.51 44,139.68 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 58.50 1,827.94 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 18.25 643.94 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 134.68 5,138.73 129 SICK Police Sick Leave L & 1 220.00 8,550.30 130 COMP HOURS Holidav Compensation Used 0.33 10.98 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 40.00 1,673.64 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 8.00 557.86 150 REGULAR HOURS Kellv Dav Used 238.75 8,686.54 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 66.75 2,788.02 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 11.50 587.99 170 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY 600.00 6,000.00 174 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY 100.00 230.00 175 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICP 0.00 2,821.24 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 17,229.43 612,361.47 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 94.25 3,805.74 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 9.00 295.65 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 36.00 1,756.50 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 9.50 930.82 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 335.25 21,671.34 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 28.75 1,946.20 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 62.80 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,119.97 601 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP .5 8.00 0.00 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 67.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 113.50 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 3.00 0.00 901 SICK ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 3.32 0.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 24.95 0 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 145.56 co M 1P -4 1 /0310n 1 F Attachment: Payroll summary 11-05-16 (1650 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.) Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 786 (10/16/2016 to 10/31/2016) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 84.53 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 107.89 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 147.28 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 626.36 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 102.75 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 989.84 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 793.44 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 891.06 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 5,117.28 fmla ABSENT FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID 43.25 0.00 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 102.75 Icil LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 888.29 Ig10 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 5.5% 0.00 396.36 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 737.53 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 842.56 Iq3 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY 6% 0.00 5,893.68 I0 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 218.33 Iq6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 275.57 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 967.22 Iq9 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3.5% 0.00 82.46 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 200.57 nds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 47.12 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 1,970.13 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 157.56 sd2.5% MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 2.5% 0.00 153.41 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5% 0.00 207.68 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 157.56 slw SICK SICK LEAVE ADD BACK 173.93 0.00 str MISCELLANEOUS STREET CRIMES 0.00 418.92 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 323.67 n W co M cQ -4 1 /02i0n1 F Attachment: Payroll summary 11-05-16 (1650 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.) N porn 2 o 0 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 786 (10/16/2016 to 10/31/2016) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours 21,580.85 Total Net Pay: Amount $771,942.06 $520,802.51 N porn 3 o 0 Attachment: Payroll summary 11-05-16 (1650 : Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.) 4.2.d Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 786 - 10/16/2016 to 10/31/2016 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 62382 11/04/2016 chap1 CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 50.00 0.00 62383 11/04/2016 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,265.00 0.00 62384 11/04/2016 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 104.00 0.00 62385 11/04/2016 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,028.10 0.00 62386 11/04/2016 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 739.99 0.00 62387 11/04/2016 cope SEIU COPE 72.00 0.00 62388 11/04/2016 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 4,186.47 0.00 62389 11/04/2016 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 698.24 0.00 62390 11/04/2016 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 2,149.81 0.00 10,293.61 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 2466 11/04/2016 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 243,307.72 0.00 2467 11/04/2016 aflac AFLAC 6,161.10 0.00 2471 11/04/2016 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 20,323.70 0.00 2472 11/04/2016 us US BANK 106,999.97 0.00 2473 11/04/2016 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 88,306.50 0.00 2475 11/04/2016 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,628.16 0.00 2476 11/04/2016 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 647.50 0.00 471,374.65 0.00 Grand Totals: 481,668.26 0.00 11/3/2016 Packet Pg. 81 4.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Rob English Background/History On November 1, 2016, a public hearing was held for this item. On October 25, 2016, the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program was presented to the City Council for review and discussion. Staff Recommendation Approve the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program. Narrative The proposed 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is attached as Exhibit 1. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. Exhibit 2 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects from last year's CIP document. The CIP was presented to the Planning Board on September 28th and a public hearing was held on October 12th. The Planning Board provided comments and recommended the CIP be submitted to the City Council for approval. The minutes from the Planning Board meeting are attached as Exhibits 3 and 4. Background: The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are Packet Pg. 82 4.3 restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. Attachments: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 Exhibit 2: CFP-CIP Comparison (2016-2017) Exhibit 3 - Planning Board Minutes 09/28/16 Exhibit 4: Planning Board Minutes 10/12/16 Packet Pg. 83 03 00 Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1646 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program) Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1646 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program) 4.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2017-2022) Table of Contents GENERAL 016 Building Maintenance Public Works 7 112 Transportation Public Works 9 125 Capital Projects Fund Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 12 126 Special Capital / Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation/ Public Works 14 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 16 132 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 17 421 Water Projects Public Works 19 422 Storm Projects Public Works 20 423 Sewer Projects Public Works 22 423.76 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 24 PARKS — PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Capital Parks & Recreation/ 125 Projects Fund Public Works 27 Special Capital / Parks & Recreation/ 126 Parks Acquisition Public Works 61 Parks Construction 132 Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 64 Packet Pg. 86 n m cQ 00 4 Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1646 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program) n m cQ 00 00 G� z n 00 It Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1646 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program) Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1646 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program) 4.3.a Capital Improvements Program Fund 016 - Buildina Maintenance Proiects for 2017-2022 PROJECT NAME CFP 2016 E 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 (20Total 2) ADA Improvements- City Wide $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 Anderson Center Accessibility $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 Anderson Center Interior Painting $20,000 $30,000 $50,000 Anderson Center Exterior Painting $15,000 $15,000 Anderson Center Radiator Replacement $25,000 $85,000 $110,000 Anderson Center Exterior Repairs $75,000 $75,000 Anderson Center Exterior Flashing $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 Anderson Center Blinds $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 Anderson Center HVAC control install $20,000 $5,000 $25,000 Anderson Center Steam Radiator Retrofits $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 Anderson Center Asbestos Abatement $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 Anderson Center Flooring/Gym $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 Anderson Center Countertop Replacement $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 Anderson Center Carpeting $7,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $37,000 Anderson Center Oil Tank Decommissioning $30,000 $30,000 Anderson Center Elevator Replacement $225,000 $225,000 Anderson Center Roof Replacement $350,000 $25,000 $375,000 Cemetery Building Gutter Replacement $8,000 $8,000 City Hall Carpet Replacement $25,000 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 City Hall Window Failed Window Seal Replacements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 City Hall Elevator Replacement $225,000 $225,000 City Hall Exterior Cleaning and Repainting $85,000 $20,000 $105,000 City Hall Roof Repairs $15,000 $100,000 $115,000 City Hall HVAC $5,000 $5,000 $20,000 $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 $95,000 City Hall Security Measures $5,000 $30,000 $10,000 $40,000 City Park Maint. Bldg. Roof $25,000 $25,000 ESCO III Project $0 ESCO IV Project $0 ESCO _ Project $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $370,000 Fishing Pier Rehab $1,870,650 $2,000 $2,000 Fire Station #16 Painting $10,000 $10,000 Fire station #16 Generator $43,000 $5,000 $48,000 Fire Station #16 Carpet $20,000 $10,000 $30,000 Fire Station #16 HVAC Replacement $30,000 $30,000 Fire Station #17 Ceiling repairs $25,000 Fire Station #17 Carpet $12,000 $12,000 Fire Station #17 Interior Painting $15,000 $15,000 Fire Station #20 Carpet $15,000 $15,000 Fire Station #20 Interior Painting $10,000 $10,000 Fire Station #20 Stairs and Deck Replacement $40,000 $40,000 Grandstand Exterior and Roof Repairs $0 Library Plaza Appliance Replacement $15,000 $5,000 $20,000 Library Plaza Brick Fagade Addition $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 Library Wood Trim $10,000 $5,000 $15,000 Library West Deck Waterproofing and Garage Repair $20,000 $5,000 $25,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Roof Replacement $50,000 $50,000 Meadowdale Flooring Replacement $25,000 $25,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Gutter Replacement $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Ext. Surface Cleaning $5,000 $5,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Flooring Replacement Partial $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $35,000 E <a L O t1 C d E d O L E Q O V N N O N I- O N d t O O Q- O. El t0 to N N O N f` O N d v t K W C d E t v O Q Packet Pg. 90 4.3.a W Meadowdale Clubhouse Fire Alarm Replacement $25,000 $25,000 Misc. Fire Sprinkler System Repairs $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $60,000 Museum East Window Replacement $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 Museum Exterior Door Replacement $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 City Wide Capital renewal $300,000 $300,000 $350,000 $350,000 $400,000 $400,000 $2,100,000 Misc. / Unanticipated Buliding Maintenance $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $25,000 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $120,000 Public Safety/Fire Station #17 Soffit Installation $4,000 $4,000 Public Safety Exterior Painting $25,000 $25,000 Public Safety Council Chamber Carpet $20,000 $5,000 $25,000 Public Safety HVAC Repairs & Maintenance $10,000 $10,000 Public Works Failed Window Seal Replacement $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Public Works Decant Improvements $0 Senior Center Misc Repairs & Maintenance $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $40,000 Senior Center Siding/ Sealing (CDBG) $0 Total Projects $2,010,650 $907,000 $877,000 $1,040,000 $782,000 $1,090,000 $665,000 $5,361,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st $52,400 $80,000 $75,000 $98,000 -$42,000 $76,000 -$114,000 Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contribution from Gen Fund #001 and other $56,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Contribution from REET Fund #126 $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Contribution from REET Fund #125 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Unsecured Funding $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 WA Dept. of Ecology Grant $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WDFW & RCO Grants for Fishing Pier Secured $1,770,650 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reimbursement from 125 Fund for Fishing Pier $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Utility Grant Funding Estimated $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 WA State HCPF Grant Funding Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues $1,979,050 $982,000 $975,000 $998,000 $858,000 $976,000 $786,000 Total Revenue $1,979,050 $9$9082,000 $975,000 $998,000 $858,000 $976,000 $786,000 Total Project ($2,010,650) 7,000 ($877,000) ($1,040,000) ($782,000) ($1,090,000) ($665,000) Ending Cash Balance I I -$31,600 1 $75,0001 $98,000 -$42,000 $76,000 -$114,000 $121,000 Packet Pg. 91 4.3.a Capital Improvements Program Fund 112 - Transportation Projects Projects for 2017-2022 PROJECT NAME CFP E 2016 mate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 (20Total 2) Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc. $1,162,764 $1,091,200 $1,420,000 $2,900,000 $2,060,000 $3,120,000 $2,350,000 $12,941,200 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave W to 84th Ave W $215,000 $10,000 $10,000 84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW $900,000 $900,000 Citywide - Signal Improvements $325,000 $325,000 $650,000 Puget Dr. OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $425,000 $500,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave 238th St. SW $750,000 $750,000 Main St. 3rd Signal Upgrades $75,000 $300,000 $375,000 Safety / Capacity Analysis 212th St. SW / 84th Ave Five Corners Roundabout X $9,791 $0 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements X $1,129,944 $25,000 $25,000 228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th PI. W X $75,000 $300,000 $375,000 76th Ave W 212th St SW Intersection Improvements X $376,051 $4,993,163 $100,000 $5,093,163 Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization X $300,000 $6,600,000 $6,000,000 $12,900,000 SR 524 196th St. SW / 88th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $193,000 $175,000 $535,000 $903,000 Main St. 9th Ave. X $135,000 $776,000 $911,000 220th St SW 76th Ave. W - Intersection Improvements X $330,000 $1,800,000 $3,795,000 $5,925,000 Hwy 99 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 $2,806,000 Hwy. 99 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000 $2,335,000 Hwy. 99 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 $3,215,000 SR-104 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $30,000 $164,000 $194,000 SR-104 95th PI. W Intersection Improvements X $75,000 $420,000 $495,000 SR-104 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements X $200,000 $1,138,000 $1,338,000 Ci ide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion $20,000 $0 220'" St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy 99 to 76`" Ave $300,000 $300,000 Non -motorized transportation Projects Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St. to Cas ers St. X $2,000 $183,250 $2,595,000 $2,778,250 Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway X $75,000 $75,000 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to SR-104 X $200,000 $1,105,000 $1,305,000 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W X $455,661 $12,000 $12,000 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary X $791,841 $88,600 $88,600 236th St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97th Ave. W X $213,000 $1,182,000 $1,395,000 84th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to 234th St. SW X $90,000 $90,000 80th Ave. W from 212th St. SW to 206th St. SW X $210,000 $1,239,000 $1,449,000 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway X $30,0001 $30,000 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W X $200,000 $1,105,000 $1,305,000 Walnut St. from 3rd Ave. to 4th Ave. Walkway X $105,000 $105,000 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave W X $157,000 $157,000 238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 X $67,000 $413,000 $413,000 Citywide Crossing Enhancement $120,000 $940,000 $1,060,000 Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S X $156,000 $633,000 $789,000 Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW Walkway X $230,000 $681,000 $680,000 $1,591,000 ADA Curb Rams Improvements $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 $50,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,625,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals $20,000 1 $20,000 95th PI. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW X $105,000 $445,000 $550,000 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S X $50,535 $0 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S X $10,000 $30,000 $200,000 1 $230,000 Hwy 99 Enhancement Phase 3 $140,011 $8,000 1 $8,000 Minor Sidewalk Program X 1 $40,000 $70,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $320,000 ADA Curb Ramps along3rd Ave S from Main St to Pine St $512 $500 $500 Verdant Citywide Bicycle Improvements 1 $89,687 1 $652,5001 1 $652,500 Traffic Calming Projects Traffic Calmin Program / non -motorized transportation safe $20,0001 $20,0001 $20,0001 $20,0001 $20,0001 $20,0001 $20,000 $120,000 Packet Pg. 92 4.3.a O Ferry Projects Ferry Storage Improvements from Pine St. to Dayton St. I X $357,000 $357,000 Traffic Planning Projects Ci ide ADA Transition Plan i $50,00011 $60,000 $60,000 Trackside Warning Sys or Quiet Zone @_ Dayton/Main St. RR Crossings I X 1 $333,28011 $10,0001 1 1 1 1 1 $10,000 Total Projects $4,989,077 $9,212,213 $1,640,000 $3,020,000 $9,810,000 $23,693,000 $22,162,000 $69,537,213 Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design i $18,68-1 1 $18,5961 19,506 $18,415 $18,3251 18,325 $18,325 Debt Service on Loan 2 220th St Construction 1 1 $22,023 1 $21,9171 $21,8111 $21,7061 $21,4941 $21,4941 $21,494 Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization 1 1 $34,525 1 $34,3611 $34,1961 $34,0321 $33,8681 $33,8681 $33,868 Total Debt $75,235 $74,874 $75,513 $74,153 $73,687 $73,687 $73,687 Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022 2016 Estimate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Beginning Cash Balance $9,000 $17,233 $163,030 $314,017 $479,864 $228,627 $99,940 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 P50,000 Multi -Modal Revenue $50,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 Reimbursement - Fund 125 Annual Street Preservation Program $186,000 $305,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Reimbursement - Fund 126 Annual Street Preservation Program $880,000 $786,200 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 Contribution - General Fund for Annual Street Preservation Program $96,764 Reimbursement - Fund 126 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th to 84th $29,025 $1,350 Reimbursement - Fund 126 84th Ave. W Overlay from 212th to 220th $208,800 Reimbursement - Fund 423 for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvement $150 Reimbursement - Mountlake Terrace for 228th St. SW Improvements(Overlay) $3,725 Reimbursement - Fund 421 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $6,690 $776,475 Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $7,926 $450,528 Reimbursement - Fund 423 for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Improvements $4,866 $718,685 Reimbursement - Wave / Comcast for 76th Ave W @ 212th St. Intersection Im rovements $127,475 Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Sign Conversion $20,000 Reimbursement - Fund 126 for 220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy. 99 to 76th $47,000 Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization $300,000 Reimbursement - Fund 421 for Sunset Ave. Walkway $575,000 Reimbursement - Fund 423 for Sunset Ave. Walkway $150,000 Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $274,824 Reimbursement - PSE for 238th St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W $55,159 Reimbursement - Fund 422 for 236th St. SW Walkway from SR-104 to Madrona School $189,475 $25,000 Reimbursement - General Fund for pavement work in 236th St. SW Walkway $250,270 Reimbursement - Fund 126 for 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S $10,000 Reimbursement - Fund 125 for 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S $30,000 Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Minor Sidewalk Program $40,000 Reimbursement - Fund 125 for Minor Sidewalk Program $70,000 Reimbursement - Fund 126 ADA Curb Ramp Improvements $25,000 Reimbursement - Fund 125 ADA Curb Ramp Improvements $25,000 Reimbursement - Fund 125 Audible Pedestrian Signals $20,000 Reimbursement - Fund 125 - Hwy 99 Lighting (Phase 3) $30,000 Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Traffic Calming Program $20,000 $20,000 Reimbursement - Fund 126 for Citywide ADA Transition Plan $50,000 $60,000 Reimbursement - General Fund for Trackside Warning System $43,280 Reimbursement - Fund 126 Trackside Warning System $290,000 $10,000 Reimbursement - Fund 422 (STORMWATER) $0 Traffic Impact Fees $150,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total Revenues $2,872,154 $4,358,746 $1,223,030 $1,374,017 $2,264,864 $1,288,627 $1,159,940 Packet Pg. 93 4.3.a Grants 2016-2022 2016 Estimate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Federal for 220th St. SW Overlay from 76th Ave to 84th Ave $185,975 $8,650 (Federal) for 84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW $691,200 Federal for 212th 84th Five Corners Roundabout $3,949 (Federal) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements $838,514 $25,000 State for 228th St. SW Corridor Im rovements $238,565 (Federal) for 76th Ave W @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $141,587 $2,920,000 $86,500 State Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization $5,000,000 $5,000,000 (Federal) Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Caspers St. $1,730 $157,121 State for 238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 $55,520 $316,800 (State) 238th St. SW from 100th Ave W to 104th Ave W $125,678 $12,000 State 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave S $44,588 (Federal) 236th St. SW from Edmonds Way / SR-104 to Madrona Elementary $359,460 $50,600 Federal Hwy 99 Enhancement Phase 3 $110,011 $4,500 (Federal) ADA Curb Ramps along 3rd Ave. S from Main St. to Pine St. §14127 Verdant Verdant Citywide Bicycle Improvements $89:687 1 $652,500 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $2,209,391 $4,838,371 $86,500 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Grants 2016-2022 1 Estimate Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not Secured) Annual Street Preservation Program (Overlays, Chip Seals, Etc $720,000 $1,300,000 $1,360,000 $1,420,000 $1,650,000 Annual Street Preservation Program Federal Funds Overla s, Chip Seals, Etc $900,000 $1,000,000 Citywide Safety Improvements - Signal Cabinet $325,000 $325,000 Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades $75,000 $425,000 Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave W @ 238th St SW $750,000 Main St @ 3rd Ave Signal Upgrades $37,500 $300,000 228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th PI. W $75,000 $300,000 Hwy. 99 Gateway / Revitalization $1,600,000 $1,000,000 220' St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy 99 to 76`" Ave $253,000 196th St SW @ 88th Ave W - Intersection Improvements $122,000 $87,500 $535,000 Main a 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements $118,000 $776,000 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $285,450 $1,800,000 $3,795,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $152,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 Hwy 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Improvements $142,000 $334,000 $1,837,000 Hwy 99 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements $152,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 SR-104 @ 226th / 15th Intersection Improvements $15,000 $164,000 SR-104 @ 95th PI. W Intersection Improvements $65,000 $420,000 SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Improvements $173,000 $1,138,000 Sunset Ave Walkway from Bell St to Cas ers St $1,870,000 Dayton St. Walkway from 7th to 8th Ave. $37,500 232nd St. SW Walkway from 100th Ave. to SR-104 $100,000 $1,105,000 236th St. SW Walkway from Madrona Elementary to 97th PI. W $106,500 $1,182,000 84th Ave. W Walkway from 238th to 234th $90,000 80th Ave. W Walkway from 212th to 206th $210,000 $1,239,000 218th St. SW Walkway from 76th to 84th $200,000 $878,000 Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd to 4th $105,000 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 72nd Ave W $137,000 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements $120,000 $940,000 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S $156,000 $633,000 15th St. SW Walkwa from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S $200,000 Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th $230,000 $681,000 $680,000 ADA Curb Rams Improvements $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 95th PI. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW $84,000 $325,000 Ferry Storage Improvements 1 $357.000 Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not secured) $0 $253,000 $720,000 $2,200,000 $7,847,450 $17,578,000 $16,165,000 Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal $2,209,391 $5,091,371 $806,500 $2,200,000 $7,847,450 $22,578,000 $21,165,000 Total Revenues & Grants $5 081 545 $9 450 117 $2,029 530 $3 574 017 $10,112 314 $23 866 627 $22,324,940 Total Projects $4 989 077 $9 212 213 $1,640,000 $3 020 000 $9,890,000 $23 693 000 $22,162,000 Total Debt $75 235 $74 874 $75,513 $74153 $73,687 $73 687 $73,687 Ending Cash Balance $17 233 $163 030 $314,017 $479 864 $228,6271 $99 940 $89,253 Packet Pg. 94 4.3.a N Capital Improvements Program Fund 125 - Capital Projects Fund Projects for 2017-2022 PROJECT NAME CFP E tomate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 (20Total 2) Park Development Projects* Anderson Center Field / Court / Stage $191,870 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000 Brackett's Landing Improvements $50,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $115,000 City Park Improvements $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $75,000 Civic Center Improvements/Grandstand demolition X $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,125,000 Sunset Avenue Walkway $0 Fishing Pier & Restrooms $100,000 $75,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $120,000 Community Garden X $0 $155,000 $155,000 Maplewood Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000 Marina Beach Park Improvements $100,000 $325,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,000 $1,330,000 Mathay Ballinger Park $0 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds $75,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 Meadowdale Pla ields $0 $500,000 $500,000 Pine Ridge Park Improvements $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 Seaview Park Improvements $50,000 $10,000 $5,000 $65,000 Sierra Park Improvements $70,000 $70,000 Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completion X $425,000 $425,000 Yost Park / Pool Improvements $120,000 $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $30,000 $245,000 Parklet development, 4th Ave cultural corridor $10,000 $30,000 $40,000 $70,000 City Gateway replacements $10,000 $30,000 $30,000 City Park Storage Building $200,000 $200,000 Veteran's Plaza $30,000 $30,000 Outdoor Fitness Zones $0 $75,000 $75,000 Citvwide Park Improvements* Citywide Beautification $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $126,000 Flower Pole Replacement $0 $20,000 $20,000 Misc Paving $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $40,000 Citywide Park Improvements/Misc Small Projects $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $240,000 Sports Fields Upgrade / Playground Partnership $20,000 $5,000 $25,000 $25,000 $55,000 S ecialized Projects* A vatic Center Facility (dependent upon successful capital campaign) X $0 Trail Development* Misc Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements 1 $10,0001 1 $10,0001 1 1 $20,000 Planning Edmonds Marsh Feasibility & Restoration X $32,150 $80,000 $30,000 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $155,000 Edmonds Cemetery Mapping Project $0 Civic Center Master Plan $80,000 $20,000 $20,000 Waterfront Development / Waterfront Waiw-a-y $25,000 $100,000 $100,000 Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study $40,000 $40,000 Total Parks Projects $895,020 $2,026,000 $746,000 $726,000 $746,000 $651,000 $641,000 $5,536,000 Packet Pg. 95 D..hlir W-4- P-i-f. Pavement Preservation Program $186,000 $305,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,555,000 Highway 99 Lighting Phase 3 $30,000 $0 Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds $25,000 $25,000 Audible Pedestrian Signals $20,000 $20,000 Minor Sidewalk Program $100,000 $100,000 Building Maintenance $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 Total Public Works Projects $216,000 $450,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 $2,200,000 Total Project Costs (Parks & Public Works) $1,111,020 $2,476,000 $1,096,000 $1,076,000 $1,096,000 $1,001,000 $991,000 $7,736,000 Raimhursamanfs Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Waterfront Redevelopment/Walkway Completion) $525,000 Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Veteran's Plaza) $30,000 Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 Outdoor Fitness Zones $75,000 Reimburesement to Park Fund 132 City Park Storage rebuild $200,000 Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 Civic Grandstand demo $100,000 Reimbursement to Park Fund 132 (Dayton St Plaza Reimbursement to Building Maintenance Fund 016(Fishing Pier $100,000 Reimbursement to Park Fund 132(Community Garden X $155,000 Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 Pavement Preservation Program) $186,000 $305,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Highway 99 Lighting Phase 3 $30,000 Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds) $25,000 Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 Audible Pedestrian Signals) $20,000 Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 Minor Sidewalk Program) $100,000 Reimbursement to Street Fund 016(Building Maintenance $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Total Reimbursements w Total Projects & Reimbursements $316,000 $1,535,000 $3501000 $3501000 $3501000 $3501000 $3501000 $1,427,020 $4,011,000 $1,446,000 $1,426,000 $1,446,000 $1,351,000 $1,341,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022 2016 Estimate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st $ 1,629,534 $ 1,865,814 $ 701,714 $ 818,414 $ 855,414 $ 772,914 $ 786,714 Real Estate Tax 1/4% $ 1,335,000 $ 1,300,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Donations Investment Interest $ 12,300 $ 11,900 $ 12,700 $ 13,000 $ 13,500 $ 14,800 $ 14,000 Total Revenues $ 2,976,834 $ 3,177,714 $ 1,914,414 $ 1,931,414 $ 1,868,914 $ 1,787,714 $ 1,800,714 Total Revenue 1 1 $ 2,976,834 $ 3,177,714 1 $ 1,914,414 1 $ 1,931,414 1 $ 1,868,914 1 $ 1,787,714 1 $ 1,800,714 Total Projects 1 1 -$1,111,020 -$2,476,000 -$1,096,000 -$1,076,000 -$1,096,000 -$1,001,000 -$991,000 IlEncling Cash Balance 1 1 $ 1,865,814 $ 701,714 1 $ 818,414 1 $ 855,414 1 $ 772,914 1 $ 786,714 1 $ 809.714 *Projects in all categories may be eligible for 1%for art with the exception of planning projects. N N O N ti O N d v t K W C ry E t Q Packet Pg. 96 4.3.a Capital Improvements Program F��nrf 19A . Cncrinl r-ifal/P-k. Arn.,iaifinn Prniccfa f- gn17.9n99 PROJECT NAME CFP Estimate lma 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total (2017-2022) Debt Service on City Hall $0 Debt Service Marina Bch/Library Roof $83,228 $82,028 $80,828 $79,628 $83,428 $325,912 Debt Service on PSCC Purchase $56,198 $60,298 $54,298 $53,398 $52,498 $138,725 $140,275 $499,492 Debt Service on FAC Seismic retrofit $29,957 $29,621 $29,640 $29,630 $29,981 $29,887 $29,763 $178,522 Total Debt $169,383 $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $165,907 $168,612 $170,038 $1,003,926 Parks Projects Total Parks Projects $492,180 $275,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,275,000 P..hlir W-k. Prninrfc Annual Street Preservation Program $880,000 $995,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $3,245,000 220th St Overlay $29,025 $1,350 $1,350 Trackside Warning System $290,000 $10,000 $10,000 Signal Cabinet Upgrades $70,000 $0 Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds $25,000 $0 ADA Transition Plan $50,000 $60,000 $60,000 Traffic Calming Program $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Protective/Permissive Traffic Signal Conv $20,000 $0 Minor Sidewalk Program $50,000 $0 Hwy 99 Gateway/Revitalization (Access Management) $300,000 $300,000 220th St Signal Coordination $47,000 $47,000 Building Maintenance $300,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,300,000 Total Public Works Projects Total Project Cost (Parks and Public Works) Rcimhuraamanfs $1,434,025 $1,733,350 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $4,983,350 $1,926,205 $2,008,350 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $850,000 $6,258,350 Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Annual Street Preservation Program $880,000 $995,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $3,245,000 Reimbursement to Fund 112 for 220th St Overlay $29,025 $1,350 $1,350 Reimbursement to Fund 132 for Land/Civic Acquisition $492,180 $0 Reimbursement to Fund 132 for Waterfront Redevelopment $75,000 $75,000 Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Trackside Warning System $290,000 $10,000 $10,000 Reimbursement to Fund 111 for Signal Cabinet Upgrades $70,000 $0 Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds $25,000 $0 Reimbursement to Fund 112 for ADA Transition Plan $50,000 $60,000 $60,000 Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Traffic Calming Program $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Reimbursement to Fund 112 Protective/Permissive Traffic Signal Con v $20,000 $0 Reimbursement to Fund 112 for Minor Sidewalk Program $50,000 $0 Reimbursement to Fund 112 for SR99 Access Management $300,000 $300,000 Reimbursement to Fund 112 for 220th St Signal Coordination $47,000 Reimbursement to Fund 016 for Building Maintenance $300,000 $200,000 $200,0001 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,300,000 Total Project & Reimbursements $1,926,205 $1,808,350 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $5,011,350 N N CD N I` O N d t K W C 0) E t v M Q Packet Pg. 97 4.3.a Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022 2016 Estimate 2017 2018 9114a 2020 ML2021 2 Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st $2,239,006 $1,495,118 $629,221 $827,255 $926,199 $919,892 $912,880 Real estate Tax 1/4%/1 st Qtr % $1,335,000 $1,300,000 $1,200,000 $1,100,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Interest Earnings $16,700 $14,400 $12,800 $11,600 $9,600 $11,600 $11,000 Total Revenues $3,590,706 $2,809,518 $1,842,021 $1,938,855 $1,935,799 $1,931,492 $1,923,880 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Grants 2016-2022 Estimate Grants/ Loans Souaht (not Secured) Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenue & Grants & Subsidy $3,590,706 $2,809,518 $1,842,021 $1,938,855 $1,935,799 $1,931,492 $1,923,880 Total Debt ($169,383) ($171,947) ($164,766) ($162,656) ($165,907) ($168,612) ($170,038) Total Project & Reimbursements ($1,926,205) ($2,008,350) ($850,000) ($850,000) ($850,000) ($850,000) ($850,000) Ending Cash Balance $1,495,118 $629,221 $827,255 $926,199 $919,892 $912,880 $903,842 to Packet Pg. 98 4.3.a Capital Improvements Program Fund 129 - Special Projects Projects for 2017-2022 PROJECT NAME CFP 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 E (20Total 2) $0 Total Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022 Estimate Beginning Balance(January 1st $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 Investment Interest Total Revenues $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $0 $0 2016 1 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Grants 2016-2022 Estimate k $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues & Grants 1 $17,922 $17,9221 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $0 $0 Total Construction Projects 1 $0 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ending Cash Balance 1 $17,922 $17,9221 $17,922 $17,922 $17,922 $0 $0 8 N N O N ti O N IL v t K IJJ C d E t Q Packet Pg. 99 4.3.a Capital Improvements Program Fund 132 - Parks Construction Projects for 2017-2022 PROJECT NAME CFP 2016 Estimate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total (20 2) 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $4,325,000 Cultural Heritage Tour and Way -Finding Signage $0 Dayton Street Plaza $130,000 $30,000 $30,000 Civic Center Acquisition/Development/Stadium demo $992,180 $135,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,135,000 Waterfront Redevelopment / Waterfront Walkway Completion $25,000 $2,100,0001 1 $2,100,000 City Park Revitalization $192,805 $0 Community Garden $155,000 $155,000 Wetland Mitigation $0 Edmonds Marsh/Daylighting Willow Creek/Marina Beach $200,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,200,000 Fishing Pier Rehab $0 Public Market (Downtown Waterfront) X $0 Outdoor Fitness Zones 1 $175,000 $175,000 City Park Maintenance Storage Building 1 1 $250,0001 1 1 $250,000 Veteran's Plaza I 1 1 $550,0001 1 1 1 $550,000 Total Projects $1,339,985 $3,595,000 $1,425,000 $4,400,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $13,920,000 Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022 2016 Estimate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 022 Beginning Cash Balance (January 1st) $560,500 $1,422,185 $2,327,526 $2,527,526 $1,877,526 $1,577,526 $2,677,526 Beg Balance Park Impact Fees $336,920 $815,855 Park Impact Fees $478,935 $119,486 Beginning Cash Balance Milltown Beginning Cash Balance Cultural Heritage Tour Reimbursement from Fund 125 Waterfront development $525,000 Reimbursement from Fund 126 for Waterfront development $75,000 Park Impact Fees/Waterfront development $500,000 Reimbursement from Fund 117-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour Reimbursement from Fund 120 for Cultural Heritage Tour Reimbursement from Fund 125 for City Park Storage Building $200,000 Reimbursement from Fund 127-200 for Cultural Heritage Tour Reimbursement from Fund 120 for Way -Finding Signage Grant Match Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Outdoor Fitness Zones $75,000 Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Veteran's Plaza $30,000 Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Civic Demolition $100,000 Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Community Garden $155,000 Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Waterfront Redevelopment $0 Reimbursement from Fund 126 for Civic Acquisition $492,180 Contribution from 01 for Edmonds Marsh $200,000 $200,000 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,0001 $200,000 Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Marsh/Marina Beach Reimbursement from Fund 125 for Fishing Pier Investment Interest $830 rotal Revenues $2,069,365 $4,217,526 $2,527,526 $2,727,526 $2,077,526 $1,777,526 $2,677,526 Packet Pg. 100 4.3.a 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Grants 2016-2022 Estimate Grants/ Loans (Secured) 4th Ave / Cultural Heritage Tour Preserve America/National Park Service Dayton Street Plaza (Arts Fest. Found./Hubbard Trust/Ed in Bloom) Interurban Trail (Federal CMAQ) RCO City Park $192,805 Fire Insurance City park storage $50,000 RCO State grant /Civic Acquisition ( $1 M directly to escrow) Snohomish County Tourism for Way -Finding Conservation Futures/Civic Acquisition $500,000 Wetland Mitigation RCO/Civic Demolition $35,000 Outdoor Fitness Zones grant Veterans Plaza: various donations/grants $520,000 RCO/Fishing Pier Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured Grants/ Loans Sought (not Secured) $692,805 $605,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4th Ave Corridor Enhancement (state, federal, other) $1,425,000 $2,900,000 Outdoor Fitness Zones $100,000 RCO Waterfront Development ( Sr Ctr) $1,000,000 Edmonds Marsh/Marina Beach $650,000 $1,000,000 Veterans Plaza Civic Development $2,400,000 Bond funding/Civic Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought (not secured) Grants Subtotal w $0 $1,100,0001 $1,425,0001 $3,550,0001 $1,000,0001 $2,400,000 $0 $692,80511 $1,705,0001 $1,425,0001 $3,550,0001 $1,000,0001 $2,400,000 $0 Total Revenues & Cash Balances & Grants $2,762,170 $5,922,5261 $3,952,526 $6,277,526 $3,077,526 $4,177,526 $2,677,526 Total Construction Projects (1,339,985) ($3,595,000) ($1,425,000) ($4,400,000) ($1,500,000) ($1,500,000) ($1,500,000) EndingCash Balance $1,422,185 $2,327,5261 $2,527,526 $1,877,5261 $1,577,526 $2,677,526 $1,177,526 'Projects may be partially eligible for 1 % for Art Packet Pg. 101 4.3.a Z8 Capital Improvements Program Fund 421 - Water Proiects Proiects for2017-2022 PROJECT NAME CFP 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Esti16 mate (20Total 2) 2015 Replacement Program $634,176 $0 2016 Replacement Program $1,416,688 $30,000 $30,000 2016 Waterline Overlays $62,072 $0 Dayton Ave 3rd to 9th Utility Improvements $327,000 $311,000 $311,000 2017 Replacement Program $302,948 $2,288,815 $2,288,815 2017 Waterline Overlays $210,000 $210,000 2018 Replacement Program $400,000 $2,003,080 $2,403,080 2019 Replacement Program $299,079 $2,200,664 $2,499,743 2020 Replacement Program $328,580 $3,013,510 $3,342,090 2021 Replacement Program $449,946 $3,134,050 $3,583,996 2022 Replacement Program $467,944 $3,259,412 $3,727,356 2023 Replacement Program $486,661 $486,661 Five Corners Reservoir Recoating $114,412jr $1,885,588 $1,885,588 2016 Water System Plan Update $144,500 1 $4,0001 1 1 1 1 1 $4,000 Total Projects Reimbursements & Contributions $3,001,796 $5,129,403 $2,302,159 $2,529,244 $3,463,456 $3,601,994 $3,746,073 $20,772,329 Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (228th Project) 1 $2 $0 Reimbursement to Street Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements) $6,690 $776,8151 $776,815 $0 Reimbursement to Fund 117 1 % Arts (2017 Watermain) $0 Total Reimbursements Total Water Projects $6,692 $776,815 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $776,815 $3,008,488 $5,906,218 $2,302,159 $2,529,244 $3,463,456 $3,601,994 $3,746,073 $21,549,144 Revenues & Cash Balances 2016-2022 2016 Estimate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Beginning Balance (January 1st) Connection Fee Proceeds $301,400 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 423 (Dayton 3rd to 9th) $100,000 $100,000 Interfund Reimbursement from Fund 422 (Dayton 3rd to 9th) $137,500 $100,000 2015 Bond General Fund Fire Hydrant Improvements $51,006 $70,000 $123,900 $128,856 $134,010 $139,370 Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $589,906 $370,000 $223,900 $228,856 $234,010 $239,370 $100,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Unsecured Revenue 2015-2021 Estimate New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers Total Unsecured Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues Total Projects & Reimbursements Ending Cash Balance N N O N n 0 N a_ U t x W r C d E U M r� Q Packet Pg. 102 4.3.a 10 Capital Improvements Program Fund 422 Storm Projects for 2017-2022 PROJECT NAME CFP 2016 2 17 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Estimate (2017-2022) SW Edmonds Basin Study Implementation Projects 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project. 1 $654,7411 $2,0001 1 1 1 1 1$2,000 Edmonds Marsh Related Projects Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements- Dayton St Pump Station (See Note1) X $267,700 $1,900,000 $50,000 1 1 1 $1,950,000 Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study / Design/Construction (See Note 1 and Note 2) X $38,698 $459,278 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 "$300,000 $1,959,278 Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements 1 1 $200,000 $500,000 $50,000 $750,000 Willow Creek Pipe Rehabilitation $82,500 $82,500 $550,000 $715,000 Northstream Projects Northstream Culvert Abandonment South of Puget Dr - Assessment / Stabilization 1 1 $36,595 $153,530 $153,530 Rehab/Re lace of Northstream Culvert under Puget Dr 113 215 $432,5601 $5,0001 1 1 $437,560 Perrinville Creek Basin Projects Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration (See Note1 X $116,000 $979,000 $979,000 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 2) X 1 $450,000 $500,000 $500,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,550,000 Storm Drainage Im rovement Projects Im rovements - 88th Ave W and 194th St SW $4,195 1 1 1 1 1 $0 Improvements - Sierra PI- 12th Ave N to Olympic 1 $522,75111 $2,0001 1 1 1 1 1 $2,000 Annually Funded Projects Ci -wide Draina a Replacement Projects $306,900 $150,000 $2,050,000 $1,250,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,872,000 $8,922,000 Lake Ballinger Associated Proiects $17,000 4,0001 $66,0001 $68,0001 $68,0001 $70,0001 $70,000 $406,000 $0 Compliance -Related Projects Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan (including asset management Ian $25,000 $195,000 1 1 1 $195,000 Total Project $2,102.795 $4.619.868 $3.503.500 $2.718.000 $2.668.000 $2.220.000 $2.292.000 $18.021.368 Packet Pg. 103 4.3.a Estimate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 (20Total 2) Reimbursements Tn 112 -Street Fund SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Drainage portion of 238th SW Sidewalk project (connect sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System) $362,053 $0 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $7,926 $450,528 $450,528 236th SW Walkwav Project $214,500 $0 UtilitV Replacements Da on btwn 3rd & 9th Ave $137,500 $100,000 $100,000 $0 Total Reimbursements to 112 Fund $721.979 $550.528 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550.528 Tn 117 - Arte 105th & 106th Ave SW Drainage Improvement Project $4,923 $0 City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects $1,443 $500 $500 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects - Seaview Infiltration $3,950 $3,950 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects $1,125 $1,250 $1,250 $3,625 Edmonds Marsh/Shellabar er Cr/Willow Cr - Feasibility Study/Marsh $0 76th Ave W & 212th St SW Intersection Improvements $4,505 $4,505 Improvements - Sierra PI- 12th Ave N to Olympic $3,598 $0 236th SW Walkwav Project $1,150 $0 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements- Dayton St Pump Station $10,000 $10,000 Total Reimbursements to 117 Fund Total Reimbursements Total Project & Reimbursements N $11,114 $18,955 $1,125 $1,250 $1,250 $0 $0 $22,580 $733.093 $569.483 $1.125 $1.250 $1.250 $0 $0 $573.108 $2,835,888 $5,189,351 $3,504,625 $2,719,250 $2,669,250 $2,220,000 $2,292,000 $18,594,476 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022 Estimate is 3eginning Balance(January 1st Proceeds of Long-term debt Bonds Estimated Connection Fees (capital facilities charge) $31,975 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 Grants (Secured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr - Final Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration See Note 1 $31,500 $384,505 Grants (Secured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management -Seaview Infiltration See Note 1 X $87,000 $546,750 Total Secured Revenues $150,475 $961,255 $31,000 $32,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Unsecured Revenue 2015-2021 Estimate Proceeds of Long-term debt Bonds Grants (Unsecured) - Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects (See Note 2) X $337,500 $375,000 $375,000 $37,500 $37,500 Grants (Unsecured) - Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr- Feasibility Study/Marsh Restoration See Note 2 X $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 Grants (Unsecured) - Dayton St & Hwy 104 Drainage Improvements (See Note 3 X $950,000 $25,000 Total Unsecured Revenues $0 $950,000 $587,500 $600,000 $600,000 $262,500 $262,500 Total Revenue Total Project & Transfers Endin Cash Balance Notes: 1. All or part of this project funded bV secured grants or grants will be pursued, see Revenue section for details. 2 Assumes grant funding is 75 % of total project costs per year beginning 2018 3. Assumes grant funding is 50 % of total project costs per year beginning 2017 Packet Pg. 104 4.3.a Capital Improvements Program Fund 423 - Sewer Proiects Proiects for2017-2022 PROJECT NAME CFP 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022ima Est (2017-2022) Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitations $0 Sewer Main Replacement and CIPP $0 $0 2015 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $88,000 $0 2016 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $1,520,362 $11,000 $11,000 2016 Sewerline Overlays $217,250 $0 2017 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $245,750 $1,364,905 $1,364,905 2017 Sewerline Overlays 1 $220,000 $220,000 2018 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $287,113 $1,598,462 $1,885,575 2019 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $295,726 $1,646,416 $1,942,142 2020 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $304,598 $1,695,809 $2,000,406 2021 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements $313,736 $1,746,683 $2,060,419 2022 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements 1 $323,148 1 $1,816,550 $2,139,698 2023 Sewer Replacement / Rehab / Improvements 1 1 $336,074 $336,074 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehabilitation $1,182,263 $312,0001 $424,360 1 $437,091 1 $450,204 1 $463,710 1 $482,258 1 $2,569,622 Infiltration & Inflow Study & Projects Lift Station 1 Metering & Flow Stud $185,000 $0 N Lake Ballinger er Trunk Sewer Stud $124,000 $166,000 $166,000 N Total Projects $3,562,625 $2,361,018 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $2,634,882 $14,695,841 Reimbursements & Contributions Reimbursement to Fund 421 (Dayton 3rd to 9th $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Reimbursement to Fund 112 228th Project $150 1 1 1 1 1 $0 Reimbursement to Fund 112 (212th & 76th Improvements) 1 1 $4,866 $718,6851 1 1 1 1 1 $718,685 Total Reimbursements $105,016 $818,685 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $818,685 Total Projects, Transfers & Reimbursements $3,667,641 $3,179,703 $2,318,548 $2,388,105 $2,459,748 $2,533,541 $2,634,882 $15,514,526 N N O N ti O N IL v t K W C d E t Q Packet Pg. 105 4.3.a and Cash Balances 2016-2022 2016 Estimate 2017 019 2020 2021Revenues Be innin Balance Janua 1stSewer Connection Fees $310,200 $100,000j2E018 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 2015 Bond Total Secured Revenue (Utility Funds, Grants Loans, misc) $310,200 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Unsecured Revenue 2016-2022 Estimate New revenue, grants, loans, bonds, interest, transfers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Unsecured Revenue Total Revenues Total Projects & Reimbursements Ending Cash Balance N W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Packet Pg. 106 4.3.a N Capital Improvements Program Fiinrl d91 7R - Wnctownfor Trantmant Plant Prniartc Mr 91317-9n99 PROJECT NAME CFP 16 E 20mate 2 2019 2020 2021 2022 (20Total 2) Repair and Replacement $250,000 $250,000 $330,000 $330,000 $250,000 $1,410,000 Construction Projects - In House $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 Construction Projects Contracted $3,112,120 $2,125,000 $250,000 $250,000 $300,000 $600,000 $250,000 $3,775,000 Debt Service - Principle and Interest $257,516 $256,163 $255,371 $255,929 $256,371 $256,902 $222,847 $1,503,583 Total Project Projects less revenue from outside partnership $3,369,636 $2,381,163 $755,371 $755,929 $906,371 $1,206,902 $722,847 $3,321,586 $2,346,113 $740,321 $740,879 $891,321 $1,191,852 $722,847 Revenues and Cash Balances 2016-2022 2016 stimate 2019 2020 2021 2022 Beginning Cash Balance(January 1st $200,000 $200,000 -&� $200,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 Intergovernmental $3,321,586 $2,346,113 $740,321 $740,879 $891,321 $1,191,852 $722,847 Interest Earnings $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 Miscellaneous biosolids, Lynnwood, etc $40,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Grants, Incentives and Rebate for Engergy Eff. Projects $8,000 $20,000 Subtotal $3,569,636 $2,581,163 $955,371 $1,305,929 $1,456,371 $1,756,902 $1,272,847 Total Revenue $3,569,636 $2,581,163 $955,371 $1,305,929 $1,456,371 $1,756,902 $1,272,847 Total Project ($3,369,636) ($2,381,163) ($755,371) ($755,929) ($906,371) ($1,206,902) ($722,847) Ending Cash Balance 1 $200,00011 $200,0001 $200,000 $550,0001 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 Interest earned estimated at 0.75 % per year Contribution breakdown by agency 2016 Estimate 2017 2 2019 20 20 Edmonds 50.79% $1,686,934 $1,191,520 $375,987 $376,270 $452,675 $605,306 $367,112 Mountlake Terrace 23.17% $769,744 $543,688 $171,562 $171,691 $206,555 $276,200 $167,513 OI m is View Water & Sewer District 16.55% $549,756 $388,305 $122,531 $122,623 $147,523 $197,263 $119,638 Ronald Sewer District 9.49% $315,152 $222,599 $70,242 $70,295 $84,569 $113,083 $68,584 TOTALS 1 100.00% $3,321,586 $2,346,113 $740,321 $740,879 $891,321 $1,191,852 $722,847 *In 2019 per the agreement, fund balance will increase to $550,000. N N O N f` O N d v t K W C d E t 0 Q Packet Pg. 107 N CJl n 00 It Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1646 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program) W iu Attachment: Exhibit 1: CIP 2017-2022 (1646 : Approval of the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program) CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $25,000 Field/Court/Stage 700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities and children's play equipment. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000 1 $0 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. a 27 Packet Pg. 110 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Brackett's Landing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $115,000 Improvements —i'S South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park through Deed -of -Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom phased rehabilitation in 2018. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park, regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 ' all or part of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts N N O N r O N a r Z x w r a� E M a 28 Packet Pg. 111 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City Park. Continued pathway, access improvements and ongoing upgrades to PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Make ongoing upgrades to City Park as referenced in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts N N O N I- T" O N a r Z x w as E U M r a 29 Packet Pg. 112 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Civic Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,325,000 Improvements / Stadium Demolition PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Improvements / Stadium Demolition PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Civic Center Improvements / Stadium Demolition. As part of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some grant funds available to assist with this. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Construction $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $600,000 $600,000 TOTAL $100,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $600,000 $600,000 r a 30 Packet Pg. 113 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Sunset Avenue Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ See Transportation CIP dobw -0111111111", PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a multi -use path on the west side of Sunset Ave with expansive views of the Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The multi -use path will connect the downtown business district, surrounding neighborhoods, water access points, and the existing parks and trails system. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This multi -use path has been a priority for the City of Edmonds for several years. It is included in 5 different City plans, the Transportation Improvement Plan, Non -Motorized Section; the Parks Recreation and Open Plan; the City comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan; the Capital Improvement Plan; and the Shoreline Master Program. Specifically, the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan identified Sunset Avenue Overlook priorities, namely improved connectivity and multi -modal access, complete the bicycle and pedestrian route system, identify scenic routes and view areas, and landscape improvements. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N N O N r O N a. r a+ x w r c a� E U M a 31 Packet Pg. 114 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $120,000 LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project 4.3.a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re -tile and renovate restroom facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $75,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 r Q * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 32 Packet Pg. 115 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION 4.3.a PROJECT NAME: Community Garden ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $155,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Locate and develop a community garden site. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This was formerly planned for the Former Woodway HS site. This is adopted as part of the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $155,000 1 % for Art TOTAL N N O N r O N a r a+ t X W a� E M a all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts 33 Packet Pg. 116 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park ESTIMATED COST: $15,000 Improvements 89t" Place West and 197t" Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and natural trail system to Maplewood Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts N N O N O N IL x w d E Q 34 Packet Pg. 117 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $1,330,000 Improvements South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Proiect; Protected throuqh Deed -of -Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2018-2020. Begin development of Master plan, daylighting Willow Creek in PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $325,000 $500,000 $500,000 $5,000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 1 $325,000 1 $500,000 1 $500,000 $5,000 $0 x all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. N N 0 N r O N a r Z x w r c m E M a 35 Packet Pg. 118 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 781h Place W. & 241st St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to Mathay Ballinger Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $20,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts N N O N r O N a c� r x w r c a� E M a 36 Packet Pg. 119 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse ESTIMATED COST: $10,000 Grounds 6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care, recreation classes and preschool activities. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 37 Packet Pg. 120 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Playfields I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with City of Lynnwood and Edmonds School District to renovate Meadowdale Playfields.. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Partnership to leverage funds, renovate two multi use athletic fields and softball fields. Increase field accessibility and use for Edmonds citizens. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Engineering & Administration Construction $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N N O N r O N a r x w a� M a 38 Packet Pg. 121 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 Improvements 83`d Avenue West and 2041" St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park. Forest Management Study in 2018 PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional trail connections. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study 40000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $40000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 New additions meet the 1 % for the Arts Ordinance requirements N N O N O N a x w _ d E Q 39 Packet Pg. 122 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park ESTIMATED COST: $65,000 Improvements 801h Street West and 1861h Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed - Of -Right PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Maintenance of tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area. Replace roof on restrooms. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children's play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court, parking and tennis courts. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $50,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $50,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts N N O N r 0 N a t� r x w r c m E M a 40 Packet Pg. 123 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $70,000 LACE LEA FJAPAN ESF MAPLE {Acrr pm]mmum di —cure) ihlkdecld unus shrub or t—Ts.melee to Japan and Dore . 1! is uruslly many elemmep and Is lice moll a1r.' end drllrm i¢ ut all mopirs. Its leaves are 7 to a inches in t-Zh Mrr flaeip cul Inrn rhrsadllke aryl lam. -cmf color .m Ott hp sat" hui l6r e urt rpmmon colon mre hrlghi Rrccn and rest, •1'hrsirrn helve a mnuaJeJ frm nlrh x'eeplhµ brancher. 7hq' rmn h< Rn...n In tubs and are _c[teni for hummL r ; 4• 14 801h Street West and 1911h Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation to include field drainage for turf repair. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children's play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities, basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $0 1 $70,000 1 $0 I $0 $0 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts N N O N r O N a r x w r a� E a 41 Packet Pg. 124 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $525,000 / Waterfront Walkway Completion ..-.-_. - lom/..pr Brach------------ 1 e;r;ar�wat� -------..,__... --------•- err.„'•, i lArtSFM�! law � PropvSed Edimvl s Watarfrorm Cancer f ;rrur5; - r ,o. yyr .wo r �.ow- .-:.cxr iri way aa. scwc-. ,a.weW rr w 7 e caure sw.wrc ra o . aan ! r>[e a [sKwa rr+.. s+dn Tura. swo•. - .sum. f.� r _ " � I[xYJf,W Rvp a &F+.aa [�eo•q aewm bAs..r -� l+,r d hM.y 4 ter. G7YY p�4 `,w �.'. � � 11 - 14ggped Tbrn pig w•T Yort�'.[Vr�.�n.bnwu gran W ran 7ur' End. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beachfront access. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $425,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $525,000 1 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 'all or part of this Project may quality for 1% for the Arts N N O N r 0 N a c.� r x w as E M r a 42 Packet Pg. 125 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Yost Park / Pool ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $245,000 Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and unanticipated repairs. Add in -pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $30,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $30,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. N N O N r O N a r a+ Z x w r a� E U M a 43 Packet Pg. 126 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Parklet Development, 4"' ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $70,000 Avenue Cultural Corridor A parklet is a small urban park that is made by creating a sidewalk extension that provides more space and amenities for people using the street. Usually parklets are installed on top of parking lanes and use one or more parking spaces, but do not permanently impact the underlying street. Parklets typically extend out from the sidewalk at the level of the sidewalk to the width of the adjacent parking space creating a patio and seating area, often including plantings. Parklets are public space and open to everyone. 10 A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop one or more parklets on the 4 th Avenue Cultural Corridor. The first parklet will be created on 4t" Avenue adjacent to the ECA. The design will be developed with Parks crew and an artist/landscape consultant. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide a small urban park along the 4 th Avenue Cultural Corridor with views of Puget Sound and seating on a popular walking route. Parklets are a resting and a gathering space and highlight the social function integral to streets. The importance of additional small gathering spaces is referred to in both the Community Cultural Plan and the PROS Plan. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Construction $30,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 TOTAL $30,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 N N O N r O N a r a+ t x w a� E M r a 44 Packet Pg. 127 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: City Gateway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 Replacements (. 1l,, ot th PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Design and construct new gateway elements at SR 104 and 5 Ave. S and at Sunset and Main St. to replace aging and deteriorated signage. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The PROS Plan, Community Cultural Plan and Streetscape Plan all refer to the importance of these visual "gateways" to the City of Edmonds. New signage with artistic elements will enhance the gateways and reinforce Edmonds reputation as a cultural destination for visitors. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Repairs & Maintenance $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N N O N ti 0 N d U x w r a� E w a 45 Packet Pg. 128 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: City Park Storage Building � ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a new City Park Storage Building PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Construct a new City Park storage building to replace the previous storage building which was destroyed by fire in 2016. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Construction $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N N O N 0 N a v x w a) E z n: Q 46 Packet Pg. 129 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $550,000 Veteran's Plaza PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The establishment of a Veteran's Plaza was unanimously approved by the City Council in 2014. It will serve as a tribute to the patriotic and courageous men and women who served this nation. The Plaza will reflect the bravery, sacrifice and strength they gave our country. The design will accommodate flagpoles (in their existing location), space for display of military seals and a Plaza, seating areas for reflection, some educational monuments or placards, and existing hardscape and significant trees. The address is 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and is adjacent to the Edmonds Public Safety Building. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Veteran's Plaza will serve as a focal point which raises awareness of the contributions made by veterans and illustrates the high respect the citizens of Edmonds have for the men and women who have defended the rights and freedoms of this nation. It will provide a tribute for the men and women who have served and are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The Plaza will establish a central site for the citizens of Edmonds to conduct official observances, activities and ceremonies to honor veterans including Veterans Day. SCHEDULE: 2017-2021 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study -Eng. & Admin. Construction $30,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 'all or part of this Project may quality for 1% for the Arts 47 Packet Pg. 130 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within the park system. PROJECT BENEFITI RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while their children play. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Construction $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N N O N 0 N a r x w r c m E U M a 48 Packet Pg. 131 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $126,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include Library, Senior Center, outdoor plazas, City Park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 N N 0 N r O N a r a+ t x w r c m U M a 49 Packet Pg. 132 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Flower Pole Replacement I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed throughout City. PROJECT BENEFITI RATIONALE: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed throughout City. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Construction $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $20,000 1 $0 1 $0 $0 I $0 1 $0 N N O N r O N a r a+ x w r c m E M r a 50 Packet Pg. 133 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving � ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 40,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway improvements citywide. PROJECT BENEFITI RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Construction $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. cmN O N O N a x w r c m E Q 2006 Miscellaneous Paving 51 Packet Pg. 134 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $240,000 Improvements / Misc Small Projects PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway entrances into the city and 4t" Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities and streetscape improvements in public areas. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration Construction $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 N N 0 N ti 0 N a U x w r a� E U 2 w r Q 52 Packet Pg. 135 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $55,000 Playground Partnerships PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create neighborhood park facilities at non -City facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create additional facilities. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Engineering & Administration Construction $5,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $5,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 a 53 Packet Pg. 136 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 20,000 Trail / Bike Path Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with engineering funding. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $0 1 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. a 54 Packet Pg. 137 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $unk Needs Study - - 4it, Al W-1 _ [R J PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts N N O N 0 N a r x w a� E M a 55 Packet Pg. 138 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Feasibility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $155,000 & Restoration / Walkway South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL 23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support daylighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Continue to maintain current sidewalk / pathway/boardwalk. For 2018, a section of the boardwalk will be replaced. Continue to work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, Earthcorps and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of design of daylighting Willow Creek using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan, as well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 COST Professional $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Services Construction $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $80,000 $30,000 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 N N O N r O N a r x w r a� E a 56 Packet Pg. 139 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Cemetery ESTIMATED COST: $ 100,000 Mapping PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Memorial Cemetery was deeded to the City in 1982. The City has been operating the cemetery with no markings, rows, aisles, or surveyed mapping. It is essential that the City survey/map/and mark the cemetery so as to effectively manage the plots. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Operations of a public cemetery, with effective and accurate stewardship. SCHEDULE: 2015-2021 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts N N 0 N r O N a r a+ x w a� E M r a 57 Packet Pg. 140 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Master Plan � ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,000 6t" Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic property was purchased from the Edmonds School District in 2016. A Master Plan process is underway to develop a long term plan for the property. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To determine the best use and future plans for redevelopment at Civic Center. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/StudyPlanning/Study $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 58 Packet Pg. 141 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $525,000 / Waterfront Walkway Completion ------------ A— Propvwd Edmonds Wam(from Garver Arws; -ycox ww •a u.v� r ,o. yyr .wo r r,ce w careha •••r+•• s+� w.ra. swv. - •su •n• -• . �H•WWIw�� r M[YJf.W Rv.p & t.R. � rswq'i0°�" C•�eou aewm bi��• U++d VM.y M9gwed Tbrn pfl w Yom'MVronwb •.. gran W ran p.ur� a 6e�d. wipf..d Mc`+.{4 P." PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beach -front access. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study $100,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $425,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $525,000 1 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 'all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts N N O N ti T- 0 N a U x w E w r Q 59 Packet Pg. 142 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 Improvements 83`d Avenue West and 2041" St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park. Forest Management Study in 2018 PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional trail connections. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study 40000 Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $40000 $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 New additions meet the 1 % for the Arts Ordinance requirements N N O N O N a x w _ d E Q 60 Packet Pg. 143 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4.3.a PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,003,926 Capital Projects and Acquisitions Fi-- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on: Marina Beach / Library Roof: $82,028 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $60,298 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,621 PROJECT BENEFITI RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art Principal & Interest $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $165,907 $168,612 $170,038 TOTAL $171,947 $164,766 $162,656 $165,907 $168,612 $170,038 " all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts N N 0 N r O N a r a+ x w r a� M a 61 Packet Pg. 144 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,200,000 Space / Land PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open space. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST $2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Land $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200000 62 Packet Pg. 145 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4.3.a PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000 / Waterfront Walkway Completion G � VOW rti PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Redevelop waterfront to secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N N O N ti O N a U x w r c m E w Q 63 Packet Pg. 146 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 4" Avenue ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,325,000 Corridor Enhancement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4 th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible projects may include surface art, interpretive signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4t" Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 $0 $1 1 % for Art TOTAL $0 $1,425,000 $2,900,000 $0 $0 $1 " all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts a 64 Packet Pg. 147 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: TBD Way -Finding Signage :191Al0]►10I•y9I91►i►Ii1(GAT1►[ato1MtoI1k; 0 G : I : I:]IETC Iatell] V (Proposed sites) N 2 2'r qS ti y � a Q a s F Z 2 ® 5pr�yne 5[ � e p2 A i V ® y ? s ® D I C Oa[t. 5[ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way -finding signage for the downtown area. Completed. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Promote tourism and economic development in the core downtown. The walking tour and interpretive signage focuses on local history and as unique artist made pieces also reflect the arts orientation of the community. Improved way -finding signage which points out major attractions and services/amenities such as theaters, museums, beaches, train station, shopping, dining and lodging promotes both tourism and economic vitality in the downtown /waterfront activity center. SCHEDULE: 2015-2021 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts N N 0 N r- r 0 N a c.� r x w E M a 65 Packet Pg. 148 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation and Edmonds in Bloom. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 66 Packet Pg. 149 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,135,000 / Stadium Demolition PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition. As part of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, develop a signature downtown park at this site. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition. The Civic Master plan will be complete by early 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant funds applied for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Construction $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 TOTAL $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 N N O N 0 N a r x w r c m E U M r a 67 Packet Pg. 150 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,100,000 / Waterfront Walkway Completion ------------ A— Propvwd Edmonds Waterfront Genrer ArUS; -ycox ww •a u.v� r ,o. yyr .wo r r,ce w careha •••r+•• s+� w.ra. swv. - •su •n• f -• . �H•WWIw�� r M[YJf.W Rv.p & t.R. � rswq'i0°�" C•�eou aewm bi��• U++d VM.y M9gwed Tbrn pfl w Yom'MVronwb •.. gran W ran p.ur� a 6e�d. wipf..d Mc`+.{4 P." PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beach -front access. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $100,000 Construction $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $2,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts N N 0 N ti 0 N a U x w a� E w Q 68 Packet Pg. 151 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION 4.3.a PROJECT NAME: Community Garden ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $155,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Locate and develop a community garden site. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This was formerly planned for the Former Woodway HS site. This is adopted as part of the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $155,000 1 % for Art TOTAL N N O N r O N a r a+ t X W a� E M a all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts 69 Packet Pg. 152 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Wetland Mitigation I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: TBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day -lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and freshwater marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2015-2021 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. N N O N I- 0 N a r x w r a� E a 70 Packet Pg. 153 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh / Willow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,200,000 Creek Daylighting PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day -lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. This also includes planning for the outfall of Willow Creek into Marina Beach Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co -fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2015-2021 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $200,000 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $200,000 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. N N O N I- T" O N a r a+ x w a� E U M a 71 Packet Pg. 154 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown Waterfront) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022-2027 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.72 Packet Pg. 155 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within the park system. PROJECT BENEFITI RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while their children play. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Construction $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N N O N 0 N a r x w r c m E U M a 73 Packet Pg. 156 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: City Park Storage Building � ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $250,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a new City Park Storage Building PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Construct a new City Park storage building to replace the previous storage building which was destroyed by fire in 2016. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Construction $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 N N O N 0 N a v x w a) E z n: Q 74 Packet Pg. 157 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $550,000 Veteran's Plaza PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The establishment of a Veteran's Plaza was unanimously approved by the City Council in 2014. It will serve as a tribute to the patriotic and courageous men and women who served this nation. The Plaza will reflect the bravery, sacrifice and strength they gave our country. The design will accommodate flagpoles (in their existing location), space for display of military seals and a Plaza, seating areas for reflection, some educational monuments or placards, and existing hardscape and significant trees. The address is 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 and is adjacent to the Edmonds Public Safety Building. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The Veteran's Plaza will serve as a focal point which raises awareness of the contributions made by veterans and illustrates the high respect the citizens of Edmonds have for the men and women who have defended the rights and freedoms of this nation. It will provide a tribute for the men and women who have served and are serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The Plaza will establish a central site for the citizens of Edmonds to conduct official observances, activities and ceremonies to honor veterans including Veterans Day. SCHEDULE: 2017-2021 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study -Eng. & Admin. Construction $550,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $550,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 'all or part of this Project may quality for 1% for the Arts 75 Packet Pg. 158 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017) 4.3.b ADDED PROJECTS FUND I PROJECT NAME I CFP I DESCRIPTION 112 84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW Complete overlay along 84th Ave. W from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW 112 220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Improve traffic flow along 220th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W with the installation of coordination system 112 236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W X Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W 112 238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W X Improve pedestrian safety along 238th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W 112 80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD X I Improve pedestrian safety along 80th / 180th St. SW from 188th St. SW to OVD 112 189th PI. W Walkway from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave W X Improve pedestrian safety along 89th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W 112 15th St. SW Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S X Improve pedestrian safety along 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S 112 Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW X Improve pedestrian safety along Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW 112 95th PI. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW X Improve pedestrian safety along 95th PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW 112 Citywide Crossing Enhancement Improve safety at various pedestrian crossings throughout the City 016 Museum exterior door replacements Replace non -historic doors to comply with historic registry specifications 016 Museum East window replacement double hung sash approved by State Historic Architect 016 Library West deck water seal and repair parking ceiling Waterproof deck and repair pan -deck ceiling at covered parking 016 FAC metal flashing replacement and repair Remove and replace failed metal flashing as needed to eliminate water intrusion 016 PW replace failed insulated window units Replace glazing at failed window units 016 CH replace failed insulated window units Replace glazing at failed window units 016 FAC add building controls to both boiler systems Add Alerton building controls to existing boilers 016 FAC steam radiator retrofits Retrofit steam radiators as needed to replace abandoned or leaking radiators 016 Exterior building washing, sealing and painting Wash seal and paint building exteriors 016 Replace carpeting and flooring Replace warn carpeting and flooring as necessary 016 CH electrical infastructure survey and replacement Survey and replace electrical infastructure at CH, phase 1 of 5 016 Clean and maintenance City facility roofs Cleand inspect and maintain roofs of all City Facilities 016 CH Planned maintenance and replacemnet of HVAC Replace failed HVAC unit and maintain all existing end of life HVAC infastructure. Yearly program 016 Retro comission City building Retro Commission a City building to bring HVAC operation to engineered specifications and optimize DDC system and energy performance. 016 CH heat tape installation Add freeze protection to uninsulated vulnerable water pipes 016 Museum structural analysis of upper fagade Analysis of upper fagade structrure since previous stop gap repair measure 016 Failed sash and glazing replacement Replace failed window sash and glazing at various non -historic locations 016 MCH replace damaged and warn flooring at kitchen and entry Replace existing damaged and warn flooring at Kitchen and entry El r Q Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 159 125 Civic Center Grand stand removal x Consistent with Civic planning process, master plan 125 Community Garden Consistent with PROS plan. 125 City Park Storage buidling Replacement from fire. 125 Waterfront Redevelopment/Walkway completion Consistent with PROS plan. 125 Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds 2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue. 125 Audible Pedestrian Signals 2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue. 125 Minor Sidewalk Program 2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue. 126 Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization (Access Management) 1 12017 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue. 126 220th St. Signal Coordination 1 12017 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue. 132 Civic Stadium Demolition Consistent with PROS plan, master plan 132 Waterfront Revel opment/Walkway Completion Consistient with PROS plan 132 Community Garden Consistent with PROS plan. 132 City Park Storage buidling Replacement from fire. 421 2023 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 2017 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. 423 2023 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr. 423 2017 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr. 4.3.b Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 160 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017) 4.3.b DELETED PROJECTS I CFP I DESCRIPTION FUND PROJECT NAME 112 Five Corners Roundabout X Completed in 2016 112 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Identified as 220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W. 112 Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion Completed in 2016 112 Type 2 Pavement Markers Project to be addressed as part of future overlay projects 112 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S X Completed in 2016 112 Transportation Plan Update Completed in 2015 112 SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study lCompleted in 2015 112 Traffic Calming Program X I Non -growth related project 113 Multimodal Transportation Fund X Fund Deleted per City Council action on October 18, 2016 016 Council/Court Chamber AV upgrade Audio Visual upgrade project 016 MCH gutter replacement Replacement of rain gutters 016 Estimate of CH security needs Estimate and survey of necessary security upgrades 016 FAC spot flooring replacement in Beach Ranger office Replace carpeting at Ranger offices 016 FS16 Generator replacement Replace emergency generator at FS 421 2014 Replacement Program I lCompleted in 2015. 421 2015 Waterline Overlays I lComoleted in 2015. 422 Improvements - Dayton 3rd to 9th This project was combined with the waterline/sewerline project that covers that same area. 422 Storm System Video Assessment Deleted. This project will be covered as part of operations and maintenance. Operations and maintenance will do this work as part of their operations and maintenance tasks. 423 2015 Sewerline Overlays Completed in 2015. 423 Lift Stations 3,4,5,9,10,11,12,14,15 Completed in 2015. 423 Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Completed in 2015. 423 Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Completed in 2015. Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 161 CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017) 4.3.b CHANGED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME CFP CHANGE 016 1 CH security upgrades SecurityUpgrades on hold until recommendations and estimate arrive. 423.76 Repair and Replacement The Secondary Clarifier #3 Structural Repair contract was awarded in 2016. The contractor will not be able to complete the work by the Oct. 2016 so the project may need to be extended. Pagoda repairs have been placed on hold for time being. 423.76 Upgrades Offsite Flow Telemetry project was completed in 2016. The Control System Upgrade will replace aging control system equipment, provide for redundancy and upgrade the operating platform. The 600 PLC is the final element and is scheduled for spring 2017. The project completion was pushed back in order to coordinate work with Phase 5 Energy Project. The SSI project is on hold awaiting EPA approval to install and test the mercury modules. We continue to report compliance status on a monthly basis. The Phase 4 energy improvement project is in close out. The Phase 5 Energy Improvement project has been started. By the end of 2016 the solids conveyor and sludge hopper should be upgraded and the new 126 HP blower has been installed. The project has given us the opportunity Ito optimize the aeration control system. 423.76 Studies and Consulting In the future we will be to study Peracetic Acid disinfection however this may put off until 2018. Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 162 4.3.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 28, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5`' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Daniel Robles (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred to Page 3, which contains a brief update on the Waterfront Access Study. He clarified that a second public meeting was recently held, and his understanding is that the Task Force will be making a recommendation to the City Council via Mayor Earling sometime in October. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Mr. English started his presentation by providing a diagram to illustrate the components of the CIP and CFP, particularly noting differences between the two documents and where they overlap. He explained that both plans identify the six -year capital projects with funding sources, but the CIP also identifies six -year maintenance projects with funding sources and the Packet Pg. 163 4.3.c CFP identifies long-range (20 year) capital project needs. The CFP is divided into three project sections: General (parks, buildings and regional projects), Transportation (safety/capacity and pedestrian bicycle projects), and Utilities. The CIP is organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six - year period. He summarized that the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, linking those projects to the various City funds and revenues, and the CFP is intended to identify longer -term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City level -of -service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, (i.e. transportation, parks, etc.), and there are restrictions on how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. He reviewed each of the funds as follows: • Fund 112 — Transportation. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 116 — Building Maintenance. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 125 — Capital Projects. This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments. Money for this fund comes from the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), and the dollars are split between the two departments. • Fund 126 — Special Capital/Park Acquisition. This fund is supported by REET funds and is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. • Fund 129 — Special Projects. This fund is currently idle and was last used for the Highway 99 International District Lighting Project that was completed a few years ago. Any new capital project would program into this fund. • Fund 132 — Parks Construction (Grant Funding). This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. • Fund 421— Water Projects. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 — Storm Projects. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 — Waste Water Treatment Plant. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. Next, Mr. English recapped some of the larger projects that have been completed or the City is working towards completion of in 2016: • The 228`h Street Corridor Improvement Project started in May of 2015 and reached substantial completion in March of 2016. The project included a new signalized intersection that connects 2281h Street east to west across Highway 99 and into Mountlake Terrace, providing a new east/west connection to Interstate 5. • Safety improvements were completed with a median down Highway 99 to eliminate the left turns from south bound Highway 99 to 76`h Avenue West. This should help reduce accidents and provide safety turning movements. • A sidewalk improvement project on 238th Street between 100th and 104`h Streets was completed via a Safe Routes to Schools Grant. Stormwater funds were used to improve drainage, including bio-retention rain gardens in key locations. The street was also overlaid using funds from the Pavement Restoration Program. • Sewer mains were replaced on Walnut Street, and the project also included new pavement via the Pavement Restoration Program. • On September 271h, the City Council approved a contract for a project on the south side of 2361h Street between SR-104 and Madrona School. The project will include a new sidewalk, with a five-foot path to cross over to school, and curbs and gutters will also be installed. The pavement is in poor condition, so the roadway will be rebuilt. The project will include stormwater and water main work, as well. The City is coordinating with the School District's plan to rebuild the school starting in 2017 to provide a sidewalk leading into the school property. • As part of the Pavement Preservation Program, 9.6 lane miles of roadway were repaved, and pedestrian curb ramp upgrades were completed. • REET dollars (125 and 126 Funds) were used to fund the 2016 Pavement Preservation Program, single cabinet upgrades, traffic calming program, curb ramp upgrades, and an ADA transition plan update. Mr. English reviewed the projects that will be funded in 2017 via the 112 Fund as follows: Planning Board Minutes September 28, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 164 4.3.c The 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Intersection Improvement Project was bid out in May. However, given the bidding climate, the bids came in much higher than the engineer's estimate. Only two bids were received and both were high. The City elected to reject both bids and rebid the project during the winter months. That means the project would likely start in the spring of 2017. In the meantime, the City has applied for additional grant funding from the Transportation Improvement Board, but won't know the outcome of the application until November. This large project will add capacity to the intersection and underground utilities. Chair Lovell pointed out that the project is identified in the CIP as being unfunded at this time. Mr. English said the City has secured federal funding for the project, and has applied for additional grant funding, as well. Chair Lovell referred to the spreadsheet on Page 9 and said it is unclear how much grant funding has been secured in 2016 and how much needs to be secured in 2017. Mr. English agreed to revisit the numbers and update them accordingly. He suggested that perhaps the labels needed to be corrected to more clearly reflect the intent. He said that in addition to grant funding for the project, additional funding will come from the water and storm utility funds, since infrastructure needs to be replaced in the intersection prior to pavement work being done. • Citywide bicycle improvements will continue in 2017. For example, a striping project will occur on 76th Avenue West to add bicycle lanes and change a four -lane facility into a 3-lane facility. This project will likely be bid in conjunction with the intersection improvements to get some economy. • The 238th Street Walkway Project from SR-104 to SR-99 will also be completed in 2017. The City received a grant from the State Transportation Improvement Board and design work has been started. • The City received federal funding to move forward with an overlay of 84th Avenue from 200th Street to 212th Street during the summer of 2017. • REET dollars will be used to install Trackside Warning Systems at Main and Dayton Streets to reduce the sound footprint that the current train horns have. The warning systems will be permanently installed at the intersections, and the horns will blow whenever a train is passing through Edmonds in either direction. The noise from the horns will be more focused at the intersections so there will be less impact to surrounding properties. Mr. English summarized that the Water Utility Fund (421) supported the replacement of 4,850 feet of water main in 2016, and 3,400 feet of street affected by waterline replacements was overlaid. In 2017 it is anticipated that 7,300 feet of water main will be replaced and 8,200 feet of street affected by waterline replacement will be overlaid. Mr. English also reviewed that the Stormwater Utility Fund (422) supported the 238th Street drainage improvements that were completed in 2016, as well as the new pipe and infiltration gallery in southwest Edmonds between 106th and 105th Street. The 2017 projects include the Seaview infiltration project, further design of the Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh project, an update of the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, and installation of the Dayton Street Pump Station. He explained that the Seaview project is funded via a grant and will help reduce the number of surges from stormwater flowing into Perrinville Creek. The Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh project is ongoing, and it is anticipated that final design work and permitting can move forward in 2017. He explained that during heavy rain events and high tide, the intersection at Dayton Street and SR- 104 floods. Given its proximity to the marsh, Willow Creek, the outfall, and the tide, the solution is complicated. As proposed, a lift station will be installed off of Dayton Street in the fishing pier parking lot as a first step to solve the flooding problems at the intersection. Lastly, Mr. English reviewed that in 2016 the Sewer Utility Fund (423) supported the replacement of 2,000 feet of sewer main and the rehabilitation of 6,400 feet of sewer main using the cured -in -place process (CIPP). In addition, it funded 1,075 of pavement overlay on streets affected by the sewer main replacement projects. It is anticipated that 2,900 feet of sewer main will be replaced in 2017, with 3,000 feet of CIPP rehabilitation and pavement overlay on 8,600 feet of street affected by sewer main replacement. A large wastewater treatment project is in process near the ferry holding lanes where the secondary clarifier is being replaced. The project should be completed in October. Planning Board Minutes September 28, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 165 4.3.c Chair Lovell asked if the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis relates to the work being done by the Railroad Crossing Task Force. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. Chair Lovell asked why no funding has been set aside for this project in the next four years. Mr. English said there is still momentum to move a crossing project forward, and the task force will continue its work. The Mayor is currently working on the 2017 budget, which will be presented to the City Council in October. They will know more about funding after the draft budget has been released. In addition, the City has applied for some transportation grants to continue the work. At this point, it is too early to know if there will be funding for the project, and it was included in the CFP as a placeholder. Mr. English summarized that staff begins working on the CIP and CFP updates in July, and a preliminary draft is typically presented to the Planning Board in September. A public hearing on the CIP and CFP is scheduled for October 12' , after which the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. Updated documents will be provided at the hearing, including more detailed information to outline the differences between 2016 and 2017. Staff is scheduled to make an initial presentation to the City Council on October 18th, with a public hearing on November I". Using the Board's input and public comments, the City Council will discuss the draft documents and make revisions. It is anticipated that final adoption will occur in November or December. Once adopted, the CFP will be included as part of the next batch of Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Board Member Monroe requested more information about the Citywide Capital Renewal Program, which is listed on Page 11 of the CIP. Ms. Hite said this program is managed by the Facilities Division. She explained that, in years past, the program has had minimal funding, and many infrastructure renewal projects have been deferred. This year, Mayor Earling is proposing that a lump sum be set aside for doing renewal of the City's capital assets. The Capital Facilities Manager has prepared a list of needs, and the projects will be funded by the $1.5 million set aside for the Capital Renewal Program. The intent is to chip away at the projects each year. For example, there are numerous needs at the Frances Anderson Center that have been deferred from previous years. Board Member Stewart said she is excited to see the projects that have been accomplished during the year, as well as projects that will happen going forward. She asked if staff could provide the Board and City Council with a copy of the list of projects associated with the Capital Renewal Project. Ms. Hite agreed to provide the list as an attachment for the public hearing. Board Member Stewart asked if City staff works to coordinate infrastructure projects so they can be done simultaneously. For example, are sewer and water main replacements coordinated so they are completed before a street is overlaid. Mr. English answered affirmatively. Once a significant project has been identified, City staff inspects the condition of other elements, such as water and sewer mains. If needed, the pro�ects can be done simultaneously. For example, he referred to the Dayton Street Project that took place between P and 9 Avenues, which was initiated as a stormwater improvement. After doing a comprehensive review of the other utilities, the project was expanded to include water and sewer main improvements, as well. The project at the 212th Street intersection is another example of a combined project. It initially started as a transportation capacity project, but after evaluating the condition of the utilities, replacement of the sewer and stormwater mains were incorporated into the project. Board Member Stewart reviewed that frontage improvements, including sidewalks, are required for any new development in the City. She voiced concern that, sometimes the improvements that are made are torn up just a few years later to accommodate a City improvement project. She asked if it is possible for City staff to help developers anticipate the future improvements and perhaps postpone or defer the frontage improvements until the City's larger project moves forward. Mr. English said City staff has more control when it comes to coordinating City projects, but it is more difficult for private development. A good example is the 200th Street Overlay Project. A developer found out about the project via the notification process and the City worked with the developer to get the connections made to the City's systems before the overlay project moved forward. He said staff tries to coordinate city projects and development proposals through the building permit application. Ideally, the City can hold off on a project to allow a developer to get his/her work done, but he acknowledged that is not always the case. Board Member Stewart summarized that the City should do its part to help property owners by allowing them to postpone the improvements until they can be coordinated with larger, planned City projects. Planning Board Minutes September 28, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 166 4.3.c Board Member Stewart asked if Planning Board Members would have an opportunity to provide feedback relative to the fitness stations that are proposed for City parks. Ms. Hite answered that she would love to have feedback from the Board as the project moves forward. Board Member Stewart asked if funding for open space acquisition is included in the CIP. Ms. Hite answered that she programs $200,000 into each year's budget for open space acquisition. She agreed it is important to include this in the yearly discussions, and she will add it to her presentation for the public hearing. She said it would be helpful to have feedback from the Board as to whether they support rolling this funding over from year-to-year until an opportunity comes up. Board Member Stewart observed that, as land continues to be developed, the City should remain open to opportunities to acquire open space. Once land is developed, the opportunity will be lost. Board Member Cheung asked how the City prioritizes the capital improvement projects. Mr. English explained that, from a pavement preservation standpoint, staff evaluates the condition of the pavement each year and places a rating on the streets. They also try to coordinate the work with needed utility replacement projects. For example, a street overlay may be postponed if the City knows that a water or sewer main project will be needed in the near future so that the two projects can be coordinated and completed at the same time. As far as capital project prioritization, there is very limited funding, and the City typically uses grant opportunities as a way to prioritize these projects. First, they look at the prioritized list of projects in the 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan. As grant opportunities come up, staff selects the most competitive projects that fit the particular grant requirements. Typically, the transportation capital infrastructure budget is very small (between $140,000 and $150,000). Additional funding for capital projects comes from grants and from traffic impact fees. On the other hand, Mayor Earling has made pavement preservation a priority for the past few years. Board Member Cheung asked how citizens can recommend transportation improvement projects for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Plan. Mr. English explained that, from a planning standpoint, staff uses the list that is included in the Transportation Improvement Plan, which an adopted element of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the Transportation Improvement Plan included an extensive public process that allowed the public to identify projects they felt were most important. During the most recent update, a sidewalk committee was formed to evaluate each street and identify where sidewalks are needed. Citizens can contact the Public Works or Engineering Department to provide feedback on potential projects, and staff will evaluate the situation to determine what the appropriate solution might be. Vice Chair Rubenkonig added that the Police Department also takes note of situations were a high number of accidents are occurring. Board Member Crank said she appreciates the work that was done at the intersection of 228th Street and Highway 99. However, some people are questioning the design of the median, which appears to have benches where people can sit. Mr. English advised that the design was intended to provide relief to the median's appearance. There are a lot of design options to choose from, but it was felt that the concrete or grass median was not very aesthetically pleasing for this location. Given the speed of traffic along the corridor, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) also felt that the taller median was needed for safety reasons. The center section of the median has a colored concrete stamp that was intended to provide an aesthetic element to the median as opposed to a concrete covered center. Board Member Crank referred to the new flashing traffic signal that was installed at Edmonds Way and 232nd Street. She asked if the area is currently being monitored and if there has been an uptick in traffic volumes as a result of the new marijuana business and proposed new residential development. Mr. English agreed to looking into the issue and provide a better answer about traffic volumes at the public hearing. He recalled that the SR-104 Corridor Analysis that was recently completed looked at the entire corridor through Edmonds. It identified several recommendations for capital improvement projects to make the corridor more pedestrian friendly and safe. Board Member Crank asked if there have been any reports of traffic accidents associated with the newly installed Luminous Forest. Ms. Hite advised that the Police Department had some concerns when the it was first installed, and the artist advised that after the installation has been on for one month, the surface will become scratched and dim. She hasn't heard of any accidents on 4tb Avenue to date. Board Member Crank said she would love to see the community garden concept come to fruition. It would be a very attractive amenity for apartment dwellers. Ms. Hite agreed, but explained that the City has had a difficult time finding an appropriate location. It was originally planned for the south side of the Old Woodway High School site, but because of Planning Board Minutes September 28, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 167 4.3.c controversy surrounding the athletic fields, staff decided against pursuing that location. She expressed her belief that the park in Esperance would be good location for a community garden, and she will continue to work with Snohomish County to make that happen. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she has had a long-standing concern about the intersection at 76th Avenue and 212th Street for a number of years. The last time the CIP was before the Board, she requested that the City consider placing an "all walk" crossing at this intersection. She lives in the area and is at the intersection often. It seems like an all walk would make it faster for the students to get across the road. She asked if this could be included in the 2016 CIP. Mr. English said the concept has been discussed by staff and it comes down to finding a balance between pedestrian safety and getting vehicles through the intersection. He agreed to talk to the Transportation Engineer to get more information about the concept and then report back to the Board at their next meeting. Chair Lovell observed that this is the first time that neither the CIP nor CFP identifies funding for the Edmonds Crossing Project. He assumes that staff will provide an explanation for this change and indicate whether the funds that were previously allocated would be used elsewhere. Mr. English said there have been no changes associated with the Edmonds Crossing Project. The project is currently identified as unknown based on WSDOT's current planning horizon for the multi - modal terminal, which is beyond 2035 or even 2040. Although the project is still included on WSDOT's list of future improvements, it remains unfunded, and the City does not know when funding will be allocated for it to move forward. When the capital plan for the ferry is updated in the future, the City may have more information about the project's timing. Chair Lovell commented that it is good to see that there are a lot of projects taking shape to meet the needs and cravings of the citizens. Things are moving towards the betterment of the City's infrastructure overall. He asked if there has been any interface between various City departments and the Tree Board, particularly in regard to street trees. The impact that some species of street trees can have on sidewalk infrastructure is becoming a big concern, as repair and/or replacement is often required. He noted that concern has also been raised about the types of trees that are planted at the Civic Center Field, which could end up blocking views. Ms. Hite said managing trees requires a joint effort, and the Parks, Planning and Public Works staff all work with the Tree Board, depending on the topic. Chair Lovell said he has heard that effort is being made to ensure that new trees are selected to be the right species, size and growth pattern to protect the City's infrastructure. Chair Lovell announced that a public hearing on the draft CIP and CFP is scheduled for October 12th. He encouraged Board Members to forward any outstanding questions directly to staff so they can be answered at the public hearing. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed the updated Extended Agenda, noting that a public hearing on the CIP and CFP is scheduled for October 12th. Staff will also present an update on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments pertaining to parks, Highway 99, street trees and water. On October 26th, the agenda will include a presentation on the University of Washington/Forterra Plan that was prepared for Five Corners, a discussion on the land use procedures code update, and an update on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crank reported that she and Vice Chair Rubenkonig attended the City's Volunteer Dinner. Board Member Monroe reported on his attendance at the September 21st meeting of the Edmonds Citizens Economic Development Commission where they put together a list of recommendations related to the Civic Field Master Plan. Most of the recommendations were driven by economic development. For example, they want to see a playfield that can attract users who will presumably shop in downtown Edmonds. The list was presented to the City Council on September 27th. Planning Board Minutes September 28, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 168 4.3.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 12, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5`' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Malia Clark, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe (excused) Todd Cloutier (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder Chair Lovell introduced Malia Clark, the Board's new Student Representative, who is a senior at Edmonds Woodway High School and also participates in the group, Students Saving Salmon. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the presentation and dialogue provided at the Board's last meeting by the City Engineer, Rob English, and the Parks, Recreational and Cultural Services Director, Carrie Hite, was well document in the minutes. They provided an excellent orientation to the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. Ms. Hite invited the Board Members to attend an open house on October 19"" from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room, where the hybrid plan for Civic Park Master Plan will be unveiled. After the plan has been presented, the public will be invited to provide feedback. An on-line open house will follow for two weeks to solicit additional public feedback. At Packet Pg. 169 4.3.d the close of the on-line open house, the hybrid design will be presented to the Planning Board for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will also conduct a public hearing before making a final decision on the master plan design. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. He reported that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met recently with Mayor Earling and received an update on the Sustainable Cities Partnership, a collaboration between Western Washington University and the City of Edmonds. Mayor Earling advised that there is currently a lot of activity and the students are moving forward with the projects identified as part of the program. He spoke very positively about the experience thus far. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing, which would start with a staff report by Mr. English and Ms. Hite. Mr. English started his presentation by providing a diagram to illustrate the components of the CIP and CFP, particularly noting the differences between the two documents and where they overlap. The CFP is a planning document that includes the 20-year projects and 6-year projects to address roads. The CIP identifies the short-term horizon projects that include both capital and maintenance projects over the next six years. The overlap is where the six -year capital projects relate to growth; these projects will be in both plans. The CFP is divided into three project sections: General (parks, buildings and regional projects), Transportation (safety/capacity and pedestrian bicycle projects), and Utilities. The CIP is organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six -year period. He reviewed each of the funds as follows: • Fund 112 — Transportation. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 116 — Building Maintenance. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 125 — Capital Projects. This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments. Money for this fund comes from the Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET), and the dollars are split between the two departments. • Fund 126 — Special Capital/Park Acquisition. This fund is supported by REET funds and is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. • Fund 129 — Special Projects. This fund is currently idle and was last used for the Highway 99 International District Lighting Project that was completed a few years ago. Any new capital project would program into this fund. • Fund 132 — Parks Construction (Grant Funding). This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. • Fund 421— Water Projects. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 — Storm Projects. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 — Waste Water Treatment Plant. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. Next, Mr. English recapped some of the larger projects that have been completed or the City is working towards completion of in 2016: • The 228 h Street Corridor Improvement Project started in May of 2015 and reached substantial completion in March of 2016. The project included a new signalized intersection that connects 228th Street east to west across Highway 99 and into Mountlake Terrace, providing a new east/west connection to Interstate 5. • The 228`h Street Sidewalk Improvement Project connects 1001h Street to 104`h Street with sidewalks on the north side. This project was funded by a Safe Routes to Schools Grant. • The Pavement Restoration Program is a program that Mayor Earling has prioritized and funded for the fourth year in a row using Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue from the 126 Fund. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 170 4.3.d • A walkway project will start soon on 236 h Street, from SR-104 to Madrona School. This project will also be funded by a Safe Routes to Schools Grant. Mr. English reviewed some of the projects that will be funded in 2017: • The 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Intersection Improvement Project was bid out in May. However, given the bidding climate, the bids came in much higher than the engineer's estimate. The City elected to reject the bids and rebid the project during the winter months. That means the project would likely start in the spring of 2017. In the meantime, the City has applied for additional grant funding from the Transportation Improvement Board, but won't know the outcome of the application until November. • Citywide bicycle improvements will continue in 2017. For example, a striping project will occur on 76t' Avenue West in conjunction with the intersection improvements described above. As proposed, the roadway would change from four to three lanes, and a bicycle lane would be added. • The 238th Street Walkway Project from SR-104 to SR-99 will also be completed in 2017. The City received a grant from the State Transportation Improvement Board and design work has been started. • The City received federal funding to move forward with an overlay of 84th Avenue from 200th Street to 212th Street during the summer of 2017. • REET dollars will be used to install Trackside Warning Systems on Railroad Avenue at the Main and Dayton Street intersections to reduce the sound footprint that the current train horns have. The warning systems will be permanently installed at the intersections, and the horns will blow whenever a train is passing through Edmonds in either direction. The noise from the horns will be more focused at the intersections so there will be less impact to surrounding properties. Mr. English advised that, since the Board's last meeting, the Mayor approved his "decision package, which identifies projects that staff identified for 2017. The package includes: • Funding of $1.1 million for the Pavement Preservation Program, which is a critical piece of the City's ability to maintain infrastructure. • Funding for pre -design work for the access management on SR-99 between 2161h and 2241h Streets. The City has observed a higher accident problem along this stretch of roadway related to the two-way left turn lane on SR-99. The intent is to go forward with pre -design of the improvements in 2017. • In coordination with Mountlake Terrace, the City has applied for a grant to coordinate the signals on 2201h Street, which is badly needed. If the grant application is successful, the 2017 budget includes the matching funds to move the project forward. • $150,000 has been set aside to match grant dollars to continue to pursue alternatives for a waterfront at -grade crossing. The committee will present the results of their study to the Mayor soon, and a presentation will be made to the City Council in late October or early November. • The proposed 2017 budget includes funding to replace 7,300 feet of water main and 2,900 feet of sewer main. It also includes funding to rehabilitate 3,000 feet of sewer main. Ms. Hite reviewed the 2016 projects that were completed by the Parks and Recreation Department in 2016 as follows: • The City acquired the Civic Field property and is currently in the process of completing a master plan for its redevelopment. The consultant is working on a hybrid plan that will be unveiled at a public open house on October 19th Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 171 4.3.d • The spray park at City Park was opened in the spring and had a very successful summer. • The Dayton Street Plaza is nearly completed and it is already heavily used. They are currently in the last stages of landscaping. • The temporary art installation (Luminous Forest) on 4th Avenue was completed, and wayfinding signs were installed throughout the City. • The Marina Beach Park Master Plan was completed in early 2016, and the intent is to formally adopted the plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan before the end of the year. • The Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is nearing completion, and it expected to open with a ribbon -cutting ceremony on November 15''. • The Downtown Public Restroom Project is currently under construction near City Hall. • The Yost Spa Project is currently in progress. However, the project had to be redesigned in order to meet current code requirements. • The Frances Anderson Center Stage Replacement Project is currently in progress. • The design work for the Veteran's Project was completed. The City received two bids that were higher than the engineer's estimate, and the project is being rebid. • The playground equipment at Marina Beach Park has been replaced, and they are currently working to replace the equipment at the Meadowdale Preschool playground. Next, Ms. Hite reviewed the proposed 2017 projects as follows: • The Edmonds Marsh and Daylighting of Willow Creek Project is ongoing. The City has obtained grant funding to continue the feasibility study, and they have applied for other competitive grants, as well. • Parklet Projects will move forward in 2017, as will the Outdoor Fitness Zone Project • Gateway replacement is ongoing and in process. • The City is partnering with the City of Lynnwood to rehabilitate the Meadowdale Playfields. • The City's storage building burned down earlier in the year, and the City has received reimbursement from its insurance company. Considering the storage needs of both the Facilities and Parks and Recreation Departments, staff is proposing that the building be rebuilt to a size that is nearly 2.5 times larger but in the same location. • There is funding left from the state grant that was used to acquire Civic Field, and the City has received permission from the State to use the funds to demolish the grandstands. • Funding was set aside in the 2016 CIP for a community garden, and staff is working with Snohomish County regarding the possibility of partnering to create a community garden as Esperance Park. • The bids received for the Veteran's Plaza were rejected, and the City will go out to bid again soon. They expect to break ground in early 2017 and open the plaza in May of 2017. • The Senior Center is undertaking a capital program to redevelop the site into a Waterfront Center, and the City has discussed the opportunity to redevelop the waterfront at the same time. This will involve removing the existing creosote Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 172 4.3.d pilings, reconfiguring the park, adding a bioswale and raingardens to filter runoff from the parking lot before it goes into the Sound, adding a hand boat launch, providing more access to the beach, and adding a picnic area with a natural access to the senior center. In addition, the City is currently in discussions with the owners of the Ebb Tide Condominiums to complete the waterfront walkway in front of their building within the City's 10-foot easement. The City has applied for two $50,000 grants, and the project has scored high on both. The City has also set aside park impact fee dollars for the proj ect. • Land acquisition is a high priority in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, and the proposed budget sets aside an additional $200,000 for this purpose. The intent is to having matching funds for grants available when opportunities to acquire land come about. Ms. Hite said staff is recommending that the Cultural Arts Facilities Needs Study be deleted from the CFP. While the study could still be done, it would be more of an operational project than a capital project. If a study determines that the City needs a facility at some point in the future, it can be added to the CFP. Also, the Downtown Restroom Project should be completed by the end of the year and can be removed from the 2017 CFP. Ms. Hite advised that, since the last meeting, the CIP was updated to highlight "land acquisition" as a goal. As requested by the Board at their last meeting, Mr. English provided a handout that lists the needs that were identified by the Capital Facilities Manager for the 2017 Citywide Capital Renewal Program. He explained that, in past years, the budget for capital facilities maintenance has been about $55,000. The Capital Facilities Manager requested that this amount be increased up to $400,000 to quick start the program of investing in and maintaining the City's existing facilities. The projects include roof repairs, painting, carpeting, seal coating, etc. Mr. English recalled that the Board also asked him to provide more information about traffic volumes on SR-104. He advised that the State does a number of traffic counts along the highway starting from the Ferry Terminal all the way to Interstate 5. While the 2016 counts are not available, the 2015 counts can be compared to previous years. The counts conclude that there was no increase in traffic volume from the ferry to 238th Street, but there was a small increase of 2% from 240th Street to Interstate 5. At their last meeting, Board Member Crank asked how new development along SR-104 might impact traffic volumes. He learned that the new development she referred to was actually permitted by Snohomish County so the City does not have any transportation data. However, it is likely that the development had very little impact to the overall traffic volumes on the highway. Mr. English recalled that, at their last meeting, Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked about the possibility of adding an "all -walk" phase at the intersection of 212th Street and 76th Avenue to provide a safer pedestrian access for high school students. He acknowledged that the concept has been used in select locations across the country, and it amounts to adding another phase to the signal timing that closes the movement of traffic on all four lanes of the intersection to allow pedestrians to cross. He explained that the City's current Level of Service (LOS) Standard for arterials is LOS D or better, and the proposed project would improve the intersection to LOS D. If an all -walk phase were added, the standard at the intersection would change to LOS E. He reminded the Board that the City secured a $3.96 million grant from the Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Fund, and the purpose of the grant was to improve air quality by reducing emissions and congestion. As currently proposed, the intersection project would reduce emissions for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen. The benefit of the project is that reducing congestion will bring down emissions and that is why the City received the funding. It would be difficult to change the project to add an all -walk phase because it would reduce the LOS standard and increase emissions. Staff is proposing that the project be constructed as currently designed. Mr. English summarized his presentation by reviewing that after the public hearing the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The CIP and CFP, along with the Board's recommendation, will be presented to the City Council for a study session, followed by a public hearing on November 1st Chair Lovell opened the public portion of the hearing. However, there was no one in the audience, and the public portion of the hearing was subsequently closed. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 173 4.3.d Board Member Crank asked if the overlay project on 84th Avenue between 220th Street and 2121h Street would take place while school is in session. Mr. English said that, if all goes well, the intent is to do the work during the summer when school is on break. Board Member Crank said she is glad to hear that the City's goal is to do the Waterfront Redevelopment Project in tandem with the Senior Center's Waterfront Center Project. She said she serves on the Senior Center Board, and the plan to talk about fundraising and strategies at their upcoming retreat. Board Member Crank referred to the funding set aside for land acquisition and asked if there are targeted properties the City is looking to acquire. Ms. Hite answered that the PROS Plan identifies areas of the City that are not as well served by parks and open space, and the City will look for opportunities to acquire additional land to serve these neighborhoods. In addition, the City is always looking for opportunities to acquire properties along Shell Creek and other properties that run parallel to the watersheds. However, the City must also consider the need to maintain the park space it already has. It requires a balancing act. Board Member Crank thanked Mr. English for providing data about traffic volumes on SR-104. She appreciates that data is needed to make a case for improvements, and she looks forward to comparing 2016 data to previous years to determine the impact of new development. She noted that, just tonight, the light stopped blinking because there was an emergency vehicle coming through the intersection. People are accustomed to the light blinking, and a car was almost hit when it did not stop at the light. She said she hopes new data will support the need for a study to see if mitigation is needed. Board Member Cheung asked if the Traffic Engineer's analysis of an all -walk phase at the intersection of 212`h Street and 76`h Avenue considered that the phase would only need to be activated during certain times of the day (when students arrive, when students leave, and when students go to lunch). Mr. English acknowledged that the phase could be timed to only activate during certain times of the day, but the morning period when students are arriving at school is also during the peak commute period. Board Member Cheung asked if LOS D could be maintained with an all -walk phase that only operate during certain times of the day as described above. Mr. English said more traffic modeling would be needed to answer that question. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that adding an all -walk phase at the intersection of 76th Avenue and 212`h Street would minimize the pedestrians' exposure to pollution. Mr. English agreed that is possible, but it would depend on when the pedestrian reaches the intersection. Depending on the phase of the light, a pedestrian may have to wait longer if an all -walk phase were added. He also voiced concern that students may get impatient waiting for the signal and cross against traffic. Chair Lovell asked if the Traffic Engineer has solicited feedback from the Edmonds School District relative to the proposed changes at the intersection of 76th Avenue and 212th Street. Mr. English answered that the City has worked closely with the school district to coordinate the phasing of the intersection improvements, and the school district has voiced support for the proposed changes. The district has not requested an all -walk phase. Ms. Clark said she uses the intersection at 76th Avenue and 212'h Street often, and it could use some work. She often has to wait about five minutes to cross the street, and she knows that some students become impatient and jay walk. Mr. English explained that, currently, the intersection lacks turning movement, which means it takes longer for cars and pedestrians to get through the sequence. With the proposed changes, the left turn lanes going north/south will go at the same time, which allows the light to cycle faster. The same would be done for the east/west lanes. Board Member Cheung asked if the intersection improvements would include left turns on a blinking light. Mr. English said they have not made a firm decision on this option because it could lead to conflicts with the high school. A left -turn arrow would hold up pedestrians. With a flashing yellow light for left turns, there is a potential that a student could be hit while using a crosswalk if a driver sees a break in traffic and initiates the turn. Staff will continue to evaluate the option, but his first thought is that it would not be appropriate in this location. Board Member Cheung asked if it would be possible to time the lights so that the flashing turn is available only when school is not in session. Mr. English agreed that is a possibility. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 174 4.3.d Chair Lovell thanked Ms. Hite and Mr. English for providing responses to the issues and concerns raised by the Board at their last meeting. He asked that these responses also be conveyed to the City Council for consideration in their review of the CIP and CFP. Chair Lovell requested clarification on the funding that is currently available for the Veteran's Plaza. Ms. Hite answered that the City will contribute $30,000 to the project, and the remaining portion of the $550,000 cost will come from fundraising. Chair Lovell asked if the City is contemplating that work will start on the Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in 2017. Ms. Hite said the goal is to do the projects in tandem. However, it is possible that the Senior Center will not reach its funding goal in time to complete the project during the fish window, and the Waterfront Center Project will have to be postponed until 2018. Based on grant funding, it may be necessary for the City to move forward with the Waterfront Redevelopment Project in 2017. Again, she said the City's goal is to move the two projects forward in 2017, hoping that the Senior Center will be ready, as well. Board Member Crank advised that the Senior Center's target is to break ground on the project in September of 2017. Ms. Hite emphasized that there is a fish window that limits when waterfront development can occur, and it happens to be during the summer months. Ms. Crank said the Senior Center Board's goal is to meet that window. Board Member Robles asked for clarification of the small boat launch that is proposed as part of the waterfront redevelopment project. Ms. Hite said this would be a hand launch facility that is not meant for large boats. She referred to the proposed design of the project and noted the location of the boat launch. She explained that the ramp would serve a dual purpose for launching small watercraft (kayaks, paddleboards, etc.) and providing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access. Board Member Stewart referred to Page 150 of the Staff Report that describes the Edmonds Marsh Feasibility and Restoration/Walkway Project, which is estimated to cost $155,000. She asked if the project would include a new walkway around the marsh. Ms. Hite said the project includes restoration of the current walkway, which is queued up for 2017. However, the work done by the Western Washington University Students as part of the Sustainable Cities Project will include consideration of a boardwalk all the way around the marsh. Several community citizens have volunteered to participate on a focus group to discuss the concept further. Board Member Stewart asked if the walkway that is proposed in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums would be ADA accessible. Ms. Hite answered that there would be two sections of stairs to provide broader accessibility, but the boardwalk would all be accessible. The boardwalk proposed in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums would connect the north and south portions of the existing boardwalk together. Board Member Stewart noted that there are redundancies in the CIP, as some projects appear to be listed twice, and the dollar amounts do not match up. Ms. Hite said the redundancy has to do with the different funds that are used for the projects. In many cases, funding will come from a variety of sources and/or funds. Board Member Stewart said she is glad that the documents identify certain properties the City is keeping an eye on for park acquisition. There is forest land in the northern portion of the City that has been on and off the market for quite some time and is part of the Perrinville Creek Drainage Basin. There is a real desire in the neighborhood for the City to acquire this property, and it can only happen if funding is available. She suggested that the City allocate a significantly larger amount in 2017 to allow the City to competitively bid for the property. Ms. Hite commented that this would be difficult. She explained that Mayor Earling weighs out all of the priorities for the City and attempts to balance all needs when allocating the REET dollars in the 126 Fund. For example, the 126 Fund is also used to support the Street Preservation and Facilities Restoration Programs, which both have a backlog of projects. In addition to acquiring more park and open space, it is also important for the City to adequately maintain their existing properties. However, she agreed to make note of Board Member Stewart's request when presenting the CIP and CFP to the City Council. Board Member Stewart commented that the City could establish a donor program to provide funding support for future park and open space acquisition. Ms. Hite agreed and said that she has been working with Council Member Mesaros to pursue this option further. Board Member Stewart agreed to assist in the effort. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 175 4.3.d Vice Chair Rubenkonig requested clarification relative to the schedule for the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project, which is described on Page 58 of the Staff Report. Mr. English reviewed that staff provided a report to the City Council in August relative to the concept of building a walkway on the west side of Sunset Avenue. Currently, there is temporary striping that designates a walkway area, but there has been quite a lot of discussion about where the parking should be located, what kind of parking should be provided, etc. Parallel with the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project is a utility improvement project. The City is considering options for improving the lift station on Sunset Avenue south of Caspers Street to install a new gravity line to take sewage to the treatment plant rather than having to pump it. A waterline also needs to be replaced. No permanent walkway or designated parking would be constructed until after the utility work has been completed in 2017. He agreed to clarify the schedule in the project description. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that the proposed sidewalk project on 232nd Street SW from 100th Avenue W to SR-104 (Page 60 of the Staff Report) would provide the fastest walking route to Westgate from the intersection with SR-104, and the City should encourage people to use it as such. She also suggested that the CIP and CFP should include a listing of the sources recommending action to help citizens know how long a project has been in the making, and the embedded vicinity maps may be easier to navigate if compass points were included. While providing footage of the sidewalk projects has begun, it could be completed, and highlighting project areas could assist the reader in identifying the size and location of the proposed work. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked for clarification about the Pine Ridge Forest Management Study, which is described on Page 105 of the Staff Report. In particular, she asked if the City has done similar studies for other parks in the past. Ms. Hite explained that the Public Works, Planning and Parks Departments are coordinating an effort to complete an Urban Forestry Management Plan for the entire City in 2016 and 2017, but there are a lot of older trees in Pine Ridge Park that warrant an evaluation to assess the City's liability, etc. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the acronym WWTP (Page 117 of the Staff Report) should be spelled out as the Waste Water Treatment Plant. She also referred to the Table that lists the publicly -owned facilities in Edmonds and other nearby areas and suggested that the Civic Center Playfield should be removed from the list of school district properties and added to the list of City -owned properties. VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) FOR 2016 THROUGH 2O22 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE BOARD. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:20 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:27 P.M. 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Mr. Chave reviewed that the most recent Comprehensive Plan update was completed in 2015, and included a major review as required by the Growth Management Act. Typically, the City undertakes relatively minor amendments in intervening years. This year's amendments will include the following: Amending the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the updated CFP. Amending the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan to include the adopted Marina Beach Master Plan as a new "Appendix D." Appendix A would also be amended to acknowledge and reflect the Marina Beach Master Plan. Amending the Capital Facilities Element to add an implementation action that would read, "Develop level of service standards for key public facilities by the end of 2017 and consider including the standards in the Comprehensive Plan." In addition to the amendments listed above, Mr. Chave advised that two more substantial amendments are currently being developed: The Water Comprehensive Plan and the Street Tree Plan. Drafts of each of the plans are due before the end of Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 176 4.3.d 2016, and approval is scheduled for the first quarter of 2017. Any specific references to the current plans will need to be updated, as well. The two plans will be ready for the Planning Board's consideration after the first of the year. Mr. Chave summarized that the Board has completed its public hearing and recommendation to the City Council relative to Amendment 1, and the public hearings for Amendments 2 and 3 are scheduled for November 9"h. Chair Lovell asked if the City plans to hire a consultant to assist staff in preparing an Urban Forestry Management Plan. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and noted that funding has been allocated for the project, and staff is working on a Request for Proposals. However, the Street Tree Plan is separate and will precede the Urban Forestry Management Plan. Chair Lovell said his understanding is that the Marina Beach and Civic Field Master Plans, once adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, will represent what the community wants programmatically for the two sites, but they should not be considered final designs. Ms. Hite agreed that the master plans should not be considered design or construction documents. Instead, they are schematic designs that represent the community's thoughts and desires. It is always good practice to officially adopt the master plans into the Comprehensive Plan so there are no questions about the process. Once adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, Parks staff will have a green light to put together a financial package for future implementation. Chair Lovell asked if the consultant who creates the final park designs would be obligated to prepare design documents that are consistent with the Master Plans. Ms. Hite answered yes, but commented that the master plans are quite broad and design decisions will need to be made throughout the process. The City will go through a competitive bidding process for design consultants, and it is likely this effort will involve a citizen's committee, as well. Sometimes, the entity that created the schematic design is the one most qualified to do the final design work. For example, the current contract with Walker Massey for the Civic Field Master Plan also includes language for them to amend the contract to go into design development if the City so chooses. That was not the case with the Marina Beach Master Plan contract, since development of the park is three to five years out. Board Member Stewart requested clarification of the proposed amendment to Goal 4, Policy 4.H of the PROS Plan. Ms. Hite reviewed that when the Marina Beach Master Plan was created, numerous people voiced support for the dog park to remain as an element of the park. Goal 4 was added to the PROS Plan to address the concern about potential impacts to sensitive areas. Staff is suggesting the language be amended to make it more powerful and applicable to all parks in the City. The new language would read, "Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical area regulations and the Shoreline Master Program." She summarized that the proposed language is intended to make the City pay attention to potential impacts in all design and develop a balance. Board Member Stewart asked for specific language in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Although she acknowledged that the dog park is well -loved by the community, the community must also be made aware of what is happening to the land as a result of the non -conforming use (dog park). Although dog owners do a good job of cleaning up their pets' feces, Keeley O'Connell, restoration biologist on contract with the City, previously pointed out to the Board that the urine is what completely decimates the marine flora on the shoreline. She said she has been a naturalist for years at Discovery Park where there is a diverse display of habitat, but less so on the Edmonds beaches. If you walk through Marina Beach Park, there is a noticeable wasteland effect as you walk through the dog park and habitat returns as you walk further south along the beach. As habitat improvements occur down the road and conversations and public education continues to evolve, people will become aware that there could be better alternatives. She said she hopes that this will be part of the conservation going forward, and she questioned if the proposed amendment to Goal 4 would provide adequate protection for the area. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if developing LOS standards for key public facilities would be a Planning Board responsibility. Mr. Chave answered yes, but only to the extent that they are included in the planning documents. Many of the standards are already in place, such as transportation. Mr. Chave advised that the draft amendments are scheduled for a public hearing before the Board on November 9t'. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 177 4.3.d REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed that the Board's October 26th agenda includes an update by the consultant on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and a presentation by representatives from Sound Transit relative to the Sound Transit 3 initiative that will be on the November ballot. The November 9"b agenda will include a public hearing on the Civic Center Master Plan and a Public Hearing on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendments. The November 23`d meeting has been cancelled. The December 14th meeting tentatively includes a public hearing on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, as well as election of officers and a presentation of the Five Corners Plan that was prepared by students from the University of Washington and Forterra. The December 28th meeting has been cancelled. Chair Lovell reported that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met with Mayor Earling recently and learned that the terms of four Board Members will expire at the end of 2016. Board Members who want to be reappointed for another term should notify the Mayor as soon as possible. After further discussion, Chair Lovell indicated he would notify the Mayor that he and Board Members Crank and Rubenkonig want to be reappointed for another term, but Board Member Stewart does not. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Stewart announced that Students Saving Salmon will be meeting with stream -side property owners and residents on Saturday, October 15th, to discuss how they can improve conditions along the waterways for salmon habitat. They will be asking if salmon has been spotted and help them understand how to identify them and become more vigilant. The students will report their findings to the press and City Council in a timely manner. Board Member Robles gave a shout out to Perrinville, which now has an anchor restaurant and no franchise businesses. All of the businesses are community based, and the area is very well done. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the fitness station that is located in the plaza/garden of the Waste Water Treatment Center is an example of the proposed new fitness zones. Ms. Hite said the fitness station at the plaza/garden only has three elements, and the proposed new fitness zones will have eight to ten components that will be more dynamic and have various functions. She recalled that Board Members Monroe and Stewart agreed to work with staff to select the fitness zone components. Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that there will be an open house regarding the Highway 99 Subarea Plan on November 10`h from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. on the 4`' Floor at Swedish Hospital, and Chair Lovell indicated his plan to attend. She also reminded the Board of the public open house relative to the Civic Center Master Plan that is scheduled for October 19th from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room. Board Member Crank indicated her plan to attend that event. Lastly, she advised that on November 2"d, the City Attorney will provide training to the Architectural Design Board regarding quasi- judicial meetings, etc. She suggested that those who missed the training that was provided previously to the Board should consider attending the November 2nd meeting. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to explain the impact of the City Council's recent decision to establish a larger buffer for the Edmonds Marsh than what was recommended by the Department of Ecology (DOE). Mr. Chave explained that, in general, the Planning Board's recommendation relative to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was passed on to the DOE for review. However, the Council approved greater buffers for critical areas. The DOE notified the City that they did not like a few things in the Council approved SMP, including the increased buffer requirement, and they provided a list of mandatory and recommended changes. Most recently, the City Council walked through the DOE's recommendations and requirements and suggested some alternative versions. The alternatives will be presented back to the DOE, and the City will await a response that identifies where the discrepancies lie. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the higher buffer requirement is unusual compared to other jurisdictions. Mr. Chave answered that the buffer requirement is not necessarily unusual, but the length of time the City has spent going back and forth with the DOE is a big unusual. He said he suspects the issue will eventually end up before the Growth Hearings Board. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 178 4.3.d Board Member Crank reported on her attendance at the recent Candidates Forum that was sponsored by the Chamber. One of the questions given to the state candidates was about ST3, and their response helped feed her a perspective for the next round of discussions. Board Member Crank said she listened to the October l lth City Council meeting where there was significant input from downtown business owners about the recent sign code amendments. She voiced concern that the issue seems to be focused on a -frame signs, and the Board's recommendation that the City consider a directional sign program has gotten lost in the translation. This has created a lot of discord from downtown business owners. She asked what the Board could do to clarify the amendments. Mr. Chave answered that the City Council will do something to address the concern, and there is nothing the Board can do at this time. However, they will likely become involved at some point in the future. He encouraged Board Members to take every opportunity to talk to the downtown business owners and provide more information about the Board's recommendation. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 179 4.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Rob English Background/History On November 1, 2016, a public hearing was held for this item. On October 25, 2016, the 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan was presented to the City Council for review and discussion. Staff Recommendation Approve the 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan and include the document in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendments scheduled for the December 6, 2016 City Council meeting. Narrative The proposed 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan(CFP) is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation and Stormwater. Exhibit 2 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects from last year's CFP document. The CFP was presented to the Planning Board on September 28th and a public hearing was held on October 12th. The Planning Board provided comments and recommended the CFP be submitted to the City Council for approval. The minutes from the Planning Board meeting are attached as Exhibits 3 and 4. The 2017-2022 CFP will be included in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, which is scheduled for the December 6, 2016 City Council meeting. Background: The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six -year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying Packet Pg. 180 4.4 those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. Attachments: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 Exhibit 2: CFP-CIP Comparison (2016-2017) Exhibit 3: Planning Board Minutes 09/28/16 Exhibit 4: Planning Board Minutes 10/12/16 Packet Pg. 181 rt 00 N &IM N O J b r Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1648 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element) n y �C C Ot P, Su iu Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1648 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element) G� z n ITI It P, Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1648 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element) iu Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1648 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element) City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Parks, General, and Regional Projects (2017-2022) Current Grant Project (2017-2022) Project Name Purpose Opportunity Phase Total Cost Revenue Source 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Aquatic Facility Meet citizen needs for an Aquatics $0 Public Vote Center (Feasibility study complete Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds August 2009). $0 $0 Total 5-$23 M Civic Center Development City master plan in progress $0 Public Vote RCO Land Conceptual $135,000 REET 1 / Grants $135,000 Acquisition $0 G.O. Bonds $135000 Total $135,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,135,000 Community Park / Athletic Complex - In cooperation with ESD#15 develop $0 Capital Campaign Old Woodway High School: Phase 2 and 3 a community park and athletic RCO Phasel $0 REET 2 complex. Complete $0 School District $0 Foundation $0 Grants $0 Total Unknown Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Replace / Renovate deteriorating $0 Public Vote Building building in City Park. Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds $0 $0 Total $3-4M Waterfront RedevlopmenWVaterfront Walkway Rehabilitate grounds, parking, beach $1,600,000 REET / Grants $1,600,000 Completion access and area around Senior Unknown Conceptual $0 G.O. Bonds Center, walkway access. $500,000 Park Impact Fees $500,000 $0 Private Partnership $2,100,000 Total $2,100,000 Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal Relocate ferry terminal to Marina EIS $0 Federal (Unsecured) Facility Beach. US DOT Completed $0 State Funds $0 Total Unknown Public Market (Downtown Waterfront) Acquire and develop property for a year round public market. Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants I $0 Total Unknown Edmonds Waterfront Analysis Develop alternatives to improve $150,000 General Local Funds $150,000 emergency access and safety Unknown Conceptual $0 Grants improvements. $150,000 Total $150,000 Unknown Total CFP 1 1 $2,385,000 1 Annual CFP Totals 1 $2,250,000 1 $0 1 $0 1 $0 1 $1,500,000 1 $1,500,000 4.4.a y+ C d E G1 I.I.I C INS IL N d y+ (1f U. Q ci N N O N ti O N 4- 0 INS O L IZ Q ZI 00 r v N N O N r ti O N IL IL V r t K W C G1 t V r Q Packet Pg. 186 iu Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1648 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element) CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Facility ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 — $23,000,000 Man PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: 2021-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $5m - $23m x all or part of this Project may quality for 1% for the Arts N N O N ti 0 N a U r x w r c a� E CU a 7 Packet Pg. 188 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Development ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,135,000 / Stadium Demolition PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition. As part of the Master planning process for Civic, and in consideration of the current condition of the stadium, it is being recommended to demolish the current stadium. The City also has some grant funds available to assist with this. In addition, develop a signature downtown park at this site. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Civic Center Development / Stadium Demolition. The Civic Master plan will be complete by early 2017. Funds will be set aside, and grant funds applied for in order to develop the master plan. This is a high priority in the PROS plan. SCHEDULE: 2017 - 2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Construction $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 TOTAL $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Packet Pg. 189 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown Complex at the Former Woodway High School ra CIA HOGAN - --------- - ... - _ -- f I i rC)R lER wOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS PRE PAnto fOX THE E DMON DS SCHOOL DISH ICT MAY FOV PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted or unlighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project for all 3 phases. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and under maintained facility with great potential as community multi -use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. Phase 1 was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an additional $6-8M. SCHEDULE: 2017-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023- COST 2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL Unknown " all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts 9 N N 0 N ti 0 N a U r r x w r c a� E a Packet Pg. 190 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million Maintenance & Operations Building Building Outline Perime(er zone — 4,200 sf Existing Fence Line PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Stud Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 10 Packet Pg. 191 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION 4.4.a PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,100,000 / Waterfront Walkway Completion Euf�� 1�C R�.� �•{yljl �� - To Bncn }- 7 -� ' ----- -------------- ------ ®R.--� A 4 kYr�4 Prapvwd Rmw4 W arerlront Ganrer j ;I ;rrra5: r �Mw ww r 1 - .. rnrrw rarer. - � raAmrwrtdno � rrnrprreA� BEa Ova � j�� 1�• 4�EEYw'�trrbn- r .��• $ noA...a.r..aWnr.. ia. trm O zsz PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot and walkway. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife. Increase access to the waterfront. Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Provide anew Senior and Community Center and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to open up beach -front access. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $100,000 Construction $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 1 % for Art TOTAL $2,100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts N N O N ti 0 N a LL U x w r c a� a 11 Packet Pg. 192 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4.4.a PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility 011114*�M* Modified Pt. Edwards Alternative p - uHacu paf of�'s„y,� �.r ym ee mnmaol A1r4r IMrJ� yQy„ w.nvwr �� mom am •.w Edw��.ls .e+.s..nm PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing. NOTE: The design of Marina Beach Park is a separate project. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between existing and planned transportation modes. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023- 2037 Engineering & Administration of Way —Right Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL Unknown N N O N ti 0 N a LL x w c a� E a all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 12 Packet Pg. 193 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown Waterfront) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a valuable asset to Edmonds. SCHEDULE: This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished by 2018. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 13 Packet Pg. 194 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Waterfront ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown Analysis PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Alternative analysis to study, 1) Waterfront access issues emphasizing and prioritizing near term solutions to providing emergency access, also including, but not limited to, 2) At grade conflicts where Main and Dayton Streets intersect BNSF Rail lines, 3) Pedestrian/bicycle access, and 4) Options to the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal Project (Identified as Modified Alternative 2) within the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve waterfront access. SCHEDULE: 2017-2018 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $150,000 Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $150,000 Unknown 14 Packet Pg. 195 Z� n ITI It Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1648 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element) P, iu Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1648 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element) City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2017-2022) Grant (2017-2022) Project Name Purpose Opportunity Project Phase Total Cost Funding Source 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Safety / r-rity Gnalv_ci_c 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Realign highly skewed intersection to $25,000 (Federal or State secured) $25,000 Improvements address safety and improve $0 (Federal or State unsecured) operations; create new east -west corridor between SR-99 and 1-5. Construction $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total 228th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 95th PI. Install two-way left turn lanes and $0 (Federal or State secured) W sidewalks to improve capacity and pedestrian safety (project split with $375,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $75,000 $300,000 $8,690,000 Snohomish County) Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1,356,000 $375,000 Total $75,000 $300,000 $10,046,000 76th Av. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection improvements to $3,006,500 (Federal or State secured) $2,920,000 $86,500 Intersection Improvements improve intersection delay and level $0 (Federal or State unsecured) of service (LOS). Construction $0 (Unsecured) $2,086,663 (Local Funds) $2,073,163 $13,500 $5,093,163 Total $4,993,163 $100,000 Highway 99 Gateway / Revitalization Install gateway elements and safety $10,000,000 (Federal or State secured) $5,000,000 $5,000,000 improvements along SR-99 Corridor. $2,600,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $1,600,000 $1,000,000 $72,400,000 State Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) Appropriation $300,000 (Local Funds) $300,000 $12,900,000 Total $300,000 $6,600,000 $6,000,000 $72,400,000 SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave W Improve intersection safety by $0 (Federal or State secured) Intersection Improvements converting a stop controlled $744,500 (Federal or State unsecured) $122,000 $87,500 $535,000 intersection for NB and SB movements to a signalized Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) intersection. $158,500 (Local Funds) $71,000 $87,500 $903,000 Total $193,000 $175,000 $535,000 Main St. and 9th Ave S Install traffic signal to improve $0 (Federal or State secured) intersection delay and Level of Service (mini roundabout is an $894,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $118,000 $776,000 alternative solution). Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $17,000 (Local Funds) $17,000 $911,000 Total $135,000 $776,000 76th Ave. W @ 220th St. SW Convert split phasing operation for $0 (Federal or State secured) Intersection Improvements EB and We movements to $5,637,450 (Federal or State unsecured) $285,450 $1,557,000 $3,795,000 concurrent through movements, with protected / permissive LT phasing. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $287,550 (Local Funds) $44,550 $243,000 $5,925,000 Total $330,000 $1,800,000 $3,795,000 Hwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection Widen 212th St. SW to add a $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvements westbound left turn lane for 200' $2,783,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $152,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 storage length and an eastbound left turn lane. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $23,000 (Local Funds) $23,000 $2,806,000 Total $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 4.4.a y+ C CD E G1 W C IL N d U. Q cc c) N N O N r ti O N 4- 0 0 CL Q ZI 00 r v N N O N ti O N IL LL V r t K W C G1 E t V r Q Packet Pg. 198 00 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2017-2022) Grant �Project!Phasj (2017-2022) Project Name Purpose Opportunity To 'ding Source 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023.2037 Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW Intersection Widen 216th St. SW to add a left $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvement turn lane for eastbound and $2,313,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $142,000 $334,000 $1,837,000 westbound movements. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $22,000 (Local Funds) $22,000 $2 335 000 Total $164,000 $334 000 $1 837 000 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Widen 220th St. SW and Hwy 99 to $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvement add a westbound right turn lane (for 325, storage length) and a soutbound $3,192,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $152,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 left turn lane (for 275' storage Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) length). $23,000 (Local Funds) $23,000 $3,215,000 Total $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Extend left turn storage area for W B $0 (Federal or State secured) Intersection Improvements movement on SR-104 w/ various $179,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $15,000 $164,000 bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $15,000 (Local Funds) $15,000 $194,000 Total $30,000 $164,000 SR-104 @ 95th PI. W Intersection Convert EB and W B LT along SR- $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvements 104 to protected LT phasing; $485,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $65,000 $420,000 upgrade ADA curb ramps; and add C-Curb for access management Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $10,000 (Local Funds) $10,000 $495,000 Total $75,000 $420,000 SR-104 @ 238th St. SW Intersection Install traffic signal to improve $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvements vehicular and pedestrian safety; $1,311,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $173,000 $1,138,000 revise geometry to allow for safer turns. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $27,000 (Local Funds) $27,000 $1,338,000 Total $200,000 $1,138,000 Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Install traffic signal to reduce the $0 (Federal or State secured) Intersection Improvements intersection delay and improve Level $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $1,183,000 of Service. Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,183,000 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th Install two-way left turn lanes and $0 (Federal or State secured) St. SW) sidewalk to improve capacity and $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $15,441,000 pedestrian safety (split with Snohomish County) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $15,441,000 4.4.a y+ _ d E G1 w _ IL N lD y+ U. t2 ci N N O N ti O N O O CL t2 zi Q Packet Pg. 199 (0 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2017-2022) Grant (2017-2022) Project Name Purpose Opportunity LojectPhasj To 'ding Source 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023.20 SR-104 @ 100th Ave. W Intersection / Implement Westgate Circulation $0 (Federal or State secured) Westgate Area Improvements Access Plan, midblock pedestrian $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $1,017,468 crossings along 100th Ave. W, and rechannelization with bike lanes / Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) sharrows along 100th Ave. W. $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1 017 468 SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Add a 2nd W B left turn lane (split $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvements with Shoreline). $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $3,017,000 Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $3,017 000 Olympic View Dr. @ 174th St. SW Install traffic signal to improve Level $0 (Federal or State secured) Intersection Improvements of Service and intersection delay. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $610,000 $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $610 000 Non -motorized Pedestrian / Bicvcle Proiects Sunset Ave. Walkway from Bell St. to Provide walkway on the west side of $157,121 (Federal or State secured) $157,121 Caspers St. Sunset Ave, with various utility Possible $1,870,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $1,870,000 upgrades. RCO / TIB Grant Design $0 (Unsecured) for construction $751,129 (Local Funds) $26,129 $725,000 $2,778,250 Total $183,250 $2,595,000 Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S to 8th Provide safe sidewalk along short $0 (Federal or State secured) Ave. S Walkway missing link. $37,500 (Federal or State unsecured) $37,500 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $37,500 (Local Funds) $37,500 $75,000 Total $75,000 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to Improve pedestrian safety along $0 (Federal or State secured) SR-104 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. to $1,205,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $100,000 $1,105,000 SR-104. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $100,000 (Local Funds) $100,000 $1,305,000 Total $200,000 $1,105,000 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. W to Improve pedestrian safety along $12,000 (Federal or State secured) $12,000 104th Ave. W 238th St. SW from 100th Ave. to 104th Ave. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Construction $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $12,000 Total $12,000 236th St SW from Edmonds Way (SR- Improve pedestrian safety along $50,600 (Federal or State secured) $50,600 104) to Madrona Elementary 236th St. SW, creating a safe $0 (Federal or State unsecured) pedestrian connection from SR-104 to Madrona school. Construction $0 (Unsecured) $38,000 (Local Funds) $38,000 $88,600 Total $88,600 236th St SW from Edmonds Way Improve pedestrian safety along $0 (Federal or State secured) (SR-104) to 97th Ave. W 236th St. SW, creating a safe $1,288,500 (Federal or State unsecured) $106,500 $1,182,000 pedestrian connection from SR-104. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $106,500 (Local Funds) $106,500 $1,395,000 Total $213,000 $1,182,000 4.4.a y+ C d E G1 W C IL N d y+ U. t2 ci lV tV O N ti O lV 4- 0 0 CL t2 ZI 00 r v N N O N r ti O N IL IL V r Z t K W C G1 t V r -W Q Packet Pg. 200 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2017-2022) Grant (2017-2022) Project Name Purpose O ortunit Project Phase Total Cost Funding Source 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023.2037 84th Ave. W from 238th St. SW to Improve pedestrian safety along 84th $0 (Federal or State secured) 234th St. SW Ave. W. from 238th St. SW to 234th $90,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $90,000 $495,000 St. SW. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $90,000 Total $90,0001 $495,000 80th Ave. W from 212th St SW to Improve pedestrian safety along 80th $0 (Federal or State secured) 206th St. SW Ave. W, within proximity to Edmonds $1,439,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $210,000 $1,229,000 Woodway High School. Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1 439 000 Total $210,000 $1 229 000 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Provide safe sidewalk along short $0 (Federal or State secured) Walkway missing link. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $30,000 (Local Funds) $30,000 $30,000 Total $30,000 Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th Provide safe sidewalk, connecting to $0 (Federal or State secured) St. SW ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW $1,591,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $230,000 $681,000 $680,000 (direct link to Maplewood Elementary School). Possible grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $1,591,000 Total $230,000 $681,000 $680,000 95th Pl. W from 224th St. SW to 220th Provide sidewalk on one side of 95th $0 (Federal or State secured) St. SW PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. $409,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $84,000 $325,000 SW completing missing link) Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $141,000 (Local Funds) $21,000 $120,000 $550,000 Total $105,000 $445,000 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to Provide safe sidewalk along a $0 (Federal or State secured) 84th Ave. W missing link of 218th St. SW. from 76th Ave. to 84th Ave. $978,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $100,000 $878,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $327,000 (Local Funds) $100,000 $227,000 $1,305,000 Total $200,000 $1,105,000 Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. Provide short missing link. $0 (Federal or State secured) S Walkway $105,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $105,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $105,000 Total $105,000 216th St. SW Walkway from Hwy. 99 Provide sidewalk on north side of $0 (Federal or State secured) to 72nd Ave W 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd $137,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $137,000 Ave W (completing missing link) Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $20,000 (Local Funds) $20,000 $157,000 Total $157,000 238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. 99 Provide sidewalk on north side of $316,800 (Federal or State secured) $316,800 238th St. SW from SR-104 to Hwy. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) 99 (completing missing link) Design $0 (Unsecured) $96,200 (Local Funds) $96,200 $413,000 Total $413,000 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Provide sidewalk on south side of $0 (Federal or State secured) Ave. S 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th $200,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $200,000 Ave. S (completing missing link) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $30,000 (Local Funds) $30,000 $230,000 Total $30,000 $200,000 4.4.a y+ C d E G1 W C IL N d y+ U. t2 ci N N O N ti r O N w O O (Z t2 zi 00 r v N N O N r ti T O N IL ILL V r Z t K W C G1 t V r a Packet Pg. 201 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2017-2022) Grant �ProjectPhasj (2017-2022) Project Name Purpose Opportunity To 'ding Source 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023.2037 Elm Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. Provide sidewalk on one side of Elm $0 (Federal or State secured) S Way from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S $789,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $156,000 $633,000 Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $789,000 Total $156 000 $633 000 Minor Sidewalk Program Complete short sidewalk stretches $0 (Federal or State secured) throughout the City (annual program) $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $320,000 (Local Funds) $70,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $700,000 $320 000 Total $70,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $700 000 191 at St. SW from 80th Ave. W to Provide sidewalk on one side of $0 (Federal or State secured) 76th Ave. W 191 th St. SW from 80th Ave. to 76th $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $630,000 Ave. (completing missing link) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $630 000 104th Ave. W / Robinhood Lane from Provide sidewalk on west side of $0 (Federal or State secured) 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W 104th Ave. from 238th St. SW to $0 (Federal State $990,000 106th Ave. W (completing missing or unsecured) link) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $990 000 80th Ave. W from 218th St. SW to Provide sidewalk on one side of 80th $0 (Federal or State secured) 220th St. SW Ave. W from 218th St. SW to 220th $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $315,000 St. SW (completing missing link) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $315,000 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Provide sidewalk on one side of 84th $0 (Federal or State secured) 186th St. SW Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $315,000 St. SW Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $315,000 236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Provide sidewalk on one side of $0 (Federal or State secured) Ave. W 236th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $765,000 Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $765 000 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Provide sidewalk on one side of $0 (Federal or State secured) Ave. W 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave W $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $1,170,000 Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1,170,000 4.4.a y+ C CD E t11 W C IL N AD U. Q ci N N O N ti r O N 4- 0 O L CL t2 ZI 00 t0 r v N N O N ti O N IL U- V Z t K W C G1 t V r -W Q Packet Pg. 202 City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Transportation Projects (2017-2022) Grant (2017-2022) Project Name Purpose Opportunity LojectPhasj To 'ding Source 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023.20 80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW from Provide sidewalk on one side of 80th $0 (Federal or State secured) 188th St. SW to OVD Ave. W / 180th St. SW from 188th State $1,350,000 St. SW to OVD $0 (Federal or unsecured) Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $1 350 000 189th PI. SW from 80th Ave. W to Provide sidewalk on one side of $0 (Federal or State secured) 76th Ave. W 189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $585,000 Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $0 Total $585,000 Ferry/Railroad Ferry Storage Improvements from Improve ferry queueing by extending $0 (Federal or State secured) Pine St. to Dayton St. ferry storage area along SR-104 $357,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $357,000 (striping changes). Possible Grant Conceptual $0 (Unsecured) $0 (Local Funds) $357,000 Total $357,000 Traffic Plannina Proiects Trackside Warning System at Dayton Install wayside horns at bath $0 (Federal or State secured) St. and Main St. Railroad Crossings crossings to reduce noise from train horns. $0 (Federal or State unsecured) Design / $0 (Unsecured) Construction $10,000 (Local Funds) $10,000 $10,000 Total $10,000 Total CFP 1 1 $49,300,013 1 Annual CFP Totals 1 $6,070,013 1 $150,000 1 $50,000 1 $5,760,000 1 $18,278,000 1 $18,992,000 1 $111,029,468 Revenue Summary by Year Totals Source 2017 J 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 $13,568,021 Total Federal & State Secured $3,481,5211 $86,500 1 $o $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $30,809,952 Total Federal & State Unsecured) $0 $0 $0 $4,517,450 $12,577,500 $13,715,000 $108,363,468 $o Unsecured $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $610,000 $4,947,0421 LocalFundsl $2,613,4921 $63,5001 $50,0001 $1,242,550 $700,500 $277,000 $2,056,000 4.4.a y+ _ d E G1 w _ IL N d y+ U. t2 ci C4 tV O N ti r O lV O O L CL t2 zi 00 t0 r v N N O N ti T O N IL IL v x w m E Q Packet Pg. 203 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 228 th St. SW Corridor ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,300,000 Safety Improvements J PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 2281h St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2) Signalize the intersection of 2281h St SW @ SR99 and 2281h St. SW @ 761h Ave. West 3) Construct a raised median in the vicinity of 761h Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 2241h St SW and 2281h St SW on SR 99 5) Overlay of 228th St. SW from 801h Ave. W to — 2,000' east of 76th Ave. W. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the 1-5 / Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east -west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW will become a signalized intersection. 228th St. SW is being overlaid from 80th Pl. W to — 1,000 LF east of 72"d Ave. W. as well as 76th Ave. W from 228th St. SW to Hwy. 99. The project consists of various utility upgrades. SCHEDULE: Construction began in 2015 and substantial completion was obtained in May 2016. Physical completion is scheduled to be reached in October 2016. The only remaining task in 2017 is the completion of the Federal documentation. Federal and State grants were secured for the construction phase. This project was combined into one construction contract with the Hwy. 99 (Phase 3) Lighting project. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, and ROW Construction $25,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $25,000 ' All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts 23 Packet Pg. 204 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 228 th St. SW from Hwy. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,421,000 99 to 95t" PI. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228 th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95 th PI. W to three lanes (with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety and traffic flow along this corridor. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2021 (pending funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $75,000 $300,000 Construction $9,821,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 $300,000 $9,821,000 24 Packet Pg. 205 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 76 Ave W @ 212 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,500,000 Intersection Improvements 1 i i 0 tUMUNUb-VVUUUVVHY HIGH SCHOOL I OFFICE 1301 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left -turn lane to convert the signal operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected -permissive phasing. Add a right -turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements. The project also consists of various utility upgrades and conversion of overhead utilities to underground. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level of service to LOS C. SCHEDULE: Design was completed in May 2016. The project was advertised in June 2016 but the lowest bid was rejected since it was - approx. $1.3 Million over budget. The project is scheduled to be re -advertised in early 2017. A TIB grant to cover the possible shortfall was submitted in August 2016. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $4,993,163 $100,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $4,993,163 $100,000 N N O N ti 0 N a. U_ U r x w c E a 25 Packet Pg. 206 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $85,000,000 Gateway/Revitalization PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access control and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved. SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2017 (pending approval of the 2017 decision package).An HSIP grant was also submitted in July 2016 for this project. The construction phase is scheduled to begin in 2021 (pending additional funding / $10M from Connecting Washington allocation has been secured). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & $300,000 $6,600,000 Administration & ROW Construction $6,000,000 $72,400,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $300,000 $6,600,000 $6,000,000 $72,400,000 26 Packet Pg. 207 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196t" St. SW)/ 88t" ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $903,000 Ave. W Intersection Improvements SEVEN DAY ADVEN-nST CHURCH 4 196TH Sf SW 1qP 1-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196 th St. SW @ 88 th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right -turn -only (prohibiting left -turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). This project was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196t" St. SW. SCHEDULE: The intersection LOS must meet MUTCD traffic signal warrants and be approved by WSDOT since 196t" St. SW is a State Route (SR524). No funding is currently allocated to this project (pending grant funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & $193,000 $175,000 Administration & ROW Construction $535,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $193,000 $175,000 $535,000 a 27 Packet Pg. 208 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S :1 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $911,000 BELL Sr I .WM6 LLF W a _ a MAIN St W a S H DAYTON 5 , Z WADE JAM ES THEATER J PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal (or mini -roundabout is an alternative solution). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City's concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015 Transportation Plan. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2020 and 2021 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $135,000 Construction $776,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $135,000 $776,000 28 Packet Pg. 209 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 220" St SW @ 76t" Ave W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Intersection Improvements $5,925,000 2,9rH sr sw J 21919 J J J 3 414 I' Lri ,a Ui in J _J 1 2215TPLSW TOP FOODS JSTARBU KS J 220TH ST SW — 1 r LYNWOOD HONDA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected -permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D. SCHEDULE: Engineering, ROW, and construction scheduled between 2020 and 2022 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW $330,000 $1,800,000 Administration Construction $3,795,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $330,000 $1,800,000 $3,795,000 ' All or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the arts 29 Packet Pg. 210 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,806,000 intersection improvements 21 g sw:T I i W W Pa Nung sign Shop / n 7373 P.U.B 3 Edmonds Edmonds / W Family Clinic ei ADD Publm%Torks KENNEL 21 1 21114 / f Arbor Apt Q �az 211 / ofNlla Ramps 21109 / n he Box / 212TH ST Sw 7,.5�• CUPIC a LZF "3'2" PARK & RIDE 2151TH W ST SW U o: W 0 a PLANT AEGIS W _SWEDISH DNnS CRM Pl15 ' ALLIED / ROOFING / / / B&M / CON ST 21414 / 21448 / / / NCOONRLD' Q( / 01 1ALUE / PILLAGE / 16TH ST/SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212 th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200' storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300' storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #4) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2020 and 2022 (unsecured funding).The project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is in Lynnwood. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering, ROW, & Administration $175,000 $1,091,000 Construction $1,540,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,091,000 $1,540,000 N N 0 N ti 0 N a w U r x w c a� E a 30 Packet Pg. 211 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,335,000 intersection improvements N 21410 21408w 214021d1201 13�I{ 21405 04 LU w 2c > 12MC 2i43un �.o z 150 � 215 AEGIS 21558 2 r VALUE VILLAGE ST SW -me� %__ • 216TH 21600 {� 21619 KRUGER CLINIC f 01 r 21632 � � - ��I16e an 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216t St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for and an eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected -permissive left turn phases for eastbound and westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2020 and 2022 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & ROW & Administration $164,000 $334,000 Construction $1,837,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $164,000 $334,000 $1,837,000 a 31 Packet Pg. 212 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000 intersection improvements TOP FOODS 19TH sT SW 21919 220TH Sr SW I 7514 I I I 221 ST PL SW I I I I I I 13 -- a n I TEi FZ/ LYNWOOD HONDA a _ iL FUN TA 91A H'S III L7 w .F 7223'J' A.dy's � td .D. 7391 R A a S H ¢ nm rsw TIN PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325' storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275 storage length. (ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #1). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow and safety. SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2020 and 2022 (unsecured funding for all phases). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 COST Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $175,000 $1,085,000 Construction $1,955,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $175,000 $1,085,000 $1,955,000 N N 0 N ti 0 N IL v x w r E a 32 Packet Pg. 213 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 226 1h St. SW / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $194,000 15t" St. SW Intersection Improvements % J`i' 226TH ST SW uJ 226TH PL SW ALrL_i_1 14TH WAY SW i M PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend the left turn lane for the westbound movement on SR-104. Complete various pedestrian and bicycle intersection improvements. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety at the intersection and improve traffic flow along the SR-104 corridor. SCHEDULE: 2020-2021 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $30,000 Construction $164,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $164,000 33 Packet Pg. 214 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95" PI. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $495,000 Intersection Improvements W r J a H Ln Cn 'H ST SW 1 WESTOAT C APE PARKING h I WESTGATE CHAPEL PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access management. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles. SCHEDULE: 2020-2021 unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $75,000 Construction $420,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 $420,000 N N 0 N ti T 0 N a w U x w c as E 34 Packet Pg. 215 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,338,000 Intersection Improvements i 10 ■ To Hwy 99 41� 239TH ST SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2020-2021 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $200,000 Construction $1,138,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,138,000 N N O N ti O N IL u_ U r x w r E a 35 Packet Pg. 216 CITY OF EDMONDS 4.4.a CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76 Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: W Intersection Improvements $1,183,000 N SEAVIEW PARK 3 PLSW 186TH ST SW m m I I I I I 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City's concurrency standards (LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2023 and 2037 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $983,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,183,000 a 36 Packet Pg. 217 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 84 Ave. W (212 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,441,000 to 238" St. SW) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84 th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. (part of this project was ranked #6 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2023 and 2037 (unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is in Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & $2,000,000 Administration Construction $13,441,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $15,441,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 37 Packet Pg. 218 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 100t Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,017,468 Intersection Improvements • __ L_ EDMONDS WAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block pedestrian crossing along 100th Ave. W, and re -striping of 100th Ave. W with the potential addition of bike lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $150,000 Construction $867,468 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,017,468 38 Packet Pg. 219 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76t Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000 Intersection Improvements x M1 M1 y W 7 d M1 - P^1 — -EDL WIW Dri 1ELAY- _ — — — — — — — — _ LAKE BALLING €R WAY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2 nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037. The project cost would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds since half the intersection is in Shoreline. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $453,000 Construction $2,564,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $3,017,000 a 39 Packet Pg. 220 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174t" St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $610,000 SW Intersection Improvements L+ 4 + — Meadowdale Middle School — — — J—/, Parking L— b 6WI St. Thomas Moore —� a e I Catholic School B Ilfield y / sa��arY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50' storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #13) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2023 and 2037 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $100,000 Construction $510,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $610,000 a 40 Packet Pg. 221 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,000,000 from Bell St to Caspers St. s UHDVIEwavrs ♦ ♦ �� I■� 11111■0 I NONE 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing waterfront (— 1/2 mile / more recent project). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements have been installed to evaluate the alignment of the proposed walkway. Additional modification to the temporary improvements will be completed in 2017 (since construction isn't scheduled to occur until 2019 / 2020 when utility improvements are scheduled along this stretch). No grant funding has yet been secured for the construction phase. The design phase will be completed in 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 COST Planning/Study Engineering & $183,250 Administration Construction $2,595,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $183,250 $2,595,000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. N N O N ti O N a U- U r x w r c a� E CU a 41 Packet Pg. 222 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Dayton St Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000 between 7t" Ave. S and 8t" Ave. S 1_ MAIM ST z NO -ISLE FRANCES ANDERSON 4v0 tA W ❑ Q � 660 701 DAYTOM 5T w MAPLE 57 I T k PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 250') on Dayton St. between 7t" Ave. S and 8t" Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $75,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $75,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 42 Packet Pg. 223 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 232 nd St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000 from 100t" Ave. W to SR-104 EDMONDS WAY W SANK iwnRs LLI L ! Ell 2 . ■ ■ Qy - 1 �i p Al. 10 UUT H ' CHURCH ■ ■ ■ , Uj 7 , ■ °�' ■ Jr AW �I o �0. c� 2 ' ' I ESTATES ODWAY OLy I _ PR RK g 9 Dorn 9 8 7 6 5 ' 30 2 15 3 14 t J \32 95 �1 32 ■ r �jr `r 7E19 ■ ■ ■ 73323 733,E 733os (0) 1 TM FF M -T p a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232"d St. SW from 100t Ave. W to SR-104. This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,105,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000 Q 43 Packet Pg. 224 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 238 St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,400,000 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W and Stormwater Improvements BASEBALL FIELD HICKMAN PARK 23 V 2 COMM wn m LIBRARY � a 23 TO 42 OLD WOODWAYHIGH SCHOOL 3 a 236TH PL SW Z 0 3 3 J LU F Q O F a Q Q 4 a EL 23ST11STSW O I � M - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of -- 1,200' of sidewalk on the north side of 238t St. SW from 100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W. as well as sharrows. Stormwater improvements will also be incorporated into the project. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety and create a safe pedestrian connection between 100th Ave. W and 104th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Construction is complete. The project was funded by the Safe Routes to School grant program. Stormwater improvements were funded by the Stormwater Utility Fund 422. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $12,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $12,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts N N 0 N ti 0 N a U r X W r c a� E s= Q 44 Packet Pg. 225 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 236 1h St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000 Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct an — 800' sidewalk on the south side of 236 th St. SW from SR-104 to Madrona Elementary as well as the addition of sharrows along that stretch. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project, which ranked #1 in the Long Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route near Madrona Elementary School and along 236t" St. SW. SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to start in Fall 2016 and be completed by Spring 2017. The project is funded through the Safe Routes to School Grant program, Fund 422 for stormwater improvements, and REET funds for the pavement reconstruction. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW Construction $88,600 1 % for Art TOTAL $88,600 45 Packet Pg. 226 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 236" St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,395,000 from Madrona Elementary to 97t" Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236 nd St. SW from Madrona Elementary to 97t" Ave. W. This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2020-2021 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $213,000 Construction $1,182,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $213,000 $1,182,000 46 Packet Pg. 227 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 841Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 From 238th St. SW to 234th ST. SW PARK EonnoNos SAL GALLL APTS m w w LL CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH O PARK & RIDE OFFICE 236:1 4SUHSET 23603 SAFEWAY $23605 WH L KJIHG R23607 23619 0 P ��R AURORAS MARKETPLACET N 239TH ST SW W SEOUL 23821 PLAZA 2 23827 TRAVEL LODGE 0" NORTH ry HAVEN z n MANOR w a � R p r~ } n•1L LO'N 13ROCK PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84 th Ave. W from 238 th St .SW to 234 th St. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2022 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $90,000 Construction $495,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $90,000 $495,000 a 47 Packet Pg. 228 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 801Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,439,000 from 206t" St. SW to 212t" ST. SW I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80t Ave. W from 206t St. SW to 212 th St. SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non -motorized transportation safety. SCHEDULE: 2020-2022 (funding unsecured). A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program grant to fund the design phase was submitted in May 2016 (response scheduled for Spring 2017). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $210,000 Construction $1,229,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $210,000 $1,229,000 48 Packet Pg. 229 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 2" Ave. S Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 James St. to Main St. 4t 3� <1 NG 4 F5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2"d Ave. S between Main St. 2015 Transportation Plan). Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 100') on and James St. (Ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: 2020 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $30,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts N N O N ti T 0 N IL U x w c a� E 49 Packet Pg. 230 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,591,000 from Main St. to 200th St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200t St. SW (- 2,700'). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #22 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non -motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2020 and construction in 2022 (funding unsecured). A grant application through Safe Routes to School Program was submitted in May 2016 for design funding (response scheduled for Spring 2017). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & $230,000 Administration Construction $681,000 $680,000 1 % for Art TOTAL 1 $230,000 $681,000 $680,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 50 Packet Pg. 231 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 95 1h PI. W Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $550,000 2241" ST. SW to 220t" St. SW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95 th PI. W from 224 th ST. SW to 220th ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #9 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2020 and construction in 2021 (funding unsecured). A TIB grant application was submitted in August 2016 to fund this project (response scheduled for November 2016). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2036 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $105,000 Construction $445,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $105,000 $445,000 51 Packet Pg. 232 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 21 8thSt. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000 from 76t" Ave. W to 84t" Ave. W MENNEN YEMEN ■■E ■ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218t St. SW from 76t Ave. W to 84 th Ave. W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2021-2022 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $200,000 Construction $1,105,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $200,000 $1,105,000 N N 0 N ti T 0 N a w U x w c as E 0 M Q 52 Packet Pg. 233 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. Walkway from 3r ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000 Ave. S to 4t" Ave. S ARTS W ENTER a Z UNDOW NEI N ALDER ALDER ST 346 414 412 410 arking 5 5 LA UJ o SOUND VIEW o: HOWELL WAY W a x v DAYTON ST OLD MILLTOWN MAPLE ST TRIC ALDER ST N W a FBECKWT'S z BAN K T- 409 530Pancak 407 540 Hau s 4003 546 0 401 w a WALNUT Sr --F GREGORY e H 525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350') on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4t" Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $10,000 Construction $95,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $105,000 all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts 53 Packet Pg. 234 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 216 St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $157,000 Hwy. 99 to 72"d Ave. W 7200 PARK & RIDE 7309 5TEVE N MAN oa M1 rlao 21407 21507 21511 J y IL 0 211 52 M STEVEN C{} ll RT 21527 27B7H 120 EVENS FILION �� 21500 AEGIS S 21600 KRUGER CLINIC 210 B &M40 CONS 21410 2140$ 0. 21401 21412 r 21420 21�MCDONALD' Ln Ilk {4 21558 VALUE VILLAGE 216 TIl { 21619 - ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150' sidewalk on north side of 216 th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project ranked #4 in the Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2020 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $30,000 Construction $127,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $157,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts N N 0 N ti 0 N IL LL U r x w a� E CU a 54 Packet Pg. 235 CITY OF EDMONDS 4.4.a CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 238 St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $491,000 Hwy. 99 to SR-104 i 1 L PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #12 in Long Walkway list from 2015 Transportation Plan. Install 5' sidewalk on the north side of 238t" St. SW. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76t" Ave. W. SCHEDULE: The design phase is underway and will be completed by early 2017. Construction is scheduled for 2017. A TIB grant was secured to fund the design and construction phases. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $413,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $413,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 55 Packet Pg. 236 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 15 St. SW Walkway from 8 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $240,000 Ave. S to 9th Ave. S IIQ f OF r�-� 1 _ � ` 813 1445 �. _ qq^.. ygOq ,n 98 / � 1440 m -C` r f23 / r ( 8" 811vial M1 v 9111, 982 1439 807 809 1457 \ y 7 Edmonds Memorial Cemetery a/ 5 9906 4832 2260 9826 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add missing sidewalk link along 15 St. SW from 8t Ave. S to 9t Ave S PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and providing pedestrian connection from 9th Ave. S. SCHEDULE: The design phase will be completed in 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $30,000 Construction $200,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $30,000 $200,000 all or part of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts. N N O N ti O N a U x w r c a� E CU a 56 Packet Pg. 237 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $789,000 8t" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S 4 �^ I 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8t Ave. S to 9t Ave. S. This project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2020-2021 (funding unsecured). A Safe Routes to School grant application was submitted in May 2016 to fund the design and construction phases of this project (response scheduled for Spring 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $156,000 Construction $633,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $156,000 $633,000 a 57 Packet Pg. 238 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Minor Sidewalk Program ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: varies PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete missing sidewalk along short segments throughout the City. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: annual program COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Construction $60,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $70,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 58 Packet Pg. 239 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000 from 80th Ave. W to 761h Ave. W z a i r 192ND PL 5W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76 th Ave., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $90,000 Construction $540,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $630,000 N N O N ti 0 N a w v x w c as E a 59 Packet Pg. 240 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 104 th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $990,000 from 238t" St. SW to 106t" Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104 th Ave. W from 238t ST. SW to 106t Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $150,000 Construction $840,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $990,000 60 Packet Pg. 241 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000 from 218t" St. SW to 220t" St. SW n STEVE Golden , HEAL Leaves i EVENS A K — LEGEND WES1 x ESTATES ISLE ' J - a 218TH ST SW 781 r r L - 219TH ST SW r m M1 - or Iti - --- -----_228TH ST SW —-------�T--------- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80t Ave. W from 218t ST. SW to 220t ST. SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $55,000 Construction $260,000 1 % for Art TOTAL 1315,000 61 Packet Pg. 242 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 841Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000 from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW r`T Jr 5■■ i r .} K, r '■ F i L ■ r r r ri 186TH ST W m w i-� --. r ■ ■ 18 TH 5 5W ■ L a - IF 1 'r - ■� 188TH 5T 5W LE . P ram ■ L 7 ' W I a r .; _ L r ■ J F r , r SFAMF W , PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84 th Ave. W from 188 th St. SW to 186 th St. SW., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $60,000 Construction $255,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $315,000 a 62 Packet Pg. 243 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 236 th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $765,000 from Hwy 99 to 76t" Ave. W ■ PARK & RIDE 236TH ST SWN 23607 23603 SAFEN 23605 � KJI 23607 NON PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236t St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76t Ave. W. This project ranked #11 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $115,000 Construction $650,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $765,000 63 Packet Pg. 244 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 238thSt. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,170,000 from Hwy 99 to 76t" Ave. W j r PARK r JL NA LN ' , ■ ' OHOS APTS •A•HIRL BALL • 1 Mr r. u 1 Ov NORTH m CH RIST LH THE RAN CHURCH PARK S N & RIDE � � R — 2 TH T OFFICE r 23667 23663 23606 SAFEWAY � 23667 N4N L HJIHG R ' L • . 23679 O SUNSET '•A1L•LO•h: p Q , BROOK y 7 R AURORA rotas - . ` S MARKETPLACE T MMILY PANCAKE 1 L_ r H V �4-7 - ' 238TH ST ■ SEOULW827 ■ ` ■ ■ PLAZA _ ,♦ 1 ■ f �1 'u23827 TAVEL LODGE TFRANCIS -M IS ISON T.TIM MOTEL WHSEK&E MOTEL .� "I, 1:11 RIl RIl III F 1■ , IN ■ E r t ;,.�E :yA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238t St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76t Ave. W This project ranked #12 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $175,000 Construction $995,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,170,000 N N O N ti 0 N a U x w c as E 0 M Q 64 Packet Pg. 245 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 80 Ave. W / 180" St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,350,000 SW Walkway from 188" St. SW to OVD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188 th St. SW to OVD. This project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $270,000 Construction $1,080,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $1,350,000 65 Packet Pg. 246 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 189thPI. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000 from 80t" Ave. W to 76t" Ave. W PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 189t PI. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76 th Ave. W. This project ranked #14 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety. SCHEDULE: 2023-2037 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023-2037 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $115,000 Construction $470,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $585,000 66 Packet Pg. 247 4.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000 Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle storage for ferry users. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to local driveways. SCHEDULE: 2020 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $50,000 Construction $307,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $357,000 67 Packet Pg. 248 CITY OF EDMONDS 4.4.a CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Trackside Warning System ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $350,000 @ Dayton and Main St. RR Crossing ■ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install Trackside Warning System @ Dayton and Main St. Railroad Crossings. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce noise from train horns at both intersections. SCHEDULE: Construction is scheduled to be completed by late 2016 or early 2017. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 1 % for Art TOTAL $10,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts. 68 Packet Pg. 249 M. n ITI It Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1648 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element) P, iu Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1648 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element) City of Edmonds Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Stormwater Projects (2017-2022) 4.4.a Project Name Purpose Grant Opportunity Grant/Date Current Project Phase (2017-2022) Total Cost 2017 201 2019 2020 2021 2022 Dayton St and Hwy 104 Drainage Add lift station and other new infrastructure to reduce $0 (Federal or State secured) Improvements. intersection flooding. Design $0 (Federal or State unsecured) $1,950,000 (DebUStormwater Fees) $1,900,000 $50,000 $1,950,000 Total $1,900,000 $50,000 Willow Creek/Daylighting Daylight channel to allow better connnectivity with the Puget RCO SRF Grant $0 (Federal or State secured) Sound to benefit fish and reduce flooding. Possible Grant/TBD Study $4,200,000 (Federal or State unsecured) $225,000 $225,000 $1,800,000 $1,950,000 $1,420,000 (DebUStormwater) $75,000 $75,000 $600,000 $650,000 $20,( $5,620,000 Total $300,000 $300,000 $2,400,000 $2,600,000 $20,( Perrinville Creek High Flow Find solution to high peak stream flows caused by excessive Ecology Grant $510,375 (Federal or State secured) $510,375 Reduction/Management Project - stormwater runoff that erodes the stream, causes flooding Possible Grant/TBD Design $1,087,500 (Federal or State unsecured) $337,500 $375,000 $375,000 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility and has negative impacts on aquatic habitat. $582,625 (DebUStormwater Fees) $170,125 $112,500 $125,000 $125,000 $50,( $2,180,500 Total $680,500 $450,000 $500,000 $500,1) $50,( Total CFP $9,750,500 Annual CFP Totals $2,880,500 1 $800,000 1 $2,900,000 1 $3,100,000 1 $0 $70,OOC v Revenue Summary by Year Totals Source 2017 1 2018 1 2019 2020 2021 2022 $510,375 Total Federal& State (Secured) $510,375 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,287,500 Total Federal & State (Unsecured) $225,000 $562,500 $2,175,000 $2,325,000 $0 $3,952,625 Debt/ Stormwater Fees $2,145,125 $237,500 $725,000 $775,000 $0 $70,( Packet Pg. 252 iu Attachment: Exhibit 1: CFP 2017-2022 (1648 : Approval of 2017-2022 Capital Facilities Plan Element) CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION 4.4.a PROJECT NAME: Dayton St and Hwy 104 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,227,700 Drainage Improvements 9@ 31 -a i i. $p 200 GQ !Tqk 1461 301 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add lift station in the Beach Place parking lot and other new infrastructure. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St and State Hwy 104. SCHEDULE: 2017-2019 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $100,000 Construction $1,800,000 $50,000 1% for Art $10,000 TOTAL $1,900,000 $50,000 73 Packet Pg. 254 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Willow Creek Daylighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,825,000 Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source: www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-u /n aallery_php PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Building on the studies completed in 2013 and 2015 that assessed the feasibility of daylighting the Willow Creek channel, this project will likely construct a new tide gate and 1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. Funds will be used for design and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. This project, along with its companion CIP projects "Edmonds Marsh Channel Improvements" and "Dayton Street Pump Station," will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104 and Dayton Street. SCHEDULE: 2017-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $459,278 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Construction 1 % for Art TOTAL $459,278 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 74 Packet Pg. 255 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION 4.4.a PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,532,950 Reduction/Management Project Talhot Frederick a C n m 1 4t 185th 00 M U 87th 04 1 AQ7{L 172n w t 73 d �0 a Perrinville d4 Creek th 78th 77th' 1 78th -w 1 Oth m 181s to m a �RRfL n n t Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that will be addressed by restoration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was completed in 2014. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality projects to improve the conditions in Perrinville Creek. The City applied for and won a grant from the Department of Ecology for $633,750 to design and construct a stormwater infiltration facility in Seaview Park. The 2017 budget is for that facility. The dollars allocated in the out years are to implement additional water quality and flow control projects in the Perrinville Creek basin as recommended by the Flow Reduction Study. PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low -gradient downstream reaches of the creek. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be controlled or these improvements will be washed away. SCHEDULE: 2017-2022 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 COST Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. $35,000 $50,000 50000 50000 $50,000 $50,000 Construction $944,000 $400,000 $450,000 $450000 1% for Art $3,950 $1,125 $1,250 $1,250 TOTAL $982,950 $451,125 $501,250 $501,250 $50,000 $50,000 N N O N h 0 N a w U x w r c a� E a 75 Packet Pg. 256 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017) 4.4.b ADDED PROJECTS FUND I PROJECT NAME I CFP I DESCRIPTION 112 84th Ave. W Overlay from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW Complete overlay along 84th Ave. W from 220th St. SW to 212th St. SW 112 220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Improve traffic flow along 220th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W with the installation of coordination system 112 236th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W X Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W 112 238th St. SW Walkway from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W X Improve pedestrian safety along 238th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W 112 80th Ave. W / 180th St. SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD X Improve pedestrian safety along 80th / 180th St. SW from 188th St. SW to OVD 112 189th PI. W Walkway from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave W X Improve pedestrian safety along 89th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W 112 15th St. SW Walkway from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S X Improve pedestrian safety along 15th St. SW from 8th Ave. S to 9th Ave. S 112 Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW X Improve pedestrian safety along Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW 112 95th PI. W Walkway from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW X Improve pedestrian safety along 95th PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St. SW 112 Citywide Crossing Enhancement Improve safety at various pedestrian crossings throughout the City 016 Museum exterior door replacements Replace non -historic doors to comply with historic registry specifications 016 Museum East window replacement double hung sash approved by State Historic Architect 016 Library West deck water seal and repair parking ceiling Waterproof deck and repair pan -deck ceiling at covered parking 016 FAC metal flashing replacement and repair Remove and replace failed metal flashing as needed to eliminate water intrusion 016 PW replace failed insulated window units Replace glazing at failed window units 016 CH replace failed insulated window units Replace glazing at failed window units 016 FAC add building controls to both boiler systems Add Alerton building controls to existing boilers 016 FAC steam radiator retrofits Retrofit steam radiators as needed to replace abandoned or leaking radiators 016 Exterior building washing, sealing and painting Wash seal and paint building exteriors 016 Replace carpeting and flooring I Replace warn carpeting and flooring as necessary 016 CH electrical infastructure survey and replacement Survey and replace electrical infastructure at CH, phase 1 of 5 016 Clean and maintenance City facility roofs Cleand inspect and maintain roofs of all City Facilities 016 CH Planned maintenance and replacemnet of HVAC Replace failed HVAC unit and maintain all existing end of life HVAC infastructure. Yearly program 016 Retro comission City building Retro Commission a City building to bring HVAC operation to engineered specifications and optimize DDC system and energy performance. 016 CH heat tape installation Add freeze protection to uninsulated vulnerable water pipes 016 Museum structural analysis of upper fagade Analysis of upper fagade structrure since previous stop gap repair measure 016 Failed sash and glazing replacement Replace failed window sash and glazing at various non -historic locations 016 MCH replace damaged and warn flooring at kitchen and entry Replace existing damaged and warn flooring at Kitchen and entry 2 00 co r 0 N cD 0 N c O N CL E O V a_ V d LL U N t K W c d E t v R r r Q Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 257 125 Civic Center Grand stand removal x Consistent with Civic planning process, master plan 125 Community Garden Consistent with PROS plan. 125 City Park Storage buidling Replacement from fire. 125 Waterfront Redevelopment/Walkway completion Consistent with PROS plan. 125 Upgrade Curb Ramps to ADA Stds 2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue. 125 Audible Pedestrian Signals 2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue. 125 Minor Sidewalk Program 2017 Project budget will be funded by REET 2 revenue. 126 Hwy 99 Gateway / Revitalization (Access Management) 1 12017 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue. 126 220th St. Signal Coordination 1 12017 Project budget will be funded by REET 1 revenue. 132 Civic Stadium Demolition Consistent with PROS plan, master plan 132 Waterfront Revel opment/Walkway Completion Consistient with PROS plan 132 Community Garden Consistent with PROS plan. 132 City Park Storage buidling Replacement from fire. 421 2023 Replacement Program Estimated future costs for waterline replacements. 421 2017 Waterline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements. 423 2023 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr. 423 2017 Sewerline Overlays Estimated future costs for road repairs due to sewerline repl/rehab/impr. 4.4.b Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 258 UP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017) 4.4.b DELETED PROJECTS I CFP I DESCRIPTION FUND PROJECT NAME 112 Five Corners Roundabout X Completed in 2016 112 Arterial Street Signal Coordination Identified as 220th St. SW Traffic Signal Coordination from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W. 112 Citywide Protective / Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion Completed in 2016 112 Type 2 Pavement Markers Project to be addressed as part of future overlay projects 112 15th St. SW from Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S X Completed in 2016 112 Transportation Plan Update Completed in 2015 112 SR-104 Transportation Corridor Study lCompleted in 2015 112 Traffic Calming Program X I Non -growth related project 113 Multimodal Transportation Fund X Fund Deleted per City Council action on October 18, 2016 016 Council/Court Chamber AV upgrade Audio Visual upgrade project 016 MCH gutter replacement Replacement of rain gutters 016 Estimate of CH security needs Estimate and survey of necessary security upgrades 016 FAC spot flooring replacement in Beach Ranger office Replace carpeting at Ranger offices 016 FS16 Generator replacement Replace emergency generator at FS 421 2014 Replacement Program I lCompleted in 2015. 421 2015 Waterline Overlays I lComoleted in 2015. 422 Improvements - Dayton 3rd to 9th This project was combined with the waterline/sewerline project that covers that same area. 422 Storm System Video Assessment Deleted. This project will be covered as part of operations and maintenance. Operations and maintenance will do this work as part of their operations and maintenance tasks. 423 2015 Sewerline Overlays Completed in 2015. 423 Lift Stations 3,4,5,9,10,11,12,14,15 Completed in 2015. 423 Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Completed in 2015. 423 Phase 2 Sanitary Sewer Replacement Completed in 2015. Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 259 CFP / CIP COMPARISON (2016 TO 2017) 4.4.b CHANGED PROJECTS FUND PROJECT NAME CFP CHANGE 016 1 CH security upgrades SecurityUpgrades on hold until recommendations and estimate arrive. 423.76 Repair and Replacement The Secondary Clarifier #3 Structural Repair contract was awarded in 2016. The contractor will not be able to complete the work by the Oct. 2016 so the project may need to be extended. Pagoda repairs have been placed on hold for time being. 423.76 Upgrades Offsite Flow Telemetry project was completed in 2016. The Control System Upgrade will replace aging control system equipment, provide for redundancy and upgrade the operating platform. The 600 PLC is the final element and is scheduled for spring 2017. The project completion was pushed back in order to coordinate work with Phase 5 Energy Project. The SSI project is on hold awaiting EPA approval to install and test the mercury modules. We continue to report compliance status on a monthly basis. The Phase 4 energy improvement project is in close out. The Phase 5 Energy Improvement project has been started. By the end of 2016 the solids conveyor and sludge hopper should be upgraded and the new 126 HP blower has been installed. The project has given us the opportunity Ito optimize the aeration control system. 423.76 Studies and Consulting In the future we will be to study Peracetic Acid disinfection however this may put off until 2018. Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 260 4.4.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 28, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5`' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Valerie Stewart BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Daniel Robles (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred to Page 3, which contains a brief update on the Waterfront Access Study. He clarified that a second public meeting was recently held, and his understanding is that the Task Force will be making a recommendation to the City Council via Mayor Earling sometime in October. PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Mr. English started his presentation by providing a diagram to illustrate the components of the CIP and CFP, particularly noting differences between the two documents and where they overlap. He explained that both plans identify the six -year capital projects with funding sources, but the CIP also identifies six -year maintenance projects with funding sources and the Packet Pg. 261 4.4.c CFP identifies long-range (20 year) capital project needs. The CFP is divided into three project sections: General (parks, buildings and regional projects), Transportation (safety/capacity and pedestrian bicycle projects), and Utilities. The CIP is organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six - year period. He summarized that the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, linking those projects to the various City funds and revenues, and the CFP is intended to identify longer -term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City level -of -service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, (i.e. transportation, parks, etc.), and there are restrictions on how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. He reviewed each of the funds as follows: • Fund 112 — Transportation. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 116 — Building Maintenance. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 125 — Capital Projects. This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments. Money for this fund comes from the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), and the dollars are split between the two departments. • Fund 126 — Special Capital/Park Acquisition. This fund is supported by REET funds and is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. • Fund 129 — Special Projects. This fund is currently idle and was last used for the Highway 99 International District Lighting Project that was completed a few years ago. Any new capital project would program into this fund. • Fund 132 — Parks Construction (Grant Funding). This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. • Fund 421— Water Projects. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 — Storm Projects. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 — Waste Water Treatment Plant. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. Next, Mr. English recapped some of the larger projects that have been completed or the City is working towards completion of in 2016: • The 228`h Street Corridor Improvement Project started in May of 2015 and reached substantial completion in March of 2016. The project included a new signalized intersection that connects 2281h Street east to west across Highway 99 and into Mountlake Terrace, providing a new east/west connection to Interstate 5. • Safety improvements were completed with a median down Highway 99 to eliminate the left turns from south bound Highway 99 to 76`h Avenue West. This should help reduce accidents and provide safety turning movements. • A sidewalk improvement project on 238th Street between 100th and 104`h Streets was completed via a Safe Routes to Schools Grant. Stormwater funds were used to improve drainage, including bio-retention rain gardens in key locations. The street was also overlaid using funds from the Pavement Restoration Program. • Sewer mains were replaced on Walnut Street, and the project also included new pavement via the Pavement Restoration Program. • On September 271h, the City Council approved a contract for a project on the south side of 2361h Street between SR-104 and Madrona School. The project will include a new sidewalk, with a five-foot path to cross over to school, and curbs and gutters will also be installed. The pavement is in poor condition, so the roadway will be rebuilt. The project will include stormwater and water main work, as well. The City is coordinating with the School District's plan to rebuild the school starting in 2017 to provide a sidewalk leading into the school property. • As part of the Pavement Preservation Program, 9.6 lane miles of roadway were repaved, and pedestrian curb ramp upgrades were completed. • REET dollars (125 and 126 Funds) were used to fund the 2016 Pavement Preservation Program, single cabinet upgrades, traffic calming program, curb ramp upgrades, and an ADA transition plan update. Mr. English reviewed the projects that will be funded in 2017 via the 112 Fund as follows: Planning Board Minutes September 28, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 262 4.4.c The 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Intersection Improvement Project was bid out in May. However, given the bidding climate, the bids came in much higher than the engineer's estimate. Only two bids were received and both were high. The City elected to reject both bids and rebid the project during the winter months. That means the project would likely start in the spring of 2017. In the meantime, the City has applied for additional grant funding from the Transportation Improvement Board, but won't know the outcome of the application until November. This large project will add capacity to the intersection and underground utilities. Chair Lovell pointed out that the project is identified in the CIP as being unfunded at this time. Mr. English said the City has secured federal funding for the project, and has applied for additional grant funding, as well. Chair Lovell referred to the spreadsheet on Page 9 and said it is unclear how much grant funding has been secured in 2016 and how much needs to be secured in 2017. Mr. English agreed to revisit the numbers and update them accordingly. He suggested that perhaps the labels needed to be corrected to more clearly reflect the intent. He said that in addition to grant funding for the project, additional funding will come from the water and storm utility funds, since infrastructure needs to be replaced in the intersection prior to pavement work being done. • Citywide bicycle improvements will continue in 2017. For example, a striping project will occur on 76th Avenue West to add bicycle lanes and change a four -lane facility into a 3-lane facility. This project will likely be bid in conjunction with the intersection improvements to get some economy. • The 238th Street Walkway Project from SR-104 to SR-99 will also be completed in 2017. The City received a grant from the State Transportation Improvement Board and design work has been started. • The City received federal funding to move forward with an overlay of 84th Avenue from 200th Street to 212th Street during the summer of 2017. • REET dollars will be used to install Trackside Warning Systems at Main and Dayton Streets to reduce the sound footprint that the current train horns have. The warning systems will be permanently installed at the intersections, and the horns will blow whenever a train is passing through Edmonds in either direction. The noise from the horns will be more focused at the intersections so there will be less impact to surrounding properties. Mr. English summarized that the Water Utility Fund (421) supported the replacement of 4,850 feet of water main in 2016, and 3,400 feet of street affected by waterline replacements was overlaid. In 2017 it is anticipated that 7,300 feet of water main will be replaced and 8,200 feet of street affected by waterline replacement will be overlaid. Mr. English also reviewed that the Stormwater Utility Fund (422) supported the 238th Street drainage improvements that were completed in 2016, as well as the new pipe and infiltration gallery in southwest Edmonds between 106th and 105th Street. The 2017 projects include the Seaview infiltration project, further design of the Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh project, an update of the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, and installation of the Dayton Street Pump Station. He explained that the Seaview project is funded via a grant and will help reduce the number of surges from stormwater flowing into Perrinville Creek. The Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh project is ongoing, and it is anticipated that final design work and permitting can move forward in 2017. He explained that during heavy rain events and high tide, the intersection at Dayton Street and SR- 104 floods. Given its proximity to the marsh, Willow Creek, the outfall, and the tide, the solution is complicated. As proposed, a lift station will be installed off of Dayton Street in the fishing pier parking lot as a first step to solve the flooding problems at the intersection. Lastly, Mr. English reviewed that in 2016 the Sewer Utility Fund (423) supported the replacement of 2,000 feet of sewer main and the rehabilitation of 6,400 feet of sewer main using the cured -in -place process (CIPP). In addition, it funded 1,075 of pavement overlay on streets affected by the sewer main replacement projects. It is anticipated that 2,900 feet of sewer main will be replaced in 2017, with 3,000 feet of CIPP rehabilitation and pavement overlay on 8,600 feet of street affected by sewer main replacement. A large wastewater treatment project is in process near the ferry holding lanes where the secondary clarifier is being replaced. The project should be completed in October. Planning Board Minutes September 28, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 263 4.4.c Chair Lovell asked if the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis relates to the work being done by the Railroad Crossing Task Force. Ms. Hite answered affirmatively. Chair Lovell asked why no funding has been set aside for this project in the next four years. Mr. English said there is still momentum to move a crossing project forward, and the task force will continue its work. The Mayor is currently working on the 2017 budget, which will be presented to the City Council in October. They will know more about funding after the draft budget has been released. In addition, the City has applied for some transportation grants to continue the work. At this point, it is too early to know if there will be funding for the project, and it was included in the CFP as a placeholder. Mr. English summarized that staff begins working on the CIP and CFP updates in July, and a preliminary draft is typically presented to the Planning Board in September. A public hearing on the CIP and CFP is scheduled for October 12' , after which the Board will forward a recommendation to the City Council. Updated documents will be provided at the hearing, including more detailed information to outline the differences between 2016 and 2017. Staff is scheduled to make an initial presentation to the City Council on October 18th, with a public hearing on November I". Using the Board's input and public comments, the City Council will discuss the draft documents and make revisions. It is anticipated that final adoption will occur in November or December. Once adopted, the CFP will be included as part of the next batch of Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Board Member Monroe requested more information about the Citywide Capital Renewal Program, which is listed on Page 11 of the CIP. Ms. Hite said this program is managed by the Facilities Division. She explained that, in years past, the program has had minimal funding, and many infrastructure renewal projects have been deferred. This year, Mayor Earling is proposing that a lump sum be set aside for doing renewal of the City's capital assets. The Capital Facilities Manager has prepared a list of needs, and the projects will be funded by the $1.5 million set aside for the Capital Renewal Program. The intent is to chip away at the projects each year. For example, there are numerous needs at the Frances Anderson Center that have been deferred from previous years. Board Member Stewart said she is excited to see the projects that have been accomplished during the year, as well as projects that will happen going forward. She asked if staff could provide the Board and City Council with a copy of the list of projects associated with the Capital Renewal Project. Ms. Hite agreed to provide the list as an attachment for the public hearing. Board Member Stewart asked if City staff works to coordinate infrastructure projects so they can be done simultaneously. For example, are sewer and water main replacements coordinated so they are completed before a street is overlaid. Mr. English answered affirmatively. Once a significant project has been identified, City staff inspects the condition of other elements, such as water and sewer mains. If needed, the pro�ects can be done simultaneously. For example, he referred to the Dayton Street Project that took place between P and 9 Avenues, which was initiated as a stormwater improvement. After doing a comprehensive review of the other utilities, the project was expanded to include water and sewer main improvements, as well. The project at the 212th Street intersection is another example of a combined project. It initially started as a transportation capacity project, but after evaluating the condition of the utilities, replacement of the sewer and stormwater mains were incorporated into the project. Board Member Stewart reviewed that frontage improvements, including sidewalks, are required for any new development in the City. She voiced concern that, sometimes the improvements that are made are torn up just a few years later to accommodate a City improvement project. She asked if it is possible for City staff to help developers anticipate the future improvements and perhaps postpone or defer the frontage improvements until the City's larger project moves forward. Mr. English said City staff has more control when it comes to coordinating City projects, but it is more difficult for private development. A good example is the 200th Street Overlay Project. A developer found out about the project via the notification process and the City worked with the developer to get the connections made to the City's systems before the overlay project moved forward. He said staff tries to coordinate city projects and development proposals through the building permit application. Ideally, the City can hold off on a project to allow a developer to get his/her work done, but he acknowledged that is not always the case. Board Member Stewart summarized that the City should do its part to help property owners by allowing them to postpone the improvements until they can be coordinated with larger, planned City projects. Planning Board Minutes September 28, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 264 4.4.c Board Member Stewart asked if Planning Board Members would have an opportunity to provide feedback relative to the fitness stations that are proposed for City parks. Ms. Hite answered that she would love to have feedback from the Board as the project moves forward. Board Member Stewart asked if funding for open space acquisition is included in the CIP. Ms. Hite answered that she programs $200,000 into each year's budget for open space acquisition. She agreed it is important to include this in the yearly discussions, and she will add it to her presentation for the public hearing. She said it would be helpful to have feedback from the Board as to whether they support rolling this funding over from year-to-year until an opportunity comes up. Board Member Stewart observed that, as land continues to be developed, the City should remain open to opportunities to acquire open space. Once land is developed, the opportunity will be lost. Board Member Cheung asked how the City prioritizes the capital improvement projects. Mr. English explained that, from a pavement preservation standpoint, staff evaluates the condition of the pavement each year and places a rating on the streets. They also try to coordinate the work with needed utility replacement projects. For example, a street overlay may be postponed if the City knows that a water or sewer main project will be needed in the near future so that the two projects can be coordinated and completed at the same time. As far as capital project prioritization, there is very limited funding, and the City typically uses grant opportunities as a way to prioritize these projects. First, they look at the prioritized list of projects in the 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan. As grant opportunities come up, staff selects the most competitive projects that fit the particular grant requirements. Typically, the transportation capital infrastructure budget is very small (between $140,000 and $150,000). Additional funding for capital projects comes from grants and from traffic impact fees. On the other hand, Mayor Earling has made pavement preservation a priority for the past few years. Board Member Cheung asked how citizens can recommend transportation improvement projects for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Plan. Mr. English explained that, from a planning standpoint, staff uses the list that is included in the Transportation Improvement Plan, which an adopted element of the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the Transportation Improvement Plan included an extensive public process that allowed the public to identify projects they felt were most important. During the most recent update, a sidewalk committee was formed to evaluate each street and identify where sidewalks are needed. Citizens can contact the Public Works or Engineering Department to provide feedback on potential projects, and staff will evaluate the situation to determine what the appropriate solution might be. Vice Chair Rubenkonig added that the Police Department also takes note of situations were a high number of accidents are occurring. Board Member Crank said she appreciates the work that was done at the intersection of 228th Street and Highway 99. However, some people are questioning the design of the median, which appears to have benches where people can sit. Mr. English advised that the design was intended to provide relief to the median's appearance. There are a lot of design options to choose from, but it was felt that the concrete or grass median was not very aesthetically pleasing for this location. Given the speed of traffic along the corridor, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) also felt that the taller median was needed for safety reasons. The center section of the median has a colored concrete stamp that was intended to provide an aesthetic element to the median as opposed to a concrete covered center. Board Member Crank referred to the new flashing traffic signal that was installed at Edmonds Way and 232nd Street. She asked if the area is currently being monitored and if there has been an uptick in traffic volumes as a result of the new marijuana business and proposed new residential development. Mr. English agreed to looking into the issue and provide a better answer about traffic volumes at the public hearing. He recalled that the SR-104 Corridor Analysis that was recently completed looked at the entire corridor through Edmonds. It identified several recommendations for capital improvement projects to make the corridor more pedestrian friendly and safe. Board Member Crank asked if there have been any reports of traffic accidents associated with the newly installed Luminous Forest. Ms. Hite advised that the Police Department had some concerns when the it was first installed, and the artist advised that after the installation has been on for one month, the surface will become scratched and dim. She hasn't heard of any accidents on 4tb Avenue to date. Board Member Crank said she would love to see the community garden concept come to fruition. It would be a very attractive amenity for apartment dwellers. Ms. Hite agreed, but explained that the City has had a difficult time finding an appropriate location. It was originally planned for the south side of the Old Woodway High School site, but because of Planning Board Minutes September 28, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 265 4.4.c controversy surrounding the athletic fields, staff decided against pursuing that location. She expressed her belief that the park in Esperance would be good location for a community garden, and she will continue to work with Snohomish County to make that happen. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she has had a long-standing concern about the intersection at 76th Avenue and 212th Street for a number of years. The last time the CIP was before the Board, she requested that the City consider placing an "all walk" crossing at this intersection. She lives in the area and is at the intersection often. It seems like an all walk would make it faster for the students to get across the road. She asked if this could be included in the 2016 CIP. Mr. English said the concept has been discussed by staff and it comes down to finding a balance between pedestrian safety and getting vehicles through the intersection. He agreed to talk to the Transportation Engineer to get more information about the concept and then report back to the Board at their next meeting. Chair Lovell observed that this is the first time that neither the CIP nor CFP identifies funding for the Edmonds Crossing Project. He assumes that staff will provide an explanation for this change and indicate whether the funds that were previously allocated would be used elsewhere. Mr. English said there have been no changes associated with the Edmonds Crossing Project. The project is currently identified as unknown based on WSDOT's current planning horizon for the multi - modal terminal, which is beyond 2035 or even 2040. Although the project is still included on WSDOT's list of future improvements, it remains unfunded, and the City does not know when funding will be allocated for it to move forward. When the capital plan for the ferry is updated in the future, the City may have more information about the project's timing. Chair Lovell commented that it is good to see that there are a lot of projects taking shape to meet the needs and cravings of the citizens. Things are moving towards the betterment of the City's infrastructure overall. He asked if there has been any interface between various City departments and the Tree Board, particularly in regard to street trees. The impact that some species of street trees can have on sidewalk infrastructure is becoming a big concern, as repair and/or replacement is often required. He noted that concern has also been raised about the types of trees that are planted at the Civic Center Field, which could end up blocking views. Ms. Hite said managing trees requires a joint effort, and the Parks, Planning and Public Works staff all work with the Tree Board, depending on the topic. Chair Lovell said he has heard that effort is being made to ensure that new trees are selected to be the right species, size and growth pattern to protect the City's infrastructure. Chair Lovell announced that a public hearing on the draft CIP and CFP is scheduled for October 12th. He encouraged Board Members to forward any outstanding questions directly to staff so they can be answered at the public hearing. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed the updated Extended Agenda, noting that a public hearing on the CIP and CFP is scheduled for October 12th. Staff will also present an update on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments pertaining to parks, Highway 99, street trees and water. On October 26th, the agenda will include a presentation on the University of Washington/Forterra Plan that was prepared for Five Corners, a discussion on the land use procedures code update, and an update on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crank reported that she and Vice Chair Rubenkonig attended the City's Volunteer Dinner. Board Member Monroe reported on his attendance at the September 21st meeting of the Edmonds Citizens Economic Development Commission where they put together a list of recommendations related to the Civic Field Master Plan. Most of the recommendations were driven by economic development. For example, they want to see a playfield that can attract users who will presumably shop in downtown Edmonds. The list was presented to the City Council on September 27th. Planning Board Minutes September 28, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 266 4.4.d CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 12, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5`' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Alicia Crank Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Malia Clark, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe (excused) Todd Cloutier (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder Chair Lovell introduced Malia Clark, the Board's new Student Representative, who is a senior at Edmonds Woodway High School and also participates in the group, Students Saving Salmon. READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that the presentation and dialogue provided at the Board's last meeting by the City Engineer, Rob English, and the Parks, Recreational and Cultural Services Director, Carrie Hite, was well document in the minutes. They provided an excellent orientation to the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience. Ms. Hite invited the Board Members to attend an open house on October 19"" from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room, where the hybrid plan for Civic Park Master Plan will be unveiled. After the plan has been presented, the public will be invited to provide feedback. An on-line open house will follow for two weeks to solicit additional public feedback. At Packet Pg. 267 4.4.d the close of the on-line open house, the hybrid design will be presented to the Planning Board for a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will also conduct a public hearing before making a final decision on the master plan design. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. He reported that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met recently with Mayor Earling and received an update on the Sustainable Cities Partnership, a collaboration between Western Washington University and the City of Edmonds. Mayor Earling advised that there is currently a lot of activity and the students are moving forward with the projects identified as part of the program. He spoke very positively about the experience thus far. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2017-2022 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing, which would start with a staff report by Mr. English and Ms. Hite. Mr. English started his presentation by providing a diagram to illustrate the components of the CIP and CFP, particularly noting the differences between the two documents and where they overlap. The CFP is a planning document that includes the 20-year projects and 6-year projects to address roads. The CIP identifies the short-term horizon projects that include both capital and maintenance projects over the next six years. The overlap is where the six -year capital projects relate to growth; these projects will be in both plans. The CFP is divided into three project sections: General (parks, buildings and regional projects), Transportation (safety/capacity and pedestrian bicycle projects), and Utilities. The CIP is organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six -year period. He reviewed each of the funds as follows: • Fund 112 — Transportation. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 116 — Building Maintenance. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 125 — Capital Projects. This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation and Public Works Departments. Money for this fund comes from the Real Estate Excise Tax (BEET), and the dollars are split between the two departments. • Fund 126 — Special Capital/Park Acquisition. This fund is supported by REET funds and is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. • Fund 129 — Special Projects. This fund is currently idle and was last used for the Highway 99 International District Lighting Project that was completed a few years ago. Any new capital project would program into this fund. • Fund 132 — Parks Construction (Grant Funding). This fund is managed by the Parks and Recreation Department. • Fund 421— Water Projects. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 422 — Storm Projects. This fund is also managed by the Public Works Department. • Fund 423 — Waste Water Treatment Plant. This fund is managed by the Public Works Department. Next, Mr. English recapped some of the larger projects that have been completed or the City is working towards completion of in 2016: • The 228 h Street Corridor Improvement Project started in May of 2015 and reached substantial completion in March of 2016. The project included a new signalized intersection that connects 228th Street east to west across Highway 99 and into Mountlake Terrace, providing a new east/west connection to Interstate 5. • The 228`h Street Sidewalk Improvement Project connects 1001h Street to 104`h Street with sidewalks on the north side. This project was funded by a Safe Routes to Schools Grant. • The Pavement Restoration Program is a program that Mayor Earling has prioritized and funded for the fourth year in a row using Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue from the 126 Fund. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 268 4.4.d • A walkway project will start soon on 236 h Street, from SR-104 to Madrona School. This project will also be funded by a Safe Routes to Schools Grant. Mr. English reviewed some of the projects that will be funded in 2017: • The 76th Avenue West and 212th Street Intersection Improvement Project was bid out in May. However, given the bidding climate, the bids came in much higher than the engineer's estimate. The City elected to reject the bids and rebid the project during the winter months. That means the project would likely start in the spring of 2017. In the meantime, the City has applied for additional grant funding from the Transportation Improvement Board, but won't know the outcome of the application until November. • Citywide bicycle improvements will continue in 2017. For example, a striping project will occur on 76t' Avenue West in conjunction with the intersection improvements described above. As proposed, the roadway would change from four to three lanes, and a bicycle lane would be added. • The 238th Street Walkway Project from SR-104 to SR-99 will also be completed in 2017. The City received a grant from the State Transportation Improvement Board and design work has been started. • The City received federal funding to move forward with an overlay of 84th Avenue from 200th Street to 2121h Street during the summer of 2017. • REET dollars will be used to install Trackside Warning Systems on Railroad Avenue at the Main and Dayton Street intersections to reduce the sound footprint that the current train horns have. The warning systems will be permanently installed at the intersections, and the horns will blow whenever a train is passing through Edmonds in either direction. The noise from the horns will be more focused at the intersections so there will be less impact to surrounding properties. Mr. English advised that, since the Board's last meeting, the Mayor approved his "decision package, which identifies projects that staff identified for 2017. The package includes: • Funding of $1.1 million for the Pavement Preservation Program, which is a critical piece of the City's ability to maintain infrastructure. • Funding for pre -design work for the access management on SR-99 between 2161h and 2241h Streets. The City has observed a higher accident problem along this stretch of roadway related to the two-way left turn lane on SR-99. The intent is to go forward with pre -design of the improvements in 2017. • In coordination with Mountlake Terrace, the City has applied for a grant to coordinate the signals on 2201h Street, which is badly needed. If the grant application is successful, the 2017 budget includes the matching funds to move the project forward. • $150,000 has been set aside to match grant dollars to continue to pursue alternatives for a waterfront at -grade crossing. The committee will present the results of their study to the Mayor soon, and a presentation will be made to the City Council in late October or early November. • The proposed 2017 budget includes funding to replace 7,300 feet of water main and 2,900 feet of sewer main. It also includes funding to rehabilitate 3,000 feet of sewer main. Ms. Hite reviewed the 2016 projects that were completed by the Parks and Recreation Department in 2016 as follows: • The City acquired the Civic Field property and is currently in the process of completing a master plan for its redevelopment. The consultant is working on a hybrid plan that will be unveiled at a public open house on October 19th Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 269 4.4.d • The spray park at City Park was opened in the spring and had a very successful summer. • The Dayton Street Plaza is nearly completed and it is already heavily used. They are currently in the last stages of landscaping. • The temporary art installation (Luminous Forest) on 4th Avenue was completed, and wayfinding signs were installed throughout the City. • The Marina Beach Park Master Plan was completed in early 2016, and the intent is to formally adopted the plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan before the end of the year. • The Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is nearing completion, and it expected to open with a ribbon -cutting ceremony on November 15''. • The Downtown Public Restroom Project is currently under construction near City Hall. • The Yost Spa Project is currently in progress. However, the project had to be redesigned in order to meet current code requirements. • The Frances Anderson Center Stage Replacement Project is currently in progress. • The design work for the Veteran's Project was completed. The City received two bids that were higher than the engineer's estimate, and the project is being rebid. • The playground equipment at Marina Beach Park has been replaced, and they are currently working to replace the equipment at the Meadowdale Preschool playground. Next, Ms. Hite reviewed the proposed 2017 projects as follows: • The Edmonds Marsh and Daylighting of Willow Creek Project is ongoing. The City has obtained grant funding to continue the feasibility study, and they have applied for other competitive grants, as well. • Parklet Projects will move forward in 2017, as will the Outdoor Fitness Zone Project • Gateway replacement is ongoing and in process. • The City is partnering with the City of Lynnwood to rehabilitate the Meadowdale Playfields. • The City's storage building burned down earlier in the year, and the City has received reimbursement from its insurance company. Considering the storage needs of both the Facilities and Parks and Recreation Departments, staff is proposing that the building be rebuilt to a size that is nearly 2.5 times larger but in the same location. • There is funding left from the state grant that was used to acquire Civic Field, and the City has received permission from the State to use the funds to demolish the grandstands. • Funding was set aside in the 2016 CIP for a community garden, and staff is working with Snohomish County regarding the possibility of partnering to create a community garden as Esperance Park. • The bids received for the Veteran's Plaza were rejected, and the City will go out to bid again soon. They expect to break ground in early 2017 and open the plaza in May of 2017. • The Senior Center is undertaking a capital program to redevelop the site into a Waterfront Center, and the City has discussed the opportunity to redevelop the waterfront at the same time. This will involve removing the existing creosote Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 270 4.4.d pilings, reconfiguring the park, adding a bioswale and raingardens to filter runoff from the parking lot before it goes into the Sound, adding a hand boat launch, providing more access to the beach, and adding a picnic area with a natural access to the senior center. In addition, the City is currently in discussions with the owners of the Ebb Tide Condominiums to complete the waterfront walkway in front of their building within the City's 10-foot easement. The City has applied for two $50,000 grants, and the project has scored high on both. The City has also set aside park impact fee dollars for the proj ect. • Land acquisition is a high priority in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, and the proposed budget sets aside an additional $200,000 for this purpose. The intent is to having matching funds for grants available when opportunities to acquire land come about. Ms. Hite said staff is recommending that the Cultural Arts Facilities Needs Study be deleted from the CFP. While the study could still be done, it would be more of an operational project than a capital project. If a study determines that the City needs a facility at some point in the future, it can be added to the CFP. Also, the Downtown Restroom Project should be completed by the end of the year and can be removed from the 2017 CFP. Ms. Hite advised that, since the last meeting, the CIP was updated to highlight "land acquisition" as a goal. As requested by the Board at their last meeting, Mr. English provided a handout that lists the needs that were identified by the Capital Facilities Manager for the 2017 Citywide Capital Renewal Program. He explained that, in past years, the budget for capital facilities maintenance has been about $55,000. The Capital Facilities Manager requested that this amount be increased up to $400,000 to quick start the program of investing in and maintaining the City's existing facilities. The projects include roof repairs, painting, carpeting, seal coating, etc. Mr. English recalled that the Board also asked him to provide more information about traffic volumes on SR-104. He advised that the State does a number of traffic counts along the highway starting from the Ferry Terminal all the way to Interstate 5. While the 2016 counts are not available, the 2015 counts can be compared to previous years. The counts conclude that there was no increase in traffic volume from the ferry to 238th Street, but there was a small increase of 2% from 240th Street to Interstate 5. At their last meeting, Board Member Crank asked how new development along SR-104 might impact traffic volumes. He learned that the new development she referred to was actually permitted by Snohomish County so the City does not have any transportation data. However, it is likely that the development had very little impact to the overall traffic volumes on the highway. Mr. English recalled that, at their last meeting, Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked about the possibility of adding an "all -walk" phase at the intersection of 212th Street and 76th Avenue to provide a safer pedestrian access for high school students. He acknowledged that the concept has been used in select locations across the country, and it amounts to adding another phase to the signal timing that closes the movement of traffic on all four lanes of the intersection to allow pedestrians to cross. He explained that the City's current Level of Service (LOS) Standard for arterials is LOS D or better, and the proposed project would improve the intersection to LOS D. If an all -walk phase were added, the standard at the intersection would change to LOS E. He reminded the Board that the City secured a $3.96 million grant from the Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Fund, and the purpose of the grant was to improve air quality by reducing emissions and congestion. As currently proposed, the intersection project would reduce emissions for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen. The benefit of the project is that reducing congestion will bring down emissions and that is why the City received the funding. It would be difficult to change the project to add an all -walk phase because it would reduce the LOS standard and increase emissions. Staff is proposing that the project be constructed as currently designed. Mr. English summarized his presentation by reviewing that after the public hearing the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation to the City Council. The CIP and CFP, along with the Board's recommendation, will be presented to the City Council for a study session, followed by a public hearing on November 1st Chair Lovell opened the public portion of the hearing. However, there was no one in the audience, and the public portion of the hearing was subsequently closed. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 271 4.4.d Board Member Crank asked if the overlay project on 84th Avenue between 220th Street and 2121h Street would take place while school is in session. Mr. English said that, if all goes well, the intent is to do the work during the summer when school is on break. Board Member Crank said she is glad to hear that the City's goal is to do the Waterfront Redevelopment Project in tandem with the Senior Center's Waterfront Center Project. She said she serves on the Senior Center Board, and the plan to talk about fundraising and strategies at their upcoming retreat. Board Member Crank referred to the funding set aside for land acquisition and asked if there are targeted properties the City is looking to acquire. Ms. Hite answered that the PROS Plan identifies areas of the City that are not as well served by parks and open space, and the City will look for opportunities to acquire additional land to serve these neighborhoods. In addition, the City is always looking for opportunities to acquire properties along Shell Creek and other properties that run parallel to the watersheds. However, the City must also consider the need to maintain the park space it already has. It requires a balancing act. Board Member Crank thanked Mr. English for providing data about traffic volumes on SR-104. She appreciates that data is needed to make a case for improvements, and she looks forward to comparing 2016 data to previous years to determine the impact of new development. She noted that, just tonight, the light stopped blinking because there was an emergency vehicle coming through the intersection. People are accustomed to the light blinking, and a car was almost hit when it did not stop at the light. She said she hopes new data will support the need for a study to see if mitigation is needed. Board Member Cheung asked if the Traffic Engineer's analysis of an all -walk phase at the intersection of 212`h Street and 76`h Avenue considered that the phase would only need to be activated during certain times of the day (when students arrive, when students leave, and when students go to lunch). Mr. English acknowledged that the phase could be timed to only activate during certain times of the day, but the morning period when students are arriving at school is also during the peak commute period. Board Member Cheung asked if LOS D could be maintained with an all -walk phase that only operate during certain times of the day as described above. Mr. English said more traffic modeling would be needed to answer that question. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that adding an all -walk phase at the intersection of 76th Avenue and 212`h Street would minimize the pedestrians' exposure to pollution. Mr. English agreed that is possible, but it would depend on when the pedestrian reaches the intersection. Depending on the phase of the light, a pedestrian may have to wait longer if an all -walk phase were added. He also voiced concern that students may get impatient waiting for the signal and cross against traffic. Chair Lovell asked if the Traffic Engineer has solicited feedback from the Edmonds School District relative to the proposed changes at the intersection of 76th Avenue and 212th Street. Mr. English answered that the City has worked closely with the school district to coordinate the phasing of the intersection improvements, and the school district has voiced support for the proposed changes. The district has not requested an all -walk phase. Ms. Clark said she uses the intersection at 76th Avenue and 212'h Street often, and it could use some work. She often has to wait about five minutes to cross the street, and she knows that some students become impatient and jay walk. Mr. English explained that, currently, the intersection lacks turning movement, which means it takes longer for cars and pedestrians to get through the sequence. With the proposed changes, the left turn lanes going north/south will go at the same time, which allows the light to cycle faster. The same would be done for the east/west lanes. Board Member Cheung asked if the intersection improvements would include left turns on a blinking light. Mr. English said they have not made a firm decision on this option because it could lead to conflicts with the high school. A left -turn arrow would hold up pedestrians. With a flashing yellow light for left turns, there is a potential that a student could be hit while using a crosswalk if a driver sees a break in traffic and initiates the turn. Staff will continue to evaluate the option, but his first thought is that it would not be appropriate in this location. Board Member Cheung asked if it would be possible to time the lights so that the flashing turn is available only when school is not in session. Mr. English agreed that is a possibility. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 6 Packet Pg. 272 4.4.d Chair Lovell thanked Ms. Hite and Mr. English for providing responses to the issues and concerns raised by the Board at their last meeting. He asked that these responses also be conveyed to the City Council for consideration in their review of the CIP and CFP. Chair Lovell requested clarification on the funding that is currently available for the Veteran's Plaza. Ms. Hite answered that the City will contribute $30,000 to the project, and the remaining portion of the $550,000 cost will come from fundraising. Chair Lovell asked if the City is contemplating that work will start on the Waterfront Center and Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in 2017. Ms. Hite said the goal is to do the projects in tandem. However, it is possible that the Senior Center will not reach its funding goal in time to complete the project during the fish window, and the Waterfront Center Project will have to be postponed until 2018. Based on grant funding, it may be necessary for the City to move forward with the Waterfront Redevelopment Project in 2017. Again, she said the City's goal is to move the two projects forward in 2017, hoping that the Senior Center will be ready, as well. Board Member Crank advised that the Senior Center's target is to break ground on the project in September of 2017. Ms. Hite emphasized that there is a fish window that limits when waterfront development can occur, and it happens to be during the summer months. Ms. Crank said the Senior Center Board's goal is to meet that window. Board Member Robles asked for clarification of the small boat launch that is proposed as part of the waterfront redevelopment project. Ms. Hite said this would be a hand launch facility that is not meant for large boats. She referred to the proposed design of the project and noted the location of the boat launch. She explained that the ramp would serve a dual purpose for launching small watercraft (kayaks, paddleboards, etc.) and providing Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access. Board Member Stewart referred to Page 150 of the Staff Report that describes the Edmonds Marsh Feasibility and Restoration/Walkway Project, which is estimated to cost $155,000. She asked if the project would include a new walkway around the marsh. Ms. Hite said the project includes restoration of the current walkway, which is queued up for 2017. However, the work done by the Western Washington University Students as part of the Sustainable Cities Project will include consideration of a boardwalk all the way around the marsh. Several community citizens have volunteered to participate on a focus group to discuss the concept further. Board Member Stewart asked if the walkway that is proposed in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums would be ADA accessible. Ms. Hite answered that there would be two sections of stairs to provide broader accessibility, but the boardwalk would all be accessible. The boardwalk proposed in front of the Ebb Tide Condominiums would connect the north and south portions of the existing boardwalk together. Board Member Stewart noted that there are redundancies in the CIP, as some projects appear to be listed twice, and the dollar amounts do not match up. Ms. Hite said the redundancy has to do with the different funds that are used for the projects. In many cases, funding will come from a variety of sources and/or funds. Board Member Stewart said she is glad that the documents identify certain properties the City is keeping an eye on for park acquisition. There is forest land in the northern portion of the City that has been on and off the market for quite some time and is part of the Perrinville Creek Drainage Basin. There is a real desire in the neighborhood for the City to acquire this property, and it can only happen if funding is available. She suggested that the City allocate a significantly larger amount in 2017 to allow the City to competitively bid for the property. Ms. Hite commented that this would be difficult. She explained that Mayor Earling weighs out all of the priorities for the City and attempts to balance all needs when allocating the REET dollars in the 126 Fund. For example, the 126 Fund is also used to support the Street Preservation and Facilities Restoration Programs, which both have a backlog of projects. In addition to acquiring more park and open space, it is also important for the City to adequately maintain their existing properties. However, she agreed to make note of Board Member Stewart's request when presenting the CIP and CFP to the City Council. Board Member Stewart commented that the City could establish a donor program to provide funding support for future park and open space acquisition. Ms. Hite agreed and said that she has been working with Council Member Mesaros to pursue this option further. Board Member Stewart agreed to assist in the effort. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 7 Packet Pg. 273 4.4.d Vice Chair Rubenkonig requested clarification relative to the schedule for the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project, which is described on Page 58 of the Staff Report. Mr. English reviewed that staff provided a report to the City Council in August relative to the concept of building a walkway on the west side of Sunset Avenue. Currently, there is temporary striping that designates a walkway area, but there has been quite a lot of discussion about where the parking should be located, what kind of parking should be provided, etc. Parallel with the Sunset Avenue Walkway Project is a utility improvement project. The City is considering options for improving the lift station on Sunset Avenue south of Caspers Street to install a new gravity line to take sewage to the treatment plant rather than having to pump it. A waterline also needs to be replaced. No permanent walkway or designated parking would be constructed until after the utility work has been completed in 2017. He agreed to clarify the schedule in the project description. Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that the proposed sidewalk project on 232nd Street SW from 100th Avenue W to SR-104 (Page 60 of the Staff Report) would provide the fastest walking route to Westgate from the intersection with SR-104, and the City should encourage people to use it as such. She also suggested that the CIP and CFP should include a listing of the sources recommending action to help citizens know how long a project has been in the making, and the embedded vicinity maps may be easier to navigate if compass points were included. While providing footage of the sidewalk projects has begun, it could be completed, and highlighting project areas could assist the reader in identifying the size and location of the proposed work. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked for clarification about the Pine Ridge Forest Management Study, which is described on Page 105 of the Staff Report. In particular, she asked if the City has done similar studies for other parks in the past. Ms. Hite explained that the Public Works, Planning and Parks Departments are coordinating an effort to complete an Urban Forestry Management Plan for the entire City in 2016 and 2017, but there are a lot of older trees in Pine Ridge Park that warrant an evaluation to assess the City's liability, etc. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the acronym WWTP (Page 117 of the Staff Report) should be spelled out as the Waste Water Treatment Plant. She also referred to the Table that lists the publicly -owned facilities in Edmonds and other nearby areas and suggested that the Civic Center Playfield should be removed from the list of school district properties and added to the list of City -owned properties. VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) FOR 2016 THROUGH 2O22 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BASED ON THE COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE BOARD. BOARD MEMBER STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE BOARD RECESSED THE MEETING FOR A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:20 P.M. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:27 P.M. 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Mr. Chave reviewed that the most recent Comprehensive Plan update was completed in 2015, and included a major review as required by the Growth Management Act. Typically, the City undertakes relatively minor amendments in intervening years. This year's amendments will include the following: Amending the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the updated CFP. Amending the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan to include the adopted Marina Beach Master Plan as a new "Appendix D." Appendix A would also be amended to acknowledge and reflect the Marina Beach Master Plan. Amending the Capital Facilities Element to add an implementation action that would read, "Develop level of service standards for key public facilities by the end of 2017 and consider including the standards in the Comprehensive Plan." In addition to the amendments listed above, Mr. Chave advised that two more substantial amendments are currently being developed: The Water Comprehensive Plan and the Street Tree Plan. Drafts of each of the plans are due before the end of Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 8 Packet Pg. 274 4.4.d 2016, and approval is scheduled for the first quarter of 2017. Any specific references to the current plans will need to be updated, as well. The two plans will be ready for the Planning Board's consideration after the first of the year. Mr. Chave summarized that the Board has completed its public hearing and recommendation to the City Council relative to Amendment 1, and the public hearings for Amendments 2 and 3 are scheduled for November 9"h. Chair Lovell asked if the City plans to hire a consultant to assist staff in preparing an Urban Forestry Management Plan. Mr. Chave answered affirmatively and noted that funding has been allocated for the project, and staff is working on a Request for Proposals. However, the Street Tree Plan is separate and will precede the Urban Forestry Management Plan. Chair Lovell said his understanding is that the Marina Beach and Civic Field Master Plans, once adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, will represent what the community wants programmatically for the two sites, but they should not be considered final designs. Ms. Hite agreed that the master plans should not be considered design or construction documents. Instead, they are schematic designs that represent the community's thoughts and desires. It is always good practice to officially adopt the master plans into the Comprehensive Plan so there are no questions about the process. Once adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, Parks staff will have a green light to put together a financial package for future implementation. Chair Lovell asked if the consultant who creates the final park designs would be obligated to prepare design documents that are consistent with the Master Plans. Ms. Hite answered yes, but commented that the master plans are quite broad and design decisions will need to be made throughout the process. The City will go through a competitive bidding process for design consultants, and it is likely this effort will involve a citizen's committee, as well. Sometimes, the entity that created the schematic design is the one most qualified to do the final design work. For example, the current contract with Walker Massey for the Civic Field Master Plan also includes language for them to amend the contract to go into design development if the City so chooses. That was not the case with the Marina Beach Master Plan contract, since development of the park is three to five years out. Board Member Stewart requested clarification of the proposed amendment to Goal 4, Policy 4.H of the PROS Plan. Ms. Hite reviewed that when the Marina Beach Master Plan was created, numerous people voiced support for the dog park to remain as an element of the park. Goal 4 was added to the PROS Plan to address the concern about potential impacts to sensitive areas. Staff is suggesting the language be amended to make it more powerful and applicable to all parks in the City. The new language would read, "Ensure uses in environmentally sensitive areas are consistent with critical area regulations and the Shoreline Master Program." She summarized that the proposed language is intended to make the City pay attention to potential impacts in all design and develop a balance. Board Member Stewart asked for specific language in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) and Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Although she acknowledged that the dog park is well -loved by the community, the community must also be made aware of what is happening to the land as a result of the non -conforming use (dog park). Although dog owners do a good job of cleaning up their pets' feces, Keeley O'Connell, restoration biologist on contract with the City, previously pointed out to the Board that the urine is what completely decimates the marine flora on the shoreline. She said she has been a naturalist for years at Discovery Park where there is a diverse display of habitat, but less so on the Edmonds beaches. If you walk through Marina Beach Park, there is a noticeable wasteland effect as you walk through the dog park and habitat returns as you walk further south along the beach. As habitat improvements occur down the road and conversations and public education continues to evolve, people will become aware that there could be better alternatives. She said she hopes that this will be part of the conservation going forward, and she questioned if the proposed amendment to Goal 4 would provide adequate protection for the area. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if developing LOS standards for key public facilities would be a Planning Board responsibility. Mr. Chave answered yes, but only to the extent that they are included in the planning documents. Many of the standards are already in place, such as transportation. Mr. Chave advised that the draft amendments are scheduled for a public hearing before the Board on November 9t'. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 9 Packet Pg. 275 4.4.d REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed that the Board's October 26th agenda includes an update by the consultant on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and a presentation by representatives from Sound Transit relative to the Sound Transit 3 initiative that will be on the November ballot. The November 9"b agenda will include a public hearing on the Civic Center Master Plan and a Public Hearing on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendments. The November 23`d meeting has been cancelled. The December 14th meeting tentatively includes a public hearing on the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, as well as election of officers and a presentation of the Five Corners Plan that was prepared by students from the University of Washington and Forterra. The December 28th meeting has been cancelled. Chair Lovell reported that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met with Mayor Earling recently and learned that the terms of four Board Members will expire at the end of 2016. Board Members who want to be reappointed for another term should notify the Mayor as soon as possible. After further discussion, Chair Lovell indicated he would notify the Mayor that he and Board Members Crank and Rubenkonig want to be reappointed for another term, but Board Member Stewart does not. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Stewart announced that Students Saving Salmon will be meeting with stream -side property owners and residents on Saturday, October 15th, to discuss how they can improve conditions along the waterways for salmon habitat. They will be asking if salmon has been spotted and help them understand how to identify them and become more vigilant. The students will report their findings to the press and City Council in a timely manner. Board Member Robles gave a shout out to Perrinville, which now has an anchor restaurant and no franchise businesses. All of the businesses are community based, and the area is very well done. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the fitness station that is located in the plaza/garden of the Waste Water Treatment Center is an example of the proposed new fitness zones. Ms. Hite said the fitness station at the plaza/garden only has three elements, and the proposed new fitness zones will have eight to ten components that will be more dynamic and have various functions. She recalled that Board Members Monroe and Stewart agreed to work with staff to select the fitness zone components. Vice Chair Rubenkonig announced that there will be an open house regarding the Highway 99 Subarea Plan on November 10`h from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. on the 4`' Floor at Swedish Hospital, and Chair Lovell indicated his plan to attend. She also reminded the Board of the public open house relative to the Civic Center Master Plan that is scheduled for October 19th from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room. Board Member Crank indicated her plan to attend that event. Lastly, she advised that on November 2"d, the City Attorney will provide training to the Architectural Design Board regarding quasi- judicial meetings, etc. She suggested that those who missed the training that was provided previously to the Board should consider attending the November 2nd meeting. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to explain the impact of the City Council's recent decision to establish a larger buffer for the Edmonds Marsh than what was recommended by the Department of Ecology (DOE). Mr. Chave explained that, in general, the Planning Board's recommendation relative to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) was passed on to the DOE for review. However, the Council approved greater buffers for critical areas. The DOE notified the City that they did not like a few things in the Council approved SMP, including the increased buffer requirement, and they provided a list of mandatory and recommended changes. Most recently, the City Council walked through the DOE's recommendations and requirements and suggested some alternative versions. The alternatives will be presented back to the DOE, and the City will await a response that identifies where the discrepancies lie. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the higher buffer requirement is unusual compared to other jurisdictions. Mr. Chave answered that the buffer requirement is not necessarily unusual, but the length of time the City has spent going back and forth with the DOE is a big unusual. He said he suspects the issue will eventually end up before the Growth Hearings Board. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 10 Packet Pg. 276 Board Member Crank reported on her attendance at the recent Candidates Forum that was sponsored by the Chamber. One of the questions given to the state candidates was about ST3, and their response helped feed her a perspective for the next round of discussions. Board Member Crank said she listened to the October l lth City Council meeting where there was significant input from downtown business owners about the recent sign code amendments. She voiced concern that the issue seems to be focused on a -frame signs, and the Board's recommendation that the City consider a directional sign program has gotten lost in the translation. This has created a lot of discord from downtown business owners. She asked what the Board could do to clarify the amendments. Mr. Chave answered that the City Council will do something to address the concern, and there is nothing the Board can do at this time. However, they will likely become involved at some point in the future. He encouraged Board Members to take every opportunity to talk to the downtown business owners and provide more information about the Board's recommendation. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 12, 2016 Page 11 Packet Pg. 277 5.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 Public Defender Annual Report to Council (15 min.) Staff Lead: Carrie Hite Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Carrie Hite Background/History The City contracted with Snohomish Public Defense Association for services this year. Kathleen Kyle, Executive Director will present an annual report to Council. Staff Recommendation For presentation and discussion only. No action required. Narrative See attached presentation. Attachments: Edmonds 2016 Annual Report Packet Pg. 278 5.1.a y� 0 0 2s pUBLIC bEFF�D L� FR ��NflEn SEPTE�g13 9 \'rr Snohomish County Public Defender Association 2722 Colby Avenue, Suite 200 • Everett, WA 98201-3527 Phone: 425-339-6300 • Fax: 425-339-6363 • www.snocopda.org This is the first Annual Report of the Snohomish County Public Defender Association (SCPDA) to the City of Edmonds. Effective January 1, 2016, SCPDA and the City of Edmonds entered into a three year agreement. Summary of Transition of Public Defender Services SCPDA started the transition in 2015 and opened 51 files by end of year. By the end of our first official month, January 30, 2016, we opened a total of 253 files. The transition posed a number of challenges. First, SCPDA attorneys took over the pending cases which necessitated a large transfer of cases from the prior provider. In transitions with other jurisdictions, the prior provider finished the cases originally assigned resulting in a more gradual transfer. Second, SCPDA was transferred a number of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Domestic Violence (DV) cases. These types of charges are often complex, carry more direct and collateral consequences with convictions, and usually take substantial time to defend. A chart of case assignments by quarter and offense type is provided in Exhibit 1 to this report. See page 11. Exhibit 1 highlights that the first quarter case assignments and the number of DUI and DV cases was greater than cases assigned in the regular course. Third, the contract provided for 1.75 full-time attorney positions to staff the public defender casesloads. For the transition, SCPDA staffed 2.0 attorneys in anticipation of the workload inundation at the beginning of the year. Quickly realizing this was not going to be sufficient, SCPDA added a part-time 2016 Annual Report — Page 1 Packet Pg. 279 5.1.a attorney. Referrals remained higher than anticipated and SCPDA added a third full time attorney to assist in handling the cases. In the third quarter, SCPDA began to see an ease in caseload referrals. Year Number of New Cases Referred Number of Probation Only Cases Quarter 2015 45 6 4th 2016 317 146 1st 2016 253 63 2nd 2016 196 34 3 rd The second and third quarter referrals remain higher than anticipated. The contract anticipated 150 case referrals per quarter. The third quarter was the lowest number of the year with 196 cases assigned. Even taking into consideration the continued easing of the transition from the former provider, the number of referrals is likely going to be closer to 200 or more per quarter moving forward Caseloads SCPDA does not have the ability to control the referrals. Cases are referred by the Edmonds Police Department, which directly files criminal citations into Edmonds Municipal Court. In addition to 2016 criminal citations, SCPDA is also appointed to pre-2016 cases when a bench warrant previously issued is quashed and the criminal matter remains pending. At the end of the third quarter of 2016, SCPDA had been appointed to 766 pending criminal matters and 243 probation only cases. The contract was structured with the idea that SCPDA would be flexible and responsive to actual public defender needs. There is a quarterly review. Attorney staffing and funding increases, decreases, or remains the same according to the number of quarterly referrals. The contract contains a chart that 2016 Annual Report — Page 2 Packet Pg. 280 5.1.a designates the attorney staffing in one quarter increments. Case Referrals Prior Quarter Attorney Caseloads Attorney Compensation Adjustment 75 Case Referrals 1.00 Attorney Caseload 57.25% 100 Case Referrals 1.25 Attorney Caseloads 71.5% 125 Case Referrals 1.50 Attorney Caseloads 85.75% 150 Case Referrals 1.75 Attorney Caseloads Remains 175 Case Referrals 2.00 Attorney Caseloads 114.3% 200 Case Referrals 2.25 Attorney Caseloads 128.6% 225 Case Referrals 2.50 Attorney Caseloads 143% 250 Case Referrals 2.75 Attorney Caseloads 157.25% 275 Case Referrals 3.00 Attorney Caseloads 171.5% See SCPDA Contract, page 10. The original intent of this contract language was to be responsive to the City if case referrals reduced. At a meeting in September 2016, an attorney working as the Edmonds prosecutor projected that there would likely be 948 new criminal referrals for 2016. While not all of these cases will result in referrals for public defender services, the majority of them will. The other source of referrals is from quashed bench warrants: pre-2016 cases when a defendant failed to appear for the initial court hearing or prior to the resolution of the case. In the second quarter alone, SCPDA received 48 referrals for pre- 2016, pre -conviction cases. At the end of the second quarter, the referrals required 3.0 attorney FTE positions. At the end of the third quarter, the referrals reduced to 2.5 attorney FTE positions. SCPDA continues to staff the cases with 3.0 attorneys until the workload is reduced to a degree that we feel confident we can reduce attorney staffing without compromising quality of service. Indigent Defense Standards SCPDA strives to provide a high quality defense to appointed clients and comply with the Washington State Bar Association Standards for Indigent Defense Services. Attorneys meet and interview clients, communicate with clients throughout the case, carefully review discovery, conduct necessary investigations, obtain records, assess legal motions and defenses, and assess consequences of 2016 Annual Report — Page 3 Packet Pg. 281 5.1.a conviction. SCPDA monitors caseloads and adjusts staffing and assignments throughout the year. In addition to attorney services, SCPDA also provides its clients with services of an investigator, social worker, or other legal professionals to assist the attorney with their defense. SCPDA attorneys consult with Washington Defender Association Immigration Project staff to provide noncitizen clients with information about the specific consequences of a criminal conviction based on their indivudal circumstances. At the end of the third quarter, SCPDA attorneys had initiated 83 defense investigation requests, referred 27 cases for immigration consultation services, and submitted 19 social worker requests.' During that same period, 183 cases were dismissed, 37 criminal offenses were reduced to civil infractions, and 26 cases entered into stipulated orders of continuances .2 Sometimes a case involves more than one criminal charge. During that time period, 167 counts resolved by guilty plea as charged and 57 counts resolved by guilty plea to a reduced charge. SCPDA public defenders also provided representation at 424 probation review hearings.3 SCPDA has completed one jury trial to verdict, one appeal to Snohomish County Superior Court, and is petitioning for discretionary review to the Court of Appeals. SCPDA provides for continuing legal education (CLE) for its attorneys. SCPDA presents in-house CLEs and each attorney is allotted discretionary funds to attend trainings of their choosing. In the winter of 2015 into the spring 2016, SCPDA made available a series of trial skills CLEs: client interviews, jury selection, opening statements, direct examination, cross-examination and exhibits, and closing arguments. The next advanced trial skills training starting in December 2016 offers a track for new 1 See Exhibit 2: Investigations and social work requests by offense type. z A stipulated order of continuance is an agreed continuance of the case and if the accused meets established goals, then the case will be dismissed upon completion of the agreed term. 3 See Exhibit 3: Probation review hearings by quarter and by offense type. 2016 Annual Report — Page 4 Packet Pg. 282 5.1.a attorneys and more challenging scenarios for experienced attorneys. Other CLEs attended included The Defender Initiative Conference at Seattle University School of Law in March, the Washington Defender Association Conference in April, and the Washington State Bar Association Trial Advocacy Program in October. Current Criminal Justice Issues, Challenges and Considerations SCPDA has regularly participated in stakeholder meetings hosted by Edmonds Municipal Court hosts regular stakeholder meetings. Issues discussed have included the criminal jail calendar schedule, scheduling of interpreter matters, the administrative process to screen defendants for appointment of counsel, possible future diversion programs, and the burden on all stakeholders when indigent defendants do not appear for court and arrest warrants are issued. Non -appearances in Court Accused who do not appear in court, often referred to as "failure to appear", and the number of bench warrants outstanding was an issue that resonated with all of the stakeholders. Not appearing for court is an increased risk for defendants who are living in poverty. Indigent defendants who are employed sometimes cannot afford to miss work. Calendaring and attending court hearings are a challenge for those who have unstable living situations, limited education, lack of transportation, or other barriers. Once a bench warrant is issued after a nonappearance, the system presents hurdles to resolving the bench warrant. An indigent defendant either has to pay a $50 administrative fee to quash the warrant, contact SCPDA to file a motion and appear in court to quash the warrant, or post the bail amount. The option to quash a warrant by motion was added in 2016 and has led to increased number of out -of -custody warrants quashed. This is a positive result for the client and also decreases the burdens on law enforcement, reduces incarceration costs, and relieves congestion on the jail court calendar. 2016 Annual Report — Page 5 Packet Pg. 283 5.1.a Many indigent defendants cannot post the bail amount and remain incarcerated. In May 2016, SCPDA did an intensive review of client demographic information for Edmonds clients booked into jail for pre-trial matters, not probation related warrants. In the 25 cases reviewed, 23 people were arrested on bench warrants and could not post bail in amounts that ranged from $500 to $10,000.4 The average bail amount was approximately $2100 and the median bail amount was $1100. The low average and median amount of bail demonstrates the high level of poverty. A commercial bail bondsman will typically accept 10% of the bond and some collateral to cover the bail amount. In bonds ranging from $500 to $10,000, a person would typically need $50 or $1000 to post the bond. These 23 clients could not post bond. s The inability of the indigent to post bail results in longer incarceration times for the poor, increased detention costs for the city, and results in more guilty pleas as often times plea offers that would result in release from jail are taken as a means to achieve release. This scenario was recently discussed in the Seattle Times, Pleading guilty for the lack of money, published on June 4, 2016. See full report at http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/pleading-guilty-for-lack-of-money/. People plead guilty to offenses to avoid the immediate consequences of incarceration, which include disruption of employment, housing, parenting and dependent care. However, those same people incur the long-term consequences of a criminal conviction, which include adding barriers to employment, housing, professional licensing, and immigration issues. 4 The other two arrests were warrantless arrests and bail was not set until the initial court appearance on the jail calendar. Both arrestees were released on personal recognizance at the first court appearance. S Other demographic information collected: • More than half of the clients identified and interviewed identified as homeless or as housing unstable. • More than half did not have a valid driver's license. • Almost 70% were not employed. • There was a significant gap between those that were not employed and enrollment in social service benefits. 2016 Annual Report — Page 6 Packet Pg. 284 5.1.a Nonappearances, access to the courts, whether on the jail calendar or out -of -custody calendar, bench warrants, and bail remain challenges to address. In the first three quarters of 2016, SCPDA recorded 199 bench warrants for nonappearances at court. A review the current outstanding warrants indicates a large number of the nonappearances are in cases involving Driving While License Suspended, Third Degree. This demonstrates that a factor in nonappearances in court is lack of transportation. Options to reduce criminal justice costs include creating pre -prosecution diversion programs, a re -licensing program, implementing charging and quash standards for certain offenses, and/or develop community resources to assist people with homelessness, addiction, mental wellness, and poverty. In reviewing Exhibit 1, there are a large number of referrals for driving while license suspended third degree, theft, and other simple misdemeanors. These types of offenses can often be reduced through diversion programs structured to address underlying cause(s) of the criminal behavior and provide education and resources to help participants avoid contact with the system in the future. The infrastructure needed to support these programs is at a much reduced cost than the criminal justice system. Grant Effort To assist the City of Edmonds with costs associated with public defender services, SCPDA provided support to the City's efforts to apply for a grant from the Washington State Office of Public Defense. The request for the grant targeted funds for the costs of the Public Defender Assessor, adding a dedicated jail calendar public defender, and adding more social work services. The grant proposal was not accepted. SCPDA will continue to support efforts to supplement funding for public defense and hopefully future efforts will be more successful. Loss of County Supported Detention Alternatives Another challenge for 2017 is the anticipated closure of the Snohomish County Work Release Program. The Snohomish County Sheriff's Office announced that it was closing the program due to cuts 2016 Annual Report — Page 7 Packet Pg. 285 5.1.a in requested budget funds. Previously, Snohomish County Corrections eliminated its Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM) program. The EHM needs have been filled by private contractors. Privatized detention alternatives can impose financial barrier to indigent defendants who cannot pay the costs of the program. As of January 1, 2017, Snohomish County Corrections will not offer any detention alternatives to total confinement. The work release program also ran the work crew and minimum security release programs. The loss of these programs is the antithesis of legislative efforts to provide for community restoration and meaningful opportunities to serve a sentence without further compounding issues integral to reducing recidivism: maintaining employment, housing, dependent care, and self-sufficiency CROP: Certificate of Restoration of Opportunities Act In positive news, in 2016, the Washington Legislature passed on the CROP bill: Certificate of Restoration of Opportunities Act. It is a bill developed to remove barriers to occupational licenses for previously disqualified candidates due to a criminal conviction. A criminal conviction can prevent vocational licenses in more than 90 career paths. Many local residents who have turned their life around, completed all of the requirements of a sentence, and are leading law-abiding lives could not get professional licenses to obtain employment, establish housing, or provide for themselves or their families. With CROP, a person can apply for this certificate by filing a civil motion in Superior Court. Eligibility includes passage of a certain period of time, no new convictions, and have met or are meeting the terms of their sentence. Applicants must notify the prosecutor of their motion. If the certificate is signed by a judge, then the licensing body cannot deny a license to a qualified applicant based on criminal history alone. This is a tremendous step to allow people to move on with their lives and it promotes self-sufficiency. 2016 Annual Report — Page 8 Packet Pg. 286 5.1.a Indigent Fines Another case of interest was the opinion in City of Richland v. Wakefield .b The Washington Supreme Court ruled that Wakefield could not afford the fines imposed by the Benton County District. The defendant in Wakefield was disabled and received $710 each month in social security benefits. The defendant made a presentation about how she spent her money to meet her basic needs. There was supporting testimony from Dr. Pierce, a professor at the University of Washington School of Social Work. She testified that Ms. Wakefield "can't even meet her basic needs at a bare bones level" and imposing court costs would force her to "put her basic survival needs aside." A Benton County District Court judge denied the request, ruling that Ms. Wakefield's "lifestyle choices, "including criminal activity, failure to do court -ordered treatment and continued drug use" cause her to miss her payments on her fines. The judge imposed a $15 per month payment and sanctioned the failure to pay with work crew. The Washington Supreme Court disagreed: ...[T]here is nothing in the record that connect her indigency with her drug addiction or misdemeanor convictions for theft, harassment, or disorderly conduct. Nothing in the record indicates how Wakefield would no longer be indigent if she did not have addiction issues or prior convictions. Instead, the records shows that Wakefield is completely disabled and unable to work due to multiple mental disabilities ... Wakefield did not make the 'lifestyle choice' to be mentally disabled. Moreover, the record does not show that her criminal or addiction issues were 'continuing."' The opinion reiterated that "[u]nder state law, LFOs (legal financial obligations) should be imposed only if an individual has the present or future ability to pay, and the LFOs may be remitted when paying them would impose a manifest hardship on the person." The court ruled that Wakefield does not have to pay discretionary fines set by the Benton County District Court. The Wakefield decision highlights common misconceptions of indigency. Hopefully, the opinion helps criminal justice stakeholders view the impact of the criminal justice system on the poor, chemically 6 Washington State Supreme Court, No. 92594-1, issued on Sept. 22, 2016. See full opinion: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.disp&filename=925941MAJ 2016 Annual Report — Page 9 Packet Pg. 287 5.1.a addicted, mentally ill, and the homeless in a meaningful way to change policies for the better. It is in everyone's interest to have the criminal justice system be responsive the needs and the burdens of individuals and the community it serves and not further compound the problems sought to be addressed. In the coming year, SCPDA will continue to identify opportunities in our work with the City of Edmonds to increase efficiencies and address inequities in the criminal justice system. We look forward to continuing discussions with the prosecutor, the Edmonds Police Department and the Council to agree on some of these new opportunities. SCPDA looks forward to all the good work yet to be accomplished 2016 Annual Report — Page 10 Packet Pg. 288 5.1.a Exhibit 1: Cases by Quarter and Offense Type 1st quarter 2nd cases + quarter Offense Type transfers % cases % 3rd quarter cases % DWLS 3RD DEGREE 85 23% 71 28% 35 18% THEFT/SHOPLIFTING 77 21% 61 24% 55 28% ALL OTHER UNLISTED MISDEMEANORS 38 10% 40 16% 26 13% DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - ASSAULT, RECK ENDA 39 11% 24 9% 14 7% DUI AND PHYSICAL CONTROL 32 9% 12 5% 16 8% CRIMINAL TRESPASS 1 OR 2 13 4% 12 5% 10 5% VIOL OF PROTECTION ORDER/NCO/RO 13 4% 6 2% 12 6% HIT & RUN ATT AND UNATT 8 2% 6 2% 3 2% IMPLE TRAFFIC OFFENSES 11 3% 5 2% 2 1% DWLS 1ST AND 2ND DEGREE 16 4% 4 2% 9 5% OBSTRUCT A PUBLIC SERVANT 5 1% 1 3 1% 5 3% RECKLESS DRIVING 5 1% 3 1% 1 1% HARASSMENT 3 1% 2 0.8% 0 ASSAULT (NOT DV) 10 3% 1 0.4% 4 2% MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 2 1% 1 0.4% 1 1% WEAPONS RELATED OFFEFEW 2 1% 1 0.4% 0 DISORDERLY CONDUCT (EXCL INDECENT EXP) 1 0.3% 1 0.4% 1 1% MIP 0 0 0 Alcohol related offenses (excl DUI) 0 0 3 1.5 % Contempt of Court 1 0.3% 0 0 Total 361 253 197 2016 Annual Report — Page 11 Packet Pg. 289 5.1.a Exhibit 2: Investigations, Social Work, and Immigration Consultation Requests by Offense Type Offense Type Investigations Social Work Immigration Consequences Consultation DWLS 3RD DEGREE 3 0 4 THEFT/SHOPLIFTING 14 4 1 ALL OTHER UNLISTED MISDEMEANORS 5 1 1 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - ASSAULT, RECK ENDA 36 5 8 DUI AND PHYSICAL CONTROL 4 2 2 CRIMINAL TRESPASS 1 OR 2 2 2 1 VIOL OF PROTECTION ORDER/NCO/RO 7 0 1 HIT & RUN ATT AND UNATT 4 0 0 SIMPLE TRAFFIC OFFENSES 0 0 0 DWLS 1ST AND 2ND DEGREE 1 0 0 OBSTRUCT A PUBLIC SERVANT 2 0 4 RECKLESS DRIVING 0 0 0 HARASSMENT 0 0 0 ASSAULT (NOT DV) 4 1 0 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 1 0 0 EAPONS RELATED OFFENSES 0 0 0 DISORDERLY CONDUCT (EXCL INDECENT EXP) 0 0 1 Alcohol related offenses (excluding DUI) 0 1 0 Offense Type Not Recorded 0 2 0 Total 83 19 27 2016 Annual Report — Page 12 Packet Pg. 290 5.1.a Exhibit 3: Probation review hearings by Quarter and by Offense Type Offense Type 1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter DWLS 3RD DEGREE 3 6 1 THEFT/SHOPLIFTING 52 28 21 ALL OTHER UNLISTED MISDEMEANORS 32 22 13 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - ASSAULT, RECK ENDA 17 20 15 DUI AND PHYSICAL CONTROL 32 33 16 CRIMINAL TRESPASS 1 OR 2 2 2 2 VIOL OF PROTECTION ORDER/NCO/RO 18 11 3 HIT & RUN ATT AND UNATT 2 2 1 SIMPLE TRAFFIC OFFENSES 0 4 1 DWLS 1ST AND 2ND DEGREE 2 3 1 OBSTRUCT A PUBLIC SERVANT 2 1 3 RECKLESS DRIVING 0 1 3 HARASSMENT 2 2 0 ASSAULT (NOT DV) 13 12 1 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 1 1 0 WEAPONS RELATED OFFENSES 3 1 1 DISORDERLY CONDUCT (EXCL 0 1 2 Alcohol related offenses (excl DUI) 1 2 3 Total 182 152 87 2016 Annual Report — Page 13 Packet Pg. 291 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 Report and Recommendations From the Mayor's Task Force on the Alternatives Analysis for At -Grade Rail Crossing Conflicts (60 min.) Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Phil Williams Background/History On June 7th, 2016, Council was updated on the Edmonds Waterfront Access study and the Alternatives Analysis of At -Grade Crossing Conflicts On February 9, 2016, Tetra Tech updated Council on the Edmonds Waterfront Access Study. On October 20, 2015, City Council approved the Local Agency Consultant Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis. Staff Recommendation Receive the report and consider approval of recommendations from the Task Force and Mayor Dave Earling regarding specific recommendations contained therein Narrative The purpose of the Waterfront Analysis has been to identify near -term and long-term solutions at the Main St. and Dayton St. railroad crossings to address the following: - waterfront access issues that prevent 24/7 emergency access, - at -grade rail conflicts between vehicles and trains, - improvements in pedestrian and bicycle access to Edmonds Waterfront Tetra Tech has been analyzing the existing conditions through discussions with the stakeholder agencies and Edmonds citizens appointed to the Task Force. Agencies represented included Sound Transit, Community Transit, Washington State Ferries, WSDOT and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway. Since October 2015, bimonthly meetings were held with the Advisory Task Force. Open Houses were held in November 2015, January 2016, May 2016 and July 2016. During the Level 1 Screening process, 43 concepts were evaluated based on a set of agreed upon criteria. The 13 highest rated concepts then moved to the Level 2 Screening process. Those were evaluated based on an expanded set of more detailed criteria. The highest rated alternatives have been presented to the Mayor. The Mayor is now presenting these results and his recommendation to City Council. Council is being asked to evaluate these recommendations and select a preferred alternative for implementation. Packet Pg. 292 7.1 The total funding for this project was $690,000, with funding coming from the State Legislature, the City of Edmonds, the Port of Edmonds, BNSF, Sound Transit, and Community Transit. Attachments: Edmonds Street Flyover rendering 2 Edmonds Street Flyover rendering 1 Edmonds Waterfront Access report draft 20161103 Edmonds Waterfront Access Council Briefing 20161107 Packet Pg. 293 CD Attachment: Edmonds Street Flyover rendering 2 [Revision 1] (1653 Recommendations of the At -Grade Rail (sisAIBUV sani;eUJOII y SBUII 7.1.c Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 100-SET-T35009 November 3, 2016 PRESENTED TO City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 PRESENTED BY Tetra Tech, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue, #550 Seattle, Washington 98101 P + 1 -206-728-9655 F + 1 -206-728-9670 www.tetratech.com Packet Pg. 296 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Following completion of the Level 1 Screening of solution concepts, the Level 2 Evaluation of Alternatives, and consultation with the community in four public open house meetings, the Advisory Task Force presents the recommendations below for consideration. Recommendations for immediate, near -term, and longer -term actions are presented to mitigate as soon as possible the hazards that at -grade rail crossings present to safety, and to provide more comprehensive grade separation solutions when the substantial resources for a larger project can be secured. Immediate Recommendations Several enhancements are recommended for implementation independent of the specific alternatives identified in the Edmonds Waterfront Access Study. While these enhancements are supportive of some elements of the Waterfront Access Study objectives, they are more appropriately advanced directly by the City or collaboratively with different groups of stakeholders. Recommended near -term actions include: • Construct crosswalk improvements at the Main Street at -grade railroad crossing to improve pedestrian safety and comfort (Level 1 Screening concept On -site 4). Recommend this be implemented directly by the City and coordinated with BNSF and Washington State Ferries. • Construct crosswalk improvements at the Dayton Street at -grade railroad crossing to improve pedestrian safety and comfort (Level 1 Screening concept On -site 5). Recommend this be implemented directly by the City with support from the Port of Edmonds and coordinated with BNSF. • Implement emergency notifications between the 911 dispatch center and BNSF operations when an emergency is reported on the west side of the railroad tracks to notify trains to halt outside of downtown Edmonds so that police and fire can respond without delay by passing trains (Level 1 Screening concept Operational 4). Recommend this be implemented through coordination between the City, Fire District 1, and BNSF. • Create and implement a Waterfront Emergency Evacuation Plan with measures that respond to a broad range of potential emergencies (Level 1 Screening concepts On -site 1, On -site 3, and On -site 7). Recommend this be developed and implemented by an appropriate group that would include City departments, Fire District 1, Swedish Hospital, Port of Edmonds, and Washington State Ferries, among others. OTETRA TECH I Packet Pg. 297 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Near -Term Recommendations Until a long-term solution can be implemented, rail traffic is expected to grow substantially along with increased volumes of ferry traffic and growth in all modes of local traffic. Conflicts will grow, and delays will increase, impacting response times for police, fire and EMS units to emergencies west of the railroad tracks. Several measures are recommended to mitigate the effects of such conflicts. Emergency Vehicle Access to the Waterfront — Edmonds Street Emergency Access Overpass. The proximity of this access route to the police and fire stations provides immediate access to respond to waterfront emergencies. This ramp also provides a full-time pedestrian and bicycle connection from Sunset Avenue to Brackett's Landing Park and the waterfront trail system, enhancing the walkability of the waterfront. During emergency shutdowns of the at -grade rail crossings, vehicles can be offloaded from ferries with proper traffic control. The Edmonds Street location is recommended over other similar emergency vehicle access alternatives for reasons of cost, anticipated use, and superior access for emergency response. Implementing this project will eliminate the need for an emergency vehicle access ramp from a future grade -separated, vehicle ferry access project, such as the Edmonds Crossing project referred to below. Intermodal connectivity — With increases in train traffic, and with eventual construction of the anticipated 2nd railroad track, there will be a growing need for safe pedestrian access to both sides of the railroad tracks. Of the several alternatives considered, the Midblock Pedestrian Overpass location would appear to best serve commuters, who would be the primary users. This overpass is collocated with rail, bus and ferry access points. Among the pedestrian overpass alternatives considered, the Midblock Pedestrian Overpass is most consistent with positive urban design objectives as it presents the least impact to established viewsheds, and its construction presents minimal environmental concerns due to its scale and setting. These features support the permittability of this alternative, which is favored when assessing the ability to implement this project near -term. Longer -Term Recommendation Ultimately, grade separation for vehicles accessing ferries is necessary to resolve the growing conflicts between two major traffic movements through the downtown waterfront — rail traffic and vehicles loading and offloading the ferries. The combined effects of these growing pulses of traffic increasingly interrupt local traffic moving between residential and business centers in downtown and along the waterfront. Based on currently foreseeable transportation funding conditions in the State, the timeframe for implementing grade separation of vehicle ferry access may be up to 20 years or longer. Washington State Ferries will appropriately take the lead in establishing the long-term direction of ferry operations, and WSF will soon initiate their Long Term Plan for the ferry system as a whole, including the Edmonds Terminal. The analysis and identification of alternatives within the Edmonds Waterfront Access study will inform WSF's planning efforts. In particular, the Task Force's review of several alternatives providing grade -separated vehicle ferry access concluded that the Edmonds Crossing project would be the superior option. The Task Force recommends that the City continue its current policy supporting the eventual implementation of the Edmonds Crossing project, relocating ferry operations to a new terminal to be located at the Unocal property Moreover, if ferry operations are relocated to the south end of the waterfront, in a configuration similar to the Edmonds Crossing project, it is recommended that the project also incorporate a means of emergency vehicle access to the south end of the waterfront. The Task Force recognized significant community benefit to an underpass along the Main Street alignment, but the projected comparative costs and long construction schedule make that option less desirable. OTETRA TECH Footer Information Packet Pg. 298 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Longer -Term Recommendation................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Near -Term Recommendations.................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Immediate Recommendations................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Purpose and Need.............................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Emergency Services Access................................................................................................................2 1.1.2 At Grade Crossing Issues.....................................................................................................................2 1.1.3 Disconnection to Downtown.................................................................................................................2 1.1.4 Traffic Operations.................................................................................................................................3 1.1.5 Livability and Economic Development..................................................................................................3 1.1.6 Pedestrian, ADA, and Bicycle Access..................................................................................................3 1.1.7 Freight Mobility.....................................................................................................................................3 1.2 Study Process................................................................................................................................................4 1.2.1 Advisory Task Force.............................................................................................................................5 1.2.2 Public Engagement..............................................................................................................................6 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................................8 2.1 Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................................8 2.2 Cultural and Historic Resources....................................................................................................................8 2.3 Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation........................................................................................................................9 2.4 Geology and Soils....................................................................................................................................... 10 2.5 Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................................... 13 2.6 Land Use..................................................................................................................................................... 15 2.7 Public Services and Utilities........................................................................................................................ 15 2.8 Noise........................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.9 Parks and Recreation.................................................................................................................................. 17 2.10 Social and Economic................................................................................................................................. 17 2.11 Transportation........................................................................................................................................... 17 2.12 Visual Resources...................................................................................................................................... 18 2.13 Water Quality............................................................................................................................................ 19 OTETRA TECH I Packet Pg. 299 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 3.0 LEVEL 1 SOLUTION CONCEPT SCREENING............................................................................................... 20 3.1 Solution Concept Identification................................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Screening Criteria....................................................................................................................................... 24 3.3 Level 1 Screening Outcomes...................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.1 Near -term Recommendations........................................................................................................... 25 3.3.2 Solution Concepts Advanced to Level 2 Evaluation.......................................................................... 26 4.0 LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION................................................................. 29 4.1 Alternatives Development........................................................................................................................... 29 4.2 Alternatives Descriptions............................................................................................................................. 31 4.2.1 Emergency Access by Foot Alternatives........................................................................................... 31 4.2.2 Emergency Vehicle Access Alternatives........................................................................................... 33 4.2.3 Emergency Vehicle Access and Ferry Load/Offload......................................................................... 35 4.3 Evaluation Criteria....................................................................................................................................... 39 4.4 Level 2 Evaluation Outcomes..................................................................................................................... 43 4.5 Development of Recommendations............................................................................................................ 46 5.0 RECOMMENDED PLAN................................................................................................................................... 47 5.1 Near Term Actions...................................................................................................................................... 47 5.2 Mid- and Long -Term Recommendations.................................................................................................... 48 5.3 Implementation............................................................................................................................................ 51 5.3.1 Participation and Funding.................................................................................................................. 51 6.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................................................... 52 OTETRA TECH Packet Pg. 300 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Open House Meeting Participation....................................................................... Table 3-1. Compiled Solution Concepts for Level 1 Screening ............................................. Table 3-2. Level 1 Screening Criteria Descriptions................................................................ Table 3-3. Level 1 Concepts Advanced to Level 2............................................................... Table 4-1 Level 1 Concepts with Corresponding Level 2 Alternatives .................................. Table 4-2. Level 2 Rating Designations................................................................................. Table 4-3. Level 2 Evaluation Criteria Descriptions............................................................... Table 4-4. Summary of Planning -level Cost Estimates.......................................................... Table 4-5. Level 2 Evaluation Outcomes............................................................................... Table4-6. Numerical Ratings................................................................................................ Table B-1. Puget Sound Region Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants, 2014 ............ Table B-2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2000 and 2005, City of Edmonds .......................... Table B-3. Common Shellfish Found in the Edmonds Shoreline Jurisdiction ....................... Table B-4. Salmonids Found within the Edmonds Shoreline Jurisdiction ............................. Table B-5. Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary Fish Species ........................................ Table B-6. Sites with Past or Current Remediation Efforts .................................................... Table B-7. Motor vehicle LOS thresholds at signalized intersections .................................... Table B-8. Level of Service at Key Intersections in Project Area, 2015 and 2035 ................ Table B-9. Collision Rates at Key Intersections in Project Area ............................................ Table B-10. Park -and -ride Lot Usage, Edmonds Station, 2015..................................................... Table B-11. Bacteria Levels at Selected Parks on Edmonds Waterfront, Summer 2015 ..... Table B-12. Predicted Sea -level rise at latitude of Seattle relative to the Year 2000............ Table C-1. Concepts Not Considered Further/Do Not Address Purpose and Need .............. Table C-2. Level 1 Concepts Moving Forward to Level 2 Alternatives Analysis ................... Table D-1. Level 2 Screening Evaluation for Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Only Alternatives.. Table D-2. Level 2 Screening Evaluation for Emergency Access Roadway Alternatives ..... Table D-3. Level 2 Screening Evaluation for Ferry Alternatives ............................................ Table D-4. Level 2 Screening Evaluation Summary.............................................................. Table D-5. Midblock Overpass Cost Estimate....................................................................... Table D-6. Main Street Overpass Cost Estimate................................................................... Table D-7. Main Street Overpass - Option 3 Cost Estimate .................................................. Table D-8. Main Street Underpass Cost Estimate................................................................. Table D-8. Admiral Way Overpass Cost Estimate................................................................. Table D-9. Dayton Street Overpass Cost Estimate............................................................... Table D-10. Edmonds Street Overpass Cost Estimate.......................................................... Table D-11. Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal Cost Estimate ............................................. Table D-12. Main Street Ferry Overpass - Full Build Cost Estimate ..................................... Table D-13. Main Street Ferry Overpass - Min Build Cost Estimate ..................................... Table D-13. Main Street Ferry Underpass Cost Estimate...................................................... Table D-13. Edmonds Crossing Cost Estimate..................................................................... ........6 ..... 20 ..... 24 ..... 27 ..... 30 ..... 39 ..... 40 ..... 44 ..... 45 ..... 46 B-55 B-56 B-63 B-64 B-65 B-67 B-76 B-77 B-77 B-80 B-83 B-84 .. C-92 C-95 D-99 D-106 D-113 D-125 D-138 D-142 D-146 D-150 D-154 D-158 D-162 D-166 D-170 D-174 D-178 D-182 OTETRA TECH Packet Pg. 301 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1. At -grade Rail Crossing Locations............................................................................................................1 Figure 1-2. Summary of Study Phases......................................................................................................................5 Figure 2-1. Geologic Hazards and Fault Zones...................................................................................................... 11 Figure2-2. Soil Density.......................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-3. Approximate Extents of Contamination................................................................................................ 14 Figure 2-4. Emergency response time across railroad tracks................................................................................ 16 Figure1-1. Soil Density.......................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure1-1................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 3-1. Level 1 Solution Concept Locations..................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3-2. Near -term Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 4-1. Level 2 Alternative Locations............................................................................................................... 31 Figure B-1. 2014 Annual PM2.5 for Snohomish County..................................................................................... B-54 Figure B-2. Archaeological Site Probability.........................................................................................................B-60 Figure B-3. Soil types in the Project Area............................................................................................................ B-66 Figure B-4. Zoning in Project Area (PLACEHOLDER SANS LEGEND)............................................................. B-70 Figure B-5. Comprehensive Plan Designations in Project Area (PLACEHOLDER SANS LEGEND) ................ B-70 FigureB-6. xyz..................................................................................................................................................... B-72 Figure B-7. Roadway Network and Classifications, City of Edmonds................................................................. B-76 Figure B-8. Daily Train Crossings and Projections at Edmonds, 1970-2035...................................................... B-79 OTETRA TECH IV Packet Pg. 302 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT APPENDICES APPENDIX A - PUBLIC OUTREACH..................................................................................................................A-53 APPENDIX B - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT REPORT.....................................................................................B-54 APPENDIX C - LEVEL 1 CONCEPTS AND SCREENING.................................................................................C-92 APPENDIX D - LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION........................................................................D-99 APPENDIX E - TBD...........................................................................................................................................D-184 OTETRA TECH V Packet Pg. 303 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad WSDOT Washington state Department of Transportation WSF Washington State Ferries OTETRA TECH vi Packet Pg. 304 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Participating Agencies City of Edmonds Port of Edmonds Washington State Department of Transportation Washington State Ferries Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Sound Transit Community Transit Advisory Task Force members Mike Nelson, Edmonds City Council (Co-chair) Jim Orvis, Port of Edmonds Commissioner (Co-chair) Cadence Clyborne, Edmonds resident and business district representative Kirk Greiner, Edmonds resident Phil Lovell, Edmonds resident Joy Munkers, Community Transit Rick Wagner, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Lorena Eng, Washington State Department of Transportation Lynne Griffith/Nicole McIntosh, Washington State Ferries Division Jodi Mitchell, Sound Transit Consultant Team Members Tetra Tech, Inc. (Prime) Envirolssues, Inc. J.L. Patterson & Associates, Inc. Parametrix, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Stell Environmental Enterprises, Inc. Walker I Macy LLC OTETRA TECH VII Packet Pg. 305 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the Edmonds Waterfront Access Study is to identify near -term and long-term solutions for the at - grade crossings at Main and Dayton Streets in order to provide safe, reliable and efficient access for vehicular traffic (including freight), transit, emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists between downtown Edmonds and the waterfront, including regional transportation links. Refer to Figure 1-1. The project is intended to: • Provide for continuous emergency response access • Reduce delays and conflicts for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists at the Dayton Street and Main Street railroad crossings • Provide safe and efficient intermodal passenger connectivity between ferry, commuter rail, bus transit, pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle modes of travel. Figure 1-1. At -grade Rail Crossing Locations Laming North 1 3kD A E qTM AVE p _ 1�� T In 2014, the Main Street and Dayton Street railroad crossings averaged 36 daily train crossings from Sounder Commuter, Amtrak, and freight (BNSF Railway [BNSF]) trains. Train traffic will increase in the future as all three users of the BNSF tracks plan additional trains. OTETRA TECH 1 Packet Pg. 306 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Due to the proximity of the two at -grade crossings, both through and stopping trains simultaneously block both Main Street and Dayton Street. The average daily traffic (ADT) at each crossing is approximately 6,000 vehicles The Main Street crossing is approximately 150 feet east of the Edmonds Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Ferry Terminal and currently serves as the on/off loading access for the ferries. As the rail traffic increases, the number and duration of railroad crossing gate closures across Main Street and Dayton Street will grow, further isolating the waterfront from downtown Edmonds, emergency services, transit connections, and interrupting vehicle on/off loading operations at the ferry terminal. 1.1.1 Emergency Services Access Train passage with gate closures across Main Street and Dayton Street prevents timely delivery of emergency services to the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks. On the west side of the tracks, there are an active Senior Center, a marina with storage for 894 boats, a nationally significant salt -water dive park, three separate waterfront parks, several office buildings, two four- to five- story condominium buildings, several single-family homes, a popular dog park and pet exercise area, three restaurants, and the State Ferry Terminal. All of these are frequent users of paramedic, fire, and police services. The marina also is home to the Fire District 1 emergency response boat. Fire and emergency calls to addresses west of the BNSF tracks during the period July 1, 2010 to December 8, 2015 numbered 277. Of those calls, 121 resulted in basic life support services and 72 in advanced life support services. There were 14 fires and eight recorded water -related rescues. Response times ranged from 2 minutes 2 seconds to just over thirty minutes. Beyond the 277 calls recorded in the Fire District 1 database, additional calls were responded to by the District accessing their marine rescue boat stationed at the Port of Edmonds marina; the number of such calls average 40-50 per year. Delayed emergency responses of several minutes are not uncommon, and are attributable to multiple factors. On one documented occasion, heavy train traffic prevented an emergency vehicle carrying a critical patient to the hospital from getting off the arriving ferry. The risk of delayed emergency responses will increase in frequency and duration with increased train traffic. 1.1.2 At Grade Crossing Issues At -grade railroad crossings in the middle of a vibrant community present safety concerns as vehicles or pedestrians try to cross the track in advance of a gate closing for an oncoming train. They also act as a barrier within the community, in this case, separating the waterfront and downtown Edmonds; and impact local traffic operations when trains are moving through the area. Trains travel at high speeds, and due to the total weight of the trainset, they require an extended distance to come to a complete stop. This makes it nearly impossible for a train to stop in the event of a stalled vehicle at an intersection. In particular at Main Street, southbound trains enter a horizontal curve prior to the intersection, thereby further limiting the stopping sight distance. In the event of a collision on the tracks, the cost is high, and injuries are often fatal. These inherent risks associated with at -grade crossing make them dangerous in a small town where space and sight distance is limited. 1.1.3 Disconnection to Downtown Train traffic and ferry loading and unloading interrupts access to local businesses. Pedestrian movement between the recreational opportunities on the Puget Sound waterfront and downtown is disrupted. Downtown Edmonds is cut off from the waterfront by the heavy volume of ferry and train traffic. A need to better integrate the downtown core with the waterfront, improve shoreline pedestrian access and traffic circulation, and encourage mixed -use development are apparent. The current train and ferry traffic make it difficult to move between the two OTETRA TECH 2 Packet Pg. 307 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT areas, minimizing the value of the shoreline as a public resource and amenity, and adversely affecting the potential for redevelopment. 1.1.4 Traffic Operations Traffic at both the Main Street and Dayton Street intersections with SR-104 operate in free flow conditions according to the Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The traffic operations issue is related to traffic interruptions when a train is crossing the intersections of Main and/or Dayton Streets. The 1998 design report for the Edmonds Ferry Terminal showed that an intermodal train would block an intersection for 3.5 minutes, a freight train for 3.0 minutes, and a passenger train for 1.5 minutes. (WSDOT, Final Report, Edmonds Ferry Terminal Vehicle/Rail Traffic Conflict Study, 1998) When that report was undertaken, the frequency of train crossings averaged one every 42 minutes. Train volumes have increased since then (both freight and passenger), as have the length of some freight/intermodal trains. Recently, Washington State Ferries has begun tracking ferry delays due specifically to train operations. In the thirty -day period from November 15 through December 12, 2015, there were ten delays attributed to railroad crossing issues. Two of those were caused by problems with the railroad crossing gate (two ferries left with only walk-on passengers; several other cross -sound trips were cancelled), while the others were due to one or two trains crossing Main Street. Delays to ferry operations ranged from 3 to 15 minutes. Overall, the on -time performance (within ten minutes of schedule) of the Edmonds -Kingston route is 98% in 2015. During the period 2010-2015, police responded to 33 collisions on or adjacent to Main Street west of 2nd Avenue, and 56 collisions on or adjacent to Dayton Street west of 2nd Avenue. During this same period, the Washington State Patrol responded to 47 accidents on SR-104 in the immediate vicinity of the ferry terminal (Main Street to Dayton Street). 1.1.5 Livability and Economic Development Each train sounds its horn at a FRA regulated 110 decibels eight times at a distance of'/ mile as it passes by the waterfront and downtown. Between residents, ferry riders, beach visitors, trail walkers, and others in close proximity to the tracks the horn sounding can be disruptive to their enjoyment or use of the Edmonds waterfront. This required sounding of the horn also limits desirability of future development at the Salish Crossing and Harbor Square properties which are significant keys to Edmonds' economic future. A wayside warning system that would reduce these sound levels, has been approved and should be in place by the end of 2016. 1.1.6 Pedestrian, ADA, and Bicycle Access The at -grade railroad is a barrier to pedestrians' and bicyclists' easy enjoyment of the waterfront, the parks and recreation available along the waterfront and, conversely, to the Edmonds downtown. Integrate the downtown core with recreation and commercial activities along the waterfront to improve shoreline pedestrian access and traffic circulation. Persons using walkers or wheelchairs often require longer crossing times, which can become a higher risk decision when railroad tracks are involved. The senior center, located west of the tracks, is a popular destination for seniors in the Edmonds area, and is likely to attract a higher percentage of mobility -challenged pedestrians. 1.1.7 Freight Mobility An efficient freight transportation system helps to maintain the Puget Sound regions' quality of life, ensures businesses can deliver products and services to market, and makes the most of the region's strategic position as a critical gateway for international trade. At the Edmonds' waterfront, freight moves by rail, truck and ferry. The Edmonds -Kingston ferry route has the highest cross -sound freight traffic volume in the Washington State Ferry System. Reliable and safe movement of freight via all travel modes should be maintained. OTETRA TECH 3 Packet Pg. 308 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT In October 2015, the Edmonds City Council authorized Tetra Tech, Inc. to prepare this Edmonds Waterfront Analysis identifying solutions to the problems with access across the railroad tracks to the city's waterfront. 1.2 STUDY PROCESS The study process for the Edmonds Waterfront Analysis was structured about five phases, as summarized in Figure 1-2. The issues surrounding waterfront access across the railroad tracks are not new, and they have been examined in planning efforts over the past 25 years. The first phase of the work defined and characterized the problems posed by the at -grade crossings, researched available records, documented existing conditions, and defined the purpose and need for the project. The second phase of this study process emphasized the identification and consideration of the full range of potential solutions through: review of prior analyses consultation with transportation stakeholders, including: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF), Washington State Ferries, Washington State Department of Transportation, Sound Transit, Community Transit, Port of Edmonds, and City of Edmonds outreach to the community A total of 51 concepts, including a number of variants, were identified for consideration. In the third phase of the project, the Level 1 Screening, the identified solutions were defined to a conceptual level and evaluated against qualitative criteria to assess their feasibility and their potential effectiveness in addressing the project purpose and need. The most highly rated solution concepts were configured into formal alternatives in the fourth phase of the study, the Level 2 Evaluation. These alternatives were more fully developed to define their approximate footprints and geometries, examine their effectiveness and impacts, and estimate the cost to implement them. The alternatives were then assessed and compared using a more extensive and more quantified set of criteria in the Level 2 Evaluation. The fifth phase consisted of the development of recommended actions drawn from the outcomes of the Level 2 Evaluation, and preparation of this study report. OTETRA TECH 4 Packet Pg. 309 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Figure 1-2. Summary of Study Phases STUDY MILESTONE Understand existing Identify alternatives conditions TECHNICAL ANALYSIS STEPS Observe, quantify and document existing conditions at Main Street and Dayton Street crossings. Review data from previous studies and community input. GET INVOLVED Share your experiences with waterfront access and ideas for improving access • Compile potential measures to improve access, including both long-range and near - term solutions. Develop screening criteria. Prepare list of alternatives for screening and evaluation. Share your thoughts on alternatives to consider and screening criteria Screen alternatives (Level 1 review) Review alternatives within initial criteria to determine feasibility. Eliminate infeasible alternatives. • Document findings. Provide feedback on screened alternatives Evaluate alternatives (Level2 review) Further develop the remaining alternatives. • Apply more detailed criteria to evaluate alternatives. Document findings and initial recommendations. Provide feedback on evaluated alternatives and initial recommendations Develop recommendations Develop preferred alternative recommendations based on analysis. Present to City Council and Legislature. Document final recommendations in a report. Review preferred alternative recommendations PM oaH PM ooH PM oon PM oon PH Share your feedback throughout the study 1.2.1 Advisory Task Force In August 2015, the City of Edmonds formed the Mayor's Edmonds Waterfront Advisory Task Force on At -grade Rail Crossing Alternatives to guide the development of solutions and selection of a preferred alternative. The Task Force comprises representation of Edmonds residents and businesses, and owners and operators of transportation infrastructure along the Edmonds waterfront, including: Mike Nelson, Edmonds City Council (Co-chair) Jim Orvis, Port of Edmonds Commissioner (Co-chair) Cadence Clyborne, Edmonds resident and business district representative Kirk Greiner, Edmonds resident Phil Lovell, Edmonds resident Joy Munkers, Community Transit Rick Wagner, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Lorena Eng, Washington State Department of Transportation Lynne Griffith/Nicole McIntosh, Washington State Ferries Division Jodi Mitchell, Sound Transit OTETRA TECH 5 Packet Pg. 310 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT The Task Force conducted meetings twice monthly from September 2, 2015 through October 12, 2016 to review the work of the study team, conduct workshops to evaluate concepts and alternatives, and to develop the recommendations in this report. Agency representatives facilitated informational meetings with their staff to provide input to the analyses and technical review. Task force members also participated in four public meetings conducted throughout this study process to engage directly with the community, to explain the Advisory Task Force's role in the work, and to respond to questions related to their agency's operations along the Edmonds Waterfront. 1.2.2 Public Engagement The community has been engaged in the Edmonds Waterfront Access Study throughout the process. Outreach to the community has been multifaceted and designed to reach across the entire City: Open House Meetings were conducted at four key junctures in the study process (refer to Figure 1-2). These meetings were announced via newspapers, television, multiple social media platforms, email lists, on the City's website, and posters displayed in public spaces and private businesses across Edmonds. The first open house meeting was also announced through a post card mailed to every address in the City. Announcements were published with language translations in Spanish and Korean. The four open houses were conducted: November 18, 2015 — The study was introduced to the community, and initial input was gathered on defining the scope of problems with waterfront access, possible solutions, and appropriate criteria for evaluating alternatives. January 27, 2016 - Feedback was solicited on the initial list of solution concepts and on the draft criteria for use in the Level 1 Screening. May 12, 2016 — The results of the Level 1 Screening were presented, along with the Level 2 alternatives under development; feedback was solicited on the alternatives input was sought for criteria to be used in the Level 2 Evaluation. September 14, 2016 — Discussed the results of the Level 2 Evaluation process and the alternatives being considered for implementation, and the recommendation process was explained. In advance of this meeting, an informational booth was staffed at the Edmonds Saturday Market on September 3. On-line Open Houses (OOH) were launched to accompany each of the four open house meetings to provide additional opportunity to participate in the process. The OOHs presented the same materials available at the live meetings with capability to comment on each element of the display. OOHs were launched before the meetings and were maintained for 2 or 3 weeks following to allow community members to review and comment on the materials at their convenience, while offering timely input to the study process. Table 1-1 summarizes the level of participation at the public meetings and accompanying on-line open houses. Table 1-1. Open House Meeting Participation Public Meeting Attendees (signed in) On-line Open House Visits 116 83 38 newcomers 326 visits 175 visits 58 28 newcomers 268 visits 49 11 newcomers 40 visits 259 unique visitors 131 unique visitors 191 unique visitors 30 unique visitors Comment Submittals' 54 33 20 17 Note 1: Counts are limited to written comments received through handwritten forms and letters, email, and on- line. Does not include comments verbally received or noted on displays at meetings. OTETRA TECH 6 Packet Pg. 311 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Continuous On-line Presence was maintained on the homepage of the City's website, where the public could access materials from prior meetings and Advisory Task Force meeting notes. Periodic postings through social media sites Facebook and twitter were used to maintain a profile for the study. Press Releases were utilized to announce meetings and draw general media coverage by television, radio, and newspapers. City Council Briefings were conducted periodically throughout the study process: February 9, 2016; June 7, 2016, and November 7, 2016. Regular activity reports were provided by co-chair Mike Nelson at Council meetings. Other Public Presentations were made to the Port of Edmonds Commissioners and a local service group OTETRA TECH 7 Packet Pg. 312 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT An existing conditions analysis was completed in support of this study. The detailed documentation is provides in Appendix B to this report. This section summarizes the key findings of the affected environment analysis, as well as discussions and consultations with affected agencies including Fire District #1, Sound Transit, Community Transit, Washington State Ferries, the City of Edmonds, the Port of Edmonds, and the BNSF railway. In support of future environmental review of any recommendations that come out of this study, the affected environment related to the major environmental disciplines common in environmental review were documented. In reviewing the existing conditions, the ones that initially appear to be key in the evaluation of alternatives are: • Cultural and Historic Resources — potential to contain archaeological sites related to precontact and historic occupations and activities; • Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation — critical habitats along the shoreline and in and adjacent to the marsh; • Hazardous Materials — a number of on -going cleanup sites within the project area; • Public Services and Utilities — hindering of timely emergency services due to railroad crossing closures; • Transportation —traffic operations affecting arriving and departing ferries; delays due to railroad crossing closures; and • Visual Resources — elevated structures may interfere with existing views of Puget Sound, Olympics, and Kitsap Peninsula. A further summary of these topics follow, as well as air quality, geology and soils, land use, noise, parks and recreation, social and economic, and water quality. 2.1 AIR QUALITY Air quality in the Edmonds area is within federal standards. Particulate matter has been declining over the past decade, with fine particulate matter (PM2.5) at 6.2 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3), compared to the new federal standard of 15.5 ug/m3. Carbon monoxide (CO) levels have been well below the federal standards since 1998. The City of Edmonds has developed specific measures to address greenhouse gas emissions, including switching to biodiesel in may City -owned vehicles, retrofitting plumbing in City -owned buildings for efficiency, supporting rapid transit initiatives, installing energy -efficient LED lights in traffic signals, and offering public education on solid waste reduction and recycling. 2.2 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Background environmental, ethnographic, and archaeological information indicates that the Edmonds Waterfront has the potential to contain archaeological sites related to precontact and historic occupations and activities. Access to fresh water, salt water fishing, and varied shoreline, wetland, and upland forest resources would have provided many useful resources for native people. The area would have been easily reached by canoe from areas along the mainland coast and from the Kitsap Peninsula. Previous archaeological investigations have been concentrated in the area of Edmonds Commuter Rail Station and the south end of the waterfront in vicinity of the UNOCAL property. A shell midden site was found in exposed soil at the Deer Creek Fish Hatchery along Shellabarger Creek southwest of Edmonds Marsh. Archeological testing conducted for the Commuter Rail Station found historic resources from about 60-155 cm below surface south of Main Street near the railroad line. The potential for precontact archaeological resources in the project area is greatest on the margins of the former creek, wetland, and along the shoreline. Although previously identified in the earliest archaeological surveys as OTETRA TECH Packet Pg. 313 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT containing areas of low archaeological potential, the area along the railroad and commuter rail station have demonstrated presence of buried historic archaeological remains. The lack of archaeological investigations within the undeveloped marsh area does not provide a positive source of data, but this area is anticipated to also have a higher probability for precontact archaeological remains. Further archaeological inventory of the range of alternatives is recommended in order to investigate the presence or absence of archaeological materials within the areas to be potentially affected by the proposed project. The Edmonds Waterfront project area lies on the boundary between WDFW Salmon Management Areas (SMA) 9 and 10. The 1974 Boldt Decision upheld the right of Washington tribes to fish in their "usual and accustomed places." Tribes with usual -and -accustomed fishing rights in this SMA include: the Lummi Nation, Lower Elwha Klallam, Port Gamble S'Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam, the Swinomish, Skokomish, and Tulalip. These retained rights indicate a long-term relationship with the area that may include other significant traditional use areas (CH2M Hill 2003:32-102). During discussions for the Edmonds Crossing project in 1996, Bard and McClintock reported that the Suquamish and other tribes expressed concern with project construction and archaeological investigations in the Edmonds area. In other proceedings in the Puget Sound region, the tribes have voiced concerns over activities on the Puget Sound shorelines that might lead to environmental changes that affect traditional areas. Two historic building surveys have been conducted that encompass the project area, in 1996 and 2004 (Cox and Bard 1996; BOLA 2004). The resulting previously recorded NRHP-eligible historic buildings are located north of Main Street in downtown Edmonds. Further NRHP-eligible resources are unlikely to be identified within the project area, but additional analysis of the alternatives will be required to ascertain whether those known resources will be potentially affected by the project, or if reevaluation of the project area will be required to investigate whether additional historic building resources are present or may be affected. 2.3 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND VEGETATION Critical habitats within the City of Edmonds include those for Chinook salmon, bull trout, and killer whale. Bull trout habitat use along the Edmonds shoreline would be during periods of adult foraging and migration. Bull trout display wide-ranging foraging habits and are known to consume juvenile salmon (including Chinook) that inhabit shallow nearshore areas. Critical habitat for Chinook salmon is the marine nearshore; they are not known to use the small creeks in the project area. During juvenile foraging and juvenile and adult migration, the shoreline habitat would be used by Chinooks. In particular, the eelgrass beds provide high quality foraging habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. The threatened Puget Sound resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) is not a common visitor to central Puget Sound Since Edmond's shoreline jurisdiction extends far offshore, killer whales could well transit through the area. Shoreline development, ferry and boat traffic, and lack of salmon -bearing streams in the immediate project area would not attract whales to the nearshore (Edmonds 2007). Migratory birds that fall within the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and that may migrate through the greater Edmonds area include: Black Swift, Caspian Tern, Fox Sparrow, Marbled Godwit, Olive -sided Flycatcher, Peregrine Falcon, Purple Finch, Rufous Hummingbird, Short -eared Owl, Western Grebe, and Willow Flycatcher. There are no designated wildlife refuges in the project area. There is one wetland in the project area, the 23-acre Edmonds Marsh. It is a Category 1 (highest quality) wetland, also classified as a Wildlife Habitat and Natural Resource Sanctuary. The Marsh was once much larger prior to development on all four sides. Flows from the wetland into Puget Sound occur via pipes, ditches, and a 48-inch pipe, and a tide gate under Admiral Way. The tidal gate is normally kept closed from October through March. The pipe extends 1,275 feet into the lower intertidal beach south of the Edmonds Marina. The marsh is tidally influenced during spring and summer. The Edmonds Marsh is fed by Willow and Shellabarger Creeks, and runoff from approximately 900 acres of surrounding properties (Edmonds 2007). Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek contain potential or actual fish OTETRA TECH 9 Packet Pg. 314 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT habitat and meet the criteria for Type F waters (streams which contain fish habitat) pursuant to WAC 222-16-030 (ECDC 23.90.010). Over 225 bird species have been known to use the marsh. The great blue heron, a Washington State monitored species, nests near the marsh (WDFW 2006a). Birds with priority habitats that occur within the City include bald eagle, purple martin, and great blue heron. The bald eagle is listed as a federal and state threatened species. In the wetland riparian, and estuarine habitats along the Edmonds Shoreline, priority habitats for shellfish salmonids, eagle, great blue heron, California sea lion and harbor seals have been identified by WDFW/ Special status species that may occur nearshore include peregrine falcon, pileated woodpecker, Vaux's swift, merlin, purple martin, great blue heron, green heron, western big -eared bat, Keen's myotis bat, long-eared bat, and longlegged bat (WDFW 2006a). The Edmonds Underwater Park was identified as a priority haulout area for harbor seals and California sea lions by WDFW in 2006. The floats installed for divers were taken over by sea lions, making the floats unusable by divers. The floats have subsequently been removed. Harbor seals are known to use adjacent beaches (Lider 2006 personal communication). Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary Conservation Area is defined in WAC 220-16-720 as those bed lands and tidelands owned by the City of Edmonds at Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary, and the water column above these bed lands and tidelands including all of the area known as Edmonds Underwater Park. 2.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Soil maps prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture — Soil Conservation Service show that most of the project area is designated Urban Land, constituting fill material or developed land. There are no documented landslide hazard areas within the project area (Edmonds 2007). The project area is in Seismic Zone 3 (Uniform Building Code, 1997), meaning an area of high seismic risk. Seismic activity in the Puget Sound area is a result of collisions between the Juan de Fuca plate and the North American plate. No known active faults are mapped in the immediate project area (CH2M HILL 2003). Shoreline slope stability refers to the relative stability of coastal slopes based on mapping completed by Ecology in the early to mid-1970s. Shoreline slopes in the project area are mapped as modified and stable (Edmonds 2007). There are no mapped hillside erosion hazard areas in the project area. Streams within Edmonds, however, are mapped with "extensive erosion hazard areas along their banks." Vegetation along the stream banks prevent soil compaction and erosion, limiting turbidity and sedimentation in waters that harbor fish and aquatic invertebrates (Edmonds 2007). OTETRA TECH 10 Packet Pg. 315 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study October 2016 DRAFT Figure 2-1. Geologic Hazards and Fault Zones A w DAYTON S LU Z A ...... . . . . . .......... ...... ...... Note: Locations, aerial limits, and depths are approximate and for concept engineering and planning purposes only. Geol-lazards / Fault Zone 0 800 Feet NTETRA TECH 11 I Packet Pg. 316 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Figure 2-2. Soil Density r� e � Wes 4 PROSPECT ST PINE ST Note: Locations, aerial limits, and depths are approximate and for concept engineering and planning purposes only. Legend Depth to Very Dense Soil (Feet) ® Marsh Deposits (Peat, Silt, Silty Sand) SOIL DENSITY e co DAYTON ST w a 0 z N ALDER ST z 0 o 600 Feet OTETRA TECH 12 Packet Pg. 317 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 2.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Fourteen sites in the general study area are included in the Washington State Department of Ecology's database of facilities with past or current remediation efforts. Those with on -going cleanup activities include: • Edmonds Dry Storage, 400 Admiral Way • Edmond Port Fur Breeders Building, 335 Admiral Way • Edmonds Port UST, 458 Admiral Way • Edmonds Port W Dayton Site, 120-190 W Dayton Street • Mar Vel Marble LLC, 202 Main Street • Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal, 11720 Unoco Road The largest hazardous waste facility in the Edmonds area is the Unocal site. Although the site is outside the city of Edmonds and its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) boundaries, the facility partially drains into Edmonds and adjacent SMP areas. According to Ecology, most of the Site is now clean. Ecology certified the Upper Yard was suitable for residential use in 2003 and Point Edwards Condominiums were subsequently constructed. Additional Interim Actions will begin in 2016 to clean up two remaining areas of contamination. One is the stormwater detention Basin 2 Area and other is the vicinity of a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) storm drain crossing the site (Ecology 2016). OTETRA TECH 13 Packet Pg. 318 .,..�• �: ' .•tos �___ z .- Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 2.6 LAND USE The project area is comprised of land uses on both sides of the BNSF track(s). To the west of the railroad, land uses include parks, the ferry terminal, multi -family residential, commercial, restaurants, and the marina. Zoning code designations include Public Use (P) and Commercial Waterfront (CW). The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designations for this area include Parks/Open Space, Shoreline Commercial, and Master Plan Development. East of the railroad tracks is a mix of open space, residential, and commercial uses. Zoning includes Master Plan 1 and 2, General Commercial, Community Business, Downtown Mixed Commercial and Office -Residential. The Comprehensive Plan designations include Downtown Mixed Commercial, Downtown Master Plan, Parks/Open Space, and Master Plan Development. Maps showing these zones are included in Appendix B. The Edmonds City Council, in November 2014, passed a resolution stating its intent to adopt an update of the City's Shoreline Master Program (Edmonds, 2014). The Update is now undergoing review by the State Department of Ecology prior to final adoption by the City. In the Marine Shoreline South area, which constitutes the shoreline adjacent to the project area, the shoreline designations include Aquatic I (general Puget Sound), Aquatic II (ferry route and marina access), Conservancy (parks), Urban Mixed Use I (developments north of the marina and south the Brackett's Landing South), Urban Mixed Use II (marina area), Urban Mixed Use IV (developments adjacent to Edmonds Marsh), Urban Railroad (BNSF right-of-way), and Natural (Edmonds Marsh) The ferry holding lanes and the BNSF tracks serve as barriers between the downtown business community and the waterfront uses. Main Street, just to the north of the holding lanes, provides the main pedestrian conduit between downtown and the waterfront, though frequent trains, many quite lengthy, cut off access for several minutes at a time. The draw of the waterfront parks, the ferry terminal, the senior center, and the marina and associated businesses remain strong, however, in spite of the periodic disruption of access. 2.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The City of Edmonds operates and maintains the water distribution system in the project area. The City also operates and maintains a wastewater treatment plant on the corner of SR 104 and Dayton Street. Two wastewater outfalls enter Puget Sound north of the marina's breakwater and extend 1,200 feet into the sound Sound Disposal provides solid waste and recycling pickup along the Edmonds waterfront and in downtown Edmonds. Republic Services provides services in the former Unocal site south of Edmonds marsh. The Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 provides fire and emergency services to the City of Edmonds under a twenty-year interlocal agreement signed in 2010. The nearest fire station to the project area is Fire Station 17 located at 275 Sixth Avenue North. Train passage with gate closures across Main Street and Dayton Street prevents timely delivery of emergency services to the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks. On the west side of the tracks, there are an active Senior Center, a marina, a nationally significant salt -water dive park, three separate waterfront parks, several office buildings, two four- to five- story condominium buildings, several single-family homes, a popular dog park and pet exercise area, three restaurants, and the State Ferry Terminal. The marina also is home to the Fire District 1 emergency response boat. All of these are frequent users of paramedic, fire, and police services. Delayed emergency responses of several minutes are not uncommon, and delays are projected to increase in frequency and duration with increased train traffic. On at least one occasion, heavy train traffic prevented an emergency vehicle carrying a critical patient to the hospital from getting off the arriving ferry. In April 2016, a pedestrian -train accident closed the Main Street and Dayton Street crossings for several hours, during which two unrelated emergency calls were received from the waterfront area, necessitating responders crossing through the stopped train on foot to treat and evacuate individuals needing care. Fire and emergency calls to locations west of the BNSF tracks during the period July 1, 2010 to December 8, 2015 numbered 277. Of those calls, 121 resulted in basic life support services and 72 in advanced life support OTETRA TECH 15 Packet Pg. 320 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT services. There were 14 fires and eight water -related rescues. Response times ranged from 2 minutes and 2 seconds to just over thirty minutes; Figure 2-4 shows the distribution of response times for the 277 calls. In addition to the call records, Fire District 1 estimates they receive between 40 and 50 call -outs annually for their emergency response boat moored in the marina. Figure 2-4. Emergency response time across railroad tracks 30 20 10 0 � ' 0:00:00 0:02:00 0:03:00 0:04:00 0:0. Count of Incidents by Response Time (Minutes) M M i:00 0:06:00 0:07:00 0:08:00 0:09:00 0:10:00 0:11:00 0:12:00 0:13:00 0:15:00 0:16:00 M M M 0:18:00 0:21:00 0:30:00 Police services are provided by the Edmonds Police Department, located at 250 5th Avenue North. During the period 2010-2015, police responded to 33 collisions on or adjacent to Main Street west of 2nd Avenue, and 56 collisions on or adjacent to Dayton Street west of 2nd Avenue. During this same period, the Washington State Patrol responded to 47 accidents on SR-104 in the immediate vicinity of the ferry terminal (Main Street to Dayton Street). 2.8 NOISE According to monitoring done as part of the Edmonds Crossing project, existing ambient noise levels (vehicular traffic and other background noise sources, except trains) at various locations west of the railroad tracks ranged from 43 dBA-Leq (dBA are decibels on an A -weighted scale that approximate the response of the human ear; Leq levels are hourly equivalent sound pressure levels) to 59 dBA-Leq, compared to the FHWA peak -hour impact criterion of 67 dBA-Leq. The locations with the loudest sound levels were Brackett Park South (59 dBA); and the residences just north of Dayton Avenue west of Railroad Avenue (57 dBA). Measurements of ferry noise were also made as part of the Edmonds Crossing analysis. Maximum noise levels of ferry operations at the Edmonds terminal ranged from 55 to 65 dBA at 100 feet. Typical noise levels during OTETRA TECH 16 Packet Pg. 321 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT launching and docking was 60 dBA. The ferry horn is sounded during ferry arrivals and departures per maritime safely rules and, thus, their noise levels were not quantified (CH2M HILL 2003). Noise levels of passing trains were measured at 87 dBA at 100 feet from the tracks. The typical noise level of the train horn, which is sounded as a train approached a grade crossing, is 95 to 100 dBA at 100 feet (CH2M HILL 2003). The use of the horn is required for safe operations, though alternatives such as wayside horns can be used and are proposed for Edmonds. 2.9 PARKS AND RECREATION There are seven parks within or adjacent to the project area operated and maintained by the City of Edmonds. • Marina Beach Park, 470 Admiral Way • Olympic Beach, 200 Admiral Way • Brackett's Landing South, 100 Railroad Avenue S. • Brackett's Landing North, Main St/Railroad Avenue. • Sunset Avenue, at Sunset Avenue N • Richard F. Anway Park, 131 Sunset • Edmonds Marsh, 180 W. Dayton Street The Edmonds Marina, located between Marina Beach Park and Olympic Beach Park, includes 662 wet moorage slips and 232 dry storage spaces. Guest moorage is provided for overnight and short-term stays. The Edmonds terminal of the Washington State Ferries is located at the end of Main Street. While primarily a means of transportation, the ferry route to Kingston also serves a recreational role as it transport sightseers across Puget Sound. The Willow Creek (Deer Creek) Fish Hatchery, 95 Pine Street, adjacent to Edmonds Marsh, includes a wildlife habitat and native plant demonstration garden. 2.10 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC Population, employment, income, and housing information is contained in Appendix B. The Port of Edmonds Marina is a principal business on the west side of the railroad tracks and is a major draw along the Edmonds waterfront. There is a one- to four-year waiting list for slips for vessels larger than 31 feet; slips for smaller vessels are more easily obtained. Thirty short-term slips are available. Two restaurants and several office buildings complete the business make-up of the waterfront. The Edmonds Crossing FEIS looked at the relationship between the local Edmonds economy and the Edmond Ferry Terminal and route. While difficult to isolate the specific economic relationship due to the multitude of factors including lack of subarea specific economic data, the FEIS did look at a special case in 1995 where the ferry terminal was out of service in February of that year for reconstruction (passenger service continued to be provided). During that specific period, year-to-year change in sales and use tax distributions for Edmonds were actually up 19.7% from February 1994. It is possible, though, that sales in the immediate area may have been down, offset by increases in other parts of the City (CH2M Hill 2003). 2.11 TRANSPORTATION Traffic at both the Main Street and Dayton Street intersections with SR-104 operate in free flow conditions according to the Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan. In transportation parlance, level of service (LOS) denotes how free -flowing traffic conditions are at a given intersection or roadway segment. LOS A connotes an intersection delay of ten seconds or less, while LOS F connotes delays exceeding 80 seconds. LOS at the three intersections in or adjacent to the project area are all operating at LOS A or B, both now and projected in 2035 which signifies very little delay at intersections. OTETRA TECH 17 Packet Pg. 322 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT The real traffic operations issue is not average daily traffic but related to ferry ingress and egress pulses, and traffic interruptions when a train is crossing the intersections of Main and/or Dayton Streets. The 1998 design report for the Edmonds Ferry Terminal showed that an intermodal train would block an intersection for 3.5 minutes, a freight train for 3.0 minutes, and a passenger train for 1.5 minutes (WSDOT 1998). When that report was undertaken, the frequency of train crossings averaged one every 42 minutes. Train volumes have increased since then (both freight and passenger), as have the length of some freight/intermodal trains. Recently, Washington State Ferries has begun tracking ferry delays due specifically to train operations. In the thirty -day period from November 15 through December 12, 2015, there were ten ferry delays attributed to railroad crossing issues. Two of those were caused by problems with the railroad crossing gate (two ferries left with only walk-on passengers; several other cross -sound trips were cancelled), while the others were due to one or two trains crossing Main Street. Delays to ferry operations ranged from 3 to 15 minutes. Overall, the on -time performance (within ten minutes of scheduled departure) of the Edmonds -Kingston route was 98% in 2015. Accident figures presented in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan show that the intersection of Main Street and 3rd Avenue has the highest collision rate in the city, with 1.4 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. Collision rates at the SR-104 intersections were at a lower rate, with SR-104 and Dayton at 0.7 collisions per million vehicles, while at SR-104 and Main, the rate was 1.2 per million. During the period 2010-2015, police responded to 33 collisions on or adjacent to Main Street west of 2nd Avenue, and 56 collisions on or adjacent to Dayton Street west of 2nd Avenue. During this same period, the Washington State Patrol responded to 47 accidents on SR-104 in the immediate vicinity of the ferry terminal (Main Street to Dayton Street). The BNSF mainline, on which Amtrak and Sounder passenger trains operate, passes through downtown Edmonds. It is also major freight corridor with intermodal, oil, coal trains. Approximately 43 trains pass through Edmonds daily (2014). Projections for 2020-2030 prepared for Pacific Northwest Railroad Coalition (December 2011) employed "moderate growth" and "high growth" scenarios, and forecast average daily train traffic of 63 to 70 trains by 2020 and 75 to 87 by 2030. They also forecast peak day train volumes of between 69 and 77 by 2020, and between 83 and 96 by 2030. The WSDOT Rail Plan (December 2013) forecasts an average of 64 trains/day by 2035. According to data provided by BNSF for one day in February 2016 (Wagner 2016), gate closures at Dayton and Main Streets totally 100 minutes out of 1434 minutes, meaning that the crossings were closed 7% of the time and had an average closure time of 2.01 minutes. An analysis of 24 hour per day videotapes recorded by the City of Edmonds during a two week period in June 2012, showed a daily average of 37 gate closures, totaling 1 hour 20 minutes per day. This translates into an average closure duration of 2.16 minutes. A daily average of 10.6 delays in loading or unloading operations of the Edmonds -Kingston ferry were recorded (note that the ferry may still have departed on time depending on timing and duration of gate closure). Vehicles delayed by gate closures averaged 709 per day with 84 percent of delayed vehicles travelling to- and from the ferry dock; vehicle delays averaged 28.7 vehicle -hours daily. Pedestrians were delayed on average of 10 times per day affecting 115 pedestrians, while emergency vehicles were delayed a somewhat under 1 time per day (0.75 per day). 2.12 VISUAL RESOURCES The principal views of the project area are from Puget Sound, surrounding neighborhoods and from persons travelling through by car, train, or non -motorized means. The main views from the project areas are to the west — the Sound, Kitsap Peninsula, and the Olympics. Pedestrians and bicyclists are among the most sensitive viewer groups, especially when engaging in recreational activities. The various waterfront parks, the fishing pier, and waterfront walkways have panoramic views to the west. The Edmonds Marsh trails are also frequented by recreational users, with the intended views primarily of wildlife. In general, users of these parks and facilities OTETRA TECH 18 Packet Pg. 323 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT would be highly sensitive to changes in the views. The duration of their viewing would generally be for as long as they are along the shoreline or in the marsh area. The other sensitive viewers would be residents — along Railroad Avenue, along North Sunset Avenue, and on the Point Edwards Bluff. The duration of these views are the longest. Motorists traveling to and through Edmonds constitute the largest viewer group. Over 11,000 passengers use the Edmonds ferry terminal daily, experiencing panoramic views of the Sound and project area (WSF, 2016). Persons arriving by vehicle see the project area as they approach the Edmonds Marsh. Persons waiting in the ferry queue have few opportunities to view the waterfront due to development between SR-104 and the waterfront. 2.13 WATER QUALITY Through Ecology's BEACH program, Snohomish County conducts weekly water quality monitoring of recreational areas from May through September for bacteria that may pose a risk to people using the waterfront. Within Edmonds, water quality is monitored at Marina Beach Park and Edmonds Underwater Park. The 2015 results for each beach showed bacteria results substantially below the limits. On one day, bacteria results at the Marine Beach Park were in the swimming advisory range. Resampling showed low bacteria levels. On the same day at the Underwater Park, results were also very high (in the swimming closure range). Again, resampling showed lower bacteria levels. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain designations within the project area are limited to the Puget Sound shoreline and Edmonds Marsh (EDAW 2004). Some flooding has occurred along the coast, but more serious flooding has occurred in areas adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger Creek in recent years (Edmonds 2007). Puget Sound is expected to experience sea -level rise due to climate change in the coming years. The University of Washington's Climate Change Impacts group has prepare predictions as to the amount of sea -level rise and range from a low of 4 inches to a high of 56 inches, with the most likely being 24 inches of water surface elevation rise by 2100010 (USCCI, 2015). OTETRA TECH 19 Packet Pg. 324 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 3.1 SOLUTION CONCEPT IDENTIFICATION To identify near -term and long-term solutions for the at -grade crossings at Main and Dayton Streets a broad list of concepts was developed, including both structural and nonstructural solutions. Concepts were drawn from prior studies for the waterfront area, improvements applied to railroad crossings in other communities, consultation with local transportation agencies and other stakeholders, from the design experiences of the study team, and through extensive consultation with the community. The team looked at near -term and long-term solutions aimed at improving the safety and reliability of the train crossings in Edmonds to support traffic, transit and emergency access to the waterfront. Concepts were developed through on -going task force meetings, public input, and previous studies. These ideas were compiled for review and evaluation with the Advisory Task Force. The study involved two -stage evaluation of solutions. The first was the Level 1 Screening, which reviewed a wide array of solutions that were developed to a conceptual level. The qualitative criteria applied to the solutions in the Level 1 Screening were directed toward distinguishing between the concepts' abilities to meet the project's purpose and needs; those concepts that were infeasible or less effective were removed from further consideration. The concepts that remained after the Level 1 Screening were then further developed and evaluated using a set of more quantified criteria in the Level 2 Evaluation to determining preferred alternative(s) for implementation. Over 40 distinct solution concepts were compiled from prior studies and analyses, public outreach efforts, and project team development. They are briefly described in Table 3-1, where they are organized by solution type. Multiple locations are identified where a given solution type may be appropriate, and the locations are indicated on Figure 3.1. Some concepts were developed to explore optional design features, resulting in 51 overall solution concepts. Detailed descriptions of each solution concept are provided in Appendix C. Table 3-1. Compiled Solution Concepts for Level 1 Screening Roadway Overpass Overpass 1 South end of Admiral Way from lower yard at Unocal site ("Pine Street Extension") Overpass 2 Marina Beach Park/Edmonds Crossing area from relocated ferry terminal flyover Overpass 3 Near Edmonds Yacht Club Overpass 4 Dayton Avenue Overpass 5 Mid -block, near Senior Center Overpass 6 Main Street (including ferry loading) Overpass 7 Pedestrian/bicycle overpass spanning Main Street and Railroad Overpass 8 Extension of Bell Street to Brackett's Landing Park North Overpass 9 Extension of Edmonds Street to Brackett's Landing Park North Overpass 10 Near Haines Wharf Park OTETRA TECH 20 Packet Pg. 325 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Solution Concept Description Roadway Underpass Underpass 1 Main Street Underpass 2 Dayton Street for all travel modes Underpass 3 Salish Crossing (north of Dayton) for small service vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles only Underpass 4 Main Street undercrossing for small service vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles only Railroad Modifications Railroad 1 Train Trench: Full clearance under both Main & Dayton Railroad 2 Train Trench: Full clearance under Main Street, with raised roadway at Dayton Railroad 3 Combination Rail Underpass plus Roadway Overpass Railroad 4 Combination Rail Overpass plus Roadway Underpass Railroad 5 Elevated rail to pass over road crossings Railroad 6 Relocate tracks into tunnel beneath Edmonds Railroad 7 Double -track to optimize train passage and reduce passing time Railroad 8 Relocate freight rail to east of 1-405 along former Eastern Subdivision ROW Operational Ops 1 Limit the daily number of long trains passing through crossings Ops 2 Operate long trains only at night Ops 3 Synchronize ferry schedule and train crossings to reduce conflicts Ops 4 Emergency signals to halt trains short of Main Street and Dayton Street Ops 5 Advance notification of hazardous cargo shipments on trains Ops 6 Improve emergency operation of crossing gates Ops 7 Tsunami evacuation plan On -site Improvements Site 1 Emergency first aid training to employees on west side of railroad tracks Site 2 Station emergency response staff and equipment on west side of railroad tracks Site 3 Helipad for evacuation from west of railroad tracks Site 4 At -grade crosswalk improvements at Dayton Street and Railroad Avenue Site 5 At -grade crosswalk improvements at Main Street and Railroad Avenue Ferry Terminal Modifications Ferry 1 Edmonds Crossing (Point Edwards Concept) Ferry 2 Expanded Terminal Concept (enlarged trestle for greater vehicle storage) OTETRA TECH 21 Packet Pg. 326 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Ferry 3 Mid -Waterfront Concept (vehicle storage @ Harbor Square w/ trestle at Dayton St.) Ferry 4 Multimodal Center Garage/ferry vehicle storage, from Dayton St. to flyover to ferry Ferry 5 Underground Ferry holding with pedestrian bridge extended Ferry 6 Vehicle holding garage off Dayton Street with overpass to Railroad Avenue Ferry 7 Trumpet flyover at Dayton Street with surface vehicle storage west of Railroad Avenue Ferry 8 Surface parking at Salish Center with flyover at Main Street Ferry 9 Railroad Avenue Holding Lanes accessed via at -grade crossing through Unocal site Ferry 10 Railroad Avenue Exiting Lanes via at -grade crossing from through the Unocal site Ferry 11 Relocate railroad tracks to current holding lanes; move holding lanes to west side of tracks OTETRA TECH 22 Packet Pg. 327 N W W r m (D U) 0 c o' C) 0 0 m r 0 0 v o' D Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access report draft 20161103 (1653 : Recommendations of the At -Grade Rail Crossings Alternatives Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 3.2 SCREENING CRITERIA Input to the proposed screening criteria was drawn from multiple sources: the stated purpose and need for the project, commonly applied evaluation and environmental review categories, and from community input. Table 3-2 presents the criteria applied in the Level 1 Screening. The Level 1 criteria were intentionally qualitative in their design to appropriately correspond with the conceptual level of the solutions. The solution concepts were evaluated using a visual rating scheme of colored response icons, with a green icon being most positive, a red icon least positive, and a yellow icon indicating an intermediate rating between green and red; in some cases, the yellow icon represented a neutral or no -effect assessment. If it was found that a concept could not be feasibly implemented, it was noted to be fatally flawed. Table 3-2. Level 1 Screening Criteria Descriptions Does the concept provide for continuous emergency response access across the railroad? Does the concept reduce the likelihood of/potential for rail traffic delaying emergency response? Does the concept improve emergency evacuation from the waterfront? Does the concept reduce delays for pedestrians? Does the concept reduce pedestrian conflicts between travel modes? Does the concept improve connection between major destinations? (parks, transit, marina, ferry, downtown, restaurants) Is the concept feasible to construct? Is the concept feasible to fund? Is the concept feasible to permit? To ecosystem resources (streams, marsh/ wetlands, marine shorelines)? To historic, cultural, and archaeological resources? OTETRA TECH 24 Packet Pg. 329 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT To visual aesthetics? To noise levels? To sites containing hazardous materials? To use of park lands? To air quality? To soils and groundwater? What is the concept's potential to avoid adverse effects on neighborhoods? To businesses? Is the concept compatible with positive urban design? What is the concept's potential to avoid conflicts with parks/recreation assets? Does the concept avoid creating safety hazards? Does the concept improve freight mobility? (via rail, via ferry) 3.3 LEVEL 1 SCREENING OUTCOMES The Level 1 Screening produced a number of near -term recommendations and selected a series of concepts to advance for further development and more detailed assessment in the Level 2 Evaluation of longer -term solutions. 3.3.1 Near -term Recommendations Several concepts are recommended for implementation independent of the Edmonds Waterfront Access Study. While these concepts are supportive of some elements of the Waterfront Access Study objectives, they are more appropriately advanced either directly by the City of Edmonds or collaboratively with a different stakeholder group. Recommended near -term actions include: Construct crosswalk improvements at the Main Street at -grade railroad crossing to improve pedestrian safety and comfort (Level 1 Screening concept On -site 4). Recommended this be implemented directly by the City and coordinated with BNSF. Construct crosswalk improvements at the Dayton Street at -grade railroad crossing to improve pedestrian safety and comfort (Level 1 Screening concept On -site 5). Recommended this be implemented directly by the City and coordinated with BNSF. Implement emergency notifications, between the 911-call center and BNSF operations when an emergency is reported on the west side of the railroad tracks, to notify trains to halt outside of downtown Edmonds so that police and fire can respond without delay by passing trains (Level 1 Screening concept Operational 4). Recommended this be implemented through coordination between the City, Fire District 1, and BNSF. Create and implement a Waterfront Emergency Evacuation Plan with measures that respond to a broad range of potential emergencies (Level 1 Screening concepts On -site 1, On -site 3, and On -site 7). Recommended this be OTETRA TECH 25 Packet Pg. 330 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT developed and implemented by an appropriate group that would include the City departments, Fire District 1, Swedish Hospital, Port of Edmonds, and Washington State Ferries, among others. Figure 3-2. Near -term Recommendations 3.3.2 Solution Concepts Advanced to Level 2 Evaluation Based on the results of the Level 1 Screening process, 13 of the solution concepts were selected to be further developed into formal alternatives for the Level 2 Evaluation. These concepts are denoted with blue checkmarks in Table 3-3, which presents a summary of the Level 1 Screening results. Details of the Level 1 reviews for each solution concept are provide in Appendix C. OTETRA TECH 26 Packet Pg. 331 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table 3-3. Level 1 Concepts Advanced to Level 2 Conceptrr r Feasibility Improves Reduces Reduces delays Provides safe/ Is feasible to Avoids Avoids creating reliable delays to ferry for all at rail efficient implement environmental social and/ emergency loading/ crossings intermodal effects or economic response access unloading connectivity impacts ROADWAY OVERPASS 1 DISCONTINUE Displacement of dry moorage stacks is too extensive for the Port to accommodate 1 7 40 - - - DISCONTINUE Relies upon Edmonds Crossing (Ferry 1), which is discontinued from consideration as it was removed from WSF long range plans 1 - • - - - 10 0 0 0 0 Not Assessed Not Assessed DISCONTINUE Does not meet purpose and need 1 ! I. V V V DISCONTINUE Anticipated economic effects more extensive than Overpass 4B 1 ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 Dayton St Pedestrian/Emergency Access Overpass 1 ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 Midblock Pedestrian/Limited Emergency Access Overpass f ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 Main Street Ferry Overpass 2 1V E V V ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 Main Street Pedestrian/Limited Emergency Access Overpass DISCONTINUE V 0 1V 0 V 0 0 For similar functionality, the cost and visual impact is greater than For Overpass 7A 1 ' - ■ - • • - • 1V DISCONTINUE Grades are steeper and impacts to park greater than for Overpass 9 ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 1V E _ Edmonds Street Pedestrian / Emergency Access 14/ Overpass 1 1 Not Assessed Not Assessed DISCONTINUE Does nol meet purpose and need ROADWAY UNDERPASS ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 u ! Combine features with Ferry 5 to become It Main Street Ferry Underpass DISCONTINUE s f Provides lesser benefits than Underpass 1, and maintains at grade crossings under normal operations i - - . . - DISCONTINUE Does not meet purpose and need ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 1 V Main Street Pedestrian/Limited Emergency Access Underpass RAILROAD MODIFICATIONS X Not Assessed Not Assessed DISCONTINUE XNot Assessed Not Assessed . i • . X Not Assessed Not Assessed X Not Assessed Not Assessed BNSF cannot accept changes in the horizontal or vertical alignment of the railroad tracks • • • • X ■ ■ XNot Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed Not Assessed DISCONTINUE Already planned for construction DISCONTINUE XNot Assessed Not Assessed Rail right-of-way is no longer available for implementation KEY __ ■ Yes, but not very well • Yes, very well Yes, somewhat Does not meet Suggested by ■ Yes, but with challenges "criteria; fatal flaw the community OTETRA TECH 27 Packet Pg. 332 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table 3-3. continued Concept Purpose and Need Feasibility Improves Reduces Reduces delays Provides safe/ Isieasibleto Avoids Avoids creating reliable delays to ferry for all at rail efficient implement environmental social and/ emergency loading/ crossings inlermodal effects or economic response access unloading connectivity impacts OPERATIONAL ! ' �/ X Not Assessed Not Assessed DISCONTINUE BNSF does not have ability to schedule trains to pass at specific times as they are "built" remotely and 1 ' X Not Assessed Not Assessed scheduled to meet customer needs DISCONTINUE 1 ' X Not Assessed Not Assessed BNSF does not have ability to implement concept's restrictions on the timing of the freight rail traffic ! , ■ ■ • • • Concept should be implemented as a near -term solution to complement other concepts 1 ' X Not Assessed Not Assessed DISCONTINUE Does not meet purpose and need DISCONTINUE 1 ' X Not Assessed Not Assessed Standardized train detection system cannot be modified locally DISCONTINUE ! ' Not Assessed Not Assessed Propose concept be considered outside of Waterfront Access process ON -SITE IMPROVEMENTS DISCONTINUE Not Assessed Not Assessed Propose concept be considered outside of Waterfront Access process • ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 Emergency Response Team DISCONTINUE r♦ Propose concept be considered outside of Waterfront Aceess process ■ ■ - . . • FERRY TERMINAL MODIFICATIONS DISCONTINUE • - High cost, and Edmonds Crossing is not a part of WSF's Long Range Plan and therefore cannot be relied upon for access DISCONTINUE Not Assessed Not Assessed Provides only for improved vehicle queuing and does not meet purpose and need ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal • to ■ ■ . (Offers an alternative to Edmonds Crossing and current ferry terminal location) ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 • • • . ■ Combine features with Ferry 8 concept to become Main Street Ferry Overpass 1 (Offers redevelopment opportunity) ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 - I. Combine Features with Underpass 1 to become Main Street Ferry Underpass DISCONTINUE 40 V Ilb X 0 X Not feasible for WSF due to roadway ownership and access issues X 0 x DISCONTINUE Property is unavailable, and ferry traffic access along Railroad Avenue is unacceptable to WSF ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 Combine Features with Ferry 4 concept to become • • . . ■ ■ Main Street Ferry Overpass 1 (Offers redevelopment opportunity) X Not Assessed Not Assessed DISCONTINUE Unacceptable to BNSF (new at -grade crossing) or WSF (relies on access along Railroad Avenue) !0 X Not Assessed Not Assessed Does not provide emergency access DISCONTINUE X Not Assessed ■ Does not provide emergency access Unacceptable to BNSF (new at -grade crossing) Social and economic impacts are high KEY • ■Yes, but not very well Yes, very well Yes, somewhat Yes, Does not meet Suggested by ■ Yes, but with challenges X criteria; fatal flaw the communfty OTETRA TECH 2$ Packet Pg. 333 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT M 4.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Moving from the Level 1 Concept Screening into the Level 2 Alternatives Evaluation, the most promising concepts were integrated into 10 solution alternatives addressing most, if not all, of the defined purpose and needs for the project. Table 4-1 summarizes the transition of Level 1 concepts into their corresponding Level 2 Alternatives. Alternatives were developed having both near -term and long-term implementation timelines, and to allow for pairing of alternatives that could offer phased improvement of access. All of the alternatives provide waterfront access for emergency responders in the event the at -grade crossings are blocked; however, the level of service for emergency access differs between the alternatives, which are summarized as follows: Pedestrian/bicycle overpass or underpasses. Emergency responders cross over or under the railroad tracks on foot to access an aid car stationed in a secured garage on the waterfront side of the tracks. Overpasses/underpasses provide full-time pedestrian/bicycle/ADA access across the railroad tracks. Emergency vehicle overpasses. Emergency responders cross over the railroad tracks in their vehicles (police cars, aid cars, fire trucks) on access -controlled single lane roadway. Overpasses provide full-time pedestrian/bicycle/ADA access across the railroad tracks. Ferry access overpasses or underpasses. Emergency responders cross over or under the railroad tracks in their vehicles (police cars, aid cars, fire trucks) using the ferry vehicle access roadways and a ramp connecting to grade on the waterfront. Overpasses/underpasses provide full-time pedestrian/bicycle/ADA access across the railroad tracks. During the Level 1 Concept Screening, the Edmonds Crossing ferry terminal relocation was eliminated from further consideration because it was not specified in the long-term plans of Washington State Ferries, it was perceived to have a high construction cost. As alternatives were under evaluation in the Level 2 process, and the estimated costs for other ferry access alternatives were found to be comparable to those for Edmonds Crossing, the Edmonds Crossing (Minimum Build) concept was reconsidered as an eleventh alternative. OTETRA TECH 29 Packet Pg. 334 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table 4-1 Level 1 Concepts with Corresponding Level 2 Alternatives Overpass 1 Admiral Way Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass I Overpass 4B Dayton Street Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass L Overpass 9 Edmonds Street Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass , Overpass 5/On-site 2 Midblock Pedestrian Overpass, with stationed equipment , Overpass 7A/On-site 2 Main Street Pedestrian Overpass, with stationed equipment Underpass 4/On-site 2 Main Street Pedestrian Underpass, with stationed equipment Ferry 4/Ferry S Main Street Ferry Overpass 1 Overpass 6 Main Street Ferry Overpass 2 l Underpass 1/Ferry 5 Main Street Ferry Underpass Ferry 3 Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal - OTETRA TECH 30 Packet Pg. 335 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Figure 4-1. Level 2 Alternative Locations 4.2 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS All options provide pedestrian and bicycle access. i.- - EMERGENCY ACCESS BY FOOT ; IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS IIIIIIIIIIIf EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS AND FERRY LOAD/OFFLOAD The eleven Level 2 alternatives are briefly described below, grouped according to the level of emergency access they provide. More detailed discussions of the features of each alternative can be found in the appendices. 4.2.1 Emergency Access by Foot Alternatives Midblock Pedestrian Overpass Constructs a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the train station and the Edmonds Senior Center, with an aid car stationed in a secure garage near the west terminus of the bridge. The overpass is accessed by stairs and elevators on each end. Provides access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, and emergency evacuation. - SUaa , ' WE VARS 47 Provides safe intermodal connections to both sides of the railroad tracks, and its use would be expected to grow once the second set of tracks is installed. OTETRA TECH 31 Packet Pg. 336 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT The location of this overpass minimizes impacts to views. The limited scale of this alternative makes it affordable, with minimal construction disruption and duration. Provides an incremental improvement to emergency response access when trains are blocking at -grade crossings, as responders must cross on foot to reach aid car. Location of a garage to house an aid car must be determined. Main Street Pedestrian Overpass Constructs a pedestrian bridge over the railroad tracks next to Main Street, from the Transit Center to the overhead passenger ramp at the ferry dock, with an aid car stationed in a secure garage near the west terminus of the bridge. The east terminus is accessed by both stairs and elevator; alternately, a ramp was considered. Provides access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, and emergency evacuation. COMEM TO WFRWAD FERRY IEPHIM4 Sax MM WrTH LRIORO ^� ,Sa1LM �• REOIXIE1GixE PATH JJJJ _ ww !E g[F IPr�-- MR WAY AIfH LMdMM COMMECIIOM r 9Po�6E 'NIRI L.6J� YN _ CLF.YiNICE 0YQ__- 7Q08R GE� . WORKING Provides safe intermodal connections to both sides of the railroad tracks. Its location and connection to the ferry passenger ramp would promote regular use by intermodal commuters. The location of this overpass adjacent to ferry terminal and other transportation structures limits impacts to views The limited scale of this alternative makes it affordable, with minimal construction disruption and duration. Provides an incremental improvement to emergency response access when trains are blocking at -grade crossings, as responders must cross on foot to reach aid car. Location of a garage to house an aid car must be determined. Main Street Pedestrian Underpass Constructs a pedestrian tunnel crossing under the railroad tracks in the vicinity of the Transit Center and Brackett's Landing Park South, with an aid car stationed in a secure garage near the west terminus of the bridge. The underpass is accessed by ramps and stairs on each end. Provides access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, and emergency evacuation. PMDWIRIRE PATH - �NDE PORTAL NX �]k 41R IH LV10N4iJ TPY19T 191TAL Provides safe intermodal connections to both sides of the railroad tracks. Despite its convenient location, the below -grade configuration may appear uninviting and may be less used than other alternatives. The underpass presents no view impacts. The limited scale of this alternative makes it affordable, with minimal construction disruption and duration. Drainage must be collected and pumped from the tunnel. OTETRA TECH 32 Packet Pg. 337 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Provides an incremental improvement to emergency response access when trains are blocking at -grade crossings, as responders must cross on foot to reach aid car. Location of a garage to house an aid car must be determined. 4.2.2 Emergency Vehicle Access Alternatives Admiral Way Overpass Constructs a single -lane roadway bridge crossing over the railroad tracks and Willow Creek between the Unocal site to Admiral Way in the Port of Edmonds. Vehicle access restricted to emergency vehicles using mechanized retractable bollards. The roadway would also provide full-time pedestrian and bicycle access, connecting the waterfront trail system, around the south end of Edmonds Marsh, to Pine Street. r q r� WUA rT 90WVm6 11 g QXWLLEy By ESX MRY SLnPE NnH LO)M C5 R%LWLE a VIMaas s� Mtl.I MED :nl Yqf SICPE rr H W IhXE WN 215' MN aLVANCE NM TWKS, OIERriWYN CM wiw" rW ' Im Provides continuous access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, police, aid cars, fire trucks, emergency ferry loading/offloading, and emergency evacuation. Among the emergency vehicle access alternatives, this project entails the longest route from the fire station to the waterfront. The overpass location does not serve intermodal connections. This alternative also does not reduce conflicts between transportation modes at the at -grade crossings. The overpass structure sits below sightlines from the nearby Point Edwards development. Views from further east and from the northeast are obscured by the adjacent hillside, and so structure would not obstruct the views. The location of this alternative limits disruption during construction. Dayton Street Overpass Constructs a single -lane roadway bridge crossing over the railroad tracks between the Sunset Avenue/ Dayton Street intersection to the north end of Admiral Way in the Port of Edmonds. Vehicle access restricted to emergency vehicles using mechanized retractable bollards. The roadway would also provide full-time pedestrian and bicycle access. --�E55 CaNTN� BRU4E MRH YJ.S MN 2f NrH 70 0 ui6 �UNu�FR� y�pp ail iwCK -- POWWWOKIE me'M, uses WE — RBMNc VEH -E -- ~ „off LYdBSgti MMlNE==_ =��PE ___ �4 ■cceeacoNm Provides continuous access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, police, aid cars, fire trucks, emergency ferry loading/offloading, and emergency evacuation. The overpass location does not conveniently serve intermodal connections. This alternative also does not reduce conflicts between transportation modes at the at -grade crossings. OTETRA TECH 33 Packet Pg. 338 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT The overpass would impact views along the Dayton Street corridor. Views from further east and from the northeast are obscured by the adjacent hillside, and so structure would not obstruct the views. The location of this alternative limits disruption during construction. Edmonds Street Overpass Constructs a single -lane roadway bridge crossing over the railroad tracks between the Sunset Avenue/ Edmonds Street intersection to Brackett's Landing Park North and Railroad Avenue. Vehicle access restricted to emergency vehicles using mechanized retractable bollards. The roadway would also provide full-time pedestrian and bicycle access, connecting from Sunset Avenue to the Waterfront. f5 MUM TO exx rw aa� �w 26AM R mo . MN" ,w w,ru IMEGE OiNGH FOR .OWM ACC�S - --�� Rscess ceRm V Provides continuous access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, police, aid cars, fire trucks, emergency ferry loading/offloading, and emergency evacuation. Among the emergency vehicle access alternatives, this project provides the most direct route from the fire station to the waterfront. The overpass location does not conveniently serve intermodal connections except when the at -grade crossings are closed for extended periods. This alternative does not significantly reduce conflicts between transportation modes at the at -grade crossings. The overpass would marginally impact views from the east, as the overpass structure sits at and largely below the grade of Sunset Avenue, with the railings of the uppermost section extending upward into view as the structure approaches Sunset Avenue. The structure will, however, be visible when viewing north and south along the beach. Because the east terminus is elevated above the railroad tracks, this alternative is the least costly to construct of the emergency vehicle access alternatives. The location of this alternative requires design and construction that is sensitive to the shoreline environment. OTETRA TECH 34 Packet Pg. 339 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 4.2.3 Emergency Vehicle Access and Ferry Load/Offload Main Street Ferry Overpass (Full Build) Constructs a roadway bridge crossing over Main Street, Sunset Avenue, railroad tracks, and Railroad Avenue to the ferry dock. A single -lane ramp would provide restricted access for emergency vehicles from the bridge to Railroad Avenue. Provides continuous grade -separated access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, police, aid cars, fire trucks, ferry vehicle loading/offloading, and emergency evacuation. r 1 q AND .� To fw wlr. 1DE INf ------ NUw" Iwo N& TMKN CENrER SKI ff LLFF%OF r _ Vj LL 3N p pl CR R+ Separates ferry vehicle traffic from downtown streets, reducing traffic volumes through the at -grade crossing at Main Street, and reducing conflicts and delays caused when loading and offloading ferries. Increases ferry queuing capacity from the 180 vehicles currently to 305 vehicles to meet ferry operating standards. The overpass would impact views along Main Street below 3rd Avenue, along Sunset Avenue, and from properties immediately to the east of Sunset Avenue. In order to maintain ferry operations, the construction will require a series of stages to relocate traffic flow and vehicle queuing through the site as portions of the project are built. This will extend the duration of construction and disruption. The location and scale of this alternative requires right-of-way acquisition that will result in dislocating multiple businesses. The overwater footprint of the project should be consistent with current conditions. Main Street Ferry Overpass (Minimum Build) Similar to the Main Street Overpass (full Build) Alternative, but smaller in scale. Constructs a roadway bridge crossing over Main Street, Sunset Avenue, railroad tracks, and Railroad Avenue to the ferry dock. A single -lane ramp would provide restricted access for emergency vehicles from the bridge to Railroad Avenue. Provides continuous grade -separated "V' -- uKmaxo Ur1rs s� 16V DE R CNO RAU LOK Ell AND S 'mn ,wo WA uEwtiK - Tu rimlrt, alacxErl's -- 16% dfanE I..NOIIC S1 10 ---- - -'. hURTHG z = _ H I➢ H MS K t •Ttl'i access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, police, aid cars, fire trucks, ferry vehicle loading/offloading, and emergency evacuation. Separates ferry vehicle traffic from downtown streets, reducing traffic volumes through the at -grade crossing at Main Street, and reducing conflicts and delays caused when loading and offloading ferries. Provides ferry queuing capacity at or slightly greater than the current 180 vehicles. OTETRA TECH 35 Packet Pg. 340 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT The overpass would impact views along Main Street below 3rd Avenue, along Sunset Avenue, and from properties immediately to the east of Sunset Avenue. In order to maintain ferry operations, the construction will require a series of stages to relocate traffic flow and vehicle queuing through the site as portions of the project are built. This will extend the duration of construction and associated disruption. The location and scale of this alternative requires right-of-way acquisition that will result in dislocating multiple businesses. The overwater footprint of the project should be consistent with current conditions. Main Street Ferry Underpass Constructs a roadway tunnel below Main Street, Sunset Avenue, railroad tracks, and Railroad Avenue to the ferry dock. A single -lane ramp would provide restricted access for emergency vehicles from the tunnel to Railroad Avenue. Provides continuous grade -separated access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, police, aid cars, fire trucks, ferry vehicle loading/offloading, and emergency evacuation. VEHICLE EY$ M u"M pN 1S m 1D% W% IV WW PELERM BRACKE1I H LMONC 9p1LH MLROrA AD E MD TRAMTo NE R TmuE�r cE� ffif"Err% 440Me NORTH LOOK TRWM_--- (ON uo) LLM OF FERRf b utioE - - NCKLnL 7pLL ASS Ho c u 1!4 yEHpLEg rOnL Separates ferry vehicle traffic from downtown streets, reducing traffic volumes through the at -grade crossing at Main Street, and reducing conflicts and delays caused when loading and offloading ferries. Provides ferry queuing capacity at or slightly greater than the current 180 vehicles. The underpass would not impact views and, with vehicles queued and passing below grade, would provide opportunities for redeveloping the streetscapes on along Main Street and Sunset Avenue to improve connectivity between downtown and the waterfront area. In order to maintain ferry operations, the construction will require a series of stages to relocate traffic flow and vehicle queuing through the site as portions of the project are built. This will extend the duration of construction and associated disruption. Drainage must be collected and pumped from the tunnel. Constructing the tunnel largely below the groundwater table will require heavy civil construction techniques to support excavation walls and the railroad tracks, and to rebuild the ferry pier. This will require right-of-way acquisition that will result in dislocating businesses. The overwater footprint of the project should be consistent with current conditions. OTETRA TECH 36 Packet Pg. 341 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal Relocates the ferry terminal to new facilities along the Dayton Street corridor. Constructs a parking garage in the Harbor Square business park for ferry vehicle queuing, commuter parking and bus transit center. Constructs a roadway bridge crossing from the parking garage over Dayton Street, railroad tracks, and Railroad Avenue to a new ferry dock. A single -lane ramp would provide restricted access for emergency vehicles from the bridge to Railroad Avenue. I � I EMEK rL Tq w ER lOOi Yh% -l� XE11 fE31W OOCA AFXW GkgPA,E 9ELESRM SiANISIF .ENIER RELOrA ➢ T3 9Y£ANFi16 FFANY FM%T FLOCK, .. _.. LS+wIN[,fura.p�pi1C —� FENRf' XG 11V%E3 ON TCP FL7CR v LANE ANO LANE WIfH 9<1EWUL; 14 XC 50 pICUJOW ON POCK IE' AGE TRIAN r0 Va LES roraL - -- I -Pa PATH CN geAE: l R'.E, TRAC O 5`il ARO N i Mrs 0PIKF` 1 asaPass r E Provides continuous grade -separated access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, police, aid cars, fire trucks, ferry vehicle loading/offloading, and emergency evacuation. Separates ferry vehicle traffic from downtown streets, reducing traffic volumes through the at -grade crossing at Main Street, and reducing conflicts and delays caused when loading and offloading ferries. Increases ferry queuing capacity from the 180 vehicles currently to 305 vehicles to meet ferry operating standards. The overpass would impact views along Dayton Street, Admiral Way, Railroad Avenue, and along the shoreline. The construction can progress without impacting ongoing ferry operations. The location and scale of this alternative requires right-of-way acquisition that will result in dislocating multiple businesses. The overwater footprint of the project should be consistent with current conditions. Edmonds Crossing (Minimum Build) Relocates the ferry terminal to new tolling and queuing facilities on the former Unocal property, a new dock extending out from the south edge of the marina, and connected by a trestle over the railroad tracks, the Willow Creek realignment, and Admiral Way. A single -lane ramp would provide restricted access for emergency vehicles from the trestle to Admiral Way. Provides continuous grade -separated access for pedestrians, bicycles, ADA, police, aid cars, fire trucks, ferry vehicle loading/offloading, and emergency evacuation. Separates ferry vehicle traffic from downtown streets, reducing traffic volumes through the at -grade crossing at Main Street, and reducing conflicts and delays caused when loading and offloading ferries. Provides ferry queuing capacity at or slightly greater than the current 180 vehicles, with space available to expand queuing. OTETRA TECH 37 Packet Pg. 342 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT The overpass would impact views from the marina, Marina Beach Park, units in the residential area of Point Edwards, and along the shoreline. The construction can progress without impacting ongoing ferry operations. The location and scale of this alternative requires right-of-way acquisition that will displace upland uses at the south end port property. OTETRA TECH 3$ Packet Pg. 343 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 4.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA Input to the proposed screening criteria was drawn from a number of sources: the stated purpose and need for the project, commonly applied evaluation and environmental review categories, and community input. The criteria were also informed by the Level 1 concept screening discussions with the Task Force. Applying the criteria to an alternative will result in a graphic response, applying a system of partially -filled circles sometimes referred to as a Consumer Reports -styled system, as shown in Table 4-2. Level 2 Rating DesignationsTable 4-2. Table 4-2. Level 2 Rating Designations Alternative greatly improves functionality/benefit Alternative somewhat improves functionality/benefit No Change Alternative somewhat degrades functionality/benefit 0 Alternative greatly degrades functionality/ benefit xFatal flaw Table 4-3 presents the set of criteria applied in the Level 2 alternatives evaluation. Although the criteria (logically) share many of the topic areas as the Level 1 screening criteria, they were phrased to elicit a more quantitative response (How does the alternative...?) than the Level 1 criteria (Does the concept...?). OTETRA TECH 39 Packet Pg. 344 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table 4-3. Level 2 Evaluation Criteria Descriptions O = provides for fire truck to and from waterfront Q = provides for gator vehicle and emergency personnel access through elevators or ramps (limited), or fire truck to waterfront but longer response time 0 = No change from existing condition O = some degradation from current emergency access • = much degradation from current emergency access x = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable = provides vehicle and pedestrian evacuation = provides pedestrian evacuation 0 = No change from existing condition O = emergency evacuation is somewhat worse that existing • = emergency evacuation is much worse than existing x = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable O = Provides uninterrupted vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian loading/unloading e = Provides uninterrupted pedestrian loading/ unloading, and/ or for vehicle loading/unloading in emergency circumstances 4 = no change from existing condition O = ferry loading/ unloading is somewhat worse that existing • = ferry loading/ unloading is much worse than existing x = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable Provides continuous pedestrian and bicycle access? Provides continuous vehicle access? Reduces pedestrian and/or bicycle conflicts with other travel modes? Reduces motorist conflicts with vehicles and other travel modes? Provides continuous freight mobility (via rail, via ferry) = Reduces delay and conflicts for most modes = Somewhat reduces delays and conflicts for some modes 0 = no change from existing condition O = delay is somewhat more and/ or new conflicts are introduced for some modes • = delay is more and/ or some new conflicts are introduced for most modes x = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable OTETRA TECH 4O Packet Pg. 345 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Ferry to/ from commuter rail and bus transit Ferry to/from downtown Bus transit and commuter rail to/from downtown = safer and more efficient for most movements Q = somewhat safer and more efficient for some movements 0 = no change from existing condition O = somewhat less safe and efficient for some movements • = less safe and efficient for most movements X = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable Maintains views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains Provides opportunities for urban design to enhance aesthetics/experience Compatible with Edmonds' small-town ambience Minimizes impacts to neighborhoods Minimizes impacts to businesses Preserves use of parks and recreational assets = yes = somewhat 0 = no change from existing condition 0 = somewhat no • = no X = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable City of Edmonds Washington State DOT Washington State Ferries Port of Edmonds Sound Transit Community Transit BNSF Railroad = very consistent = somewhat consistent 4 = no change from existing condition O = somewhat inconsistent • = Not consistent X = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable OTETRA TECH 41 Packet Pg. 346 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Affordable based on project costs including design, construction and maintenance Attractive to grant money and stakeholder contribution Permittable by resource agencies, tribes, BNSF O = Yes = somewhat 4 = N/A Q = Not very • = No x = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable To sensitive environments To residents To businesses To waterfront users To freight traffic (on trains and to/ from ferry) To bus transit users To passenger rail users To ferry users To transportation functionality O = Most construction impacts can be avoided or mitigated = Some construction impacts can be avoided or mitigated 0 = N/A Q = Moderate construction impacts for some aspects of waterfront • = Higher construction impacts for multiple aspects of waterfront x = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable ecosystem resources (streams, marsh/ wetlands, marine shorelines) historic, cultural, and archaeological resources visual aesthetics noise levels sites containing hazardous materials park lands or recreational air quality soils and groundwater social and economic (incl. disproportionate impacts) OTETRA TECH 42 Packet Pg. 347 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT O = Multiple environmental benefits/ enhancements = Some environmental benefits/ enhancements 0 = no change from existing condition Q = environmental impacts to some areas of environment • = environmental impacts to multiple areas of environment x = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable To existing infrastructure and access Sea level rise considerations for design to ensure safety O = yes = somewhat 4 = no change from existing condition O = somewhat no • = no x = fatal flaw — alternative is worse to a point that is unacceptable 4.4 LEVEL 2 EVALUATION OUTCOMES Each alternative was evaluated under the full set of criteria. In order to sufficiently distinguish the alternatives from one another, the sub -criteria were individually applied to the alternatives to inform the overall rating for a given criteria. The bases for the individual ratings were documented and are summarized in the evaluation matrices provided in Appendix D. A key consideration in assessing the feasibility of an alternative is the associated cost to plan, design, permit, and construct the project. Planning level cost estimates were prepared for each alternative, utilizing cost databases from WSDOT and Sound Transit, which are summarized in Table 4-4. More detailed presentations of the cost estimates are provided in Appendix D. The Task Force's assessment of an alternative's financial feasibility, or affordability, considered the viability of funding the project through grants and interagency partnerships. Table 4-5 summarizes the evaluation outcomes for the 11 alternatives under the 11 criteria. The alternatives are grouped by emergency access type to facilitate visual comparisons between alternatives of similar capacity. As a further aid in comparing the alternatives, the evaluation rankings were converted to a numerical scoring format, where the graphic ratings have been translated to a numerical scale of 1 (corresponding to "Greatly Degrades") to 5 (corresponding to "Greatly Improves"). Table 4-6 presents the results of the numerical ratings, where varying weighting schemes were applied to the scores to assess the sensitivity of the outcomes when sets of criteria were emphasized: Evenly weighted. All criteria scores summed directly for each alternative. Emphasizing emergency response. Scores under the following criteria were weighted 4 times more than other criteria: Criterion 1 - Improving Emergency Response (assessing the level of service) Criterion 8 - Fundable & Permittable (considering timing to place an alternative in service) • Emphasizing reduced traffic conflicts and delays. Scores under these criteria were weighted 4 times more than other criteria: Criterion 3 - Ferry delay reduction Criterion 4 — Traffic circulation/reduced conflicts OTETRA TECH 43 Packet Pg. 348 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Criterion 5 — Intermodal connectivity Criterion 7 — Consistent with traffic operations • Emphasizing the human and natural environment. Scores under these criteria were weighted 4 times more than other criteria: Criterion 6 — Urban design/community goals Criterion 9 — Temporary construction impacts Criterion 10 —Environmental effects Criterion 11 — Sea level rise The numerical rating produced consistent results under the variously weighted scenarios, with the following alternatives receiving the highest ratings within their category, as noted in Table 4-6: • Access by foot: Midblock Overpass • Emergency vehicle access: Edmonds Street Overpass • Ferry load/offload: Edmonds Crossing (Minimum Build) Main Street Ferry Overpass (Minimum Build) Table 4-4. Summary of Planning -level Cost Estimates All costs based in 2016 dollars Alternative Type Construction Cost 1 Project Costs ROW Total Cost Admiral Way Overpass 4F Emergency Access Roadwlq $ 20,100,000 $ 4,400,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 28,000,000 Dayton Street Overpass Emergency Access Roadway $ 21,800,000 $ 4,400,000 $ 2,800,000 $ 29,000,000 monds Street Overpass Emergency Access Roadway $ 18,100,000 $ 4,200,000 $ 1,700,000 $ 24,000,000 Midblock Overpass Pedestrian/Bicycle Access $ 4,200,000 $ 700,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 6,000,000 Main Street Overpass - Elevators Pedestrian/Bicycle Access $ 5,100,000 $ 900,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 8,000,000 Main Street Underpass Pedestrian/Bicycle Access $ 14,500,000 $ 3,400,000 $ 3,100,000 $ 21,000,000 Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal Ferry terminal relocation $ 210,000,000 $47,000,000 $29,000,000 $ 286,000,000 Main Street Ferry Overpass - Full Build Ferry terminal rebuild $123,000,000 $26,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 158,000,000 Main Street Ferry Overpass - Min. Build Ferry terminal rebuild $103,000,000 $23,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 128,000,000 Main Street Ferry Underpass Ferry terminal rebuild $ 291,000,000 $62,000,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 357,000,000 lPoint FdW&LdsFerryTerminal-Min.Buildz Ferry terminal elocation $232,000,000 $51,800,000 $10,200,000 $294,000,000 1 Using WSDOT and Sound Transit unit cost bases z Point Edwards previous estimate was developed in 2009 as part of the minimum build report. OTETRA TECH 44 Packet Pg. 349 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table 4-5. Level 2 Evaluation Outcomes (1) Does the alternative improve reliable emergency response to the west side of the railroad tracks? (2) Does the alternative provide for emergency e O O O evacuation of the waterfront? (3) Does the alternative reduce delays to ferry 0 O loading/unloading of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians? (4) Does the alternative improve circulation and reduce delays and conflicts for pedestrians, l5 0 l5 (5 e bicycles, motorists and freight at roadway/railroad crossings? (5) Does the alternative provide safer and more efficient intermodal passenger connectivity 0 ( O e between ferry, commuter rail, bus transit for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicle travel? (6) Does the alternative fit with urban design O Q Q concepts and community goals? (7) Is the alternative consistent with Stakeholders' current and future operations? (8) Is the alternative fundable and permittable? O O e e o 0 0 (9) Can the alternative avoid or minimize temporary construction impacts (measure of relative construction impacts)? (10) How does the alternative affect the O Q e O Q Q Q environment? (11) Does the alternative address impacts of sea e e e a e a o level rise? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e 15 15 a a a 0 a a a 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greatly Improves 15 Somewhat Improves O No Change 0 Somewhat Degrades 0 Greatly Degrades x Fatal Flaw OTETRA TECH 45 Packet Pg. 350 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table 4-6. Numerical Ratings ® Top Rated in this Category EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS AND FERRY LOAD/OFFLOAD mmm Dayton Street Main Street Main Street Edmonds Admiral Way Dayton Street Edmonds Main Street New Ferry Ferry Overpass Ferry Overpass Ferry Crossing Overpass Overpass Street Overpass (Minimum (Minimum Terminal (Fu Underpass �� 6=sa,LLd) guild) ✓ 41 41 41 42 EMERGENCY RESPONSE WEE=6J5 NOUN Fundable ti 6A penmittable TRAFFIC CONFLICTS AND DELAYS conflicts connectivity 7) Consistent with operations HUMAN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (6) Urban design/ ✓ ✓ ✓ community goals (9) Temporary Construction impacts (10) Environmental effects (11) Sea level rise OTETRA TECH 46 Packet Pg. 351 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Based on the Level 1 and Level 2 evaluations, along with extensive community interaction, the project team and Advisory Task Force developed recommendations addressing waterfront access needs. Recommendations for immediate, near -term, and longer -term actions are presented to mitigate as soon as possible the hazards that at - grade rail crossings present to safety, and to provide more comprehensive grade separation solutions when the substantial resources for a larger project can be secured. 5.1 IMMEDIATE ACTIONS Several enhancements are recommended for implementation independent of the specific alternatives identified in this Edmonds Waterfront Access Study. While these enhancements are supportive of some elements of the Waterfront Access Study objectives, they are more appropriately advanced directly by the City or collaboratively with different groups of stakeholders. Recommended near -term actions are located in Figure 5-1 and include: • Construct crosswalk improvements at the Main Street at -grade railroad crossing to improve pedestrian safety and comfort (Level 1 Screening concept On -site 4). Recommend this be implemented directly by the City and coordinated with BNSF and Washington State Ferries. • Construct crosswalk improvements at the Dayton Street at -grade railroad crossing to improve pedestrian safety and comfort (Level 1 Screening concept On -site 5). Recommend this be implemented directly by the City with support from the Port of Edmonds and coordinated with BNSF. • Implement emergency notifications between the 911 dispatch center and BNSF operations when an emergency is reported on the west side of the railroad tracks to notify trains to halt outside of downtown Edmonds so that police and fire can respond without delay by passing trains (Level 1 Screening concept Operational 4). Recommend this be implemented through coordination between the City, Fire District 1, and BNSF. • Create and implement a Waterfront Emergency Evacuation Plan with measures that respond to a broad range of potential emergencies (Level 1 Screening concepts On -site 1, On -site 3, and On -site 7). Recommend this be developed and implemented by an appropriate group that would include City departments, Fire District 1, Swedish Hospital, Port of Edmonds, and Washington State Ferries, among others. OTETRA TECH 47 Packet Pg. 352 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Figure 5-1. Recommended Immediate Actions 5.2 NEAR -TERM RECOMMENDATIONS Until a long-term solution can be implemented, rail traffic is expected to grow substantially along with increased volumes of ferry traffic and growth in all modes of local traffic. Conflicts will grow, and delays will increase, impacting response times for police, fire and EMS units to emergencies west of the railroad tracks. Several measures are recommended to mitigate the effects of such conflicts. Emergency Vehicle Access to the Waterfront — Edmonds Street Emergency Access Overpass. The proximity of this access route to the police and fire stations provides immediate access to respond to waterfront emergencies. This ramp also provides a full-time pedestrian and bicycle connection from Sunset Avenue to Brackett's Landing Park and the waterfront trail system, enhancing the walkability of the waterfront. During emergency shutdowns of the at -grade rail crossings, vehicles can be offloaded from ferries with proper traffic control. The Edmonds Street location is recommended over other similar emergency vehicle access alternatives for reasons of cost, anticipated use, and superior access for emergency response. Implementing this project will eliminate the need for an emergency vehicle access ramp from a future grade -separated, vehicle ferry access project, such as the Edmonds Crossing project referred to below. OTETRA TECH 4$ Packet Pg. 353 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Figure 5-2. Edmonds Street Emergency Access Overpass, Viewed from Brackett's Landing Park -A, 41 Figure 5-3. Edmonds Street Emergency Access Overpass OTETRA TECH 49 Packet Pg. 354 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Intermodal connectivity — With increases in train traffic, and with eventual construction of the anticipated 2nd railroad track, there will be a growing need for safe pedestrian access to both sides of the railroad tracks. Of the several alternatives considered, the Midblock Pedestrian Overpass location would appear to best serve commuters, who would be the primary users. This overpass is collocated with rail, bus and ferry access points. Among the pedestrian overpass alternatives considered, the Midblock Pedestrian Overpass is most consistent with positive urban design objectives as it presents the least impact to established viewsheds, and its construction presents minimal environmental concerns due to its scale and setting. These features support the permittability of this alternative, which is favored when assessing the ability to implement this project near -term. Figure 5-4. Midblock Pedestrian Overpass, Viewed from the Sounder Train Platform C.T 5.3 LONGER -TERM RECOMMENDATION Ultimately, grade separation for vehicles accessing ferries is necessary to resolve the growing conflicts between two major traffic movements through the downtown waterfront — rail traffic and vehicles loading and offloading the ferries. The combined effects of these growing pulses of traffic increasingly interrupt local traffic moving between residential and business centers in downtown and along the waterfront. Based on currently foreseeable transportation funding conditions in the State, the timeframe for implementing grade separation of vehicle ferry access may be up to 20 years or longer. Washington State Ferries will appropriately take the lead in establishing the long-term direction of ferry operations, and WSF will soon initiate their Long Term Plan for the ferry system as a whole, to include the Edmonds Terminal. The analysis and identification of alternatives within the Edmonds Waterfront Access study will inform WSF's planning efforts. In particular, the Task Force's review of several alternatives providing grade -separated vehicle ferry access concluded that the Edmonds Crossing project would be the superior option. The Task Force recommends that the City continue its current policy supporting the eventual implementation of the Edmonds Crossing project, relocating ferry operations to a new terminal to be located at the Unocal property Moreover, if ferry operations are relocated to the south end of the waterfront, in a configuration similar to the Edmonds Crossing project, it is recommended that the project also incorporate a means of emergency vehicle OTETRA TECH 50 Packet Pg. 355 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT access to the south end of the waterfront. The Task Force recognized significant community benefit to an underpass along the Main Street alignment, but the projected comparative costs and long construction schedule make that option less desirable. Figure 5-5. Edmonds Crossing, Viewed from Marina Beach Park (image from the Edmonds Crossing EIS) _y -era--wqw� z -i - r j11�115 'L15111L ~�''~�da.—Tarim ar.LraJ... ham■ 511—I-- • UH-3C" F. r L■ A V} Fr nF OTETRA TECH 51 Packet Pg. 356 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Author. (YYYY). Title (Vol. Volume). (Editor, Ed.) City: Publisher. Bibliography page is auto -generated. See References tab > Citations & Bibliography to add references. OTETRA TECH 52 Packet Pg. 357 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT To be included in the Final Document: Meeting materials Outcome summaries OTETRA TECH A-53 Packet Pg. 358 7.1.c Edmonds Waterfront Access Study October 2016 DRAFT Edmonds Waterfront Access Study: Affected Environment B.1 AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GASES B.1.1 Air Quality The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) operates an air quality monitoring station at 6120 212th St. SW, in Lynnwood, about five miles east of downtown Edmonds. This station records data on PM2.5, fine particles such as those found in smoke and haze that are no larger than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. The daily 98th percentile 3- year averages at each monitoring station in Snohomish County, when compared to the current daily federal standard, are below that standard for 2014 (as they have been since 2002). The results from the Lynnwood monitoring station show that the PM2.5levels have been declining over the past decade, with a slight uptick in 2013 (PSCAA 2014). Figure 1.1 shows the PM2.5trend at Snohomish County monitoring stations from 2001 through 2014. The average for PM2.5 at the Lynnwood monitoring station in 2015 was 6.2 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/rt,3) compared to 6.3 rJg/ ,3 in 2014 (PSCAA 2016). Figure B-1. 2014 Annual PM2.5 for Snohomish County 3-Year Averageofthe Annual Mean Reference and Continuous Methods t MRV-Junior High Sehaol (IG) tLYN-212th St (u) � DAR-Wrringtnn (10) — — - Federal Standard - - -- New Federal Standard 18 2 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 21,12 2a13 2014 Source: PSCAA 2014 OTETRA TECH B-54 Packet Pg. 359 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT PSCAA also monitors for other pollutants in the Puget Sound area. The criteria pollutants for 2014 are shown in Table 1.1. The monitoring station closest to the project site only monitors for PM2.5. The nearest station for CO (Carbon Monoxide) is in Lynnwood. CO levels have been well below the federal standards since 1998. Table B-1. Puget Sound Region Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants, 2014 Pollutant Primary/ Averaging Level Form [final rule cite] secondary Time Carbon Monoxide 8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per 1`75 FR 54294, Aua 31, 20111 primary year 1-hour 35 ppm Lead primary and Rolling 3 month {}.15 ug/m3 =' Not to be exceeded (73 FR 66964, Nov 12, 20081 secondary average 98th percentile of 1-hour daily Nitrogen Dioxide primary 1-hour 100 pph maximum concentrations, averaged (75 FR 6474, Feb 9, 2010] over 3 years (61 FR 52852. Oct 8. 1995] primary and secondary Annual 53 ppb= Annual Mean Ozone primary and Annual fourth -highest daily maximum (73 FR 16436, Mar 27, 2008] secondary 8-hour 0.075 pprn '' 8-hr concentration, averaged over 3 years primary Annual 12 Og/ml annual mean, averaged over 3 years secondary Annual 15 ug/m3 annual mean, averaged over 3 years PMa s Particle Pollution primary and Dec 14, 2012 secondary 24-hour 35 µg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years PM.c primary and 24-hour 150 ug/m3 Not to be exceeded more than once per Secondary year on average Over 3 Years 99th percentile of 1-hour daily Sulfur Dioxide primary 1-hour 75 pph L' maximum concentrations, averaged f 75 FR 35520, )un 22, 20.101 over 3 years [38 FR 25678, Sept 14, 19731 secondary 3-hour D•5 ppm Not to be exreeded more than once per year (1) Final rule signed 10/15/08. (2) The official level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm, equal to 53 ppb, which shown here for the purpose of clearer comparison to the 1- hour standard. (3) Final rule signed 3/13/08. (4) Final rule signed 6/2/10. Source: PSCAA 2014 B.1.2 Greenhouse Gases The City of Edmonds completed an emissions inventory for the years 2000 and 2005. 2005 was considered the baseline year against which all future year emissions would be compared. Greenhouse gas emissions from those two years are shown in Table 1.2. In 2006, the Edmonds City Council passed Resolution 1129 setting a goal of reducing GHG emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, for a goal of less than 157,000 metric tons of CO2. The City under took specific measures to reduce governmental energy use including switching to biodiesel in many City - owned vehicles, retrofitting plumbing in City -owned buildings for efficiency, supporting rapid transit initiatives, installing energy —efficient LED lights in traffic signals, and offering public education on solid waste reduction and OTETRA TECH B-55 Packet Pg. 360 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT recycling. The City also formed a Climate Protection Committee to assist with implementing ideas to effectively address climate change issues (Edmonds 2009). Table B-2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2000 and 2005, City of Edmonds Total Residential 60,611 Total Commercial 20,630 Total Industrial 49 Total Transportation 92,937 Waste (-2,504) Other 3,232 Source: Edmonds 2009 58,404 -3.6% 21,602 +4.7 74 +51.0% 89,012 -4.2% (-3,333) -33.1% 2,941 -9.0% 168,700 -3.6 The City's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan established four specific climate change policies: Climate Change Goal A. Inventory and monitor community greenhouse gas emissions, establishing carbon footprint baselines and monitoring programs to measure future progress and program needs. Climate Change Goal B. Establish targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting sustainability for both city government and the Edmonds community. Regularly assess progress and program needs, identifying opportunities and obstacles for meeting greenhouse gas emission targets and sustainability. Climate Change Goal C. Assess the risks and potential impacts on both city government operations and on the larger Edmonds community due to climate change. The assessment of risk and potential responses — both in terms of mitigation and adaptation — should evaluate the full range of issues, paying particular attention to those arising from the city's location on Puget Sound. Climate Change Goal D. Work with public and private partners to develop strategies and programs to prepare for and mitigate the potential impacts of climate change, both on city government operations and on the general Edmonds community. (Edmonds, 2015b) 13.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL, AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Stell Environmental prepared a Cultural Background Report in support of this Affected Environment Report. The following text is verbatim from that report. Some additional information can be found in the Cultural Background Report. OTETRA TECH B-56 Packet Pg. 361 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT B.2.1 Prehistory Small groups of mobile hunters who ranged over the land in search of Pleistocene game, including mammoth and mastodon, arrived in Western Washington over 10,000 years before present (BP) as the last glacial ice began its retreat. Their presence is known by rare finds of large fluted Paleoindian or Clovis points (Martin 1973; Meltzer and Dunnell 1987). At the Manis Mastodon site near Sequim, extinct mastodon remains associated with cultural remains were dated to 13,800 years ago (Gustafson and Manis 1984, Waters et al. 2011). The following period (ca. 8000-5000 BP) is distinguished by large, leaf -shaped and stemmed points and cobble and flake tools referred to as Olcott (Fladmark 1982; Kidd 1964). First identified in Snohomish County, these sites are usually found on inland raised terraces where occupation became possible during the middle Holocene as climate and sea level stabilized (Carlson 1990; Mattson 1971). Sites show increasing complexity, with artifacts of ground stone and tools of bone, antler and shell that show more emphasis on fishing and plant processing and focus on woodworking (Ames and Maschner 1999; Matson and Coupland 1995). Research suggests that the Olcott culture complex was followed by a short transitional phase to more specialized technologies evident from the first occurrence of groundstone tools and a greater diversity of faunal remains. Sites dated after about 5000 to 4000 years BP show a shift to more locally intensive life ways including a diversity of site types with use of localized resources. These characteristics are a logical consequence in more sedentary habitation practices which began to present themselves in the archaeological record Over the last 2,500 years, the culture associated with classic Pacific Northwest adaptation became established (Ames and Maschner 1999).The archaeological record shows seasonal use of resources and varied locations, residence in semi-permanent/permanent villages, a varied economy based on fishing, hunting, and plant processing, and woodworking and craft specialization. Assemblages include an increase in art objects and status markers, and a large variety of tools such as ground slate knives and points, celts, and bone harpoons and points. B.2.2 Cultural Resources Information from ethnographic and historic resources indicates that the Edmonds area was used by a number Northern Salish groups, including the Suquamish, located on the Kitsap Peninsula and nearby islands; the Snohomish, found along the coast and the river of that name; and the Sammamish, whose villages were found around the Lake Washington shoreline (Ruby and Brown 1992; Tweddell 1974). Given its location on the shoreline, the Edmonds area was probably visited also by other groups from surrounding watersheds and islands. These groups spoke related dialects of the Northern Coast Salish (Lushootseed) language, although the Lkungen language of the Lummi and Samish is more closely related to the Northern Straits language of Songishes of southern Vancouver Island (Ruby and Brown 1992). Although the Northern Salish groups shared cultural traits and formed relationships through trade and marriage, they formed autonomous groups with their own territories. Salish settlement was organized around semi -permanent villages of cedar plank houses situated on the coast or at the confluence of major rivers and their tributaries in areas with a reliable supply of salmon, fresh water, and adjoining territory for hunting and resource gathering. Related family groups congregated during winter months, making and repairing utensils and tools, carrying out important festivities and ceremonies, and visiting socially (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Miller 1999; Smith 1940). In the spring, the village groups broke into smaller task groups to begin a seasonal round of gathering the wide array of resources found around Puget Sound and the upland forest where they lived in temporary shelters of wood and reed mats (Blukis Onat 1980:39; Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Smith 1940). Salmon was the central economic resource, supplemented by saltwater and freshwater fishing, shellfish gathering, hunting, and plant collecting. In some areas, hunting of marine mammals such as seals and sea lions contributed to the resource base. Deer, inland elk, bear, ducks, geese, and other waterfowl were hunted or trapped. Plants provided greens, roots, bulbs, and berries as well as medicine. (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930; Suttles 1990:23). Local food resources were supplemented by trade and intermarriage relations between people inland and those living on the coast (Blukis Onat et al.1980; Lane and Lane 1977). OTETRA TECH B-57 Packet Pg. 362 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Salish presence is reflected in recorded native place names that show familiarity with the Edmonds area. A projecting area of the coastline north of Edmonds was called Tet3a'iyEb, meaning "bullhead". S3baL, a reference to a person being treated by a shaman, was the name for a small creek just north of Edmonds. Stuu'bus ("like a man; the face of a man") named Edwards Point, a promontory just south of Edmonds, while Wells Point and a nearby sand promontory further south were referred to together by a double name, IutL stu'bus. Q3e'g3e'wa:dEt, the Lushootseed word for kinnickinick, or Indian tobacco, was given to the shoreline south of Richmond Beach (Waterman 2001:54-55, 57). In 1855, the Treaty of Point Elliott established a series of reservations for Salish groups in the area, including the Suquamish Reservation at Port Madison, the Tulalip Reservation near Marysville, the Swinomish Reservation at Fidalgo Island, and the Lummi Reservation at Bellingham. Though they ceded rights to traditional lands, treaties ensured tribal right to fish and hunt in usual and accustomed places. The 1980 Boldt Decision, formally known as United States v. Washington, was a landmark decision that upheld these treaty rights. B.2.3 Historic Buildings and Structures Following Spanish exploration in the Strait of San Juan de Fuca and southern Strait of Georgia in the early 18th century, Captain George Vancouver mapped and named features in Puget Sound in 1792 (Hayes 1999). Fur traders established a series of trading posts throughout the region in the 1820s. The Wilkes U.S. Naval Expedition of 1841 explored the area near Edmonds (LeWarne 2008). White settlers followed, their numbers increasing with passage of the 1850 Oregon Donation Land Claim Act. When Washington Territory was established in 1853, Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens began a series of treaty negotiations with Native Americans that led to establishment of numerous reservations and secured lands for white settlement, though dissatisfaction with treaty terms led many natives to hostile actions against the whites in 1855-1856. In 1872, drawn to the logging potential of large stands of timber and the coastal location, lumberman George Brackett purchased lands in the area that would become the town of Edmonds, which was platted in 1884 and incorporated in 1890 (Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society 2015; Whitfield 1926). The Great Northern Railway arrived in 1891, and, by 1900, the town had regular passenger ferry service. With ferry service to Kingston in 1923, Edmonds became the hub terminal for serving Port Townsend, Port Ludlow, and Victoria (Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society 2015). The first mill opened in Edmonds in 1890, and others soon opened. Other businesses, mainly shingle mills and lumberyards, lined the waterfront in the area of Railroad Avenue and Main Street (Cloud 1953; Dubois and Dubois 2014) (Figures 2 and 3). Historic maps show the sequence of construction, with shingle mills and lumber yards dominating the waterfront in the first part of the 20th century (Sanborn Map Company 1909, 1926, and 1932). Numerous saloons, boarding house, a blacksmith, and a cigar store were located east of the railroad, with a sparsely -built residential areas and a few scattered businesses beyond (Sanborn Map Company 1909). The early UNOCAL Fuel Oil facility was mapped in 1926 (Sanborn Map Company 1932) (Figure 4). In 1951, as the timber industry declined, the last mill in Edmonds closed. The Edmonds Marina was built in the early 1960s to provide water moorage and boater services (Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society 2015). B.2.4 Cultural Resource Investigations Several cultural resource investigations have taken place in the Edmonds waterfront area (Tables 2 and 3). Reconnaissance survey and testing for the Edmonds Crossing Project identified a prehistoric shell scatter (45SN310) on the south side of the marsh. It was evaluated as not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Bard and McClintock 1996; CH2M Hill 1995). Follow-up investigation in the project area was hampered by sediment contamination, underground utilities, and high water table that limited visibility, but researchers concluded that the area was generally archaeologically sensitive (Bard and McClintock 1996). In 2006, a cultural resources assessment of Sound Transit's planned improvements for the Sounder Commuter Rail operations between Seattle and Everett recommended testing for the nearby Edmonds Commuter Rail Station due to its sensitive location (Juell 2006). OTETRA TECH B-5$ Packet Pg. 363 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT In 2010, archaeological testing at the commuter rail station for planned track upgrades identified historical cultural materials within a distinct fill layer in five of nine test pits. The materials were thought to be associated with the Great Northern Railroad's Section foreman's house, built north of Dayton Street east of the railroad tracks in 1917. Additional archaeological monitoring was recommended for an associated storm water drain (Rinck 2010). In 2011, during monitoring for the drainage alignment, a historic site (45SN574) related to the Great Northern Railroad's foreman's house, water tower, and cabin was found under the rail station parking lot. The site was recommended eligible for the NRHP, but online records do not indicate what further steps or final determinations were made (Shantry et al. 2011). Historic resources have also been investigated in the Edmonds Waterfront area. A circa-1996 evaluation of the remaining structures of the Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal facility, built in by the Union Oil Company, built between 1922 and the 1980s, determined the site was not eligible for listing in the NRHP (Cox and Bard 1996). A 2004 survey of downtown Edmonds inventoried 80 buildings, structures, and sites, including 52 single-family houses (BOLA 2004). One building, the 1910 Carnegie Library, now housing the Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society, was noted as having been previously determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP (BOLA 2004; Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society 2015; National Park Service 2015). Due to the number of well-preserved public and institutional properties concentrated in the Main Street and 5th Avenue, surveyors recommended the creation of a historic district to the City of Edmonds (BOLA 2004). B.2.5 Discussion Background environmental, ethnographic and archaeological information indicates the Edmonds Waterfront has the potential to contain archeological sites related to precontact and historic occupations and activities. Access to fresh water, salt water fishing, and varied shoreline, wetland, and upland forest resources would have provided many useful resources for native people. The area would have been easily reached by canoe from areas along the mainland coast and from the Kitsap Peninsula. Archaeological resources include both precontact and historic period sites. Precontact sites can be shell middens, the remains of ephemeral camps related to travel or resource procurement and processing, or more complex sites such as the remains of villages that include houses, household middens, and other ancillary remains such as hearths, lithic scatters, and lithic procurement locations. Rock cairns, petroglyphs and pictographs are other types of precontact sites. Previous archaeological investigations have been concentrated in the area of Edmonds Commuter Rail Station and the south end of the waterfront in vicinity of the UNOCAL property. A shell midden site (45SN310) was found in exposed soil at the Deer Creek Fish Hatchery along Shellabarger Creek southwest of Edmonds Marsh. Fill is found throughout the area, including within the area of the Main and Dayton crossing. Archeological testing conducted for the Commuter Rail Station found historic resources from about 60-155 cm below surface south of Main Street near the railroad line (Rinck 2010). Potential for precontact archaeological resources in the Edmonds Waterfront area is greatest on the margins of the former wetland area, along former creek margins, and along the shoreline. Construction may have disturbed resources in these areas but they may still be present in areas where construction was not extensive and where deeper sediments cover them. The most likely types of sites would be shell middens, such as 45SN310 in the Deer Creek area (45SN310). Others may be present within the buried estuary and related creeks that were formerly present along the shoreline. Camps, fire -modified rock, or lithic scatters related to pursuit of fishing and wetlands resources could be present in shoreline areas and on the margins of Edmonds Marsh. Historic period construction has likely disturbed these sites in areas of the old shingle mills, railroad, and other areas, though some intact resources may remain in less constructed areas. Historic period archaeological sites are related to the economic and social developments in an area. Along the Edmonds Waterfront, these could relate to early logging, milling, small industry, homesteading, and transportation. This is demonstrated by the historic period site, 45SN574, found within fill during archaeological OTETRA TECH B-59 Packet Pg. 364 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT monitoring for construction at the Commuter Rail Station. Other historic period resources could be present within the large areas of fill that are found throughout the project area. As would be expected, archaeological investigations in the area have been focused upon particular project areas, and there is a lack of information regarding the relative potential for subsurface archaeological remains across the entire project area. Based upon the results of the archaeological background review, there remain several areas with relatively high to moderate archaeological potential. The majority of these areas have been previously identified by the earlier waterfront improvement projects, which is summarized in Figure 2.1 below. Figure B-2. Archaeological Site Probability Archaeological Q Site Probability tia Historic Prehistoric m High High Q 1 1 2 Moderate B Low h Low SNM74 •_ Dayton Street } a 7 SN00310 QSite boundar, A Site Point 0 50r.. Source: Stell. 2016. As stated above, the potential for precontact archaeological resources in the project area is greatest on the margins of the former creek, wetland, and along the shoreline. Although previously identified in the earliest archaeological surveys as containing areas of low archaeological potential, the area along the railroad and commuter rail station have demonstrated presence of buried historic archaeological remains. The lack of archaeological investigations within the undeveloped marsh area does not provide a positive source of data, but this area is anticipated to also have a higher probability for precontact archaeological remains. Further archaeological inventory of the range of alternatives is recommended in order to investigate the presence or absence of archaeological materials within the areas to be potentially affected by the proposed project. OTETRA TECH B-BO Packet Pg. 365 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are a cultural resource that play a significant role in helping to maintain cultural identify for Native American people. They may or may not be archaeological sites. Sites include those associated with ancestral emergence and other significant events in the life of the people, sites associated with spirit beings, special resource gathering locations, or those places where ritual acts conducted. While researchers can sometimes identify a TCP through information derived from tribal interviews or published information, TCPs are usually identified by tribal members as information is sometimes held by particular families and is confidential in nature. The Edmonds Waterfront project area lies on the boundary between WDFW Salmon Management Areas (SMA) 9 and 10. The 1974 Boldt Decision upheld the right of Washington tribes to fish in their "usual and accustomed places." Tribes with usual -and -accustomed fishing rights in this SMA include: the Lummi Nation, Lower Elwha Klallam, Port Gamble S'Klallam, Jamestown S'Klallam, the Swinomish, Skokomish, and Tulalip. These retained rights indicate a long-term relationship with the area that may include other significant traditional use areas (CH2M Hill 2003:32-102). During discussions for the Edmonds Crossing project in 1996, Bard and McClintock reported that the Suquamish and other tribes expressed concern with project construction and archaeological investigations in the Edmonds area. Mr. Charles Sigo, then a member of the Suquamish Tribe's tribal council, described traditional use of the Edmonds area by Suquamish tribal members to gather berries, fish, clams, and other resources up into the 1900s (Bard and McClintock 1996:6). During that project, the researchers stressed the importance of continuing to talk to the Suquamish and other tribes to assure that traditional cultural concerns were addressed. In other proceedings in the Puget Sound region, the tribes have voiced concerns over activities on the Puget Sound shorelines that might lead to environmental changes that affect traditional areas. It is possible that tribal interviews and oral history could provide information that informs on specific traditional use areas of the Edmonds Waterfront. Two historic building surveys have been conducted that encompass the project area, in 1996 and 2004 (Cox and Bard 1996; BOLA 2004). The resulting previously recorded NRHP-eligible historic buildings are located north of Main Street in downtown Edmonds. Further NRHP-eligible resources are unlikely to be identified within the project area, but additional analysis of the alternatives will be required to ascertain whether those known resources will be potentially affected by the project, or if reevaluation of the project area will be required to investigate whether additional historic building resources are present or may be affected. Ferry service was originally provided by the Mosquito fleet. Auto ferry service began in 1923, linking Edmonds with Kingston. Service eventually expanded to Port Townsend, Port Ludlow, and Victoria. 13.3 FISH, WILDLIFE, VEGETATION Through use of the US Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC (Information for Planning and Conservation) website, a draft report was generated in November, 2015, of endangered species, critical habitats, migratory birds, refuges, and wetlands that may be found in or near the project area. B.3.1 Endangered Species and Critical Habitats Critical habitat is designated by the federal government as part of its management of threatened and endangered species under the ESA. Critical habitat may exist for the following proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species: • Birds: Marbled Murrelet, Streaked Horned Lark, and Yellow -billed Cuckoo • Fishes: Bull Trout • Mammals: Canada Lynx • Critical Habitat: Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat, Killer Whale Critical Habitat OTETRA TECH B-61 Packet Pg. 366 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) are occasionally seen in the Puget Sound area, though surveys done by WDFW near Edmonds found no murrelets in the winter and only a few in the summer. (Striplin and Battelle 2001). Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) is a rare endemic subspecies found only in western Washington and Oregon. In Washington, it nests on grasslands and sparsely vegetated areas at airports, sandy islands, and coastal spits. According to the Washington Department of Fish and Game, there are no current nesting areas in Snohomish County (WDFW, 2012) Yellow -billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) are rarely seen in Washington State (last sighting in 2012) and no longer breeding in the state (WDFW, 2012). The critical habitat for the Canadian Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) is high -elevation forests. There have been no sightings in the County in recent years (WDFW, 2012). Critical habitats within the City of Edmonds include those for Chinook salmon, bull trout, and killer whale. Bull trout is a federally -listed threatened fish species that may occur in or in the vicinity of Edmonds. Adults use nearshore areas as migration corridors when returning from the oceanic life stage, while juveniles reside in the nearshore prior during their outmigration from freshwater to the ocean. Bull trout adults also use shallow nearshore marine and estuarine areas as foraging grounds and migration corridors Bull trout habitat is not recognized within any of the City creeks; critical habitat includes the marine nearshore, from MHHW (mean higher high water) to -10 meter MLLW (mean lower low water), and any tidally influenced freshwater heads of estuaries (Federal Register Vol. 70, September 26, 2005). Bull trout habitat use along the Edmonds shoreline would be during periods of adult foraging and migration. Bull trout display wide-ranging foraging habits and are known to consume juvenile salmon (including Chinook) that inhabit shallow nearshore areas. (Edmonds 2007) Critical habitat for Chinook salmon is the marine nearshore; they are not known to use the small creeks in the project area. During juvenile foraging and juvenile and adult migration, the shoreline habitat would be used by Chinooks. In particular, the eelgrass beds provide high quality foraging habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon. (Edmonds 2007) The threatened Puget Sound resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) is not a common visitor to central Puget Sound Since Edmond's shoreline jurisdiction extends far offshore, killer whales could well transit through the area. Shoreline development, ferry and boat traffic, and lack of salmon -bearing streams in the immediate project area would not attract whales to the nearshore (Edmonds 2007). B.3.2 Migratory Birds Migratory birds that fall within the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and that may migrate through the greater Edmonds area include: Black Swift, Caspian Tern, Fox Sparrow, Marbled Godwit, Olive -sided Flycatcher, Peregrine Falcon, Purple Finch, Rufous Hummingbird, Short -eared Owl, Western Grebe, and Willow Flycatcher. B.3.3 Habitats There are no designated wildlife refuges in the project area. There is one wetland in the project area, the 23-acre Edmonds Marsh. It is a Category 1 (highest quality) wetland, also classified as a Wildlife Habitat and Natural Resource Sanctuary. The Marsh was once much larger prior to development on all four sides. An isolated remnant, located east of SR104, is connected hydraulically via a culvert under the highway. The culvert also conveys Shellabarger Creek. Flows from the wetland into Puget Sound occur via pipes, ditches, and a 48-inch pipe, and a tide gate under Admiral Way. The tidal gate is normally kept closed from October through March. The pipe extends 1,275 feet into the lower intertidal beach south of the Edmonds Marina. The marsh is tidally influenced during spring and summer. The Edmonds Marsh is fed by OTETRA TECH B-62 Packet Pg. 367 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Willow and Shellabarger Creeks, and runoff from approximately 900 acres of surrounding properties (Edmonds 2007). Over 225 bird species have been known to use the marsh. The great blue heron, a Washington State monitored species, nests near the marsh (WDFW 2006a). Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek contain potential or actual fish habitat and meet the criteria for Type F waters (streams which contain fish habitat) pursuant to WAC 222-16-030. (ECDC 23.90.010). 13.3.4 State Priority Habitats In the wetland riparian, and estuarine habitats along the Edmonds Shoreline, priority habitats for shellfish salmonids, eagle, great blue heron, California sea lion and harbor seals have been identified by WDFW/ Special status species that may occur nearshore include peregrine falcon, pileated woodpecker, Vaux's swift, merlin, purple martin, great blue heron, green heron, western big -eared bat, Keen's myotis bat, long-eared bat, and longlegged bat (WDFW 2006a). Shellfish resources founds in the marine waters of Edmonds are listed in Table 3.1. Table B-3. Common Shellfish Found in the Edmonds Shoreline Jurisdiction Dungeness crab Red rock crab Bay mussel Small clam Native littleneck clam Manila clam Bentnose clam Butter clam Heart cockle Horse clam Geoduck clam Spot prawn Broken -back shrimp Dock (coon -stripe) shrimp Cancer magister Cancer productus Mytilus edulis Macoma charlottensis Protothaca staminea Tapes japonica or Venerupis philippinarum Macoma nasuta Saxidomus gigantean Clinocardium nuttalli Tresus capex Panopea abrupta Pandalus platyceros Heptacarpus spp. Pandalus dange Sources: KC DNR WTD 2003, WDFW 2006a, Kozloff 1993, Golder and Parametrix 2002 OTETRA TECH B-63 Packet Pg. 368 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Salmon species that can be found in nearshore areas of Puget Sound are listed in Table 3.2. Table B-4. Salmonids Found within the Edmonds Shoreline Jurisdiction Chinook salmon (also called king, blackmouth) Coho salmon (also called red) Sockeye salmon Chum salmon (also called dog, fall, calico) Steelhead (same as rainbow trout) Pink salmon (also call humback) Bull trout Cutthroat trout Source: Striplin and Battelle 2001 Oncorhynchus tshawytscha O. kisutch O. nerka O. keta O. mykiss 0.gorbuscha Salvelinus confluentus O. clarki Birds with priority habitats that occur within the City include bald eagle, purple martin, and great blue heron. The bald eagle is listed as a federal and state threatened species. The WDFW priority habitat map (2006a) noted two locations of nesting bald eagles within Edmonds. It is not known whether or not these nests are occupied every year (KC DNR WTD 2003). Great blue heron have nested in the woods surrounding the Edmonds marsh. The WDFW Priority Habitat and Species map (2006) noted the presence of a seabird colony (glaucous - winged gull) near the Edmonds Underwater Park. In April 2004, gourds were installed on a group of pilings south of the Edmonds ferry dock by volunteers, with the approval of the Edmonds Parks and Recreation Director. Prior to that time purple martin, a priority species, had not been nesting on the Edmonds waterfront due to lack of nesting habitat. Artificial nest sites were provided south of the Edmonds ferry dock beginning in 2004 for the purple martin, which have successfully nested shortly thereafter (Lider 2006 personal communication). The Edmonds Underwater Park was identified as a priority haulout area for harbor seals and California sea lions by WDFW in 2006. The floats installed for divers were taken over by sea lions, making the floats unusable by divers. The floats have subsequently been removed. Harbor seals are known to use adjacent beaches (Lider 2006 personal communication). B.3.5 Habitat Conservation Areas Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary Conservation Area is defined in WAC 220-16-720 as those bed lands and tidelands owned by the City of Edmonds at Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary, and the water column above these bed lands and tidelands including all of the area known as Edmonds Underwater Park. Various fish in the park are shown in Table 3.3. (WDFW 2006b). OTETRA TECH B-64 Packet Pg. 369 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table B-5. Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary Fish Species cooper rocKTisn _,)eaaster caurinus Quillback rockfish Lingcod Cabezon Kelp greenling Painted greenling Surfperches Black rockfish Bay pipefish Juvenile codfish Shiner perch Juvenile and adult salmon Tubesnouts Juvenile herring Source: WDFW 2006b S. maliger Ophiodon elongatus Scorpaenichthys armoratus Artificial rocky reef habitant- Hexagrammos decagrammus Oxylebius pictus Embiotocidae S. melanops Sygnathusleptorhynchus Gadidae Cymatogaster aggregate Aulorhynchus flavidus Clupea harengus pallasi Predominant macro -invertebrates include giant anemones (Metridium senile) that cover much of the artificial structures. 13.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS B.4.1 Soils The project area is generally flat except for the hill that arises south of Edmonds Marsh. The steep slopes of the hill (15 to 40 percent or more) rise to the south and east of the immediate project area. Elevations range from sea level to about 180 feet above sea level. Offshore, elevations range down to -50 feet mean sea level at the end of the ferry dock (CH2M HILL 2003). Soil maps prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture — Soil Conservation Service show that most of the project area is designated Urban Land, constituting fill material or developed land. Soil types in the general area include Alderwood Gravelly Sandy Loam, Everett Gravelly Sandy Loam, Kitsap Silt Loam, and Mukilteo Muck. See Figure 4.1, prepared for the Edmonds Crossing FEIS, for detailed locations of soil types. OTETRA TECH B-65 Packet Pg. 370 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Figure B-3. Soil types in the Project Area Pert nt Eemonm M1f�ma uNoc P- uae m�, xa.re u ua ceuo MC R3tlema0tl GrrreM 5e�gYLaem is-zssca �s �!(pA Ni6ap SMl-uin o-e siq�� r ❑ Am�a-Evaea GraveMsaiq �m 25-]0g65kga xpe i(ikap sxi� 9-25%SNyee AUE A3tlemmtl-lNben izntl Complex �MA Mutilw Muck ESA 0 B94�Sa�M lnzm �l} IALm La�tl n EOMo�es ca�ss�Kr B.4.2 Landslide Hazard Areas There are no documented landslide hazard areas within the project area (Edmonds 2007) aucer S G U N 0 F-.q Ferry Termmal Solis of the Project Area B.4.3 Seismic Hazards The project area is in Seismic Zone 3 Uniform Building Code, 1997), meaning an area of high seismic risk. Seismic activity in the Puget Sound area is a result of collisions between the Juan de Fuca plate and the North American plate. No known active faults are mapped in the immediate project area (CH2M HILL 2003). B.4.4 Shoreline Slope Stability Shoreline slope stability refers to the relative stability of coastal slopes based on mapping completed by Ecology in the early to mid-1970s. Shoreline slopes in the project area are mapped as modified and stable (Edmonds 2007). B.4.5 Erosion Hazard Areas There are no mapped hillside erosion hazard areas in the project area. Streams within Edmonds, however, are mapped with "extensive erosion hazard areas along their banks." Vegetation along the stream banks prevent soil compaction and erosion, limiting turbidity and sedimentation in waters that harbor fish and aquatic invertebrates (Edmonds 2007). OTETRA TECH B-66 Packet Pg. 371 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 13.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A check of Washington State Ecology's facility database, accessed 11/25/15, showed a number of facilities with past or current remediation efforts, as shown in Table 5.1 Table B-6. Sites with Past or Current Remediation Efforts Anderson Marine Corp. Leaking Underground Storage Cleanup ended 5/10/96 100 Railroad Ave. Tank Edmonds Dry Storage Port of Edmonds State Cleanup Site On -going 400 Admiral Way Edmonds Port Fur Breeders Bldg. State Cleanup Site On -going 335 Admiral Way Michael Jablinske Edmonds Marine Enforcement Action: Spill Issued 12/24/09 Edmonds City Maint and Ops Center Leaking Underground Storage Cleanup ended 3/8/96 200 Dayton St Tank Edmonds Port UST Leaking Underground Storage On —going 458 Admiral Way Tank DFW Edmonds Underwater Park Enforcement Action Issued 10/8/04 50 Railroad Ave Edmonds Port W Dayton State Cleanup Site On -going 120-190 W Dayton St Main St Site Leaking Underground Storage Cleanup ended 1/10/96 110 Main St Tank Independent Remedial Action Cleanup ended 1/10/96 Mar Vel Marble LLC State Cleanup Site On -going 202 Main St Leaking Underground Storage Cleanup ended 1.21.98 Tank Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Term Enforcement Action Issued 6/12/07 11720 Unoco Road Leaking Underground Storage Cleanup on -going Tank State Cleanup Site On -going USPS Edmonds Main St Leaking Underground Storage Cleanup ended 5/28/99 201 Main St Tank Widing Fisheries Enforcement Action Issued 12/4/08 20605 Chinook Rd Edmonds WA Line Segm 50 Print Leaking Underground Storage Cleanup ended 6/14/96 211 Railroad Ave Tank Source: Ecology 2015 OTETRA TECH B-67 Packet Pg. 372 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Licensed Underground Storage Tanks • Anderson Marine Corp., 100 Railroad Avenue • Edmonds Port Fur Breeders Bldg., 335 Admiral Way • Edmonds Port UST, 458 Admiral Way • Edmonds STP (Stormwater/Wastewater Treatment Plant), 200 2nd Avenue S • USPS Edmonds Main St., 201 Main St • Edmonds WA Line Seg 50 Print, 211 Railroad Ave Licensed Hazardous Waste Generators • BNSR Railway Co Dayton Street, 220 W Dayton St • Critchleys Mfg Jewelers Inc., 182 Sunset St • Downey Press, 170 W Dayton St. Suite 101 • WA DOT Edmonds Derry Terminal, SR104 and Main St. • Edmonds STP (Stormwater/Wastewater Treatment Plant), 200 2nd Avenue S • Munson Mfg Inc., 150 W Dayton St • Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Term, 11720 Unico Road • Port of Edmonds, 336 Admiral Way (Ecology 2015) The largest potential hazardous waste facility in the Edmonds area is the Unocal site. Although the site is outside the city of Edmonds and its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) boundaries, the facility partially drains into Edmonds and adjacent SMP areas. The most recent update from Ecology on the Unocal site cleanup follows: Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal Site is located at 11720 Unoco Road in Edmonds, Washington. The terminal operated from 1923 to 1991. Unocal is a subsidiary of Chevron Corporation, and the cleanup is being done by Chevron Environmental Management Company. A number of Interim Actions have been conducted over the years to clean up oil floating on groundwater, remove arsenic -contaminated soil, and remove petroleum -contaminated soil. Removal of petroleum - contaminated soil resulted in cleanup of groundwater. Most of the Site is now clean. Ecology certified the Upper Yard was suitable for residential use in 2003 and Point Edwards Condominiums were subsequently constructed. Additional Interim Actions will begin in 2016 to clean up two remaining areas of contamination. One is the stormwater Detention Basin 2 Area and other is the vicinity of a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) storm drain crossing the Site. These areas are in the Lower Yard of the Terminal, the flat area below the Point Edwards Condominiums. Cleanup activities will begin in 2016. (Ecology 2016) B.6 LAND USE Edmonds is located in southwest Snohomish County, with the cities of Woodway and Shoreline to the south, unincorporated Snohomish County to the north and the cities of Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace and unincorporated Snohomish County to the east. B.6.1 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan As required by the state's Growth Management Act (GMA), the City of Edmonds has an approved comprehensive plan which provides for plans and policies guiding growth in the city. Adopted in July 2015, the current plan addresses the following purposes: • To provide a framework for moving the Edmonds community toward a sustainable future that integrates and responds to environmental, economic, and social needs in a way which "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." OTETRA TECH B-6$ Packet Pg. 373 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT • To promote the public health, safety, and welfare consistent with the values of the community. • To serve as the basis for municipal policy on land use and development and to provide guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations and programs that support sustainable development within the city while seeking to conserve, protect, and enhance the community's assets and natural resources. • To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural resources. • To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing. • To facilitate adequate provisions for public services such as transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks. • To facilitate the provision of sustainable public services consistent with the community's values and needs (Edmonds 2015c). An important component of the GMA is the requirement that a jurisdiction's zoning code be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code, Title 16 (Edmonds, 2016d), establishes zones within the City of Edmonds and implements the comprehensive plan. B.6.2 Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations The project area is comprised of land uses on both sides of the BNSF track(s). To the west of the railroad, land uses include parks, the ferry terminal, multi -family residential, commercial, restaurants, and the marina. Zonings include Public Use (P) and Commercial Waterfront (CW) as shown in Figure 6.1. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designations for this area include Parks/Open Space, Shoreline Commercial, and Master Plan Development, as shown in Figure 6.2. East of the railroad tracks is a mix of open space, residential, and commercial uses. Zoning includes Master Plan 1 and 2, General Commercial, Community Business, Downtown Mixed Commercial and Office -Residential. The Comprehensive Plan designations include Downtown Mixed Commercial, Downtown Master Plan, Parks/Open Space, and Master Plan Development. OTETRA TECH B-69 Packet Pg. 374 Edmonds Waterfront Access Studv 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Figure -4. Zoning in Project Area (PLACEHOLDER SANS LEGEND) Source: Edmonds GIs a -�iLill '14?J \1 lu .... 7P'► Figure B-5. Comprehensive Plan Designations in Project Area (PLACEHOLDER SANS LEGEND) no Downtown /Wa Activi I) Lam 1 1 ..ow Illr�+ �N� rr�11 za �MI.�L ;a •1zz Fr .J ♦ o-An r. - '1 ��' I` �•�.. . Poem Fanp.b �' � / �� _ _ Chi P.,N Source: Edmonds GIS OTETRA TECH B-7O Packet Pg. 375 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT B.6.3 Shoreline Master Program The Edmonds City Council, in November 2014, passed a resolution stating its intent to adopt an update of the City's Shoreline Master Program (Edmonds, 2014). The Update is now undergoing review by the State Department of Ecology prior to final adoption by the City. In the Marine Shoreline South area (shown in Figure 6.3 below), which constitutes the shoreline adjacent to the project area, the shoreline designations include Aquatic I (general Puget Sound), Aquatic (ferry route and marina access), Conservancy (parks), Urban Mixed Use I (developments north of the marina and south the Brackett's Landing South), Urban Mixed Use II (marina area), Urban Mixed Use IV (developments adjacent to Edmonds Marsh), Urban Railroad (BNSF right-of-way), and Natural (Edmonds Marsh). B.6.4 Community Cohesion The ferry holding lanes and the BNSF tracks serve as barriers between the downtown business community and the waterfront uses. Main Street, just to the north of the holding lanes, provides the main pedestrian conduit between downtown and the waterfront, though frequent trains, many quite lengthy, cut off access for several minutes at a time. The draw of the waterfront parks, the ferry terminal, the senior center, and the marina and associated businesses remain strong, however, in spite of the periodic disruption of access. B.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES B.7.1 Water The City of Edmonds operates and maintains the water distribution system which consists of 138 miles of distribution mains, 18 pressure reducing stations, three 1.5 million gallon reservoirs, and one three -million gallon reservoir and pumping station (Edmonds, 2016a). B.7.2 Wastewater Edmonds operates and maintains a wastewater treatment plant on the corner of SR 104 and Dayton Street with an average annual flow rates of 6 million gallons per day. The plant provides both primary treatment and sedimentation, air -activated sludge secondary processes, and chlorine disinfection for liquid treatment (KC DNR WTD 2003). Two wastewater outfalls enter Puget Sound north of the marina's breakwater and extend 1,200 feet into the sound. B.7.3 Stormwater The City's Stormwater Management Utility manages a large and complex storm drainage system in the public right-of-way and also addresses flooding, water quality, and aquatic habitat issues in streams and lakes that lie beyond that right-of-way (Edmonds, 2010). B.7.4 Solid Waste Sound Disposal provides solid waste and recycling pickup along the Edmonds waterfront and in downtown Edmonds. Republic Services provide service in the former Unocal site south of Edmonds Marsh (Edmonds, 2016b). OTETRA TECH B-71 Packet Pg. 376 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Figure B-6. Shoreline Master Program Area Designations Legend SMP Designations Aquatic I - Shoreline Residential III Planning Segement Brea - Aquatic II _ Conservancy - Natural Shoreline Residential I Shoreline Residential II Urban Mixed Use 1 Urban Mixed Use II i Urban Mixed Use III ® Urban Mixed Use IV - Urban Railroad OHW ¢y„c Edmonds City Limits Railroad Stream City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Update OTETRA TECH B-72 Packet Pg. 377 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT B.7.5 Fire and Emergency Service The Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 provides fire and emergency services to the City of Edmonds under a twenty-year interlocal agreement signed in 2010. The nearest fire station to the project area is Fire Station 17 located at 275 Sixth Avenue North. The station is staffed by five professional firefighters around the clock and consists of one engine company, one aid vehicle, and one medic vehicle (Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 2016). Train passage with gate closures across Main Street and Dayton Street prevents timely delivery of emergency services to the west side of the BNSF railroad tracks. On the west side of the tracks, there are an active Senior Center, a marina with storage for 894 boats, a nationally significant salt -water dive park, three separate waterfront parks, several office buildings, two four- to five- story condominium buildings, several single-family homes, a popular dog park and pet exercise area, three restaurants, and the State Ferry Terminal. The marina also is home to the Fire District 1 emergency response boat. All of these are frequent users of paramedic, fire, and police services. Delayed emergency responses of several minutes are not uncommon, and delays will increase in frequency and duration with increased train traffic. On at least one occasion, heavy train traffic prevented an emergency vehicle carrying a critical patient to the hospital from getting off the arriving ferry. Fire and emergency calls west of the BNSF tracks during the period July 1, 2010 to December 8, 2015 numbered 299. Of those calls, 121 resulted in basic life support services and 72 in advanced life support services. There were 14 fires and eight water -related rescues. Response times ranged from 2 minutes and 2 seconds to just over thirty minutes. B.7.6 Police Police services are provided by the Edmonds Police Department, located at 250 5th Avenue North. Staff totals 64 persons, including 53 commissioned personnel (Edmonds, 2016c). During the period 2010-2015, police responded to 33 collisions on or adjacent to Main Street west of 2nd Avenue, and 56 collisions on or adjacent to Dayton Street west of 2nd Avenue. During this same period, the Washington State Patrol responded to 47 accidents on SR-104 in the immediate vicinity of the ferry terminal (Main Street to Dayton Street). B.7.7 Schools, Hospitals, Churches The Edmonds School District provides K-12 education for Edmonds, Woodway, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood. The nearest elementary schools to the project area are Edmonds Elementary, Sherwood Elementary, and Westgate Elementary. Edmonds-Woodway High School is located several miles east of the project area as is Edmonds Community College. Swedish Medical Center — Edmonds is located near the high school and is the major hospital serving Edmonds There are several churches in downtown Edmonds, though none are in the immediate project area. 13.8 NOISE According to monitoring done as part of the Edmonds Crossing project, existing ambient noise levels (vehicular traffic and other background noise sources, except trains) at various locations west of the railroad tracks ranged from 43 dBA-Leq (dBA are decibels on an A -weighted scale that approximate the response of the human ear; Leq levels are hourly equivalent sound pressure levels) to 59 dBA-Leq, compared to the FHWA peak -hour impact criterion of 67 dBA-Leq. The locations with the loudest sound levels were Brackett Park South (59 dBA); and the OTETRA TECH B-73 Packet Pg. 378 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT residences just north of Dayton Avenue west of Railroad Avenue (57 dBA). These calculations were based on on - site sound measurements and calculations of 2002 traffic peak -hour noise levels (CH2M Hill 2003). Measurements of ferry noise were also made as part of the Edmonds Crossing analysis. Maximum noise levels of ferry operations at the Edmonds terminal ranged from 55 to 65 dBA at 100 feet. Typical nose levels during launching and docking was 60 dBA. The ferry horn is sounded during ferry arrivals and departures per maritime safely rules and, thus, their noise levels were not quantified (CH2M HILL 2003). Noise levels of passing trains were measured at 87 dBA at 100 feet from the tracks. The typical noise level of the train horn, which is sounded as a train approached a grade crossing, is 95 to 100 dBA at 100 feet (CH2M HILL 2003). The use of the horn is required for safe operations, though alternatives such as wayside horns can be used and are proposed for Edmonds. 13.9 PARKS AND RECREATION There are seven parks within or adjacent to the project area operated and maintained by the City of Edmonds. • Marina Beach Park, 470 Admiral Way. Benches, BBQs, cartop boat launch, trail, picnic tables, restrooms, volleyball net. • Olympic Beach, 200 Admiral Way. Fishing Pier, benches, picnic table, restroom, public art • Brackett's Landing South, 100 Railroad Avenue S. Public art, picnic tables, trail, benches. • Brackett's Landing North, Main St/Railroad Ave. Basketball court, BBQ, picnic tables, playground. The Brackett's Landing Shoreline Sanctuary Conservation Area (Edmonds Underwater Park) is located offshore and is a prime diving site with over 20,000 dives per year. The site is leased by WDFW to the City of Edmonds. (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/crab/pugetsound/bracketts landing shoreline conservation area. pdf) • Sunset Avenue, at Sunset Avenue N. Benches, picnic tables, walkways. • Richard F. Anway Park, 131 Sunset. Concession stands, picnic table, public art, restrooms, vending machines. • Edmonds Marsh, 180 W. Dayton Street. Viewing platforms, boardwalk, and trail. The Edmonds Marina, located between Marina Beach Park and Olympic Beach Park, includes 662 wet moorage slips and 232 dry storage spaces. Guest moorage is provided for overnight and short-term stays. Other facilities include showers, restrooms, fuel, and boat launch. The facility is owned and operated by the Port of Edmonds. The Edmonds terminal of the Washington State Ferries is located at the end of Main Street. While primarily a means of transportation, the ferry route to Kingston also serves a recreational role as it transport sightseers across Puget Sound. The Willow Creek (Deer Creek) Fish Hatchery, 95 Pine Street, adjacent to Edmonds Marsh, includes a wildlife habitat and native plant demonstration garden. B.10 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC B.10.1 Population The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 2014 population of Edmonds at 40,896, up from 39,698 at the time of the 2010 census. This represents a 3% growth, compared to a 5% growth in Washington State as a whole. The city's residents are older than the state average, with 19.1 % aged 65 and over, compared to 12.3% state-wide. There is one residential condominium on the west side of the railroad tracks. There are also several live -a -boards in the marina. OTETRA TECH B-74 Packet Pg. 379 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Ethnically, Edmonds is predominately white (80.5%), with 5.3% Hispanic or Latino, 7.1 % Asian, 4.1 % two or more races, 2.6% Black or African American, 0.7% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.3% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. State-wide, the white population represents 77.3% of the total population. B.10.2 Employment and Income The median household income (2010-2014) was $72,926, compared to $60,294 in the state. Persons below poverty level in Edmonds represented 9.1 % of the city's population; the comparable state figure was 13.2%. (Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2016). Unemployment in Edmonds was at 4.7% in March 2016, compared to the Washington State rate of 5.8%. Unemployment peaked at 10.1 % in 2010 (11.2% in the state that same year). (Source: HomeFacts 2016; U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016) B.10.3 Housing Median value of owner occupied housing (2010-2014) for Edmonds was $381,500 versus $257,200 in the state. The average assessed value of a typical residence in 2016 was $428,400 (Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2016 Taxes), with a tax rate of 10.2593 and a typical tax bill of $4,395. B.10.4 Waterfront Economics The Port of Edmonds Marina is a principal business on the west side of the railroad tracks. With 662 slips and dry storage for an additional 232 vessels, the marina is a major draw along the Edmonds waterfront. There is a one - to four-year waiting list for slips for vessels larger than 31 feet; slips for smaller vessels are more easily obtained. Thirty short-term slips are available. Two restaurants and several office buildings complete the business make-up of the waterfront. B.10.5 Ferry Terminal Economics The Edmonds Crossing FEIS looked at the relationship between the local Edmonds economy and the Edmond Ferry Terminal and route. While difficult to isolate the specific economic relationship due to the multitude of factors including lack of subarea specific economic data. The FEIS did look at a special case in 1995 where the ferry terminal was out of service in February of that year for reconstruction (passenger service continued to be provided). During that specific period, year-to-year change in sales and use tax distributions were actually up 19.7% from February 1994, "suggesting that the limited service at the ferry terminal did not negatively impact the City's retail sales and may even have contributed to increased sales." It is possible, though, that sales in the immediate area may have been down, offset by increases in other parts of the City. An Edmonds Chamber of Commerce survey "reported that retail businesses generally felt the greatest impact from the auto ferry closure" (CH2M Hill 2003). B.11 TRANSPORTATION B.11.1 Roadways The City of Edmonds has developed a roadway functional classification system. Principal arterials serving the project area include all of SR-104 from 1-5 (Mountlake Terrace) to the ferry terminal, SR-524 from 1-5 (Lynnwood) to downtown Edmonds, Third Avenue S/N between Pine Street and Caspers Street, Pine Street between SR-304 and 3rd Avenue S. Minor arterials include 51h Avenue S., and Main Street. Dayton Street, Admiral Way, and Sunset Ave N are classified at collectors. All other streets in the near the project area are considered local streets (see Figure 11.1). SR-104 is the approval haul route between 1-5 and downtown Edmonds and the ferry terminal. Truck hauling on SR-524 west of 76t" Avenue W is specifically prohibited by the City (Edmonds 2015c). OTETRA TECH B-75 Packet Pg. 380 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Figure B-7. Roadway Network and Classifications, City of Edmonds 31 Source: Edmonds GIs T Traffic at both the Main Street and Dayton Street intersections with SR-104 operate in free flow conditions according to the Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan. In transportation parlance, level of service denotes how free -flowing traffic conditions are at a given intersection or roadway segment. LOS A connotes an intersection delay of ten seconds or less, while LOS F connotes delays exceeding 80 seconds (see table 11.1). As shown in Table 11.2, LOS at the three intersections in or adjacent to the project area are all operating at LOS A or B, both now and projected in 2035 which signifies very little delay at intersections. Table B-7. Motor vehicle LOS thresholds at signalized intersections A <_ 10 B > 10-20 C > 20-35 D > 35-55 E > 55-80 F > 80 Source: Federal Highway Administration 2004. OTETRA TECH B-76 Packet Pg. 381 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table B-8. Level of Service at Key Intersections in Project Area, 2015 and 2035 SR-104 and Dayton A 7 B 10 SR-104 and Main A 7 A 8 Main and 3rd Ave B 8 B 16 (SR-524) Source: Edmonds 2015c The traffic operations issue is not average daily traffic but related to ferry ingress and egress pulses, and traffic interruptions when a train is crossing the intersections of Main and/or Dayton Streets. The 1998 design report for the Edmonds Ferry Terminal showed that an intermodal train would block an intersection for 3.5 minutes, a freight train for 3.0 minutes, and a passenger train for 1.5 minutes (WSDOT 1998). When that report was undertaken, the frequency of train crossings averaged one every 42 minutes. Train volumes have increased since then (both freight and passenger), as have the length of some freight/intermodal trains. Recently, Washington State Ferries has begun tracking ferry delays due specifically to train operations. In the thirty -day period from November 15 through December 12, 2015, there were ten delays attributed to railroad crossing issues. Two of those were caused by problems with the railroad crossing gate (two ferries left with only walk-on passengers; several other cross -sound trips were cancelled), while the others were due to one or two trains crossing Main Street. Delays to ferry operations ranged from 3 to 15 minutes. Overall, the on -time performance (within ten minutes of schedule) of the Edmonds -Kingston route is 98% in 2015. Accident figures presented in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan show that the intersection of Main Street and 3rd Avenue has the highest collision rate in the city, with 1.4 collisions per one million vehicles entering the intersection. Collision rates at the SR-104 intersections were at a lower rate as shown in Table 11.2. During the period 2010-2015, police responded to 33 collisions on or adjacent to Main Street west of 2nd Avenue, and 56 collisions on or adjacent to Dayton Street west of 2nd Avenue. During this same period, the Washington State Patrol responded to 47 accidents on SR-104 in the immediate vicinity of the ferry terminal (Main Street to Dayton Street). Table B-9. Collision Rates at Key Intersections in Project Area SR-104 and Dayton 21 0.7 SR-104 and Main 19 1.2 Main and 3rd Ave (SR-524) 28 1.4 Source: Edmonds 2015c OTETRA TECH B-77 Packet Pg. 382 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT B.11.2 Transit Edmonds Station on Railroad Avenue between Dayton and Main Streets serves as the terminal for several bus routes serving downtown Edmonds, as well Amtrak and Sounder commuter trains. The Edmonds Ferry terminal is across the street at Main. Transit service is provided by Community Transit. • Route 116 provides half-hourly (hourly on weekends) service to the Lynnwood Transit Center, Alderwood Mall, Mill Creek, and Silver Firs. • Route 130 provides half-hourly (hourly on weekends) service to the Aurora Village Transit Center, the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center, and the Lynnwood Transit Center. This route serves Railroad Avenue between Main and Dayton Streets (southbound). • Route 196 provides half-hourly (hourly on weekends) service via 196t" Street SW to Alderwood Mall. • Route 416 provides peak hour trips to downtown Seattle on weekday mornings and five return trips weekday afternoons via Edmonds Way and Interstate 5. B.11.3 Rail The BNSF mainline, on which Amtrak and Sounder operate, passes through downtown Edmonds. It is also major freight corridor with intermodal, oil, coal trains. Approximately 43 trains pass through Edmonds daily (2014). Figure 11.2 shows trains volumes through Edmonds from 1970 to 2015, plus projections for 2020-2030 prepared for Pacific Northwest Railroad Coalition (December 2011). Those projections employed "moderate growth" and "high growth" scenarios, and forecast average daily train traffic of 63 to 70 trains by 2020 and 75 to 87 by 2030. They also forecast peak day train volumes of between 69 and 77 by 2020, and between 83 and 96 by 2030. The WSDOT Rail Plan (December 2013) forecasts an average of 64 trains/day by 2035. According to data provided by BNSF for one day in February 2016 (Wagner 2016), gate closures at Dayton and Main Streets totally 100 minutes out of 1434 minutes, meaning that the crossings were closed 7% of the time and had an average closure time of 2.01 minutes. An analysis of 24 hour per day videotapes recorded by the City of Edmonds during a two week period in June 2012, showed a daily average of 37 gate closures, totaling 1 hour 20 minutes per day. This translates into an average closure duration of 2.16 minutes, representing 5.6% of the time. A daily average of 10.6 delays in loading or unloading operations of the Edmonds -Kingston ferry were recorded (note that the ferry may still have departed on time depending on timing and duration of gate closure). Pedestrians were delayed on average of 10 times per day, while emergency vehicles were delayed a somewhat under 1 time per day (0.75 per day). Sound Transit operates Sounder commuter rail service to downtown Seattle with four weekday morning trips southbound and four weekday return trips in the afternoon. The afternoon trips continue on to Mukilteo and Everett. The morning Sounder trains carry 157-263 passengers based on January 2016 counts and an average daily total of 816. The evening trains carry 188-213 passengers and an average daily total of 803. Spring 2015 counts showed approximately 285 daily boardings at Edmonds. Ridership growth over the past year was at 27%, making the likely boardings at Edmonds in the 325 to 350 range. Special event trains operate for selected Mariner and Sounder matches and weekend Seahawk games. The weekday commuter trains typically operate with 2 or 3 cars, while special event trains operate with 5 cars; 7 for Seahawks games (Moore, personal communication, 2016). Access to Edmonds Station according to a 2012 origin -destination survey conducted by Sound Transit showed 14% walked, 62% drive alone, 12% were dropped off, 1 % arrived via carpool, 2% rode their bikes, 8% transferred from other means (bus or ferry), and 1 % by other means. Two park -and -ride lots serving the Edmonds Station have a combined utilization of 90%, with 152 stalls used out of 156 at Edmonds Station and 82 of 103 stalled at the Edmonds Station Leased Lot. Utilization remains consistent across October and December 2015 and January 2016 (Moore, 2016). A February 2015 license plate OTETRA TECH B-7$ Packet Pg. 383 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT survey of the two Edmonds Station lots showed that 60-71 % of users were from Edmonds and 87-96% from Snohomish County. Additional details are shown in Table 11-3. Amtrak operates three north/eastbound trains and three southbound trains each day. The two northbound trains serve Everett, Stanwood, Mount Vernon, Bellingham, and Vancouver BC; while the eastbound train (Empire Builder) serves Chicago via Spokane, Minneapolis/St Paul and other intermediate stops. The three southbound trains serve Seattle, with one continuing on to Portland via intermediate stops. Both Sounder and Amtrak trains stop at Edmonds Station, adjacent to the bus stop and the ferry terminal. Figure -8. Daily Train Crossings and Projections at Edmonds, 1970-2035. OTETRA TECH B-79 Packet Pg. 384 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table B-10. Park -and -ride Lot Usage, Edmonds Station, 2015. Edmonds 79 60% 49 71% Snohomish County 114 87% 66 96% <1 mile 14 11% 6 9% 1-2 miles 37 28% 31 45% 2-3 miles 34 26% 17 25% 3-4 miles 11 8% 4 6% 4-5 miles 9 7% 3 4% 5+ miles 26 20% 8 12% Source: Sound Transit, 2015a, 2015b. B.11.4 Ferries Washington State Ferries operates vehicular and passenger ferry service between Edmonds and Kingston on the Kitsap Peninsula. Service operates every 40-60 minutes, with a crossing time of less than 30 minutes. The passenger terminal is at Railroad Avenue at Main Street, while the vehicular toll booth is at Sunset Avenue at Dayton Street. Total passengers carried in 2015 numbered 4,103,307, a 2.5% increase over 2014. Vehicles totaled 2,124,721, vehicle passengers 1,386,952, and total walk-on passengers 591,634 (WSF 2016). The Edmonds -Kingston ferry route has the highest cross -sound freight traffic volume in the Washington State Ferry System. In 2015, 49,008 trucks (vehicles 22 feet and over) used this route, a slight decrease from 2014. Only the Mukilteo-Clinton route carried more total trucks (58,839) (WSF 2016). B.11.5 Non -motorized Edmonds has designated bike routes on both Dayton and Main Streets, as well as in the vicinity of the marina. A formal bike lane exists on Sunset Avenue N north of Main Street. Most if not all downtown streets have pedestrian sidewalks on both sides of the street. ADA ramps exist at all major intersections, though many are of an older variety. B.11.6 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Edmonds issued their latest Comprehensive Transportation Plan in 2015. One of the key recommendations is addressing the at -grade crossing issue along the Edmonds Waterfront. • Railroad use for freight transport has greatly increased and is expected to increase even more in the future. The frequency and greater length of trains means that access between the west side and east side of the rail is blocked for longer periods of time. This has significant implications for people needing to access either side —whether for emergency, business, residential, recreational, or other needs. • A priority of the city has been to find a solution to the at -grade railroad crossings at Main and Dayton Streets to the waterfront. The need is evident for providing emergency access, pedestrian/bicycle access, and access to the ferry and other land uses. Various options have been discussed, each with certain OTETRA TECH B-$O Packet Pg. 385 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT advantages, disadvantages, and costs. To determine the best option(s), the city has secured funds as part of the 2015 Legislative transportation package. This project and memorandum is a direct result of this funding effort. B.12 VISUAL RESOURCES B.12.1 Views The project area begins at sea -level and gently rises to the east through downtown Edmonds. In the southern reaches of the project area, a steep bluff (Point Edwards bluff) is located to the east. Views from the project area to the west are of Puget Sound, the Kitsap Peninsula, and the Olympic Mountains. These views are generally available along the shoreline and from certain upland locations. Existing vegetation and development partially obstruct views toward the west (CH2M HILL 2003). The project area is comprised of several visual resource zones. The southern waterfront is centered on the Marina Beach Park. A sandy beach, flat grassy area, an off -leash dog area, and paved parking are the main visual elements. The Edmonds Marine Walkway meanders through the zone. The central waterfront consists of the Edmonds Marina. The breakwater, marina slips (including many covered slips), motorboats and sailboats, upland buildings, and paved parking. The Edmonds Marine Walkway cuts through the area. Trees line both sides of Admiral Way on the eastern edge of the marina. Views of the water are generally blocked by the covered slips. Dry boat storage on the southern portion of the marina also blocks views. The north waterfront is composed of several shoreline parks, commercial and residential buildings, surface parking, and the ferry terminal. The Edmonds Marine Walkway connects the marina with Brackett's Landing South, the ferry terminal, and Brackett's Landing North. With the exception of the ferry terminal, there is a sandy beach throughout this zone. The two parks include landscaped areas and there is a paved parking area north of Main Street for park patrons. The ferry terminal itself includes an overwater vehicle parking and loading area, as well as an elevated and enclosed pedestrian structure to facilitate loading and offloading of passengers. The structure runs parallel to, and just to the south of, Main Street which minimized view blockage. Views from the waterfront are of Puget Sound, Kitsap Peninsula, and the Olympic Mountains. The railroad tracks and Edmonds Station separate the water -side zones from downtown Edmonds and the Edmonds Marsh. Edmonds Marsh is a natural, undeveloped open space with interpretative overlooks and walking trails. The Point Edwards bluff rises to the south (with an elevation gain of 160 feet). Views toward Puget Sound from the marsh are obstructed by the marina complex. The bluff is identified as a "visual landmark" in the Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Plan (Edmonds 1994). A condominium project has been developed on the hillside. Downtown Edmonds is located on a gently -rising landmass and characterized by low-rise buildings, surface parking facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, the ferry vehicle holding area, and urban landscaping. Some water views are available, primarily from Main Street looking west. The Harbor Square complex south of Main Street is made up of low-rise buildings and paved parking, with landscaping. North of Main Street and upland of the railroad tracks is a residential area consisting of single-family and multifamily structures. There are water and mountain views to the west from along Sunset Avenue. B.12.2 Viewers The sensitivity of viewers to the visual environment is a function of viewer activity, awareness, and exposure. The principal views of the project area are from Puget Sound, surrounding neighborhoods or zones (as discussed above), and from persons travelling through by car, train, or non -motorized means. As mentioned earlier, the main views from the project areas are to the west — the Sound, Kitsap Peninsula, and the Olympics. OTETRA TECH B-$1 Packet Pg. 386 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Pedestrians and bicyclists are one of the most sensitive viewer groups, especially when engaging in recreational activities. The various waterfront parks, the fishing pier, and waterfront walkways have panoramic views to the west. The Edmonds Marsh trails ae also frequented by recreational users, with the intended views primarily of wildlife. In general, users of these parks and facilities would be highly sensitive to changes in the views. The duration of their viewing would generally be for as long as they are along the shoreline or in the marsh area. The other sensitive viewers would be residents — along Railroad Avenue, along North Sunset Avenue, and on the Point Edwards Bluff. The duration of these views are the longest. Residents further removed from the shoreline experience partially or fully obstructed views. Motorists traveling to and through Edmonds constitute the largest viewer group. Over 11,000 passengers use the Edmonds ferry terminal daily, experiencing panoramic views of the Sound and project area (WSF, 2016). Persons arriving by vehicle see the project area as they approach the Edmonds Marsh. Persons waiting in the ferry queue have few opportunities to view the waterfront due to development between SR-104 and the waterfront. OTETRA TECH B-$2 Packet Pg. 387 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT B.13 WATER QUALITY B.13.1 Puget Sound Through Ecology's BEACH program, Snohomish County conducts weekly water quality monitoring of recreational areas from May through September, for bacteria that may pose a risk to people using the waterfront. Within Edmonds, water quality is monitored at Marina Beach Park (South Edmonds) and Edmonds Underwater Park. Snohomish County Beach Watchers sampled two beaches along the Edmonds waterfront each week from May 18 through August 31, 2015. As shown in the 2015 results for each beach presented in table 13.1, bacteria results were substantially below the limits. On one day, June 22, bacteria results at the Marine Beach Park were in the swimming advisory range. Resampling showed low bacteria levels. On the same day at the Underwater Park, results were very high (in the swimming closure range). Again, resampling showed lower bacteria levels. Table B-11. Bacteria Levels at Selected Parks on Edmonds Waterfront, Summer 2015 Edmonds Marine Beach Park 16 42 Edmonds Underwater Park 22 87 Source: Ecology 2015. B.13.2 Lakes and Streams Within the project area, Willow Creek and Shellabarger Creek flow into Puget Sound through gorges downcut in the steep bluffs. Willow Creek, which lies mostly within Woodway, flows into the Edmonds Marsh along the base of the hillside of the former Unocal site where it mixes with flows from Shellabarger Creek before flowing through a series of ditches and culverts into Puget Sound south of the marina (Edmonds 2007). B.13.3 Flood Hazard Areas The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain designations within the project area are limited to the Puget Sound shoreline and Edmonds Marsh (EDAW 2004). Some flooding has occurred along the coast, but more serious flooding has occurred in areas adjacent to the Edmonds Marsh/Shellebarger Creek in recent years (Edmonds 2007). B.13.4 Shoreline Modifications The shoreline adjacent to the downtown area and south to the county border is characterized by low or no banks; however, the low banks have been bulkheaded or armored and filled by buildings and road. As discussed in the Edmonds Shoreline Characterization Study, rock groins, ferry dock, a parking lot, a fishing pier, a marina and breakwater have resulted in a modified shoreline hydrology. Nearshore drift is "interrupted, reduced, or shifted seaward by these structures, causing drift sediment and organic material to drop into subtidal, rather than intertidal areas. " B.13.5 Climate Change and Sea -level Rise Puget Sound is expected to experience sea -level rise due to climate change in the coming years. The University of Washington's Climate Change Impacts group has prepare predictions as to the amount of sea -level rise and OTETRA TECH B-$3 Packet Pg. 388 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT range from a low of 4 inches to a high of 56 inches, with the most likely being 24 inches of water surface elevation rise by 2100 (USCCI, 2015). Assuming the land is uplifting at a rate of about 0.4±0.6 inch/decade (a middle estimate for Puget Sound), the relative rise in sea level projected for the latitude of Seattle, relative to 2000, is shown in table 13.2. Table B-12. Predicted Sea -level rise at latitude of Seattle relative to the Year 2000 2030 + 3 inches -2 inches to +9 inches 2050 + 7 inches -1 inch to +19 inches 2100 +24 inches +4 inches to +56 inches Source: University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, Climate Change in Puget Sound, November, 2015 B.14 REFERENCES Alt, David D. and Donald W. Hyndman 1995 Northwest Exposures: A Geologic Story of the Northwest. Missoula: Mountain Press Ames, Kenneth M. and Herbert D. G. Maschner 2000 Peoples of the Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames and Hudson: London. Bard, James C. and Robin McClintock 1996 Edmonds Crossing Cultural Resources Project Discipline Report Supplement: Presence/Absence Testing for Archaeological Resources, City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration Washington State Department of Transportation and City of Edmonds. CH2M HILL, Inc., Bellevue, Washington BOLA Architecture + Planning (BOLA) 2004 A Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds. Prepared for the City of Edmonds & the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. BOLA Architecture + Planning, Seattle, WA. Booth, Derek B., Kathy Goetz Troost, John J. Clague, and Richard B. Waitt 2003 The cordilleran ice sheet. Development in Quaternary Science 1: 17-43. Carlson, R.L. 1990 History of Research in Archaeology. In Central Coast Salish. W. Suttles (ed.), Washington D.C., Smithsonian Institute 7:107-115. OTETRA TECH B-$4 Packet Pg. 389 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT CH2M Hill 1995 Edmonds Crossing Cultural Resources Project Discipline Report. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, Washington Department of Transportation, and City of Edmonds. CH2M Hill, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 2003 SR 104 Edmonds Crossing Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Final Section 4(0 Evaluation. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation. City of Edmonds 2007. Edmonds Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. 2009. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Community Analysis 2010. Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Management Plan. 2014. City Council Resolution 1326 accessed at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/mVcomments/edmonds/ResNol 326.pdf 2015a. 2015 Discovery Programs: Edmonds Marsh. Electronic information accessed 12/17/2015 at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/edmonds-marsh-discovery.html 2015b. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan 2015c. Edmonds Comprehensive Transportation Plan 2016a. Drinking Water Utility. Electronic information accessed 1/15/16 at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/water-utility.htmi 2016b. Garbage and Recycling. Electronic information accessed 1/15/16 at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Administrative_Services/Information_ Services/GIS/maps/Edmonds_Garbage_Service.pdf 2016c. Edmonds Police Department. Electronic information accessed 1/15/16 at: http://www.edmondswa.gov/police,htmI OTETRA TECH B-$5 Packet Pg. 390 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 2016d. Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code, Title 16. Cloud Ray V. 1953 Edmonds The Gem of Puget Sound. Edmonds Tribune Review Press. Edmonds, WA. Collins, Brian D. and Amir J. Sheikh 2002 Mapping Historical Conditions in the Snoqualmie River Valley. Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Cox, James B. and Jim C. Bard 1996 The Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal A Determination of National Register Eligibility. Prepared for the City of Edmonds, Washington Department of Transportation, and Community Transit. CH2M Hill Corvallis, Oregon. Debose, Alfonso and Michael W. Klungland 1983 Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, WA. US DA Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Washington State DNR and WSU Agriculture Center. Dubois, Sara McGibbon and Ray E. Dubois 2014 Edmonds 1850s-1950s. Images of America Series, Arcadia Publishing. Charleston, South Carolina Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society 2015 Edmonds History. Online document accessed 12/17/2015 at: http://www.historicedmonds.org/history/edmonds-history Federal Highway Administration 2004 Signalized Intersection Information Guide. Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04091/07.cfm#chp712 Fladmark, Knut R 1982 An Introduction to the Prehistory of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology No. 6 Franklin, Jerry F. and C.T. Dyrness 1988 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press. Gustafson, Carl E. and Clare Manis 1984 The Manis Mastodon Site: An Adventure in Prehistory. Manis Enterprises, Sequim, Washington Haeberlin, Hermann and Erna Gunther OTETRA TECH B-$6 Packet Pg. 391 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 1930 The Indians of Puget Sound. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 4(1):1-84. Hayes, Derek 1999 Historical Atlas of the Pacific Northwest: Maps of Exploration and Discovery, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Yukon. Seattle, Washington, Sasquatch Books. HomeFacts 2016 Unemployment rates accessed at: http://www.homefacts.com/unemployment/Washington/Snohomish-County/Edmonds.htmI Ingles, L. 1965 Mammals of the Pacific States: California, Oregon, Washington. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Juell, Kenneth 2006 Archaeological Site Assessment of Sound Transit's Sounder: Everett -to -Seattle Commuter Rail System, King and Snohomish Counties, Washington. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. Seattle, WA. Kidd, Robert Stuart 1964 A Synthesis of Western Washington Prehistory from the Perspective of Three Occupation Sites (San Juan and Snohomish Counties). Department of Anthropology. Seattle, WA, University of Washington. Masters of Arts. Kozloff, Eugene N. 1978 Plants and Animals of the Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Guide to the Natural History of Western Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Kruckeberg, Arthur R. 1995 The Natural History of Puget Sound Country. University of Washington Press, Seattle. LeWarne, Charles 2008 Edmonds -- Thumbnail History. HistoryLink.org Essay 8542. Online document accessed 12/17/2015 at: http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplaVPage=output.cfm&file id=8542 Martin, Paul S. 1973 The Discovery of America. Science 179:969-974. OTETRA TECH B-$% Packet Pg. 392 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Matson, R.G. and Gary Coupland 1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, San Diego. Mattson, John Lyle 1971 A Contribution to Skagit Prehistory. Pullman, Unpublished Master's thesis. Department of Anthropology, Washington State University. McClintock, Robin and Jim Bard 1995 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form for the Deer Creek Hatchery Shell Scatter, 45SN310. On file at the Department of Historic Preservation, Olympia, WA. Meltzer, David J. and Robert C. Dunnell 1987 Fluted Points from the Pacific Northwest. Current Research in the Pleistocene 4:64- 67. Miller, Jay 1999 Lushootseed Culture and the Shamanic Odyssey: An Anchored Radiance. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Miss, Christian J. and Sarah K. Campbell. 1991 Prehistoric Resources of Snohomish County. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. Moore, Jim 2016 Personal Communication re Sound Transit Sounder ridership. National Park Service 2015 National Register of Historic Places Database. Electronic database accessed 12/17/2015 at: http://focus.nps.gov/nrhp Office of Surveyor General 1860 General Land Office Land (GLO) Survey Plat, Township 27 North, Range 3 East. Land Survey Office, Olympia, WA. Porter, Stephen C. and Terry W. Swanson 1998 Radiocarbon Age Constraints on Rates of Advance and Retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet During the Last Glaciation. Quaternary Research 50: 205-213. Puget Sound Clear Air Authority (PSCAA) 2014 2014 Air Quality Data Summary OTETRA TECH B-$$ Packet Pg. 393 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 2016 Air graphing database accessed at: http://airgraphing.pscleanair.org/ Puget Sound Council of Governments 2015 Rinck, Brandy 2010 Archaeological Investigations at the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. Prepared for Sound Transit Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA. Ruby, Robert H., John A. Brown 1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Revised Edition. Civilization of the American Indians Series. University of Oklahoma, Norman. Sanborn Map Company 1909 Sheet 2. Sanborn Map Company, New York. 1926 Sheets 2, 3, and 8. Sanborn Map Company, New York. 1932 Sheets 2, 3, and 8. Sanborn Map Company, New York. Shantry, Kate, Brandy Rinck, Alicia Valentino, and Ross Smith 2011 Archaeological Monitoring and Testing at the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station, Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared for Sound Transit, Seattle, WA. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. /SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, WA. Smith, Marion 1940 The Puyallup-Nisqually. Columbia University Press, New York. Snohomish County Assessor 2016 Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2016 Taxes Snohomish County Fire District #1 2016 Facility Directory. Electronic information accessed 1/15/16 at: http://www.firedistrictl .org/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/l 0/38 Sound Transit 2015a Edmonds Station License Plate Survey 2015b Edmonds Station Leased Lot License Plate Survey Suttles, Wayne OTETRA TECH B-$9 Packet Pg. 394 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 1990 Environment. In, Northwest Coast. Wayne Suttles, volume editor. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Vol. 7. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7, William C. Sturdevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Tweddell, Colin 1974 Historical and Ethnological Study of the Snohomish Indian People. In, Coast Salish and Western Washington Indians, v.2, David Agee Horr, editor. New York: Garland Publishing, New York. University of Washington Climate Impacts Group 2015 Climate Change in Puget Sound, Seattle, WA. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016. Monthly Employment Report for March 2016. Accessed at: https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/docs/economic-reports/current-monthly-employment-report U.S. Census Bureau 2015 State and County QuickFacts Waitt, R. B. and R. M. Thorson 1983 The Cordilleran ice sheet in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. In, Late -Quaternary environments of the United States, Porter, S. C. and H. E. Wright Jr. (Eds). Volume 1. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Pp. 53-70. Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) 2015. Beach Report for Snohomish County. Accessed at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/beach/SnohomishReport.htmI 2015. Facility/Site Database. Accessed 11/25/15 at: http://www. ecy.wa. gov/fs/ 2016. Unocal Edmonds Bulk Fuel Term 0178 accessed 2/9/16 at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/gsp/Sitepage.aspx?csid=5180 Wagner, Richard W. 2016. Personal communication to Phil Williams and Bertrand Hauss. Washington State Department of Fish and Game (WDFW) OTETRA TECH B-9O Packet Pg. 395 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 2012. Annual Report. Washington State Ferries (WSF) 2016. "Traffic Statistics Rider Segment Report: Jan. 1, 2015 thru Dec. 31, 2015." Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 1998 Final Report, Edmonds Ferry Terminal Vehicle/Rail Traffic Conflict Study Waterman, T. T. 2001 Puget Sound Geography, ed. Vi Hilbert, Jay Miller and Zalmai Zahir. Lushootseed Press & Zahir Consulting Services, Federal Way. Waters, Michael R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., H. Gregory McDonald, Carl Gustafson, Morten Rasmussen, Enrico Cappellini, Jesper V. Olsen, Samian Szklarczyk, Lars Juhl Jensen, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, and Eske Willerslev 2011 Pre -Clovis Mastodon Hunting 13,800 Years Ago at the Manis Site, Washington. Science 21 October 2011 Whitfield, William. 1926 History of Snohomish County, Washington Vols. 1 and 2. Pioneer Publishing Company, Seattle and Chicago. OTETRA TECH B-91 Packet Pg. 396 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT C.1 LEVEL 1 EVALUATION MATRICES Table C-13. Concepts Not Considered Further/Do Not Address Purpose and Need Overpass Marina Beach Park/Edmonds Crossing area from 2A relocated ferry terminal flyover — south loop Overpass Marina Beach Park/Edmonds Crossing area from 2B relocated ferry terminal flyover — north ramp Overpass Near Edmonds Yacht Club 3 Overpass Dayton Street Connecting at Railroad Avenue 4A North of Dayton Overpass Extension of Bell Street to Brackett's Landing 8 North Park Overpass Near Haines Wharf Park 10 Underpass Dayton Street for all travel modes 9 Railroad 1 Train Trench: Full clearance under both Main & Dayton Railroad 2 Train Trench: Full clearance under Main Street, with raised roadway at Dayton OTETRA TECH O 7 ■ ■ � Concept relies upon Edmonds Crossing (Ferry 1) which has is removed from consideration. O � � ■ ■ � Concept relies upon Edmonds Crossing (Ferry 1) which has is removed from consideration. . . ■ Concept does not meet purpose and need and is not considered further. • � O � � � ■ Deleted in favor of Overpass 4B. • � � � � ■ � Too steep; deleted in favor of Overpass 9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Concept does not meet purpose and need and is not considered further. (�D O O BNSF will not accept any change in the horizontal or vertical alignment of the railrad tracks per 2/11/2016 Task Force Meeting O O BNSF will not accept any change in the horizontal or vertical alignment of the railrad tracks per 2/11/2016 Task Force Meeting C-92 d r L Q a� c y N O L U m M 'L- V Q d t 4- 0 N C 0 c a� 0 a� M LO to Packet Pg. 397 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Railroad 3 Combination Rail Underpass plus Roadway Overpass Railroad 4 Combination Rail Overpass plus Roadway Underpass Railroad 5 Elevated rail to pass over road crossings C` Railroad 6 Relocate tracks into tunnel beneath Edmonds • Railroad 7 Double -track to optimize train passage and reduce passing time Railroad 8 Relocate Freight Rail Traffic to Eastern Subdivision Operational O O O BNSF will not accept any change in the horizontal or vertical alignment of the railrad tracks per 2/11/2016 Task Force Meeting O O O BNSF will not accept any change in the horizontal or vertical alignment of the railrad tracks per 2/11/2016 Task Force Meeting O O O x BNSF will not accept any change in the horizontal or vertical alignment of the railrad tracks per 2/11/2016 Task Force Meeting O O BNSF will not accept any change in the horizontal or vertical alignment of the railrad tracks per 2/11/2016 Task Force Meeting This project is already planned by BNSF BNSF will not accept any change in the horizontal or ■ vertical alignment of the railrad tracks per 2/11/2016 Task Force Meeting Ops 1 Limit the daily number of long trains passing through crossings ■ ■ Ops 2 Operate long trains only at night ■ ■ ■ x Ops 3 Synchronize ferry schedule and train crossings to ■ ■ reduce conflicts Ops 4 Emergency signals to halt trains short of Main 17 17 ■ 17 O Street and Dayton Street Ops 5 Advance notification of hazardous cargo shipments ■ ■ ■ ■ on trains BNSF does not have the ability to locally schedule such trains as they are "built" in other locantions and scheduled to meet customer needs. The number of trains is a response to costomer demands, which vary. There is no capacity to store the trains to run them only at night. Operationally, BNSF cannot implement the concepts' restrictions on the timing of the freight rail traffic. O O This concept should be implemented separately as a near -term solution to complement other concepts BNSF stated they would not do this. OTETRA TECH C-93 Packet Pg. 398 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Ops 6 Improve emergency operation of crossing gates ■ ■ BNSF stated they would not do this. No one is authorized to provide an emergency way to cross when gates are down. Ops 7 Tsunami evacuation plan ■ ■ ■ • This plan could be developed outside of this process, and could be undertaken directly by the City. On -Site On -site 1 Emergency first aid training to employees on west side of railroad tracks ■ ■ • Many people are trained in first aid on the west side of the tracks, including Port and WSF staff. Identify an action plan to let everyone know, develop a commnication plan. This can happen outside of this Alternatives Analysis process. On -site 3 Helipad � ■ ■ ■ O Helipad implementation does not require construction. Not part of study, but City to identify a north location, and a south location, and develop an action plan today and let public know. On -Site 4 At -grade crosswalk improvements at Dayton Street and Railroad Avenue ■ ■ O O O This action may be undertaken separately from the Waterfront Study. On -Site 5 At -grade crosswalk improvements at Main Street and Railroad Avenue ■ ■ O O O This action may be undertaken separately from the Waterfront Study. OTETRA TECH C-94 Packet Pg. 399 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study Table C-14. Level 1 Concepts Moving Forward to Level 2 Alternatives Analysis Overpass 1 South end of Admiral Way from lower yard at Unocal site ("Pine Street Extension") 0 Overpass 4B Dayton Street Connecting at Admiral Way South of Dayton O Overpass 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass at Mid -block, near Senior Center Overpass 7A Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass Spanning Railroad Avenue from Brackett's Landing South to Transit Center Overpass 7B Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass Spanning Railroad Avenue and Main Street Connecting WSF, Transit Center and Downtown Overpass 7C Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass Spanning Railroad Avenue and Sunset Connecting WSF, Transit Center and Downtown Overpass 7D Pedestrian and Bicycle Overpass Spanning Railroad Avenue and Ferry Loading/ Unloading 17 0 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Move to Level 2. Consider revising alignment further into hillside and utilize existing easement located near e■ N7 V V condominium complex. O 0 V V 7 Move to Level 2 O O O O Move to Level 2 Move to Level 2. Combine 7A-D into one Alternative that connects Brackett North Park, WSF overhead passenger ■ � G O � O loading, transit center and Downtown Edmonds (spanning ferry lanes completely) Move to Level 2. Combine 7A-D into one Alternative that connects Brackett North Park, WSF overhead passenger loading, transit center and Downtown Edmonds (spanning ■ � O O � O ferry lanes completely) Move to Level 2. Combine 7A-D into one Alternative that connects Brackett North Park, WSF overhead passenger loading, transit center and Downtown Edmonds (spanning ■ � O O � O ferry lanes completely) Move to Level 2. Combine 7A-D into one Alternative that connects Brackett North Park, WSF overhead passenger loading, transit center and Downtown Edmonds (spanning ■ � O O � O ferry lanes completely) OTETRA TECH C-95 Packet Pg. 400 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Overpass 9 Extension of Edmonds Street to Brackett's Landing Park O � � � � Move to Level 2 North Park Underpass 3 5alish grossing (north of uayton) undercrossing for small service vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles only Underpass 4 Main Street undercrossing for small service vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles only ■ 7 O O Move to Level 2 ■ O O O Move to Level 2 On -Site 2 Station emergency response staff and equipment on west ■ Move to Level 2. Consider implementing this project in the side of railroad tracks near -term. Ferry 3 Mid -Waterfront Concept (vehicle storage @ Harbor Square w/ trestle at Dayton St.) Ferry 4 Multimodal Transit Center Garage and ferry vehicle storage, accessed from Dayton Street with flyover to Ferry trestle Overpass 6 Main Street (including ferry loading) Ferry 5 Underground Ferry holding with pedestrian bridge extended Underpass 1 Main Street (including Ferry Lane) Ferry 8 Surface parking at Salish Center with flyover at Main Street O O � 77 ■ ■ Move to Level 2. This concept provides an alternative to Edmonds Crossing and current ferry terminal improvements. Move to Level 2. Combine with Ferry 8 concept for best solution. O O O O > O O O ■ Move to Level 2 OO O Move to Level 2. Combine with Underpass 1. O O O O . . Move to Level 2. Combine with Ferry 5. OO 7 O ■ Move to Level 2. Combine with Ferry 4 for best fit. OTETRA TECH C-96 Packet Pg. 401 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT C.2 LEVEL 1 CUT SHEETS DESCRI This concept builds a grade -separated overcrossing of the railroad tracks, connecting to Pine Street on the east and to Admiral Way on the west. It provides access for emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles, and potentially all vehicles if the roadway is wide enough to meet City guidelines. It would include improvements to the existing Unocal site access road that connects Pine Street to the new overcrossing. Access road would be aligned to minimize impacts to the nearby wetlands and would span over the proposed relocated Willow Creek. Conceptual roadway grades appear to meet guidelines for emergency vehicles and ADA access. LEVEL I ANALYSIS Criterion Rating Reasoning Does the concept improve ' .� The concept would provide continuous access to the west side of the railroad reliable emergency response tracks for emergency vehicles. The emergency access requires a circuitous to the west side of the railroad route of approximately 1.5 miles depending on destination. tracks? Does the concept reduce The concept could reduce delay for unloading ferry motorized traffic when the delays to ferry loadings railroad tracks are blocked for extended periods. To do this, motorists will need unloading? to drive 213 mile on Railroad Avenue and Admiral Way. The new overcrossing would need to meet City guidelines for a two-way roadway to accommodate all types of vehicle traffic to allow this. Does the concept reduce ■ The concept could reduce delay for motorists as explained above. Because delays and conflicts for the overpass is 213 mile to the south of Main Street, there would be no pedestrians, bicycles, and reduction of delay for most pedestrians who pass between the ferry and motorists at roadwaylrailroad downtown or rail platform. Bicycles could potentially have less delay if their crossings? destination is towards the south of Edmonds, but no benefit if heading to downtown. Does the concept provide safe The concept does provide a safe intermodal connection during train blockages and efficient intermodal at the ferry terminal. But due to the 213 mile distance to the south, efficiency of passenger connectivity connectivity would vary from good for motorized transport, to poor for non - between ferry, commuter rail, motorized transport. Connection is less efficient between the ferry terminal and bus transit, pedestrian, bicycle downtown compared to more northerly overpass location options. and motor vehicle modes of travel? Page 1 Version 2 — for approval OTETRA TECH C-97 Packet Pg. 402 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Full set of Level 1 Concept Cut Sheets to be included in Finalized Report OTETRA TECH C-98 Packet Pg. 403 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT D.1 LEVEL 2 EVALUATION MATRICIES Table D-1. Level 2 Screening Evaluation for Pedestrian/Bicycle Access Only Alternatives (D Greatly Improves 15 Somewhat Improves O No Change Q Somewhat Degrades 0 Greatly Degrades X Fatal Flaw (1) Does the alternative improve reliable Provides continuous access for emergency Provides continuous access for emergency Provides continuous access for emergency emergency response to the west side of the response by emergency personnel on foot. (511Overpass response by emergency personnel on foot. response by emergency personnel on foot. railroad tracks? is located 11 blocks from Fire District Overpass is located 10 blocks from Fire District Overpass is located 10 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands between Dayton and Main Station 17 and lands near the ferry terminal in Station 17 and lands at the mid -point of the Street on the waterfront. Brackett's Landing South. waterfront. (2) Does the alternative provide emergency evacuation of the waterfront? Provides a grade -separated route for evacuation by non -motorized means from the waterfront. Provides a grade -separated route for evacuation by non -motorized means from the waterfront. Provides a grade -separated route for evacuation by non -motorized means from the waterfront. (3) Does the alternative reduce delays to Does not reduce delays to normal Does not reduce delays to normal Does not reduce delays to normal ferry loading/unloading of vehicles, bicycles loading/unloading operations. loading/unloading operations. loading/unloading operations. and pedestrians? Provides a grade -separated route for pedestrians Provides a grade -separated route for pedestrians Provides a grade -separated route for pedestrians and bicycles to load/offload. and bicycles to load/offload. and bicycles to load/offload. (4) Does the alternative improve circulation and reduce delays and conflicts for pedestrians, bicycles, motorists and freight at roadway/railroad crossings? 4(A) Provides continuous pedestrian and bicycle Provides a continuous connection over Railroad access? & Avenue and BNSF tracks. 4(B) Provides continuous vehicle access? No direct improvement to continuous vehicle 0 access. 4(C) Reduces pedestrian and/or bicycle conflicts Yes. It provides a grade separated crossing with other travel modes? reducing conflicts between non -motorized modes eand vehicles. Provides a continuous connection over Railroad Avenue and BNSF tracks to Brackett's Landing Park South/ferry overhead loading. No direct improvement to continuous vehicle 0 access. Yes. It provides a grade separated crossing reducing conflicts between non -motorized modes and vehicles. The alternative will connect to the WSF Passenger Overhead Loading, which will allow non -motorized ferry users to directly access the transit center, which will reduce the number of conflicts with vehicles. Provides a continuous connection under Railroad Avenue and BNSF tracks to Brackett's Landing Park South. No direct improvement to continuous vehicle (D access. Yes. It provides a grade separated crossing reducing conflicts between non -motorized modes and vehicles. It is likely this concept would be utilized less than the Main Street Overpass alternative as it is less convenient and requires greater vertical travel than the overpass. 4(D) Reduces motorist conflicts with vehicles It provides a grade separated crossing reducing It provides a grade separated crossing reducing It provides a grade separated crossing reducing and other travel modes? motorist conflicts with non -motorized modes. motorist conflicts with non -motorized modes. The motorist conflicts with non -motorized modes. alternative will reduce the number of pedestrians crossing the intersection of Railroad Avenue and OTETRA TECH D-99 Packet Pg. 404 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 4(E) Provides continuous freight mobility (via rail, via ferry) (5) Does the alternative provide safer and more efficient intermodal pedestrian passenger connectivity between ferry, commuter rail, bus transit for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles? 5(A) Ferry to/ from commuter rail and bus transit? 5(B) Ferry to/from downtown? 5(C) Bus transit and commuter rail to/from downtown? (6) Does the alternative fit with urban design concepts and community goals? 6(A) Maintains views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains? Does not reduce motorist conflicts between vehicles. '� Greatly Improves 15 Somewhat Improves O No Change Main Street as the ferry unloads, provided that the alternative connects directly to the WSF Passenger Overhead Loading. Does not reduce motorist conflicts between vehicles. Somewhat Degrades Greatly Degrades x Fatal Flaw UFF 174" 1411 i !- W111 Does not reduce motorist conflicts between vehicles. No direct improvement to circulation for motorists No direct improvement to circulation for motorists No direct improvement to circulation for motorists 0 and freight. 0 and freight. 0 and freight. (5 (5 le Yes. Provides grade separated connection across Yes. Provides grade separated connection across Yes. Provides grade separated connection across BNSF Right of Way to commuter rail and transit. BNSF Right of Way to commuter rail and transit. BNSF Right of Way to commuter rail and transit. The alternative is located directly adjacent the The alternative is located directly adjacent to the The alternative is located directly adjacent to the commuter rail station. It is 0.10 miles from the transit center, and 0.10 miles from the commuter transit center, and 0.10 miles from the commuter ferry terminal to the location of the crossing, and rail station. rail station. 0.10 miles to the transit center. Yes. Provides grade separated connection for Yes. Provides grade separated connection for Yes. Provides grade separated connection for non -motorized access across BNSF Right of Way non -motorized access across BNSF Right of Way non -motorized access across BNSF Right of Way to downtown in vicinity of commuter rail station. to downtown in vicinity of the transit center. This to downtown in vicinity of commuter rail station This alternative is located approximately 0.10 alternative is located approximately 0.10 miles and the transit center. This alternative is located miles from the ferry terminal, and 0.10 miles from from downtown. approximately 0.10 miles from downtown. downtown. Yes. Provides grade separated connection from Yes. Provides grade separated connection from Yes. Provides grade separated connection from future west side platform, over BNSF right-of-way the ferry terminal, over BNSF right-of-way to the Brackett's Landing Park South under BNSF right - in vicinity of commuter rail station. This alternative transit center. This alternative is approximately of -way to a location between the commuter rail is located approximately 0.10 miles from the 0.10 miles from the commuter rail station. station and the transit center. transit center. The grade separated structure will not reduce The grade separated structure will reduce views of The alternative does not affect Puget Sound or views of the Puget Sound and Olympics due to the Puget Sound and Olympics from lower Main Olympic Mountain views. surrounding buildings in the mid -block area. Street and adjoining Sunset Avenue. OTETRA TECH D-100 Packet Pg. 405 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 6(B) Provides opportunities for urban design to enhance aesthetics/experience? 6(C) Compatible with Edmonds' small-town ambience? 6(D) Minimizes impacts to neighborhoods? 6(E) Minimizes impacts to businesses? 6(F) Preserves use of parks and recreational assets? (7) Is the alternative consistent with Stakeholders' current and future operations? 7(A) City of Edmonds? 7(B) Washington State DOT? 7(C) Washington State Ferries? Alternative can incorporate urban design elements to enhance aesthetics/experience, and integrate with transit center aesthetics. Alternative promotes walkability in the waterfront/downtown area. Alternative can incorporate urban design elements to enhance aesthetics/experience and waterfront/downtown connectivity along Main Street. Alternative promotes walkability in the waterfront/downtown area. Limited opportunities to incorporate urban design elements. Constructs a trench separating Brackett's Landing South Park from downtown. Below -grade passageways, without clear sightlines, are uninviting to users and offer cover for illicit activity. The scale of the alternative will be compatible with The scale of the alternative will be compatible with The scale of the alternative will be compatible with small town ambience. Minimizing overpass length small town ambience. Minimizing overpass length small town ambience. and termini footprints would better support small- and termini footprints would better support small- town ambience. town ambience. Yes will minimize impacts to neighborhood due to Yes will minimize impacts to neighborhood due to Yes will minimize impacts to neighborhood due to small size and scale of alternative (comparatively), size and scale of alternative, and its location in scale, below -grade configuration, and location. and its location near current transportation uses active transportation corridor. (parking lots and railroad tracks). Eastern terminus displaces space near the Amtrak Eastern terminus displaces restaurant on Main Eastern terminus ramps encroach upon Transit building. Note the Amtrak building will require Street. This impact may be avoidable if the Center. . modification when 2nd track is installed. eastern terminus is constructed using an elevator (5 and stair set in lieu of ramps. Western terminus encroaches into parking at community center. Western terminus encroaches into the NE corner of Brackett's Landing Park South. (5 Western terminus ramp encroaches into the east edge of Brackett's Landing Park South. 6r] Will improve access to City waterfront and parks for pedestrians and bicyclists. Allows continuous access to non -motorized passengers; however, movement of vehicles and freight will not benefit from this alternative. Allows continuous access to non -motorized passengers; however, movement of vehicles and freight will not benefit from this alternative. 6@ Will improve access to City waterfront and parks for pedestrians and bicyclists Allows continuous access to non -motorized passengers; however, movement of vehicles and freight will not benefit from this alternative. Allows continuous access to non -motorized passengers; however, movement of vehicles and freight will not benefit from this alternative. Main Street corridor provides greater degree of WSF passenger benefit. 6� Will improve access to City waterfront and parks for pedestrians and bicyclists Allows continuous access to non -motorized passengers; however, movement of vehicles and freight will not benefit from this alternative. Allows continuous access to non -motorized passengers; however, movement of vehicles and freight will not benefit from this alternative. Main Street corridor provides greater degree of WSF passenger benefit. OTETRA TECH D-101 Packet Pg. 406 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 7(D) Port of Edmonds? 7(E) Sound Transit? 7(F) Community Transit? 7(G) BNSF Railroad? (8) Is the alternative fundable and permittable? 8(A) Affordable based on project costs including design, construction and maintenance? 8(B) Attractive to grant money and stakeholder contribution? EO Allows continuous access to non -motorized passengers; however, movement of vehicles and freight will not benefit from this alternative. This alternative is located closer to Port properties. Yes. Need for grade -separated pedestrian crossing anticipated with the installation of 2nd track. Allows continuous access between east and (future) west platforms, facilitating pedestrian and bicycle passengers' connections to transit, parking, and ferry. General location is optimal for Sounder passengers. Overpass termini must be located and configured to avoid conflicts with pedestrian movements and rail/transit operations. Yes. Allows continuous non -motorized access between Transit Center and both east and (future) west Sounder/Amtrak platforms, facilitating movement to connections. Location is more convenient to rail connections than to ferry. Yes. Would reduce potential non-motorized/rail conflicts. Yes. Scale of construction is affordable. Where elevators are used, they will require routine maintenance. [estimates presented separately] Yes. Alternative is affordable and would benefit multiple stakeholders thus attractive to grants. '� Greatly Improves 15 Somewhat Improves O No Change Q Somewhat Degrades • Greatly Degrades X Fatal Flaw 0 Allows continuous access to non -motorized passengers; however, movement of vehicles and freight will not benefit from this alternative. Yes. Need for grade -separated pedestrian crossing anticipated with the installation of 2nd track. Allows continuous access between east and (future) west platforms, facilitating pedestrian and bicycle passengers' connections to transit, parking, and ferry. Location is more convenient to passengers making ferry connections. Yes. Allows continuous non -motorized access between Transit Center and the ferry and (future) west Sounder/Amtrak platform, facilitating movement to connections. Location is most convenient to ferry connections. Yes. Would reduce potential non-motorized/rail conflicts. Yes. Scale of construction is affordable. Where elevators are used, they will require routine maintenance. [estimates presented separately] Yes. Alternative is affordable and would benefit multiple stakeholders thus attractive to grants. �Mrl Allows continuous access to non -motorized passengers; however, movement of vehicles and freight will not benefit from this alternative. Yes. Need for grade -separated pedestrian crossing anticipated with the installation of 2nd track. Allows continuous access between east and (future) west platforms, facilitating pedestrian and bicycle passengers' connections to transit, parking, and ferry. Location is more convenient to passengers making ferry connections, but less attractive that Main Street Overpass. Yes. Allows continuous non -motorized access between Transit Center and the ferry and (future) west Sounder/Amtrak platform, facilitating movement to connections. Location is more convenient to ferry connections, but less attractive that Main Street Overpass. Ramps at east terminus encroach into Transit Center. Yes. Would reduce potential non-motorized/rail conflicts. Yes. Scale of construction is affordable. [estimates presented separately] Yes. Alternative is affordable and would benefit multiple stakeholders thus attractive to grants. OTETRA TECH D-102 Packet Pg. 407 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 8(C) Permittable by resource agencies, tribes, BNSF? (9) Can the alternative avoid or minimize temporary construction impacts (measure of relative construction impacts)? 9(A) To sensitive environments? 9(B) To residents? 9(C) To businesses? 9(D) To waterfront users? 9(E) To freight traffic (on trains and to/ from ferry)? 9(F) To bus transit users? Sound Transit would likely desire an overpass once the second track platform is constructed. Funding toward a similar overpass was provided in ST2 intended for the Edmonds Crossing project. Yes. Alternative is permittable, located in built areas, and would benefit multiple stakeholders supporting non -motorized mobility. Active construction duration — 4-6 months Yes. Limited scale of the alternative, its footprint in developed areas, and its distance from sensitive areas minimize impacts. Yes. Limited scale of the alternative and relatively short construction duration will minimize impacts. Yes. Limited scale of the alternative and relatively short construction duration will minimize impacts. Yes. Passenger staging can be accommodated for the limited construction duration. Freight traffic will experience construction zone speed restrictions for portions of the construction duration. Yes. Location of this alternative will have minimal impact to transit users. LWI Greatly Improves 15 Somewhat Improves O No Change GENF" Sound Transit would likely desire an overpass once the second track platform is constructed. Funding toward a similar overpass was provided in ST2 intended for the Edmonds Crossing project. Yes. Alternative is permittable, located in built areas, and would benefit multiple stakeholders supporting non -motorized mobility. Active construction duration — 6-8 months Yes. Although the west terminus is proximate to the shoreline, the alternative's' limited scale minimizes impacts Yes. Limited scale of the alternative and relatively short construction duration will minimize impacts. Yes. Limited scale of the alternative and relatively short construction duration will minimize impacts. Yes. Pedestrian detours can be accommodated for the limited construction duration. Freight traffic will experience construction zone speed restrictions for portions of the construction duration. Construction within current transit center will require detours and temporary coach staging. Q Somewhat Degrades • Greatly Degrades X Fatal Flaw M Sound Transit would likely desire an overpass once the second track platform is constructed. Funding toward a similar overpass was provided in ST2 intended for the Edmonds Crossing project. This underpass would provide similar functionality, but is not preferred by Sound Transit. Yes. Alternative is permittable, located in built areas, and would benefit multiple stakeholders supporting non -motorized mobility. Active construction duration — 9 months Although alternative is limited in scale, its more extensive excavation and larger footprint will require greater mitigation to protect shoreline areas. Although alternative is limited in scale, its more extensive excavation and passage beneath the railroad will require more truck traffic and a longer construction schedule than overpass alternatives of similar capacity. Although alternative is limited in scale, its more extensive excavation and passage beneath the railroad will require more truck traffic and a longer construction schedule than overpass alternatives of similar capacity. Pedestrian detours will be lengthier for this alternative than the overpass alternatives of similar capacity. Freight traffic will experience construction zone speed restrictions for portions of the construction duration. This alternative includes the construction of a second track to allow construction of the underpass. This will results in additional delays to freight traffic. Construction within current transit center will require detours and temporary coach staging. OTETRA TECH D-103 Packet Pg. 408 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study October 2016 DRAFT 7.1.c 9(G) To passenger rail users? 9(H) To ferry users? 9(I) To transportation functionality? (10) How does the alternative affect the environment? 10(A) ecosystem resources (streams, marsh/ wetlands, marine shorelines)? 10(B) historic, cultural, and archaeological resources? 10(C) visual aesthetics? 10(D) noise levels? 10(E) sites containing hazardous materials Construction within vicinity of rail platforms will require temporary passenger staging. Construction near the tracks will result in a work zone speed restriction on the track. Yes. Location of this alternative will have minimal impact to ferry users. Yes. Limited scale of the alternative and relatively short construction duration will minimize impacts. The western terminus is located in a built area within the designated shoreline. Shoreline impacts would be minimal. Probability of encountering resources is moderate in project's vicinity. The alternative's limited footprint and minimal need for excavation will minimize potential. Since it provides grade separation it would have some impact on aesthetics; however, project would be located in a busy transportation corridor and a pedestrian overpass would be consistent with surrounding uses. Site is surrounded by buildings of similar or greater height that overpass. Noise is anticipated during the construction of this alternative but no significant change is anticipated during typical operation. No significant impacts to sites containing hazardous materials are anticipated from this alternative. Foundation systems may create temporary impacts during construction (confirmed M Greatly Improves 15 Somewhat Improves O No Change Construction near the tracks will result in a work zone speed restriction on the track. Construction will require temporary passenger detours. Yes. Limited scale of the alternative and relatively short construction duration will minimize impacts. The western terminus is proximate to the shoreline and will have shoreline impacts. Probability of encountering resources is high in project's vicinity. The alternative's limited footprint and minimal need for excavation will minimize potential. Since it provides grade separation it would have some impact on aesthetics; however, project would be located in a busy transportation corridor and a pedestrian overpass would be consistent with surrounding uses. Noise is anticipated during the construction of this alternative but no significant change is anticipated during typical operation. No significant impacts to sites containing hazardous materials are anticipated from this Q Somewhat Degrades • Greatly Degrades X Fatal Flaw �W] Construction near the tracks will result in a work zone speed restriction on the track. Construction of the second track will result in longer delays and slowdowns to rail passenger users. Construction will require temporary passenger detours. Yes. Limited scale of the alternative and relatively short construction duration will minimize impacts. The western terminus is proximate to the shoreline and will have shoreline impacts This alternative will require more excavation and presents greater potential for temporary effects than overpass alternatives of similar capacity. Probability of encountering resources is high in project's vicinity. This alternative will require more excavation and presents greater potential for encountering resources than overpass alternatives of similar capacity. Since it is mostly underground minimum aesthetics issues are anticipated above ground Noise is anticipated during the construction of this alternative but no significant change is anticipated during typical operation. Impacts to sites containing hazardous materials could occur from this alternative. The underpass will require more excavation compared to the OTETRA TECH D-104 Packet Pg. 409 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 0"CRITERIOIN'M 10(F) park lands or recreational? 10(G) air quality? 10(H) soils and groundwater? 10(I) social and economic (incl. disproportionate impacts)? (11) Does the alternative address impacts of sea level rise? (5 11(A) To existing infrastructure and access 11(B) Sea level rise considerations for design to ensure safety? X EO contamination is located immediately south of the train station). No significant impacts to park lands or recreational are anticipated from this alternative. No effect. No impacts to soils and groundwater are anticipated from this alternative. No social or economic impacts are anticipated from this alternative. Yes. Sufficient clearance can be provided to allow tracks to be raised to adapt to sea level rise. Greatly Improves Somewhat Improves O No Change re - • alternative. Foundation systems may create temporary impacts during construction. 6w] The alternative will impact the Brackett's Landing South park; Section 4(f) impact. No effect. No impacts to soils and groundwater are anticipated from this alternative. If ramps are used at the eastern terminus, an existing business would be displaced. No social impacts are anticipated from this alternative. No. Yes. Sufficient clearance can be provided to allow tracks to be raised to adapt to sea level rise. Q Somewhat Degrades Greatly Degrades x Fatal Flaw ,i• ► --• r - other alternatives and may create temporary impacts during construction. The alternative will impact the Brackett's Landing South park; Section 4(f) impact. No effect. Impacts to soils and groundwater are anticipated from this alternative because of the volume of excavation. Temporary dewatering is anticipated during construction. No impacts to social and economic are anticipated from this alternative. However measures to ensure user safety during the operation of the underground portion of the crossing would be required. e o No, Yes. Underpass structure can be designed for added deadload should tracks be raised to adapt to sea level rise. Pumping and groundwater control systems would readily address the nominal effect of sea level rise on groundwater intrusion rates. OTETRA TECH D-105 Packet Pg. 410 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-2. Level 2 Screening Evaluation for Emergency Access Roadway Alternatives (�) Greatly Improves (5 Somewhat Improves O No Change Q Somewhat Degrades 0 Greatly Degrades x Fatal Flaw (1) Does the alternative improve reliable emergency response to the west side of the Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Overpass is Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Overpass is Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Overpass is railroad tracks? located 18 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and located 10 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and located 4 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the south end of the waterfront. lands at the mid -point of the waterfront. lands at the north end of the waterfront. (2) Does the alternative provide emergency Yes. Provides a grade -separated route for Yes. Provides a grade -separated route for Yes. Provides a grade -separated route for evacuation of the waterfront? evacuation by both motorized and non -motorized evacuation by both motorized and non -motorized evacuation by both motorized and non -motorized means from the waterfront. means from the waterfront. means from the waterfront. (3) Does the alternative reduce delays to ferry loading/unloading of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians? Does not reduce delays to normal loading/unloading operations. Provides a grade -separated route for controlled 0 offloading of vehicles during an extended blockage of the at -grade crossings. (4) Does the alternative improve circulation and reduce delays and conflicts for 0 pedestrians, bicycles, motorists and freight at roadway/railroad crossings? 4(A) Provides continuous pedestrian and bicycle access? 4(B) Provides continuous vehicle access? Yes. Provides a continuous connection between the sidewalk at the intersection of SR104/ Pine Street and the sidewalk along Admiral Way and the walkway along the Port of Edmonds marina. 0 Only for emergency vehicles. 4(C) Reduces pedestrian and/or bicycle conflicts May induce a portion of the non -motorized traffic with other travel modes? away from the Dayton Street or Main Street (5 crossings. 4(D) Reduces motorist conflicts with vehicles and other travel modes? X No. Does not reduce delays to normal loading/unloading operations. Provides a grade -separated route for controlled 0 offloading of vehicles during an extended blockage of the at -grade crossings. CW] Yes. Provides a continuous connection between the sidewalk at the intersection of Sunset Avenue/ Dayton Street to the sidewalk along Admiral Way south of Dayton Street and near the walkway along the Port of Edmonds marina. 0 Only for emergency vehicles. Will reduce conflicts with railroad traffic at Dayton Street. No. Does not reduce delays to normal loading/unloading operations. Provides a grade -separated route for controlled offloading of vehicles during an extended blockage of the at -grade crossings. Reduces delays for some pedestrian and bicycle passengers. Yes. Provides a continuous connection between the pedestrian/ bicycle path on Sunset Avenue at Edmonds Street to trails in Brackett's Landing Park North. This is more proximate to the ferry dock than other emergency access roadway alternatives 0 Only for emergency vehicles. X Will reduce conflicts with railroad traffic at Main Street. No. OTETRA TECH D-106 Packet Pg. 411 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 4(E) Provides continuous freight mobility (via rail, via ferry) (5) Does the alternative provide safer and more efficient intermodal pedestrian passenger connectivity between ferry, commuter rail, bus transit for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles? 5(A) Ferry to/ from commuter rail and bus transit? 5(B) Ferry to/from downtown? 5(C) Bus transit and commuter rail to/from downtown? (6) Does the alternative fit with urban design concepts and community goals? 6(A) Maintains views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains? 6(B) Provides opportunities for urban design to enhance aesthetics/experience? No. 0 No. 0 9 �W] 20 Yes, the overpass structure sits below sightlines from the Point Edwards development. Sound and mountain views from further east and from the northeast are obscured by the hillside, and so structure would not obstruct the views. Structure offers elevated viewing location of Puget Sound, Willow Creek and Olympic Mountains. Offers viewpoints over Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek. Alternative can incorporate urban design elements to enhance aesthetics/experience. Provides a non -motorized trail connection around the south side of the Edmonds Marsh and connection to the waterfront trail network. Offers viewpoints over Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek, and of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains. 'O Greatly Improves �W] �W] 0 Somewhat Improves Safe, but less efficient. No. M Yes, water and mountain views are presently limited to that portion of Dayton street west of the railroad tracks, and the street alignment turns at railroad crossing, with taller buildings to each side of the street at the waterfront. The overpass structure would not further obstruct water and mountain views as the adjacent buildings are as tall, or taller, than the proposed overpass structure. Alternative can incorporate urban design elements to enhance aesthetics/experience. Q Somewhat Degrades Greatly Degrades Safe, but less efficient. Yes, to those portions of downtown accessed from Edmonds Street. No. Yes, the overpass structure sits at and below the grade of Sunset Avenue, with the railings of the uppermost section extending upward into view as the structure approaches Sunset Avenue. The structure also creates viewpoints over the beach, Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains from vantage points above the beach. The structure will, however, be visible when viewing north and south along the beach. The railings on the uppermost portion of the structure will be visible when viewed from Sunset Avenue. Alternative can incorporate urban design elements to enhance aesthetics/experience. Provides a non -motorized trail connection from pedestrian/bicycle path on Sunset Avenue to parks and the waterfront trail network. Offers viewpoints over beaches, Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains. OTETRA TECH D-107 Packet Pg. 412 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 6(C) Compatible with Edmonds' small-town o Yes, overpass structure is located remote from o Yes, overpass structure is located in a o Yes, overpass structure is located away from the ambience? the downtown core. business/commercial district away from the downtown core and does not convey general downtown core and does not convey general vehicle traffic. vehicle traffic. 6(D) Minimizes impacts to neighborhoods? 6(E) Minimizes impacts to businesses? 6(F) Preserves use of parks and recreational assets? (7) Is the alternative consistent with Stakeholders' current and future operations? 7(A) City of Edmonds? 7(B) Washington State DOT? 7(C) Washington State Ferries? 7(D) Port of Edmonds? 6r] Yes. Overpass is situated on Port property and Yes, overpass structure is located in a Q Overpass structure's eastern terminus is located the former Unocal site below the Point Edwards business/commercial district away from residential in a residential area, but drops below the grade of development on the adjacent hillside, and will not neighborhoods, and will not serve general vehicle the residential streets. The structure will not serve serve general vehicle traffic. traffic. general vehicle traffic. Overpass structure occupies vacant industrial land east of the tracks. Western terminus of the overpass would displace parking on Port property Yes. Provides a non -motorized trail connection from the fish hatchery, around the south side of the Edmonds Marsh and connection to the waterfront trail network. Overpass would occupy commercial property on the north side of Dayton Street east of the tracks; it will reduce the driveway access points from Dayton Street. Overpass would occupy Port property west of the tracks, including the parking lot of Jacobsen Marine. Yes. Overpass does not affect park properties. Improves pedestrian safety. Improves pedestrian safety. Does not affect motor vehicle traffic. Consistent with traffic operations, but will reduce 0 access locations to Salish Crossing. Construction of the structure potentially impacts significant City utilities in the Dayton Street corridor. 0 0 Overpass does not affect business properties. Overpass would land in north portion of Brackett's Landing Park North, and would be integrated with the parking and traffic circulation within the park. Improves pedestrian safety. Provides connection between Sunset Avenue pedestrian/bicycle path to waterfront pathway systems. Does not affect motor vehicle traffic operations No effect. No effect. No effect. 0 0 0 Yes. Provides for emergency vehicle and Yes. Provides for emergency vehicle and Yes. Provides for emergency vehicle and 0 pedestrian offloading of ferries. 0 pedestrian offloading of ferries. pedestrian offloading of ferries. Overpass would occupy Port Property on the west Overpass would occupy developable Port No effect. side of the tracks currently used for dry boat property on the west side of the tracks. 9 storage. Q 0 OTETRA TECH D-108 Packet Pg. 413 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 7(E) Sound Transit? No effect. Away from Sounder station. Yes, however location is not convenient to Yes, however location is not convenient to i intermodal connections, with the termini distant intermodal connections, with the termini distant 0 from destinations. from destinations. 7(F) Community Transit? 7(G) BNSF Railroad? (8) Is the alternative fundable and permittable? 8(A) Affordable based on project costs including design, construction and maintenance? 8(B) Attractive to grant money and stakeholder contribution? 8(C) Permittable by resource agencies, tribes, BNSF? (9) Can the alternative avoid or minimize temporary construction impacts (measure of relative construction impacts)? 9(A) To sensitive environments? 0 No effect. Away from Transit Center. Yes. Reduces potential conflicts with pedestrians/bicycles. Also reduces need for emergency responders to cross trains during extended crossing closures. BNSF would have to approve column placement within right-of-way. �Wl 0 No effect. Away from Transit Center. Yes. Reduces potential conflicts with pedestrians/bicycles. Also reduces need for emergency responders to cross trains during extended crossing closures. BNSF would have to approve column placement within right-of-way. [estimates presented separately] [estimates presented separately] Alternative would benefit multiple stakeholders, Alternative would benefit multiple stakeholders, and is thus attractive to grants. and is thus attractive to grants. Location is remote from intermodal passenger Termini are remote from intermodal passenger connections and would provide less benefit to connections and would provide less benefit to Sound Transit or Community Transit. Sound Transit or Community Transit. Yes. Yes. Active construction duration — 6-9 months Active construction duration — 6-9 months Yes. Roadway access to the overpass utilizes Yes. Footprint is within developed commercial existing roadbed for a portion of the east side areas. alignment, and traverses disturbed ground on the Unocal site. Structure would span the future Willow Creek alignment. 15 Provides continuous connection to Ferry during extended rail crossing closures. 0 Yes. Reduces potential conflicts with pedestrians/bicycles. Also reduces need for emergency responders to cross trains during extended crossing closures. BNSF would have to approve column placement within right-of-way. [estimates presented separately] Shorter length reduces cost for this alternative in relation to comparable Admiral Way and Dayton Street alternatives. Alternative would benefit multiple stakeholders, and is thus attractive to grants. Eastern terminus is 2 blocks from Main Street and provides limited benefit to Sound Transit or Community Transit. Permitting review will emphasize construction along the shoreline, including support column and landing footprint in the park. The affected area is not an accreting beach, which limits concern for column impacts. Active construction duration — 6 months Yes. Design and construction methods can minimize impacts to the slope above the railroad tracks and to beach environment. OTETRA TECH D-109 Packet Pg. 414 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 9(B) To residents? 9(C) To businesses? 9(D) To waterfront users? 9(E) To freight traffic (on trains and to/ from ferry)? 9(F) To bus transit users? 9(G) To passenger rail users? 9(H) To ferry users? 9(I) To transportation functionality? (10) How does the alternative affect the environment? 10(A) ecosystem resources (streams, marsh/ wetlands, marine shorelines)? Yes. Limited scale of the alternative and relatively Yes. Limited scale of the alternative and relatively Yes. Limited scale of the alternative and relatively short construction duration will minimize impacts. short construction duration will minimize impacts. short construction duration will minimize impacts. Temporary disruption at Sunset and Edmonds intersection. [�] Yes. Yes, temporary disruption in south edge of parking lot. Yes. No businesses affected. Yes. � Yes. � Temporary disruptions to portions of the park Construction adjacent to and over railroad tracks Construction adjacent to and over railroad tracks Construction adjacent to and over railroad tracks must be coordinated with BNSF. Freight traffic will must be coordinated with BNSF. Freight traffic will must be coordinated with BNSF. Freight traffic will experience construction zone speed restrictions experience construction zone speed restrictions experience construction zone speed restrictions relative to the construction duration. relative to the construction duration. relative to the construction duration. Yes, not affected. Yes, not affected. Yes, not affected. Passenger rail users will experience construction Passenger rail users will experience construction Passenger rail users will experience construction zone speed restrictions relative to the construction zone speed restrictions relative to the construction zone speed restrictions relative to the construction duration. duration. In addition, the Sound Transit parking lot duration. will be impacted by the loss of parking stalls, and construction. Yes, not affected. Yes, not affected. Yes. Yes, temporary disruption to traffic along Admiral Yes, temporary disruption to traffic along Dayton Yes, temporary disruption at Sunset and Way. Street and at intersection with Admiral Way. Edmonds intersection, and within Brackett's Landing Park North. X The western terminus will have shoreline impacts; it is located in a built area within the designated shoreline. In addition, due to the nearby Edmonds Marsh and Willow creek, there could be impacts to the ecosystem resources. No effect; away from ecosystem resources. n Column placement near shoreline. The western terminus will have shoreline impacts. OTETRA TECH D-110 Packet Pg. 415 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study October 2016 DRAFT 7.1.c 10(B) historic, cultural, and archaeological High probability for encountering archaeological High probability for encountering archaeological Low probability for encountering archaeological resources? resources (prehistoric). resources (historic and prehistoric). resources. 10(C) visual aesthetics? 10(D) noise levels? 10(E) sites containing hazardous materials 10(F) park lands or recreational? 10(G) air quality? 10(H) soils and groundwater? 10(I) social and economic (incl. disproportionate impacts)? The overpass structure will be visible from residences at Point Edwards, but it sits below sightlines of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. Overpass structure will be visible from the southern portion of the Port and from along Admiral Way, with the Point Edwards hillside forming a backdrop to these views. Views of the structure from the north (Harbor Square, Edmonds Marsh) are similarly backdropped by the hillside of Point Edwards. Views of the structure from further east are obscured by the hillside, and the lower end of the western approach would be visible. Noise is anticipated during the construction of this alternative but no significant change is anticipated during typical operation. The Unocal site has confirmed contamination that is currently under remediation. There exists potential for contamination in the southern Port area and along the railroad tracks. The overpass does not affect any park or recreational lands. It provides a non -motorized connection between pedestrian ways on either side of the railroad tracks, including connections to the Edmonds Marina Boardwalk, as well as potential opportunities for trail connections to a marsh loop trail. No effect. Foundation systems may create temporary impacts during construction. Economic: Displacement of parking and of property designated for development within the Port parking lot. The overpass structure will be visible along Dayton Street and Railroad Avenue. The top of the structure will be lower than existing buildings along the waterfront to the west, limiting visual impact from the east or the west. Noise is anticipated during the construction of this alternative but no significant change is anticipated during typical operation. There exists potential for contamination in the proximity of the railroad tracks. Contamination has been confirmed in the vicinity of the proposed landing on the west side of the tracks. No effect. No effect. Foundation systems may create temporary impacts during construction. Economic: Displacement of parking along the south side of Salish Crossing site, and reduced access to site from Dayton Street. Displacement of parking and of property targeted for development within the Port property. The overpass structure sits at and below the grade of Sunset Avenue, limiting visual impact from the east (from residences) or the west (on water or the jetty). The structure will be visible from the shoreline area when viewed from the north or south. Noise is anticipated during the construction of this alternative but no significant change is anticipated during typical operation. There exists potential for contamination in the proximity of the railroad tracks. The overpass landing would be between the railroad tracks and the Brackett's Landing Park bathhouse. Support column for the overpass would be located between the railroad tracks and the shoreline. Section 4(f) impact. No effect. Foundation systems may create temporary impacts during construction. No effect. OTETRA TECH D-111 Packet Pg. 416 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT (11) Does the alternative address impacts of sea level rise? (5 1 11(A) To existing infrastructure and access No. 0 11(B) Sea level rise considerations for design to Structure design can accommodate sea level rise. ensure safety? BNSF may increase the required vertical clearance to allow for raising tracks in the future to accommodate sea level rise. F-1 Mj No. 0 o Structure design can accommodate sea level rise. BNSF may increase the required vertical clearance to allow for raising tracks in the future to accommodate sea level rise. r-1 OWN No. 0 o Structure design can accommodate sea level rise. BNSF may increase the required vertical clearance to allow for raising tracks in the future to accommodate sea level rise. OTETRA TECH D-112 Packet Pg. 417 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-3. Level 2 Screening Evaluation for Ferry Alternatives (1) Does the alternative improve reliable emergency response to the west side of the railroad tracks? (2) Does the alternative provide emergency evacuation of the waterfront? (3) Does the alternative reduce delays to ferry loading/unloading of vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians? (4) Does the alternative improve circulation and reduce delays and conflicts for pedestrians, bicycles, motorists and freight at roadway/railroad crossings? 4(A) Provides continuous pedestrian and bicycle access? �W] Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Overpass is located 11 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the mid -point of the waterfront. Yes. Provides a grade - separated route for evacuation by both motorized and non - motorized means from the waterfront. Yes. Provides grade -separated access for loading and unloading operations. Yes. Provides a continuous connection between Dayton Street sidewalk and parking structure on the east side of tracks to the sidewalks on the west side of tracks. Due to its southerly location, provides less access benefit than other Ferry alternatives, particularly for connections to downtown. 6� Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Overpass is located 11 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the north end of the waterfront. Yes. Provides a grade - separated route for evacuation by both motorized and non - motorized means from the waterfront. Yes. Provides grade -separated access for loading and unloading operations. Yes. Provides continuous connection at Main Street between the ferry pedestrian ramp and sidewalk on west side of Railroad Avenue to the Transit Center on the east side of the railroad tracks. 60 Greatly Improves (5 Somewhat Improves 0 No Change © Somewhat Degrades Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Overpass is located 11 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the north end of the waterfront. Yes. Provides a grade - separated route for evacuation by both motorized and non - motorized means from the waterfront. Yes. Provides grade - separated access for loading and unloading operations. Yes. Provides continuous connection at Main Street between the ferry pedestrian ramp and sidewalk on west side of Railroad avenue to the Transit Center on the east side of the railroad tracks. 6� Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Underpass is located 11 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the north end of the waterfront. Yes. Provides a grade - separated route for evacuation by both motorized and non - motorized means from the waterfront. Yes. Provides grade -separated access for loading and unloading operations. Yes. Provides continuous connection at Main Street between the ferry pedestrian ramp and sidewalk on west side of Railroad avenue to the Transit Center on the east side of the railroad tracks. 6� Greatly Degrades x Fatal Flaw Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Overpass is located 18 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the south end of the waterfront. Yes. Provides a grade - separated route for evacuation by both motorized and non - motorized means from the waterfront. Yes. Provides grade -separated access for loading and unloading operations. Yes. Provides a continuous connection between Pine Street on the east side of tracks to the sidewalks on Admiral Way west of the tracks. Due to its southerly location, provides less access benefit than other Ferry alternatives, particularly for connections to downtown. OTETRA TECH D-113 Packet Pg. 418 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 4(B) Provides continuous Only for emergency vehicles Only for emergency vehicles Only for emergency vehicles Only for emergency vehicles Only for emergency vehicles vehicle access? and for vehicles accessing the and for vehicles accessing the and for vehicles accessing the and for vehicles accessing the and for vehicles accessing the ferry. ferry. ferry. ferry. ferry. 4(C) Reduces pedestrian and/or bicycle conflicts with other travel modes? 4(D) Reduces motorist conflicts with vehicles and other travel modes? 4(E) Provides continuous freight mobility (via rail, via ferry) (5) Does the alternative provide safer and more efficient intermodal pedestrian passenger connectivity between ferry, commuter rail, bus transit for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles? 5(A) Ferry to/ from commuter rail and bus transit? �W] Yes. Removes ferry traffic from surface streets in the Sunset Avenue/ Main Street/ Railroad Avenue / Dayton Street corridors. Yes. Removes ferry traffic from surface streets in the Sunset Avenue/ Main Street/ Railroad Avenue / Dayton Street corridors. Yes. Eliminates rail -caused delays to freight mobility via truck/ferry. Yes. Provides direct grade - separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing from ferry overhead ramp to the Transit Center. Maintains co -location of bus transit center, commuter parking and ferry terminal operations, with safe connections to rail platforms on both sides of tracks. 60 Yes. Separates ferry traffic from surface streets in the Main Street corridor. Yes. Separates ferry traffic from surface streets in the Main Street corridor. Yes. Eliminates rail -caused delays to freight mobility via truck/ferry. Yes. Provides direct grade - separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing from ferry overhead ramp to the Transit Center, which is co -located with commuter parking and rail station. 60 Yes. Separates ferry traffic from surface streets in the Main Street corridor. Yes. Separates ferry traffic from surface streets in the Main Street corridor. Yes. Eliminates rail -caused delays to freight mobility via truck/ferry. Yes. Provides direct grade - separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing from ferry overhead ramp to the Transit Center, which is co -located with commuter parking and rail station. 60 Yes. Separates ferry traffic from surface streets in the Main Street corridor. Yes. Separates ferry traffic from surface streets in the Main Street corridor. Yes. Eliminates rail -caused delays to freight mobility via truck/ferry. Yes. Provides direct grade - separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing from ferry overhead ramp to the Transit Center, which is co -located with commuter parking and rail station. x Yes. Removes ferry traffic from surface streets in the Sunset Avenue/ Main Street/ Railroad Avenue / Dayton Street corridors. Yes. Removes ferry traffic from surface streets in the Sunset Avenue/ Main Street/ Railroad Avenue / Dayton Street corridors. Yes. Eliminates rail -caused delays to freight mobility via truck/ferry. Yes. Provides direct grade - separated pedestrian/bicycle crossing from ferry overhead ramp to the Transit Center. Maintains co -location of bus transit center, commuter parking and ferry terminal operations, with safe connections to rail platforms on both sides of tracks. Greater walking distance in loading/ unloading ferry. OTETRA TECH D-114 Packet Pg. 419 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 5(B) Ferry to/from downtown? 5(C) Bus transit and commuter rail to/from downtown? (6) Does the alternative fit with urban design concepts and community goals? Yes. Provides direct grade - separated pedestrian/ bicycle crossing from ferry overhead ramp to the Transit Center adjacent Main Street. While providing a safer connection (reduced vehicle traffic conflicts), alternative would increase walking distance from the ferry to portions of downtown. Safer connection (reduced vehicle traffic conflicts), but increased walking distance from bus transit to portions of downtown. Community Transit concerned over operational and safety within enclosed transit centers. Yes. Provides direct grade - separated pedestrian/ bicycle crossing from ferry overhead ramp to the Transit Center adjacent Main Street. Yes. Provides grade -separated pedestrian/ bicycle crossing from future west side rail platform to the Transit Center adjacent Main Street. • Yes. Provides direct grade - separated pedestrian/ bicycle crossing from ferry overhead ramp to the Transit Center adjacent Main Street. Yes. Provides grade - separated pedestrian/ bicycle crossing from future west side rail platform to the Transit Center adjacent Main Street. 6r] Yes. Provides direct grade - separated pedestrian/ bicycle crossing from ferry overhead ramp to the Transit Center adjacent Main Street. Yes. Provides grade -separated pedestrian/ bicycle crossing from future west side rail platform to the Transit Center adjacent Main Street. 6W] No. Due to the distance from downtown, this alternative does not provide more efficient non - motorized connections to downtown. Safer connection (reduced vehicle traffic conflicts), but the increased distance to downtown will necessitate a shuttle bus system or equivalent. OTETRA TECH D-115 Packet Pg. 420 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 6(A) Maintains views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains? 6(B) Provides opportunities for urban design to enhance aesthetics/experience? 6(C) Compatible with Edmonds' small-town ambience? Yes, water and mountain views are presently limited to that portion of Dayton street west of the railroad tracks, as the street alignment turns at railroad crossing, with taller buildings to each side of the street at the waterfront. The overpass structure would not further obstruct water and mountain views as the adjacent buildings are as tall, or taller, than the proposed overpass structure. The top of the parking garage would be 1 story higher than surrounding structures within the Harbor Square business park, but would sit below sightlines to the Olympic Mountains and Puget Sound from properties to the east. Alternative provides opportunities for redevelopment of the properties vacated in the Sunset Avenue and Main Street corridors (current ferry holding lanes, WSDOT parcel, Transit Center) and the existing ferry dock. Yes, ambience can be enhanced by moving ferry traffic off of the waterfront and Main Street. Water and mountain views from immediately west of ferry holding lanes and from Main Street below Second Avenue will be obstructed by the overpass structure. Views from buildings immediately east of the ferry holding lanes will also be obscured by the elevated holding lanes. is From further east, the overpass structure will be visible, but will sit below sightlines for Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. Alternative provides limited opportunities to improve urban design. Overpass structure visually separates and disconnects the waterfront from the downtown area. Emergency vehicle ramp walls off Brackett's Landing Park South along Railroad Avenue. Possibility to connect Brackett's Landing Park beneath overpass structure. Overpass structure detracts from small-town ambience along lower Main Street. Water and mountain views from immediately west of ferry holding lanes and from Main Street below Second Avenue will be obstructed by the overpass structure. Views from buildings immediately east of the ferry holding lanes will also be obscured by the elevated holding lanes. From further east, the overpass structure will be visible, but will sit below sightlines for Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. Alternative provides limited opportunities to improve urban design. Overpass structure visually separates and disconnects the waterfront from the downtown area. Emergency vehicle ramp walls off Brackett's Landing Park South along Railroad Avenue. Possibility to connect Brackett's Landing Park beneath overpass structure. Overpass structure detracts from small-town ambience along lower Main Street. 0 0 Yes, placing vehicle queuing and ferry traffic below grade, and redeveloping streetscapes can improve the views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains from the lower Main Street and Sunset Avenue corridors. Yes. Current holding lane area can be repurposed to other uses along the Main Street/ Sunset Avenue corridors. Yes. Placing ferry access below grade allows for redevelopment of lower Main Street with enhanced pedestrian -scale design. Water and mountain views from Marina Beach Park, the Port's marina, units within residential areas at Point Edwards and from across the Edmonds Marsh will be obstructed by the overpass structure and the new ferry dock. n Alternative provides opportunities for redevelopment of the properties vacated in the Sunset Avenue and Main Street corridors (current ferry holding lanes, WSDOT parcel, Transit [��■JJJ� Center) and the existing ferry dock. Yes, ambience can be enhanced by moving ferry traffic off of the waterfront and Main Street. OTETRA TECH D-116 Packet Pg. 421 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 6(D) Minimizes impacts to neighborhoods? 6(E) Minimizes impacts to businesses? 6(F) Preserves use of parks and recreational assets? (7) Is the alternative consistent with Stakeholders' current and future operations? Yes. Improvements are located in business park and 15 commercial areas, with limited residential area to the north along waterfront. • Harbor Square: Parking structure would occupy large portion of business park and displace multiple businesses. Main Street: Reduction in ferry - oriented through traffic could be beneficial or detrimental to existing businesses. Garage will increase parking in the downtown/waterfront area. Potential redevelopment opportunities for business in vacated areas. Displaces large portions of Olympic Park, at the foot of Dayton Street, to be occupied by the trestle to the new ferry dock. The ferry dock would be adjacent to the public fishing pier. Section 4(f) impacts. Elevated structure is located within commercial area, but with nearby residential areas to the north and east. Overpass structure will shadow Main Street and fronting businesses. Off-loading ferry traffic would be directed south on Sunset Avenue/SR104, and direct access to Main Street would be eliminated. Yes. Permanent dock footprint along shoreline would remain similar to current conditions. Design may utilize an aerial structure over the near -shore portion of the dock in lieu of the current earth -fill dock structure; this would recover use of the shoreline across the overpass alignment. e Elevated structure is located within commercial area, but with nearby residential areas to the north and east. Overpass structure will shadow Main Street and fronting businesses. Off-loading ferry traffic would be directed south on Sunset Avenue/SR104, and direct access to Main Street would be eliminated. Yes. Permanent dock footprint along shoreline would remain similar to current conditions. Design may utilize an aerial 0 structure over the near -shore portion of the dock in lieu of the current earth -fill dock structure; this would recover use of the shoreline across the overpass alignment. 60 N N 60 Yes. Placing ferry access below grade allows for redevelopment of lower Main Street with enhanced pedestrian -scale design. Off-loading ferry traffic would be directed south on Sunset Avenue/SR104, and direct access to Main Street would be eliminated for vehicles. This inconveniences a small percentage of ferry traffic, and the reduced vehicle traffic may be viewed both positively and negatively by some businesses. Redevelopment opportunities for business in vacated areas. Yes. Permanent dock footprint along shoreline would remain similar to current conditions. LWI K Yes. Facilities are located on Port property and former Unocal site below the Point Edwards development on the adjacent hillside. Facility will displace upland uses in southern end of Port property. Facilities will displace park property to accommodate overpass, emergency vehicle ramp, and vehicle access to west -side rail platform. OTETRA TECH D-117 Packet Pg. 422 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 7(A) City of Edmonds? Separation of ferry traffic will improve local traffic circulation (motorized and non -motorized) in the Main Street corridor. Traffic and turning movements will increase in the Dayton Street/SR104 corridors. Major utilities in the Dayton Street right-of-way will require relocation. 7(B) Washington State DOT? Traffic and turning movements will increase in the Dayton Street/SR104 corridors. Ramps in SR104 to access garage. 7(C) Washington State Ferries? Yes. Allows for construction of new terminal facilities while maintaining current facilities in operation. Provides vehicle queuing capacity aligned with WSF operational guidance. 7(D) Port of Edmonds? Requires sale of significant portion of Harbor Square business park and reconfiguration of remaining Harbor Square property. Impacts waterfront access at the north end of the Port. 7(E) Sound Transit? Yes. Parking garage proposed in ST3 package. x Separation of ferry traffic will improve local traffic circulation (motorized and non -motorized) in the Main Street corridor. Increased queuing capacity beyond toll booths will reduce SR104 queuing. Turning movements will increase at the Dayton Street/SR104 intersection Yes. Provides additional vehicle queuing capacity aligned with WSF operational guidance and grade -separated access to the loading facilities. No effect. Yes. Improves intermodal connectivity through pedestrian/bicycle overpass component. Separation of ferry traffic will improve local traffic circulation (motorized and non -motorized) in the Main Street corridor. No increase in queuing capacity beyond toll booths, so SR104 queuing will remain unchanged. Turning movements will increase at the Dayton 15 Street/SR104 intersection x Yes. Provides grade - separated access to the loading facilities, with a minor increase in vehicle queuing capacity. No effect. Yes. Improves intermodal connectivity through pedestrian/bicycle overpass component. x Separation of ferry traffic will improve local traffic circulation (motorized and non -motorized) in the Main Street corridor. No increase in queuing capacity beyond toll booths, so SR104 queuing will remain unchanged. Created open space supports recreation, urban design and streetscape improvements. Turning movements will increase at the Dayton Street/SR104 intersection. Provides grade -separated access to the loading facilities, with a minor increase in vehicle queuing capacity. Will require continuous operation of an active pumped drainage system. No effect. Yes. Improves intermodal connectivity through pedestrian/bicycle overpass/underpass component. Separation of ferry traffic will improve local traffic circulation (motorized and non -motorized) in the Main Street corridor. Increased queuing capacity beyond toll booths will reduce SR104 queuing. Created open space supports recreation, urban design and streetscape improvements. Turning movements will increase at the SR104 15 intersection. Yes. Allows for construction of new terminal facilities while maintaining current facilities in operation. Provides vehicle queuing capacity aligned with WSF operational guidance. Overpass trestle spans south end of Marina. Passenger drop-off/pick-up traffic along Admiral Way through the Port. Emergency vehicle access ramp occupies Port property. Yes. ST 2 identifies Edmonds Station relocated with the Ferry Terminal. OTETRA TECH D-118 Packet Pg. 423 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 7(F) Community Transit? Yes. Improves intermodal Yes. Improves intermodal Yes. Improves intermodal connectivity through connectivity through connectivity through pedestrian/bicycle overpass pedestrian/bicycle overpass pedestrian/bicycle overpass component. 0 component. 0 component. 0 0 Maintains co -location of transit center with Sounder parking and ferry terminal facilities. However, enclosed transit centers are not preferred by CT. 7(G) BNSF Railroad? Yes. Provides grade -separated Yes. Provides grade -separated Yes. Provides grade - clearance of BNSF ROW and clearance of BNSF ROW and separated clearance of BNSF significantly reduces pedestrian significantly reduces pedestrian ROW and significantly reduces and vehicle traffic through at- and vehicle traffic through at- pedestrian and vehicle traffic grade crossings. grade crossings. through at -grade crossings. � � Yes. Improves intermodal While it provides a multimodal connectivity through facility allowing connections pedestrian/bicycle between modes of travel, overpass/underpass downtown is far and the component. multimodal connection to downtown is not efficient. Yes. Provides grade -separated Yes. Provides grade -separated clearance of BNSF ROW and clearance of BNSF ROW and significantly reduces pedestrian significantly reduces pedestrian and vehicle traffic through at- and vehicle traffic through at - grade crossings. grade crossings. BNSF would prefer an i overpass, rather than an underpass. The underpass alterative includes costs associated with building a second track to facilitate the construction of the underpass. (8) Is the alternative fundable and permittable? 0 8(A) Affordable based on [estimates in presented [estimates in presented [estimates in presented [estimates in presented [estimates in presented project costs including design, construction and maintenance? separately] separately] [i separately] separately] separately] Added maintenance for active internal drainage dewatering system. 8(B) Attractive to grant money and stakeholder contribution? Alternative can demonstrate economic benefits, would Alternative can demonstrate economic benefits, would Alternative can demonstrate economic benefits, would Alternative can demonstrate economic benefits, would Alternative can demonstrate economic benefits, would benefit multiple stakeholders, benefit multiple stakeholders, benefit multiple stakeholders, benefit multiple stakeholders, benefit multiple stakeholders, and is thus attractive to grants. and is thus attractive to grants. and is thus attractive to grants. and is thus attractive to grants. and is thus attractive to grants. 8(C) Permittable by resource Challenges anticipated in Maintaining current in -water Maintaining current in -water Maintaining current in -water EIS was completed and Record agencies, tribes, BNSF? acquiring permits for in -water footprint enhances permitting. footprint enhances permitting. footprint enhances permitting. of Decision issued earlier for construction of new ferry dock. BNSF would prefer an project — would need to be overpass, rather than an reviewed. underpass. OTETRA TECH D-119 Packet Pg. 424 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT (9) Can the alternative avoid or minimize temporary construction impacts (measure of relative construction impacts)? 9(A) To sensitive environments? 9(B) To residents? 9(C) To businesses? 9(D) To waterfront users? displacing parkland. Active construction duration — 24 months In water construction will require mitigation. Opportunity to mitigate at current ferry terminal location. Construction will disrupt nearby waterfront residents. Requires mitigation of access interruption to remaining businesses in Harbor Square business park. Will require temporary detours for waterfront pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Active construction duration — 36 months Extensive re -construction at the dock will require temporary lanes in order to maintain service through construction. Limited in -water construction will be necessary. Construction staging will require relocation of traffic along Sunset Avenue and Main Street. Temporary closures to through traffic will be necessary. Construction staging will require relocation of traffic along Sunset Avenue and Main Street. Temporary closures to through traffic will be necessary. Will require temporary detours for waterfront pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Active construction duration — 36 months Extensive re -construction at the dock will require temporary lanes in order to maintain service through construction. Limited in -water construction will be necessary. Construction staging will require relocation of traffic along Sunset Avenue and Main Street. Temporary closures to through traffic will be necessary. Construction staging will require relocation of traffic along Sunset Avenue and Main Street. Temporary closures to through traffic will be necessary. Will require temporary detours for waterfront pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Active construction duration — 48 months Extensive re -construction at the dock will require temporary lanes in order to maintain service through construction. Limited in -water construction will be necessary. Construction staging will require relocation of traffic along Sunset Avenue and Main Street. Temporary closures to through traffic will be necessary, and lower Main Street will be closed for an extended period. Construction staging will require relocation of traffic along Sunset Avenue and Main Street. Temporary closures to through traffic will be necessary, and lower Main Street will be closed for an extended period. Will require temporary detours for waterfront pedestrians and vehicle traffic. Active construction duration — 24 months In water construction will require mitigation. There would be construction impacts to Marina Beach Park. Construction would be away from residents, although people living on boats in the south part of the Marina could be impacted by noise. Construction staging will impact the south end of the Marina including moorage, dry storage, parking and lift operations. Will impact Marina Beach Park users and boardwalk users through the south end of marina. Part of the parking lot and park land would be taken for the project. OTETRA TECH D-120 Packet Pg. 425 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 9(E) To freight traffic (on trains Construction adjacent to and Construction adjacent to and and to/ from ferry)? over railroad tracks must be over railroad tracks must be coordinated with BNSF. Freight coordinated with BNSF. Freight traffic will experience traffic will experience construction zone speed construction zone speed restrictions relative to the restrictions relative to the construction duration. construction duration. 9(F) To bus transit users? Yes. Yes. 9(G) To passenger rail users? Passenger rail users will Passenger rail users will experience construction zone experience construction zone speed restrictions relative to the speed restrictions relative to the construction duration. construction duration. 9(H) To ferry users? I Yes. I Yes. 9(I) To transportation functionality? (10) How does the alternative affect the environment? 10(A) ecosystem resources (streams, marsh/ wetlands, marine shorelines)? Yes. Construction staging will require relocation of traffic along Sunset Avenue and Main Street. Temporary closures to through traffic will be necessary. Property acquisition will allow phased construction of elevated structure and provide temporary queuing while constructing within current holding lane location. • Dock will occupy marine Existing ferry dock would be shoreline, and place contained reconstructed within current fill in -water. footprint. n Construction adjacent to and over railroad tracks must be coordinated with BNSF. Freight traffic will experience construction zone speed restrictions relative to the construction duration. Yes. Passenger rail users will experience construction zone speed restrictions relative to the construction duration. Yes. Construction staging will require temporary relocation of traffic along Sunset Avenue and Main Street. Temporary closures to through traffic will be necessary. Temporary queuing will be necessary while constructing elevated structure in current holding lane location. Existing ferry dock would be reconstructed within current footprint. 60 Freight traffic will experience construction zone speed restrictions relative to the construction duration. Will require construction of shoefly or 2nd track to phase construction of underpass beneath active railroad line. Yes. Passenger rail users will experience construction zone speed restrictions relative to the construction duration. Yes. Construction staging will require relocation of traffic along Sunset Avenue and Main Street. Temporary closures to through traffic will be necessary, and lower Main Street will be closed for an extended period. Temporary queuing will be necessary while constructing below -grade structure in current holding lane location. Existing ferry dock would be reconstructed within current footprint. n Construction adjacent to and over railroad tracks must be coordinated with BNSF. Freight traffic will experience construction zone speed restrictions relative to the construction duration. Yes. Passenger rail users will experience construction zone speed restrictions relative to the construction duration. Yes. Yes. Trestle and slips would occupy marine shoreline. Potential impacts to Willow Creek or Edmonds Marsh depending on final project design. OTETRA TECH D-121 Packet Pg. 426 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 10(B) historic, cultural, and High probability for archaeological resources? encountering archaeological resources (historic and prehistoric) in Dayton Street and Admiral Way. 10(C) visual aesthetics? Scale of the parking garage requires architectural treatment to address visual impacts of the building mass. Height of structure will be similar to some surrounding buildings in Harbor Square, but will be a story taller which presents a visual change. The overpass structure would not further obstruct water and mountain views as the adjacent buildings are as tall, or taller, than the proposed overpass structure. The ferry dock, with active ferry traffic, would be highly visible from along the waterfront and upland, as is the current ferry dock. However, a new location creates impacts on different viewers. 10(D) noise levels? Ferry dock operations would create noise levels similar to current conditions, but in a new location. Engine noise from truck elevated atop the parking structure has potential to affect more residents than the present at -grade vehicle queuing. Temporary construction effects including impact pile driving. High probability for encountering archaeological resources. Scale of the elevated vehicle queuing and overpass structure will dominate lower Main Street and Sunset Avenue corridors, block views, and place street areas and adjacent businesses in shadow. Height of structure east of railroad tracks can be reduced by lowering Main Street and grades. Reduced clearance above Main Street and Sunset Avenue may be permittable. Engine noise from truck elevated atop the parking structure has potential to affect more residents than the present at -grade vehicle queuing. Temporary construction effects. Low probability for encountering archaeological resources. Scale of the elevated vehicle queuing and overpass structure will dominate lower Main Street and Sunset Avenue corridors, block views, and place street areas and adjacent businesses in shadow. Height of structure east of railroad tracks can be reduced by lowering Main Street and grades. Reduced clearance above Main Street and Sunset Avenue may be permittable. Engine noise from truck elevated atop the parking structure has potential to affect more residents than the present at -grade vehicle queuing. Temporary construction effects. High probability for encountering archaeological resources. Placing vehicle queuing and ferry traffic below grade, and redeveloping streetscapes can improve the visual aesthetics of the lower Main Street and Sunset Avenue corridors. Engine noise from vehicles loading and offloading ferry will be reduced through below - grade passage. Temporary construction effects. Tribal U&A fishing rights present. Moderate to low probability for encountering archaeological resources. The overpass and terminal would be visible to some residences in the Point Edwards community. The ferry trestle and slips would be highly visible from along the waterfront and upland, as is the current ferry dock. However, a new location creates impacts on different viewers, such as the Marina and Point Edwards residents. Views from Marina Beach Park would be greatly altered. Ferry dock operations would create noise levels similar to current conditions, but in a new location. Temporary construction effects including impact pile driving. OTETRA TECH D-122 Packet Pg. 427 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 10(E) sites containing hazardous materials 10(F) park lands or recreational? 10(G) air quality? 10(H) soils and groundwater? 10(I) social and economic (incl disproportionate impacts)? No impacts to sites containing hazardous materials are anticipated from this alternative Hazardous materials may be encountered while constructing foundation systems. Ferry dock displaces large portion of Olympic Park and occupies shoreline and tidelands near the fishing pier. Alternative provides for repurposing the existing ferry dock, vehicle holding lanes for park lands or other uses. Air quality effects should be similar to current ferry facility operations. Grade separation from rail traffic will reduce traffic delays and emissions from delayed ferries and idling vehicles. Foundation systems may create temporary impacts during construction. Dislocation of office buildings in Harbor Square business park and the Pantley Building. No impacts to sites containing No impacts to sites containing hazardous materials are hazardous materials are anticipated from this alternative. anticipated from this Hazardous materials may be alternative. Hazardous encountered while constructing materials may be encountered foundation systems. while constructing foundation systems. Alternative would not displace Alternative would not displace parklands or recreational areas. parklands or recreational areas. Air quality effects should be Air quality effects should be similar to current ferry facility similar to current ferry facility operations. Grade separation operations. Grade separation from rail traffic will reduce traffic from rail traffic will reduce delays and emissions from traffic delays and emissions delayed ferries and idling from delayed ferries and idling vehicles. vehicles. Foundation systems may create Foundation systems may temporary impacts during create temporary impacts construction. during construction. Temporary business disruption Temporary business disruption will occur during construction. will occur during construction. Dislocation of businesses for Temporary easements on right-of-way acquisition. business properties required Visual and experiential effects for staging construction. of the elevated structure are Visual and experiential effects anticipated to impact of the elevated structure are businesses. anticipated to impact businesses. Impacts to sites containing hazardous materials could occur from this alternative. The underpass will require more excavation compared to other alternatives and will continuously operate an internal drainage dewatering system. Alternative would not displace parklands or recreational areas Air quality effects should be similar to current ferry facility operations. Grade separation from rail traffic will reduce traffic delays and emissions from delayed ferries and idling vehicles. Impacts to soils and groundwater are anticipated from this alternative because of the scale of excavation, temporary construction dewatering, and long-term internal drainage dewatering. Temporary business disruption will occur during construction. Temporary easements on business properties required for staging construction. Potential to impacts to sites containing hazardous materials as terminal would be located on former Unocal property. Alternative would displace a parkland and recreational area (Marina Beach Park). The park would experience impacts, such as increased noise and air quality. Air quality effects should be similar to current ferry facility operations. Grade separation from rail traffic will reduce traffic delays and emissions from delayed ferries and idling vehicles. Foundation systems may create temporary impacts during construction. Changes in the visual character of the area due to the new terminal and trestle would impact residences with views toward the water and park users. No business relocations or impacts. OTETRA TECH D-123 Packet Pg. 428 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT (11) Does the alternative address impacts of sea level rise? 11 (A) To existing infrastructure and access (1) Does the alternative improve reliable emergency response to the west side of the railroad tracks? Alternative would remove ferry operations from the existing dock which is functionally at risk due to sea level rise, as well as in need of seismic retrofitting. Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Overpass is located 11 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the mid -point of the waterfront. Alternative would replace the existing dock which is functionally at risk due to sea level rise, as well as in need of seismic retrofitting. Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Overpass is located 11 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the north end of the waterfront. Alternative would replace the existing dock which is functionally at risk due to sea level rise, as well as in need of seismic retrofitting. Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Overpass is located 11 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the north end of the waterfront. Alternative would replace the existing dock which is functionally at risk due to sea level rise, as well as in need of seismic retrofitting. Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. Underpass is located 11 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the north end of the waterfront. Alternative would remove ferry operations from the existing dock which is functionally at risk due to sea level rise, as well as in need of seismic retrofitting. Yes. Provides continuous access for emergency response by aid car and firetruck. 15 Overpass is located 18 blocks from Fire District Station 17 and lands at the south end of the waterfront. OTETRA TECH D-124 Packet Pg. 429 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-4. Level 2 Screening Evaluation Summary Greatly Improves a Somewhat Improves O No Change 0 Somewhat Degrades 0 Greatly Degrades x Fatal Flaw (1) Does the alternative improve reliable emergency response to the west side of the railroad tracks? (2) Does the alternative provide for emergency evacuation of the V V V waterfront? (3) Does the alternative reduce delays to ferry loading/unloading of d 0 d d Q vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians? (4) Does the alternative improve circulation and reduce delays and conflicts for pedestrians, bicycles, motorists and freight at roadway/railroad crossings? 10Zo]Loa UgW 0 000 Q e e a 0 a a a a e a e (5) Does the alternative provide safer and more efficient intermodal passenger connectivity between V 0 (5 0 ferry, commuter rail, bus transit for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicle travel? (6) Does the alternative fit with urban design concepts and (5 0 Q Q community goals? (7) Is the alternative consistent with � � (5 � (50 0 Stakeholders' current and future operations? (8) Is the alternative fundable and 0 0 0 0 Q permittable? a e a 0 C1W e e e o e o Q 0 OTETRA TECH D-125 Packet Pg. 430 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 'O Greatly Improves a Somewhat Improves O No Change O Somewhat Degrades 0 Greatly Degrades x Fatal Flaw (9) Can the alternative avoid or minimize temporary construction 0 Q 0 e 0 e impacts (measure of relative construction impacts)? (10) How does the alternative affect 0 � � O Q Q Q the environment? (11) Does the alternative address le) impacts of sea level rise? AWMM!9 OTETRA TECH D-126 Packet Pg. 431 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT D.2 LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVES WORKING DRAFT Purpose and Need Need Reliable emergency access e On foot LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT MIDBLOCK OVERPASS PAT1O F • _.•µ�1 , a _tip ELEVATOR 4 • , . 1_ " STAIRS PRQPDSED Reduce delays of ferry ® loading $ unloading aTETRA TECH Parametrix s'-LRppp AVE -� 'a.. _ ��'� kr Access to waterfront ■ Pedestrian • Bicycle ■ ADA BRIDGE WITH 23.5' MIi+.� CLURMCE OVER -TRACKS AND RAILROAD AVE CENT STAIRS ELEVATOR Intermodal passenger connectivity Project Elements • 16' wide path • Bridge over RR tracks • ROW required ■ Elevators o so, 10 SCALE'1" W 0511212016 N r F a .N 0 U a� ,L^ V d 0 N C 0 CU E 0 a� o: M LO to OTETRA TECH D-127 Packet Pg. 432 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT CONNECT TO OVERHEAD FERRY TERMINAL 8.3% MAX WITH LANDINGS J �� (E'fT'S LAt�jDING SOU-M RECONFIGURE PATH OLIZppp AVE BNSF TRACKS LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAIN STREET OVERPASS OPTION 3 - ADA RAMPS TETRA TECH Parametrix PERRY . fERµ1NAL STREET CONNECTION -how BRIDGE WITH 23.5' MIN CLEARANCE OVER TRAC RAI _ WORKING DRAFT Purpose and Need grReliable emergency Reduce delays of ferry access loading & unloading • on -foot 1 Project Elements . 16' wide path . Bridge over RR tracks • ADA ramps Access to waterfront Intermodal passenger . ROW required • Pedestrian L�J connectivity • Bicycle • ADA 0 sm 1W SCALEI"=50' OM202016 N F L a .N 0 L U ,L^ V Q 0) 0 0 R E E 0 o: M LO to OTETRA TECH D-128 Packet Pg. 433 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 10 LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAIN STREET UNDERPASS aTETRA TECH Parametr x BI o OWKETVS D1NG NOM" �t ' LANDING�. RECONFIGURE PATH N400 1 �J:A UNDERGR UND PORTAL 8.3% MAX WITH LANDINGS --AL-' RAILROAD AVE BNSF TRACKS UNDERGROUND - r PO -- 1 TRANSIT CENTER . Z MAX WITH LANDINGS WORKING DRAFT Purpose and Need Reliable emergency Reduce delays of ferry access loading & unloading • On -foot Access to waterfront Intermodal passenger • Pedestrian connectivity • Bicycle • ADA 0 Sir 1W SCALE:1 %W ---- 0* R .00 P Project Elements • 16' wide path • Underpass beneath RR tracks • ADA ramps M202016 L Q .y 0 U 'L- V Q 4- 0 c 0 CU E 0 a� o: c� LO to OTETRA TECH D-129 Packet Pg. 434 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT ACCESS CONTROLLED BY REMOVABLE BOLLARDS ACCESS CONTROLLED BY REMOVABLE BOLLARDS j �k. a 8.3% MAX SLOPE WITH LANDINGS — BRIDGE WITH 23.5' MIN CLEARANCE OVER TRACKS, SPANS OVER WILLOW CREI REALIGNMENT, BNSF TRACI AND ADMIRAL WAY 24' PATH TO ACCOMMODATE TURNING VEHICLE Purpose and Need Reliable emergency access • Fire truck • Ambulance LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT ADMIRAL WAY OVERPASS OPTIONS 1 & 2 - FIRE TRUCK 8.3% MAX WITH LAN[ PROPOSED WILLOW CREEK REALIGNMENT (NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS PROJECT) ❑Reduce delays of ferry VAccess to waterfront ❑ Intermodal passenger loading & unloading • Pedestrian connectivity WORKING DRAFT ACCESS CONTROLLED BY REMOVABLE BOLLARDS — + Bicycle + ADA + Emergency (all type) vehicles • Emergency ferry offload o ,W 3, SGALE ,15g DTETRA TECH Parametrix Project Elements • 16' wide path W additional width at comers for turning movements) • Bridge over RR tracks, Willow Creek and Admiral Way • ADA ramps • ROW required • Potential modifications to driveways • 30+1- parking stalls to be mitigated • Possible intercept with Marsh Trail to create pedestriantbicycle loop 05112/2018 OTETRA TECH D-130 Packet Pg. 435 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT TETRA TECH DAYTON STREET OVERPASS 4#1 0 Parametrix t � . . -. 00 p 24' PATH TO ACCOMMODATE TURNING VEHICLE JAC( BRIDGE WITH 23.5' MIN\ CLEARANCE OVER TRACKS, DAYTON ST, AND SOUNDER DRIVEWAY ACCESS �- r ?.� gA1SE� - lki AX`SSLOPE ti +c�,� :tom WORKING DRAFT Puroose and Need Reliable emergency access ■ Fire truck ■ Ambulance Reduce delays of ferry ❑ loading $ unloading 7 PROPOSED 2ND TRACK �� + 5% MAX SLOPE f Project Elements • 16' wide pedestdanlbike path (8' additional width at corners for turning movements) Access to waterfront Intermodal passenger a Bridge over RR tracks Pedestrian ❑ connectivity • ADA ramps + Bicycle ADA Emergency (all type) vehicles • Emergency ferry offload o so Ica e ROW req u i red Modifications to driveways • 70+1- parking stalls to be mitigated 05/1212016 N F a c .N 0 U L a a� 0 0 CU 0 M LO to OTETRA TECH D-131 Packet Pg. 436 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT TETRA TECH D EDMONDS STREET OVERPASS Para metrix WORKING DRAFT Puroose and Need Reliable emergency Reduce delays of ferry Access to waterrront access ❑ loading 9 $ unloadin • Pedestrian • Fire truck • Bicycle • Ambulance • ADA • Emergency (all type) vehicles • Emergency ferry offload Intermodai passenger ❑ connectivity Project Elements 16' wide path (2' additional width at comers for tuming movements) ■ Bridge over RR tracks • ADA ramps • ROW required n W IDEF N F a� a .N 0 L U m ,L^ V (D JE 4- 0 CU E E 0 0 NN0) L7� M LO to r OTETRA TECH D-132 Packet Pg. 437 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT :07 �10MINN,' k. LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT DAYTON STREET NEW FERRY TERMINAL DTETRA TECH Paramei;ix WORKING DRAFT Project Elements Purpose and Need a New ferry terminal overpass or Reliable Reduce delays of ferry Access to Intermodal passenger a Ferry load inglunloading over RR tracks emergency access loading9 & unloading '� waterfront '[� connectivity * Ferry holding storage for 310 vehicles • Fire truck Pedestrian • Emergency access via overpass • Ambulance Bicycle ADA and elevator pedestrian connection ADA • ROW required • Emergency (all type) vehicle ■ Relocate existing transit center to first floor ■ Vehicle (ferry loadinglunloading) 0 150' 300' of parking garage SCAtE: r=150' 0.5'12r N 0 F a .N 0 L U m ,L^ V d 0 O CU E E 0 NN� L7� M LO to r OTETRA TECH D-133 Packet Pg. 438 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT 7 .-? ►�NC[S U I? LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT MAIN STREET FERRY OVERPASS 1 - FULL BUILD EMERGENCY VEHICLE AC ' TO WATERFf 1OX MAX �,1 2 0 f. Vt Nw �- RECON ?�_irrTERSq ON Purpose and Need Reliable emergency access ■ Fire truck • Ambulance IXIS7NJG [;�� HOLDING LOCAL TRAFFIC (BELOW OVERPASS) TOLL BOOTHS FERRY LOADING AND UNLOADINP LANES — RAISE AND TO OVERH LOADING 1 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH �C�� WORKING DRAFT 01 Reduce delays of ferry Access to waterfront Intermodal passenger loading� unloading Pedestrian connectivity • Bicycle • ADA ■ Emergency (all type) vehicle o 159 • Vehicle (ferry loadinglunloading) $CALE:1'=150' TETRA TECH Parametrix 16' WIDE PEDESTRI PATH OVER TRACK! RAILROAD AVE AND TRANSIT CENTER BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH LIMITS OF 7OVE PAS STR CTU E G RPASS RY HOLDI G ES: t ASS E D SI EWA S OL.DI G E5, INCL DIN ON OCK 0 E 30Al Project Elements • Ferry terminal overpass and ferry loading/unloading over Main St, Railroad Ave, and RR tracks • Ferry holding storage for 305 vehicles • Emergency access via overpass ADA and elevator pedestrian connection • ROW required ■ Phased construction to miniimize ferry operations impact 0511212016 OTETRA TECH D-134 Packet Pg. 439 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT - W . 11 op 71�- Purpose and Need Reliable emergency access • Fine truck • Ambulance LEVEL 2 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT N TETRA TECH 2 MAIN STREET FERRY OVERPASS 2 - MINIMUM BUILD °°R rii--, Pararneitx FERRY LANE Reduce delays of ferry loading & unloading V Access to waterfront Intermodal passenger Pedestrian Se connectivity • nicycle • ADA ■ Emergency (all type) vehicle ■ Vehicle (ferry loadinglunloading) • Ferry terminal overpass and ferry loading/unloading over Main St, Railroad Ave, and RR tracks • Ferry holding storage for 184 vehicles • Emergency access via overpass • ADA and elevator pedestrian connection • Phased construction to minimize ferry 7 ::1 :61. operations impact 0"2r2016 N ,_ a .N 0 L U m ,L^ V Q d 4- 0 CU E E 0 NN� L7� M LO to r OTETRA TECH D-135 Packet Pg. 440 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT a LEVEL 2 CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT MAIN STREET FERRY UNDERPASS - MINIMUM BUILD TETRA TECH Parametrix FERRY ADING AND BYPASS LANE "' 1 UNLOAD G LANES AND SIDEWALK EMERGENCY RWSE D ~�S VEHICLE AC4ESS TO SEAWALLS TO WATERFPONT, OVER LOADING 1 B' WIDE PEDESTR 1O� RARE l PATH OVER TRACKS, + �... ~ RAILROAD AVE AND BRACKETT'S fl . ~ - ~ A LANDING SOUTH TRANSIT CENTER UNDERPASS PORTAL LANDING NORTH ■ �.�` �' 7 LOCAL TRAFFIC Vt + (ON LID) -` RECONFt • o'FfRSkkOTION LIMITS OF FERRY Purpose and Need Reliable emergency access ■ Fire truck ■ Ambulance "qW'r4 ExISTING HOLDING Reduce delays of ferry loading & unloading UNDERF PORTAL POLL 300THS � WORKING DRAFT Access to waterfront Intermodal passenger ■ Pedestrian connectivity Bicycle ■ ADA • Emergency (all type) vehicle ■ Vehicle (ferry loadinglunloading) STR CTU E — RE-P RP SE PAC A�BOV _ _HI]LDI N ES UNDEERPASS FERRr HO ING ES: 1 BYPASS LAME ND SIC EWALK;; 4 HOLDING LAN , INC CSC STURA 180 VEHICLES TOTAL Project Elements ■ Ferry terminal underpass and ferry loadinglunloading under Main St, Railroad Ave, and RR tracks • Ferry holding storage for 180 vehicles • Emergency access via underpass • ADA and elevator pedestrian connection ■ ROW required Phased construction to minimize ferry 150? 307 ram} r��} SCALE'9'm150' operations impact 0511212016 c a� y 1n 0 U L a 4- 0 to 0 E 0 M OTETRA TECH D-136 Packet Pg. 441 0 w Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access report draft 20161103 (1653 : Recommendations of the At -Grade Rail Crossings Alternatives 7 0 y cD O n Cn CO C Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT D.3 LEVEL 2 COST ESTIMATES Table D-5. Midblock Overpass Cost Estimate Project Name: Midblock Overpass (Overpass 5) Description: New 16' pedestrian/bicycle bridge with stairs/elevators Project Duration: 4-6 months Retaining Wall - MSE Retaining Wall - Soil Nail Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than 15' high) Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than 24' High) Sound Wall Pedestrian Bridge Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) Bridge Structure - Roadway Demolition - Building Demolition - Asphalt Pavement Demolition - Concrete Pavement Demolition - Curb and gutter Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk 120 56 200 178 SF SF SF SF SF LF LF SF SF SY SY LF SY $81 $- $130 $- $200 $- $400 $- $32 $7,200 $24,000 $450 $20 $21 $34 $10 $29 $864,000 $2,000 $5,156 Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk SF $5 $- Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 1,920 SF $17 $32,640 OTETRA TECH D-138 Packet Pg. 443 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description .. Roadway Modification, New AC Paving SF $29 $- (including Curb & Sidewalk) Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving SF $23 $- Roadway Modification, Full Intersection EA $272,200 $- Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface SF $10 $- Roadway Modification, Excavation CY $19 $- Roadway Modification, Embankment CY $7 $- Driveway Modification 1 EA $5,000 $5,000 Parking Lot Reconfiguration 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Traffic Signal, New EA $294,000 $- Traffic Signal, Modify Existing EA $155,500 $- Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing EA $465,100 $- Miscellaneous Bus Stop Rebuild EA $89,300 $- Surface Parking 10 STL $4,680 $46,800 Structured Parking PEA[ $23,770 $- Elevators - 30' Rise 2 $248,600 $497,200 Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 Emergency Vehicle (ambulance) 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 Stairs (30' high) 2 1 AN $138,000 $276,000 Landscaping 600 SF $8 $4,800 Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $226,246 $226,246 BNSF Flaggers 2,080 $416,000 Utility Relocation - Level 1 LF $240 $- OTETRA TECH D-139 Packet Pg. 444 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Utility Relocation - Level 2 120 LF $270 $32,400 Utility Relocation - Level 3 LF $1,070 $- Park Mitigation Allowance 120 LF $400 $48,000 Storm Water Management - Closed System 120 LF $200 $24,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 LF $100 $- Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 120 LF $200 $24,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 LF $360 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light LF $82 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium LF $230 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy 120 LF $390 $46,800 Construction Subtotal $2,904,708 Design Contingency (30%) $871,413 Subtotal $3,776,121 Management Reserve (4%) $116,188 Sales Tax (9.5%) $275,947 Construction Total $4,168,257 ROW Land Acquisition (east of tracks) SF $125 $- Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 4,000 SF $125 $500,000 Parking Mitigation 1,800 SF $160 $288,000 Environmental Mitigation SF $160 $- Park Mitigation 2,160 SF $125 $270,000 OTETRA TECH D-140 Packet Pg. 445 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description .. Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $435,706.27 agreements) Permitting 4% $116,188.34 Construction Management 10% $290,470.84 Project Total Cost Estimate $6,000,000 Level 2 Evaluation Range $5,000,000 $7,000,000 * Special bid item specific to this alternative. OTETRA TECH D-141 Packet Pg. 446 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-6. Main Street Overpass Cost Estimate Project Name: Main Street Overpass (Overpass 7A) Description: New 16' pedestrian/bicycle bridge with stairs/elevators Project Duration: 6-8 months Retaining Wall - MSE SF $81 $- Q Retaining Wall - Soil Nail SF $130 $- ) Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than SF $200 $- 4- 0 15' high) N 0 Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than SF $400 $- c� c 24' High) E E Sound Wall SF $32 $- o a� Pedestrian Bridge 160 LF $7,200 $1,152,000 M LO Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) LF $24,000 $- Bridge Structure - Roadway SF $450 M r t0 N Demolition - Building SF $20 $- Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 167 SY $21 $3,500 0 a� L Demolition - Concrete Pavement SY $34 $- N N N V Demolition - Curb and gutter LF $10 $- Q Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk SY $29 $- r c 0 L Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk 1,200 SF $5 $6,000 -a c 0 Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 2,560 SF $17 $43,520 E w Roadway Modification, New AC Paving SF $29 $- (including Curb & Sidewalk) E E t U 0 r Q OTETRA TECH D-142 Packet Pg. 447 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving SF $23 $- Roadway Modification, Full Intersection EA $272,200 $- Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface SF $10 $- Roadway Modification, Excavation CY $19 $- Roadway Modification, Embankment CY $7 $- Driveway Modification EA $5,000 $- Parking Lot Reconfiguration 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Traffic Signal, New EA $294,000 $- Traffic Signal, Modify Existing EA $155,500 $- Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing EA $465,100 $- Bus Stop Rebuild EA $89,300 $- Surface Parking 7 STL $4,680 $32,760 Structured Parking STL $23,770 $- Elevators - 30' Rise 2 EA $248,600 $497,200 Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 Emergency Vehicle (ambulance) 1 EA $150,000 $150,000 Stairs (30' high) 2 EA $138,000 $276,000 Landscaping 800 SF $8 $6,400 ProjectAllowances Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $322,705 $322,705 Additional Construction Staging * 1 LS $84,000 $84,000 BNSF Flaggers 2,773 HR $200 $554,667 Utility Relocation - Level 1 160 LF $240 $38,400 Utility Relocation - Level 2 LF $270 $- OTETRA TECH D-143 Packet Pg. 448 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description Utility Relocation - Level 3 LF $1,070 $- Park Mitigation Allowance 160 LF $400 $64,000 Storm Water Management - Closed System 160 LF $200 $32,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 LF $100 $- Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 160 LF $200 $32,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 LF $360 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light LF $82 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium 80 LF $230 $18,400 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy 80 LF $390 $31,200 Construction Subtotal $3,549,751 Design Contingency (30%) $1,064,925 Subtotal $4,614,677 Management Reserve (4%) $141,990 Sales Tax (9.5%) $337,226 Construction Total $5,093,893 Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 3,300 SF $125 $412,500 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 3,500 SF $150 $525,000 Parking Mitigation SF $160 $- Environmental Mitigation 3,500 SF $160 $560,000 Park Mitigation 3,500 SF $150 $525,000 Total ROW $2,022,500 Professional Services City PM/Admin 3% $106,492.54 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $532,462.70 agreements) OTETRA TECH D-144 Packet Pg. 449 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Permitting Construction Management Project Total Cost Estimate Level 2 Evaluation Range * Special bid item specific to this alternative. 4% $141,990.05 10% $354,975.13 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $9,000,000 OTETRA TECH D-145 Packet Pg. 450 7.1.c Edmonds Waterfront Access Study Table D-7. Main Street Overpass - Option 3 Cost Estimate Project Name: Main Street Overpass (Overpass 7A) - Option 3 Description: New 16' pedestrian/bicycle bridge with ADA ramps Project Duration6-8 months Retaining Wall - MSE SF $81 $- .r Q Retaining Wall - Soil Nail SF $130 $- Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than $_ o SF $200 15' high) 0 Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than SF $400 $- 0 c 24' High) E Sound Wall $- E 0 $32 m Pedestrian Bridge 1,180 LF $7,200 $8,496,000 Cl) A $2", ow Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) $- v - Bridge Structure - Roadway M SF $450 • • T 0 N w Demolition - Building SF $20 $- Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 680 SY $21 $14,280 0 CL L SY $34 Demolition - Concrete Pavement $- y d v Demolition - Curb and gutter LF $10 $- Q Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk $- c o SY $29 mlw� m Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk 1,200 SF $5 $6,000 -a c 0 Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 18,880 SF $17 $320,960 E w SF $29 Roadway Modification, New AC Paving $- (including Curb & Sidewalk) E t U 0 r r Q OTETRA TECH D-146 Packet Pg. 451 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving Roadway Modification, Full Intersection Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface Roadway Modification, Excavation Roadway Modification, Embankment Driveway Modification 1 Parking Lot Reconfiguration 1 Traffic Signal, New Traffic Signal, Modify Existing Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing Bus Stop Rebuild Surface Parking 8 Structured Parking Elevators - 30' Rise 2 Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock 1 Emergency Vehicle (ambulance) 1 Stairs (30' high) 2 Landscaping 5,900 Project. - Mobilization (10%) 1 Additional Construction Staging * 1 BNSF Flaggers 2,773 Utility Relocation - Level 1 590 Utility Relocation - Level 2 590 LF $38 $- SF $23 $- EA $272,200 $- SF $10 $- CY $19 $- CY $7 $- EA $5,000 $5,000 LS $5,000 $5,000 EA $294,000 $- EA $155,500 $- EA $465,100 $- EA $89,300 $- STL $4,680 $37,440 STL $23,770 $- EA $248,600 $497,200 EA $200,000 $200,000 EA $150,000 $150,000 EA $138,000 $276,000 SF $8 $47,200 LS $1,191,805 $1,191,805 LS $84,000 $84,000 HR $200 $554,667 LF $240 $141,600 LF $270 $159,300 OTETRA TECH D-147 Packet Pg. 452 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description Utility Relocation - Level 3 LF $1,070 $- Park Mitigation Allowance 500 LF $400 $200,000 Storm Water Management - Closed System 1,180 LF $200 $236,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 1,000 LF $100 $100,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 180 LF $200 $36,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 LF $360 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light LF $82 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium 680 LF $230 $156,400 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy 500 LF $390 $195,000 Construction Subtotal $13,109,851 Design Contingency (30%) $3,932,955 Subtotal $17,042,807 Management Reserve (4%) $524,394 Sales Tax (9.5%) $1,245,436 Construction Total $18,812,637 Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 12,240 SF $125 $1,530,000 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 9,000 SF $150 $1,350,000 Parking Mitigation 1,440 SF $160 $230,400 Environmental Mitigation 9,000 SF $160 $1,440,000 Park Mitigation 9,000 SF $150 $1,350,000 Total ROW $5,900,400 City PM/Admin 3% $393,295.54 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $1,966,477.70 agreements) OTETRA TECH D-148 Packet Pg. 453 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Permitting Construction Management Project Total Cost Estimate Level 2 Evaluation Range * Special bid item specific to this alternative. 4% $524,394.05 10% $1,310,985.13 $26,000,000 $29,000,000 $32,000,000 OTETRA TECH D-149 Packet Pg. 454 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-8. Main Street Underpass Cost Estimate Project Name: Main Street Underpass (Overpass 4) Description: New 16' pedestrian/bicycle cut and cover path Project Duration: 6-9 months Retaining Wall - MSE SF $81 $- Retaining Wall - Soil Nail SF $130 $- Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than SF $200 $- 15' high) Retaining Wall - Secant Pile 7,200 SF $460 $3,312,000 Sound Wall SF $32 $- Pedestrian Bridge LF $7,200 $- Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) 105 LF $24,000 $2,520,000 Bridge Structure - Roadway SF $450 Demolition - Building SF $20 $- Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 210 SY $21 $4,410 Demolition - Concrete Pavement SY $34 $- Demolition - Curb and gutter 450 LF $10 $4,500 Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk 400 SY $29 $11,600 Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk 3,600 SF $5 $18,000 5 Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 9,360 SF $17 $159,120 p E Roadway Modification, New AC Paving SF $29 $- w (including Curb & Sidewalk) m E Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- U r Q OTETRA TECH D-150 Packet Pg. 455 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving Roadway Modification, Full Intersection Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface Roadway Modification, Excavation Roadway Modification, Embankment Driveway Modification Parking Lot Reconfiguration Traffic Signal, New Traffic Signal, Modify Existing SF EA SF 4,267 CY CY 1 EA 1 LS EA EA Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing Miscellaneous Bus Stop Rebuild 1 Surface Parking BNSF Second Track* Stormwater Pump Station (small)* 1 EA EA STL LS EA Elevators - 30' Rise Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock EA 1 EA Emergency Vehicle (ambulance) Stairs (30' high) Landscaping Project Allowances Mobilization (10%) 1 EA 1 EA 2,925 SF 1 LS Additional Construction Staging * 1 BNSF Flaggers 3,120 Utility Relocation - Level 1 Utilitv Relocation - Level 2 LS HR LF LF $23 $272,200 $10 $19 $7 $5,000 $5,000 $294,000 $155,500 $465,100 $225,800 $4,680 $10, 000, 000 $100,000 $248,600 $200,000 $150,000 $138,000 $8 $880,320 $84,000 $200 $240 $270 $81,067 $5,000 $5,000 $225,800 $200,000 $150,000 $138,000 $23,400 $880,320 $84,000 $624,000 14. OTETRA TECH D-151 Packet Pg. 456 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost Utility Relocation - Level 3 585 LF $1,070 $625,950 Park Mitigation Allowance 255 LF $400 $102,000 Storm Water Management - Closed System 585 LF $200 $117,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 LF $100 $- Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 585 LF $200 $117,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 LF $360 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light LF $82 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium 330 LF $230 $75,900 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy 255 LF $390 $99,450 Construction Subtotal $9,683,516 Design Contingency (30%) $2,905,055 Subtotal $12,588,571 Management Reserve (10%) $968,352 Sales Tax (9.5%) $919,934 Construction Total $14,476,857 Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 1 4,050 SF $125 $506,250 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 7,980 SF $150 $1,197,000 Parking Mitigation SF $160 $- Environmental Mitigation 4,590 SF $160 $734,400 Park Mitigation 4,590 SF $150 $688,500 Total ROW $3,126,150 City PM/Admin 3% $290,505.49 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $1,452,527.45 agreements) OTETRA TECH D-152 Packet Pg. 457 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Permitting Construction Management Project Total Cost Estimate Level 2 Evaluation Range * Special bid item specific to this alternative. 4% $387,340.65 10% 1 $968,351.63 $21,000,000 $19,000,000 $23,000,000 OTETRA TECH D-153 Packet Pg. 458 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-9. Admiral Way Overpass Cost Estimate Project Name: Admiral Way Overpass (Overpass 1) - Option 2 Description: New 16' roadway crossing with ramps Project Duration: 6-9 months Retaining Wall - MSE SF $81 $- Q Retaining Wall - Soil Nail SF $130 $- ) Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than SF $200 $- 4- 0 15' high) N 0 Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than SF $400 $- c� c 24' High) E E Sound Wall SF $32 $- o a� Pedestrian Bridge LF $7,200 $- M LO Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) LF $24,000 $- Bridge Structure - Roadway 22,410 SF $450 $10,084,500 M r t0 N Demolition - Building SF $20 $- Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 18 SY $21 $382 0 a� L Demolition - Concrete Pavement SY $34 $- N N N V Demolition - Curb and gutter LF $10 $- Q Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk SY $29 $- r c 0 L Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk SF $5 c 0 Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 28,000 SF $17 $476,000 E w Roadway Modification, New AC Paving SF $29 $- (including Curb & Sidewalk) E E t U 0 r Q OTETRA TECH D-154 Packet Pg. 459 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving SF $23 $- Roadway Modification, Full Intersection EA $272,200 $- Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface SF $10 $- Roadway Modification, Excavation CY $19 $- Roadway Modification, Embankment CY $7 $- Driveway Modification 3 EA $5,000 $15,000 Parking Lot Reconfiguration 1 LS $10,000 $10,000 Traffic Signal, New EA $294,000 $- Traffic Signal, Modify Existing EA $155,500 $- Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing EA $465,100 $- Bus Stop Rebuild EA $89,300 $- Surface Parking 15 STL $4,680 $70,200 Structured Parking STL $23,770 $- Elevators - 30' Rise EA $248,600 $- Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock EA $200,000 $- Emergency Vehicle (ambulance) EA $150,000 $- Stairs (30' high) EA $138,000 $- Landscaping 8,750 SF $8 $70,000 ProjectAllowances Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $1,219,268 $1,219,268 BNSF Flaggers 3,120 HR $200 $624,000 Utility Relocation - Level 1 1,300 LF $240 $312,000 Utility Relocation - Level 2 LF $270 $- Utility Relocation - Level 3 LF $1,070 $- OTETRA TECH D-155 Packet Pg. 460 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c Park Mitigation Allowance Storm Water Management - Closed System Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy 460 1,300 500 800 840 460 LS LF LF LF LF LF LF LF $400 $200 $100 $200 $360 $82 $230 $390 $184,000 $260,000 $50,000 $288,000 $193,200 $179,400 Construction Subtotal $14,035,950 r- O 0 $4,210,785 Design Contingency (30%) m $18,246,736 E E Subtotal 0 Management Reserve (4%) $561,438 Sales Tax (9.5%) $1,333,415 T Construction Total v $20,141,589 M 0 .O Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 23,310 SF $45 0 $1,048,950 N r= 0 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 8,190 SF $45 L $368,550 0 Parking Mitigation 2,700 SF $160 CL $432,000 Environmental Mitigation 8,280 SF $160 $1,324,800 Park Mitigation 8,280 SF $45 Q $372,600 + c 0 Total ROW L $3,546,900 m 0 Professional City PM/Admin 3% $421,078.51 0 E Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $2,105,392.56 w agreements) c d E Permitting 4% $561,438.02 U 0 r r Q OTETRA TECH D-156 Packet Pg. 461 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Construction Management Project Total Cost Estimate Level 2 Evaluation Range * Special bid item specific to this alternative. 10% $1,403, 595.04 $28,000,000 $25,000,000 $31,000,000 OTETRA TECH D-157 Packet Pg. 462 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-10. Dayton Street Overpass Cost Estimate Project Name: Dayton Street Overpass (Overpass 413) Description: New 16' roadway crossing with ramps Project Duration: 6-9 months Retaining Wall - MSE SF $81 $- Q Retaining Wall - Soil Nail SF $130 $- ) Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than SF $200 $- 4- 0 15' high) N 0 Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than SF $400 $- c� c 24' High) E E Sound Wall SF $32 $- o a� Pedestrian Bridge LF $7,200 $- M LO Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) LF $24,000 $- t0 Bridge Structure - Roadway 23,400 SF $450 $10,530,000 M r t0 N Demolition - Building SF $20 $- Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 52 SY $21 $1,092 0 a� L Demolition - Concrete Pavement SY $34 $- N N N V Demolition - Curb and gutter LF $10 $- Q Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk SY $29 $- r c 0 L Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk SF $5 c 0 Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 20,800 SF $17 $353,600 E w Roadway Modification, New AC Paving SF $29 $- (including Curb & Sidewalk) E E t U 0 r Q OTETRA TECH D-158 Packet Pg. 463 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving SF $23 $- Roadway Modification, Full Intersection EA $272,200 $- Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface SF $10 $- Roadway Modification, Excavation CY $19 $- Roadway Modification, Embankment CY $7 $- Driveway Modification 3 EA $5,000 $15,000 Parking Lot Reconfiguration 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Traffic Signal, New EA $294,000 $- Traffic Signal, Modify Existing EA $155,500 $- Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing EA $465,100 $- Bus Stop Rebuild EA $89,300 $- Surface Parking 35 STL $4,680 $163,800 Structured Parking STL $23,770 $- Elevators - 30' Rise EA $248,600 $- Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock EA $200,000 $- Emergency Vehicle (ambulance) EA $150,000 $- Stairs (30' high) EA $87,000 $- Landscaping 6,500 SF $8 $52,000 ProjectAllowances Mobilization (10%) 1 LS $1,326,549 $1,326,549 BNSF Flaggers 3,120 HR $200 $624,000 Utility Relocation - Level 1 LF $240 $- Utility Relocation - Level 2 LF $270 $- Utility Relocation - Level 3 1,300 LF $1,070 $1,391,000 OTETRA TECH D-159 Packet Pg. 464 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description Park Mitigation Allowance LF $400 $- Storm Water Management - Closed System 1,300 LF $200 $260,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 800 LF $100 $80,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 500 LF $200 $100,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 LF $360 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light LF $82 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium 1,300 LF $230 $299,000 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy LF $390 $- Construction Subtotal $15,216,041 Design Contingency (30%) $4,564,812 Subtotal $19,780,854 Management Reserve (4%) $608,642 Sales Tax (9.5%) $1,445,524 Construction Total $21,835,019 Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 11,700 SF $75 $877,500 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 11,700 SF $75 $877,500 Parking Mitigation 6,300 SF $160 $1,008,000 Environmental Mitigation SF $160 $- Park Mitigation SF $75 $- Total ROW $2,763,000 City PM/Admin 3% $456,481.24 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $2,282,406.18 agreements) Permitting 4% $608,641.65 OTETRA TECH D-160 Packet Pg. 465 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Construction Management Project Total Cost Estimate Level 2 Evaluation Range * Special bid item specific to this alternative 10% $1,521,604.12 $29,000,000 $26,000,000 $32,000,000 OTETRA TECH D-161 Packet Pg. 466 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-11. Edmonds Street Overpass Cost Estimate Project Name: Edmonds Street Overpass (Overpass 9) Description: New 16' roadway crossing with ramps Project Duration: 6-9 months Retaining Wall - MSE SF $81 $- Retaining Wall - Soil Nail SF $130 $- Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than 9,000 SF $200 $1,800,000 15' high) Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than SF $400 $- 24' High) Sound Wall SF $32 $- Pedestrian Bridge LF $7,200 $- Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) LF $24,000 $- Bridge Structure - Roadway 6,840 SF $450 $3,078,000 Bridge Structure - Steel Truss up to 150' 1,800 SF $1,500 $2,700,000 span* Demolition - Building SF $20 $- Demolition - Asphalt Pavement SY $21 $- Demolition - Concrete Pavement SY $34 $- Demolition - Curb and gutter 20 LF $10 $200 Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk 13 SY $29 $387 Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk 120 SF $5 $600 Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 8,320 SF $17 $141,440 OTETRA TECH D-162 Packet Pg. 467 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c Roadway Modification, New AC Paving (including Curb & Sidewalk) Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving Roadway Modification, Full Intersection Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface Roadway Modification, Excavation Roadway Modification, Embankment Driveway Modification Parking Lot Reconfiguration Traffic Signal, New Traffic Signal, Modify Existing Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing Miscellaneous Bus Stop Rebuild Surface Parking Structured Parking Elevators - 30' Rise Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock Emergency Vehicle (ambulance) Stairs (30' high) Landscaping Mobilization (10%) BNSF Flaggers Utility Relocation - Level 1 SF LF SF EA SF CY CY EA LS EA EA EA EA STL STL EA EA EA 2600 ,iiE6 SF 1 LS 3,120 HR 520 LF $29 $38 $23 $272,200 $10 $19 $7 $5,000 $10,000 $294,000 $155,500 $465,100 $89,300 $4,680 $23,770 $248,600 $200,000 $150,000 $87,000 $8 r- $1,088,223 $200 $240 $20,800 $1,088,223 $624,000 $124,800 r r Q OTETRA TECH D-163 Packet Pg. 468 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Cost Utility Relocation - Level 2 LF $270 $- Utility Relocation - Level 3 LF $1,070 $- Park Mitigation Allowance 520 LF $400 $208,000 Storm Water Management - Closed System 520 LF $200 $104,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 LF $100 $- Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 520 LF $200 $104,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 LF $360 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light LF $82 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium LF $230 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy 0 LF $390 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Extra 520 LF $5,000 $2,600,000 Heavy Construction Subtotal $12,594,449 Design Contingency (30%) $3,778,335 Subtotal $16,372,784 Management Reserve (4%) $503,778 Sales Tax (9.5%) $1,196,473 Construction Total $18,073,035 Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 2,520 SF $10 $25,200 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 6,840 SF $10 $68,400 Parking Mitigation SF $160 $- Environmental Mitigation 9,360 SF $160 $1,497,600 Park Mitigation 9,360 SF $10 $93,600 Total ROW $1,684,800 OTETRA TECH D-164 Packet Pg. 469 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT City PM/Admin 3% $377,833.48 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $1,889,167.40 agreements) Permitting 4% $503,777.97 Construction Management 10% $1,259,444.93 Project Total Cost Estimate $24,000,000 Level 2 Evaluation Range $22,000,000 $26,000,000 * Special bid item specific to this alternative OTETRA TECH D-165 Packet Pg. 470 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-12. Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal Cost Estimate Project Name: Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal Description: New ferry terminal build at Dayton Street Project Duration: 2 years WSF Terminal 1 Trestle 1 Wingwalls 1 Dolphins 1 VTS 1 Bridge Seat 1 Utilities for Ferry System 1 Overhead Walkway (assume reuse of 1 existing) Buildings and Generator 1 Retaining Wall - MSE Retaining Wall - Soil Nail Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than 16,000 15' high) Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than 24' High) Sound Wall Pedestrian Bridge 500 Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) Bridge Structure - Roadway 71,800 LS $4,620,000 $4,620,000 LS $19,200,000 $19,200,000 LS $2,120,000 $2,120,000 LS $3,200,000 $3,200,000 LS $6,090,000 $6,090,000 LS $690,000 $690,000 LS $2,450,000 $2,450,000 LS $4,971,000 $4,971,000 LS $14,575,000 $14,575,000 SF $81 $- SF $130 $- SF $200 $3,200,000 SF $400 $- SF $32 $- LF $7,200 $3,600,000 LF $24,000 $- SF $300 $21,540,000 OTETRA TECH D-166 Packet Pg. 471 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Demolition U) d Existing Terminal Removal 1 LS $6,300,000 $6,300,000 L Demolition - Building 71,000 SF $20 $1,420,000 Q N Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 13,711 SY $21 $287,933 c Demolition - Concrete Pavement SY $34 $- .y N U 3,500 Demolition - Curb and gutter LF $10 $35,000 Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk SY $29 $48,978 m M 1,689 'L^ V _ y+ Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk d SF $5 $- z 0 SF $17 $- c Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path 0 Roadway Modification, New AC Paving 98,500 SF $29 $2,856,500 -a (including Curb & Sidewalk) c Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- 0 m Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving $23 $1,651,400 71,800 SF 2 EA SF Roadway Modification, Full Intersection $272,200 $10 $544,400 $- co CD Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface Roadway Modification, Excavation CY $19 $- c CY $7 $- N w L Roadway Modification, Embankment Driveway Modification EA $5,000 $- 0 a m L Parking Lot Reconfiguration LS $5,000 $- d EA $294,000 Traffic Signal, New 2 $588,000 0 Traffic Signal, Modify Existing $- o EA $155,500 EA $465,100 Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing $- W Miscellaneous c 0 Relocate Transit Center" 1 EA $1,182,600 $1,182,600 E w LS $700,000 Maintenance and Restroom Buildings 1 $700,000 d Structured Parking 870 STL $23,770 $20,679,900 t U 0 r r Q OTETRA TECH D-167 Packet Pg. 472 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Elevators - 30' Rise EA $248,600 $497,200 Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock Stairs (30' high) EA $200,000 EA $138,000 SF $8 - lilom LS $10,848,249 LS $788,000 $- $276,000 2 Landscaping Proiect Allowances Mobilization (8%) Additional Construction Staging " 63,400 1 $507,200 $10,848,249 1 $788,000 BNSF Flaggers 8,320 HR $200 $1,664,000 $960 $- i $1,080 $2,700,000 Utility Relocation - Level 1 Utility Relocation - Level 2 LF 2,500 LF Utility Relocation - Level 3 LF $4,280 $- Park Mitigation Allowance 500 LF $1,600 $800,000 Storm Water Management - Closed System Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 2,500 LF $800 $2,000,000 $400 $800,000 2,000 LF 500 LF $800 $400,000 LF $1,440 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium LF $328 $- 2,000 LF $920 $1,840,000 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Extra Heavy LF $1,560 $- 500 LF $1,560 $780,000 Construction Subtotal $146,451,360 Design Contingency (30%) $43,935,408 Subtotal $190,386,768 Management Reserve (4%) $5,858,054 Sales Tax (9.5%) $13,912,879 Construction Total $210,157,702 OTETRA TECH D-168 Packet Pg. 473 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 131,000 SF $150 $19,650,000 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 46,000 SF $150 $6,900,000 Temporary Holding Lanes SF $16 $- Environmental Mitigation 9,000 SF $160 $1,440,000 Park Mitigation 9,000 SF $150 $1,350,000 Total ROW $29,340,000 City PM/Admin 3% $4,393,540.80 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $21,967,704.00 agreements) Permitting 4% $5,858,054.40 Construction Management 10% $14,645,136.00 Project Total Cost Estimate $286,000,000 Level 2 Evaluation Range $257,000,000 $315,000,000 * Special bid item specific to this alternative OTETRA TECH D-169 Packet Pg. 474 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-13. Main Street Ferry Overpass - Full Build Cost Estimate Project Name: Main Street Ferry Overpass - Full Build Description: Overpass holding/loading lanes at Main Street Project Duration: 3 years Temporary Toll Booths 1 Temporary Holding Lanes 1 Constricted Work Zone Allowance 1 P" Retaining Wall - MSE Retaining Wall - Soil Nail Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than 15' high) Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than 18,000 24' High) Sound Wall Pedestrian Bridge 200 Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) Bridge Structure - Roadway 114,000 r".W. Existing Terminal Removal Demolition - Building 2,800 Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 22,444 Demolition - Concrete Pavement Demolition - Curb and gutter 2,000 Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk 1,778 LS $3,000,000 $3,000,000 LS $631,800 $631,800 LS $5,283,459 $5,283,459 SF $81 $- SF $130 $- SF $200 $- SF $400 $7,200,000 SF $32 $- LF $7,200 $1,440,000 LF $24,000 $- SF $300 $34,200,000 LS $6,300,000 $- SF $20 $56,000 SY $21 $471,333 SY $34 $- LF $10 $20,000 SY $29 $51,556 OTETRA TECH D-170 Packet Pg. 475 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path Roadway Modification, New AC Paving (including Curb & Sidewalk) Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving Roadway Modification, Full Intersection Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface Roadway Modification, Excavation Roadway Modification, Embankment Driveway Modification Parking Lot Reconfiguration Traffic Signal, New Traffic Signal, Modify Existing Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing Relocate Transit Center* Maintenance and Restroom Buildings Structured Parking Elevators - 30' Rise Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock Stairs (30' high) Landscaping Mobilization (8%) SF SF 238,000 SF R 40,000 1 3 1 1 A 8,000 ■ 1 LF SF EA SF CY CY EA LS EA EA EA $5 $17 $29 $38 $23 $272,200 $10 $19 $7 $5,000 $50,000 $294,000 $155,500 $465,100 $6,902,000 $816,600 $280,000 $50,000 $882,000 $465,100 4% EA $1,182,600 $- LS $700,000 $700,000 STL $23,770 $- EA $248,600 $497,200 EA $200,000 $- EA $138,000 $276,000 SF $8 $64,000 LS 1 $6,324,404 1 $6,324,404 OTETRA TECH D-171 Packet Pg. 476 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description Additional Construction Staging 1 LS $932,000 $932,000 BNSF Flaggers 12,480 HR $200 $2,496,000 Utility Relocation - Level 1 LF $960 $- Utility Relocation - Level 2 LF $1,080 $- Utility Relocation - Level 3 1,600 LF $4,280 $6,848,000 Park Mitigation Allowance 500 LF $1,600 $800,000 Storm Water Management - Closed System 1,600 LF $800 $1,280,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 1,100 LF $400 $440,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 500 LF $800 $400,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 LF $1,440 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light LF $328 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium 1,100 LF $920 $1,012,000 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy LF $1,560 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Extra 500 LF $3,120 $1,560,000 Heavy Construction Subtotal $85,379,452 Design Contingency (30%) $25,613,835 Subtotal $110,993,287 Management Reserve (4%) $3,415,178 Sales Tax (9.5%) $8,111,048 Construction Total $122,519,513 Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 52,000 SF $100 $5,200,000 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 7,100 SF $100 $710,000 Temporary Holding Lanes 24,120 SF $16 $385,920 Environmental Mitigation 9,000 SF $160 $1,440,000 OTETRA TECH D-172 Packet Pg. 477 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT City PM/Admin 3% $2,561,384 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $12,806,918 agreements) Permitting 4% $3,415,178 Construction Management 10% $8,537,945 Project Total Cost Estimate $158,000,000 Level 2 Evaluation Range $142,000,000 $174,000,000 * Special bid item specific to this alternative. OTETRA TECH D-173 Packet Pg. 478 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-14. Main Street Ferry Overpass - Min Build Cost Estimate Project Name: Main Street Ferry Overpass - Min Build Description: Overpass holding/loading lanes at Main Street Project Duration: 3 years Temporary Toll Booths 1 Temporary Holding Lanes 1 Constricted Work Zone Allowance 1 P" Retaining Wall - MSE Retaining Wall - Soil Nail Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than 15' high) Retaining Wall - Tangent Pile (H greater than 18,000 24' High) Sound Wall Pedestrian Bridge 200 Pedestrian Access (Cut and Cover) Bridge Structure - Roadway 86,400 r".W. Existing Terminal Removal Demolition - Building Demolition - Asphalt Pavement 15,000 Demolition - Concrete Pavement Demolition - Curb and gutter 2,000 Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk 1,778 LS $3,000,000 $3,000,000 LS $631,800 $631,800 LS $4,130,526 $4,130,526 SF $81 $- SF $130 $- SF $200 $- SF $400 $7,200,000 SF $32 $- LF $7,200 $1,440,000 LF $24,000 $- SF $300 $25,920,000 LS $6,300,000 $- SF $20 $- SY $21 $315,000 SY $34 $- LF $10 $20,000 SY $29 $51,556 OTETRA TECH D-174 Packet Pg. 479 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk SF $5 $- Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path SF $17 $- Roadway Modification, New AC Paving 135,000 SF $29 $3,915,000 (including Curb & Sidewalk) Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving SF $23 $- Roadway Modification, Full Intersection 3 EA $272,200 $816,600 Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface SF $10 $- Roadway Modification, Excavation CY $19 $- Roadway Modification, Embankment 40,000 CY $7 $280,000 Driveway Modification EA $5,000 $- Parking Lot Reconfiguration LS $- Traffic Signal, New 3 EA $294,000 $882,000 Traffic Signal, Modify Existing EA $155,500 $- Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing 1 EA $465,100 $465,100 Relocate Transit Center* EA $1,182,600 $- Maintenance and Restroom Buildings 1 LS $700,000 $700,000 Structured Parking STL $23,770 $- Elevators - 30' Rise EA $248,600 $497,200 Emergency Vehicle Storage near dock —� EA $200,000 $- Stairs (30' high) 2 EA $138,000 $276,000 Landscaping 8,000 SF $8 $64,000 Mobilization (8%) 1 LS $5,185,022 $5,185,022 r Q OTETRA TECH D-175 Packet Pg. 480 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Description Additional Construction Staging 1 LS $932,000 $932,000 BNSF Flaggers 12,480 HR $200 $2,496,000 Utility Relocation - Level 1 LF $960 $- Utility Relocation - Level 2 LF $1,080 $- Utility Relocation - Level 3 1,600 LF $4,280 $6,848,000 Park Mitigation Allowance 500 LF $1,600 $800,000 Storm Water Management - Closed System 1,600 LF $800 $1,280,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 1,100 LF $400 $440,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 500 LF $800 $400,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 LF $1,440 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light LF $328 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium 1,100 LF $920 $1,012,000 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy LF $1,560 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Extra 500 LF $3,120 $1,560,000 Heavy Construction Subtotal $71,557,804 Design Contingency (30%) $21,467,341 Subtotal $93,025,145 Management Reserve (4%) $2,862,312 Sales Tax (9.5%) $6,797,991 Construction Total $102,685,448 Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 2,000 SF $100 $200,000 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 7,100 SF $100 $710,000 Temporary Holding Lanes 24,120 SF $16 $385,920 Environmental Mitigation 0 SF $160 $- OTETRA TECH D-176 Packet Pg. 481 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT City PM/Admin 3% $2,146,734.11 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $10,733,670.54 agreements) Permitting 4% $2,862,312.14 Construction Management 10% $7,155,780.36 Project Total Cost Estimate $128,000,000 Level 2 Evaluation Range $115,000,000 $141,000,000 * Special bid item specific to this alternative. OTETRA TECH D-177 Packet Pg. 482 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-15. Main Street Ferry Underpass Cost Estimate Project Name: Main Street Ferry Underpass - Min Build Description: Underpass holding/loading lanes at Main Street Project Duration: 4 years Temporary Toll Booths Temporary Holding Lanes Constricted Work Zone Allowance P" Retaining Wall - MSE Retaining Wall - Soil Nail Retaining Wall - Soldier Pile (H greater than 15' high) Retaining Wall - Secant Pile Ground Improvement Pedestrian Bridge Cut and Cover Structural Ramp to Ferry Seawalls Bridge Structure - Roadway Existing Terminal Removal* Demolition - Building Demolition - Asphalt Pavement Demolition - Concrete Pavement Demolition - Curb and gutter 1 LS $3,000,000 $3,000,000 1 LS $631,800 $631,800 1 LS $14,353,868 $14,353,868 SF $81 $- SF $130 $- SF $200 $- 15,000 SF $460 $6,900,000 14,616 CY $260 $3,800,093 300 LF $7,200 $2,160,000 75,400 SF $1,500 $113,100,000 24,000 SF $300 $7,200,000 8,000 SF $460 $3,680,000 SF $300 $- LS $6,300,000 $- SF $20 $- 15,000 SY $21 $315,000 SY $34 $- 2,000 LF $10 $20,000 OTETRA TECH D-178 Packet Pg. 483 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Demolition - Concrete Sidewalk 1,778 SY $29 $51,556 = 16 Roadway Modification, New Sidewalk SF $5 $- Roadway Modification, Multiuse Path SF $17 $- Roadway Modification, New AC Paving 135,000 SF $29 $3,915,000 (including Curb & Sidewalk) Roadway Modification, New Concrete Curb LF $38 $- Roadway Modification, New PCC Paving SF $23 $- Roadway Modification, Full Intersection 3 EA $272,200 $816,600 Roadway Modification, Mill & Resurface SF $10 $- Roadway Modification, Excavation CY $19 $- Roadway Modification, Embankment 33,333 CY $7 $233,333 Driveway Modification EA $5,000 $- Parking Lot Reconfiguration LS $- Traffic Signal, New 3 EA $294,000 $882,000 Traffic Signal, Modify Existing EA $155,500 $- Traffic Signal, Quadrant Gated Crossing 1 EA $465,100 $465,100 Relocate Transit Center EA $1,182,600 $- Maintenance and Restroom Buildings 1 LS $700,000 $700,000 BNSF Second Track* LS $10,000,000 $- Elevators - 30' Rise 2 EA $248,600 $497,200 Stormwater Pump Station (large)* 1 EA $200,000 $200,000 Stairs (30' high) 2 EA $138,000 $276,000 Landscaping 40,000 SF $8 $320,000 Mobilization (8%) 1 LS $14,409,404 $14,409,403.97 OTETRA TECH D-179 Packet Pg. 484 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Additional Construction Staging 1 LS $932,000 $932,000 BNSF Flaggers 16,640 HR $200 $3,328,000 Utility Relocation - Level 1 LF $960 $- Utility Relocation - Level 2 LF $1,080 $- Utility Relocation - Level 3 1,600 LF $4,280 $6,848,000 Park Mitigation Allowance 500 LF $1,600 $800,000 Storm Water Management - Closed System 1,600 LF $800 $1,280,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 1 1,100 LF $400 $440,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 2 500 LF $800 $400,000 Hazardous Material Removal - Level 3 LF $1,440 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Light LF $328 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Medium 1,100 LF $920 $1,012,000 Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Heavy LF $1,560 $- Environmental Mitigation Allowance, Extra 500 LF $3,120 $1,560,000 Heavy Construction Total $194,526,954 Design Contingency (30%) $58,358,086 Subtotal $252,885,040 Management Reserve (10%) $19,452,695 Sales Tax (9.5%) $18,480,061 Construction Subtotal $290,817,796 Land Acquisition (east of tracks) 2,000 SF $100 $200,000 Land Acquisition (west of tracks) 8,100 SF $100 $810,000 Temporary Holding Lanes 24,120 SF $16 $385,920 Environmental Mitigation 9,000 SF $160 $1,440,000 Park Mitigation 9,000 SF $100 $900,000 OTETRA TECH D-180 Packet Pg. 485 7.1.c Edmonds Waterfront Access Study October 2016 DRAFT Total ROW $3,735,920 City PM/Admin 3% $5,835,809 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $29,179,043 agreements) Permitting 4% $7,781,078 Construction Management 10% $19,452,695 Project Total Cost Estimate $357,000,000 Level 2 Evaluation Range $321,000,000 $393,000,000 * Special bid item specific to this alternative OTETRA TECH D-181 Packet Pg. 486 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Table D-16. Edmonds Crossing Cost Estimate Project Name: Edmonds Crossing - Point Edwards New Ferry Terminal Description: New ferry terminal build at Point Edwards Project Duration: 2 years 2009 WSF Terminal Min. Build Alternative" 1 LS $140,869,541 $140,869,541 Waterfront Emergency Access Roadway 1 LS $13,948,814 $13,948,814 Removal of Unocal Pier 1 LS $(5,000,000) $(5,000,000) • - . Z - Mobilization (8%) 1 LS $11,985,468 $11,985,468 Current Year Construction Subtotal 161,803,822.84 Design Contingency (30%) $48,541,147 Subtotal $210,344,970 Management Reserve (4%) $6,472,153 Sales Tax (9.5%) $15,371,363 Construction Total $232,188,486 Land Acquisition 1 LS $4,200,000 $4,200,000 Tribal MOUs 1 LS $6,000,000 $6,000,000 Total ROW $10,200,000 City PM/Admin 3% $4,854,114.69 Design/Engineering (incl. third party 15% $24,270,573.43 agreements) Permitting 4% $6,472,152.91 OTETRA TECH D-182 Packet Pg. 487 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 7.1.c October 2016 DRAFT Construction Management Project Total Cost Estimate Level 2 Evaluation Range * Special bid item specific to this alternative ** 2009 WSF Terminal Cost Adjustment to 2016 Dollars 10% $265,000,000 $16,180,382.28 $294,000,000 $323,000,000 OTETRA TECH D-183 Packet Pg. 488 Q 1a Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access report draft 20161103 (1653 : Recommendations of the At -Grade Rail Crossings Alternatives ouncil B 1 0 4, 1 air_ J1 spr PM Edmonds Waterfront Access Study R Marina EDIVIG Beach 0 Park ADMIRAL WY .. ... ..... NIF Unreliable access to the entire waterfront area by emergency responders Ferry loading and unloading QAccess to the waterfront area by people driving, walking or biking 0 Ferry, rail and bus connections : 1 1 . Landin R41 Brackett's South I I I I 111111111J. �X: CT Stop Landing North :ammdf rM 0 Edmonds Station Area PP sut4sr, -&j A ng%ooe AVE .40 "0 0 St. I tl 7.1.d Police and Fire Packet Pg.491 Station HOW WILL VILE STUDY ALTERNATIVES? Understand existing conditions Identify alternatives TECHNICAL ANALYSIS STEPS • Observe, quantify and document existing conditions at Main Street and Dayton Street crossings. • Review data from previous studies and community input. GET INVOLVED Share your experiences with waterfront access and ideas for improving access • Compile potential measures to improve access, including both long-range and near - term solutions. • Develop screening criteria. • Prepare list of alternatives for screening and evaluation. Share your thoughts on alternatives to consider and screening criteria Screen alternatives ( Level 1 review) • Review alternatives within initial criteria to determine feasibility. • Eliminate infeasible alternatives. • Document findings. Provide feedback on screened alternatives Evaluate alternatives (Level 2 review) • Further develop the remaining alternatives. • Apply more detailed criteria to evaluate alternatives. • Document findings and initial recommendations. Provide feedback on evaluated alternatives and initial recommendations pM aoH Develop recommendations I J • Develop preferred alternative recommendations based on analysis. • Present to City Council and Legislature. • Document final recommendations in a report. l Review preferred alternative recommendations 7.1.d -s �St. i sy" - M LO 0 U a 0 - Cn 0 E w E Q Public meeting a Online open hR e G P Packet Pg. 492 How does Rail Traffic Affect Access? Gate Closures at Main Street and Dayton Street crossings: • 37.5 closures average per day • 80 minutes average per day (5.5% of the day) • 2:12 average closure duration (3:54 for unit trains) At Main Street crossing (daily average): 709 delayed by closures 28.7 vehicle -hours 115 delayed by closures 4.7 person -hours Over 10 ferry loadings/off-loadings affected daily Based on traffic recorded, June 16 through July 3, 2012 7.1.d J St. 1 sy" M LO Emergency Calls Across the Tracks Count of Incidents by Response Time (Minutes) 70 im 50 40 30 20 10 0 0:00:00 0:02:00 0:03:00 0:04:00 0:05:00 0:06:00 0:07:00 0:08:00 0:09:00 0:10:00 0:11:00 0:12:00 0:13:00 0:15:00 0:16:00 0:18:00 0:21:00 0:30:00 �>V 7.1.d G u � `St. 1 8y1 M tO 277 incidents 0 0 N 64 had response times of 7 minutes or longer C O U Variety of causes for delays O L Additional 40-50 call- outs per year for rescue boat W E 2 a Fire District 1 records July 1, 2010 to December Packet Pg. 494 Average no. of Main Street gate closures (16 June - 03 July, 2012) O O W W O In O to O In O to M 3 v CD �. 0 tl N fD , r 73 fD n r-r 01 Oq v r-r rD � n fD O rNh Vf 0 fD r-h Ln Ln L O Ln N N W W O In O to O In STOZ :)aa 80 - OTOZ AInf TO) sl:)ea;;o;sam slle:) A:)ua3JOw3 r. �I Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access Council Briefing 20161107 (1653 : Z v r+ Cr r. P'f O O M 3 M /� M A i� CL A� i) r+ M r) O N M C'' 2-Stage Screening /Evaluation Process CONSIDERED SOLUTION CONCERTS ( From public, study team, prior studies) MP DecIsIOIIS HIGHEST -RATED CONCEPTS Document Dec I si on s HIGHEST -RATED ALTERNATIVES PREFERRED ,ELT ERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS St. 1 0 0 N 0 C 0 m U c 0 U a 0 L c 0 E w r E 2 a Packet Pg. 496 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study 116 attendees 83 attendees 58 attendees 326 online visits 259 visitors 54 comment submittals 38 newcomers 175 online visits 131 visitors 33 comment submittals 28 newcomers 268 online visits 191 visitors 20 comment submittals 7.1.d J �St. 1 sy" M LO O r ti O r r O r O N 49 attendees m V C 3 11 newcomers 40 online visits C 0 L L Qi 30 visitors Cn � C 0 17 comment W submittals E a Packet Pg. 497 7.1.d A L Jew r % x zi Ova rpme Solution ry C:: underps;m solLrd on On -Site Solution Operatlowd Soluilon Railroad Modification Ferry Facilitlea Mod ir, cation AK St. 1 Packet Pg. 498 7.1.d ROADWAY OVERPASS 4 ■ DUSCONTI N UE Displacement of dry moorage stadu is too extensh I rr the PorLto aooamn4odate 0 • ■ DISCONTI N UE Reies Uporti Edmonds Cmssinl; (Ferry 1), wfridr is d isoonunued from oonsideratIon as it was runmmr w fnam WSF long range o 0 Plans N 0 ■ ■ ■ HW Assessed No+t Assessed DISCONTI N UE E Dces not meet purpose and need m L 0 ■ DUSCONTI N UE 0° Anticipated econarn ir: effEots rnorE Extensive than u ire rpa,ss dE 0 0 ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 V F aaybon 5t Pedestrianf Emergency Access Overpass y m ■ ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 u � idbID& Pedestrian} Limited Emergency Aooes s 0— ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 m Main Street Ferry Overpass 2 ■ ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 Main Street Pedestrian/Limited Ennergenc Access OrerpaSs E ■ w DUSCONTI N UE Far similar fu MiCtinnality. the oast ant r' = ual in- Ytc greater than for Orerparss FA E ■ ■ U i ■ DUSCONTI N UE brades are Sihe+eper and impacts to park greater tha Q it Civ a rpa, ss 9 ■ ADVANCE TO LEVEL 2 � dr Street Pedesitria.n/ Emerce 3 genAooss 4W lOve� ss DISCONTI N IJE Packet Pg. 499 Goes not meet purpose and need i ■ ■ ■ Not Assessed Not Assessed Level 1 Outcomes Concepts/ Variants Early Recommendations 'I 3 Advancing Concepts Level 2 Alternatives 7.1.d -s St. 1 Packet Pg. 500 7.1.d Near -term Recommendations J Improvements • fir Y,gj- i'• a i.i �f 1L\�r i F a rw, JUV -,.,.a�..,r.y- - N _ � , 'w"'['_'.� � � n. ern F� 9 ,.et°'..: �.'�: 4 Y,,•c+ua�� ,.. + - . � �......� .-.. .., ..... _, _ - _ - - _� _ _ -sue � r wn .w.•. .. �;_ ,... a.- c, �e'`-y...,w::..- .ai � \ . �.F.. .+ .. ,. iris �'� �„�r,+".r •- �M �� •'w j "`'Y",o-.: •� zD 'il ,', a. .- . •:P.�E'eNBY'` ,-�.. ��!4 �� , � i�'.x, .- • "�i °� ��'� 6I air 5 - _�J�'� - Level 1 Outcomes —14 Advancing Concepts Overpass 1 Admiral Way Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Overpass 46 Dayton Street Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Overpass 9 Edmonds Street Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Overpass 5/On-site 2 Midblock Pedestrian Overpass, with stationed equipment Overpass 7A/On-site 2 Main Street Pedestrian Overpass, with stationed equipment Underpass 4/On-site 2 Main Street Pedestrian Underpass, with stationed equipment Ferry 4/Ferry 8 Main Street Ferry Overpass (full build) Overpass 6 Main Street Ferry Overpass (minimum build) Underpass 1/Ferry 5 Main Street Ferry Underpass Ferry 3 Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal Ferry 1 Edmonds Crossing (minimum build) 7.1.d J Packet Pg. 502 Level 1 Outcomes —13 Advancing Concepts Overpass 1 Admiral Way Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Overpass 4B Dayton Street Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Overpass 9 Edmonds Street Pedestrian/Emergency Vehicle Overpass Overpass 5/On-site 2 Midblock Pedestrian Overpass, with stationed equipment Overpass 7A/On-site 2 Main Street Pedestrian Overpass, with stationed equipment Underpass 4/0n-site 2 Main Street Pedestrian Underpass, with stationed equipment Ferry 4/Ferry 8 Main Street Ferry Overpass (Minimum Build) Overpass 6 Main Street Ferry Overpass 2 (Full Build) Underpass 1/Ferry 5 Main Street Ferry Underpass Ferry 3 Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal Ferry 1 Edmonds Crossing (Minimum Build) 7.1.d J . FSt. J gW0 hw� Packet Pg. 503 Ir Alternative Types & Locations 7.1.d G u � St. 1 CD 0 N tm C Z` —I� I . P-1 I I dr AK' T• �� _ L ti �i 0 O W r _ A �• •+i r fT �a 7l u I option s provide p�d��•triar� and bity+tle access - Al EM ER-G EN EY ACCESS BY FOOT R tiz}_ EM EF�G EN C'e WE H I EL E,4EEESS EM ER-G EN CY WE H I ELE ACCESS AN a FERRY F.1OADJO F FLOAD Packet Pg. 504 Level 2 Alternative Evaluation Criteria �71,d I - "St. M LO I Purpose & I� Need I o I 11. Reliable emergency response 3. I� Reduce delays & conflicts at crossings I, I 2. Reduce ferry delays 4. I Safe/efficient passenger connections I - ; m I Io Q I Other Function I I I ImplementationCn 15. Emergency evacuation 118. Fundable and permittable I I 16. II Urban design & communitygoals g II i 19. IE Temporary construction impacts I Y I 17. Consistent with transportation I I 1110. IE Environmental effects I a I I operations I p I 1111. Address sea level rise impacts Packet Pg. 505 Alternatives Cost Estimate Summary All costs based in 2016 dollars �71,d Sr. 1 Alternative Type Construction Cost 1 Project Costs ROW Total Co Admiral Way Overpass Emergency Access Roadway $ 20,100,000 $ 4,400,000 $ 31500,000 $ 28,0001E Dayton Street Overpass Emergency Access Roadway $ 21,800,000 $ 4,400,000 $ 21800,000 $ 29,000), Edmonds Street Overpass Emergency Access Roadway $ 18/100/000 $ 4/200/000 $ 11700,000 $ 24/000/1 MidbIock Overpass Pedestrian/Bicycle Access $ 41200,000 $ 700,000 $ 11100,000 $ 6100011 Main Street Overpass - Elevators Pedestrian/Bicycle Access $ 51100,000 $ 900,000 $ 21000,000 $ 810001, Main Street Underpass Pedestrian/Bicycle Access $ 14,500,000 $ 31400,000 $ 31100,000 $ 21,00011 Dayton Street New Ferry Terminal Ferry terminal relocation $ 210,000,000 $4710001000 $29,000,000 $ 286,00011 Main Street Ferry Overpass - Full Build Ferry terminal rebuild $123,000,000 $26,000,000 $ 91000,000 $ 158,00011 Main Street Ferry Overpass - Min. Build Ferry terminal rebuild $103,000,000 $2310001000 $ 21000,000 $ 128,00011 Main Street Ferry Underpass Ferry terminal rebuild $ 291,000,000 $62,000,000 $ 41000,000 $ 357,00011 Point Edwards Ferry Terminal - Min. Build Ferry terminal relocation $ 23210001000 1 $5118001000 1 $10,200,000 $ 294,00011 1 Using WSDOT and Sound Transit unit cost bases 2 Point Edwards previous estimate was developed in 2009 as part of the minimum build report. Packet Pg. 506 Alternatives Evaluation Summary Categorized Criteria EVENLY WEIMTEDSCOPE (1) Improve emergency response {8� Fundable 8 permittable (3) Ferry delay reduction 0 (4) Circulation/ reduce cordlic#s (5) Interrnodal connectivity (7) Consistent with operations {5) Urban design/ community goals (9) Temporary cOfl'mKtlon impacts (10) EnWronmen#al effects (11) Sea level rise 4PLY E P1 EV �J 7.1.d J 0 Top Rated in this dry I :: rim IV] 197 L A Packet Pg. 507 11 Oil �k r 1 r I �' rir s - t' i •. r ii *Ike, f J i 5,1 r -I dl i I sh • - m CL 3 O CL N r+ MN M M f+ O Ic MN M1 UI Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access Council Briefing 20161107 (1653 i F i U St. 1 7.1.d J Q Edmonds Street Overpass I Packet Pg. 511 r� CD Milk 0 CD M M Attachment: Edmonds Waterfront Access Council Briefing 20161107 (1653 : y Q Edmonds Crossing `■m J. mrArr 7 ■%-Whm AiirryiFmd■i%m= Jain i la Edmonds Crossing EIS 7.1.d f� M Ln wI Fbr7 Ybrwa dM&4 1:0ra"MM z i13J r■J ol■ m6 !m rum M � r� u i r • I.,- LNMhL NorL■ir■ FWirl% _ Packet Pg. 513 Edmonds Waterfront Access Study Questions? 1. 0J TETRA TECH complex world I CLEAR SOLUTIONS- e- 7.1.d n St. 1 Packet Pg. 514 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 A resolution temporarily suspending certain provisions of the Sign Code. (15 Minutes) Staff Lead: {Type Name of Staff Lead} Department: City Council Preparer: Andrew Pierce Background/History The City Council passed an ordinance on Aug. 2, 2016 updating certain provisions of the City of Edmonds Sign Code. Staff Recommendation <Type or insert text here> Narrative Since the passage of the Sign Code update, local businesses have expressed challenges in complying with certain parts of the sign code update related to pedestrian signs in the downtown/waterfront area. It appears that additional time is needed to better understand the impact of the recently adopted pedestrian sign provisions and to consider whether revisions should be made to those provisions. The attached resolution requests a one -hundred -twenty -day suspension of enforcement of the requirements for pedestrian signs that are provided in Ordinance No. 4039 and ECDC 20.60.055. Attachments: 2016-11-02 resolution re sign code enforcement Packet Pg. 515 7.2.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MAYOR TO DIRECT CITY STAFF TO SUSPEND FOR ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PEDESTRIAN SIGN PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 4039 AND ECDC 20.60.055 WHEREAS, the City's Planning Board was asked to review the sign code regarding pedestrian signs and other clarifications and code updates to the sign code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board's recommendations were for a number of sign code updates, including changes for pedestrian signs that provided new requirements for such signs (i.e., A -frame and similar signs) in the downtown/waterfront area; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and voted to approve the Planning Board recommendations with minor changes on August 2, 2016; and WHEREAS, local businesses have expressed challenges in complying with certain parts of the sign code update related to pedestrian signs in the downtown/waterfront area; and WHEREAS, it appears that additional time is needed to better understand the impact of the recently adopted pedestrian sign provisions and to consider whether revisions should be made to those provisions; now therefore; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT. The city council requests a one -hundred -twenty - day suspension of enforcement of the requirements for pedestrian signs that are provided in Ordinance No. 4039 and ECDC 20.60.055. Section 2. REVISIONS REQUESTED. The city council requests that city staff prepare and forward to the city council options for possible revisions to the pedestrian sign provisions prior to the conclusion of the suspension. RESOLVED this day of November, 2016. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, DAVE EARLING ATTEST: Packet Pg. 516 A W CA W Oo N n . � m m m E41 �,," Attachment: 2016-11-02 resolution resign code enforcement (1654 :A resolution temporarily suspending certain provisions of the Sign Code.) 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 2017 Revenue Discussion and Public Comment on the 2017 Budget (40 min.) Staff Lead: Scott James Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Scott James Background/History Mayor presented his recommended 2017 Budget to Council on October 11, 2016. Staff have completed all their departmental budget presentations to Council. Staff Recommendation Accept Public Comment and Council begin their deliberations on the Proposed 2017 Budget. Narrative During tonight's Council Meeting: 1) Tonight, staff will conclude their presentations on the Proposed 2017 Budget presentations to Council with an overview of major revenues included in the proposed budget. 2) The public will be invited to comment on the Proposed 2017 Budget, and 3) Council can begin their deliberations on the Proposed 2017 Budget and also begin discussing how they would like to allocate the $100,000 Council Contingency. The remaining Proposed 2017 Budget Council meetings are as follows: 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. 518 7.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 Assumption of duties of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Phil Williams Background/History The Transportation Benefit District (TBD) was formed in November 2008 following procedures outlined in Revised Code of Washington 36.73 and in accordance with Edmonds City Code Chapter 3.65. In February 2009 a $20 local license fee was established by its Board of Directors, the Edmonds City Council. It has been requested that Council consider the option of absorbing the ETBD and incorporating its mission into that of the general City government. On September 20, 2016, the Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. R-1370, declaring the City Council's intention to consider the assumption of the rights, powers, functions and obligations of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District, and set a public hearing date for October 4, 2016. On October 4, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing at which all interested parties were invited to appear and be heard. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council determined that the public interest and welfare would be satisfied by the City's assumption of the rights, powers, functions and obligations of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District and requested the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to effect this change. Staff Recommendation That City Council pass the attached ordinance to assume the duties of the TBD Narrative Pursuant to Ordinance 3707, and codified in Chapter 3.65 of the Edmonds Municipal Code, the City of Edmonds City Council established a transportation benefit district to be known as the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District in November 2009, with geographical boundaries comprised of the corporate limits of the City of Edmonds at the time the ordinance was adopted or as they may have existed after future annexations. The 2015 State Legislature adopted Second Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (2ESSB) 5987, the majority of which became effective on July 15, 2015. Section 301 of 2ESSB 5987 authorizes any city in which a transportation benefit district has been established pursuant to Chapter 36.73 RCW within boundaries coterminous with the boundaries of the city, to assume the rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the TBD, by way of adoption of an ordinance or resolution of the city legislative authority. Attachments: Edmonds TBD Asumption Ordinance PHW Packet Pg. 519 7.4.a CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ASSUMING THE RIGHTS, POWERS, FUNCTIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT; AMENDING CHAPTER 3.65 OF THE EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 3707, and codified in Chapter 3.65 of the Edmonds Municipal Code, the City of Edmonds City Council established a transportation benefit district to be known as the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District, with geographical boundaries comprised of the corporate limits of the City of Edmonds at the time the ordinance was adopted or as they may exist after future annexations; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Legislature adopted Second Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (2ESSB) 5987, the majority of which became effective on July 15, 2015; and WHEREAS, Section 301 of 2ESSB 5987 authorizes any city in which a transportation benefit district has been established pursuant to Chapter 36.73 RCW within boundaries coterminous with the boundaries of the city, to assume the rights, powers, functions, and obligations of the TBD, by way of adoption of an ordinance or resolution of the city legislative authority; and WHEREAS, Section 302 of 2ESSB 5987 provides that the assumption of the rights, powers, functions, and obligations of a transportation benefit district may be initiated by the adoption of an ordinance or resolution by the city legislative authority indicating its intention to conduct a hearing concerning the assumption of such rights, powers, functions, and obligations, setting a time and place at which the city legislative authority will consider the proposed assumption of the rights, powers, functions and obligations of the transportation benefit district, and stating that all persons interested may appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2016, the Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. R-1370, declaring the City Council's intention to consider the assumption of the rights, powers, functions and obligations of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District, and set public hearing for October 4, 2016; and WHEREAS, on October 4, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing at which all interested parties were invited to appear and be heard; and Packet Pg. 520 7.4.a WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council determined that the public interest and welfare would be satisfied by the City's assumption of the rights, powers, functions and obligations of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District; and WHEREAS, Section 303(2) of 2ESSB 5987 provides that upon assumption of the rights, powers, immunities, functions, and obligations of the transportation benefit district by the city, the governing body established pursuant to RCW 36.73.020 must be abolished and the city legislative authority is vested with all rights, powers, immunities, functions and obligations otherwise vested by law in the governing board of the transportation benefit district; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Amendment. Chapter 3.65 Edmonds Municipal Code entitled "Transportation Benefit District" is hereby amended as follows (new text in underline, deleted text in strikeOffeugk): ASSUMPTION OF EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT Sections: 3.65.010 Assumption of Edmonds transportation benefit district 3.65.010 Establishing transportation benefit district 3.65.020 Governing body beard 3.65.030 Functions of the cdistrict. 3.65.040 Transportation improvements funded. 3.65.050 Disryel; 60H Of Distriet 3.65.010 Assumption of Edmonds transportation benefit district. From and after the effective date of this Ordinance, the City of Edmonds assumes all of the rights, powers, immunities, functions and obligations of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District previously established in this chapter. The City of Edmonds is hereby vested with each and every right, power, immunity, function, and obligation granted to or possessed by the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District under Chapter 36.73 RCW, this chapter, and/or any other applicable law as of the effective date of this Ordinance. The governing body of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District is abolished and the rights, powers, functions and obligations previously exercised and/or performed by the governing body of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District are vested in the City of Edmonds City Council. Packet Pg. 521 7.4.a 3.65.020 Governing body beard A. The governing board of the transportation benefit district shall be the Edmonds City Council shall have the be vested with the authority to exercise the -all statutory powers set forth in Chapter 36.73 RCW and this Chapter. BAD -The beard Edmonds City Council shall develop 'm lement a material Comment [PT1]: Phil, this term rep change policy to address major plan changes that affect project delivery or the the term "develop, only if the TBD h: abilityto finance the plan, pursuant to the requirements set forth in RCW fact developed the material change p p q assume that this did in fact happen, k 36.73.160(1). At a minimum, if a transportation improvement exceeds its original would you mind confirming? cost by more than 20 percent, as identified in the district's original plan, a public hearing shall be held to solicit public comment regarding how the cost change should be resolved. C.-E. The Board Edmonds City Council shall issue an annual report, pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.73.160(2). 3.65.030 Functions of the-distriet_Lih. A. The City, by a majority vote of the City Council, The distfiet t.,...,.a may authorize a motor vehicle license fee of up to $20 nn per- vehicle as provided by RCW inn When authorized by the voters . ant to the FeqttiFements of Chapter- 3" R-GW, other- taxes, fees, ehar-ges and tells or- iner-eases in these r-evet+ue soufees may be assessed for- the pt"eses provided fer- in the s4seetions of thisseetiorras follows: z. , distr- board may and has .,••.t.,...:,oa a vehicle fee of up to $20.00 per vehicle as provided for by RCW 82.80.140; f f the ptuTose of the pr-esetwation, 2. a vehicle fee of up to $40.00 as provided in RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle Comment [PT2]: This section conce voter approved increases has been n to B below. Packet Pg. 522 7.4.a additional ta�ies, fees, eharges and tells or- inereases in these r-eve saufe0 may be assessedor-eenstndeton,0 eemplianeewwitli the previsiens of Chaptef R-CW 36.73 The �� T� ��se-a ;- t.-....spe ft.,ti..n p ets authorized p ,..t to theyato ,.F the t,-..,..spaft.,t;,.,.. benefit distriet shall be deemed funded and e ff etiye ..,L.e approved b y ., vote of the people in aeeer-danee with the pr-evisiefts of state law. 3. a vehicle fee of up to $50.00 as provided in RCW 82.80.140 if a vehicle fee of $40.00 has been imposed for at least 24 months and the city has met all of the requirements of RCW 36.73.065(6). B. Additional t:,.na t.a-asraA tie : o e is , be added to the funet: r� v the ,listFiet upon , rlia-nee with Chapter- � L3 n0W When authorized by the voters pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 36.73 RCW, additional taxes, fees, charges and tolls or increases in those revenue sources may be assessed by the city for the construction, reconstruction, updating, or improvement of public transportation facilities shown on the Edmonds comprehensive plan and transportation improvement plan. These additional transportation projects shall be deemed funded and effective when approved by a vote of the people in accordance with the provisions of state law. The projects authorized shall be limited to those specifically identified in the proposition put to the voters. C. Additional transportation improvements may be added to the functions of the City upon compliance with Chapter 36.73 RCW. E D. The bed City -shall have and may exercise all powers and functions provided for by Chapter 36.73 RCW in order to fulfill the €»tions purposes of Chapter 36.73 RCW and this Chapter. tlixxe disctfiet. [Ord. 3804 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3707 § 2, 2008]. 3.65.040 Transportation improvements funded. Two separate sets of ftmetiens ha-ve been established by erdinanee for the tfanspei4atian benefit The funds generated by a --vehicle fees of up to $2000 per- ve iele authorized by the beaf City Council in accordance with RCW 82.80.140 shall be used solely for transportation improvements that preserve, maintain and operate the existing transportation infrastructure of the city, consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.73 RCW. Upon authorization by the voters, additional funds from other taxes, fees, charges and tolls or increases in these revenue sources may be utilized for the construction of transportation improvements specifically described in the proposition submitted to the voters. Packet Pg. 523 7.4.a Funds raised by the exercise of powers granted in Section 3.65.030 and/or Chapter 36.73 RCW a r +' �� _o may be utilized for any lawful purpose under Chapter 36.73 RCW, but all funds raised *h,.,...,.h the T-B-D shall be expended only for the purposes specified, i.e.: A. For the preservation, maintenance and operation of the existing city street transportation improvement infrastructure; or B. For projects specifically designated in a ballot proposition approved by the voters and utilizing the funding source approved by the voters. Such improvements are intended to comply with the provisions of the Growth Management Act and the city's comprehensive plan and reduce the risk of transportation facilities' failure, improve safety, continue the cost effectiveness of the city's infrastructure improvements and to encourage the optimum use of the transportation system. Additional transportation improvement projects may be funded only after compliance with the provisions of RCW 36.73.050(B) following notice, public hearing and enactment of an additional authorizing ordinance. [Ord. 3804 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3707 § 2, 2008]. . ................... AW • Packet Pg. 524 7.4.a Section 2. No Existing Right Impaired. Pursuant to 2ESSB 5987 Section 304, this assumption does not impair or alter any existing rights aquired by the Edmonds TBD under Chapter 36.73 RCW, this chapter or any other provision of law relating to transportation benefit districts. Nor does this assumption impair or alter any actions, activities, or proceedings validated thereunder; any civil or criminal proceedings instituted thereunder; any rule, regulation, or order promulgated thereunder; any administrative action taken thereunder; or the validity of any act performed by the Edmonds TBD or division thereof or any officer thereof prior to the assumption of such rights, powers, functions and obligations by the City as authorized under the law. Section 3. Rules, Regulations, Pending Business, and Contracts. Pursuant to 2ESSB 5987 Section 305(1), all rules, and -regulations and pending business before the board of the Edmonds TBD shall be continued and acted upon by the City Council. In addition, pursuant to Section 305(2), all existing contracts and obligations of the Edmonds TBD shall remain in full force and effect and must be performed by the City. The assumption does not affect the validity of any official act performed by any official or employee prior to the assumption authorized under the law. Section 4. Records of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District. Pursuant to 2ESSB 5987 Section 306(1), all reports, documents, surveys, books, records, files, papers, or other writings relating to the administration of the powers, duties, and functions available to the Edmonds TBD must be made available to the City. Section 5. Funds, Credits, Appropriations, Federal Grants, or Other Assets. Pursuant to 2ESSB 5987 Section 306(2), all funds, credits, or other assets held in connection with assumed powers, duties, and functions must be assigned to the City. Pursuant to Section 306(3), any appropriations or federal grant made to the Edmonds TBD for the purpose of carrying out the rights, powers, functions, and obligations authorized to be assumed by the City must, on the effective date of the assumption, be credited to the City for the purpose of carrying out such assumed rights, powers, functions, and obligations. Section 6. Assumption of Indebtedness. Pursuant to 2ESSB 5987 Section 307, the City assumes and agrees to provide for the payment of all of the indebtedness of the Edmonds TBD, including the payment and retirement of outstanding general obligation and revenue bonds issued by the Edmonds TBD. Section 7. Severability. If any portion or section of this ordinance is found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, such finding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other portion or section of this ordinance. Packet Pg. 525 7.4.a Section 8. Effective Date. The Ordinance shall be effective five (5) days following passage and publication as provided by law. Section 9. Publication. A summary of this Ordinance consisting of the title shall be published in the official newspaper. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ON THIS DAY OF 2016. Dave Earling, Mayor ATTEST: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney DATE OF PUBLICATION: EFFECTIVE DATE: Packet Pg. 526 7.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 Presentation of a revised Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water & Sewer District to fund minor utility relocations for the Madrona Elementary Walkway Project (10 minutes) Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History On October 18, 2016, Council authorized the Mayor to sign the original Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water & Sewer District for the 236th St. Walkway Project. Staff Recommendation Approve Revised Interlocal Agreement. Narrative On October 18, 2016, the City Council authorized the Mayor to sign an Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water & Sewer District (District) for the 236th St. Walkway project. The District made the following changes during their review of the agreement: 1. Revised "WHEREAS" language on page 1 2. Added the following provision under Section 4D on page 3: "Provide onsite inspection of all relocated infrastructure upon notification. " 3. Added section 5A(1) on page 3: "In the event a water or sewer main needs to be relocated, the City shall provide the District with reasonable advance notice of not less than (2) days and the opportunity to have District engineer review and approve the City's proposed design prior to construction. Staff recommends approving the proposed changes by District. Background: 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. Packet Pg. 527 7.5 Attachments: Proposed Interlocal Agreement Redlined Interlocal Agreement Packet Pg. 528 7.5.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, it is a more efficient to have a single contractor working in this area during the school year; WHEREAS, shutting the road down for several additional days to relocate the District's facilities in addition to the scheduled construction would be more disruptive; 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. 529 7.5.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. 530 7.5.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. D. Provide onsite inspection of all relocated infrastructure upon notification. 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. 1. In the event a water or sewer main needs to be relocated, the City shall provide the District with reasonable advance notice of not less than (2) days and the opportunity to have District engineer review and approve the City's proposed design prior to construction. 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. 531 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. 532 7.5.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 8128 228th Street SW 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. 533 7.5.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. 534 7.5.b 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, it is a more efficient to have a single contractor working in this area during the school d year, WHEREAS, shutting the road down for several additional days to relocate the District's facilities in addition to the scheduled construction would be more disruptive; 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. 535 7.5.b 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: 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. 536 7.5.b 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. c 0 L B. Respond promptly to information requests submitted by the City or its agents regarding the utilities relocation work. L 0 C.--Upon satisfactory completion of the utilities relocation work, provide written acceptance of the work to the City. U) - Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75", No b x E D. Provide onsite inspection of all relocated infrastructure upon notification. ... numbering Formatted: No bullets or numbering t Section 5. Obligations of the City. The City agrees to: 3 A. Assume responsibility for constructing the utilities relocation work in accordance with District standard details and specifications. �- Formatted: No bullets or numbering to 1. In the event a water or sewer main needs to be relocated, the Cit,, shall the District with reasonable advance notice of not less than ( 2 ) days and the opportunity to �^ have District engineer review and approve the Citesproposed design prior to construction. c 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. 537 7.5.b 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. 538 7.5.b 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 terns 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. Governin¢ 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 8128 228th Street SW 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. 539 7.5.b 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 agr tion. 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 OYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT By: By: DAVID O. EARLING Date [Name] Date Mayor [Title] ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk Approved as to form only: City of Edmonds, Office of the City Attorney Interlocal Agreement for Madrona Elementary Walkway Project Page 6 of 6 October 4, 2016 Packet Pg. 540 7.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/7/2016 Presentation of a Right -of -Way Dedication for the Select Homes Short Plat (10 minutes) Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Engineering Preparer: Megan Luttrell Background/History None. Staff Recommendation Forward this item to the consent agenda for approval at the November 15th City Council meeting. Narrative Select Homes is proposing a 2 lot short plat of the property located at 8721 218th St. SW. According to the City's Official Street Map, the desired width of the 218t" St SW right of way is 60 ft. The street map shows that a 10 ft dedication of right of way is required along the frontage of this property. Staff recommends approval of the 10 ft dedication. Attachments: ROW Dedication Packet Pg. 541 7.6.a a S000NDS SHORT PLAT FLM.20fff":r0 (AFN20rsnsz�s SJ 10Ir ROW dedicaied in June 201E 8721 218t" St SW ROW Dedication z Selocl Home$ 6721 21 Bch Si SW f t new properly line ....................... ■ as A a a -0M■ s■At■■■■so f■ 9 OR 0205 It■ 218TH ST SIN T. i -•.� I i r 4 � I I . I 0 E 0 x U a� m 0 U �a d r m L O to c 0 v �a m C E M U 0 Q Packet Pg. 542